Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: denalilap on May 23, 2018, 07:34:07 am
-
How much would I have to spend to get a good to high-quality package for doing my own printer profiles? I read posts on the web from people using entry level profiling package and seems like the results were not great.
-
How much would I have to spend to get a good to high-quality package for doing my own printer profiles? I read posts on the web from people using entry level profiling package and seems like the results were not great.
Around 1500$:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/854477-REG/X_Rite_EO2PHO_11_Photo_Pro_2.html (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/854477-REG/X_Rite_EO2PHO_11_Photo_Pro_2.html)
-
That's more like 1600. But if you are not in a hurry, periodically they hold sales and knock 300 off this price. While kind of expensive, you can do a lot with it and the results are generally very good. Its main problem is the absence of documentation. X-Rite has not provided a manual for the software and the interface is less than intuitive - two major downsides considering how much money these cost, plus the added cost of getting them recalibrated periodically. There is a learning curve. Let me ask though - have you tried the profiles supplied by the paper or printer companies? They can be quite good - to the point that in some instances one may ask whether investing the time and money in such a profiling kit is worthwhile. It's particularly useful for printer/paper combinations where there are no supplied profiles - for example it happened when I wanted a profile for a Canon paper used in an Epson printer. Needless to say, Epson doesn't make profiles for Canon papers and Canon doesn't make profiles for Epson printers. So there was a gap that only a custom profile could overcome.
-
+1 on Marks reply;
I use a few Epson papers,and have had custom profiles made,with excellent results,on both my canon printers.
In my case,prices ranged from $25.00,to $100.00.
MikeS
-
How much would I have to spend to get a good to high-quality package for doing my own printer profiles? I read posts on the web from people using entry level profiling package and seems like the results were not great.
IMO the biggest problem is that everyone has a different, often much different, idea of what is "good to high-quality". I am frequently surprised at the color-accuracy and other issues that other people don't see. On the other hand, I'm sure that many here would see problems that I fail to perceive. So, with the simplifying assumption that by "a good to high-quality package" you mean 'something capable of providing me with good to high-quality profiles':
(1) sometimes the profiles that the paper manufacturers supply provide what are IMO high-quality results, and they're almost always free.
(2) If you're unhappy with the profiles that the paper manufacturers supply, or they don't supply one for your printer + ink combination, but you don't need a lot of different profiles and can wait a week or two to get the ones you need, I have been quite happy with the profiles I've gotten for $25 each from Profiles by Rick (http://profilesbyrick.com/ (http://profilesbyrick.com/)).
(3) You can get your own hardware--not as nice as Rick's, but nice enough that some people find it a clear step up from manufacturer-provided profiles--for about $450 to $500, something like the new X-Rite i1Studio Spectrophotometer, or the just-replaced version, the ColorMunki Photo.
(4) If you like the idea of something like an X-Rite i1Studio Spectrophotometer or a ColorMunki Photo, but aren't sure, then you can rent one (e.g., https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/other-photo/accessories/calibration (https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/other-photo/accessories/calibration)).
(5) If you want higher-end profiles built by someone else, my understanding is that your step-up is to profiles for somewhere around $100 each from places like Chromix or (forum member) Andrew Rodney.
(6) And then of course there's the $1600 kit already discussed. My gut suggests that your asking this question means you probably ought to try one or more of the foregoing options before spending $1600 or even $1300 on this option.
-
+1 on Marks reply;
I use a few Epson papers,and have had custom profiles made,with excellent results,on both my canon printers.
In my case,prices ranged from $25.00,to $100.00.
MikeS
Yes indeed - outsourcing custom profiles is also a viable option for many. Just looking at cash, at the 100 price tag you'd need to make more than 16 before it pays to buy an i1 Photo Pro kit.
-
I should add a point to this discussion - here on LuLa we haven't rigorously tested the lower cost profiling kits that Nawlins mentions here. We probably should, as there may be a community of people who could be interested in getting into their own profiling at a lower cost of entry if they could be assured that the quality of the results would be satisfying. Rigorous testing would be preferable to assumptions about results.
-
That's more like 1600. But if you are not in a hurry, periodically they hold sales and knock 300 off this price.
There is already a 100$ mail-in rebate on that 1600$ price :)
-
Great point, Mark!
i've always wondered how well a X-Rite i1Studio Spectrophotometer performs for creating print profiles. At under $500 from B&H its quite tempting but not if its crap.
-
Great point, Mark!
i've always wondered how well a X-Rite i1Studio Spectrophotometer performs for creating print profiles. At under $500 from B&H its quite tempting but not if its crap.
Thanks.
I'd be surprised if it's outright "crap" - more likely the questions would be how good comparatively based on several criteria, and differences of features. Knowing that would put potential purchasers in a position to make better decisions about what to buy based on what they need.
-
How much would I have to spend to get a good to high-quality package for doing my own printer profiles? I read posts on the web from people using entry level profiling package and seems like the results were not great.
Do you have one of those extended-gamut monitors that costs more than $2000? If so, $1600 for price of "entry" sounds about right.... :) Otherwise, for someone like me, a Colormunki Photo for $350 is good enough. I have made 2 profiles so-far with one, both better than the manufacturer provided profiles, judged with my eyes at least.
-
Mark, I suspect more than a few of us would be interested to get an expert opinion--or better yet, expert opinion including and based on instrumented comparison test results--for the various calibration hardware and software. The discussions I've seen more often cover choosing a display calibration device from among the $90 to $250 range of X-Rite and Datacolor options, but it would be interesting to learn how results from a $450 printer profiling device compare to results from canned profiles and $1600 devices. I also wonder how sensitive the results are to operator skill and experience.
Ron, if you're that tempted by the X-Rite i1Studio, why not rent one from LensRentals and test it? That is on my summer to-do list. I figure $73 including insurance and shipping for a long weekend should give me a decent idea.
(Really, I'm baffled why renting isn't a much more common precursor to buying even moderately-expensive gear.)
-
Mark, I suspect more than a few of us would be interested to get an expert opinion--or better yet, expert opinion including and based on instrumented comparison test results--for the various calibration hardware and software. .................
The idea has surfaced before, but there are practical considerations to deal with in getting it going. Maybe something could be arranged, we'll see.
-
Ron, if you're that tempted by the X-Rite i1Studio, why not rent one from LensRentals and test it? That is on my summer to-do list. I figure $73 including insurance and shipping for a long weekend should give me a decent idea.
(Really, I'm baffled why renting isn't a much more common precursor to buying even moderately-expensive gear.)
That's a great suggestion!!! Thanks!!!
FWIW these days I have a recent iMac 5K that I'm quite happy with and an Epson SC P800.
-
just FYI $47 for a 7 day rental. You have to download the software on your own.
-
ColorMunki rental from LR is on my to do list as well. Too cheap to not at least try it out.
-
IMO the biggest problem is that everyone has a different, often much different, idea of what is "good to high-quality". I am frequently surprised at the color-accuracy and other issues that other people don't see. On the other hand, I'm sure that many here would see problems that I fail to perceive. So, with the simplifying assumption that by "a good to high-quality package" you mean 'something capable of providing me with good to high-quality profiles':
(1) sometimes the profiles that the paper manufacturers supply provide what are IMO high-quality results, and they're almost always free.
(2) If you're unhappy with the profiles that the paper manufacturers supply, or they don't supply one for your printer + ink combination, but you don't need a lot of different profiles and can wait a week or two to get the ones you need, I have been quite happy with the profiles I've gotten for $25 each from Profiles by Rick (http://profilesbyrick.com/ (http://profilesbyrick.com/)).
(3) You can get your own hardware--not as nice as Rick's, but nice enough that some people find it a clear step up from manufacturer-provided profiles--for about $450 to $500, something like the new X-Rite i1Studio Spectrophotometer, or the just-replaced version, the ColorMunki Photo.
(4) If you like the idea of something like an X-Rite i1Studio Spectrophotometer or a ColorMunki Photo, but aren't sure, then you can rent one (e.g., https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/other-photo/accessories/calibration (https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/other-photo/accessories/calibration)).
(5) If you want higher-end profiles built by someone else, my understanding is that your step-up is to profiles for somewhere around $100 each from places like Chromix or (forum member) Andrew Rodney.
(6) And then of course there's the $1600 kit already discussed. My gut suggests that your asking this question means you probably ought to try one or more of the foregoing options before spending $1600 or even $1300 on this option.
Great suggestions, especially renting. After reflecting a bit, I think I will start by purchasing some custom profiles. At the moment, I'm only using around 4-6 different papers, so a $1600 investment doesn't make sense.
-
There are a few paper manufacturers that will make custom profiles for you for free. I've had several made for me by Breathing Color that were far superior to their canned profiles. I also had one made for me by Hahnemuhle that really helped. There are a few more companies as well, just call and ask. Canson unfortunately is not one of them as all their profiles are made in France, but so far I've had no reason to complain as their canned profiles have been very good.
You might also want to read Mark's excellent article on RR's new way of making profiles from a company that uses a very expensive $9,000 polarizer. I'd be willing to bet that's way beyond what anyone here would want to spend just to squeeze that last bit of detail from their print.
And on visiting their website I found this, which looks like a really good deal: http://www.chromix.com/colorvalet/pro/printVspro.cxsa?cvpro=true&-session=SessID:42F94F890f24138A58rYu3AF51D2
-
There are a few paper manufacturers that will make custom profiles for you for free. I've had several made for me by Breathing Color that were far superior to their canned profiles. I also had one made for me by Hahnemuhle that really helped. There are a few more companies as well, just call and ask. Canson unfortunately is not one of them as all their profiles are made in France, but so far I've had no reason to complain as their canned profiles have been very good.
You might also want to read Mark's excellent article on RR's new way of making profiles from a company that uses a very expensive $9,000 polarizer. I'd be willing to bet that's way beyond what anyone here would want to spend just to squeeze that last bit of detail from their print.
And on visiting their website I found this, which looks like a really good deal: http://www.chromix.com/colorvalet/pro/printVspro.cxsa?cvpro=true&-session=SessID:42F94F890f24138A58rYu3AF51D2
That deal seems too good to be true. I wonder if anyone has had any experience with their service. Two hudred dollars for unlimited profiles for 18 months makes it is worth giving it a try.
-
Booksmart Studio, in Rochester NY, has made my profiles for Epson and Canon for several years. Booksmart charges about $30/profile when you buy 4 or more. Agreement between my screen and printer output is very good *to my eyes*
Not only would I have been a long time in recovering my investment on a good profiling system, I'd be many hours invested into that system before I was competent in making profiles - not the way I wanted to spend my time. Others may delight, however, in learning such systems and profiling science.
John Caldwell
-
Chromix makes excellent profiles and has great customer service. Recently have been using one of their custom profiles for Epson P800/Canson Baryta Photographique. Could not recommend more highly.
-
I second these guys. I have used them for epson and canon and they are excellent.
Logan
-
I bought a used i12 spectro for another purpose, but it came with a license for the EFI software. It’s limited for RGB profiles (980 patches, few options) but I’ve been very pleased with the profiles for printing on my Epson. And only $450, used.
-
Chromix makes excellent profiles and has great customer service. Recently have been using one of their custom profiles for Epson P800/Canson Baryta Photographique. Could not recommend more highly.
Just to be clear, Chromix measures the profiling target with M3 (polarized light) illuminant condition, because Chromix believes it produces superior profile performance (e.g. better shadow detail rendered to print). If you like the results you are getting with a Chromix-made profile it's hard to argue with success.
That said, the M3 measurement condition is not an industry-wide accepted practice for building ICC profiles and is typically reserved for media that exhibit strong specular highlights resulting from deep "toothy" texture, e.g. some canvas media. Indeed, very few spectrophotometers on the market nowadays even have the M3 measurement feature. The no-longer-made Gretag Macbeth Spectroscan and some new Barbieri instruments can measure M3, but not any of the newer Xrite models like the i1Pro2 can do it.
I have a venerable old Spectrocan that I still use regularly, and was very curious to understand why Chromix chooses to deviate significantly from standard ICC profiling practice. So, I studied the M0 (the legacy illuminant condition) versus M3 (polarized illuminant) profiling performance in some detail. Note that M0 condition measurements are essentially the same as M2 (UV excluded illuminant) measurements for papers that have no OBAs. M3 is the "odd man out" condition. What I found is that the forward transform LUTs of the ICC profile which determine what values get sent to the printer produced excellent quality with either M0 or M3 measured data sets yet with slightly better shadow detail separation as Chromix prefers, especially in matte papers. However, it comes at some expense to accuracy in other midtone and highlight colors, so no free lunch and definitely a matter of personal preference. Anyway, it was easy to see why some would prefer the initial print output from ICC profiles made with M3 data sets.
But wait, there's more... The big and very noticeable difference between these two profiling approaches occurs in the inverse transform LUTs which controls what we see on screen when soft proofing is invoked in image editors like Photoshop that can display a "simulate paper white" or "simulate paper black" soft proof mode. To make a long technical story short(er), IMO, the industry accepted practice of using M0, M1, or M2 illumant conditions to measure the target can sometimes result in slight visually under corrected black and deep shadow values when soft proofing matte media. This result in turn encourages the enduser to work harder to open up shadows details while editing in soft proof mode, and an actual print will always exhibit a little more "pop" than the soft proof predicts. I personally consider that a good thing, i.e, if I can make the image on screen look good in soft proof mode, I know I will be pleased with the print. In contrast, the M3 illuminant measurements like Chromix prefers result in a more visually "overcorrected" soft proof appearance, i.e the image already appears to have more "pop" on screen in soft proof mode than it's going to have when printed. Again, the issue is subtle when dealing with glossy/luster media capable of printing rich blacks, but becomes immediately apparent when printing to lower Dmax matte media.
The only way to visually correct the soft proof variance of an M3 generated ICC profile would be to use a profile editor to manually edit the curves baked into the inverse transform LUTs. Profile editing can, of course, be done, but it's tricky and rather subjective work, thus, almost no one making ICC profiles does it as a matter of course.
Bottom line: If a printmaker doesn't use soft proofing techniques to make any "edit-for-print" adjustments and prefers to base all final edits on an iterative hardcopy workflow, then ICC profile accuracy can be judged solely on the basis of the printed output without any concern to soft proof rendering accuracy. If the printmaker does use a soft proofing approach, then beware/respect the significant ICC profile softproof rendering differences between profiles made with M0/M2 data sets and those made with M3 data sets.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Bottom line: If a printmaker doesn't use soft proofing techniques to make any "edit-for-print" adjustments and prefers to base all final edits on an iterative hardcopy workflow, then ICC profile accuracy can be judged solely on the basis of the printed output without any concern to soft proof rendering accuracy. If the printmaker does use a soft proofing approach, then beware/respect the significant ICC profile softproof rendering differences between profiles made with M0/M2 data sets and those made with M3 data sets.
+1, and I'll add, a printmaker should consider the soft proofing approach (as well as calibration of the display for that soft proof).