Epson SureColor P800

[digitaldog]

I don't know what you mean by "S/N ratio" in this context.

Maybe Contrast Ratio which is hugely different. But that wouldn't surprise me.

[BobDavid]

I don't know what you mean by "S/N ratio" in this context.
Parts of the gamut of that paper used with the SC-P800 exceed aRGB. You may be better served using ProPhoto if you were to opt for application colour management.
I would re-emphasize what Wayne and I advised in respect of the comparative quality and advantages of a good profile and application colour management versus printer management.
Whatever colour space the monitor is set-up for, that doesn't deal with the purpose or need for soft-proofing. Soft-proofing is for the printer profile, the paper and the printer. It is useful with application colour management. You have much less control with Printer management.

In case you haven't done so yet, I recommend that you watch the "Camera to Print" videos done by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe.

I've been matching critical color output since the analog era ca. 1975. I've been printing with Epson Pro Stylus WF printers since the 9600 era. My color vision score on the X-Rite test comes out near perfect. ... I started my repro business in 2007 with a multi-shot Blad. I've created and purchased ICC profiles. ... Maybe the stars are aligned with my setup. As far as letting a SureColor Epson printer manage output on Epson Ultra Premiun Luster Photo Paper goes, I'm sticking to my guns.

[BobDavid]

Maybe Contrast Ratio which is hugely different. But that wouldn't surprise me.

Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's.

[digitaldog]

I've been matching critical color output since the analog era ca. 1975. I've been printing with Epson Pro Stylus WF printers since the 9600 era. My color vision score on the X-Rite test comes out near perfect. ... I started my repro business in 2007 with a multi-shot Blad. I've created and purchased ICC profiles. ... Maybe the stars are aligned with my setup. As far as letting a SureColor Epson printer manage output on Epson Ultra Premiun Luster Photo Paper goes, I'm sticking to my guns.

Yet what you state about soft proofing makes no written or more importantly, any visual sense. Can you explain that or not?
I HAVE provided examples of that what you've written not being the case; do tell us what I did wrong.

[digitaldog]

Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's.

That makes little sense but let's say it may be true; got any data to prove it you will share? Specifically data on the source signal and the resulting noise.
I'm curious to hear about results (proof, data) rather than theory.

[digitaldog]

Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's.

Specifically which and what algorithms? What truth?

[Wayne Fox]

Well, I don't want to get argumentive. But the specific workflow I mentioned, works.

For you ... for now. 

This has been tested ad nauseam over many years.  I have seen dozens of times where a customer comes in and buys a new printer, then complains because something is “wrong” with the printer because the prints don’t match what their previous printer produced, only to find out they don’t use a color managed workflow.  I have customers who print something at home and can’t figure out why when we print it larger for them on our p20000 it doesn’t match.  We’ve even tried using printer managed color to match what they are doing at home .... it doesn’t match.

I have no problem with those that decide to go this way.  It isn’t a color managed workflow, but if it works for you, fine.  But those who want true control, who really want to make sure what they are doing on the screen can translate to the paper won’t find this solution acceptable. And don’t be surprised when someday you print an image where it doesn’t print out very well, or when you change some hardware it suddenly isn’t working well at all.

[Mark D Segal]

Try "absolute"

Do you know what the purpose of Absolute Rendering Intent is? It's not for normal photographic printing. It is for proofing purposes. It can be used for certain special effects, as can Saturation Intent, but neither are a usual choice.

[BobDavid]

Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output. In the past, I've specified Absolute in PS for certain images.

A lot of my images are not easy to print--abnormal. Night Watchman

[digitaldog]

Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output. In the past, I've specified Absolute in PS for certain images

That makes zero sense. And it's wrong.

[Chris Kern]

I compared output from the "canned" Epson ICC profile for Ultra Premium Lustre Photo Paper using PS to manage the output versus letting the printer manage output. The latter has more snap.

Admittedly with some trepidation about wading into these boiling waters, but after reading all the posts in this thread I wonder if this might explain your affinity for printer-managed output:

I often print on Epson Premium Lustre ("Luster," in my neck of the woods).  I've never experimented with letting the printer manage the colors.  I've always been completely satisfied with the results when I soft-proof, using the Epson-supplied profile with Lightroom — I assume the results with Photoshop would be similar — and, frankly, I wouldn't want to abandon the control I get from soft-proofing.

But it occurs to me that the adjustment I need to make most frequently with that paper is to crank up the "Clarity" a bit.  The second-most frequent adjustment is to increase the "Vibrance" slightly.  Of course, sometimes some colors are out-of-gamut, but I suspect usually not by much, and usually changing the rendering intent takes care of the problem without further fiddling with the color controls.  (Not always, of course.)

So I'm wondering whether the printer-managed-color setting automagically makes some of the changes to Clarity and Vibrance I'm accustomed to dialing-in manually — analogous to the way in-camera processing creates punched-up JPEGs.  If it's primarily mid-range contrast and saturation that you like, maybe printer-managed color is the equivalent of an output preset.

[digitaldog]

So I'm wondering whether the printer-managed-color setting automagically makes some of the changes to Clarity and Vibrance I'm accustomed to dialing-in manually — analogous to the way in-camera processing creates punched-up JPEGs.

No, it does not.

[BobDavid]

You're not even viewing on a color managed device, no wonder you can't soft proof!

I cannot see the difference of what you've posted on my Surface 3, which is the device I use for surfing the web and email. I want to echo this phenomenon is unique to SureColor print technology. As outlined at the top of the thread, here's how I'm achieving great output with Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper.

Methodology: Start out by developing an A7r2 RAW file in C1. Export as an aRGB 16-bit TIFF. Open the TIFF in Photoshop CC for tweaking.( I use an Eizo CS2420 ColorEdge monitor / NVIDIA K6000 combo). No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB. In PS, go to print settings > Series Properties and specify Ultra Premium Photo Paper.

Drag the cursor over print and click.

Unless you are using a SureColor series Epson printer and Epson luster media, it's moot to disagree. With the previous Epson printers I've owned and used, 2200, 4000, 9600, 9800, 9900, 7890, there's no way I'd have let the printer manage output--whether Epson media or not. I think the SureColor 800 is optimized for production paper such as ultra PLPP.

[pearlstreet]

Guys, there's probably no reason to continue arguing about this. It seems like it has been pointed out that this is the wrong practice to follow so anyone finding this thread will quickly see that. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind it seems.

[BobDavid]

Guys, there's probably no reason to continue arguing about this. It seems like it has been pointed out that this is the wrong practice to follow so anyone finding this thread will quickly see that. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind it seems.

How are you able to say something is wrong unless you've tested it? I understand people are incredulous. If you haven't used SureColor technology with the Epson media discussed, it's not possible to comment on the matter. 

I daresay a calibrated 10-bit wide gamut Eizo monitor in combination with Eizo's recommended graphics card may be a contributing factor. Within the scope of my workflow and toolset, I am getting excellent and predictable results letting the printer manage output rather than Adobe. If you want to come over to my studio for a demo, I'd be happy to accommodate.

Technology evolves. From an economic/business standpoint, it makes sense Epson developed a specific seamless printer/media combo geared towards printer management.
 

[digitaldog]

I cannot see the difference of what you've posted on my Surface 3, which is the device I use for surfing the web and email.

We've (I've) been over this silliness of your inability to view samples provided on a non color managed device.


So the profiles are a lie? Yes or no.

[digitaldog]

Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output. Try "absolute"

Wrong!
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/printing-color-management-photoshop1.html

For Color Handling, choose Printer Manages Colors.

(Optional) For Rendering Intent, specify how to convert colors to the destination color space. A summary of each option appears in the Description area at bottom.
Many non-PostScript printer drivers ignore this option and use the Perceptual rendering intent. (For more information, see About rendering intents

[Ferp]

We've discussed this extensively before, most notably when C'tein over on TOP infamously recommended printer manages colors a couple of years back.  MHMG gave the definitive debunking of C'tein's findings and I expect that the same would apply to Bob's:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104307.msg857415#msg857415

When someone thinks they've discovered the holy grail, like C'tein and Bob, it's pointless to try to convince them otherwise.  The best we can do is to keep posting Mark's critique so that other's reading this thread have a more balanced view, and can see that printer manages colors is not the holy grail.

[Doug Gray]

Wrong!
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/printing-color-management-photoshop1.html

For Color Handling, choose Printer Manages Colors.

(Optional) For Rendering Intent, specify how to convert colors to the destination color space. A summary of each option appears in the Description area at bottom.
Many non-PostScript printer drivers ignore this option and use the Perceptual rendering intent. (For more information, see About rendering intents

Yep, and it works just fine on my Epson 9800 with Windows 10. I can print an image in ProPhoto RGB using a custom printer profile with any of the 4 Intents. However, the Windows driver requires that I specify the input profile (ProPhoto RGB) as well as the custom printer profile. The prints are identical with Photoshop Manages Color.

The one downside is that the 9800 printer driver does not have an option for BPC in Relative Colorimetric Intent, a rather significant deficiency.

Edit: left out BPC in original post.

[BobDavid]

We've (I've) been over this silliness of your inability to view samples provided on a non color managed device.


So the profiles are a lie? Yes or no.

Well Digital Dog, tonight I'll go to my studio and look at your jpgs on a current ColorEdge Eizo wide gamut monitor and look for whatever it is you want me to look at. I know what you're attempting to demonstrating, and I have no qualm with that. However, unless you've used SureColor technology in conjunction with Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper, your comments are unfounded.

And please refrain from condescending remarks such as "this silliness of your inability..."  I have considerable academic and professional credentials. I designed and worked in a special effects studio, owned and operated a fine art reproduction business, taught college courses on color theory, worked on machine vision projects, have an MS in Visual Studies from MIT, and had a stint as a research fellow at MIT related to visual sensation and perception.