Seems you have the polarizing answers. Even with the polarizing I have to really look close at the files to make sure that its working correctly. Sometimes it looks great but then I notice some spotty reflections in a corner etc. Usually is a matter of moving the lights some.
I shoot flat art for reproduction for a number of artists. Oils, acrylics, watercolors and find it to be a little bit of a PITA. Hard to make money at considering all the time involved. I print reproes for them with my 9800 and they have been satisfied so far. First thing I tell them though is that they are never going to totally match the originals in color. I take this as a failing on my part because I really don't know how to match all the complex subtle colors that can be in a painting. Have anyone ever gone to the Epson site and linked to the Museum in Boston that claims they are getting accurate repros with the 9600. Would love to know their hardware and workflow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Craig,
Not much has changed since the conversion to Digi, when I shot 35 mm slides and 4x5 Tranies, they were never an exact match, in fact I used to switch between Provia, Fuji tungsten and Kodak (both )depending on the type of artwork and client??? artists on a limited budget. Prints from them were never the exact, each paper had it's own characteristics, repro to CMYK printer depended on the expertise of the set up man (why else shoot a colour card?) and printing budget?
Take a look at some Catalogues from art exhibits, walk around and compare to what is on the wall, most galleries have comlimentary copies out.
As long as the artists are satisfied, you have done your job well.