I mean, honestly, I only got this because I feel that the canned profiles I've been using are to high contrast and I lose a lot of the shadow tones to black, which is of course no good.
Hi Steven,
I think Jerry is probably on to your problem, the targets need to be printed without a profile. Also, make sure you've updated Snow Leopard to the latest version (10.6.3). Previous versions had issues with printing an untagged document in Photoshop.
Aside from that I have a feeling that you probably won't get a better profile by using a Spyder 3 system. Building profiles is not an instant gratification sort of deal. My experience has been that the profiles that the manufacturers build are usually quite decent. If you're after something better, sometimes there is room for improvement but getting those results requires lots of experimentation and specific tools. I have an i1 Xtreme (which uses the i1 Pro with Eye One Match) and I very quickly discovered that the Eye One Match software leaves a bit to be desired. It's a very basic software that is designed to be easy to use and as such it provides very little in the way of user input. It just wants you to select a target, print it, scan it, and be done. There are no real options to setup. That brought me to using Bill Atkinson's profiles and using the measure tool from the Profile Maker demo (it's a bit of a hack workaround but it gives you more options). I tried his 5202 patch profile figuring it would yield a more accurate result with the paper I was using but found out it created more problems (I suspect the i1 Pro might not be the most consistent spectro on the planet). I then moved down to about 900 patches and got BETTER results so... sometimes less is more. Then I got into the hack to change the gamut mapping with Eye One Match by editing the config file. This is getting me closer to the results I'm after but..... I'm still not satisfied so now I'm looking at Profile Maker or Monaco Profiler software. Also, sometimes one profile might be more appropriate than another depending upon the subject matter. I would highly recommend using Bill Atkinson's profile test images. You can download them from here (they're free).
http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.htmlIf you really want to build your own profiles I recommend.... patience and persistence. LOTS of it. You're going to go through a lot of sheets of paper experimenting. Use a decent test image for profile evaluation (I think the Atkinson file is a great resource) and also use a Granger Chart. Tools like ColorThink can also be useful as well for comparing profiles.
If you just want to get on with it and start printing I highly recommend the profiles that Booksmart Studio makes. I've bought a few of them in the past and they're very nice. Definitely better than the manufacturer's profiles in a lot of situations (although sometimes a certain profile might favor a certain image better than another) and much better than anything you're going to get out of the Datacolor system as the tools they're using are more sophisticated but also (and this plays a bigger role) they have a lot more experience in building profiles and that counts for A LOT.
http://www.booksmartstudio.com/I mean, honestly, I only got this because I feel that the canned profiles I've been using are to high contrast and I lose a lot of the shadow tones to black, which is of course no good.
I don't know where you're at with monitor profiling, viewing, etc. but what are you editing with and soft proofing on and what are you using to profile that screen? You mentioned you have a MacBook Pro but you didn't say anything about your monitor. The MacBook Pro is not really an appropriate screen to be doing critical editing with (I'm typing on a 17" MBP with the matte screen right now). For a laptop it's decent but it's just not a good tool for editing or soft proofing when you're making critical adjustments (and if you're a picky person and particular about the results you get, which it sounds like you may be, the problem gets compounded). I use an NEC 2690 for soft proofing. If you're seeing a mismatch between shadow detail and contrast I'd be looking hard at the MacBook (if that is what you're using) as the source of your problems. Also what light source are you using to proof your prints with? Most artificial light has spikes and gaps in the spectrum. If you're using an artificial light source there's going to be certain things that you're not seeing in your print. If you don't already have some SoLux bulbs I'd check 'em out.
http://www.solux.net The monitor you use and the light source you use are SO SO SO critical in this process. If they're not absolutely accurate (or as accurate as possible) then you can spend all the time in the world trying to build printer profiles but if the adjustments you're making to your files are flawed because your monitor isn't telling you the whole story then you'll be going in circles.
Good luck!
Cheers, Joe
