Epson Exhibition Fiber profile and printer setting

[wlemann]

Using LR 5, Mac, Epson 7900

1.  What is the best profile to use?  I am NOT up for making my own profile.  So is there something better than the profile frrom Epson.

2.  In early reviews using printer paper setting of Premium Luster 260 rather than Premium Photo Glossy 250 was recommended.  Is this still a good practice.  The rational was more ink delivery for greater Dmax and color punch.

Thanks,  Walter

[digitaldog]

You either need to use Epson's, make your own, have one made for you in which case you can use either setting. Isn't there a media setting in your driver for EFP? If not, I'd use Luster. But again, you need to use whatever was built for that profile.

[langier]

I'd say give what you have a try and see if it works for your photos and if you like what you see, you'll be fine. If it isn't, then find the Epson supplied profile for the paper/printer online.

The EFP profile was specially commissioned by Epson by the color nerds at D-65 as I recall. Supposed to be pretty good but I created my own that works for me since I could.

[digitaldog]

The EFP profile was specially commissioned by Epson by the color nerds at D-65 as I recall. Supposed to be pretty good but I created my own that works for me since I could.

D-65 being Mr. Resnick? EFP profiles were specially commissioned by Epson to be built by Pixel Genius: http://pixelgenius.com/epson/
But I didn't build one for a 9900.

[wlemann]

Thanks all:
I will use the Epson profile but wasn't sure that this was one made by PixelGenius.
My other question relates to a remark made in an "old" review by Mark Dubovoy and Michael Reichmann on EFB.  It said to use the Premiiuim Luster 260 rather than Premium Glossy as paper type to, if you will, fool the profile to putting down more ink.  Meaning, as I understand it, choosing the EFB/7900 profile but when it asks what paper on the printer set for the Premium Luster.  That is what I am wanting to check to see if this remains a recommendation.  Of course I will try it both ways.  Thanks.

[Wayne Fox]

Thanks all:
I will use the Epson profile but wasn't sure that this was one made by PixelGenius.
My other question relates to a remark made in an "old" review by Mark Dubovoy and Michael Reichmann on EFB.  It said to use the Premiiuim Luster 260 rather than Premium Glossy as paper type to, if you will, fool the profile to putting down more ink.  Meaning, as I understand it, choosing the EFB/7900 profile but when it asks what paper on the printer set for the Premium Luster.  That is what I am wanting to check to see if this remains a recommendation.  Of course I will try it both ways.  Thanks.

You should use whatever media setting was used when the targets were printed for the profile you are using.  If you want to lay down more ink and use a different preset you should make a profile based on using that media setting.

Current Epson drivers do have a preset for Exhibition Fiber.  I’m guessing the ink load is the same as Luster because I don’t believe new profiles were made, but a few other media settings are perhaps slightly different because of the paper thickness etc.

[davidh202]

It's Epson Exhibition Fiber ICC profile in the driver- and Luster 260 paper for the setting in the printers paper type set up menu .

David

[langier]

Thanks for correcting me, Andrew! I knew it was one of the bleeding edge groups but couldn't remember which one!

[Wayne Fox]

It's Epson Exhibition Fiber ICC profile in the driver- and Luster 260 paper for the setting in the printers paper type set up menu .

David

Not sure of your point, but the ICC profile is part of the Photoshop print dialog after you instruct Photoshop to manage colors and I don't believe it's part of the "print driver", even though the profiles are installed as part of the driver installation process.

There is an Exhibition Fiber preset for paper type in the current Epson drivers.  I assume the current profiles Epson provides are designed for that preset.

[wlemann]

Wayne,
What I mean by "printer" setting is the choice of paper type actually on the printer not on the computer in LR.  On the printer one could choose Premium Glossy 250 or Premium Luster 260.
 The printer does not have EEF as a paper choice.  I had heard that the Luster 260 choice gave higher D max. And was soliciting opinions on that.
Walter

[Wayne Fox]

Wayne,
What I mean by "printer" setting is the choice of paper type actually on the printer not on the computer in LR.  On the printer one could choose Premium Glossy 250 or Premium Luster 260.
 The printer does not have EEF as a paper choice.  I had heard that the Luster 260 choice gave higher D max. And was soliciting opinions on that.
Walter

My response you quoted was directed towards another post which seemed to be confusing profiles as part of the print driver.

As far as your situation, the bottom line is you should use the same paper preset that was used when the profile was made.  If you want to use a different preset to increase ink load (or make a preset of your own which increases ink load which many of us do), that’s fine, but then a new corresponding profile is best.

As far as exhibition fiber preset, if you do not have it listed in the choices, there is something wrong, because it is included in the current driver installations for the 79/9900 printers. My guess is that preset does not change ink load, but changes other settings such as platen gap, settings you will probably need to tweak if you use the luster or glossy presets.

[davidh202]

The spec sheet for EX Fiber (available on the Epson site) says to set the printer   to Luster Paper 260. that is what I had replied to earlier  . It is the same setting for the 4900 and 7890-9890 on the 3800 it is Ultra premium Luster paper
Profile Statistics
Printer Settings Dialog Box
Dmax Value: 2.50
Black L* Value: 2.75
White L* Value: 96.25
Media LAB Values: 96, 1, -6
Gamut Volume: 1,838,492
Media Type: Premium Luster Photo Paper (260)
Ink: Photo Black
Print Mode: AccuPhoto HDR [or Color]
16 Bit Output: ON [Macintosh Only]
Color Mode: Off (No Color Management)
Output Resolution: SuperPhoto - 2880 dpi
Super MicroWeave: ON
High Speed: ON
Advanced Media Control Dialog Box
Color Density: +12 (%)
Drying Time: 0 (0.1sec)
Paper Feed Adjustment: 0 (0.01%)
Paper Thickness: 3 (0.1mm)
Paper Suction: Standard
Platen Gap: Auto
Roll Paper Back Tension: Auto
Exhibition Fiber Paper
Epson Stylus® Pro 7900/9900

My experience says to use wide on the platen Gap setting for roll paper, or I get head strikes at the beginning of the print due to the paper being heavy and the platen suction is not sufficient enough to hold down the curl until more paper feeds through.

[JRSmit]

There is a functjo  to check for the proper paper thickness setting. Usually it returns a value about 0.2 mm more than the paper  caliper. 0.3mm for eef is really to small.

[Wayne Fox]

The spec sheet for EX Fiber (available on the Epson site) says to set the printer   to Luster Paper 260. that is what I had replied to earlier  . It is

Yes, that’s been there since EEF was introduced - one of these days the paper unit will get it updated.  The addition of the EEF preset in the driver is pretty recent.  Since no new profiles were released, that is why I assume the two presets are using identical ink loads, the new EEF preset is just changing some of the other settings that you have to change manually if you use the luster preset.

The two presets will deliver identical prints visually because both are based on the same EEF profile that is provided by Epson and use the same ink settings.

[digitaldog]

I just ran 700 patches printed using Luster 260 and then EPF media settings on my 4900 and ran them through the iSis. The report indicates to me that they produce the same results. I should let the targets dry overnight, they are fresh out of the printer. But the average dE is 0.65! In my mind, this makes sense. Older printers with profiles built for EFP had a Luster Media setting. Newer printers have one properly named for that paper. Same profile. Same output behavior. Use whatever you wish, I don't think it makes any difference based on the measured data.