Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
 on: Today at 11:01:41 am 
Started by NeilWilliamson - Last post by JRSmit
Normally, at least in my experience, after head replacemnent thectechnician should do a head alignment. And for using auto head alignment the Epson double weight matte is the species paper.
Hoever, for papers that are much thicker and of need largercplaten gap, head alignment mist be done. In case of glossy papers maniak head alignment is the only route.

 on: Today at 10:59:48 am 
Started by faberryman - Last post by Bart_van_der_Wolf
Rob, wasn't it the Brits who royally (how else) screwed the Palestinians post WWII?

Which makes it okay for the USA to do the same, how?

 on: Today at 10:59:47 am 
Started by PatCastaldo - Last post by Ernst Dinkla
I've got a new Epson P-5000 and was looking for 8" or 10" (or even 14" rolls) of paper similar to Epson's Enhanced Matte.

I checked Red River and they don't have it — anyone have an idea or lead on such a thing? I know Epson makes an 10" roll of their luster, but not matte.

Dry minilab papers may be an option. Inkjet based but mainly working with dye inks (HP was an exception).
But whether they will work pigment inks remains a question.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots

 on: Today at 10:58:58 am 
Started by josh.reichmann - Last post by mhaffey
The issue regarding tracking numbers in now moot as I have received the book.  I am still wondering, however, about the Monograph that was to be included but that I didn't get with my book.  I asked about it a week ago but haven't gotten any response.  Is there a time frame in which I should expect to receive the Monograph?  It was order number 1067.
Mark Haffey
I posted this over a week ago and haven't gotten any response from you.  Can you let me know the status of getting the monograph that was included with the book purchase?
Mark Haffey

 on: Today at 10:47:39 am 
Started by jejes - Last post by digitaldog
Nearly impossible to do what you ask without tools like CTP.
To give you an example of how this is done when you have a true reference and output you measure (as with printer profiles) the steps are:
We'll use a target we call 216pixel_RGBs.tif as an example, but you can use the iStar or whatever patch set you wish:
So there are a number of ways to tackle this depending on what you're looking to judge.
One way is to simply compare the reference* values that created the target to the measured values of the target run through the printer. But that only provides an overall accuracy report, not specifics. But the idea is, you've got an RGB value that's a reference and an RGB value from the measurement of the target itself. Conduct a dE report in ColorThink.
But here's a way to test the differing tables (it's kind of complicated). We'll use a target we call 216pixel_RGBs.tif as an example, use the iStar or whatever patch set you wish where 1 pixel is one color patch:
1. Open the “216pixel_RGBs.tif file in Photoshop. This file needs to be kept exactly as it is (individual pixels). Duplicate the file. Size the image using Nearest Neighbor to an appropriate print size. Call this “Reference Print File”. You'll print this out and measure.
2. Print this file out to the profiled printer. (You're sending the RGBs in the file to the printer.)
3. Let the print stabilize, and then measure it and save the data as “Reference Labs.txt”. The 216 RGB.TXT file (a reference file that built this target) needs to be installed for MeasureTool or PatchTool or whatever software you'll use to access access the data. This data measured is the bottom line -- what happens when you send these RGBs to this device.
4. Now you need to create predicted Lab files from the RGB. You need two versions -- one in pixels to compare in ColorThink, one upsampled to print -- for each profile.
5. Take the RGB pixel file and Assign the printer profile. Convert Abscol to Lab. Save the results with the profiling package somehow identified in the filename (eg “i1P 288 Luster/Predicted”).
I suggest saving the pixels versions as ProfilePackageName Predicted Labs.
6. Take the upsampled RGB file. Assign the printer profile. Convert Abscol to Lab. Convert from LAB to printer profile being tested using absocl and print.
7.Let the print stabilize and measure the results. Save the measurements as ProfilePackageName Roundtrip Labs (“i1p 288 Luster Round Trip”).
You now have three things to compare for each package:
A. The Reference File (“Reference Labs.txt”). The Predicted Labs (“i1P 288 Luster”). The Roundtrip Labs (“i1P 288 Luster Round Trip”).
B. Reference-to-Predicted (“Reference Labs.txt”/“i1P 288 Luster”) shows you the accuracy of the AtoB Colorimetric table.
C. Predicted-to-Roundtrip (“i1P 288 Luster”/“i1P 288 Luster Round Trip”) shows you the accuracy of the BtoA Colorimetric table.
Reference-to-Roundtrip (“Reference Labs.txt”/“i1P 288 Luster Round Trip”) gives you a decent measure of the overall profile accuracy.
You'll typically see that the AtoB and BtoA errors tend to cancel each other somewhat because they go in opposite Directions-Reference-to-Roundtrip shows that nicely.
*You’d need a reference of the scene (target) + Illuminant which ain’t easy hence my first sentence including ‘nearly’.

 on: Today at 10:46:18 am 
Started by Neil Williams - Last post by brandtb

 on: Today at 10:38:08 am 
Started by jejes - Last post by jejes
My goal is to check how good is my profile. I want to know dE of my profile. But i don't know in wich colour space do i have to export the Colourchecker photo from C1 and if i have to upload for example here  in sRGB, adobeRGB.

I want to know that info, i know that with ColourThinkPro you can do it, but i don't have this program.

Thank you

 on: Today at 10:24:41 am 
Started by faberryman - Last post by JoeKitchen
I'm not sure how that would be done since the DOJ prosecutes as do the states.  Why just call Hunter?  Call Joe Biden as well since it's his testimony that would confirm or refute whether there as something illegal going on.  If Bidens got nothing to hide, he should be willing to testify.  No? :)

The testimony would be inadmissible in any court proceeding. 

 on: Today at 10:22:42 am 
Started by faberryman - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic
... One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people...

Rob, wasn't it the Brits who royally (how else) screwed the Palestinians post WWII?

 on: Today at 10:03:13 am 
Started by faberryman - Last post by Craig Lamson
It was stunning yesterday, watching the heads of Israel and of the States hold hands and mutually kiss ass, both of them under investigation for crimes of one sort or another, blithely think it wonderfull to carve out parts of the Jordan Valley and Palestinian territory. One has to wonder if they are truly mad or just think of the Palestinians as non-people; you know, like the tribes that had the run of America before the Europeans moved in with their superior weaponry.

How amazingly comforting for Benji to be negotiating Israeli expansionism with the Jewish son-in-law of the "most powerful man in the world"; and yet, some question why the Palestinians refuse to attend and thus legitimise those cosy sewing meetings! As it's said, turkeys choosing how to be cooked for Christmas seems something from the land of the absurd. Funny only the Palestinians realise that tiny detail.

Just ask how the people of Florida might feel if some non-American third party decided to tell them how little they should be allowed to retain of their own land, controlled their boat access to the Gulf and the Atlantic, and by road into the other states.

Maybe that's why the modern gun lobby is what it is: it learned from the Palestinians what can happen to you.


Well heck yes, let’s just have them keep just lobbing rockets and trying to kill each other.  Much more productive don’t you think than trying to find some solution.  Yea, that’s the ticket.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10