Since I got such great response to my soft proof question in CS3, I have one more question.
While I was reasonably happy with the image quality I got using the soft proof method espoused by Jeff Schewe, I noticed a bit of a color cast on the printed image as compared to the monitor image.
Here's the background. Mac Pro with Photoshop CS3 Extended, Eizo ColorEdge CE240W (just calibrated today with an Optix device), print made on an Epson 2200 printer on Epson Premium Luster paper, using the Epson supplied paper/printer profile SP2200 Premium Luster_PK. I printed a portrait image of a woman wearing white and black, against a gray mottled background. Now, I readily admit that I do not have the ideal viewing environment for the print, or for that matter, the monitor, however, it seems clear that the gray background, which does tend to head a bit toward blue when soft proofed, is more blue tinted in the print than the soft proofed monitor image.
Just for fun, I modified the proofed monitor image by using the channel mixer, on the blue output channel, and increased the blue channel from 100% to about 120%, and the gray background AS PRINTED seems to match, to a better degree, the monitor image. The monitor image also seemed a bit oversaturated compared to the print, so reducing saturation made the 'match' even a touch better. Now, I know that doing something this strange, the idea of manipulating the monitor image to better match a print, is of no practical value; the only reason I mention this is to give those with some experience in Photoshop an idea of the magnitude of the color issue.
Given that I've followed all of Jeff Schewe's advice from the "From Camera to Print" video, I'm wondering if I'm simply going to have to break down and either purchase a calorimeter to create my own printer profile (I've never been happy with the VERY old PrintFix from Colorvision and the more recent Monaco EasyColor printer profiling solutions) or perhaps go the 3rd party route to get a better profile. I'm a bit frustrated, given that I've read so many good things about the Epson 'canned' profiles. Mind you, I think the profile yielded a decent image, but not good enough. By the way, I also performed the same evolution with the Epson canned SP2200 Prem.Luster 1440.icc profile, with results quite similar.
Thoughts?