Raw & Post Processing, Printing > Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks
ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
Jager:
--- Quote from: digitaldog on November 27, 2015, 12:39:17 pm ---Depends on how it was measured and built (custom settings for Perceptual table). But the differences should be much, much smaller than we see between the Seiko vs. X-rite profiles. That's night and day.
Let's say you use an iSis and produce various M-series measurements, then maybe OBA correction and/or post optimization as I do with all my profiles. You could see a difference on a good suite of test reference images (mine, Bill Atkinson, Roman 16). Even when I build custom profiles in i1P using 1700 odd patches, depending on a few factors, I see improved gray balance and saturated color rendering after running a post optimization using my custom target for that task. It can be subtle but it's visible! You're just not going to see that with any 'canned profile' for obvious reasons.
--- End quote ---
Thanks, Andrew. I was hoping you had a comparison at-hand of Exhibition Fiber, or one of Epson's other "better" papers.
The OP came onboard with the notion that he needed either custom profiles or a RIP in order to get "better print quality." It's been my experience that the canned profiles generally work very well - but then I use Epson's "better" papers almost exclusively (the profiles for which are all, I believe, created by X-Rite; and, again, no intended insult to those who favor Premium Luster). Your example contrasting the custom-versus-canned profiles for Premium Luster - clearly quite dramatic - is, perhaps, somewhat less than representative of Epson's Signature paper lineup? Lending what I'd suggest is false credence to the OP's belief that he's not going to get good prints unless he goes down the road of custom profiles or a RIP.
The reality is that buying an i1Pro 2 or other spectrophotometer is not going to suddenly turn one into a color and profile expert. I agree with Peter that most folks out there today making profiles, either for themselves or for profit, are probably little better - and potentially far worse - in their efforts than are Epson, Canon, HP, Canson, Hahnemuhle, Ilford, etc. My guess is that of those making profiles, very few are at your level (1700 patches!).
Which is not at all to suggest that if the OP wants to learn that somewhat esoteric part of the printmaking business, by all means proceed! But to believe that the canned manufacturer profiles are all rubbish and the only way to get excellent results is to go there, seems patently false.
digitaldog:
--- Quote from: Jager on November 27, 2015, 05:42:41 pm ---Your example contrasting the custom-versus-canned profiles for Premium Luster - clearly quite dramatic - is, perhaps, somewhat less than representative of Epson's Signature paper lineup?
--- End quote ---
All I can do is provide a list of the profiles made using X-rite vs. whatever the Seiko people use:
As I think I mentioned, if you see a "V" in the name, that's an X-rite profile.
digitaldog:
While I haven't printed using each profile in the supplied list, one can soft proof the Gamut Test File (or the Roman 16 blue girl who's print I illustrated) and this problem with mapping of blues to nearly black is clearly visible on-screen. Not with any of the profiles with a "V" in the name using the X-rite color engine. The one slight outlier is the profile named Epson Stylus Pro 3880_3885_3890 Standard. Not as bad. That said, I have no idea what that's for. It's still a profile tagged with Seiko in the copyright but it's not anywhere as bad as the others.
PeterAit:
--- Quote from: digitaldog on November 25, 2015, 05:58:37 pm --- Sorry man, that's simply not the case. Here's a prefect example: Epson canned profile vs. custom. These are photo's of actual prints made on a P600. The only difference is the profile, both using RelCol. Night and day:
Look at the mapping of blues, examine the dynamic range and lack thereof from the Epson profile.
--- End quote ---
Well, your photos certainly provide food for thought! I can't help but think that the Epson profile image of the woman could be a lot better processed, but even so I will have to reconsider my ideas regarding profiles. Thanks.
Stefan Ohlsson:
--- Quote from: Ferp on November 27, 2015, 05:39:33 pm ---What sorts of mistakes are you referring to? Surely you don't mean mis-scanning the target. Do you mean too much sample variation, leading to a need to do as you suggest - averaging multiple scans?
--- End quote ---
No, I don't mean mis-scanning a target. But when I compare several measurements done with the first version of i1 I get a higher variation than I get with version 2. I can think of several reasons for that, but the only thing I'm sure of is that when I started using i1Pro2 my Delta E went down when I compared 3-4 measurements of the same target.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version