Need someone to make a few paper Profiles??

[pikeys]

Can anyone recommend someone who can make me a few paper profiles?
Someone who is good,inexpensive,experienced.

Thanks
Mike

[Mark D Segal]

I don't know what inexpensive means to you in numbers, but the cost of profiling is usually within a fairly narrow range between the usual providers. As far as good and experienced, I would recommend Andrew Rodney (DigitalDog). I'd also recommend Scott Martin (OnSight), but I'm not sure he is still offering this service on a one-off individual basis.

[mearussi]

Good and cheap are usually mutually exclusive. The going rate is around $100/profile and for the good reason that they use several thousand dollars worth of equipment doing so, plus you're also paying for their expertise built up over many years.

But unless you're doing professional work for others, the far more economical profiling equipment that can be purchased for a few hundred dollars, like the Color Munki, works just fine.

What I do is make my own profiles for all the papers I test and then when I settle on one I really like I'll have a professional one made.

Also a few paper companies will make custom profiles for you for free for their own papers. I've had both Breathing Color and Hahnemuhle make some for me which are much better than the canned profiles they provide on their web site.

[Ken Doo]

Paul DuPont with Green Leaf Color.  Good guy, good work.

Contact:  paul@greenleafcolor.com

Ken

[Mark D Segal]

Good and cheap are usually mutually exclusive. The going rate is around $100/profile and for the good reason that they use several thousand dollars worth of equipment doing so, plus you're also paying for their expertise built up over many years.

There's one more "good reason", much more expensive than most of the equipment: it's X-Rite's licensing policy. Their licenses to home users do not allow us to make profiles for others except in very restrictive contexts. To provide a commercial profiling service, one needs to buy a commercial license from X-Rite, which I was told by one reliable source costs them 15,000 (fifteen thousand) dollars. This of course is an effort to channel potential customer demand into their own equipment rather than the purchase of profiling services from already licensed users. Cornering and monopolizing markets is one thing they are very good at. If they devoted as much energy to documentation and software functionality it would be a better company.

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Can anyone recommend someone who can make me a few paper profiles?
Someone who is good,inexpensive,experienced.

Often it costs more to get something better (or even "good"), and I don't know what is "inexpensive" to you, but two thoughts:

(1) Although I have never used this service, I've often heard (mostly at DPR) good things about Profiles by Rick, which cost $25 each: http://profilesbyrick.com/purchase/.

(2) If $100 each for top professional profiles (e.g., Andrew's) and even $25 each (Profiles by Rick) would bust your budget--probably if you need a bunch of profiles--then your choice may be to give up on "experienced" and do it yourself by renting (from the very reputable LensRents.com) an X-Rite ColorMunki Photo for $50 for a week: https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/colormunki. Again, I have never used this particular product, but I do have the monitor-only ColorMunki Display package, and based on it, I suspect the hardware is pretty good and the software holds your hand fairly well; and I have rented from LensRentals multiple times, and they've been great. Now to amplify a point Mark raised: renting the ColorMunki Photo system is probably not too useful without installing its accompanying software. If LensRentals is renting this, then I tend to think they've determined that doing so does not violate the X-Rite software license, but it does make me wonder just a bit.

[Rhossydd]

There's one more "good reason", much more expensive than most of the equipment: it's X-Rite's licensing policy.

X-Rite have very restrictive licences for their latest software, but pre-Profiler  the licence is less draconian.
Other software vendors also doesn't have such onerous restrictions too.=, eg EFI.

Frankly most users won't see any difference between profiles made with PMP5 and profiler anyway.

Hence why some us can offer good profiles for more user friendly prices; www.colourprofiles.com £15 each and 4 for the price of 3

 

[pikeys]

Naw,
I ended up going with Rick,..he made a profile for me awhile ago,for the Epson exhibition fiber--came out superb
I'll let him do one for my Epson,Cold press Natural.

Thanks guys for all your assistance,
Mike

[Rand47]

+1 for the Digital Dog (Andrew Rodney).  He made profiles for my SC P5000 and they are excellent.  The Epson ICC profiles are pretty good for their Legacy papers, but Andrew’s are clearly superior.

Rand

[Doug Gray]

X-Rite have very restrictive licences for their latest software, but pre-Profiler  the licence is less draconian.
Other software vendors also doesn't have such onerous restrictions too.=, eg EFI.

Frankly most users won't see any difference between profiles made with PMP5 and profiler anyway.

Hence why some us can offer good profiles for more user friendly prices; www.colourprofiles.com £15 each and 4 for the price of 3

I agree. For what it's worth I've made profiles with the same spectral dataset for the 9800 using Profile Maker 5 and I1Profiler and tested my standard set of printable LAB colors. The dE2k is slightly worse at .7 with the PM5 against .5 for the I1, possibly because its max LUT size is 32x32x32 compared to I1's of 36x36x36. The 9800 is fairly lumpy and benefits more from a large patch set with the larger LUT space.

That said, I don't see any visual difference in prints when using Relative Colorimetric which is what I would expect with that small difference. There are slight differences with Perceptual but it's mapping is not specified. Can't say I prefer one to the other but haven't extensively tested Perceptual prints side by side.

[MHMG]

Paul DuPont with Green Leaf Color.  Good guy, good work.

Contact:  paul@greenleafcolor.com

Ken

FYI, Paul is indeed a good guy, a great guy actually, but for full disclosure in this discussion, Paul adheres to the profiling procedures also advocated by the experts at Chromix.com (authors of Colorthink Pro software) who feel polarized light spectrophotometer readings make superior ICC profiles. Only the no longer manufactured Gretag Macbeth Spectrolino/Spectroscans and some newer Barbieri instruments have the polarizing filter capability. Newer Xrite instruments like i1Pro2 and I!iSIS2 do not have this polarizing filter measuring capability.

Not trying to start a debate here on what's "best practice", but polarized light measurements are not an industry-standardized practice, and they adversely affect the inverse transform tables of the ICC profile used to render soft proofing viewing conditions to your monitor. If you don't soft proof on your monitor using "simulate paper color" or "simulate black ink" modes as part of your image editing/printing workflow, it's perhaps a moot point, but if you do (as many serious printmakers do nowadays), then ICC profiles made with spectrophotometer measurement readings using polarizing filters are NOT the way to go. You might want to try ICC profiles built with and without the polarizing option to see for yourself what works best for your chosen media and printmaking workflow. The impact is greatest on matte fine art media, less so on glossy/luster media.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Rhossydd]

Paul DuPont with Green Leaf Color.  Good guy, good work.
Contact:  paul@greenleafcolor.com

Web site under reconstruction.......... bodes well then.

[Abdo]

I offer this service in Brazil. I use ISIS + i1profile.
Values range from $50 to $120

www.icccolor.com.br

[Ernst Dinkla]

FYI, Paul is indeed a good guy, a great guy actually, but for full disclosure in this discussion, Paul adheres to the profiling procedures also advocated by the experts at Chromix.com (authors of Colorthink Pro software) who feel polarized light spectrophotometer readings make superior ICC profiles. Only the no longer manufactured Gretag Macbeth Spectrolino/Spectroscans and some newer Barbieri instruments have the polarizing filter capability. Newer Xrite instruments like i1Pro2 and I!iSIS2 do not have this polarizing filter measuring capability.

Not trying to start a debate here on what's "best practice", but polarized light measurements are not an industry-standardized practice, and they adversely affect the inverse transform tables of the ICC profile used to render soft proofing viewing conditions to your monitor. If you don't soft proof on your monitor using "simulate paper color" or "simulate black ink" modes as part of your image editing/printing workflow, it's perhaps a moot point, but if you do (as many serious printmakers do nowadays), then ICC profiles made with spectrophotometer measurement readings using polarizing filters are NOT the way to go. You might want to try ICC profiles built with and without the polarizing option to see for yourself what works best for your chosen media and printmaking workflow. The impact is greatest on matte fine art media, less so on glossy/luster media.

kind regards,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

More on that was discussed here; http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=118349.20

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots