My colleagues and I have been testing our new 9570 with particular focus on custom media settings as created by two different methods for this printer. One can be entered via the control panel on the printer and the other is set up via a software utility called Epson Media Installer (EMI). We print from MAC with Mojave (10.14.6). The printer firmware is up to date as is the driver.
We printed tests to evaluate whether or not the 2 different media settings had an effect on printed results and if so, to quantify it. Prints were made from Photoshop, LightRoom , ACPU and Print Tool. The results from ACPU and Print Tool were as one would expect, whereas those from Photoshop and Lightroom were definitely not. The average Delta-E of the latter tests was between 2.93 and 6.93.
Both custom media settings were made to accommodate the media Canson Aquarelle. The same reference media, Velvet Fine Art was used for both settings. One custom media setting was made using the control panel method (P.56 in the guide). It was named Aquarelle. The other media setting was made using Epson Media Installer (EMI) (P.57). It was named Aquarelle-2. The EMI method requires an ICC profile to be linked to the custom media setting. We applied our custom profile for Canson Aquarelle. The actual tests were printed on MOAB La Salle Matte in order to save cost and gather the required colorimetric data.
The test chart consisted of 2,033 colour patches on one sheet. The charts were printed from PhotoShop, Lightroom, ACPU and Print Tool. For one set of prints, no profile was linked; for another set our custom profile for La Salle Matte was applied; for the last set, our profile for Aquarelle was applied. The use of the two profiles was intended to determine whether or not the profile applied in the printing application would over-ride the profile linked in the media setting made via EMI and to see how the EMI media setting would deal with a duplicate profile coming from that application. The prints were read by an xRite i1Isis-2 and the data was compared and evaluated in Patch Tool.
A Few Results:
The comparison of 4 prints from ACPU for which neither profile was embedded compared as one might expect or would hope from prints from an identical file without an embedded profile. Prints using each media set were the same within Avg. dE .25 which shows a normal variance between 2 prints from identical files without embedded profiles.
Four sets of comparisons of 4 prints from Print Tool where each had one of either the Aquarelle or the La Salle Matte profile embedded and each was printed using one of the 2 media settings, had an Avg dE of 3.19 to 3.21. So, this clearly and consistently reflected the difference between those 2 profiles and nothing more.
Then, 4 prints were made from Print Tool with each media setting and each of the 2 profiles embedded (either La Salle Matte or Aquarelle profile). Each pair of prints with the same profile but with one of the two media settings was compared. The Avg dE was .24 and .23. So again the result was as it should be from Print Tool.
However, when we got to PhotoShop differences became stark and the reasons are unclear. For instance, we sent 2 prints from PS with our custom Aquarelle profile linked to each and with one of the two 2 media sets selected for each print. The avg dE was 7.07.
In disbelief, we ran this test again – prints and readings. The same result was found. Instead, they should have been virtually the same as the results from Print Tool (Avg dE: .23).
A Comparison of 2 prints from PhotoShop with both media settings and with La Salle Matte profile linked to each print has an avg. dE 5.63. Prints from LR agree. As a reminder the same test from Print Tool gave the result Avg dE: .24.
So far, we have a total of 42 tests and results range from dE 2.93 to 7.49. At no time did we see an Avg dE below 1.0, as we had from Print Tool, for any test from Photoshop or LightRoom. More testing is required with the latter. But, for now, all we have seen is that something is playing a role here in PS and LR which is not the case with Print Tool.
Visually, prints using the EMI generated media setting look closer to the screen display than those printed with the one made via the Control Panel. But, they should match. From Print Tool they do but not from PS or LR.
Early on, we put this to Epson and were essentially advised that this is Adobe’s problem. Of course, we’re not done with Epson. But, in the meanwhile, If anyone has thoughts on what might be causing this, I’d appreciate your feedback.
Thanks in advance,
Mick