Are custom printer profiles copyrighted?

[dmg]

I am owner of an IPF 5000 and as many of you know, there are some papers for which there are no profiles.

Since this is my first incursion in the high-end printing market, I am curious about why is there no central repository for profiles where people share them at will.

In other words, is there any agreement that stops somebody who has ordered a custom profile from sharing that profile with others? When somebody orders a profile, are they getting a licence to the profile or the actual profile?

I understand that a custom profile for one printer might be bad for another printer, but I would image that having a profile is better than having no profile at all.

Why is that there is no central repository of custom profiles where everybody shares their custom profile?

Also, I don't understand yet the math behind profiles, but if enough profiles are available, I would image one can generate a "average profile" from all the available ones (given that, once there are more than one profile available, then the problem becomes how to choose a profile).

--
daniel

[Jonathan Wienke]

if you read the fine print in some of the profile genreation program license agreements, there are usually limits on how you can distribute a profile. But given the variance between machines, doing so would be pointless anyway. The whole purpoise of a custom profile is to custom-match thecolor characteristics of a specific machine. If you dumb down a profile so it works on multiple machines, you have the canned profiles that ship with the printer. If you're demanding enough that the factory-supported papers aren't good enough, a generic profile isn't likely to satisfy you anyway.

[jjlphoto]

I understand that a custom profile for one printer might be bad for another printer, but I would image that having a profile is better than having no profile at all.

daniel
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96024\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The only profile worth using is one that works. Note: on pro-level printers, there is much less variation in machines, that is why Bill Atkinson's profiles made on his wide format Epson's work on most same model Epson's that another user has.

[Stephen Best]

I understand that a custom profile for one printer might be bad for another printer, but I would image that having a profile is better than having no profile at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96024\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A canned profile would be useful for evaluating a paper, but once you commit to this you'll need a custom profile for your printer for the best results. And not just a "good" profile, one that meets your specific needs. I would imagine that printers with replaceable printheads (like Canon and HP) would show a lot more variation than Epson which have permanent heads and are factory-calibrated ... at least this has been my experience. Canon/HP printers would also likely need re-calibration and/or profiling after each printhead swap. The spectro in the new HPs is maybe more a necessity than a nicety.

[ricgal]

Once an HP z series printer is calibrated should it not mean it is the same as any other z series exactly meaning sharing accurate paper profiles via the web for instance  becomes a realitic possibility?

[Stephen Best]

Once an HP z series printer is calibrated should it not mean it is the same as any other z series exactly meaning sharing accurate paper profiles via the web for instance  becomes a realitic possibility?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what they say:

"After color calibration, you can expect to get identical prints from any two different printers situated in different geographical locations."

The same would apply for two Epson printers normalized with ColorBase for the same base media type. The only catch is that you need a spectro (or a similar measurement instrument) to do the calibration/normalization ... and if you have one, why not just build your own profiles?

[ricgal]

To save the planet and more importantly time-  I can just see a Napster for profiles developing-  oviously for HPZ's not Epsons

[Jonathan Wienke]

The only profile worth using is one that works. Note: on pro-level printers, there is much less variation in machines, that is why Bill Atkinson's profiles made on his wide format Epson's work on most same model Epson's that another user has.

Atkinson's profiles laid down way too much ink on my 7600; I had to manually tweak the ink density in the driver settings to get anything decent out of them, and even then custom profiles (I bought an Eye-One spectro) were much better. Even the pro-level printers have variations.

[Bill J]

I found the profiles that Epson made available for the 2200 - the ones for all their premium papers at either 1440 or 2880dpi - were right on the money.

Before I bought my iPF5000, I ordered the two test prints from InkJetArt comparing the Epson 7800 with the iPF5000 on their Micro Ceramic Luster paper. I printed the same image they used on Premium Semigloss with the 2200 using Epson's canned 2880dpi profile I downloaded from their website. The print was identical to the others in terms of color balance, density, separation of grayscale tones, etc. The only differences were what I expected from the different inksets - the slight differences in red, yellows, greens, etc.

I can't imagine that the fact that the iPF5000 heads are user-installed would make any difference in variation from printer to printer. As I see it, it's all in the manufacturing, in how uniformly they can drill all those 30,000+ nozzles (if that's how they do it) from robot to robot in their factory.

As for sharing profiles, the EULA that came with my ColorVision PrintFix Pro clearly states that I can't sell any profiles I create with their product, but I'm not sure about whether I can post them on a website or give them away.

Bill

[Stephen Best]

Atkinson's profiles laid down way too much ink on my 7600; I had to manually tweak the ink density in the driver settings to get anything decent out of them, and even then custom profiles (I bought an Eye-One spectro) were much better. Even the pro-level printers have variations.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Different profiles. The current ones for the 7800/9800 were pretty much identical to those I created for the same papers with my Eye-One kit. I don't believe Epson's previous series are/were factory-linearized.

The real worth of Bill's work though is not so much the profiles themselves (there's a limited number of papers he has provided profiles for and all of these RC) but the means to compare profiles from the same measurements with different profiling packages/settings as an aid to making a decision which way to go. This could be an eye-opener for anyone who thinks good profiles are all the same. Bill has also made available testforms in a range of sizes and for different devices. More info for anybody who is interested in learning more about profiling here (even if you don't have an Epson):

[a href=\"http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html]http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html[/url]

To be honest, I found canned profiles (other than Bill's) all over the map and inevitably only useful for initial paper evaluation. Until you do your own, you won't be able to evaluate how close they are to your ideal. Printer to printer variability will only make things worse. Just evaluating gamut etc in a profile viewer is a waste of time, you have to print.

If you can't afford to do it yourself (or couldn't be bothered) pay someone to make the profiles for you for the papers you use the most. Questions to ask a custom profiling service include:

What assistance can you provide in helping select an appropriate media type and settings for the driver? This is crucial.

How many patches do you support? The less linear the printer, the more patches.

Are the readings averaged?

What options do you support for Perceptual mapping? The Perceptual tables in a lot of profiles are junk (see Bill's site above).

What rendering settings do you recommend for a specific profile (and to some extent subject matter)? Not all profiles work best with every rendering (intent and BPC).

[Greg_E]

In short, no it is not allowed by the license agreement in the profile creation software.

Places that want to provide "generic" profiles can obtain a special license to do this, how many obtain this license is unknown. Will any of this stand up in a court of law... Who knows.

If you realy want to distribute profiles, check the open source Argyll CMS and see if there are restrictions.

[jarthurdavis]

Ok, I can agree that a custom profile is the best way to go.
Having said that I can not find anywhere in the web manual for my IPF8000 the base settings for printing the profile charts.

Does anyone know the raw setting on the printer as well as the raw setting on the output driver?

With my Epson 10000 it was easy. Turn everything off, no color management etc and print the charts. With this new Canon it is a real task to find the information.  

Thanks
Jim Davis

[eronald]

My feeling is that if you want to have your device linearised you should run a RIP. If all you're doing is making A3+ prints of photographs (ie. RGB, not black and white) and not proofing, then you need color smoothness and not accuracy and a small test chart will get the job done decently when printing through the RGB driver, but not as well as a RIP, PROVIDED you use an auto scanning instrument or average your readings, and provided your profiling software is decent. I myself am a fan of Monaco Profiler, and anyone who wants to compare is welcome to ask me for a free profile.

Last not least, expecting the software to render for you is the worst mistake you can make. The software will compress the gamut, but the operator should have fitted the gamut before anyway, himself. That is the difference between a good printer and someone who can just press the "print" button - there is no such thing as device-independence when you are doing fine-art printing, and anyone who thinks the process can be automated will just make mediocre prints. I expect to spend at least an hour customising the print file to the printer I will use.

Edmund

Different profiles. The current ones for the 7800/9800 were pretty much identical to those I created for the same papers with my Eye-One kit. I don't believe Epson's previous series are/were factory-linearized.

The real worth of Bill's work though is not so much the profiles themselves (there's a limited number of papers he has provided profiles for and all of these RC) but the means to compare profiles from the same measurements with different profiling packages/settings as an aid to making a decision which way to go. This could be an eye-opener for anyone who thinks good profiles are all the same. Bill has also made available testforms in a range of sizes and for different devices. More info for anybody who is interested in learning more about profiling here (even if you don't have an Epson):

http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html

To be honest, I found canned profiles (other than Bill's) all over the map and inevitably only useful for initial paper evaluation. Until you do your own, you won't be able to evaluate how close they are to your ideal. Printer to printer variability will only make things worse. Just evaluating gamut etc in a profile viewer is a waste of time, you have to print.

If you can't afford to do it yourself (or couldn't be bothered) pay someone to make the profiles for you for the papers you use the most. Questions to ask a custom profiling service include:

What assistance can you provide in helping select an appropriate media type and settings for the driver? This is crucial.

How many patches do you support? The less linear the printer, the more patches.

Are the readings averaged?

What options do you support for Perceptual mapping? The Perceptual tables in a lot of profiles are junk (see Bill's site above).

What rendering settings do you recommend for a specific profile (and to some extent subject matter)? Not all profiles work best with every rendering (intent and BPC).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96228\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Stephen Best]

I myself am a fan of Monaco Profiler, and anyone who wants to compare is welcome to ask me for a free profile.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wasn't aware that I'd said anything controversial, nor why you should feel threatened by the suggestion that maybe more hand-holding is required than the usual "just print this testform, send it to me and I'll email you a profile" routine.

Anyway, since you're offering, there's an Innova rag paper I use a lot of on my 7800 and I'm keen to get the best from this. Maybe you could email me your setup instructions and testform and I'll send you as many sets of measurements as you require ... assuming you're satisfied that my Eye-One Pro Rev. B is up to the task. I'll then evaluate the results and post my findings here. I should be upfront in that my intention is to remain self-sufficient with profiling so the likelihood of follow-on business is small.

My email is stephen@macquarieeditions.com.au.

Thanks.

[eronald]

Since you're offering, there's an Innova rag paper I use a lot of on my 7800 and I'm keen to get the best from this. Maybe you could email me your setup instructions and testform and I'll send you as many sets of measurements as you require ...

My email is stephen@macquarieeditions.com.au.

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stephen,

I'm just stating that I prefer the Profiler renderings to the PMP renderings - I am sure there are lots of people for whom it's the opposite. No offense intended.

I'll gladly run the profile for you, but I'll want to scan it myself.  You're welcome of course to do your own scan and compare. Whether our various instruments actually get decent readings on this type of paper is a different question.

In fact I'm very happy to do this because it fits in with a package comparison which I need to do, and your opinion will be valuable to me.

Edmund

[John Hollenberg]

I'm just stating that I prefer the Profiler renderings to the PMP renderings - I am sure there are lots of people for whom it's the opposite. No offense intended.

Same here.  I have profilemaker pro, but wish I had Monaco Profiler instead.  The perceptual renderings seem a lot better to me with Monaco Profiler.

--John

[Stephen Best]

I'm just stating that I prefer the Profiler renderings to the PMP renderings - I am sure there are lots of people for whom it's the opposite. No offense intended.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96868\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

None taken. I also have an interest in the outcome from a practical point of view. I'll be in touch (unless I hear from you first).

[matt4626]

Hope this isn't too off topic. I'm a little in the dark to all this but if custom profiles for each individual printer are the best way to go how can a RIP be such a great idea?

[Jonathan Wienke]

Hope this isn't too off topic. I'm a little in the dark to all this but if custom profiles for each individual printer are the best way to go how can a RIP be such a great idea?

A RIP calibrates (linearizes) your printer so that the profile doesn't have to do any more work than necessary. It's like adjusting your monitor for best picture before profiling; the profile doesn't have to correct colors as far and the result is better color accuracy. Doing both gives you the best possible output, especially for 8-bit devices, where excessive adjustments by the profile will cause posterization and banding.

[Ed Foster, Jr.]

Hope this isn't too off topic. I'm a little in the dark to all this but if custom profiles for each individual printer are the best way to go how can a RIP be such a great idea?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Matt,

Personally, custom profiles for each printer, ink, and paper combination are the way to go.  Some software will permit linearization prior to profiling irregardless of the use of 3rd party RIP (raster image processor) or the printer's factory driver.

A RIP may be a good idea, but that is dependent upon your specific needs.  Typically, a RIP is not much more than a driver for the printer that would be used in lieu of the factory driver.  Typically, most RIPs accept CMYK data, in lieu of RGB data (as in most factory drivers) with the most notable excpetion being ImagePrint.  Also, most rips are Postscript (a page description language) capable.

RIPs are mandatory when you are working in a CMYK workflow out of neccesity (such as for proofing for commercial printing) or if you have a desire or other need for greater control of ink limits, undercolor removal, and black generation.  In some cases, the desire may even be for greater printing automation such as advanced queing features or ease of multi-image layouts.

IMHO, if you are typically printing photographs via photoshop, I am not of the impression through testing, that 3rd party RIPs bring anything superior to the table over a good quality printer driver with first class custom profiles.

Hope this helps,
Ed