>Well, unless you have a new Adobe RGB display, you're STILL not "seeing" everything in the image, what's your point?
You don’t improve anything by adding more unknowns.
>Actually, testing has indicated that there is potentially a Delta E of up to 2+- even sending the same file to the exact same printer/paper combo, even on the same day. There's built in variability (read chaos) in most anything...
From a practical point of view I agree there’s variability in the mechanical performance. That’s a manufacturing QA issue. Not much we can do about it except keep the nozzles clean and aligned etc. I’m talking about the digital process. Send the same file to a printer and the printer receives the same set of ones and zeros in exactly the same sequence. The nozzles fire in exactly the same sequence. Etc. You get the same print within the manufacturing/repeatability tolerance of the printer.
>have no idea what you are talking about. . .wanna take another whack at it?
A) Make a 1 inch square filled with ProPhoto SATURATED red, R=255, G=0, B=0.
Send it to the printer using relative rendering intent. It probably doesn’t matter.
C) You get a 1 inch square of saturated print space red. Not (A) above.
D) Make a 1 inch square filled with ProPhoto ALMOST saturated red, R=254, G=0, B=0.
E) You get a 1 inch square of saturated print space red. Not (D) above.
F) Make a 1 inch square filled with ProPhoto NEARLY saturated red, R=253, G=0, B=0.
G) You get a 1 inch square of saturated print space red. Not (F) above.
Now you’ve sent three different files to the printer and you got the same print each time. And this series is almost endless. You are going through motions in the belief your efforts will have some real effect. When in fact they will not. I call that a religious experience.