Aaron,
Do you agree, then, with deanwork that a custom profile is necessary to get comparable results to the Epsons? I do not have print profiling capability, but was putting it off because I've not been dissatisfied with canned profiles for my Epsons. If you and others say it is really a necessity, then what is an acceptable print profiling solution? The first to mind is the Color Munki Photo, but there are other less expensive alternatives it looks like as well. I think, all-in-all, I can still come out ahead by going with the Canon plus third-party profiler when considering ink costs, etc. It seems like a poor option (though probably convenient) to spring for the IPF's proprietary spectrophotometer as it will only allow profiling that one printer, right (or other IPF's???)? And why does the Canon page say the photometer is for the ipf 6450??? I don't know what that's about.
From what I have been told the Color Munki( i have one) is not really adequate for the 9900 or 8400. If you buy paper from Lexjet or DTG , they should be able to offer a custom profile. I for one have been using IMage print"s RIP for color management. I have tested it with Hahnemuhle, Canson, epson and Moab. its pretty good..They dont make a rip for the Canon though. I would recommend a RIP anyways. The canned profiles are OK,,just OK. It really depends upon what you want to do..
These are all things I was told , only recently due to the fact that I just got my printer a month ago.. So far, I dont regret getting the Epson over the Canon, even though I have to do cleanings and have had nozzle issues. I read a thread on the forum recently about replacing heads and it was stated that the Canons need to be replaced every 2-3 years,,sometimes even sooner..Not so with the Epson..If it fails,,when it does,,its a service call. I plan on getting an extended warranty, I even marked it down in the calendar as a reminder to purchase..That will be worth it..Also,, I extend that an additonal year because I used a credit card with coverage..
