Re: Not a Rocket scientist
Re: Not a Rocket scientist
- Subject: Re: Not a Rocket scientist
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 19:43:35 -0600
on 8/28/01 7:30 PM, Sterling Images at email@hidden wrote:
>
All was good until we added the 7500 and 2000p.
I can't address the 7500 but I've worked a lot with the 2000P and the 9500
and they are difficult beasts to work with. The issues are not profiling per
say. The issue is the severe metamerism of the inks. So you get a print that
looks pretty decent under tungsten light (don't ask me why but I find these
inks seem to appear best under this light source), then the same print looks
like crap under a D50 light box. Take the print into mixed lighting or some
other extreme and the appearance of the print goes in any and all
directions. I don't know of any "fix" for this at the time being. A profile
certainly makes the best looking print under any condition but of course
that could range from decent to awful (but less awful than no profile). If
you expect to print anything that should be neutral with the 6 pigmented
inks, you could go insane.
I just profiled (remotely) an Epson 10000 and I'm hoping it will produce
better results (as Epson as promised due to the new technology; possibly the
variable dot size). The photographer sent me some prints of a portrait
(using I believe a canned profile) and it looked pretty good. Epson *may* be
onto something. I also found that the 2000P was much worse in regard to the
metamerism than the 9500. The papers play a role but not by a huge degree. I
usually just recommend people stay away from the 2000P until Epson gets it
right (I fully expect they will).
Andrew Rodney