Re: Strategy for fine art/photographic quality prints Part2
Re: Strategy for fine art/photographic quality prints Part2
- Subject: Re: Strategy for fine art/photographic quality prints Part2
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 09:06:57 EDT
Part 2:
In a message dated 6/19/01 2:35:30 PM, email@hidden writes:
>
I subsequently used ColorBlind MatchBox. The inclusion of an initial
linearisation
>
of the target appeared to be a major step forward (cf Matchlock). The results
>
were very encouraging indeed, but not perfect. I learned a great deal
tweaking
>
these profiles with ColorBlind Edit and ColorVision9s Doctor Pro and acquired
>
enormous respect for those programs. But I did spend an awfully long time
>
at it - and used vast quantities of ink and paper. Pressure of work has
>
prevented my 3finishing2 the job for some 3 months now.
>
MatchBox should offer an advantage over ProfilerRGB, since it uses a
colorimeter instead fo a scanner, but liniarization for an RGB profile never
struck me as much of a necessity...
>
>
The end result was a couple of profiles which were pretty good, but not
>
quite good enough for the exacting standards of fine art prints. I am
confident
>
that, if I revisit the editing process, I could get a lot nearer. But now
>
I will need to make the process much more time efficient, and that raises
>
a number of questions:
>
>
>
>
>
>
A: For greater accuracy and speed, I am seriously considering the Spectrostar
>
Spectrocam. Most of what I have read on the list seems to suggest this
>
would be a good choice. Should I be considering other instruments?
>
You could consider a DTP41, if you like, or the new Gretag Macbeth EyeOne,
but since the EyeOne is not yet supported by much third party software, that
means buying into their software package as well. I certainly enjoy the
SpectroCam and use it by preference whenever possible...
>
>
B: ColorBlind MatchBox (cf the Professional version) is limited to 420
>
color patches. Despite the limitation on the number of patches, presumably
>
the $140, to upgrade to a dongle version to work with the Spectrocam or
>
other instrument, would be worth spending, particularly as my experience
>
so far of MatchBox has been favourable?
>
That would be one alternative...
>
>
C: Alternatively, or perhaps as well, should I consider upgrading my
ProfilerRGB/
>
Doctor Pro to Profiler Pro. Support on this list for Profiler Pro appears
>
strong, notably from CDT. My experience of Matchlock Profiler RGB was
disappointing.
>
But it appears that the targets have been redesigned since I used the
programme,
>
Profiler Pro uses 729 patches, and I would be using it in conjunction with
>
a spectro rather than a scanner. Is the prevailing confidence in Profiler
>
Pro such that I should consider the not inconsiderable extra investment
>
in upgrading?
>
I would consider this the preferable upgrade, but as you say, at a higher
price... I'd suggest getting ProfilerPRO first, and trying it (just once <G>)
with your current ColorMouse colorimeter to prove what it can do. Then if you
decide its not what you want, you can get your money back form ColorVision
within 30 days, and haven't invested in a spectro yet. Or you may find the
reduced patch profiles from PRO to be fine, and save you the cost of another
patch reader entirely.
>
>
D: I currently use ColorBlind ProveIt (visually) to calibrate my monitor.
>
It feels right, but I have no basis as yet for being sure that it is right.
>
I have a 212 Apple Colorsync display. Again, given the prevailing opinion
>
in favour of Colorvision Spyder + Optical, should I consider a bundle upgrade
>
from ColorVision to include Profiler Pro, Spyder + Optical. Or should I
>
save my money and use the SpectroCam in conjunction with ProveIt.
>
If you can get the bundle where the Spyder and OptiCal (and another copy of
DoctorPRO) are thrown in for free, that starts to make it a more tempting
offer... as you say that would improve your monitor calibration without a
doubt.
>
>
E: Now for one of the bits I am least clear about. If I want maximum control
>
over colour translation into 3fine art2 inkjet print, is it adequate to
>
rely on RGB workflow only, with the limitations imposed on black generation
>
inherent in the Epson drivers. Or is there an advantage in gaining control
>
of black generation by converting to CMYK and then printing out through
>
say, PressReady. I know that Press Ready is only just alive and kicking,
>
but it does seem to have its enthusiasts. Is it an appropriate tool for
>
fine art/photographic quality prints?
I'd suggest trying all of the above first, and leaving a RIP for last. After
all, MatchBox doesn't offer CMYK controls, so you can't try that out now, and
if you get ProfilerPRO, that will build controlled CMYK profiles later with
no upgrades or changes. There is still a bit more control of art papers with
CMYK, but its getting to be less of an advantage as software and printers
improve.
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
email@hidden