Profiling Epson 9,500 v 10,000
Profiling Epson 9,500 v 10,000
- Subject: Profiling Epson 9,500 v 10,000
- From: Nick Wheeler <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 19:26:08 -0500
on 1/8/02 1:20 PM, email@hidden at
email@hidden wrote:
>
I've read of a lot of issues here with the 2000P [which even Epson
>
seem to acknowledge is crappy - by refunding customers], and the 5500
>
is said to be just as bad. We profiled a 7,500 for Epson watercolor
>
stock [same ink set I guess] and it's a bit muted in colour [against
>
Lyson's Fotonic inks], plus there's the old <illuminant metamerism>
>
issue when the two prints are compared under differing lighting.
Neil:
I get really confused by the list sometimes, did you write this? If so, I am
wrestling with a really similar situation here (in my case a 7000 and 5500).
We can compare notes. I will copy to the list digest as others may be
interested as well.
For starters the 5500 is quite different from the 2000P. For instance, if
you are using the Epson Quickdraw driver the black generation curves change
considerably from one "media" setting to another, this is also true for the
Epson 10000 as well. The 5500 and 10000 do much better with the metamerism
issue than the 2000P.
Also I got amazingly favorable results using the 5500 as a b&w printer with
the Epson inks. Gretag profile, spectroscan table with UV filter.
Let me know and I'll give you as much info as I can.
Nick Wheeler