Re: Profiling Epson 9,500 v 10,000
Re: Profiling Epson 9,500 v 10,000
- Subject: Re: Profiling Epson 9,500 v 10,000
- From: email@hidden
- Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:25:11 EST
In a message dated 1/9/02 4:36:51 PM, email@hidden writes:
>
> 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],
>
>
> Thats to be expected... if you could live with a hair more reduction
>
of the
>
> brightest colors, then a nonencapsulated pigment set such as MIS or
>
> Generations 4 would do the trick, with very little color shift under
>
changing
>
> light sources.
>
>
Am I reading you right that Generations 4 is slightly less bright
>
than the Epson 7500 pigs??
In some areas of the spectrum, yes.
And the advantage there is less
>
<illuminant metamerism> when moved between light sources (alongside
>
the perfect print).
Correct, along with much easier and more accurate profiling...
>
Have you seen anything of Gen 5 at all?
Couldn't tell you if I had... <G>
>
>
Those Epson 7500 Pigs were pretty muted I thought. So I'm adding up
>
waht you wrote and reading that Generations 4 are less vibrant than
>
Lyson Fotonic by quite a way?
Not quite a way, but when you are looking for that last gasp of brilliant
color, they are a bit short of it.
>
>
Is there any advantage IYHO to use generations over Lyson Fotonic then??
Yes, a significant increase in life expectancy and reduced metamerism (most
noticable in B&W work) but at a cost in range of papers that can be printed
on; the unencapsulated pigment inks do not bind well to slick surfaces. Most
glossy, as well as many pearl, luster and semigloss papers, and (oddly) a few
company's matte papers, are slick.
C. David Tobie
Design Cooperative
email@hidden