ImagePrint 5
ImagePrint 5
- Subject: ImagePrint 5
- From: "Cris Daniels" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 13:12:50 -0300
The 1200 is worthless by todays standards, the old dye printers were very
simple to calibrate I agree. The Epson 3000 comes to mind as another one easy
to calibrate, too bad the prints look so grainy that it makes me cringe. I am
referring more to the most current models.
>
Best not compare other printers and profiling techniques
though other than visually.
I'd never do it any other way, I either own or have immediate access to all of
these profiling packages and have tried them all with ImagePrint. All that
matter is what looks best, not who makes it. Evaluated in a D50 booth with
dimmer, and other real-world light conditions.
>
If something as complicated as a Postscript rip is , can be released without
bugs, then that'll be quite a feat meriting an award. Most wouldn't think
that would be possible , but if you say it is then great.
Never said that it never had an issue at all. Sure there have been bug fixes
but Colorbyte also doesn't tell you to wait for the next X.0 version to expect
a fix (or deny that there is a problem in the first place), they are generally
fixed very quickly. What working pro can afford to wait for some company to do
a completely new release before addressing some issues? I don't even have to
cite examples here it happens so often, it is hard to believe that there is
any loyalty in this industry.
If you are looking strictly for a proofing device, certainly ImagePrint may
not be the direction you want to go (it may appear to simple but it isn't).
Perhaps Onyx or Best might make a pre-press junkie feel more empowered with
all of the options. To each his own. ImagePrint won't print things like a
rosette pattern, making a 7 color 4 picoliter printer print as poor as a press
certainly isn't harder than pushing the image quality threshold.
I'm no color scientist, but I do know that the ability to generate the profile
via spectral data has given them the ability to generate ICC profiles for
specific lighting condition for quite some time. The values are not tied to
D50 like lab data, so they also have daylight and flourescent profiles. Why we
are all working with lab data especially with instruments capable of gathering
spectral data is beyond me.
Rendering intent is still a toss up for the type of work I do, generally I use
perceptual for about 80% of the work, and RC the balance. Especially with the
Epson 10000CF on a fine art paper, that relatively low gamut ink/media combo
was just loosing all kinds of detail in important areas with RC. The amount of
gamut clipping can just be too severe, where perceptual at least preserves
detail., people are much more sensitive to this than 100% color accuracy. I
know that this goes against what some other people do, again I go by what the
prints look like, and I don't like any tonal breaks or clipping especially on
20"x30" prints where it is painfuilly obvious. The Ultrachrome printers are
really much easier to work with that the 10000 piggies, the matte black on art
paper is fantastic, and RC might be a bit more appropriate (with the larger
gamut inkset) depending on the image content and the size of the RGB source
space.
Cris Daniels
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.