Re: Profiling Epson 2200/2100
Re: Profiling Epson 2200/2100
- Subject: Re: Profiling Epson 2200/2100
- From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 03:12:19 -0500
At 11:35 am -0700 4/4/04, Andrew Rodney wrote:
You'll want a profile for both output resolutions.
I thought that that would be the answer, but I had to give myself some hope ;-)
I assume that the two profiles will be quite a bit different
internally because at 1440 dpi the printer has to lay down
significantly more ink in each droplet to achieve the same print
density it would get when printing at 1880 dpi. This greater ink
usage per droplet will then cause the mixture of inks in an image
area to be different at the two resolutions and thus alter the hue
and saturation.
Is this a reasonably correct and coherent precis of the reason to
profile at both resolutions?
Use the TC9.18 target. More seems to be better.
Thanks. That and the resolution advice saved me a lot of time, paper
and ink doing a lot of half-assed profiles, comparing them to
profiles done correctly, and then going back and mopping up after my
mistakes.
I just completed a profile measuring 10,000 patches to my 2200 using
the beta of ProfileMaker Pro.
Ouch!
Actually, that sounds like a pretty interesting (though labor
intensive) way to take a look at whether more patches can pull in the
very far end of the reproduction-error bell curve (except it's
probably not really a bell curve...).
I saw better gray balance using the well known, very poor "No Color
Adjustment" driver setting.
I don't think I understand. I thought that the way to print on the
2200 with profiles was to "Print with Preview," select your
document's workspace as your source space and your profile as your
print space and then choose "No Color Adjustment" in the driver. Is
there an alternative that produces better results? (I know we got
lousy results with the Epson profiles when using "Perceptual" as our
intent, but pretty good results when choosing "Relative Colorimetric."
It wasn't night and day and I'm not suggesting that 10K patches is
necessary (heck, I had to try). But given the option between 288 and
918, it's clear that 918 is the way to go.
If I can triage my immediate needs, and wait for ProfileMaker 5
Photostudio Pro to arrive for the rest, is there a better target that
I should use (and that ProfileMaker will accept)?
BTW -- I realize you are under NDA from GMB, but there was something
about ProfileMaker 5 Photostudio Pro that I couldn't figure out from
either ColorGear or GMB's web sites: Does PM5 Photostudio Pro do
scanner profiling or do I need to think about whether or not I should
purchase another module?
Thanks again,
-=-Dennis
_______________________________________________
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.