Evaluating Eye-One Photo
Evaluating Eye-One Photo
- Subject: Evaluating Eye-One Photo
- From: Stephen Best <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 13:56:56 +1000
G'day,
Like most everyone, I'm after the best output I can get (from my
Epson 4800 and 7800 inkjets). To date, I've been using the Epson
driver with a mix of canned and paid-for profiles and the results
have been generally good ... but the time has come to kick it up a
notch. I have an old spectro (X-Rite Digital Swatchbook) and
profiling software (PrintOpen 3) both of which clearly aren't
competitive today. I had an opportunity to borrow a mate's Eye-One
Pro (Rev A, non-UV) with the new ruler and I've been impressed
overall but am wondering if I can do better. Here's my findings:
1. I've been reading the 918 patch targets three times each and
comparing the results with PM5 MeasureTool and have typically been
getting overall average/worst patch differences of 0.10/0.30 dE2000
(or less) which tells me the instrument is pretty consistent and the
reading procedure is sound. It sure beats individual patch reading!
2. The profiles built from the above (I take the best of the three
readings) look good. There's often a bit of colour banding in the
shadows which shows up in a soft proof but not in the print which
leads me to believe that the AToB (?) tables aren't the best. I
deliberately built a profile for the same media for which Bill
Atkinson has made available a 7800/9800 profile and there's a fair
degree of correlation between his GM1 variant and mine. I notice that
the gamuts for LOGO Colorful (which I understand Match 3.6 uses) are
always somewhat smaller than for other GM methods, Monaco etc. I
don't know what to make of this.
3. Eye-One Match won't work with Atkinson's 1728/4096 patch targets,
nor will it read the measurement files for such created with PM5
MeasureTool. Bummer.
4. It appears that Match does automatic OBA detection. It kicked in
for most papers I knew had OBAs, but not all. It didn't for Canson
Photosatin. Most of the papers I use have zero or low OBAs but not
having control over this is a concern. Alternatively, I could go for
a spectro with UV cut. I note that Atkinson's spectros are UV-cut and
it doesn't seem to detract from his readings.
5. Assuming I stick with LOGO Colorful, what improvements can I
expect from a possible future upgrade to PM5 PhotoStudio, other than
the ability to use larger targets and more control over OBAs? I note
that PhotoStudio doesn't come with the ability to average
measurements which is a bit rude.
6. For rag, the prints never seem to turn out with the maximum ink
density I'd expect. The targets imply that the paper will hold a lot
more ink than the profiles allow. I'm wondering whether this is due
to the spectro reading geometry/aperture not responding well to the
paper fibres. Most of my printing is on rag.
7. For monitor calibration/profiling, I was less impressed. It showed
a 10cd/m2 difference to my Eye-One Display (the original version) and
gray ramps didn't look as clean. It was also a lot more cumbersome to
use. I think I'll also go for a Monaco OptixXR (or a Display 2 if I
can get one cheap) even if I opt for the Eye-One Pro.
I guess where I'm eventually heading is a RIP so I can have more
control over ink loading. StudioPrint/ColorGPS comes highly
recommended and I can use an Eye-One Pro with this. Another
alternative is the ColorBurst/SpectralVision Pro/X-Rite Pulse bundle
but I'm not in a position of being able to evaluate this prior to
purchase. I had a look at ImagePrint and wasn't impressed.
I'd appreciate input on any of the above.
Stephen Best
Macquarie Editions
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden