Re: Evaluating Eye-One Photo
Re: Evaluating Eye-One Photo
- Subject: Re: Evaluating Eye-One Photo
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:38:14 -0400
Stephen,
> 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!
It sure does. The EyeOnePro has good repeatability. No wonder your results
are so close.
> 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.
With the Epson RGB driver, I personally never set my expectations too high.
If you say the results are good with some moderate banding here and there
then that's not too bad.
> 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.
I'm amazed too by that kind of result. I have seen many times gamut
seemingly shrink and expand just because a different instrument was used to
make the readings. Here, you seem to have come to grip with a different
problem. Could be linked to the Epson driver again?
> 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.
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.
Everyone has their opinion on this. I personally don't use an UV filter in
my work. But I have seen other use them "with success", they say. One sure
way to avoid needing them is to stay with OB-free papers, like the ProofLine
PressWhite (a* close to zero and b* around -2).
> 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'll let others handle this question.
> I note
> that PhotoStudio doesn't come with the ability to average
> measurements which is a bit rude.
You could always bring your results in MS-Excel and, with a bit of
spreadsheet jockeying, average your results there. I find the mor I work
with color management the more proficient I become at Excel! Definitely
worth learning.
> 6. For rag, the prints never seem to turn out with the maximum ink
> density I'd expect.
Maybe the substrate absorbs ink too much?
> 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.
Again, you're at the mercy of the Epson RGB driver. If you had a RIP, one
that gives you better control on ink limiting, you could worked around these
problems, in part.
> 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.
The EyeOnePro is a good emissive measuring instrument. I would not discard
it completely on the basis of these results.
> It was also a lot more cumbersome to
> use.
Oh?
> 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.
The Optix has all my respects but I would give you a second chance to
evaluate the EyeOnePro for monitor calibration. I can remember having lot's
of trouble just getting my system together so that I would not get corrupted
calibration, regardless of the instrument I would use. So, make sure your
system is in good order before you try whichever instrument you elect to
buy. Because you could still be disapointed.
> I guess where I'm eventually heading is a RIP so I can have more
> control over ink loading.
Totally agree.
> 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.
Does GMG ColorProof have any offering that would be closer to your budget?
I've seen things it can do for photographers or people with RGB workflow
that have swept me off my feet lately. I hear also that PosterShop v7 is
out, with a completely revamped linearization engine/interface. One advice:
take your time to shop.
> I'd appreciate input on any of the above.
>
> Stephen Best
> Macquarie Editions
Regards,
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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