Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
- Subject: Re: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 11:01:53 -0600
- Thread-topic: Apple/Adobe Imaging, DAM and Workflow
On 7/17/07 10:45 AM, "Bob Frost" wrote:
> Agreed, and not just for Pro printers. The USA Epson profiles for the R2400
> are the best I've got from 6 or 7 generations of Epsons, and I can't make as
> good a profile with my i1 and iMatch. But I'm easily satisfied - with Epson
> papers and inks! And I use Epson Colorbase to correct my 2400 to Epson
> standard calibration.
Based no a fairly large patch sample (4096 using Bill Atkinsion's fine
targets) and an i0, the custom versus canned profiles for my 4800 are a tad
better (I could define 'better' and suspect a lot of this is personal
preferences). I'm using a different package than Epson due to some of these
preferences. While not at all scientific, if I was forced to put a scale on
the two, from zero to 100, I'd give Epson's a 95 and mine a 98. Not a lot.
Unquestionably for some users that difference is profound. Or for someone
like myself, who can build profiles in little time, its a worthwhile
proposition. But for a lot of users, I don't see the need to spend $100, or
even $40 for a custom profile IF they are using Epson's papers and have
access to these canned profiles. Even so called power users who contact me
about custom profiles and say they are using Epson papers, my advise is to
try the canned profiles first on some representative images before
considering the custom profile route.
The 3800 profiles are equally good out of the box.
This is all really good news for users, maybe not such good news for those
selling custom profiles (or even those selling profile packages) but in the
grade scheme of things, who cares? It illustrates the consistency of these
mass produced printers (OK, parts of the Pro line are hand made). It makes
color management a heck of a lot easier on the end users. 3rd party papers,
different story. As the old saying goes, 'its all good'.
This equates to the argument that the market needs custom camera profiles
and that raw converters that don't support them are some how inferior or
crippled. I don't believe it and with the rare exception of color geeks or
vendors selling such solutions, the market isn't roaring in mass that this
is a huge problem, just the opposite.
Getting back to the original, original discussion, Karl Lang's paper, its
more important for the raw processing user market to understand about
neutral rendering settings and how they can and often should be adjusted
based on user preferences than trying to convince them some magic camera
profile will solve this particular issue. It will not.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
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