Re: Epson 4900 Calibration
Re: Epson 4900 Calibration
- Subject: Re: Epson 4900 Calibration
- From: Terence Wyse <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 13:10:20 -0400
To go along with Steve's comment below, there's a few things to consider....
* With the Epson Spectroproofer option, it's *possible* to share the spectro with all printers since the unit comes on and off fairly easy, at least in the case of the 7900/7890 and 4900 (9900 and 9890 is a beast however and mostly a 2-person job)......but you would lose much of the convenience of scheduling auto-calibrations to run during noon-production hours. In any case, sharing the spectro would help with the inter-instrument disagreement issue.
* Myself and most of my colleagues that set up these newer printers with the internal spectros...to a person we almost ALWAYS use them for calibration-only and almost NEVER use them for actual profiling....we'll use an off-line spectro such as an iSis or DTP-70 for the actual profiling so the profile will match on all units. This doesn't totally get around the issue but it makes sense to me to at least standardize on what spectro is used for the profile itself ("proof standard" if you will) and simply let the internal spectro handle the day-to-day calibration needs.
My white-backed or black-backed .35 nanometer cents worth,
Terry
On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:53 PM, Steve Upton wrote:
> At 10:06 PM -0400 3/31/11, Roger Breton wrote:
>> Almost ;-)
>>
>> I'm concerned when comparing generations of Epson's printers. I have used
>> 9600s for years now, with GMG and I must say, when I compare my proofs to
>> the newer Epson models, those having newer ink sets, the Ultrachrome K3s,
>> invariably, I'm thrown back by the visual differences I find, all at
>> *comparable* delta Es (well below 1.5 avg and max below 4). These days, I do
>> all my measurements using the iSis (the days of the DTP70 are long gone) but
>> I hope to experiment soon with Minolta FD-7. My tests are all done on the
>> same, non-fluorescent substrate. So, the visual difference I observe between
>> prints made with the various Epson generations, ought to stem from the
>> printer's various generations of inks. The typical difference I encounter
>> with the newer Epson inks is in the direction of more red. In comparison,
>> the older 9600's proofs appear yellowish. I remember my days of training at
>> GMG when we had both a 7800 and an Z2100 in the same room, on the same
>> substrate, same instrument, same iterated delta Es, yet the differences
>> between Epson's and HP's was not staggering but quite visible. Shopping for
>> a new printer today, I can't say I'd give my money to Epson blindfolded, as
>> I fear we'll have to expend more magenta to match the same delta E -- I see
>> it every day with customer's supplied Epson 9880+ proofs.
>>
>> I was hoping that HP ink technology would offer a different visual quality
>> than Epson's.
>>
>
> I like and appreciate the benefit of on-board spectros in printers but this visual difference can also be caused by an unavoidable, underlying flaw of onboards - you can't share a single instrument to profile the devices.
>
> Inter-instrument disagreement is still pretty bad in some cases - especially when they are different technologies (Pulse vs Munki/i1).
>
> It's also VERY tough to verify the instrument effectively using a color reference like the Vogelsong and our Maxwell MeasureWatch service.
>
> So, greater ease of use = less control and accuracy. Unfortunate but true.
_______________________________________________
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