RE: Printer Calibration
RE: Printer Calibration
- Subject: RE: Printer Calibration
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:34:03 -0400
Mike,
> Your comment on the time required is confusing: You say that 10 minutes
with XF is too much time compared with 10 minutes with
> GMG. I think all Germans regard a minute as the same length...
I have to maintain 5 different output conditions on two printers. When I
suggested 10 minutes for re-profile optimization on both printers, I meant 5
x 10 minutes x 2 printers. That adds up to close to an hour each. But the
newer generation of HPs or Epson probably don't need re-profile optimization
that often. That's a point well taken.
> I would counsel you, and Scott Martin, not to use words like "trickery" or
"BS" so carelessly.
Those are words I rarely use, if ever, on any forum, Mike.
> If we must compare products let's do it with facts, not guesses, and
always in view of realistic needs of the actual users of these
> products.
If I was forced to use XF, I'm sure I'd managed to get the job done, as I've
done using the previous versions, since 2.5.
Given the choice, if it was my money, I know what I would do.
> This entire discussion must be kept within the bounds of reality set by
the original context: Epson 4900s using inline Spectroproofers,
> whose interinstrument disagreement may be greater than 1dE76. In that
context, as Todd Shirley correctly said, worrying about small
> fractions of a dE between printers is inappropriate and the whole
discussion is of dubious usefulness.
My initial point was usability. But I'll stop belabouring the point. XF
comes with a "philosophy" of operation of its own I'd probably need to
relearn. I probably never learned this the right way to begin with.
Roger
_______________________________________________
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