Some beginner questions
Patty
info on products to purchase.
First off, I'm finding that when I use Photoshop for editing photographs,
what I see on my screen is not when I get off my printer. I know I need
something to calibrate my monitor and graphic card to be more true. I know
there are a few products out there, but which does anyone recommend? Eye
One? Spyder?
Second. I really do need a better printer. I'm trying to decide which is
best, HP or Epson? I'd want a more professional-type printer, not your
standard "use at home" type. Right now with the printer I'm using, an HP
Deskjet 5550 (not really a photo printer, but more a business printer) I
find that my colors, especially blue as in blue skies, is nothing near on
the print as what it should be (skies are always an aqua color and we just
don't have aqua skies here in Michigan).
Right now, I'm on a fact finding mission and any suggestions are greatly
appreciated.
Patty
philo
My fianc� is a serious Photoshop user who often creates prints from her
artwork.
She uses an Epson printer which I highly recommend !
The first thing she did was download their ICC profile...
then she did a test print...which I still save as an example.
It was **perfect** the very first time!
I've known a pro who spent a small fortune in paper and ink just to get
his printer calibrated correctly.
The printer has been working flawlessly for years...
no wasted paper of ink...
plus if any of the ink cartridges do not have enough ink in them to
complete the print...the printer will *refuse* to print until the
cartridge is changed
Charles E Hardwidge
news:fqkowkqxaq36.8njpsrodc8cf$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I'm in the process of getting into professional photography. I need some
> info on products to purchase.
>
> First off, I'm finding that when I use Photoshop for editing photographs,
> what I see on my screen is not when I get off my printer. I know I need
> something to calibrate my monitor and graphic card to be more true. I
> know there are a few products out there, but which does anyone recommend?
> Eye One? Spyder?
Heh. I went through all that crap a few months ago.
The Pantone Huey is passable but the Spyder 2 is better. Most of the
accuracy is in the software and both only become useful with the Pro option.
The Spyder is slightly more expensive but usefully accurate. The Eye One is
very good but overkill for most people.
Bundled software is fairly dire but functional. ColorEyes Display Pro is a
step up but BasicColor Display is the real deal. A free but more hairshirt
option is ArgyllCMS (Spyder 3 support is beta). The price of this software
is in addition to the hardware cost.
I'd say fuck it and get the Spyder 3 Pro. You can get better but it gets the
job done and will cope with LED backlight displays. Bump up to something
better when ability and/or finances enable it otherwise you'll be blowing
resources on obsession and vanity.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
news:KaydnUOGvIGJ5p3W...@ntd.net...
> My fianc� is a serious Photoshop user who often creates prints from her
> artwork.
>
> She uses an Epson printer which I highly recommend !
>
> The first thing she did was download their ICC profile...
> then she did a test print...which I still save as an example.
>
> It was **perfect** the very first time!
That's a point...
Most cameras or processing software coughs out an sRGB JPEG so unless your
screen is borked sending it to a profiled printer may be good enough. Most
good print services have profiles you can download or standardise on sRGB so
you can get away without a hardware calibrator.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Patty
Which Epson printer? I need to say that I recently inherited some money,
and while I don't want to just blow it away, I can afford to purchase some
decent equipment. Do you think the Epson printers far outshine the HP when
it comes to professional photo printers?
Thanks so much!
Patty
Patty
Thank you so much for your thoughts. I was looking at the Spyder software
but wasn't sure which direction to go with. You've helped me a lot.
Patty
notbob
> decent equipment. Do you think the Epson printers far outshine the HP when
> it comes to professional photo printers?
My friend, a pro photog, bought a pro Epson printer. He's very happy with
it. We're talking $1500+. I could find out which one, if you like.
nb
Patty
Yes, please. Which one is he using?
Thanks so much.
Patty
philo
The printer she has is now three years old and no longer made
It's a Stylus Photo R1800 and was around $500
I think they have replaced it with the R1900
It will do up to 13" x 19" prints so depending on your needs you may
want a smaller or larger printer.
As to HP...
I hear they make good printers too...but all my "Photo" friends use Epson
Peter
news:Zb%Lm.5554$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Why on earth would you use SRGB for fine art photography. the color space is
so narrow. If you want more info Google the color spaces and spend some time
reading. Your statement that she should use a JPEG is astounding.
BTW last time I checked, a monitor is hardware and needs to be calibrated.
--
Peter
Peter
What type of printing will you do. Some printers are better for color and
others for BW. What quantity of prints will you be making and what size.
Ink and paper are expensive.
Would you be batter off using a fulfillment house, or do your need high
quality archival printing.
there is no "one size fits all." I know several professional photographers
who use Costco for all their printing needs. I personally have found the
Costco does a decent job when I use a calibrated monitor with the correct
profile.
More information is needed.
etc.
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4b0094c3$1$28741$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Zb%Lm.5554$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Most cameras or processing software coughs out an sRGB JPEG so unless
>> your screen is borked sending it to a profiled printer may be good
>> enough. Most good print services have profiles you can download or
>> standardise on sRGB so you can get away without a hardware calibrator.
>
> Why on earth would you use SRGB for fine art photography. the color space
> is so narrow. If you want more info Google the color spaces and spend some
> time reading. Your statement that she should use a JPEG is astounding.
Never said she should use sRGB. Just saying that sRGB is good enough for
general usage. When she's learned more and is more capable she'll be in a
better position to move forward on a more fine art basis.
Anyone who read the comment who wasn't an anal socially autistic trolling
spastic would see that.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
"Joel" <Jo...@NoSpam.com> wrote in message
news:2g21g5doqe3lne3gp...@4ax.com...
> Epson should be a better choice. But you may want to check with the local
> and online photolab for the better cost than inkjet. I do like to print
> ART on inkjet printer as inkjet printer offen has richer color than from
> photolab. But since photolab is much cheaper than Inkjet so I haven't
> printed using inkjet for around 3-4+ years (I still have 200-300 sheet of
> Epson Photo Glossy left).
That's what I'd do. Desk printer for drafts and granny snaps. If I want
anything serious I'll pay the few pennies for a photolab to bang some copies
off by next day delivery.
Bog standard desk printer is good for most people. Pro stuff is amazing but
costs a fortune. Unless you're anal or need a fast turnaround it's better
just to let some photolab take the strain.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Patty
What information do you want? I also asked about calibrating the
monitor/graphics card. What do you recommend for that?
Patty
Surfer!
<ph...@privacy.net> writes
>As to HP...
>I hear they make good printers too...
The 9180B is an excellent A3+ pigment ink printer.
Does the OP know if they need a dye ink or pigment ink printer?
--
Surfer!
Surfer!
<pa...@iainttellin.com> writes
>What information do you want? I also asked about calibrating the
>monitor/graphics card. What do you recommend for that?
I recommend getting a high-quality monitor, an Eizo or La Cie. They
have a wider colour gamut than your average monitor, better colours 'out
of the box' and a very even backlight.
If you are using an old LCD monitor it doesn't matter what you do by
means of profiling, it still never looks right.
If you are doing your own printing, look into getting something that
will do both screen and print profiling.
--
Surfer!
notbob
> Yes, please. Which one is he using?
>
> Thanks so much.
Turns out he was unavailable, this weekend. I re-sent the inquiry.
Hang in there. I haven't forgotten. ;)
nb
celcius
"philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ttydnYOiQfBhGp3W...@ntd.net...
The print quality is a combination of materials: the printer, the ink and
the paper.
Epson has very good paper to use in conjunction with their ink.
These are said to be very good and withstand many years. I once asked a
local photography store to make copies of a photo for me. I had brought a
specimen for good colour reproduction. He took a look at it, turned it over
and seeing that it was Epson photo paper, he told me that I would better top
do it all myself. His equipment wwould not be adequate. Yet my printer isn't
a $1000 job ;-)
Marcel
Albert Ross
wrote:
>
>
>"philo" <ph...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:ttydnYOiQfBhGp3W...@ntd.net...
>> The printer she has is now three years old and no longer made
>>
>> It's a Stylus Photo R1800 and was around $500
>>
>> I think they have replaced it with the R1900
>>
>> It will do up to 13" x 19" prints so depending on your needs you may want
>> a smaller or larger printer.
>>
>>
>> As to HP...
>> I hear they make good printers too...but all my "Photo" friends use Epson
Yes the K3 inkset and Epson papers make an excellent combination. See
http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.html
for details of the (assumed) print longevity
>The print quality is a combination of materials: the printer, the ink and
>the paper.
>Epson has very good paper to use in conjunction with their ink.
>These are said to be very good and withstand many years. I once asked a
>local photography store to make copies of a photo for me. I had brought a
>specimen for good colour reproduction. He took a look at it, turned it over
>and seeing that it was Epson photo paper, he told me that I would better top
>do it all myself. His equipment wwould not be adequate. Yet my printer isn't
>a $1000 job ;-)
The other major factor is running cost. Some of the A4 printers are
more or less given away but the ink costs are seriously frightening.
In contrast the big floorstanding jobs need a second mortgage to
purchase but ink costs per print are a fraction.
These are only really cost-effective if you make a LOT of prints, I
ended up with an Epson 3800 which will print up to A2, isn't much
bigger than my vintage 2100/2200 A3 printer, works much better on
glossy paper and I reckon running costs to be about halved due to the
larger ink cartridges and reduced ink loss due to flushing when
changing the carts. This is something you may not appreciate on the
smaller printers, every time you change one cart you flush ink out of
the other ones, hugely increasing the running costs.
Epson's own profiles are pretty spot on and I calibrate my screen with
an Eye-One. Not perfect but after a few goes you can compensate by eye
for the minor differences which are inevitable translating between RGB
and CMYK+
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> First off, I'm finding that when I use Photoshop for editing photographs,
> what I see on my screen is not when I get off my printer.
First, at best you get an estimate from your monitor.
Paper reflects light, your monitor emits light. It will always
look somewhat different --- and you also need to control the
light that's going to be reflected from your paper for stable
comparisons.
You'll then want to "softproof" your image, i.e. see a print
simulation. After all, not all printers can print all colours
that your monitor can display ...
You'll want to update your monitor calibration: monitors (and
backlights in LCD screens) age and thus change ... depending
on how exact you need your results, every week or ever month
or every other month should work.
> I know I need
> something to calibrate my monitor and graphic card to be more true.
You also would want to calibrate your prints. The calibration
depends at least on ink, paper and printer --- for some
combinations you'll be able to get premade profiles, though.
> I know
> there are a few products out there, but which does anyone recommend? Eye
> One? Spyder?
Depends. What's your aim? Do you want the product to also
calibrate prints?
Would you be interested in the Argyll CMS open source software
(http://www.argyllcms.com/), optionally with some GUI help (in
which case you should buy one Argyll CMS supports), or will the
(often limited, but usually easy to use) software delivered with
the hardware do?
Are you interested in metering the light falling on the monitor
(you are controlling the light falling on the monitor, aren't
you?)?
Do you need to calibrate LCD screens, or just good old CRT screens?
(And if you have an LCD, is it at least a quality model? Do the
colours and brightness stay if you move your head left/right or
up/down in front of it?)
> Second. I really do need a better printer. I'm trying to decide which is
> best, HP or Epson? I'd want a more professional-type printer, not your
> standard "use at home" type. Right now with the printer I'm using, an HP
> Deskjet 5550 (not really a photo printer, but more a business printer) I
> find that my colors, especially blue as in blue skies, is nothing near on
> the print as what it should be (skies are always an aqua color and we just
> don't have aqua skies here in Michigan).
Just calibrating and profiling the printer (or using a premade
profile with the correct ink and paper) should cure that, or
at least give a reasonable renditon of blue skies if it cannot
produce the colours needed.
-Wolfgang
Patty
No. I'm not sure which is best. I just know that your standard inkjet
printer with standard inkjet ink more than likely is not the best for
printing photos. How do you decide which way to go? Dye sublimation or
pigment?
Thanks so much. I'm learning and grateful to be getting everyone's
experienced opinions.
Patty
Patty
Marcel, which printer are you using?
Patty
Patty
> Epson's own profiles are pretty spot on and I calibrate my screen with
> an Eye-One. Not perfect but after a few goes you can compensate by eye
> for the minor differences which are inevitable translating between RGB
> and CMYK+
Do you then consider the Eye One to be better than the Spyder? I"m so new
at this, just trying to get experienced opinions of which way to go.
Thanks so much.
Patty
Patty
I currently have a Samsung SyncMaster 2033 LCD monitor purchased within the
past 6 months or so. Finally gave up my old CRT when my daughter ragged me
about it so much. ;)
Spyder has a Studio setup that covers both monitor calibraton and printer
profiles. I've been looking at that a bit.
Some have mentioned to just use an outside printer to make prints, but I'm
the kind of person who likes to play with them. If I were into the old
film cameras, I'd probably have my own darkroom set up so that I could play
with the prints that I got. Ok, so I'll admit, it. I'm a sort of control
freek and I just like to have full control over everthing. ;)
Patty
Patty
I changed some settings in my Photoshop software. I'm now letting
Photoshop handle the color management and the prints I am getting are very
close to what I'm seeing on the monitor screen now. That green/aqua tinge
in the sky is gone now. The sky is blue, yay! The main difference I see
now is that the image on my monitor is a bit lighter than what I get off
the printer. I guess if I know that, I can adjust accordingly. I figure
that's just a monitor setting that I need to figure out how to adjust.
Does Argyll CMS run under windows? I'll Google it and check into it a bit
further.
I'm new at this, so I'm not sure about metering the light falling on the
monitor. As I've said, I know that what I am getting right now is a bit
lighter on the monitor than what comes out of the printer.
The LCD I have is fairly new and it's a Samsung MultiSync 2033. I
purchased Samsung because my LCD TV is a Samsung and I am very happy with
the color it produces. There's always some adjustment on color if you move
away from an LCD screen, but I have to move drastically away to have it
change. For the most part, when I am working with it, I sit pretty much
directly in front of it. Sometimes I'm a little off to the side due to my
keyboard/mouse location, but the color there is the same as what it is
directly in front. If I stand up and look down on the monitor, then yes,
the color changes as I would expect.
I was a hard core CRT user until just recently. I still use an old CRT on
my Linux system.
Thanks so much for your thoughts and suggestions. I really appreciate your
help.
Patty
Peter
For calibration I use Spyder. I saw a demo, bought it and it works well for
my interpretive landscapes and flower impressions. I do not do any work
where color is critical. I simply adjust the color to my taste. Therefore
all I needed was a calibration tool that would give me a reasonably faithful
print.
I did not do any comparison shopping.
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:12:03 +0000, Albert Ross wrote:
>
> Do you then consider the Eye One to be better than the Spyder? I"m so new
> at this, just trying to get experienced opinions of which way to go.
The numbers I've seen suggest it is better but performance also depends on
the features and quality of software. There's very little information around
on that unless you compare calibrators and software yourself.
Colour accuracy is measured in Delta-E. Anything below 1 is considered
perfect. At 2 you'll pick up a slight difference. 3 is whacked. The Eye-One
is tighter with its D-E than the Spyder but both can get your display under
a D-E of one if it's capable.
Another plus a calibrator will give you is setting screen brightness. I tend
to run mine at 120 cd/m2. You can go higher in a bright room but the default
200 cd/m2 a lot of these things push out is really suited for distance
viewing (like a TV) and will damage your eyes in closeup.
The other issue is displays. If you have a dud display a calibrator can only
do so much. Most displays /look/ okay but that's mostly subjective. Punchy
and bright in the salesroom is often wildly inaccurate and unhealthily
bright in practice.
Links:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Delta_E:_The_Color_Difference
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/CM_intro.html
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
> Does Argyll CMS run under windows? I'll Google it and check into it a bit
> further.
ArgyllCMS is a cross-platform commandline app. It works on Windows and if
you want a point and click solution there are a number of GUI front ends.
ArgllCMS uses a larger range of colours to test the display compared to the
crippled bundled software, and has better report capabilities.
It's been a while since I used it but (I think) I used DispcalGUI.
Links:
http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/ArgyllDoc.html
http://hoech.net/dispcalGUI/
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> The sky is blue, yay! The main difference I see
> now is that the image on my monitor is a bit lighter than what I get off
> the printer. I guess if I know that, I can adjust accordingly. I figure
> that's just a monitor setting that I need to figure out how to adjust.
If it's a CRT, brightness. With LCDs you could try dimming
the backlight, if your monitor supports that --- I understand
most don't. Sometimes the brightness control on an LCD will just
tell the driver to make the pixels darker, e.g. translating a
255,255,255 white into a 200,200,200 light gray. Which isn't
really what you want.
Remember not to change monitor settings after calibrating and
profiling, or you'll have to redo that step.
> Does Argyll CMS run under windows?
Yes.
> I'm new at this, so I'm not sure about metering the light falling on the
> monitor. As I've said, I know that what I am getting right now is a bit
> lighter on the monitor than what comes out of the printer.
Look at the print with more light shining on it. :-)
-Wolfgang
Albert Ross
<bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>"Patty" <pa...@iainttellin.com> wrote in message
>news:1wyqn3yo8xtdu.1...@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:12:03 +0000, Albert Ross wrote:
>>
>> Do you then consider the Eye One to be better than the Spyder? I"m so new
>> at this, just trying to get experienced opinions of which way to go.
>
>The numbers I've seen suggest it is better but performance also depends on
>the features and quality of software. There's very little information around
>on that unless you compare calibrators and software yourself.
Quite, I went for the Eye One after reading a few comparative reviews
but never made any direct comparisons myself. Also not sure how well
they do on LCD monitors, I'm nursing a vintage Iiyama 453 for photo
work but I suspect when it dies LCD quality will be even further
improved, it's being going up in leaps and bounds, but I recall some
calibrators didn't work well with earlier LCD generations.
Albert Ross
wrote:
>I changed some settings in my Photoshop software. I'm now letting
>Photoshop handle the color management and the prints I am getting are very
>close to what I'm seeing on the monitor screen now. That green/aqua tinge
>in the sky is gone now. The sky is blue, yay! The main difference I see
>now is that the image on my monitor is a bit lighter than what I get off
>the printer. I guess if I know that, I can adjust accordingly. I figure
>that's just a monitor setting that I need to figure out how to adjust.
Sounds good! Some Epsons give a magenta cast that's hard to defeat,
it's too easy to have both your software AND the printer driver apply
profiles by mistake.
<snip>
>The LCD I have is fairly new and it's a Samsung MultiSync 2033. I
>purchased Samsung because my LCD TV is a Samsung and I am very happy with
>the color it produces. There's always some adjustment on color if you move
>away from an LCD screen, but I have to move drastically away to have it
>change. For the most part, when I am working with it, I sit pretty much
>directly in front of it. Sometimes I'm a little off to the side due to my
>keyboard/mouse location, but the color there is the same as what it is
>directly in front. If I stand up and look down on the monitor, then yes,
>the color changes as I would expect.
I have a Humax TV (LG screen) I use as a second monitor, it's good but
not photo quality (it's also somewhat old).
When mother wanted a new TV recently we found the Samsung screens gave
the best results. Unfortunately they had crappy little squeakers, I
mean speakers, so she also ended up with an LG: picture not
significantly worse once tweaked a bit - and an order of magnitude
better than my older one.
For pure visual quality Samsung currently rules, but in six more
months this may change.
DRS
news:bcpMm.5920$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com
> "Patty" <pa...@iainttellin.com> wrote in message
> news:1wyqn3yo8xtdu.1...@40tude.net...
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:12:03 +0000, Albert Ross wrote:
>>
>> Do you then consider the Eye One to be better than the Spyder? I"m
>> so new at this, just trying to get experienced opinions of which way
>> to go.
>
> The numbers I've seen suggest it is better but performance also
> depends on the features and quality of software. There's very little
> information around on that unless you compare calibrators and
> software yourself.
Was that compared to the Spyder 2 or 3? The Spyder 3 is considerably
improved.
Charles E Hardwidge
"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:GK6dnTTvFM0CaZjW...@westnet.com.au...
That would probably be the Spyder 2. The Spyder 3 was better but I don't
recall its numbers being in the top tier. It just doesn't get into that last
few percent where prices start going off the dial.
A lot of the improvement can be down to software. The bundled stuff just
isn't very good. The pro variants are better, and something like BasicColor
or ArgyllCMS tests with even more colour patches.
Personally, I'd like to see hard numbers published and prices come down.
There's too much (deliberate) confusion and gouging.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
notbob
> Turns out he was unavailable, this weekend. I re-sent the inquiry.
> Hang in there. I haven't forgotten. ;)
Sorry it took so long to get back to you, Patty. My friend travels a
lot and is even more of a geezer than myself. ;)
Here is his reply after mugging him a 2nd time:
"It was an Epson 2000 and the Scanner was an Epson Perfection 3200.
The printer at the time was $750.00 and the Scanner was $575.00. You
can get others that are better today for less, however the Scanner is
more difficult to get and I think it is considerably more as it is a
Professional model for Color Separation work for Printing."
I hope this is of some help.
nb
Patty
Thanks, nb. I've got an Epson Perfection 1240 scanner, I've liked Epson
scanners more than some others, although some of the older (can you say
SCSI?) UMax scanners did a fine job as well. I tend to not scan color
photos much anymore since I'm using a digital camera as opposed to a film
camera these days.
I've looked at some Epson printers, have drooled a bit over the 3880, but
not sure it's in my price range. The Epson R1900 seems to be rated well at
a lower cost, but I wonder about the smaller ink cartridge sizes with it.
Thanks so much for checking. It seems that a lot of folks think that Epson
does a fine job when it comes to photos.
Patty
Peter
Check the Epson site. I think you will find that the 1900 is better for
color and the 3880/2880 better for black & white.
The cost of ink is outrageous. One of my friends calculated it at about
$3,000 per gallon.
Unless you volume is large, or you require specialized archival prints, you
may be better off using an outside service to do your printing.
--
Peter
Albert Ross
wrote:
>I've looked at some Epson printers, have drooled a bit over the 3880, but
>not sure it's in my price range. The Epson R1900 seems to be rated well at
>a lower cost, but I wonder about the smaller ink cartridge sizes with it.
HINT: check the price of all the ink you get with the printer (these
come AFAIK with full carts rather than "starter" carts) then subtract
that from the price of the printer. Then work out the price per ml of
the different sized carts with the different printers. This was the
calculation I did that made the 3800 look cost effective.