Calibrate Computer display
Will in SF
Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
Thanks.
Jim
"Will in SF" <will...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1117439241.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
that is suitable for an LCD screen.
Jim
Patrick
> Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
> see?
This site may help;
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html
--
Patrick
Miss Perspicacia Tick
If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor is
*NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the chain.
This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
Monitor
Printer
Scanner (if using)
Camera
Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you need
to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of media
you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to perform
12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
Ł7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around Ł500.
This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth calibration
plates, costing around Ł250.
No one said it was going to be cheap.
--
In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
Hecate
wrote:
Yes, it's called Colour Management and to do it you need to know how
to colour manage the system from computer to printer. A good starting
place would a book such as PS Artistry to give you the basics of
colour management followed by the purchase of something like the
Gretag MacBeth Eye One to calibrate your monitor. Unfortunately, you
won't have nearly as much control as you would with Photoshop, but it
should get you there.
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hec...@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Frederick
> Will in SF wrote:
>
>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
>>be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
>>
>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
>>
>>Thanks.
>
>
> If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor is
> *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the chain.
> This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
>
> Monitor
> Printer
> Scanner (if using)
> Camera
>
> Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you need
> to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of media
> you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to perform
> 12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
>
> How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
> calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth calibration
>
> No one said it was going to be cheap.
>
LOL - for goodness sake...
The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
basic colour balance.
Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
same as a screen image anyway.
Miss Perspicacia Tick
> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>> Will in SF wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
>>> Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
>>> what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
>>> Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but
>>> will be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
>>>
>>> Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the
>> monitor is *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of
>> equipment in the chain. This means you need specialist calibration
>> equipment for your: - Monitor
>> Printer
>> Scanner (if using)
>> Camera
>>
>> Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer,
>> you need to perform a separate calibration for each of the different
>> types of media you might be using (including CDs). In my case that
>> meant I had to perform 12 separate calibrations for each of my three
>> printers. How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it
>> professionally up
>> around Ł500. This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer
>> and scanner. For calibrating your camera, you will need a set of
>>
>> No one said it was going to be cheap.
>>
>
>
> LOL - for goodness sake...
> The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
> ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
> by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
> Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a
> rat's poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of
> film they processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it
> right. There is plenty of free software available to help you to set
> grey-scale and basic colour balance.
> Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
> representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
> Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
> spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
> same as a screen image anyway.
You're an idiot, aren't you? I have the following set up: -
Lacie 321 21.3" LCD monitor
Pixma 8500
R800
i9950
Perfection 4990
EOS 350D
I purchased the calibration suite I have recommended above and used it to
calibrate all my equipment (with the exception of the monitor which was
supplied with its own calibrator) and the prints match the screen *EXACTLY*
Those downloads rely on the human eye which is *NOT* an accurate judge of
colour.
And why are you telling me that the suggestions "are not necessary and out
of touch with your probable needs" they aren't out of touch with my needs at
all or I wouldn't have purchased them. Tell the OP (not that you know what
his needs are, either...)
Yes, you can use something like Adobe Gamma to approximately calibrate your
monitor. But, as I stated, a calibrated monitor is useless if the other
equipment isn't calibrated either.
Frederick
> Frederick wrote:
>
>>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>>
>>>Will in SF wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
>>>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
>>>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
>>>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but
>>>>will be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
>>>>
>>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the
>>>monitor is *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of
>>>equipment in the chain. This means you need specialist calibration
>>>equipment for your: - Monitor
>>>Printer
>>>Scanner (if using)
>>>Camera
>>>
>>>Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer,
>>>you need to perform a separate calibration for each of the different
>>>types of media you might be using (including CDs). In my case that
>>>meant I had to perform 12 separate calibrations for each of my three
>>>printers. How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it
>>>professionally up
>>>around £500. This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer
>>>and scanner. For calibrating your camera, you will need a set of
>>>
>>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
>>>
>>
>>
>>LOL - for goodness sake...
>>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
>>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
>>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
>>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a
>>rat's poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of
>>film they processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it
>>right. There is plenty of free software available to help you to set
>>grey-scale and basic colour balance.
>>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
>>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
>>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
>>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
>>same as a screen image anyway.
>
>
> You're an idiot, aren't you? I have the following set up: -
Read my post properly, and ask yourself who the idiot is.
> Lacie 321 21.3" LCD monitor
> Pixma 8500
> R800
> i9950
> Perfection 4990
> EOS 350D
>
> I purchased the calibration suite I have recommended above and used it to
> calibrate all my equipment (with the exception of the monitor which was
> supplied with its own calibrator) and the prints match the screen *EXACTLY*
>
> Those downloads rely on the human eye which is *NOT* an accurate judge of
> colour.
>
> And why are you telling me that the suggestions "are not necessary and out
> of touch with your probable needs" they aren't out of touch with my needs at
> all or I wouldn't have purchased them. Tell the OP (not that you know what
> his needs are, either...)
>
> Yes, you can use something like Adobe Gamma to approximately calibrate your
> monitor. But, as I stated, a calibrated monitor is useless if the other
> equipment isn't calibrated either.
>
>
The OP is using a laptop, a sony cybershot, and plans to buy a IP300 or
Epson 300 printer.
I'm not telling you what to do at all. If you need something as
critical as you have put the time and money towards, then good on you.
Using something like Adobe Gamma should be adequate for the OP, and is
adequate for most people. If you plan to do commercial product shots,
art reproduction etc, and use a wide range of papers, then it will
probably not be enough. If you are just very fussy, you might want to
do it too.
For the purpose of printing your own photos - and expecting reasonably
accurate control of colour - to the extent that your results will be
better than most normal people achieved from a photo lab - is quite
achievable.
Shooter
"Frederick" <nomail...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1117533665.575000@ftpsrv1...
Ł500.
> > This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
> > calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
calibration
> >
> > No one said it was going to be cheap.
> >
>
>
> LOL - for goodness sake...
> The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
> ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
> by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
> Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
> poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
> processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
> is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
> basic colour balance.
> Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
> representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
> Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
> spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
> same as a screen image anyway.
>
I have to agree totally with your remarks, most of these have never been a
film proceeding lab in their lives, add to this they most likely have never
had to correct prints done in such a lab for colour cast, or tried to get a
good print first time from a negative using a colour analyzer.
How easy it is to read about the equipment available for correcting monitors
and printers and then becoming internet experts on the subject. They then
become Legends in their lunch hour.
Burt
panel. Check it out in PE3. Simple to use and, although not the thousand
dollar solution, is reasonably accurate. I see the IP4000 on sale with
rebates in the SF (I assume that SF stands for San Francisco and not Santa
Fe?) area fairly frequently. I don't know about the Epson 300. Very
different animals. Although I use and enjoy a Canon i960 (six color dye
based printer) I would suggest that you study the pros and cons to make your
decision about Canon or Epson. You can Google either printer and follow the
links to the several web services that do price comparisons if you want to
buy online. The Sunday Chronicle has sales fliers every week from Office
Depot, Office Max, etc. and you may see one or the other of these printers
on sale there.
Check out Neil Slade's site at
http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html for info on Canon printers
(his favorites), inks, and paper. Good info before buying. Each mfgr and
each model has pros and cons.
"Will in SF" <will...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1117439241.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Shooter
"Miss Perspicacia Tick" <te...@test.com> wrote in message
news:1J_me.2949$C72....@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
> Frederick wrote:
> > Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
> >> Will in SF wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
> >>> Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
> >>> what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
> >>> Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but
> >>> will be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
> >>>
> >>> Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>
> >>
> >> If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the
> >> monitor is *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of
> >> equipment in the chain. This means you need specialist calibration
> >> equipment for your: - Monitor
> >> Printer
> >> Scanner (if using)
> >> Camera
> >>
> >> Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer,
> >> you need to perform a separate calibration for each of the different
> >> types of media you might be using (including CDs). In my case that
> >> meant I had to perform 12 separate calibrations for each of my three
> >> printers. How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it
> >> professionally up
> >> around £500. This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer
> >> and scanner. For calibrating your camera, you will need a set of
You are talking out of a book or your arse. I will not waste my time pulling
all of your words apart but will take you up on one single point. You talk
about those downloads and the human eye not being able to see the correct
colour. OK lets take an example, you have all your expensive gear set up
for your printer to give you a colour perfect print, the print runs off and
you view it under different lighting conditions, your perfect print is going
to have a cast.
Now if you view your print in the same light as processed it will look
correct and to keep that correct you will always have to view in the same
light. It's called Colour Temperature and Colour Temperature differs at
different times of day and with different types of lighting. So, if digital
photographic gear is set to auto, and that is the camera, the monitor and
printer the chances are you will get good prints most of the time and save a
fortune to spend on inks and paper and memory cards and enjoy digital
photography all the more. I could send you prints printed on an Epson 2100
with Epson photo paper and dye ink that would knock you out.
Frederick
>
> £500.
>
>>>This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
>>>calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
>
> calibration
>
>>>
>>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
>>>
>>
>>
>>LOL - for goodness sake...
>>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
>>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
>>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
>>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
>>poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
>>processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
>>is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
>>basic colour balance.
>>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
>>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
>>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
>>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
>>same as a screen image anyway.
>>
>
>
> I have to agree totally with your remarks, most of these have never been a
> film proceeding lab in their lives, add to this they most likely have never
> had to correct prints done in such a lab for colour cast, or tried to get a
> good print first time from a negative using a colour analyzer.
>
> How easy it is to read about the equipment available for correcting monitors
> and printers and then becoming internet experts on the subject. They then
> become Legends in their lunch hour.
>
>
I use DSLR equipment with good quality lenses, and now print using an
Epson R1800 on a range of papers. I use an average quality crt monitor,
calibrated by eye/software. I have had years of experience in the
printing industry where the search for accurate colour reproduction is
so critical that it is absurd. Perhaps I have become a cynic. The fact
that the most anally critical clients were cigarette companies has added
to my cynicism.
I do not do fine art reproduction, nor product shoots. I consistently
produce photo prints that are incomparably better than anything a lab
has ever done for me.
measekite
Burt wrote:
>Will - PE2 came with Adobe Gamma which installed itself in the control
>panel. Check it out in PE3. Simple to use and, although not the thousand
>dollar solution, is reasonably accurate. I see the IP4000 on sale with
>rebates in the SF (I assume that SF stands for San Francisco and not Santa
>Fe?) area fairly frequently. I don't know about the Epson 300. Very
>different animals. Although I use and enjoy a Canon i960 (six color dye
>based printer) I would suggest that you study the pros and cons to make your
>decision about Canon or Epson. You can Google either printer and follow the
>links to the several web services that do price comparisons if you want to
>buy online. The Sunday Chronicle has sales fliers every week from Office
>Depot, Office Max, etc. and you may see one or the other of these printers
>on sale there. These are great places to buy inks.
Roy
news:1117439241.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hi there.
Some slightly overheated discussion going on here again. At least it shows
that people are committed to doing things right and getting others to do
likewise.
However you all seem to have missed one little but very important detail, it
is a Sony VAIO. I have used one of these and from what I could see there
was no way of adjusting any of the display settings.
Adobe Gamma could do nothing on the one I was using. ( I am aware that it is
not recommended for Flat Panels)
Perhaps an Eye One might be able to write a proper Monitor Profile, but I
would doubt if that would be of much help.
Changing from 9500 K to 6500 K using a Profile in Color Managed software,
like Photoshop, is going to make the display more than a little dull.
Roy G
Burt
the subject photographed, or do you want a print that is very close in color
match and pleasing to your eye. In this regard, some people like more color
intensity and some less. Some like slightly warmer skin tones and some
less. This takes me back to the days of Kodachrome 10 ASA slide film -
very pleasing slides but very saturated colors. Then we had the big jump in
ASA to Ektachrome ASA 25! Colder color response - stronger toward the blue
spectrum. Each film brought its own slightly different color values.
Nonetheless, all produced pleasing results. Finally we had pro packs of
color print film in 120 and 35 mm formats so we were able to shoot a
standard color card with a controlled light source as an index of the
specific batch of film and the print lab was then able to compensate for any
differences in the emulsion batch or storage variance (these films had to be
"aged" for a short while on the shelf and kept at correct storage
temperatures) to give the most accurate color prints. I photographed
several artists' works for their portfolios and the prints had to be as
close to the original as possible. This was all custom lab work.
Fast forward to current digital cameras, different brands and types of
monitors, different brands and models of printers, and a tremendous variety
of photo and fine arts papers, each with its own required profile for the
combination of ink and paper used. If I were to do the same portfolios
today I would need to use sophisticated calibration techniques on all the
equipment, but if the work of art that had been photographed was near at
hand I could also compare the print to the original and immediately product
a tweaked print. In the real world, if we are just trying to produce a
highly pleasing picture that is reasonably accurate, color-wise, we do quite
well flying by the seat of our pantswith minimal calibration..
"Frederick" <nomail...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1117581573.811611@ftpsrv1...
Burt
"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KE6ne.900$wy1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> Burt wrote:
>
>>Will - PE2 came with Adobe Gamma which installed itself in the control
>>panel. Check it out in PE3. Simple to use and, although not the thousand
>>dollar solution, is reasonably accurate. I see the IP4000 on sale with
>>rebates in the SF (I assume that SF stands for San Francisco and not Santa
>>Fe?) area fairly frequently. I don't know about the Epson 300. Very
>>different animals. Although I use and enjoy a Canon i960 (six color dye
>>based printer) I would suggest that you study the pros and cons to make
>>your decision about Canon or Epson. You can Google either printer and
>>follow the links to the several web services that do price comparisons if
>>you want to buy online. The Sunday Chronicle has sales fliers every week
>>from Office Depot, Office Max, etc. and you may see one or the other of
>>these printers on sale there.
Again, Measekite changed my post to include his bias as follows - These are
great places to buy inks. - not my words. I can't believe that he would
waste his time just trying to be annoying to someone he doesn't even know.
He has a serious character flaw that has come out very clearly with his
postings to this NG.
I didn't mention inks as the OP didn't ask about them. Yes, Measekite,
they are good places to buy OEM inks, but generally terrible places to buy
non-OEM inks. If you want me to write a few long paragraphs that tell the
truth about aftermarket inks, and more important, the truth about the lack
of veracity of your posts to this NG I will be glad to comply. Again you
produce the exact opposite of what you are trying to do. By bringing up the
ink issue you expose more and more people to that fact that aftermarket inks
exist and that several of them and the vendors who sell them are excellent.
The ones I have used produce prints every bit as beautiful as OEM inks at a
fraction of the cost. Without your stupid response I wouldn't have even
brought up the subject. MIS and Alotofthings thank you.
measekite
Burt wrote:
>"measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:KE6ne.900$wy1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>>Burt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Will - PE2 came with Adobe Gamma which installed itself in the control
>>>panel. Check it out in PE3. Simple to use and, although not the thousand
>>>dollar solution, is reasonably accurate. I see the IP4000 on sale with
>>>rebates in the SF (I assume that SF stands for San Francisco and not Santa
>>>Fe?) area fairly frequently. I don't know about the Epson 300. Very
>>>different animals. Although I use and enjoy a Canon i960 (six color dye
>>>based printer) I would suggest that you study the pros and cons to make
>>>your decision about Canon or Epson. You can Google either printer and
>>>follow the links to the several web services that do price comparisons if
>>>you want to buy online. The Sunday Chronicle has sales fliers every week
>>>
>>>
>>>from Office Depot, Office Max, etc. and you may see one or the other of
>>
>>
>>>these printers on sale there. Great place to buy ink too.
>>>
>>>
>
>Again, Measekite changed my post to include his bias as follows - These are
>great places to buy inks. - not my words. I can't believe that he would
>waste his time just trying to be annoying to someone he doesn't even know.
>He has a serious character flaw that has come out very clearly with his
>postings to this NG.
>
> I didn't mention inks as the OP didn't ask about them. Yes, Measekite,
>they are good places to buy OEM inks, but generally terrible places to buy terrible
>non-OEM inks. If you want me to write a few long paragraphs that tell the
>truth about aftermarket inks, and more important, the truth about the lack
>of veracity of your posts to this NG I will be glad to comply. Again you
>produce the exact opposite of what you are trying to do. By bringing up the
>ink issue you expose more and more people to that fact that aftermarket inks
>exist and that very few of them and the vendors who sell them are excellent.
>The ones I have used produce prints every bit as beautiful as OEM inks at a
>fraction of the cost. Without your stupid response I wouldn't have even
>brought up the subject. MIS and alotofcrap thank you.
Burt
Burt wrote
>>>Again, Measekite changed my post to include his bias as follows - These
>>>are
>>great places to buy inks. - not my words. I can't believe that he would
>>waste his time just trying to be annoying to someone he doesn't even know.
>>He has a serious character flaw that has come out very clearly with his
>>postings to this NG.
>>
>> I didn't mention inks as the OP didn't ask about them. Yes, Measekite,
>> they are good places to buy OEM inks, but generally terrible places to
>> buy [terrible]
>>non-OEM inks. If you want me to write a few long paragraphs that tell the
>>truth about aftermarket inks, and more important, the truth about the lack
>>of veracity of your posts to this NG I will be glad to comply. Again you
>>produce the exact opposite of what you are trying to do. By bringing up
>>the ink issue you expose more and more people to that fact that
>>aftermarket inks exist and that [very few] of them and the vendors who
>>sell them are excellent. The ones I have used produce prints every bit as
>>beautiful as OEM inks at a fraction of the cost. Without your stupid
>>response I wouldn't have even brought up the subject. MIS and
>>[alotofcrap] thank you. <------
Brackeded words were added or substituted by Measekite to change what I had
written. As dishonest an approach as anyone can have on this NG. He
insists on slandering alotofthings by calling them alotofcrap, a vendor that
many others have found honest and reliable. He's never done business with
them or used their products but he continues to call them names. Probably
the best advertising they could have as everyone on the NG knows that
Measekite's information on these vendors and their products is bogus.
And --- right on cue, he will pull the same garbage again in responding to
this post. The poor fool always feels that he has to have the last word.
As if that makes his point more believable. Measekite - the more you
continue on this path the less people believe you!
>>
(snip)
Frank
> "measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0f7ne.908$wy1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Burt wrote
>
>>>>Again, Measekite changed my post to include his bias as follows - These
What a stupid fucking asshole this moron is. Does he actually think he's
intelligent enough to blow his bullshit by anyone except another brain
dead idiot like himself.
I've got a door knob smarter than him.
Go sleep with your printer jerkoff.
Frank
measekite
Burt wrote:
>insists on slandering alotocrap by calling them alotofcrap, a vendor that
>many others have found honest and reliable. He's never done business with
>them or used their products but he continues to call them names. Probably
>the best advertising they could have as everyone on the NG knows that
>Measekite's information on these vendors and their products is bogus.
> And --- right on cue, he will pull the same garbage again in responding to
>this post. The poor fool always feels that he has to have the last word.
>As if that makes his point more believable. Measekite - the more you
>continue on this path the less people believe you!
>
>
>(snip)
>
>
You are a pious piece of shit you old retired fart.
>
>
>
>
measekite
Frank wrote:
> Burt wrote:
>
>> "measekite" <meas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:0f7ne.908$wy1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> Burt wrote
>>
>>>>> Again, Measekite changed my post to include his bias as follows -
>>>>> These
>>>>
>
> What a stupid fucking asshole Burt is. Does he actually think he's
> intelligent enough to blow his bullshit by anyone except another brain
> dead idiot like myself
> I've got a door knob smarter than him. and I intend to stick it up my ass.
> Go sleep with your printer I am going to jerkoff.
> Frankie
Burt
(Snip)>
> You are a pious piece of shit you old retired fart.
>
than that! You've elevated me from Reverend to Pope. Have a little
respect, insect.
Shooter
Bronzing that is present with the 2100 or is it still there but reduced, I
was considering the printer to use with dye ink to get the better resolution
but if there is no sign of bronzing I may stay with the pigmented.
"Frederick" <nomail...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:1117581573.811611@ftpsrv1...
Frederick
> Federick, I see you are using the R1800, is it true Epson have got rid of
> Bronzing that is present with the 2100 or is it still there but reduced, I
> was considering the printer to use with dye ink to get the better resolution
> but if there is no sign of bronzing I may stay with the pigmented.
>
gloss optimiser. I haven't tried it without (I haven't looked - but I'm
sure that there's an option to turn it off). I have only run a few test
prints off on full glossy paper, and they look fine - with the comment
that although the gloss level across the print is even, it is slightly
reduced on the printed area compared with an unprinted border. I don't
see this with semi-gloss unless I look so closely that it is irrelevant.
If that was a concern, then I think you can set the printer to apply the
GO over the border as well as the printed area. My preference so far is
either the Epson premium semi-gloss, or Lyson darkroom pearl, which both
look absolutely stunning. But I haven't tried a huge range of media
yet. Archival Matte prints are also stunning.
I think that the new "K3" pigment inks on the upcoming R2400 may offer
no bronzing without gloss optimiser. It will be quite a bit more
expensive than the R1800, and will produce better B&W - with three black
cartridges. Unfortunately, there are two "deep black" cartridges, one
for gloss and one for matte, which will require a cartridge change and
no doubt an ink flush when changing papers.
measekite
measekite
Frederick wrote:
That is a big pain in the ass. Similar to the same pain in the ass on
some HP printers.
Arthur Entlich
> You're an idiot, aren't you?
>
You really can't help yourself, can you? Is it a medical condition,
like Tourette's syndrome? Or do you honestly believe being abusive to
everyone you respond to makes your information more likely to be read
and observed?
Maybe you already have too many friends and want to make sure to
alienate any potential new ones. Or maybe it's something you learned in
childhood from parents that were constantly berating you.
Perhaps it's some kind of "class" thing, although I'm not sure if you
are trying to be elitist to show yourself upper class, or just plain
foul-mouthed and ill tempered.
You're not an idiot, but you certainly come off as a lout, and pretty
much everything you type after your first introductory couple of words I
expect for most just is ignored because the packaging is so unattractive.
Art
Frederick
For the home user it certainly is. A professional user might have
several printers dedicated to particular uses and have a controlled
workflow, so this may not be such an issue. Unless you want to do B&W
seriously, it appears that an R1800 may be a better value choice for
home users / serious amateur photographers.
Arthur Entlich
Depending on the process we were using, and the printers involved,
different tact was taken.
I've worked everything from customized prints produced from an enlarger
with a color pack or dichroic filter set, to a fully computerized
commercial printers. They all require color management, both in terms
of chemically and light.
The color paper itself is all rated differently from the factory, with
filter factors. Then each lamp, as a light source, has to be calibrated
for color and as it ages, that needs to be altered. We did this twice a
day. Each film base requires differing starting filter packs, or
channels, and finally, depending on the lighting used, or color failure
that may occur, or how old the film was and how it was stored,
alterations of the adjustments had to be made in the exposure and color
pack per roll and per image. Although many images fell into reasonable
averages, each and every negative was viewed and evaluated prior to
printing. Beyond that, yet another inconsistency was the chemistry,
Although tests were done several times a day, replenishment rates and
temperature fluctuations altered how prints responded to the chemistry,
and the film processing itself was also altered by those factors, which
then altered the printing characteristics. Even with all that, we still
had "redos" because the human print evaluator can only guess at skin
tones, and other aspects of exposure and color and until the client sees
the result, one can't be sure it's to their liking.
Good color management can be both costly and time consuming, and
although one can get much closer in a digital "darkroom" because you get
to see the results immediately without you or the print needing to be in
pitch darkness during the print making process, getting the work flow to
run smoothly may involve some expense and time.
If close enough is good enough, and you don't mind wasting ink and
paper, you can do OK without major color management products. For a
time efficient workflow as required in a commercial setting, color
management products have their place.
Art
Shooter wrote:
>>>£7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around
>
> £500.
>
>>>This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
>>>calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
>
> calibration
>
>>>plates, costing around £250.
Arthur Entlich
red herring. That's true of every image viewed in light. Your slide
projectors aren't color corrected for color temperature either.
Now, metamerism is one matter, and that's a big problem, but color
temperature of lighting is quite another. Our eyes (and our brain)
adapt to changes of color temperature all the time. That's why after a
short period of time, a sunset looks more muted than it did when you
first look at it. It's why your "red" light B&W darkroom doesn't look
red after several minutes, but when you leave everything looks green
outside. The cones of our eyes produce chemicals to adjust for color
temperature. Unless the lighting source is literally lacking a whole
part of the spectrum, the print will look "close" to the same in
differing lighting.
Certainly, there is value in printing to a known light source, if that
is the case, and it also makes sense to evaluate the output under as
close to natural daylight (about 5500 degree K, with a high CRI) but
let's not excuse poor color management due to the fact that we never
know what light source an image will be viewed.
Now, having said all this, I don't use color management in my closed
loop printing situation. I have a very trained eye for color. I've been
at it for all my life as a photographer, photo lab tech manager and
artist, and I've learned a lot of the quirks of the drivers, inks and
papers, but that's in a closed loop. I know damn well if I bring my
work to another printer I'll likely have trouble, unless they have a
calibrated system and a sense of what I'm after.
I will agree that working with a LCD screen one likely has so much
variation of color and or exposure just by moving one's head around that
all the calibration in the world won't fix it.
So, for closed loop systems were people are happen with "pretty close"
and don't mind having an occasional reprint, or an occasional print that
just can't be gotten "right" using just Adobe Gamma and playing with the
driver settings may be enough for 95% of the prints most people do,
without the cost of a calibration puck. If, however, you are sharing
files between one another and those need to be printed in differing
locations and have to match, then, a color calibration system is in order.
Art
Arthur Entlich
skill. You recognize when an image is too blue, and that its not too
magenta, while most people can't tell which it is.
The c.m. tools help people who don't have the ability to easily adjust
the image correctly. For them, the cost of having the computer tell
them how to get the best print might be worth the expense. I'm not
saying it is, but it might be. The time and material waste may justify
several hundreds of dollars worth of color management hardware and software.
It is sometimes hard to see how the rest of the world sees ;-)
Art
Hecate
<nomail...@nomail.com> wrote:
>I think that the new "K3" pigment inks on the upcoming R2400 may offer
>no bronzing without gloss optimiser. It will be quite a bit more
>expensive than the R1800, and will produce better B&W - with three black
>cartridges. Unfortunately, there are two "deep black" cartridges, one
>for gloss and one for matte, which will require a cartridge change and
>no doubt an ink flush when changing papers.
Actually changed somewhat. It only requires an ink flush on the black
cartridge.,
--
Hecate - The Real One
Hec...@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...