Best settings for Epson stylus photo 700
Dominic Chan
800, i.e., the most accurate color is with all colour adjustments in the
"off" setting, with photo quality or glossy paper.
I did try out the Photo EX briefly. The only exception to the above
observation is that, when printing on plain paper, some other settings
seemed to produce better colours.
Dominic Chan
Chris S wrote in message <35a80387....@news.slip.net>...
> I've been doing a lot of experimenting with my new Epson
>stylus photo 700 and to my surprize/dismay, the best output seems to
>be achieved by disabling ALL levels of 'color management' or
>adjustment.
Chris S
stylus photo 700 and to my surprize/dismay, the best output seems to
be achieved by disabling ALL levels of 'color management' or
adjustment.
That is, in my image processing software, I turn off all color
management as every setting seems to give problems, and in the epson
driver itself (when you select 'print...' then 'properties...'),
select 'advanced' mode, 'more settings', then select 'color
adjustment', then select 'no color adjustment' mode.
This seems to yield the closest output to the original. I tried the
'ICM' setting, PhotoEnhance2 setting, then color adjustment
'automatic', etc - they all served to make the output bad.
I'm using the 720 or 1440 settings, on high quality paper (Epson's
"High Quality InkJet Paper" and "Photo Quality Glossy Paper").
Anyone else have this experience?
===========
Remove 'nospam' from email to reply - Thanks
Jim 22032
"destination" correct . I am also using color sync with photoshop files. 1440
and I much prefer kodak glossy. (thicker). My monitor also has color temp.
settings as well as brightness and contrast. Using kodak CD scans. Ebson
people are useless! The prints that I get now "blow my freind the printer
away" when I told him the price. Photoshop 5 has Gamma. Try the glossy film
setting. It seems so difficult and I wonder what is really the best way.
PC Weeny
but my results on Kodak's glossy paper were abysmal. Was the first
"premium" paper I tried, and I almost returned the printer because of
it thinking the output was in general bad.
The problem as I see it, the Kodak paper doesn't absorb the ink fast
enough, and adjacent dots tend to pool together into ugly
splotches. This effect was 10x worse on Kodak's 4x6 photo paper, but
was still very noticable on the 8x10 stock. Using the glossy film
print setting helps some, but it's still bad, and alters the color
balance of the print.
Take a look at http://patriot.net/~pcweeny/KODAKvEPSON/
If you really want to see what the printer can do, get some of the
Canon HG-201 High Gloss Photo Film. It's everything it's talked
up to be.
pcw...@patriot.net http://www.patriot.net/users/pcweeny
ICQ # 4550898
Mr 645
Once I got the correct profiles set in Photoshop the prints not only look
great but they match the screen almost perfectly.
Jon
Daniel Pead
<csch...@nospam.slip.net> writes
>This seems to yield the closest output to the original. I tried the
>'ICM' setting, PhotoEnhance2 setting, then color adjustment
>'automatic', etc - they all served to make the output bad.
I keep ICM and PhotoEnhance2 off, and set colour adjustment to "Photo
Realistic" although I don't think that makes much difference. I'm
perfectly happy with the results, bearing in mind the cost of the
hardware.
ICM uses Win95s own colour matching system which, I assume, will only
work properly if Win95 has all the right settings for monitor and
graphics cards. I've never bothered with Photoenhance2 - I've assumed
that its similar to the old "Video/Digital Camera" (a.k.a. "Please
oversaturate my image and chuck away all the shadow detail") button on
earlier printers. I suppose it works well on those "shiny red sports
car" pictures.
--
Daniel Pead
Email: d...@octpen.demon.co.uk WWW: http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/
Olympus C1400L examples on http://www.octpen.demon.co.uk/etcetera/
Daniel Pead
<pcw...@patriot.net> writes
>I know the 700 has better resolution than my original Stylus Photo,
>but my results on Kodak's glossy paper were abysmal. Was the first
>"premium" paper I tried, and I almost returned the printer because of
>it thinking the output was in general bad.
For my money you can't go far wrong with the Epson "Photo Paper" - the
heavier weight version of their glossy paper which appeared a few months
ago at roughly the same price.
There are other papers which work well, if not better (q.v. ad nauseum
in this group) but the Epson paper is reliable. By all means try other
brands, but I'd strongly recommend using the Epson paper as a base for
comparisons.
Unfortunately Epson's determination to make every type of paper "Photo-
something-or-other" has made things confusing. What you want is called
just "Photo Paper" - it has the same finish as the "Photo quality glossy
paper" but is much thicker.
PC Weeny
because the heavy stock didn't say "glossy". Near as I can tell, the
"Photo Paper" and "Photo Quality Glossy Paper" have the same surface.
Odd thing is, I can usually find the heavier stock "Photo Paper" at
the same or cheaper price. Also for 4x6 output don't forget the
4x6 Photo Paper -- same heavy stock with "tear off edges" for
a handy way to get perfect photo-size prints.
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:39:35 +0100, Daniel Pead
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>For my money you can't go far wrong with the Epson "Photo Paper" - the
>heavier weight version of their glossy paper which appeared a few months
>ago at roughly the same price.
>
>There are other papers which work well, if not better (q.v. ad nauseum
>in this group) but the Epson paper is reliable. By all means try other
>brands, but I'd strongly recommend using the Epson paper as a base for
>comparisons.
>
>Unfortunately Epson's determination to make every type of paper "Photo-
>something-or-other" has made things confusing. What you want is called
>just "Photo Paper" - it has the same finish as the "Photo quality glossy
>paper" but is much thicker.
pcw...@patriot.net http://www.patriot.net/users/pcweeny
ICQ # 4550898
PC Weeny
and a bunch of paper trying all kinds of setting combinations and came
to the same conclusion. Best output of the "click and forget"
settings was "Photo Realistic". Plus, the manual slider controls
are still active for any fine tuning and/or tweaking.
On Sun, 12 Jul 1998 19:24:55 +0100, Daniel Pead
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I keep ICM and PhotoEnhance2 off, and set colour adjustment to "Photo
>Realistic" although I don't think that makes much difference. I'm
>perfectly happy with the results, bearing in mind the cost of the
>hardware.
pcw...@patriot.net http://www.patriot.net/users/pcweeny
ICQ # 4550898
Steve Morton
Realistic settings for a while. Then I put the effort into getting the
Monitor setup in Photoshop correct, and now find the ICM setting gives me
prints that are as near identical as the picture on the screen as I need -
but accurate colour matching still isn't easy. I still have troubles with
deep blues and purples, but overall, I'm fairly happy now.
I have a relatively cheap monitor, which did not have an ICM profile
provided, so I have been unable to set up Win95 itself, or other
applications. I've ordered the colour matching software from Colorific,
which claims to be able to generate the necessary profiles - we shall see!
Cheers
Steve Morton
st...@the.mortons.clara.net
steve....@unicam.co.uk
Daniel Pead <d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<zpRxKjA3...@octpen.demon.co.uk>...
> In article <35a80387....@news.slip.net>, Chris S
> <csch...@nospam.slip.net> writes
> >This seems to yield the closest output to the original. I tried the
> >'ICM' setting, PhotoEnhance2 setting, then color adjustment
> >'automatic', etc - they all served to make the output bad.
>
> I keep ICM and PhotoEnhance2 off, and set colour adjustment to "Photo
> Realistic" although I don't think that makes much difference. I'm
> perfectly happy with the results, bearing in mind the cost of the
> hardware.
>
> ICM uses Win95s own colour matching system which, I assume, will only
> work properly if Win95 has all the right settings for monitor and
> graphics cards. I've never bothered with Photoenhance2 - I've assumed
> that its similar to the old "Video/Digital Camera" (a.k.a. "Please
> oversaturate my image and chuck away all the shadow detail") button on
> earlier printers. I suppose it works well on those "shiny red sports
> car" pictures.
>
Chris S
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <35a80387....@news.slip.net>, Chris S
><csch...@nospam.slip.net> writes
>>This seems to yield the closest output to the original. I tried the
>>'ICM' setting, PhotoEnhance2 setting, then color adjustment
>>'automatic', etc - they all served to make the output bad.
>
>I keep ICM and PhotoEnhance2 off, and set colour adjustment to "Photo
>Realistic" although I don't think that makes much difference. I'm
>perfectly happy with the results, bearing in mind the cost of the
>hardware.
>
>ICM uses Win95s own colour matching system which, I assume, will only
>work properly if Win95 has all the right settings for monitor and
>graphics cards. I've never bothered with Photoenhance2 - I've assumed
>that its similar to the old "Video/Digital Camera" (a.k.a. "Please
>oversaturate my image and chuck away all the shadow detail") button on
>earlier printers. I suppose it works well on those "shiny red sports
>car" pictures.
Well, I tested some more and further confused myself (I'm on my second
ink cartridge now ...). The initial tests were done using two
photographs; a panoramic outdoor shot with lots of green, and a group
photo with lots of skin tones. ICM, PhotoEnhance2 and color
adjustment:automatic all lightened the grass unnaturally, and made the
skin tones to 'pink'. Fully disabling all 'features' ("color
adjustment - no color adjustment") gave great skin tones and green
grass rendition.
But then I scanned a fairly simple brown colored item, and the above
settings caused the brown to come out almost black. Setting "Color
Adjustment: Automatic" really improved this. ICM made it worse.
So I guess there is no easy answer. I did not give much thought to
"Color Adjustment: Photo Realistic" - I'll give that a try. I do
agree with Daniel's comment that many of the settings behave as
"Please oversaturate my image and chuck away all the shadow detail".
I must say, though, that the quality of the output is great. I was
taking files down to Kinko's and printing there on their supposedly
super quality equipment, and the results were no better - color
balance was a real problem.
I guess I'll have to finish off this cartridge with more experiments!
Thanks. Chris
Remove 'nospam' from email address if replying by email.
Gary Pond
<d...@octpen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <35a80387....@news.slip.net>, Chris S
><csch...@nospam.slip.net> writes
>>This seems to yield the closest output to the original. I tried the
>>'ICM' setting, PhotoEnhance2 setting, then color adjustment
>>'automatic', etc - they all served to make the output bad.
>
>I keep ICM and PhotoEnhance2 off, and set colour adjustment to "Photo
>Realistic" although I don't think that makes much difference. I'm
>perfectly happy with the results, bearing in mind the cost of the
>hardware.
>
>ICM uses Win95s own colour matching system which, I assume, will only
>work properly if Win95 has all the right settings for monitor and
>graphics cards. I've never bothered with Photoenhance2 - I've assumed
>that its similar to the old "Video/Digital Camera" (a.k.a. "Please
>oversaturate my image and chuck away all the shadow detail") button on
>earlier printers. I suppose it works well on those "shiny red sports
>car" pictures.
Having no excperience in the matter, I've continuously experimented my
way through 3 color cartridges and now think I finally have a handle
on the situation.
Yes, I agree Photo Realism is probably the best bet although I saw
very little difference between Photo Realism and the Automatic
setting. Both settings appear to be the most accurate and consistant
settings. The problems is, at least on the Epson Photo paper which is
basically all that I've used, is when printed the image a bit too
light. So I just darken the picture between 6 and 10 percent before
printing and it then the printed image is very close to the screen
version.
PhotoEnhance 2 is very inconsistant. In some pictures there was very
little difference between that and the photo realism mode and in
other's as stated above, image was over saturated and shawdow detail
was compromised. ICM at least in my case, was even worse.
BTW, if anybody knows of a good mail order place to buy the Epson 4x6
photo paper(S41134), please let me know. Neither BuyComp nor
CMPexpress carries it and NECX is no cheaper than my local CompUSA.
BuyComp has excellent prices on other Epson specialty papers as well
as the ink cartridges. The five color stylus cartridge is only $10.99
through there.
Bob Wheeler
> <snip>
>
> Yes, I agree Photo Realism is probably the best bet although I saw
> very little difference between Photo Realism and the Automatic
> setting. Both settings appear to be the most accurate and consistant
> settings. The problems is, at least on the Epson Photo paper which is
> basically all that I've used, is when printed the image a bit too
> light. So I just darken the picture between 6 and 10 percent before
> printing and it then the printed image is very close to the screen
> version.
>
> PhotoEnhance 2 is very inconsistant. In some pictures there was very
> little difference between that and the photo realism mode and in
> other's as stated above, image was over saturated and shawdow detail
> was compromised. ICM at least in my case, was even worse.
>
Many problems with the Epsons can be ameliorated by setting the dot gain.
Calibrate your monitor, pick some settings in the printer dialog, make a
print, and then adjust dot gain (you may have to use curves) until the
monitor matches the print. Only after this should you attempt to change the
color or contrast settings.
Don't ask Epson for help on technical issues. They are not set up to
provide it. Twenty years ago, they had no technical support. When voice
mail came in, they provided it, and gave you a full scale voice menu which
always lead to the same message -- "see your sales person". The same thing
happens today with e-mail -- "see your sales person." In fairness, I must
note that a telephone call to them about a problem discussed in their
manuals results in prompt and courteous help.
--
Bob Wheeler --- (Reply to: bwhe...@echip.com)
ECHIP, Inc.
mauv...@my-dejanews.com
csch...@nospam.slip.net (Chris S) wrote:
> I've been doing a lot of experimenting with my new Epson
> stylus photo 700 and to my surprize/dismay, the best output seems to
> be achieved by disabling ALL levels of 'color management' or
> adjustment.
>
> That is, in my image processing software, I turn off all color
> management as every setting seems to give problems, and in the epson
> driver itself (when you select 'print...' then 'properties...'),
> select 'advanced' mode, 'more settings', then select 'color
> adjustment', then select 'no color adjustment' mode.
>
> 'ICM' setting, PhotoEnhance2 setting, then color adjustment
> 'automatic', etc - they all served to make the output bad.
>
> "High Quality InkJet Paper" and "Photo Quality Glossy Paper").
>
> Anyone else have this experience?
> ===========
> Remove 'nospam' from email to reply - Thanks
Hi, I am a photographer and have a epson photo stylus. I find that certain
settings work best with certain subject matter or choice of paper. On inkjet
paper the photo enhance setting seems to work the best....with people shots
in general...although the image must look good to begin with. Otherwise if
that doesn't work...try the automatic setting with +15 contrast and +15
saturation. That setting works the best with my studio animal shots. The
color prints out more true too. Photo enhance will also intensify the colors
on the screen. Just keep plugging away and document your print. You will
find what works best.
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
sorlando
although I don't know if that is doing anything, since I don't think that I have
an ICM profile loaded. Does anybody know anything about ICM?
Marija
and see what you get out. If it is totaly out of whack, then you dont have
the ICM installed. It even depends on the program you are using, photoshop
or coreldraw (for illustrations etc), but I manage to get quite good results
with the ICC files included with the Epson driver.
Marija
sorlando wrote in message <35C3D8BB...@pb.net>...
Darck
and switch the MODE to NO COLOR ADJUSTMENT) in the Epson driver and copied
the ICM file for the Epson (in the WINDOWS / SYSTEM folder) to the
appropriate folder for use with Corel Photo Paint 8 (COREL / GRAPHICS8 /
COLOR). I also set up the ICM (using the Corel Color Profile Wizard 8) for
my monitor until what I saw on the screen was what I got on the Epson.
Since then it has always printed the colors almost perfectly!
Darck
E-Mail: Da...@inet2000.com
WWW: http://www.inet2000.com/PUBLIC/DARCK/default.htm
*************************************************************************
Marija wrote in message ...
sorlando
Windows\System directory that you copy?
John McCreesh
>stylus photo 700 and to my surprize/dismay, the best output seems to
>be achieved by disabling ALL levels of 'color management' or
>adjustment.
[snip]
I've just tried printing a series of typical hobby photos (flash /
natural light, portraits / scenery...), and the best results were
obtained with Mode Automatic; Media Type Photo Paper; Ink Colour. Any
manual overrides etc made things worse.
Nice one Epson - on the KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) principle they've
got it right.
John
--
John McCreesh
mail:john.m...@bcs.org.uk
http://www.pines.demon.co.uk/