PS Printer Management vs. Epson Printer Management
Empedocles
management,
rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely
matches my
monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using GretagMacbeth's
Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo Glossy paper
and MIS inks.
Too frequently, when I run a test on 4x6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy
paper (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using
my
profile & letting PS manage the printing,
that the print fails miserably to match my monitor's image. (I
recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)
When I try letting Epson
manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I
need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the
Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS
& guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.
I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the
fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So,
you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is
best, use that. 4x6 paper isn't that expensive.
I'm just curious why I can't standardize on one color management
printer system. It's incredible to me that the Epson system, using
non-
Epson inks, can produce more accurate results than the PS system with
my profile. Maybe some of you have run into the same situation & that
what I have to do is all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my
printer, paper, and inks, altho my printer hasn't changed, my paper
hasn't changed, and my inks haven't changed.
Mike Russell
> Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson's color management,
> rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely
> matches my monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using
> GretagMacbeth's Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo
> Glossy paper and MIS inks.
This is the cris de cour of almost anyone who is very discerning about how
well their printer matches their monitor. Millions of dollars have been
spent on it, with no sure fire solution in sight.
A problem that seems simple to understand, isn't simple at all. It's a
problem that unravels as you chase it.
> Too frequently, when I run a test on 4x6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper
> (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using my profile
> & letting PS manage the printing, that the print fails miserably to
> match my monitor's image. (I recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)
Well, right there I would question the accuracy of your printer profile.
There are a number of things you can do to assess the accuracy of your
profile - one is to convert a grayscale gradient, and check the individual
channels for blending. I provide an action that does this, then plots the
components as a graph. See if your profile looks like the Frankenprofile
example.
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/profileplotter/index.htm
> When I try letting Epson
> manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I
> need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the
> Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS
> & guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.
Perhaps by Epson color management, you mean either the PhotoEnhance4 mode,
or the mode with explicit color sliders. I've used both of these to good
effect, and have to agree with you that it works.
> I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the
> fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So,
> you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is
> best, use that. 4x6 paper isn't that expensive.
The choice probably depends on the subject matter of the image.
> I'm just curious why I can't standardize on one color management
> printer system.
This is key, I believe, to understanding what the basic flaw in
over-reliance on color management and calibration is. That is the belief,
that perfect calibration will produce excellent images - it will not.
Calibration can produce OK images, but it will not produce great ones. It
takes a person to squeeze the last 10, 20, or 30 percent out of an image.
No profile alone can do that, even as well as a moderately skilled person.
> It's incredible to me that the Epson system, using non- Epson inks, can
> produce more accurate results than the PS system with my profile. Maybe
> some of you have run into the same situation & that what I have to do is
> all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my printer, paper, and inks,
> altho my printer hasn't changed, my paper hasn't changed, and my inks
> haven't changed.
The fact that the inks match Epson's reasonably well is a testimony to the
folks who made the inks. Epson, as well, has a great economic interest in
providing a good out of box experience for people who purchase their
equipment. Both of these companies have spectrophotometers and other color
measurement instruments that cost as much as your house - or at least your
car. The fact that they can accomplish this is a testimony to their
collective calibration abilities.
Can you accomplish the same thing with a minimum of training, and a device
that clocks in at just over $1000? I don't think so. Can you recognize a
good image, and adjust it to look better? Absolutely, and this is the key
to why Epson's manual controls give you such an advantage over reliance on
a profile.
Color editing, over and above calibration, is the key to get the most out
of your images. Whether you spend a few seconds, or hours on an image, you
can improve your color, provided you trust your own eyes, color judgment,
and make effective use of the all important numbers in Photoshop's
info-palette.
OK, that was a bit long, but as of two minutes ago, it's my birthday, LOL.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
ronv...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com
I'm glad I never print.
Happy birthday:-)
Fred
always use the Epson workflow.
Glad I'm not alone :-)
Happy Birthday!
Denis Fitzgibbon
Even though the inks and papers are made to a tolerance there are bound to
be variations beteween batches.
The printer caibration will also change over time wear and tear etc.
We check the calibration each working day and on average recalibrate about
every 3 months.
Regards
Denis
hoff...@fho-emden.de
Denis Fitzgibbon schrieb:
I'm using a wide format Mutoh inkjet printer and the RIP Colorgate
ProductionServer5. Calibration partly by ColorGate (Linearization)
and partly by GMB ProfileMaker5 for the ICC profile.
The calibration is rather stable, as tested by FOGRA/UGRA
MediaWedge. There is really no need to re-calibrate the system
each working day or every week.
'Each working day' is IMO nonsense.
Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann
KatWoman
"Empedocles" <dwe...@bresnan.net> wrote in message
news:dc65fe6e-9d23-43bd...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson's color
> management,
> rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely
> matches my
> monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using GretagMacbeth's
> Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo Glossy paper
> and MIS inks.
>
agree 100% I use the Epson color management with the rare mismatch (that can
usually be fixed in curves)
I wasted so much paper and ink on the PS color matching I gave up
KatWoman
"Mike Russell" <grou...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:f84mjb68...@mike.curvemeister.com...
both worth saying twice
Calibration can produce OK images, but it will not produce great ones. It
takes a person to squeeze the last 10, 20, or 30 percent out of an image.
No profile alone can do that, even as well as a moderately skilled person
and happy Birthday to You
and happy Birthday to You
Mike Russell
> and happy Birthday to You
Thanks - it has been!