Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:

(snip)
> 
> The test was very quick and superficial. My scanner simply loses 
any detail above around 10% or more on EAM, which is 
> what I chose to do the test with for some odd reason, it seems to 
fluoresce like crazy. Photospectrometer handles it ok, not 
> scanners.
> So Profiler had no useful highlight info for any of the inks. Since 
the preview had blown out hightlights, I simply made curves 
> for the rest of each ink's range based on it and did the highlight 
areas some way I though would be ok.I was very suprised 
> how well it turned out, and have been meaning to try another test 
on a better paper. I was really just curious and didn't 
> take it very far. Actually the shadows and mids were pretty good, 
highs were the problem.
> It was the Profiler Pro CMYK quad preview profile I had big shadow 
problems with, and need to find ink setup settings that 
> will be a bit easier on it. But that's another test...
> Someone (Todd?) posted who had Profiler RGB that they couldn't make 
it work, I'm not sure why. Indications were it could, 
> and scanner gamut problems aren't an issue here. Anyone with 
WiziWIG or EZcolor should give it a try too, may choke 
> though.
> Tyler

Tyler,

I have the EZcolor so I might as well give it a try. Maybe someone 
else has info on the Profiler RGB. I don't think I would want to buy 
something unless it is know to work with quad inks. I don't want to 
spend $200 only to find out I still need to get the $2300 solution. 
Might be worth getting the Profiler Pro and giving the scanner a try 
before buying the Spectrocam. Spread out the pain.

BTW, how do you like the Spectrocam? If you had to do it over again 
would you go with this or something else?

Thanks,
Martin