Digital BW, The Print

On Saturday, January 18, 2003, at 12:08  PM, Andrew Rodney wrote:

> As for making custom profiles, I'm finding that working well ... But 
> what's
> shocking to me is that while my custom profile (ProfileMaker Pro, 9.88
> target) are really good, the canned profile (in this case on Luster 
> paper as
> my first test) was pretty close. I didn't expect a canned profile to 
> be this
> good!
>

Andrew,

I'd like to comment on this observation myself.

I just finished making my own custom profiles for all my various media. 
My comments are relative to ImagePrint on Mac OS X used with my Epson 
7600, UltraChrome w/ Matte Black ink. Profiles were created using 
Monaco Proof w/DTP-41. Evaluation prints were printed using Relative 
Colorimetric rendering using my standard color management reference 
image. All color transforms were done in Photoshop using the Adobe ACE 
CMM, with color management in ImagePrint completely disabled [only way 
to assure reasonable soft-proof to print matching, and I also found 
serious differences between IP Perceptual and ACE Perceptual 
renderings, plus the IP CMM does not handle Black Point Compensation at 
all].

I agree with you that I am _very_ surprised at the level of quality of 
the "canned" ColorByte-provided profiles. Comparing prints made using 
their "Day" profiles to my own (std D50) profiles for Epson Enhanced 
Matte, Somerset Velvet for Epson, and Photo Rag, in a GTI Soft-View 
juxtaposed with proper soft proofing for evaluation, all showed very 
consistent differences from my own (probably due to tools used to 
create the respective profiles), but considering what the differences 
are, and how good the ColorByte profiles are out-of-hand, I will likely 
be keeping them around as additional tools to use under the right 
conditions.

The differences were very consistent, but the quality was unusually 
good for all.

The differences were that my profiles produced slightly more _accurate_ 
color, relative to both the soft proof display as well as physical 
MacBeth Color Checker patches (which I would expect as these profiles 
were created using my specific printer, media, and printer/RIP 
settings), but the ColorByte-provided profiles demonstrate slightly 
richer black (DMax) and somewhat better overall contrast, lending to 
better image detail and tonal separation in the lower midtones to 
shadows.

These differences were very subtle in general, and were I not a 
stickler for maximum color matching accuracy I might be happy to just 
use the ColorByte profiles. However, I am, and particularly where soft 
proofing reliability is concerned. So for the most faithful soft 
proofing accuracy and overall color accuracy is concerned, I will use 
mine, but for cases where color matching is less critical than 
preserving maximum image detail in shadow tonal separations or richest 
black DMax, then I may consider using theirs.

There is no perfect world, I guess (unless I spend a great deal more 
for my color management tools, perhaps...)

Regards,
/eddie