Datacolor User to User Support Group.

>Truth be told, I am giving serious consideration to getting the PrintFix Pro package. I for one,
>am impressed with David Miller's dedication to keeping in touch with the user based as
>witnessed on the DPR forums. Even when individuals with the "better" systems try to beat up
>on his words or CV's reputation, he stays calm and collected and true to form. That to me
>says a great deal.

Thanks, I appreciate that...:-) The work that we do at ColorVision is a team effort, and
whatever I manage to interject on the DPReview forums (which can be very murky waters) is
definitely on behalf of the team.

>I have the original PrintFix at work and I gave it a chance to prove itself to me the other day
>when attempting to profile several different types of Hanhnemeule paper. Unfortunately, it
>gave me poor results, with mottled and blochy colors.

Mottled and blotchy sounds like a mismatch between the ink, driver settings, and paper,
which is something that nobody's profiling is going to fix, so there may be other issues
to be taken into consideration here. It's perfectly possible to print a target for PFP that
won't produce a good profile, either. There are some paper types that just don't work well
with certain inks, depending on the media settings in the driver, and you can tell by
looking at the target prints. You don't want to see mottling in the color patches.

One example comes to mind. I was working with a new Epson R340 a few weeks ago, and tried
printing targets on (if I recall correctly) Epson Heavyweight Matte, which had always worked
quite well with dye-based inks on the Epson 1280. But (surprise): on the R340, with it's
dye-based inks: mottling in the patches! After switching to Epson Enhanced Matte: no problem.
My guess is that I would have had difficulty in getting good profiles and prints with HWM
on the R340 no matter what media setting I chose in the driver.

>I didn't expect a lot out of it after
>reading the reviews online. It did ok with the easier colors, however some of the darker
>colors it did very poorly on.
>I sense this as a result of the paper, however isn't this what it's
>supposed to help? I am not griping, just trying to make a point, somewhat.

(See above). I'm not definitely blaming the paper; only pointing out that if you
print uncalibrated targets on a certain paper on a given printer with a given ink,
and the target patches are mottled to begin with, you're heading for trouble. PFP
wouldn't miraculously be able to address this, either. (Nor would products costing
2-3X as much...:-)

In all other respects:

The newer hardware (Datacolor 1005 spectrocolorimeter) is in a different league than the
older PrintFIX hardware.

The same can be said about the newer PFP software vs. the older PrintFIX plugin
for Photoshop.


>How much of an improvement can I expect with PFP,

Vs the original PrintFIX? Huge.

>and is what I am hearing in the rumor
>mill, true? (A PFP 2.0).

We've been keeping busy, yes...:-) I think we've said a number of times, here and in other
places such as the DPReview forum threads, that PFP is not a piece of software that is going
to sit idle after the first release and initial round of bug fixes.

PFP 1.1 and 1.1.1 added new languages (8 full translations) and a number of new features.
The next version will add even more new features, and some of the existing features will
be improved in ways that everyone will notice. Definitely something to look forward to...:-)

>If a new machine was slated for release at Photokina or Photo Plus
>Expo NYC, how soon can one expect it to be shipping?

What's in progress is a software upgrade. Just as we went from PFP 1.0 to 1.1 and 1.1.1 earlier
in the summer, we're now progressing towards the next version of software.

The philosophy is to add features and capabilities that we think will extend PFP and
make it a better product; add other things, when we can, based on user suggestions; fix
the (minor) bugs that (occasionally) crop up; and to do this carefully enough so that
the new features work and none of the existing functionality breaks.

All existing PFP users will be able to download software upgrades at no charge, as they become
available. If you get PrintFIX PRO now, you can start using it with the current 1.1.1 software
and in the future, you'll be able to get newer versions directly from the ColorVision web site.

>I am looking for a product that will do 95% of the quality of the more expensive units at less
>than half the price. Am I expecting too much?

We like what it does; a lot...:-) It doesn't do -everything- that products that cost 2-3X as
much do. You can't measure 1000+ patch targets with the PFP spectro in a few minutes, no matter
how many cups of coffee you drink ahead of time. (Yes, I've tried). You can't build CMYK profiles
with it, so this is a product that's designed for use in an RGB workflow. But we think it does
an amazing job of building profiles from targets that have a much smaller number of patches than
you'd typically measure with the more expensive products. For most printers, the 225 patch
target goes a LONG way. For the printing that I do (Epson 4800, R800, R340) using Epson inks
on many different papers, I work strictly from the 225 patch targets, which I routinely measure
in under 5 minutes. And without flinching.

The best way you can get a true feel for the product is to read the archive of messages here;
dig through the DPReview forum threads (and make your own determinations as to which of the
posts there make sense, and which don't); and then, also, see how much ongoing support
and insight (if any) you'll find anywhere on the web for the products that cost 2-3X as much.


Best regards,


-- 
David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision