Datacolor User to User Support Group.

John,

   Actually it is my expectation that they match pretty well.  I 
didn't buy a Profiling product to still do significant tweaks for 
each type of type of paper I use for every different print.

   I also don't expect to have to print and reprint targets and 
measure and remeasure targets (unless I set a stting incorrectly).  
I don't want to spend a majority of my life hunched over color 
tiles.  I know, I am wierd that way.

   I know this isn't fully automatic, but I don't want a product if 
it requires the time you are suggesting.  Printing, measuring, 
tweaking the print, reprinting, remeausuring, tweak the print again.

   A profile tool should get me much closer than I am now.  I 
understand that if I am really picky, that fine tuning the profile 
will be necessary.  This is not what I am talking about though.  The 
proof and print are coming out noticibly bright.

   I am hoping that I did something wrong.  I don't mind changing my 
process.  But spending the time you suggest is rediculous (IMO).  
It's like buying a car, but then having to walk to work for some 
reason.  ;-)

   I did do a nozzle check.  I made sure the ICM was off in the 
printer driver.  I used the paper setting the vendor (Hahnemuhle) 
recommends (Hahn Rag Bright - Velvet setting).

   When I printed from CS2, I used the Perceptual Rendering with BPC 
on.  

Regards,
Darrell


--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "sinar001" <jnolly@...> 
wrote:
>
> WHY?
> Because each paper is going to have variations and characteristics 
of
> it's own. 
> 
> Also, did you do a nozzle check before printing out the targets? 
Did
> you try different paper settings, to find the best one for that 
media?
> I would encourage you to experiment with these settings.
> 
> There are a lot of variables involved. Once you get more 
experienced
> with profile building, you will know the routine, and will have
> profiles that behave the way you want them to.
> 
> Also, it would not hurt to try printing out the target again and
> reading, to see how the new version compares with the older one. It
> could be you had a "mis-read" of a patch or two which could account
> for the differences you are seeing.
> 
> Also, maybe your expectations are that everything should "just 
match".
> On some papers that does work, on others, you will have to "fine" 
tune
> with the sliders. I however, prefer to use an "adjustment layer" 
on my
> print file to do the fine tuning, since invariably, each image will
> tend to have a "mind of it's own".
> 
> John Nollendorfs