Hi David!
First of all, thanks for your prompt reply. Today I
had proceeded with two experiments. The first one was to put back the original
R270 Epson cartridges and profile them for that glossy paper. Regarding to
shadow tones, the result, while a bit better than the Guardian Imaging MGS ink,
was still barely acceptable. Tried the same configuration with another two
glossy samples I could find among friends -- almost no improvement. So the ink,
itself, seems not to be the problem. Then I reprofiled the old R200 printer with
its ink set (another manufacturer) and the same glossy paper. The result,
despite of the obvious difference in quality between the old and the new printer
(R200 vs. R270), was much much better. So the paper, itself, seems neither to be
the problem. What I have concluded is that Epson R270 (whatever media setting is
used to print targets) put too much ink to produce shadows. They might be
reacting all together at the most superficial layer of the paper before drying,
which would be the cause of that huge and fast color/brightness shifting some
minutes after printing.
According to your experience (or in the experience
of any other reader of this forum), before abandoning this new printer and go
back to the R200 and go straight ahead to an R800, should I try a pigmented ink?
Is it less suscetible to color shifting (I mean in short term, just after
printing)? Also, I have found a regional distributor for an ink manufacturer
called BOTO (http://www.strongcolor.com). They produce
three different black pigmented inks: Black, Photo Black and Light Black.
Regarding to the problem I have been experiencing with that glossy paper, would
be the Photo Black better than the default Black? Should I try to replace only
the black ink or also the other ones?
Regarding to the profile editor, again, what I
wanted is to redefine output black point into the profile, rather than apply the
same curve to every picture before printing. But your explanation about the
limitations of profiling technology is enough for me.
Thanks again,
Antonio
----- Original Message -----From: CDTobie@...Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 11:33 PMSubject: Re: [colorvision_group] BP and importing PS curves>>Then, another problem appeared. I tried to build a new profile and
import that Photoshop curve into the PFP settings prior profile
generation. Although the new curve seemed to have been merged into the
profile, it was done partially only, as the black point remained the
same. In fact, an inspection gave me the conclusion that the profile
does not operate on any pixel in range of (0,0,0)~(10,10,10). Is there
any solution to that? Any other profile editor would give what I desire?
Its not the profile editor at fault; any profile editor can only alter
values that the printer/driver will allow to be altered. If this
printer/driver configuration does not allow the deepest shadows to be
lightened by a Photoshop curve in a PFP profile, then they simply can't
be controlled from an RGB profile. Sorry to sound unsympathetic about
your stock of paper you wish to salvage by profiling, but I would make
this observation:
Trying to beat a bad printer/ink/paper combination into submission
though profiling is not a very good choice; finding a printer/ink/paper
combination that performs well is a much better way to achieve good
results. Every so often I run up against someone just determined to
make some rather poor combination work by profiling it (almost always
to save money: on a low cost paper, on third party inks, or on an older
or low end printer). Inevitably they say they can get improvements, but
they still aren't satisified. They need to have some perspective about
this process: it isn't magic, it can make bad combinations better, and
good combinations excellent; but it can't necessarily make bad
combinations excellent.