Datacolor User to User Support Group.

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Rick Ryan wrote:
> 
> > I am using Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and the standard Epson  
> > R1800 Inks.
> 
> Thats a very deep combination, you should expect raw results to be  
> very dark; even profiled results may be deeper than you want, if you  
> aren't displaying under bright lighting...
> 
> > When I printed the 225 sample page all of the colors seemed much  
> > darker than the image on the screen and when in the sampling screen  
> > the "Measured" colors also looked much darker than the "Pure".
> 
> Correct...
> 
> > I have not yet tried printing the Softproof images from  
> > SpyderPrint3, but will try that today once I buy some more paper.  I  
> > suspect the results will be the same from SpyderPrint3 as from CS4,  
> > but I will give it a try.
> 
> Its a crosscheck of your Photoshop settings...
> 
> > Is there any way to print the SpyderProof image from CS4 (is there a  
> > file(s) for the image(s) on the install disk?)?
> 
> In the Spyder3Print folder is a Test Image folder, with a copy of the  
> matrix of test images, tagged AdobeRGB, for cross testing from other  
> apps...
> 
> > I am trying to be methodical and based on the info in the Help on  
> > the Media Setting Quality, it seemed to imply there was something to  
> > adjust in the print driver first before making the 225 sample print.
> 
> Yes, but with that printer, those inks, and that paper, as you have  
> seen, ALL media settings are pretty heavy. If one offers a bit better  
> shadow detail than the others, I'd chose it, otherwise they may all be  
> about the same.
> 
> >  I tried "Best Photo" and "Best Photo RPM", but didn't see much  
> > difference. I also tried reinstalling the latest R1800 drivers from  
> > Epson, just in case there was some problem there, but noticed no  
> > change.  I also tried Ultra Premium Luster as a paper type to see if  
> > that would lighten the image, but didn't see much change with that  
> > either.
> 
> No, all the gloss/luster papers will be fairly similar that way. If  
> you try a good art matte media, then you'll see some differences!
> 
> > I haven't tried any of the post sampling adjustments to the profile  
> > (e.g. Brightness & Contrast) yet, but will give that a try (I have  
> > to go out this morning and buy some more paper :-))
> > I will give that a try when I return.
> 
> Definitely the next step. And remember to view images under bright  
> proofing light as well; if you only view under dim light, they will  
> look dark and clogged, by definition!
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
> 
> 
> 
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>
David,
I spent quite a bit of time with SpyderProof and my base measurement file and incrementally tweaked and built profiles that I then Spyderproofed until it looked pretty good.  Increasing the Brightness to +4 gave the best view in SpyderProof.  But when I printed out one of the "Matrix" images (the little girl with the flowers) I had used to tweak the profile, it was still too dark.  I increased the Brightness to +10 and printed and it looked pretty good.  The contrast seems a bit lacking.  I tried playing with the Contrast amount when tweaking the profile but didn't like the effect it had on light to dark transitions.
I tried, as you suggested, printing a "Matrix" image both from SpyderProof and from CS4 with the new profile and they both appeared to be the same.  So I am printing via CS4 OK apparently.
So, other than the contrast issue I think I have created a better profile than the one that Epson provided.
I am going to try the 729 patch target next to see if that improves it a bit more.
Thanks for your help.
Rick