This is definitely not a show-stopper for me since I am satisfied with the generated profiles without any tweaking. I just expected the softproof to be accurate, and it is not even close. I'm assuming that I am doing something wrong but I have no idea what!
John L
--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie ; wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2011, at 3:52 PM, johnlill2 wrote:
>
> > Thanks, David, for the fast reply. When I softproof in Photoshop, I select the new profile and check "show paper white". It is an excellent preview of the actual print. However, within the Spyder software (version 4.2.1) the softproof is very washed out. However, the print looks just like it does when printed in Photoshop. Only the softproof is drastically different. Obviously, I am way more concerned that the softproof in Photoshop & Qimage are accurate, and they are. As it is, the softproof in the Spyder software is not even close for both matte & luster papers. Any other ideas?
>
> Well, simulate paper color in Phothoshop automatically checks simulate ink black, so you are getting both when you check that. If its way off for your gloss prints, thats a different issue, as there is much less differential there. No idea what would be causing that, but it should still be editable by choosing your original measurement set, and changing the softproof black's L* value in the Print software, and building a new version of the profile.
>
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
>
>
> Datacolor
> 5 Princess Road
> Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
> 609.924.2189
> www.datacolor.com
>
> Phone: 207.685.9248
> Mobile: 207.312.0448
> Fax: 207.685.4455
> Email: cdtobie@...
> Skype: cdtobie
>