Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Epson 9800 and Museo Max

I have now completed the best possible target printout for the Museo 
Max paper (after trying every possible combination.   The final 
settings were Enhanced Matte media settings, entering a 0.5 mm 
thickness, and -10 Color Density.

The targets still are not spectacular.

Comparing the resulting profile to the generic profile for Museo 9800 
provided by Crane shows that the Crane generic profile has a 50% 
wider gamut that the ColorVision one I just produced.

I am suspicious (as I have been for a little while) that the Epson 
9800 may be the problem and we may have gotten a bad printer.

Or maybe since I don't know the first thing about profiling except 
what I have crammed in the last few days, I am missing something 
obvious.  We have tried every media setting and other setting change 
possible printing out the media test image.  We have also printed 
numerous targets and compared.

Head alignments and nozzle checks have been part of the proces.

1.  Should there be such a differemce between the generic Museo 
profile provided by Crane and the one I am making?

2.  Trying to profile an Epson 10000 simultaneousy, we get targets 
that have a better differentiation on the 10000 than on the 9800. 
Does that indicate a problem with the 9800?

Thanks, C. David for your suggestions.  I am working on creating a new profile and 
will get back to you when I can compare the way it prints out the targets and the way 
the canned Crane profile prints the targets.

One thing, the Epson 10000 is a pigmented ink set.  Epson introduced two versions 
of the 10000 at the same time -- a dye version and a pigmented archivial version it 
called the 10000CF (for color fast).   I believe over 90% of all 10000 are pigment 
based.  (you must have chosen the ink set at the time you first initialized your printer)



--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 6/5/06 1:33:15 PM, dubois@... writes:
> 
> 
> > I have now completed the best possible target printout for the Museo
> > Max paper (after trying every possible combination.   The final
> > settings were Enhanced Matte media settings, entering a 0.5 mm
> > thickness, and -10 Color Density.
> > 
> Sounds like you've done your homework. Ideally this is the process that would 
> be used for every profile, but its often possible to get good results without 
> being so comprehensive... and if you don't get good even even with being so 
> comprehensive, there may be a compatibility issue, or other problem.
> > 
> > The targets still are not spectacular.
> > 
> Targets don't have anything to do with the color management process, other 
> than feeding it optimal raw output. If the tagets are not spectacular, then the 
> results won't be either, as they will be based on the gamut, shadow detail, 
> and linearity of the raw target prints.
> > 
> > Comparing the resulting profile to the generic profile for Museo 9800
> > provided by Crane shows that the Crane generic profile has a 50%
> > wider gamut that the ColorVision one I just produced.
> > 
> Comparing printed colors, or comparing gamuts in a gamut comparison utility? 
> Gamut comparisons can be deceiving, as editing profiles can make them lie, 
> cheat, and steal.
> > 
> > I am suspicious (as I have been for a little while) that the Epson
> > 9800 may be the problem and we may have gotten a bad printer.
> > 
> If it prints good color on Epson media, via Epson canned profiles, and the 
> jet tests are fine, then its not likely to be the printer...
> > 
> > Or maybe since I don't know the first thing about profiling except
> > what I have crammed in the last few days, I am missing something
> > obvious. 
> > 
> The fact that supplied profiles can have deceptive gamut maps is one thing 
> you may have missed...
> 
> >  We have tried every media setting and other setting change
> > possible printing out the media test image.  We have also printed
> > numerous targets and compared.
> > 
> Then I assume you have found a reasonably optimal raw setting for printing 
> targets. That will show you right up front what gamut to expect. If you need 
> redder reds, bluer blues, greener greens, etc... than the target prints show, 
> then you are going to be dissapointed...
> > 
> > Head alignments and nozzle checks have been part of the proces.
> > 
> > 1.  Should there be such a differemce between the generic Museo
> > profile provided by Crane and the one I am making?
> > 
> Dramatic difference where? Are we talking gamut viewer differences, or 
> printed gamut differnces? To check the printed gamut, open the 225 patch single 
page 

> target from the PFP Targets folder, assign your workingspace, to it, and 
> print to the Crane profile. That will show you what max colors the Crane profile 
> can manage. Do the same with the PFP profile, and check the primary patches in 
> that. If Crane is getting colors beyond PFP's, then there is definately 
> something amiss.
> > 
> > 2.  Trying to profile an Epson 10000 simultaneousy, we get targets
> > that have a better differentiation on the 10000 than on the 9800.
> > Does that indicate a problem with the 9800?
> > 
> Possibly, but the 10000 is a dye printer (unless you have third party inks in 
> it) and it will respond very differenty (and somewhat more broadly) than the 
> pigments in the 9800.
> 
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
>

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "williamdubois" <dubois@...>
wrote:
>
> Thanks, C. David for your suggestions.  I am working on creating a
new profile and 
> will get back to you when I can compare the way it prints out the
targets and the way 
> the canned Crane profile prints the targets.
> 
> One thing, the Epson 10000 is a pigmented ink set.  Epson introduced
two versions 
> of the 10000 at the same time -- a dye version and a pigmented
archivial version it 
> called the 10000CF (for color fast).   I believe over 90% of all
10000 are pigment 
> based.  (you must have chosen the ink set at the time you first
initialized your printer)
> 

Won't it make a difference which intent is used to print out the
targets ?  If its a gamut test would you want to use absolute
colorometric instead of perceptual?

>Thanks, C. David for your suggestions. I am working on creating a new profile and
>will get back to you when I can compare the way it prints out the targets and the way
>the canned Crane profile prints the targets.

Just to step in and say something here, with all of this talk about
printing targets through profiles and rendering intents.....!

You -don't- print targets through a profile. (It's physically possible,
but this is not how you use a target, or the purpose of printing a target).
And likewise, since you're not printing through a profile, there is no
rendering intent to affect things.

The target is meant to be printed -without- a profile; with all color
management disabled. When printed this way, the target print represents
the uncalibrated (unprofiled) state of the printer, and what you get, and
measure, should be based only on:

- The printer you've used

- The inks in that printer

- The print quality and media setting that you've chosen in the driver

When you print the target this way on Museo Max, on the 9800, what you get
will represent the darkest black and the most saturated primaries that will
be possible to achieve on that combination of printer, paper, print quality
setting and driver media setting. This is -before- profiling.

If the target print, this way, gives you a weak black, and/or muddy primaries,
there's nothing any profile can do to fix that. You can't boost what isn't
there to begin with, and the target, printed as described above, shows you
everything that's "there" to begin with.

If there are problems getting a "good" print of the target this way, then
the only wy that this can be "fixed" or "improved" is by adjusting the print
quality and media settings, directly in the printer driver (in this case,
the 9800 driver).


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

David Miller,

I am aware that you print targets out "Same As Source" without a profile and that is what 
we have been doing with all our many tests.

If you followed the earlier correspondence, I had written:  

"Should there be such a differemce between the generic Museo profile provided by Crane 
and the one I am making?"

C. David had suggested that: 

 "To check the printed gamut, open the 225 patch single page target from the PFP Targets 
folder, assign your workingspace, to it, and print to the Crane profile. That will show you 
what max colors the Crane profile can manage. Do the same with the PFP profile, and 
check the primary patches in that. If Crane is getting colors beyond PFP's, then there is 
definitely something amiss."


Trying the exercise C. David had suggested yielded results not quite similar.  Somewhat 
similar gamuts but different patches printed quite differently.   The canned Crane profile 
was made with THEIR 9800.  I am still trying to figure whether we have an erradic 9800.  

It's quite a learning curve to get the best possible.

thanks,

Bill






--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:

> You -don't- print targets through a profile. (It's physically possible,
> but this is not how you use a target, or the purpose of printing a target).
> And likewise, since you're not printing through a profile, there is no
> rendering intent to affect things.
> 
> The target is meant to be printed -without- a profile; with all color
> management disabled. When printed this way, the target print represents
> the uncalibrated (unprofiled) state of the printer, and what you get, and
> measure, should be based only on:
> 
> - The printer you've used
> 
> - The inks in that printer
> 
> - The print quality and media setting that you've chosen in the driver
> 
> When you print the target this way on Museo Max, on the 9800, what you get
> will represent the darkest black and the most saturated primaries that will
> be possible to achieve on that combination of printer, paper, print quality
> setting and driver media setting. This is -before- profiling.
> 
> If the target print, this way, gives you a weak black, and/or muddy primaries,
> there's nothing any profile can do to fix that. You can't boost what isn't
> there to begin with, and the target, printed as described above, shows you
> everything that's "there" to begin with.
> 
> If there are problems getting a "good" print of the target this way, then
> the only wy that this can be "fixed" or "improved" is by adjusting the print
> quality and media settings, directly in the printer driver (in this case,
> the 9800 driver).
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Miller
> Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> ColorVision
>

Bill:
To figure out your problem, let's start at the beginning!

How do prints on Epson Media using Epson profiles look out of your 9800? If they look 
fine, then the problem is either in your workflow for creating and applying 3rd party 
profiles, OR, maybe you have a defective roll of paper. I think it's highly unlikely (but 
possible) that you have a defective printer.

John Nollendorfs


--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "williamdubois" <dubois@...> wrote:
>
> David Miller,
> 
> I am aware that you print targets out "Same As Source" without a profile and that is what 
> we have been doing with all our many tests.
> 
> If you followed the earlier correspondence, I had written:  
> 
> "Should there be such a differemce between the generic Museo profile provided by 
Crane 
> and the one I am making?"
> 
> C. David had suggested that: 
> 
>  "To check the printed gamut, open the 225 patch single page target from the PFP 
Targets 
> folder, assign your workingspace, to it, and print to the Crane profile. That will show 
you 
> what max colors the Crane profile can manage. Do the same with the PFP profile, and 
> check the primary patches in that. If Crane is getting colors beyond PFP's, then there is 
> definitely something amiss."
> 
> 
> Trying the exercise C. David had suggested yielded results not quite similar.  Somewhat 
> similar gamuts but different patches printed quite differently.   The canned Crane profile 
> was made with THEIR 9800.  I am still trying to figure whether we have an erradic 9800.  
> 
> It's quite a learning curve to get the best possible.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
SNIP

>David Miller,
>
>I am aware that you print targets out "Same As Source" without a profile and that is what
>we have been doing with all our many tests.
>
>If you followed the earlier correspondence, I had written:
>
>"Should there be such a differemce between the generic Museo profile provided by Crane
>and the one I am making?"
>
>C. David had suggested that:
>
>"To check the printed gamut, open the 225 patch single page target from the PFP Targets
>folder, assign your workingspace, to it, and print to the Crane profile. That will show you
>what max colors the Crane profile can manage. Do the same with the PFP profile, and
>check the primary patches in that. If Crane is getting colors beyond PFP's, then there is
>definitely something amiss."
>
>Trying the exercise C. David had suggested yielded results not quite similar. Somewhat
>similar gamuts but different patches printed quite differently. The canned Crane profile
>was made with THEIR 9800. I am still trying to figure whether we have an erradic 9800.

Sorry about that! You're right, I had missed the earlier post; and I didn't
mean my response to sound harsh, I just wanted to point out the proper use
of targets. (From time to time, this issue has come up here on the list
as well as in other Internet forums).


>It's quite a learning curve to get the best possible.

I know exactly what you mean...:-)

Best regards,


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

I also am trying to print on the new Museo paper using the profile and 
instructions provided by Crane, I'm getting prints that are very 
magenta and too dark... I'm getting good results, for now, using the 
Epson Premium Luster profile on my 9800.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "Tim" <ecre8@...> wrote:
>
> I also am trying to print on the new Museo paper using the profile and 
> instructions provided by Crane, I'm getting prints that are very 
> magenta and too dark... I'm getting good results, for now, using the 
> Epson Premium Luster profile on my 9800.
>

Did you turn off color correction in your printer driver and select
"let photoshop determine colors" ... or the equivalent in your program
when printing your pictures?

Secondly ... how did the test print look when you finished building
your profile in PFP?  Being magenta and too dark sounds a printer /
software setting problem (been there ... done that ... wasted the paper)

>1c. Re: Profiling 9800 problems
>     Posted by: "sinar001" jnolly@... sinar001
>     Date: Wed Jun 7, 2006 9:03 am (PDT)
>
>Bill:
>To figure out your problem, let's start at the beginning!
>
>How do prints on Epson Media using Epson profiles look out of your 
>9800? If they look
>fine, then the problem is either in your workflow for creating and 
>applying 3rd party
>profiles, OR, maybe you have a defective roll of paper. I think it's 
>highly unlikely (but
>possible) that you have a defective printer.
>
>John Nollendorfs





Thanks, John.

I followed your advice.

1.  Printing out targets "Same as Source" using Epson Double Weight 
Matte paper, the Epson 10000 yielded better differentiation between 
patches than the Epson 9800.

This was particularly true on the lower left portion of the 225 target.

The troublesome near blacks (K-6, L-6, M-6, N-6, O-6, K-7, L-7, M-7, 
N-7, O-7, K-8, L-8, M-8) were slightly better on the Epson 10000 
(i.e. more differentiation whereas they are hard to distinguish on 
the 9800).

The problem we are having on the Epson 9800 is getting good detail in 
the midtones.  The problem is subtle but I can see it myself when the 
artist points it out.  And significant detail does disappear with art 
printed out from the same files on the 9800 as compared to the 10000 
-- and no amount of reworking the files has been able to reproduce 
that detail.  

That is why I suspect something being wrong with the 9800.

2.  To continue the exploration, I ALSO tried printing out the target 
images using the canned Epson profiles for the media.  (I realize 
now, we are no longer talking about profiling but about testing the 
parameters of the printer to see how it interprets and prints out the 
colors from the canned profiles.)

I printed using Epson Double Weight Matte paper and the canned Double 
Weight Matte profiles (for matte black for the 9800) on both the 
Epson 10000 and the Epson 9800.

This time the difference between results yielded by the two printers 
was even more pronounced.

The Epson 10000 yielded much better differentiation and in the case 
of the patches on the lower left of the 225 target, must nicer 
colors.  

Overall, on both the targets and the printed images with profiles, 
the 9800 produced more visible saturation on darker colors but the 
differentiation and subtlies were gone.  In the lower left of the 225 
target image, the 10000 gave very pleasant colors while the 9800 were 
more "washed."  


AGAIN, the question and problem is getting good detail in the 
midtones.  And if the 9800 is not capable of producing them on the 
targets then the profiles we produce are not going to fix the problem.


Bill

Aren't these two printers using different ink sets?  Are we comparing
UltraChrome K3 to the Epson Archival Dye inks? ... that and its
certain they use different driver code.

Just curious

Tom

> Aren't these two printers using different ink sets?  Are we comparing
> UltraChrome K3 to the Epson Archival Dye inks? ... that and its
> certain they use different driver code.
> 
> Just curious
> 
> Tom
>


Exactly.  But the 9800 is touted as being a better not a worse printer.

If it's impossible to get as good as results, why should one replace the 10000?

(it is true that the 9800 delivers a better gamut of reds -- but is that at the expense of 
being able to make nice gradiations, midtones and shadow detail


Bill

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "williamdubois" <dubois@...>
wrote:

> Exactly.  But the 9800 is touted as being a better not a worse printer.
> 
> If it's impossible to get as good as results, why should one replace
the 10000?
> 
> (it is true that the 9800 delivers a better gamut of reds -- but is
that at the expense of 
> being able to make nice gradiations, midtones and shadow detail
> 
> 
> Bill
>

Was the 10000 using dye inks or pigmented inks?

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <ttrostel@...> wrote:

> 
> Was the 10000 using dye inks or pigmented inks?
>


Pigmented 


(that's why this is all so weird)

The 10000 was available with either dye OR pigments.  

-kris 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of williamdubois
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:45 PM
> To: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [colorvision_group] Re: Profiling 9800 problems
> 
> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "Tom" <ttrostel@...> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Was the 10000 using dye inks or pigmented inks?
> >
> 
> 
> Pigmented 
> 
> 
> (that's why this is all so weird)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~--> Get to your groups with one click. 
> Know instantly when new email arrives 
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/.7bhrC/MGxNAA/yQLSAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>