Datacolor User to User Support Group.

I've had an ongoing discussion and plea for help with CD of
Colorvision for the past few days in hopes of resolving muddy colors
(mostly greens) with a profile I've created for Ilford Smooth Glossy
Paper and MIS color inks in an Epson 1280 printer. Many suggestions
were made on both sides of the discussions but none of them seemed to
work. Then I used Phase One Capture One software to work up the image
before sending it to Photoshop for printing only. Miracles of
miracles, it worked. It seems photoshop was the problem all along. Now
I plan to get a copy of Capture One for myself and use it for printing
on all glossy paper from now on.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny Eades

It's hard to see direct connection between a RAW converter ans a
printer profiling software.

Personally I wouldn't use either C1 or ACR, but perhaps some of the
color settings were off. Could you see any difference on the monitor?

I didn't use the C1 or ACR as printer profiling software, just to work
it up before sending it to Photoshop for printing. I created a
printer/paper/ink profile with PrintFixPro which was used as the
printer profile. I don't understand it either, it just worked. When I
worked tthe image up in Photoshop and then sent it through the
printer/paper/ink profile to the printer, it did not work. Yes there
was a definite difference on the monitor when I proofed the image in
Photoshop befoe sending it to the printer. The worked up image in C1
matched the print whereas the proof showed all the muddy tones of
green that was the problem I discussed with CD of Colorvision. If
anyone can explain why C1 worked up images would work and Photoshop
worked up imaged would not, feel free. I consider this a learning
experience.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny Eades

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

>
> It's hard to see direct connection between a RAW converter ans a
> printer profiling software.
> 
> Personally I wouldn't use either C1 or ACR, but perhaps some of the
> color settings were off. Could you see any difference on the monitor?
>

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" <jeades1@...>
wrote:
>
> I didn't use the C1 or ACR as printer profiling software, just to work
> it up before sending it to Photoshop for printing. I created a
> printer/paper/ink profile with PrintFixPro which was used as the
> printer profile. I don't understand it either, it just worked. When I
> worked tthe image up in Photoshop and then sent it through the
> printer/paper/ink profile to the printer, it did not work. Yes there
> was a definite difference on the monitor when I proofed the image in
> Photoshop befoe sending it to the printer. The worked up image in C1
> matched the print whereas the proof showed all the muddy tones of
> green that was the problem I discussed with CD of Colorvision. If
> anyone can explain why C1 worked up images would work and Photoshop
> worked up imaged would not, feel free. I consider this a learning
> experience.
> 
> Your friend in Photography,
> 
> Johnny Eades

So both image workflows were printed with Photoshop.  Do both images
have the same working space?  Does one of them have no working space?  

Just curious :-)

Tom

Both used Adobe RGB9(1998) work space.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny

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

>
> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "Johnny Eades" <jeades1@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't use the C1 or ACR as printer profiling software, just to work
> > it up before sending it to Photoshop for printing. I created a
> > printer/paper/ink profile with PrintFixPro which was used as the
> > printer profile. I don't understand it either, it just worked. When I
> > worked tthe image up in Photoshop and then sent it through the
> > printer/paper/ink profile to the printer, it did not work. Yes there
> > was a definite difference on the monitor when I proofed the image in
> > Photoshop befoe sending it to the printer. The worked up image in C1
> > matched the print whereas the proof showed all the muddy tones of
> > green that was the problem I discussed with CD of Colorvision. If
> > anyone can explain why C1 worked up images would work and Photoshop
> > worked up imaged would not, feel free. I consider this a learning
> > experience.
> > 
> > Your friend in Photography,
> > 
> > Johnny Eades
> 
> So both image workflows were printed with Photoshop.  Do both images
> have the same working space?  Does one of them have no working space?  
> 
> Just curious :-)
> 
> Tom
>