Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Truth be told, I am giving serious consideration to getting the PrintFix Pro package. I for one, 
am impressed with David Miller's dedication to keeping in touch with the user based as 
witnessed on the DPR forums. Even when individuals with the "better" systems try to beat up 
on his words or CV's reputation, he stays calm and collected and true to form. That to me 
says a great deal.

I have the original PrintFix at work and I gave it a chance to prove itself to me the other day 
when attempting to profile several different types of Hanhnemeule paper. Unfortunately, it 
gave me poor results, with mottled and blochy colors. I didn't expect a lot out of it after 
reading the reviews online. It did ok with the easier colors, however some of the darker 
colors it did very poorly on. I sense this as a result of the paper, however isn't this what it's 
supposed to help? I am not griping, just trying to make a point, somewhat.

How much of an improvement can I expect with PFP, and is what I am hearing in the rumor 
mill, true? (A PFP 2.0). If a new machine was slated for release at Photokina or Photo Plus 
Expo NYC, how soon can one expect it to be shipping?

I am looking for a product that will do 95% of the quality of the more expensive units at less 
than half the price. Am I expecting too much?  Will the recent M&A of color companies will 
some of the high quality tools make its way to the mainstream market more readily?

The difference between PFP and printfix are like night and day. Continous improvements have been made to the package. David Miller and CD Tobies' dedication to helping owners of this package are unmatched in the industry IMOH. I sold my i1 package and use PFP exclusively. I ran out of my light cyan, light magenta and yellow ink and to get me by, I loaded some 2 yr old MIS archival pigs. I made a 225 patch profile with PFP Pro and the resulting prints are visually identical to my previous ones. How about 99% of the results obtained from packages costing twice as much or more than PFP. It is my understanding 2.0 is a free upgrade for 1.1 owners but don't take me at my word on that. The reason the competition is beating up on this package is they're scared stiff.

Walt

>-----Original Message-----
>From: eeprete [mailto:eeprete@...]
>Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 04:21 PM
>To: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [colorvision_group] So what can we expect from CV in the near future
>
>Truth be told, I am giving serious consideration to getting the PrintFix Pro package. I for one, 
>am impressed with David Miller's dedication to keeping in touch with the user based as 
>witnessed on the DPR forums. Even when individuals with the "better" systems try to beat up 
>on his words or CV's reputation, he stays calm and collected and true to form. That to me 
>says a great deal.
>
>I have the original PrintFix at work and I gave it a chance to prove itself to me the other day 
>when attempting to profile several different types of Hanhnemeule paper. Unfortunately, it 
>gave me poor results, with mottled and blochy colors. I didn't expect a lot out of it after 
>reading the reviews online. It did ok with the easier colors, however some of the darker 
>colors it did very poorly on. I sense this as a result of the paper, however isn't this what it's 
>supposed to help? I am not griping, just trying to make a point, somewhat.
>
>How much of an improvement can I expect with PFP, and is what I am hearing in the rumor 
>mill, true? (A PFP 2.0). If a new machine was slated for release at Photokina or Photo Plus 
>Expo NYC, how soon can one expect it to be shipping?
>
>I am looking for a product that will do 95% of the quality of the more expensive units at less 
>than half the price. Am I expecting too much?  Will the recent M&A of color companies will 
>some of the high quality tools make its way to the mainstream market more readily?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>

>Truth be told, I am giving serious consideration to getting the PrintFix Pro package. I for one,
>am impressed with David Miller's dedication to keeping in touch with the user based as
>witnessed on the DPR forums. Even when individuals with the "better" systems try to beat up
>on his words or CV's reputation, he stays calm and collected and true to form. That to me
>says a great deal.

Thanks, I appreciate that...:-) The work that we do at ColorVision is a team effort, and
whatever I manage to interject on the DPReview forums (which can be very murky waters) is
definitely on behalf of the team.

>I have the original PrintFix at work and I gave it a chance to prove itself to me the other day
>when attempting to profile several different types of Hanhnemeule paper. Unfortunately, it
>gave me poor results, with mottled and blochy colors.

Mottled and blotchy sounds like a mismatch between the ink, driver settings, and paper,
which is something that nobody's profiling is going to fix, so there may be other issues
to be taken into consideration here. It's perfectly possible to print a target for PFP that
won't produce a good profile, either. There are some paper types that just don't work well
with certain inks, depending on the media settings in the driver, and you can tell by
looking at the target prints. You don't want to see mottling in the color patches.

One example comes to mind. I was working with a new Epson R340 a few weeks ago, and tried
printing targets on (if I recall correctly) Epson Heavyweight Matte, which had always worked
quite well with dye-based inks on the Epson 1280. But (surprise): on the R340, with it's
dye-based inks: mottling in the patches! After switching to Epson Enhanced Matte: no problem.
My guess is that I would have had difficulty in getting good profiles and prints with HWM
on the R340 no matter what media setting I chose in the driver.

>I didn't expect a lot out of it after
>reading the reviews online. It did ok with the easier colors, however some of the darker
>colors it did very poorly on.
>I sense this as a result of the paper, however isn't this what it's
>supposed to help? I am not griping, just trying to make a point, somewhat.

(See above). I'm not definitely blaming the paper; only pointing out that if you
print uncalibrated targets on a certain paper on a given printer with a given ink,
and the target patches are mottled to begin with, you're heading for trouble. PFP
wouldn't miraculously be able to address this, either. (Nor would products costing
2-3X as much...:-)

In all other respects:

The newer hardware (Datacolor 1005 spectrocolorimeter) is in a different league than the
older PrintFIX hardware.

The same can be said about the newer PFP software vs. the older PrintFIX plugin
for Photoshop.


>How much of an improvement can I expect with PFP,

Vs the original PrintFIX? Huge.

>and is what I am hearing in the rumor
>mill, true? (A PFP 2.0).

We've been keeping busy, yes...:-) I think we've said a number of times, here and in other
places such as the DPReview forum threads, that PFP is not a piece of software that is going
to sit idle after the first release and initial round of bug fixes.

PFP 1.1 and 1.1.1 added new languages (8 full translations) and a number of new features.
The next version will add even more new features, and some of the existing features will
be improved in ways that everyone will notice. Definitely something to look forward to...:-)

>If a new machine was slated for release at Photokina or Photo Plus
>Expo NYC, how soon can one expect it to be shipping?

What's in progress is a software upgrade. Just as we went from PFP 1.0 to 1.1 and 1.1.1 earlier
in the summer, we're now progressing towards the next version of software.

The philosophy is to add features and capabilities that we think will extend PFP and
make it a better product; add other things, when we can, based on user suggestions; fix
the (minor) bugs that (occasionally) crop up; and to do this carefully enough so that
the new features work and none of the existing functionality breaks.

All existing PFP users will be able to download software upgrades at no charge, as they become
available. If you get PrintFIX PRO now, you can start using it with the current 1.1.1 software
and in the future, you'll be able to get newer versions directly from the ColorVision web site.

>I am looking for a product that will do 95% of the quality of the more expensive units at less
>than half the price. Am I expecting too much?

We like what it does; a lot...:-) It doesn't do -everything- that products that cost 2-3X as
much do. You can't measure 1000+ patch targets with the PFP spectro in a few minutes, no matter
how many cups of coffee you drink ahead of time. (Yes, I've tried). You can't build CMYK profiles
with it, so this is a product that's designed for use in an RGB workflow. But we think it does
an amazing job of building profiles from targets that have a much smaller number of patches than
you'd typically measure with the more expensive products. For most printers, the 225 patch
target goes a LONG way. For the printing that I do (Epson 4800, R800, R340) using Epson inks
on many different papers, I work strictly from the 225 patch targets, which I routinely measure
in under 5 minutes. And without flinching.

The best way you can get a true feel for the product is to read the archive of messages here;
dig through the DPReview forum threads (and make your own determinations as to which of the
posts there make sense, and which don't); and then, also, see how much ongoing support
and insight (if any) you'll find anywhere on the web for the products that cost 2-3X as much.


Best regards,


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

David,

Wow, thanks for the response (on an overnight Friday no less). Impressive. Post a question 
before going to bed, and get an answer by the time I woke up.  What did I do to deserve 
such service? ;)

Let me elaborate on the mottled colors. I honestly think it's the limitation of the little 
scanner with the patch I scanned from the original PF. I also think perhaps some of my 
detail on the image was just melding together. (here is the image I was trying to print: 
http://www.pretedesign.com/data/images/gallery_images/user_id_10/HG9Q0417.xl.jpg ). 
Most of the color in there fared well, it was in the rocks that it began to look a little 
"painterly". I was printing on Hanhemeule Museum Etching Paper too, but using a profile I 
created for German Etching. The papers are very close but not exact. I was a little 
dissapointed in the lack of detail in the rock on the image. Other than that, I was happy 
with how it printed. Pretty impressive either way though, considering I didn't profile the 
paper yet, and also was testing with what has been known as a less than ideal product.

If PFP is that much better, I am pretty certain it's likely what I need. While I can likely afford 
one of the more expensive systems, perhaps it's overkill at the moment. And since it 
seems PFP 2 will only be a software release, then I shouldn't worry about holding off my 
purchase, correct? Which leads me to my next two questions. Is the 30 day satisfaction 
guarantee through orderd from CV directly, or can I expect that at the retail level as well? 
Will you guys be at Photo Plus Expo in NYC, and will the hardware be there to demo and 
perhaps create a test profile? Perhaps thats something you might consider offering to help 
any guys on the line over that edge to buy? I know if I was able to create a profile there, 
bring it home and test, I'd likely go back the next day to buy one.

Best regards,

Ed

David, I bet sometimes you want to pull your hair out.  With all the inks
(with Epson changing them with every printer, and HP not far behind)...

What I've always found, using PFP and several other profiling packages over
time, is there are a million ways to make a mistake, and usually only one or
two that produces perfection.  Can be frustrating, but in my opinion PFP
makes it simpler than most other packages.  Try to make a profile with Onyx
(my version was a couple of versions old), WAY too many bells and whistles,
and they seem to find a new color engine with every release.  It's one of
the reasons I stopped using Onyx and began just making a profile for
printing directly through the print driver.  Between photoshop and Qimage,
our workflow hasn't suffered.

What I mean, is I feel your pain!  :))))

-kris

> 
> (See above). I'm not definitely blaming the paper; only pointing out
> that if you print uncalibrated targets on a certain paper on a given
> printer with a given ink, and the target patches are mottled to begin
> with, you're heading for trouble. PFP wouldn't miraculously be able to
> address this, either. (Nor would products costing 2-3X as much...:-)
>

David,

Wow, thanks for the response (on an overnight Friday no less). Impressive. Post a question
before going to bed, and get an answer by the time I woke up. What did I do to deserve

such service? ;)

Let me elaborate on the mottled colors. I honestly think it's the limitation of the little
scanner with the patch I scanned from the original PF. I also think perhaps some of my
detail on the image was just melding together. (here is the image I was trying to print:

http://www.pretedesign.com/data/images/gallery_images/user_id_10/HG9Q0417.xl.jpg ).
Most of the color in there fared well, it was in the rocks that it began to look a little
"painterly". I was printing on Hanhemeule Museum Etching Paper too, but using a profile I
created for German Etching. The papers are very close but not exact. I was a little

dissapointed in the lack of detail in the rock on the image.

If PFP is that much better, I am pretty certain it's likely what I need. While I can likely afford

one of the more expensive systems, perhaps it's overkill at the moment. And since it
seems PFP 2 will only be a software release, then I shouldn't worry about holding off my

purchase, correct?

Which leads me to my next two questions. Is the 30 day satisfaction

guarantee through orderd from CV directly, or can I expect that at the retail level as well?

Will you guys be at Photo Plus Expo in NYC,

and will the hardware be there to demo and

perhaps create a test profile?

Perhaps thats something you might consider offering to help

any guys on the line over that edge to buy? I know if I was able to create a profile there,
bring it home and test, I'd likely go back the next day to buy one.

-- 

>David, I bet sometimes you want to pull your hair out. With all the inks
>(with Epson changing them with every printer, and HP not far behind)...

Things are changing even faster now, with new Canons coming out, new HPs,
and other things supposedly coming fast.

>What I've always found, using PFP and several other profiling packages over
>time, is there are a million ways to make a mistake, and usually only one or
>two that produces perfection. Can be frustrating, but in my opinion PFP
>makes it simpler than most other packages.

Thanks! That was one of our goals here; to somehow simplify the process as
much as possible so that it was harder to make a mistake.

Printing targets and setting up all the parameters, it's easy to make a mistake;
the fewer places there are to do this, the better.

Printing a single page target, for instance, is (to me) safer (and also, faster,
and less costly) than printing multiple-page targets.

Measurements are the next place you can go wrong, so the PFP target display
tries to prevent that. I think it's easier to avoid mistakes, now that some
time has gone by, by setting the target window to Measured display, rather than
Split, while taking the measurements. You see them fill in on an empty white "sheet"
and you can more easily eyeball-check each row immediately after you've finished
it. That's my preferred way of working now. One little thing on the "list" is to
add a new preference, or at least the ability, for PFP to remember the
Pure/Split/Measured setting so that it will "stick" the way that you've left it.

Finally, with doing a quick test print using the profile: implementing this
directly in PFP, after building the profile, helps, since you can build and
immediately test without worrying about whether the higher-level color management
settings (in CS2's Print with Preview dialog) are being set correctly.


>Try to make a profile with Onyx
>(my version was a couple of versions old), WAY too many bells and whistles,
>and they seem to find a new color engine with every release. It's one of
>the reasons I stopped using Onyx and began just making a profile for
>printing directly through the print driver. Between photoshop and Qimage,
>our workflow hasn't suffered.

Too much complexity isn't always a good thing;

Or, if there's going to be complexity, make it available for expert users, but
do it at a lower, more hidden, level so that it doesn't get in the way of things
for everyone else.

>What I mean, is I feel your pain! :))))

Not as much pain as there had been a few months ago. Things seem to have quieted
down on the DPReview forum threads, it's almost disappointing, in a way...:-)
I think what may have happened is that the naysayers weren't getting much
traction. Someone would eventually notice their posts, and write some reasonably-
worded responses, and people who'd been using PFP and were very happy with their
results (and there are many of those!) would step in and have their say, too.
It's hard to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) about a product in the face
of that.

It's also hard for some of those writers to show up and complain about ColorVision
tech support when so many things were being written there, and here, to provide
exactly that: tech support, and insight; in a way that we don't see any other color
management company providing.


Best regards,

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

David,

You realize you are almost making this too easy of a choice. A couple more questions, if you 
don't mind, and anyone else can chime in as well. What the number of patches on the max 
target? Is it 7XX? or is it the 2XX number you mentioned? 

Also, since your company is so close with Pantone does the PFP perform any better with the 
new(er) Pantone inks that were released.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment on all my questions.

Ed

In a message dated 9/16/06 4:45:12 PM, eeprete@... writes:


> You realize you are almost making this too easy of a choice. A couple more 
> questions, if you
> don't mind, and anyone else can chime in as well. What the number of patches 
> on the max
> target? Is it 7XX? or is it the 2XX number you mentioned?
> 
Currently, though the 225 patch target sees the most use, the max is 729. 
We'll be adding further options in version 2 later this year.
> 
> Also, since your company is so close with Pantone does the PFP perform any 
> better with the
> new(er) Pantone inks that were released.
> 
Pantone is, at the moment, an honorable adversary.   But I still have friends 
there, and have worked with their inks at various times. I see no difference 
(in terms of custom profiling accuracy) between working with the Pantone inks, 
than with other quality brands. Any ink must be within certain parameters and 
have certain compatibility with the printer, the inks, and the media involved 
to profile effectively, and those boundries are even tighter if you are 
printing using the OEM RGB driver, which is expecting something in the range of the 
OEM inks on OEM media. So with any third party ink, the harder it tries to be 
different from the OEM version (going for a bigger gamut, say, instead of 
attempting to match the OEM gamut and composition), the more likely it is that it 
will be problematic, at least on some media, or at some settings. And with 
any ink (including OEM inks), if I look hard enough, I can find a paper and 
setting combination that is at least borderline incompatable, and that won't 
profile well. I spend a lot more time doing the opposite, and searching for the 
most optimal combinations...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

>-----Original Message-----
>From: eeprete [mailto:eeprete@...]
>Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 10:35 AM
>Is it 7XX? or is it the 2XX number you mentioned?

729
 

>Also, since your company is so close with Pantone does the PFP perform any better with the 
>new(er) Pantone inks that were released.

I don't think their as close to Pantone as you might think. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was able to profile a mismatched set of inks with superb results. I see no reason why PFP won't perform well with Pantone inks. There are also some very good 3rd party inks that cost a lot less than Pantone inks, MIS for one, that I can recommend

Walt