Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Using PrintFix Pro 2.0, I created a 729 patch plus extended gray patch
based profile for Epson Radiant White Watercolor. The paper that many
clients have me use for making prints of their artwork. When I tested
the profile by printing the standard test target provided with the
software, I felt very satisfied. In all respects the printed target
was a very close match to the image on my screen (profiled with the
SpyderII Pro). However, when I make prints of my clients artwork, I
find that often subdued hues do not match the soft proof version on
the monitor screen. For example tan colored shades will look too
greenish. When I do a gamut check in Photoshop CS2, the colors appear
to be in gamut. In theory it seems that the color can be reproduced by
the Epson 2200 that I use for printing. By doing localized
adjustments, I can get the inaccurate color to be a much closer match.
But I use the PrintFix Pro profile and the appropriate printing setup
in Photoshop color management to avoid having to do this.

I can not figure out a solution. If I saw a general color inaccuracy
in the test image, then I could tweak the profile using the software.
But I don't see the inaccuracies that I see when making these art
prints. It is not that the colors in the prints are way off, they are
a just a little off, but enough to be noticeable to myself and the
client. I have carefully following the procedure for reading the
patches and checking them, properly calibrating using the provided
white patch in the instrument base before reading the patches etc. Any
suggestions on how to get a more accurate profile?

Try this:

Starting with the basics, when you are printing your target patches to be
read, be sure the settings in the Epson print driver are correct. I would
set them to "Watercolor Paper - Radiant White"; Photo 1440dpi; No High
Speed; No Edge Smoothing; with the Color Management set to ICM; ICC profile
to "No Color Adjustment".

Then print the target from PrintFix Pro (and I always double-check from the
"Select Print Fix Pro Target" page to be sure the settings have remained the
same. I also have found that printing the 3-page target makes for easier
reading than the large 13x19 target the 2200 will print. Be SURE to use the
same paper as you set in the Epson driver.

After setting the white calibration using the white reference block on the
base of the PrintFix reader, measure each target. I place the target pages
on a piece of black blotter paper to avoid extraneous reflections when
measuring. After all measurements are complete, I go back over the on-screen
pages to be sure that one patch has not been misread - it's pretty easy to
see as the square will be "off" in color in relation to surrounding squares.
More than once I have mis-measured one or two squares. I have also found
that using the audible "click" when measuring helps avoid errors. You should
hear TWO clicks for EVERY measurement. If you don't, re-measure the square -
trust me! These procedures apply for the Black & White calibrations as well.
Once measurements are complete, be sure that the "advanced" options in
PrintFix Pro are all set to neutral (this would be the sliders and B/W
reference measurements).

When you have saved your profile, you need to be sure that the settings in
the Epson print driver remain the same for any printing. If you use PS, as I
recall, use "no color management" for your monitor (this allows your Spyder
calibration to be the default viewer), and load your PrintFix Pro profile to
the output section of PS. Be sure that all options are OFF. I no longer use
PS for printing (Qimage is the only way to go, IMHO), so I'm working from
memory, but it is very easy in most programs to either double profile or
select color options that will alter your prints, especially if you are
playing with "localized" adjustments. Again, more than once I have left
something changed that I played around with and should have just left alone.
The hazards of too many choices!

Once all of the above is correct, I would print the PrintFix Pro calibration
targets using PS and compare them to the targets printed out of PrintFix
Pro. The target files can be found at C:\Program Files\ColorVision\PrintFIX
PRO\Targets on a PC. For a MAC - ??? If the prints are not the same as the
ones printed from PrintFix, I would first check that the printer is not
clogging and the inks were OK.

After all of this, I do the whole profiling process again and name the
calibration file #2. Print a test target or photo on the type of paper you
have profiled using both the original calibration and the #2 calibration
(changing NOTHING ELSE on the computer) - if they are not EXACTLY the same,
either you measured wrong or your printer is malfunctioning (and there are
probably other obscure reasons, too, but I've not had to go past this point
to solve the problem). I've done this procedure for my 3800 for 12 papers at
this time and my prints are spectacular. I also did it for many papers on my
now sold 2200 and was very happy with the results. And even my old 1270 can
put out a pretty good looking print!

Hope this helps\ufffd\ufffd


pjs
kansas "the flat & happy state"
"the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket"
pjs 1972

Thanks for your detailed description of your procedure. I follow
everything exactly as you describe with these exceptions:

1. I have printed the large 13x19 target.
2. I have NOT placed the target on a piece of black blotter paper. I
am not sure how this would help.
3. I have NOT redone the measurements and made a number two
calibration. It seems that if you are careful and precise in your
measurements then this step is not necessary.

My current profile prints the standard test target very accurately. If
I made a landscape print, people would say it looks great and is a
very close screen match. It is just that when I reproduce artwork, the
color matching becomes critical, and it is here that the profile is
not doing its job on certain hues. They are close, but close is not
good enough for this type of work.

I know the printer is working properly with no clogged heads. I have
carefully examined the measurements of the patches on the monitor
screen before building the profile and these look good. In some cases
just to make sure I have remeasured some, but see no difference on the
screen hue for that patch after remeasuring.

If I didn't do the color critical artwork reproductions for artist and
only did my landscape work, I would be very satisfied. Perhaps what I
am seeing are limitations in the PrinFix Pro/ SpyderII Pro calibration
profiling system and I need to consider an alternative. 


--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "PJS" <psandham@...> wrote:
>
> Try this:
> 
> Starting with the basics, when you are printing your target patches
to be
> read, be sure the settings in the Epson print driver are correct. I
would
> set them to "Watercolor Paper - Radiant White"; Photo 1440dpi; No High
> Speed; No Edge Smoothing; with the Color Management set to ICM; ICC
profile
> to "No Color Adjustment".
> 
> Then print the target from PrintFix Pro (and I always double-check
from the
> "Select Print Fix Pro Target" page to be sure the settings have
remained the
> same. I also have found that printing the 3-page target makes for easier
> reading than the large 13x19 target the 2200 will print. Be SURE to
use the
> same paper as you set in the Epson driver.
> 
> After setting the white calibration using the white reference block
on the
> base of the PrintFix reader, measure each target. I place the target
pages
> on a piece of black blotter paper to avoid extraneous reflections when
> measuring. After all measurements are complete, I go back over the
on-screen
> pages to be sure that one patch has not been misread - it's pretty
easy to
> see as the square will be "off" in color in relation to surrounding
squares.
> More than once I have mis-measured one or two squares. I have also found
> that using the audible "click" when measuring helps avoid errors.
You should
> hear TWO clicks for EVERY measurement. If you don't, re-measure the
square -
> trust me! These procedures apply for the Black & White calibrations
as well.
> Once measurements are complete, be sure that the "advanced" options in
> PrintFix Pro are all set to neutral (this would be the sliders and B/W
> reference measurements).
> 
> When you have saved your profile, you need to be sure that the
settings in
> the Epson print driver remain the same for any printing. If you use
PS, as I
> recall, use "no color management" for your monitor (this allows your
Spyder
> calibration to be the default viewer), and load your PrintFix Pro
profile to
> the output section of PS. Be sure that all options are OFF. I no
longer use
> PS for printing (Qimage is the only way to go, IMHO), so I'm working
from
> memory, but it is very easy in most programs to either double profile or
> select color options that will alter your prints, especially if you are
> playing with "localized" adjustments. Again, more than once I have left
> something changed that I played around with and should have just
left alone.
> The hazards of too many choices!
> 
> Once all of the above is correct, I would print the PrintFix Pro
calibration
> targets using PS and compare them to the targets printed out of PrintFix
> Pro. The target files can be found at C:\Program
Files\ColorVision\PrintFIX
> PRO\Targets on a PC. For a MAC - ??? If the prints are not the same
as the
> ones printed from PrintFix, I would first check that the printer is not
> clogging and the inks were OK.
> 
> After all of this, I do the whole profiling process again and name the
> calibration file #2. Print a test target or photo on the type of
paper you
> have profiled using both the original calibration and the #2 calibration
> (changing NOTHING ELSE on the computer) - if they are not EXACTLY
the same,
> either you measured wrong or your printer is malfunctioning (and
there are
> probably other obscure reasons, too, but I've not had to go past
this point
> to solve the problem). I've done this procedure for my 3800 for 12
papers at
> this time and my prints are spectacular. I also did it for many
papers on my
> now sold 2200 and was very happy with the results. And even my old
1270 can

> put out a pretty good looking print!
> 
> Hope this helps


> 
> 
> pjs
> kansas "the flat & happy state"
> "the better the photographer,
> the bigger the wastebasket"
> pjs 1972
>

I've had the same problem over the years and for me it really didn't matter a whole lot using different profiling packages, some very expensive ones at that.
It seems I always have to tweak something to satisfy myself or the artist. Other things that affect art reproduction are the type of art, capture method and profiling of the capture device( scanner camera etc.). It, at times can be very frustrating. In short I haven't found the "magic bullet" yet.

Walt

>If I didn't do the color critical artwork reproductions for artist and
>only did my landscape work, I would be very satisfied. Perhaps what I
>am seeing are limitations in the PrinFix Pro/ SpyderII Pro calibration
>profiling system and I need to consider an alternative. 
>

>Using PrintFix Pro 2.0, I created a 729 patch plus extended gray patch
>based profile for Epson Radiant White Watercolor. The paper that many
>clients have me use for making prints of their artwork.

I've profiled this on an Epson 4800 and done a lot of prints with it, also
as 729 patches.

>When I tested
>the profile by printing the standard test target provided with the
>software, I felt very satisfied. In all respects the printed target
>was a very close match to the image on my screen (profiled with the
>SpyderII Pro). However, when I make prints of my clients artwork, I
>find that often subdued hues do not match the soft proof version on
>the monitor screen. For example tan colored shades will look too
>greenish. When I do a gamut check in Photoshop CS2, the colors appear
>to be in gamut. In theory it seems that the color can be reproduced by
>the Epson 2200 that I use for printing. By doing localized
>adjustments, I can get the inaccurate color to be a much closer match.
>But I use the PrintFix Pro profile and the appropriate printing setup
>in Photoshop color management to avoid having to do this.

What rendering intent are you soft proofing and printing through? (and
when you're soft proofing in Photoshop, you're doing this by going into
View:Proof Setup:Custom, selecting the profile and rendering intent, turning
on Preview, and leaving the other check boxes off (having the paper black
and paper white simulation on makes the soft proof visually too muddy, and your
brain adjusts well enough for those things, so I'd recommend not using them).

What light source are you viewing the prints under?

You've got the display calibrated to D65, 2.2, correct?

Best regards,

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

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.

1. I first used perceptual rendering, then did a series of test prints
using also Relative Colorimetric and Absolute Colorimetric.
2. I have tried both checking on and off paper white and black simulation.
3. I use a Solux viewing lamp to view the prints. 
4. I use SpyderII Pro set to D65 and 2.2

I originally did a profile of the Epson Radiant Watercolor using the
smaller 225 patch. But wasn't completely satisfied with it, so when I
upgraded the software to 2.0, I went ahead and printed the 729 patch
plus the extended gray patch. This new profile was improved over the
original 225 patch profile. I don't know if it was using the 729 patch
plus extended gray patch or the new software version, but the standard
test target printed a very close match to the soft proofed version on
my screen. It is just some of the art prints have these hues, which
cause problems. They are close but not as close as is possible, which
I know because I can do localized color adjustments and get them to be
almost a perfect match. So I don't know where to go from here? I have
posted these experiences on the DP Review printing forum to see if
people using other profiling systems and are trying to get highly
accurate color reproduction find the same problems.

Ken

> What rendering intent are you soft proofing and printing through? (and
> when you're soft proofing in Photoshop, you're doing this by going into
> View:Proof Setup:Custom, selecting the profile and rendering intent,
turning
> on Preview, and leaving the other check boxes off (having the paper
black
> and paper white simulation on makes the soft proof visually too
muddy, and your
> brain adjusts well enough for those things, so I'd recommend not
using them).

> 
> What light source are you viewing the prints under?
> 
> You've got the display calibrated to D65, 2.2, correct?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> -- 
> David Miller
> Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> ColorVision
>

Ken:
I print a lot of art reproduction prints, and I will basically say,
that a profile is meant to get you in the ball park, when dealing with
 precise color rendering. 

I find that most times I can get quite close using "global" color
corrections using either curves or Hue/saturation layers.
Occassionally, some colors require spot corrections as you note.

A lot depends on how you did you original image capture. Some pigments
just capture differently and require localized corrections to render
correctly on the print. 

Also, your display, even though it maybe calibrated, can not properly
interpret what is being printed.

A lot of variables at work here. As you work with making print more
and more, you will soon find the types of original artist's colors
that require localized color controls to render correctly in the print.

John Nollendorfs
--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551"
<prof_mgt551@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.
> 
> 1. I first used perceptual rendering, then did a series of test prints
> using also Relative Colorimetric and Absolute Colorimetric.
> 2. I have tried both checking on and off paper white and black
simulation.
> 3. I use a Solux viewing lamp to view the prints. 
> 4. I use SpyderII Pro set to D65 and 2.2
> 
> I originally did a profile of the Epson Radiant Watercolor using the
> smaller 225 patch. But wasn't completely satisfied with it, so when I
> upgraded the software to 2.0, I went ahead and printed the 729 patch
> plus the extended gray patch. This new profile was improved over the
> original 225 patch profile. I don't know if it was using the 729 patch
> plus extended gray patch or the new software version, but the standard
> test target printed a very close match to the soft proofed version on
> my screen. It is just some of the art prints have these hues, which
> cause problems. They are close but not as close as is possible, which
> I know because I can do localized color adjustments and get them to be
> almost a perfect match. So I don't know where to go from here? I have
> posted these experiences on the DP Review printing forum to see if
> people using other profiling systems and are trying to get highly
> accurate color reproduction find the same problems.
> 
> Ken
> 
> > What rendering intent are you soft proofing and printing through? (and
> > when you're soft proofing in Photoshop, you're doing this by going
into

> > View:Proof Setup:Custom, selecting the profile and rendering intent,
> turning
> > on Preview, and leaving the other check boxes off (having the paper
> black
> > and paper white simulation on makes the soft proof visually too
> muddy, and your
> > brain adjusts well enough for those things, so I'd recommend not
> using them).
> > 
> > What light source are you viewing the prints under?
> > 
> > You've got the display calibrated to D65, 2.2, correct?
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > -- 
> > David Miller
> > Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> > ColorVision
> >
>

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am wondering if the PrintFix Pro
gives 90% (just to pull a number out of the air for illustration)
accurate results and if I purchase a more expensive system I might
only improve it another few percentage points of accuracy, but would
still be running into similar issues, maybe with less frequency.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, wkm@... wrote:
>
> I've had the same problem over the years and for me it really didn't
matter a whole lot using different profiling packages, some very
expensive ones at that.
> It seems I always have to tweak something to satisfy myself or the
artist. Other things that affect art reproduction are the type of art,
capture method and profiling of the capture device( scanner camera
etc.). It, at times can be very frustrating. In short I haven't found
the "magic bullet" yet.

> 
> Walt
> 
> 
> >If I didn't do the color critical artwork reproductions for artist and
> >only did my landscape work, I would be very satisfied. Perhaps what I
> >am seeing are limitations in the PrinFix Pro/ SpyderII Pro calibration
> >profiling system and I need to consider an alternative. 
> >
>

Given the critical eye, and one's own color preferences (which will differ
with each person), I would probably not spend my time doing my own profiles
but rather spend the $$$ for custom profiles. For work as critical as you
describe, you'll be up in the $10K range before you or your customers are
satisfied. Custom profiles will pay for themselves. You should also look
into updating your printer - the 3800, off the shelf with standard profiles,
will blow your 2200 off the map.....


pjs
kansas "the flat & happy state"
"the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket"
pjs 1972

------------------original message (or parts thereof-----------------
Subject: [colorvision_group] Re: Not satisfied with PrintFix Pro profile
- Any way to improve?
Thanks for your detailed description of your procedure. I follow
everything exactly as you describe with these exceptions:

You could but, I don't think it's worth the money. In addition to PFPro I have probably one of the best systems available and it's only marginally better and certainly not good enough to justify spending 10 grand for the improvement. I have to agree with John N. After awhile you begin to recognise problem colors. I have found that with some artists very little correction is needed where with others I can look at the artwork and I'll know from previous experience what colors are going to give me problems. As John mentioned, monitors don't really give a perfect rendering of the actual print no matter how well calibrated and no matter how expensive. Because the work is "custom" and requires a lot more effort than say printing a photo where the criteria is a good looking image rather than a perfect match I charge accordingly. A big part of art reproduction is educating the artist and that sometimes trade offs are inevitable. As someone else mentioned, the 2200 is "old" technology albeit still very good. Before I would put my money down on another profiling package I would look at some of the new machines. It won't solve all your problems but, will make things a little easier. This is a tough business. 

Best, Walt

>Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am wondering if the PrintFix Pro
>gives 90% (just to pull a number out of the air for illustration)
>accurate results and if I purchase a more expensive system I might
>only improve it another few percentage points of accuracy, but would
>still be running into similar issues, maybe with less frequency.
>
>--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, wkm@... wrote:
>>
>> I've had the same problem over the years and for me it really didn't
>matter a whole lot using different profiling packages, some very
>expensive ones at that.
>> It seems I always have to tweak something to satisfy myself or the
>artist. Other things that affect art reproduction are the type of art,
>capture method and profiling of the capture device( scanner camera
>etc.). It, at times can be very frustrating. In short I haven't found
>the "magic bullet" yet.
>> 
>> Walt

Zounds! You're way more critical than I would ever be (or *could* be,  
with my red/green weakness), but in all kinds of situations that are  
logically similar, the best approach seems to be to repeat the  
process after all of the "machinery" has been completely "cooled",  
restarted and allowed to reach operating a stable operating state  
once again. Then compare the results. Since PFP produces numbers from  
which the profiles are created, it is a pretty easy thing to look for  
variation at that stage.

Other members of the group may be able to give you some idea of  
whether the variation you're getting normal.

*Does* your printer have the capability of reproducing the precise  
hues you want?

Yikes. I think I'll go back to black and white...

Myron

On 18-Feb-07, at 10:07 AM, prof_mgt551 wrote:

> Thanks for your detailed description of your procedure. I follow
> everything exactly as you describe with these exceptions:
>
> 1. I have printed the large 13x19 target.
> 2. I have NOT placed the target on a piece of black blotter paper. I
> am not sure how this would help.
> 3. I have NOT redone the measurements and made a number two
> calibration. It seems that if you are careful and precise in your
> measurements then this step is not necessary.
>
> My current profile prints the standard test target very accurately. If
> I made a landscape print, people would say it looks great and is a
> very close screen match. It is just that when I reproduce artwork, the
> color matching becomes critical, and it is here that the profile is
> not doing its job on certain hues. They are close, but close is not
> good enough for this type of work.
>
> I know the printer is working properly with no clogged heads. I have
> carefully examined the measurements of the patches on the monitor
> screen before building the profile and these look good. In some cases
> just to make sure I have remeasured some, but see no difference on the
> screen hue for that patch after remeasuring.
>
> If I didn't do the color critical artwork reproductions for artist and
> only did my landscape work, I would be very satisfied. Perhaps what I
> am seeing are limitations in the PrinFix Pro/ SpyderII Pro calibration
> profiling system and I need to consider an alternative.
>
>
> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "PJS" <psandham@...> wrote:
>>
>> Try this:
>>
>> Starting with the basics, when you are printing your target patches
> to be
>> read, be sure the settings in the Epson print driver are correct. I
> would
>> set them to "Watercolor Paper - Radiant White"; Photo 1440dpi; No  
>> High
>> Speed; No Edge Smoothing; with the Color Management set to ICM; ICC
> profile
>> to "No Color Adjustment".
>>
>> Then print the target from PrintFix Pro (and I always double-check
> from the
>> "Select Print Fix Pro Target" page to be sure the settings have
> remained the
>> same. I also have found that printing the 3-page target makes for  
>> easier
>> reading than the large 13x19 target the 2200 will print. Be SURE to
> use the
>> same paper as you set in the Epson driver.
>>
>> After setting the white calibration using the white reference block
> on the
>> base of the PrintFix reader, measure each target. I place the target
> pages
>> on a piece of black blotter paper to avoid extraneous reflections  
>> when
>> measuring. After all measurements are complete, I go back over the
> on-screen
>> pages to be sure that one patch has not been misread - it's pretty
> easy to
>> see as the square will be "off" in color in relation to surrounding
> squares.
>> More than once I have mis-measured one or two squares. I have also  
>> found
>> that using the audible "click" when measuring helps avoid errors.
> You should
>> hear TWO clicks for EVERY measurement. If you don't, re-measure the
> square -
>> trust me! These procedures apply for the Black & White calibrations
> as well.
>> Once measurements are complete, be sure that the "advanced"  
>> options in
>> PrintFix Pro are all set to neutral (this would be the sliders and  
>> B/W
>> reference measurements).
>>
>> When you have saved your profile, you need to be sure that the
> settings in
>> the Epson print driver remain the same for any printing. If you use
> PS, as I
>> recall, use "no color management" for your monitor (this allows your
> Spyder
>> calibration to be the default viewer), and load your PrintFix Pro
> profile to
>> the output section of PS. Be sure that all options are OFF. I no
> longer use
>> PS for printing (Qimage is the only way to go, IMHO), so I'm working
> from
>> memory, but it is very easy in most programs to either double  
>> profile or
>> select color options that will alter your prints, especially if  
>> you are
>> playing with "localized" adjustments. Again, more than once I have  
>> left
>> something changed that I played around with and should have just
> left alone.
>> The hazards of too many choices!
>>
>> Once all of the above is correct, I would print the PrintFix Pro
> calibration
>> targets using PS and compare them to the targets printed out of  
>> PrintFix
>> Pro. The target files can be found at C:\Program
> Files\ColorVision\PrintFIX
>> PRO\Targets on a PC. For a MAC - ??? If the prints are not the same
> as the
>> ones printed from PrintFix, I would first check that the printer  
>> is not
>> clogging and the inks were OK.
>>
>> After all of this, I do the whole profiling process again and name  
>> the
>> calibration file #2. Print a test target or photo on the type of
> paper you
>> have profiled using both the original calibration and the #2  
>> calibration
>> (changing NOTHING ELSE on the computer) - if they are not EXACTLY
> the same,
>> either you measured wrong or your printer is malfunctioning (and
> there are
>> probably other obscure reasons, too, but I've not had to go past
> this point
>> to solve the problem). I've done this procedure for my 3800 for 12
> papers at
>> this time and my prints are spectacular. I also did it for many
> papers on my
>> now sold 2200 and was very happy with the results. And even my old
> 1270 can
>> put out a pretty good looking print!
>>
>> Hope this helps……
>>
>>
>> pjs
>> kansas "the flat & happy state"
>> "the better the photographer,
>> the bigger the wastebasket"
>> pjs 1972
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Read Ansel Adams series on The Camera and Lens; The Negative and The Print.
B&W is every bit as subjective and complicated as color, maybe more
so.....EVERY photographer should read this series....

pjs
kansas "the flat & happy state"
"the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket"
pjs 1972

------------------original message (or parts thereof-----------------
Subject: Re: [colorvision_group] Re: Not satisfied with PrintFix Pro
profile - Any way to improve?

Yikes. I think I'll go back to black and white...

Myron

The longer I think about this "problem", the easier it becomes. You said
that you could produce the desired results by doing "localized" adjustments.
If you make these adjustments within PrintFix Pro using the slider system,
can't you just re-save the profile and name it, for instance, "johns
extremely critical profile for Epson Watercolor Paper/Radiant White"? Then,
when the next customer wants a little more magenta, do a little tweak of
"johns" profile and rename it "marys extremely critical profile for Epson
Watercolor/Radiant White". this can be done for every profile, for every
paper, for every customer and/or for every print. How much more critical can
it get?

To me, that is one of the best features of PrintFix Pro. When I shoot a
wedding, I can go into the profile for the paper I will be using, and tweak
the white to get that print the bride just can't resist.....


pjs
kansas "the flat & happy state"
"the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket"
pjs 1972

------------------original message (or parts thereof-----------------
On Behalf Of prof_mgt551
To: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [colorvision_group] Re: Not satisfied with PrintFix Pro profile
- Any way to improve?

>>>>and if I purchase a more expensive system I might
only improve it another few percentage points of accuracy, but would
still be running into similar issues<<<<

> Read Ansel Adams series on The Camera and Lens; The Negative and  
> The Print.
> B&W is every bit as subjective and complicated as color, maybe more
> so.....EVERY photographer should read this series....

Indeed. I climbed those learning curves during the 1970's, and never  
touched colour until digital cameras entered my life three years ago  
and Photoshop made it possible to at least get in the ballpark of  
neutrality.

I still prefer B&W, but I do find it more difficult to print B&W with  
inkjet printers, even with all these super duper new inks. We  
definitely have not found our Ansel Adams for digital printing. I  
doubt that I am the only person who likes the flexibility of digital  
processing, and even many of the final results, but who finds much of  
the print-tweaking technology much less intuitive than darkroom work.

Myron

I'm the other one! I learned the craft in a darkroom in the 60's. Digital is
getting closer to the "real" thing every day, but it's not there yet.
There's just something about Kodachrome 25 that will never be duplicated,
especially since it is no longer made. Check out the 3800 paired with
PrintFix Pro and QImage for B&W - it's light years ahead of the other
Epson/software combos I've owned before. Put in some Epson Premium Semi
Matte Photo 250 paper and it's almost like the good old days in the darkroom
(without that great stop bath smell, though).


pjs
kansas "the flat & happy state"
"the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket"
pjs 1972

------------------original message (or parts thereof-----------------
On Behalf Of Myron Gochnauer

Subject: Re: [colorvision_group] Re: Not satisfied with PrintFix Pro
profile - Any way to improve?
>>>I still prefer B&W, but I do find it more difficult to print B&W with
inkjet printers, even with all these super duper new inks. We
definitely have not found our Ansel Adams for digital printing. I
doubt that I am the only person who likes the flexibility of digital
processing, and even many of the final results, but who finds much of
the print-tweaking technology much less intuitive than darkroom work.

Myron
<<<<