Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Other than the magenta splashes last night I noticed that the first
several patches shown in split mode on Epson RW Watercolor for the
700+ patch target look very light.  I took the readings twice thinking
I had misread some of the patches.  After that I looked at the Lab
values and they actually seemed pretty reasonable.

It appeared the patches were wrong on the print preview (density near
1.4ish) showing up as a light grey.  Certainly not a major issue but
threw me off a little :-)

Tom, I hope you get your magenta splash problem fixed.
What type of images do you use RW Watercolor for?  I used it for the 
first time last night after creating a PFP profile for it and so far am 
underwhelmed.

Ken

Tom wrote:

> Other than the magenta splashes last night I noticed that the first
> several patches shown in split mode on Epson RW Watercolor for the
> 700+ patch target look very light.  I took the readings twice thinking
> I had misread some of the patches.  After that I looked at the Lab
> values and they actually seemed pretty reasonable.
> 
> It appeared the patches were wrong on the print preview (density near
> 1.4ish) showing up as a light grey.  Certainly not a major issue but
> threw me off a little :-)
>

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, ken chow <kenchow@...> wrote:
>
> Tom, I hope you get your magenta splash problem fixed.
> What type of images do you use RW Watercolor for?  I used it for the 
> first time last night after creating a PFP profile for it and so far am 
> underwhelmed.
> 
> Ken

I've used it for several landscape photographs.  The contrast range
isn't as high as some of the other papers but the texture and tones
are pleasing to me.  Performance is dependant again on inkset so ...
I'm using the R800/1800 Ultrachrome high gloss inkset.

I'm using UC inks on a 4000, contrast and saturation are sub-optimal but 
I guess it would work for some types of images.

My other problem after printing a letter sized image is that 2 inches 
from the end, there's a 3 inch scratch across the image, never happened 
before.  I theorize that the limp nature of the paper caused that part 
to bend upwards as the printed part emerged from the printer, making 
contact with the print head.  I'll probably be returning the paper to 
the shop.

Ken

Tom wrote:

> I've used it for several landscape photographs.  The contrast range
> isn't as high as some of the other papers but the texture and tones
> are pleasing to me.  Performance is dependant again on inkset so ...
> I'm using the R800/1800 Ultrachrome high gloss inkset.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, ken chow <kenchow@...> wrote:
>
> I'm using UC inks on a 4000, contrast and saturation are sub-optimal
but 
> I guess it would work for some types of images.

That and the ink formulation for the R800/R1800 is quite different. 
We have extra carts for red and blue.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:

> What is the density value of the black (first) patch on your profiling 
> target, read with the PFP spot measure function? (Assuming you are
using the b5 
> beta; otherwise, what it the L* value of the black patch?)

I get 1.4 with the R1800.  Nice and dark.

PFP does work best with Saturation or Perpetual intent with the Black Point Compensation OFF. ... -- ... xun911@gmail.com www.xun-wang.com

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "xun wang" <xun911@...> wrote:
>
> PFP does work best with Saturation or Perpetual intent with the
Black Point
> Compensation OFF.

Does the combination of black point compensation and Perceptual intent
weaken the blacks considerably?

In a message dated 3/15/06 2:35:48 PM, ttrostel@... writes:


> > PFP does work best with Saturation or Perpetual intent with the
> Black Point
> > Compensation OFF.
> 
I may not have been specific enough: I wasn't recommending RelCol, only 
recommending that, if you use RelCol, you be sure to not use BPC with it.
> 
> Does the combination of black point compensation and Perceptual intent
> weaken the blacks considerably?
> 
I don't find that black varies with BPC with intents other than Colorimetric. 
With Colorimetric intents, unless you are emulating another output device 
(for instance, making a small proof to show a customer what they will get from 
your 7600, proofed on your 2200), you would probably want the darkest black 
possible, which would   mean unchecking Black Point Compensation. 

I don't quite understand why so many users are determined to use Black Point 
Compensation... it can't make blacks any darker than device black, but it can 
certainly make them weaker. With an ICC profile that already is attempting to 
map the darks as appropriately as possible, adding on a non-ICC hack at the 
last minute to remap the dark end is not a good idea.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

... It s better(safer) to leave it to OFF with for profiles built with PFP because as CD has pointed out, it s not a ICC standard and although most profiling

In a message dated 3/15/06 3:15:52 PM, xun911@... writes:


> It's better(safer) to leave it to OFF with for profiles built with PFP 
> because as CD has pointed out, it's not a ICC standard and although most 
> profiling software has adopted this feature from Adobe such as Gretagmacbeth, 
> Momaco(now they're the same comany anyway...). Colorvision has chosen not to, at 
> least so far...
> however, BPC work well under profiles made with Monacoprofiler & 
> Profilmaker.
> 

On the other hand, its really fun to take a Monaco profile and print through 
it at Relative Colorimetric with Black Point Compensation OFF... and watch it 
clip all values below about 32 to zero! Can't seem to have   it both ways... 
and since only Adobe applications have this feature, a profile thats designed 
to use it, is not usable in other applications or RIPs. Which is why we are 
reluctant to follow that route...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

>In a message dated 3/15/06 2:33:24 PM, ttrostel@... writes:
>
>>I get 1.4 with the R1800.  Nice and dark.
>>
>
>
>I'm not sure that I would call a d-max of 1.4 nice and dark, even 
>for watercolor paper, but its better than some printers will produce 
>with this media. I don't like to use matte art papers with less than 
>a Status T d-max of 1.5, and would really prefer something closer to 
>1.7... its a never ending quest!
>

On the Epson 4800 with K3 inks, I get a density of 1.57 for black, using
the standard Epson media setting for Watercolor.

I've done some test prints on WaterColor Radiant White on the 4800 and they're
very pleasing. I also like the fact that WCR handles easily and is fairly
inexpensive in cut sheets ($1 or less a sheet for 13x19, depending on where
you get it).

Contrast this to Epson Ultrasmooth fine art, which I've also done a fair
amount of printing on. Ultrasmooth produces a density of 1.58 for black
(so essentially, the same!) and can be printed on at 2880, but is more
expensive, more yellow, and it's not a lot of fun dealing with it on
a roll, cutting it up, and then eliminating the curl.



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

Thanks for the tips CD, I had done things correctly, however the results 
aren't worth the aggro (to me) of putting up with the paper surface 
coming into contact with the head so I'm returning the stuff, will stick 
to what works.

Ken

p.s. dunno what the black value is, will measure it for fun when I get 
back at it.

CDTobie@... wrote:

> First, be sure you are printing on the coated side of the sheet; with 
> some watercolor papers that can be a bit difficult to determine.
> 
snip

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:
> On the Epson 4800 with K3 inks, I get a density of 1.57 for black, using
> the standard Epson media setting for Watercolor.
> 
> I've done some test prints on WaterColor Radiant White on the 4800
and they're
> very pleasing. I also like the fact that WCR handles easily and is
fairly
> inexpensive in cut sheets ($1 or less a sheet for 13x19, depending
on where
> you get it).
> 
> Contrast this to Epson Ultrasmooth fine art, which I've also done a fair
> amount of printing on. Ultrasmooth produces a density of 1.58 for black
> (so essentially, the same!) and can be printed on at 2880, but is more
> expensive, more yellow, and it's not a lot of fun dealing with it on
> a roll, cutting it up, and then eliminating the curl.
> 


I made a mistake with my printer settings this morning ... I'm getting
a density of 1.63 with the matte black on the R1800 UltraChrome inks