Please comment on color-printing setup

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Hilton, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. Bill Hilton

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Pixmaker

    >With this mess, do I really need a colorimeter? If the answer is yes,
    >what do you all think of the Monaco OPTI- XR. It's
    >about $250. Will it be sufficient for my needs


    If you're using Photoshop then run the Adobe Gamma utility (free) and see if
    that's good enough for your needs. Use the Epson ICC profiles for your 2200
    and print a couple of test patterns and compare to the screen.

    The problem with Gamma is that two of the key measurements must be eyeballed
    and your eye isn't as accurate as a colorimeter, but if you dink with it a
    couple of times maybe you can live with the results.

    I found I got much better results with a colorimeter, using the ColorVision
    Spyder (which is similar in features and price to the Monaco model you
    mention). Well worth the cost to me (I'm also using the Epson 2200 w/
    Photoshop), but maybe you're one of the lucky ones who can get by with Adobe
    Gamma instead.

    So try Gamma but be prepared to spring for the puck.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jan 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Pixmaker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello, all:
    >
    > (Also posted to alt.graphics.photoshop...I'm really looking for info)
    >
    > After switching to digital for a lot of my work, I'm about to upgrade my

    monitor, printer and video driver (my computer
    > has an on-board driver.) But it seems that I better invest in a

    colorimeter to obtain a real measure of what my monitor
    > is doing. I'll appreciate some help in deciding whether I really need all

    this stuff <G>
    >
    > New Printer is an Epson 2200...now on the way.
    >
    > Monitor probably an Iiyama 17" or 19" Diamondtron (boy are these things

    confusing.)
    >
    > Video card will be a Matrox 450 or 550 depending on what deal I can get.
    >
    > With this mess, do I really need a colorimeter? If the answer is yes, what

    do you all think of the Monaco OPTI- XR. It's
    > about $250. Will it be sufficient for my needs since I'm a photographer,

    not a graphic designer... I don't do pre-press.
    >
    > AlI want is fairly predictable prints and the ability to prepare CD's for

    those times that I use a service company for
    > large prints. I use PS-7 and I'm hoping to set up a REPEATABLE system so

    that when I look at an image on my monitor,
    > it's as close to WYSIWYG as possible at a reasonable expense. Just as I've

    done for years in the darkroom, I hope to
    > standardize on hardware, software and expendables like ink and paper.

    (Truthfully, it seems that there may be even fewer
    > variables here than in the darkroom. At least time and temperature are no

    longer significant <G>)
    >
    > Am I headed in the right direction?
    >
    > Thanks
    > -- DaveinFLL

    The software you are using - probably an image editor - is part of the
    equation. There are procedures for each of the quality software programs
    for matching the screen and printer images.

    While the results may not be absolutely accurate, they will probably be
    better than you get with prints from negatives.
     
    Marvin Margoshes, Jan 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill Hilton

    Flycaster Guest

    "Pixmaker" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello, all:
    >
    > (Also posted to alt.graphics.photoshop...I'm really looking for info)
    >
    > After switching to digital for a lot of my work, I'm about to upgrade my

    monitor, printer and video driver (my computer
    > has an on-board driver.) But it seems that I better invest in a

    colorimeter to obtain a real measure of what my monitor
    > is doing. I'll appreciate some help in deciding whether I really need all

    this stuff <G>
    >
    > New Printer is an Epson 2200...now on the way.
    >
    > Monitor probably an Iiyama 17" or 19" Diamondtron (boy are these things

    confusing.)
    >
    > Video card will be a Matrox 450 or 550 depending on what deal I can get.
    >
    > With this mess, do I really need a colorimeter? If the answer is yes, what

    do you all think of the Monaco OPTI- XR. It's
    > about $250. Will it be sufficient for my needs since I'm a photographer,

    not a graphic designer... I don't do pre-press.
    >
    > AlI want is fairly predictable prints and the ability to prepare CD's for

    those times that I use a service company for
    > large prints. I use PS-7 and I'm hoping to set up a REPEATABLE system so

    that when I look at an image on my monitor,
    > it's as close to WYSIWYG as possible at a reasonable expense. Just as I've

    done for years in the darkroom, I hope to
    > standardize on hardware, software and expendables like ink and paper.

    (Truthfully, it seems that there may be even fewer
    > variables here than in the darkroom. At least time and temperature are no

    longer significant <G>)
    >
    > Am I headed in the right direction?


    Yep, though I heartily recommend the larger monitor, or better yet, a second
    one (full screen image on one, PS tools on the other). Bill's right about
    the hardware calibrator - try Adobe Gamma and the free profiles first; if
    they do the job to your satisfaction, great, you're set. And if they don't,
    let us know and we can point you in some good directions, depending on your
    wallet.

    Take a look at these and see if they aren't helpful:
    http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps7-colour/ps7_1.htm
    and http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps7_print/ps7_print_mac.htm
    and http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/printers/Epson2200.shtml (use
    Method 2 if you intend to use the canned profiles, which I would recommend)




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Jan 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Marvin,

    A colorimeter is not going to get you very far it will tell you the Color
    temp of your screen but will not give you a calibration against a standard
    which is what you need when you send things to a service bureau.

    Check out www.colorvison.com they have a tool called the 'Spyder' which
    allows you to calibrate your entire system and pricing goes to from about
    $250-300 up to as much as you want to spend. The basic systems they
    offer should be good enough to get you where you want to be.

    BTW - in digital there are MORE variables than conventional C prints.
    That's why Fuji uses RA-4 printing in their Frontier systems it's
    simultaneously cheaper and more consistent.

    You may have escaped time/temp as a demon but you now have ink absorption
    rates, humidity, pigment density, condition of nozzles and temperature!!.

    Scott C. McGrath

    On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Marvin Margoshes wrote:

    >
    > "Pixmaker" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hello, all:
    > >
    > > (Also posted to alt.graphics.photoshop...I'm really looking for info)
    > >
    > > After switching to digital for a lot of my work, I'm about to upgrade my

    > monitor, printer and video driver (my computer
    > > has an on-board driver.) But it seems that I better invest in a

    > colorimeter to obtain a real measure of what my monitor
    > > is doing. I'll appreciate some help in deciding whether I really need all

    > this stuff <G>
    > >
    > > New Printer is an Epson 2200...now on the way.
    > >
    > > Monitor probably an Iiyama 17" or 19" Diamondtron (boy are these things

    > confusing.)
    > >
    > > Video card will be a Matrox 450 or 550 depending on what deal I can get.
    > >
    > > With this mess, do I really need a colorimeter? If the answer is yes, what

    > do you all think of the Monaco OPTI- XR. It's
    > > about $250. Will it be sufficient for my needs since I'm a photographer,

    > not a graphic designer... I don't do pre-press.
    > >
    > > AlI want is fairly predictable prints and the ability to prepare CD's for

    > those times that I use a service company for
    > > large prints. I use PS-7 and I'm hoping to set up a REPEATABLE system so

    > that when I look at an image on my monitor,
    > > it's as close to WYSIWYG as possible at a reasonable expense. Just as I've

    > done for years in the darkroom, I hope to
    > > standardize on hardware, software and expendables like ink and paper.

    > (Truthfully, it seems that there may be even fewer
    > > variables here than in the darkroom. At least time and temperature are no

    > longer significant <G>)
    > >
    > > Am I headed in the right direction?
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > > -- DaveinFLL

    > The software you are using - probably an image editor - is part of the
    > equation. There are procedures for each of the quality software programs
    > for matching the screen and printer images.
    >
    > While the results may not be absolutely accurate, they will probably be
    > better than you get with prints from negatives.
    >
    >
    >
     
    Scott McGrath, Jan 22, 2004
    #4
  5. Bill Hilton

    Jeff Simmons Guest

    I agree with Bill. I was struggling with my 2200 and Photoshp CS until
    I bought the Monaco EXColor/Monoca Optix package and calibrated my
    monitor properly. Once that was done and I learned to use the Soft
    Proof function in PSCS, I've been getting strikingly accurate prints
    on Epson Enhanced Matte Paper with the standard (built-in) Epson 2200
    profiles. I thought I was going to have to buy a scanner to profile
    the printer but that has not turned out to be necessary.

    Jeff


    On 22 Jan 2004 16:53:34 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    wrote:

    >>From: Pixmaker

    >
    >>With this mess, do I really need a colorimeter? If the answer is yes,
    >>what do you all think of the Monaco OPTI- XR. It's
    >>about $250. Will it be sufficient for my needs

    >
    >If you're using Photoshop then run the Adobe Gamma utility (free) and see if
    >that's good enough for your needs. Use the Epson ICC profiles for your 2200
    >and print a couple of test patterns and compare to the screen.
    >
    >The problem with Gamma is that two of the key measurements must be eyeballed
    >and your eye isn't as accurate as a colorimeter, but if you dink with it a
    >couple of times maybe you can live with the results.
    >
    >I found I got much better results with a colorimeter, using the ColorVision
    >Spyder (which is similar in features and price to the Monaco model you
    >mention). Well worth the cost to me (I'm also using the Epson 2200 w/
    >Photoshop), but maybe you're one of the lucky ones who can get by with Adobe
    >Gamma instead.
    >
    >So try Gamma but be prepared to spring for the puck.
    >
    >Bill
     
    Jeff Simmons, Jan 22, 2004
    #5
  6. Bill Hilton

    Pixmaker Guest

    Hello, all:

    (Also posted to alt.graphics.photoshop...I'm really looking for info)

    After switching to digital for a lot of my work, I'm about to upgrade my monitor, printer and video driver (my computer
    has an on-board driver.) But it seems that I better invest in a colorimeter to obtain a real measure of what my monitor
    is doing. I'll appreciate some help in deciding whether I really need all this stuff <G>

    New Printer is an Epson 2200...now on the way.

    Monitor probably an Iiyama 17" or 19" Diamondtron (boy are these things confusing.)

    Video card will be a Matrox 450 or 550 depending on what deal I can get.

    With this mess, do I really need a colorimeter? If the answer is yes, what do you all think of the Monaco OPTI- XR. It's
    about $250. Will it be sufficient for my needs since I'm a photographer, not a graphic designer... I don't do pre-press.

    AlI want is fairly predictable prints and the ability to prepare CD's for those times that I use a service company for
    large prints. I use PS-7 and I'm hoping to set up a REPEATABLE system so that when I look at an image on my monitor,
    it's as close to WYSIWYG as possible at a reasonable expense. Just as I've done for years in the darkroom, I hope to
    standardize on hardware, software and expendables like ink and paper. (Truthfully, it seems that there may be even fewer
    variables here than in the darkroom. At least time and temperature are no longer significant <G>)

    Am I headed in the right direction?

    Thanks
    -- DaveinFLL
    ===========================
    "It's not the heat, it's the humidity."
    ===========================
    (Think the humidity's bad? You should watch us vote!)
     
    Pixmaker, Jan 22, 2004
    #6
  7. Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>From: Pixmaker

    >
    >
    >>With this mess, do I really need a colorimeter? If the answer is yes,
    >>what do you all think of the Monaco OPTI- XR. It's
    >>about $250. Will it be sufficient for my needs

    >
    >
    > If you're using Photoshop then run the Adobe Gamma utility (free) and see if
    > that's good enough for your needs. Use the Epson ICC profiles for your 2200
    > and print a couple of test patterns and compare to the screen.
    >
    > The problem with Gamma is that two of the key measurements must be eyeballed
    > and your eye isn't as accurate as a colorimeter, but if you dink with it a
    > couple of times maybe you can live with the results.
    >
    > I found I got much better results with a colorimeter, using the ColorVision
    > Spyder (which is similar in features and price to the Monaco model you
    > mention). Well worth the cost to me (I'm also using the Epson 2200 w/
    > Photoshop), but maybe you're one of the lucky ones who can get by with Adobe
    > Gamma instead.
    >
    > So try Gamma but be prepared to spring for the puck.
    >
    > Bill


    Where can I get the Adobe Gamma utility for free?

    --
    --
    Ben Thomas
    Melbourne, Australia
     
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=, Jan 22, 2004
    #7
  8. Bill Hilton

    VT Guest

    Lots of interesting and sound advice given on this thread.

    Just to take a step baskward if you like............

    Although (digital) photography is a science -
    it is still in the end an art -
    and is still very much dependent on
    "the eye of the beholder"

    Even if one calibrates every single possible item in one's sytem -
    when do you know when everything's OK? .........
    when your _eyes_ tell you so?

    So only your eyes and you can be the final judge -

    This being so, one should just try out prints with the system and
    set-up and just _see_ if the prints are as one expects -

    If they are, then be "happy", until you get a print that makes you
    "unhappy".

    If they are not - then try and figure out what is it that makes you
    dissatisfied with the print - and see if there is a simple remedy -
    just to give "trivial" example - if the print is too dark (a common
    complaint) this might just be the screen is showing an image that's
    brighter than the resultant print - and a simple adjustment of the
    screen gamma to match the actual print might do the trick.......

    Of course some simple basics have to be there - like making sure that
    the color (icc) profiles of the monitor and the printer are loaded and
    recognized by the operating system (and photo editor program) -

    and making sure that one understands how to use the color management -
    this is a surprisingly common fault even by experienced people

    EITHER
    have the editor do the color management (with the printer set to NO
    color adjustment)
    OR
    have the printer (driver) color managemnt (ICM) turned on - but with
    the editor's color management set to OFF.

    Otherwise one may get double color management which results in prints
    that are way out of whack to what's shown on the screen.

    With PhotoShop one has to understand the difference between the
    working color space (PS defualts to Adobe RGB) and the printer's (and
    the rest of the world) color space sRGB (but this isn't normally a
    problem for most people). However if prints do not resemble the
    screen display - it might be worth converting everything to sRGB just
    as a check to make sure the difference in color space isn't having any
    effect.

    Here's a very useful article:

    http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/2440.html

    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHING for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    http://UnknownVT.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Jan 22, 2004
    #8
  9. Bill Hilton

    Crownfield Guest

    BenOneĀ© wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Where can I get the Adobe Gamma utility for free?


    ask adobe?

    >
    > --
    > --
    > Ben Thomas
    > Melbourne, Australia
     
    Crownfield, Jan 22, 2004
    #9
  10. Bill Hilton

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> If you're using Photoshop then run the Adobe Gamma utility (free)

    >From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?BenOne=A9?=
    >
    >Where can I get the Adobe Gamma utility for free?


    It's included with Photoshop and Elements.
     
    Bill Hilton, Jan 22, 2004
    #10
  11. Bill Hilton

    Pixmaker Guest

    Many thanks to all who contributed. I value your comments and appreciate your taking the time to respond.
    Although I'm not exactly a newbie, the switch to digital has raised issues I've not considered for years.

    Many thanks!


    -- DaveinFLL
    ===========================
    "It's not the heat, it's the humidity."
    ===========================
    (Think the humidity's bad? You should watch us vote!)
     
    Pixmaker, Jan 22, 2004
    #11
  12. Bill Hilton

    Flycaster Guest

    "VT" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Lots of interesting and sound advice given on this thread.
    >
    > Just to take a step baskward if you like............
    >
    > Although (digital) photography is a science -
    > it is still in the end an art -
    > and is still very much dependent on
    > "the eye of the beholder"
    >
    > Even if one calibrates every single possible item in one's sytem -
    > when do you know when everything's OK? .........
    > when your _eyes_ tell you so?
    >
    > So only your eyes and you can be the final judge -
    >
    > This being so, one should just try out prints with the system and
    > set-up and just _see_ if the prints are as one expects -
    >
    > If they are, then be "happy", until you get a print that makes you
    > "unhappy".
    >
    > If they are not - then try and figure out what is it that makes you
    > dissatisfied with the print - and see if there is a simple remedy -
    > just to give "trivial" example - if the print is too dark (a common
    > complaint) this might just be the screen is showing an image that's
    > brighter than the resultant print - and a simple adjustment of the
    > screen gamma to match the actual print might do the trick.......
    >
    > Of course some simple basics have to be there - like making sure that
    > the color (icc) profiles of the monitor and the printer are loaded and
    > recognized by the operating system (and photo editor program) -
    >
    > and making sure that one understands how to use the color management -
    > this is a surprisingly common fault even by experienced people
    >
    > EITHER
    > have the editor do the color management (with the printer set to NO
    > color adjustment)
    > OR
    > have the printer (driver) color managemnt (ICM) turned on - but with
    > the editor's color management set to OFF.
    >
    > Otherwise one may get double color management which results in prints
    > that are way out of whack to what's shown on the screen.


    Good advice so far, except it is usually considered bad form to adjust a
    calibrated monitor to "match" a print. By definition, that will leave it
    "uncalibrated" for other images. (not good advice)

    > With PhotoShop one has to understand the difference between the
    > working color space (PS defualts to Adobe RGB)


    That depends on how you set up the general Settings and RGB spaces under
    Preferences. If you select US Prepress, correctamundo.

    >and the printer's (and
    > the rest of the world) color space sRGB


    No. Inkjets do not have a "working color space", rather they each have
    their own device dependant colorspace, the gamut of which is almost
    invariably larger than sRGB, and in the case of 7 color inkjets, much
    larger.

    (but this isn't normally a
    > problem for most people). However if prints do not resemble the
    > screen display - it might be worth converting everything to sRGB just
    > as a check to make sure the difference in color space isn't having any
    > effect.


    This is a commom misconception. For all practical purposes (unless you're
    nitpicking with certain uncommon shades of saturated cyans), the choice of
    RGB working space has no impact on color matching the screen with inkjets,
    irrespective of whether or not you use PS or the driver to manage color.
    Mismatches generally occur as a result of using a bad monitor (worn out CRT,
    or most LCD's), poor monitor calibration, poor profiles, or crappy driver
    color management. Take your pick, but the file color space isn't the
    problem.

    The fact that OS's and some mini-lab machines (notably Fuji and Noritsu) are
    incapable of reading profiles, and thus are set up to "assume" sRGB is
    indeed regrettable, but that does not mean that the "rest of the world" uses
    it. Using sRGB with a modern inkjet is like putting regular octane gas in a
    porsche turbo. Sure, it'll run...but why would you do that intentionally?
    (especially when you already have the tools right in front of you)




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Jan 22, 2004
    #12
  13. Bill Hilton

    Pixmaker Guest

    On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 16:36:56 -0500, VT <> wrote:

    ....Gigantic Snip...

    I agree with what you say. And I truly appreciate and enjoy this medium as an art form. Indeed, there are times when I
    just "have to be in the right frame of mind" to do what I feel.

    However...

    When you're crankin' them out, and ya gotta get the job done by 5 pm, it's nice to have a machine-like avenue to
    accomplish the task. Reliable and repeatable is the story. Gotta feed the Philistines!

    And, to be sure, there is much we do that is simply documentary in nature, for which some degree of routine is
    necessary. As an example, I often do quick portraiture of, say, 60 people in two hours. That's two (count 'em, two)
    minutes per subject. When I'm doing that, I'm running on inertia (or momentum) and the creativity aspect arises mainly
    from experience (like..."I know this trick works well with a woman having a long, narrow face.") A session like that is
    followed by a "crank 'em out" at the computer. Honestly, I'm delighted that the results don't look like passport photos
    or driver's lincense shots!

    But..it pays the bills

    I enjoy the art form but gotta have the standardization and speed, too. Just different applications.

    Boy, we have to be Jekyl and Hydes in this business!


    -- DaveinFLL
    ===========================
    "It's not the heat, it's the humidity."
    ===========================
    (Think the humidity's bad? You should watch us vote!)
     
    Pixmaker, Jan 23, 2004
    #13
  14. Bill Hilton

    Kerry Guest

    "Pixmaker" <> wrote in message news:...
    >
    > New Printer is an Epson 2200...now on the way.


    If you are going to much printing, getting a continuous flow system (CFS) will pay for itself in the long run.

    I bought a CFS for my Epson 870 several years ago from MIS Associates Inc and really like it.
     
    Kerry, Jan 23, 2004
    #14
  15. Bill Hilton

    VT Guest

    Out of Gamut: Getting a Handle on Color Management
    Color-geek extraordinaire Bruce Fraser spells out the basics in this
    primer on color management systems.
    By Bruce Fraser
    Wednesday, June 20, 2001
    http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/13605.html


    Out of Gamut: Setting Up Color Management in Photoshop 6
    Color-management wizard Bruce Fraser kicks off his two-part article on
    color managing in Photoshop 6 with this guide to calibrating your
    monitor and optimizing Photoshop settings.
    By Bruce Fraser
    Wednesday, September 5, 2001
    http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/14331.html


    Out of Gamut: Color Management Made Stupid
    By Bruce Fraser
    Monday, October 11, 1999
    http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/2440.html

    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHING for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    http://UnknownVT.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Jan 23, 2004
    #15
  16. Bill Hilton

    Flycaster Guest

    "VT" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Out of Gamut: Getting a Handle on Color Management
    > Color-geek extraordinaire Bruce Fraser spells out the basics in this
    > primer on color management systems.
    > By Bruce Fraser
    > Wednesday, June 20, 2001
    > http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/13605.html
    >
    >
    > Out of Gamut: Setting Up Color Management in Photoshop 6
    > Color-management wizard Bruce Fraser kicks off his two-part article on
    > color managing in Photoshop 6 with this guide to calibrating your
    > monitor and optimizing Photoshop settings.
    > By Bruce Fraser
    > Wednesday, September 5, 2001
    > http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/14331.html
    >
    >
    > Out of Gamut: Color Management Made Stupid
    > By Bruce Fraser
    > Monday, October 11, 1999
    > http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/2440.html


    I'm not trying to honk on you here, but I've long since stopped referring
    people to that last article since it was written for the pre-6.01 CMS. Due
    to the different setup and menu screen shots, it will only confuse the
    living crap out of anyone using 6.01 or above, and the original poster is
    using 7.0. Frankly, Bruce should take this link down..

    IMO, Ian Lyon's tutorials are *much* better suited to his beginner's
    queries, since they exactly match his set-up. Think about it.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
     
    Flycaster, Jan 23, 2004
    #16
  17. Bill Hilton

    VT Guest

    On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:32:58 -0800, "Flycaster" <>
    wrote:
    >
    >I'm not trying to honk on you here, but I've long since stopped referring
    >people to that last article since it was written for the pre-6.01 CMS. Due
    >to the different setup and menu screen shots, it will only confuse the
    >living crap out of anyone using 6.01 or above, and the original poster is
    >using 7.0. Frankly, Bruce should take this link down..
    >
    >IMO, Ian Lyon's tutorials are *much* better suited to his beginner's
    >queries, since they exactly match his set-up. Think about it.
    >


    No problem, many thanks for the update -

    you're right Color Management made Stupid was for PS pre-6 -

    but it is (IMHO) still a very useful article for the relatively common
    mistake of "double" color management.

    --
    Vincent
    remove CLOTHING for e-mail

    http://UnknownVincent.cjb.net/
    http://UnknownVT.cjb.net/
     
    VT, Jan 23, 2004
    #17
  18. Bill Hilton

    KBob Guest

    On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 14:18:24 -0500, Jeff Simmons
    <> wrote:

    >I agree with Bill. I was struggling with my 2200 and Photoshp CS until
    >I bought the Monaco EXColor/Monoca Optix package and calibrated my
    >monitor properly. Once that was done and I learned to use the Soft
    >Proof function in PSCS, I've been getting strikingly accurate prints
    >on Epson Enhanced Matte Paper with the standard (built-in) Epson 2200
    >profiles. I thought I was going to have to buy a scanner to profile
    >the printer but that has not turned out to be necessary.
    >
    >Jeff
    >

    I also use a 2200 etc., and have had the same experience. Profiling
    the printer has not improved things all that much except when using
    non-Epson papers. I'd say one of the very WORST papers that I've come
    across is Epson Glossy (not for the 2200, but for 900/1270/1280
    types). It's thin, leaves a wavy print, brasses badly and in general
    is similar to those very cheap glossy papers you find at discount
    outlets, such as Royal Brights. By far the best gloss paper I've
    found has been TDK reference grade and also pro grade, the gloss is
    what you should expect from glossy paper, and it's far heavier. It's
    also quite inexpensive if you hunt around for best prices. The very
    slight greenish cast can be easily compensated for, or a profile
    created with PrinterPlus.
    >
    >On 22 Jan 2004 16:53:34 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
    >wrote:
    >
    >>>From: Pixmaker

    >>
    >>>With this mess, do I really need a colorimeter? If the answer is yes,
    >>>what do you all think of the Monaco OPTI- XR. It's
    >>>about $250. Will it be sufficient for my needs

    >>

    Also reflective color density meters (for prints) can be very handy
    tools if you're doing a lot of color printing, or even if you're
    having a lab do it for you. I picked up a "dirty and needs cleaning"
    X-Rite 408 on eBay for about $120, and if you keep watching you may
    find a bargain. For calibrating your monitor, the Colorvision
    SpyderPro/Optical setup is hard to beat for the money, and it can
    calibrate both CRT and LCD monitors.

    >>If you're using Photoshop then run the Adobe Gamma utility (free) and see if
    >>that's good enough for your needs. Use the Epson ICC profiles for your 2200
    >>and print a couple of test patterns and compare to the screen.
    >>
    >>The problem with Gamma is that two of the key measurements must be eyeballed
    >>and your eye isn't as accurate as a colorimeter, but if you dink with it a
    >>couple of times maybe you can live with the results.
    >>
    >>I found I got much better results with a colorimeter, using the ColorVision
    >>Spyder (which is similar in features and price to the Monaco model you
    >>mention). Well worth the cost to me (I'm also using the Epson 2200 w/
    >>Photoshop), but maybe you're one of the lucky ones who can get by with Adobe
    >>Gamma instead.
    >>
    >>So try Gamma but be prepared to spring for the puck.
    >>
    >>Bill
     
    KBob, Jan 24, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Smokem

    Comment "setup" la Freebox en NAT...?

    Smokem, Dec 29, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    441
    Rob K
    Dec 29, 2004
  2. Al Dykes
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    3,746
    Wilt W
    Apr 13, 2004
  3. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,000
  4. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    918
  5. elie
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    955
Loading...

Share This Page