Re: Printers...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by tomm42, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. tomm42

    tomm42 Guest

    On Sep 14, 1:29 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > What printer are you using for photography?
    >
    > Pros/cons of it?
    >
    > Plans to upgrade, change approach, etc.
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Alan
    >
    > PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the Epson 3800 and
    > Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very welcome.
    >
    > --
    > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    > --        r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    > --      [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    > --                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    > -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.


    Both are excellent printers, the Canon is a little heavier duty, but
    is really big, takes roll paper, no reported clogging. The Epson is
    just a little larger than a 13 inch printer, small package, minimal
    reported clogging, sheet feed only. Both do nice prints.
    Don't worry about the "starter carts" they are 90ml, 10ml larger than
    the 3800 carts. You use 30mls of each ink to prime the printer, so you
    have 60mls to work with. BTW the Epson uses 20-30mls to prime too. So
    this the printers start with about the same amount of ink.
    I have the Canon iPF 5000 the predecessor to the 5100, great printer,
    very few problems. Most paper manufacturers have excellent profiles
    for both printers, I haven't seen a reason to get a profiling system
    yet (I have two papers that I have custom profiles for). It is
    interesting that Canon still only sends generic profiles with the
    5100, and doesn't have a full paper coverage of good profiles.
    Either printer will give prints better than what you can get from
    anything but full specced custom prints. The costs aren't bad, I do my
    4x6s or 5x7 by ganging across 17 inch paper, costs about $.25 each. A
    16x20 costs about $6-9 depending on the paper used. This varies
    greatly, Canon Heavyweight Gloss (nice gloss RC paper) costs about $.
    50 a foot (17 inch). Harman Baryta Gloss Ai cost about $3.25 a foot
    (super premium fiber based gloss paper, beautiful). B&W from both
    printers is as good as dedicated b&w printers, I like my b&w prints
    better than what I used to get from a darkroom (I wasn't Ansel Adams).
    There is a little learning curve to printing, but it isn't rocket
    science. At first I'd avoid your own profiling, just something else to
    go wrong, and delivers to many parameters when you are trying to shake
    down a problem. As I said most paper manufacturers (and some dealers)
    deliver very good profiles, this wasn't true even two years ago.
    Good luck

    Tom
    tomm42, Sep 15, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    >on the screen during edit v. the end printed result. In effect, why I
    >want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    >couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    >are off. (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)


    I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    printed output didn't look at all like the screen.

    Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    screen.

    In for a penny and in for a pound - so I bought the Printfix Pro 3
    printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time
    I have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I
    expect the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of
    magnitude. I hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get
    prints which look exactly like the screen.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 16, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:38:00 -0400, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:

    >Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    >>> on the screen during edit v. the end printed result. In effect, why I
    >>> want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    >>> couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    >>> are off. (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)

    >>
    >> I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    >> prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    >> and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    >> Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    >> printed output didn't look at all like the screen.
    >>
    >> Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    >> My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    >> started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    >> things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    >> calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    >> somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    >> either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    >> screen.

    >
    >I have an iMac (24") and the display is fantastic compared to most PC
    >screens. Certainly beats the hell out of my other LCD display (despite
    >the other being of 'higher' resolution, the apple display looks a lot
    >crisper).
    >
    >> In for a penny and in for a pound - so I bought the Printfix Pro 3
    >> printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    >> Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time
    >> I have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I
    >> expect the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of
    >> magnitude. I hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get
    >> prints which look exactly like the screen.

    >
    >I'm looking at colormunki which claims to do both monitor and printer.
    >I have not found anyone who has experience with it to date. OTOH, the
    >Epson papers (and others) have reputedly great profiles. In theory you
    >do not need to profile them. TBD.


    One of my problems is that Epson have changed the naming (and probably
    the make up) of their paper at least twice since I bought my printer.
    I am not confident that I can properly match paper with profiles.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 16, 2008
    #3
  4. tomm42

    measekite Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

    > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    >>on the screen during edit v. the end printed result. In effect, why I
    >>want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    >>couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    >>are off. (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)

    >
    > I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    > prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    > and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    > Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    > printed output didn't look at all like the screen.
    >
    > Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    > My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    > started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    > things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    > calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    > somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    > either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    > screen.


    So what is actually wrong with Samsung or Viewsonic for that matter.

    And what is so good about Dell?

    And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    printed photo?
    >
    > In for a penny and in for a pound - so I bought the Printfix Pro 3


    So how does that actually work?

    > printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    > Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    > have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    > the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude. I
    > hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    > exactly like the screen.
    >
    >
    >
    > Eric Stevens
    measekite, Sep 16, 2008
    #4
  5. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:46:50 GMT, measekite <>
    wrote:

    >On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >
    >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    >>>on the screen during edit v. the end printed result. In effect, why I
    >>>want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    >>>couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    >>>are off. (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)

    >>
    >> I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    >> prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    >> and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    >> Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    >> printed output didn't look at all like the screen.
    >>
    >> Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    >> My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    >> started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    >> things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    >> calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    >> somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    >> either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    >> screen.

    >
    >So what is actually wrong with Samsung or Viewsonic for that matter.


    The Samsung never had an outstandingly high contrast ratio and over
    the years it had been slowly fading (all LCDs with a back light do
    that). I can't speak about the Viewsonic.
    >
    >And what is so good about Dell?


    Crisp, bright, sharp almost exactly spot-on colours and a much greater
    contrast ratio than the Samsung. The Eizo has even better contrast and
    the image is of the kind to make you gasp. Even though it has a high
    resolution the Apple somehow seems smoother than either the Eizo or
    the Dell. But the Dell gives a 1980 x 1200 picture with excellent
    faithfulness to the original colour.
    >
    >And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    >printed photo?


    Now, its not the monitor which is wrong but the printer. But when the
    monitor was wrong the printer differed from it even more than it does
    now. You also have to bear in mind that no printer can exactly emulate
    what you see on the monitor.
    >>
    >> In for a penny and in for a pound - so I bought the Printfix Pro 3

    >
    >So how does that actually work?


    For a description and a review see
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/Printfix Pro.shtml
    Go down to the picture 'Here is a completed target'. Each rectangle is
    in two parts. This is a screen shot. One part is what the software
    thought it was asking for. The other part was what it's scanner found
    it had actually got. As shown in the diagram some of the differences
    were mind boggling.
    >
    >> printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    >> Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    >> have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    >> the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude. I
    >> hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    >> exactly like the screen.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens




    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 16, 2008
    #5
  6. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 19:54:38 -0700, John McWilliams
    <> wrote:

    >Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:38:00 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    >>>>> on the screen during edit v. the end printed result. In effect, why I
    >>>>> want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    >>>>> couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    >>>>> are off. (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)
    >>>> I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    >>>> prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    >>>> and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    >>>> Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    >>>> printed output didn't look at all like the screen.
    >>>>
    >>>> Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    >>>> My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    >>>> started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    >>>> things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    >>>> calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    >>>> somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    >>>> either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    >>>> screen.
    >>> I have an iMac (24") and the display is fantastic compared to most PC
    >>> screens. Certainly beats the hell out of my other LCD display (despite
    >>> the other being of 'higher' resolution, the apple display looks a lot
    >>> crisper).
    >>>
    >>>> In for a penny and in for a pound - so I bought the Printfix Pro 3
    >>>> printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    >>>> Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time
    >>>> I have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I
    >>>> expect the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of
    >>>> magnitude. I hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get
    >>>> prints which look exactly like the screen.
    >>> I'm looking at colormunki which claims to do both monitor and printer.
    >>> I have not found anyone who has experience with it to date. OTOH, the
    >>> Epson papers (and others) have reputedly great profiles. In theory you
    >>> do not need to profile them. TBD.

    >>
    >> One of my problems is that Epson have changed the naming (and probably
    >> the make up) of their paper at least twice since I bought my printer.
    >> I am not confident that I can properly match paper with profiles.

    >
    >You may want to bag (trash; delete; eradicate!) all your printer drivers
    >and start afresh.
    >
    >As to Alan's theory that you don't need to profile the Epson 3800 using
    >Epson papers, that's correct in my experience.


    That's because when you tell the driver what paper you have loaded the
    driver automatically selects the correct profile. But I have Epson
    papers which no longer appear in the standard list and I don't know
    whether my guess as to the current equivalent is correct or not. On
    the one trial I have done so far I have found the printed colour is
    considerably at odds with the intention. I have a long way to go on
    this yet. No doubt I will one day understand it.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 16, 2008
    #6
  7. tomm42

    tomm42 Guest

    On Sep 15, 5:53 pm, Alan Browne <>
    wrote:
    > tomm42 wrote:
    > >> PS: I'm esp. interested in small pro printers such as the Epson 3800 and
    > >> Canon iPF5100, but all comments are very welcome.

    >
    > > Both are excellent printers, the Canon is a little heavier duty, but
    > > is really big, takes roll paper, no reported clogging. The Epson is
    > > just a little larger than a 13 inch printer, small package, minimal
    > > reported clogging, sheet feed only. Both do nice prints.
    > > Don't worry about the "starter carts" they are 90ml, 10ml larger than
    > > the 3800 carts. You use 30mls of each ink to prime the printer, so you
    > > have 60mls to work with. BTW the Epson uses 20-30mls to prime too. So
    > > this the printers start with about the same amount of ink.

    >
    > I've found out since I started this thread that for the difference in
    > printer price, I can get one and a half sets of carts for the Epson...
    > So I'm more focused on the Epson 3800 now.
    >
    >
    >
    > > I have the Canon iPF 5000 the predecessor to the 5100, great printer,
    > > very few problems. Most paper manufacturers have excellent profiles
    > > for both printers, I haven't seen a reason to get a profiling system
    > > yet (I have two papers that I have custom profiles for). It is
    > > interesting that Canon still only sends generic profiles with the
    > > 5100, and doesn't have a full paper coverage of good profiles.
    > > Either printer will give prints better than what you can get from
    > > anything but full specced custom prints. The costs aren't bad, I do my
    > > 4x6s or 5x7 by ganging across 17 inch paper, costs about $.25 each. A
    > > 16x20 costs about $6-9 depending on the paper used. This varies
    > > greatly, Canon Heavyweight Gloss (nice gloss RC paper) costs about $.
    > > 50 a foot (17 inch). Harman Baryta Gloss Ai cost about $3.25 a foot
    > > (super premium fiber based gloss paper, beautiful). B&W from both
    > > printers is as good as dedicated b&w printers, I like my b&w prints
    > > better than what I used to get from a darkroom (I wasn't Ansel Adams).
    > > There is a little learning curve to printing, but it isn't rocket
    > > science. At first I'd avoid your own profiling, just something else to
    > > go wrong, and delivers to many parameters when you are trying to shake
    > > down a problem. As I said most paper manufacturers (and some dealers)
    > > deliver very good profiles, this wasn't true even two years ago.

    >
    > It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    > on the screen during edit v. the end printed result.  In effect, why I
    > want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    > couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    > are off.  (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)
    >
    > I'm no stranger to printing my own photos, it's just time to step up to
    > a larger format and better quality inks.
    >
    > --
    > -- r.p.e.35mm user resource:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    > --        r.p.d.slr-systems:http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    > --      [SI] gallery & rulz:http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    > --                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
    > -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.


    The sign of a good profile is how close it gets you to your screen.
    Ilford makes great profiles, very close, while Hahnemuhle's are so so,
    but Hahnemuhle papers are so common dealers have made their own
    profiles, www.booksmartstudios.com is an excellent source. I had been
    making my own profiles with an older system when I printed
    commercially, it felt liberating to just have a profile that the image
    was very close on the first print, when I started to use the Canon.
    Printers and ink sets have come a long way.
    Have fun

    Tom
    tomm42, Sep 16, 2008
    #7
  8. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:11:47 -0400, ____
    <> wrote:

    >In article <eeEzk.302$>,
    > measekite <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >> And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    >> printed photo?
    >> >
    >> > In for a penny and in for a pound - so I bought the Printfix Pro 3

    >>
    >> So how does that actually work?
    >>
    >> > printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    >> > Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    >> > have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    >> > the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude. I
    >> > hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    >> > exactly like the screen.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > Eric Stevens

    >
    >
    >You have to calibrate the printer with the Spyder paper calibration
    >device, he is using another brand.



    ?????

    Why should that not work as well as the Spyder?



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 17, 2008
    #8
  9. tomm42

    D-MAC Guest

    On Sep 16, 11:46 am, measekite <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >>It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    > >>on the screen during edit v. the end printed result.  In effect, why I
    > >>want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    > >>couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    > >>are off.  (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)

    >
    > > I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    > > prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    > > and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    > > Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    > > printed output didn't look at all like the screen.

    >
    > > Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    > > My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    > > started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    > > things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    > > calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    > > somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    > > either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    > > screen.

    >
    > So what is actually wrong with Samsung or Viewsonic for that matter.
    >
    > And what is so good about Dell?
    >
    > And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    > printed photo?
    >
    >
    >
    > > In for a penny and in for a pound  -  so I bought the Printfix Pro 3

    >
    > So how does that actually work?
    >
    > > printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    > > Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    > > have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    > > the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude. I
    > > hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    > > exactly like the screen.

    >
    > > Eric Stevens


    I have a 20" Samsung SyncMaster XL20, LCD. It comes with calibration
    and seriously leaves the crap Apple promote as their "Cinama" range,
    for dead. This is the monitor with full CMYK colour gamut.

    I also have an (aging Eizo) LCD that cost nearly as much as the
    Samsung. Given the chioce again, I'd take the Samsung any day. I too
    use Printfix Pro and although it gets pretty close to calibrating
    "most" papers, I still payed for a profile to be created with high end
    profiling gear for the Epson I have.

    I use Migiclee paper and canvas almost exclusively although I also
    use breathing color fine art paper with the Epson. I run a HP
    Designjet and an Epson stulus Pro. By far the HP is the better quality
    printer. It has inbuilt paper calibration ability.
    D-MAC, Sep 18, 2008
    #9
  10. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:51:26 -0700 (PDT), D-MAC
    <> wrote:

    >On Sep 16, 11:46 am, measekite <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> > <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >>It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    >> >>on the screen during edit v. the end printed result.  In effect, why I
    >> >>want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    >> >>couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    >> >>are off.  (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)

    >>
    >> > I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    >> > prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    >> > and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    >> > Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    >> > printed output didn't look at all like the screen.

    >>
    >> > Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    >> > My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    >> > started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    >> > things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    >> > calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    >> > somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    >> > either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    >> > screen.

    >>
    >> So what is actually wrong with Samsung or Viewsonic for that matter.
    >>
    >> And what is so good about Dell?
    >>
    >> And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    >> printed photo?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > In for a penny and in for a pound  -  so I bought the Printfix Pro 3

    >>
    >> So how does that actually work?
    >>
    >> > printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    >> > Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    >> > have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    >> > the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude. I
    >> > hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    >> > exactly like the screen.

    >>
    >> > Eric Stevens

    >
    >I have a 20" Samsung SyncMaster XL20, LCD. It comes with calibration
    >and seriously leaves the crap Apple promote as their "Cinama" range,
    >for dead. This is the monitor with full CMYK colour gamut.
    >
    >I also have an (aging Eizo) LCD that cost nearly as much as the
    >Samsung. Given the chioce again, I'd take the Samsung any day. I too
    >use Printfix Pro and although it gets pretty close to calibrating
    >"most" papers, I still payed for a profile to be created with high end
    >profiling gear for the Epson I have.


    Do you have Printfix Pro with the scanner or the earlier version?
    >
    > I use Migiclee paper and canvas almost exclusively although I also
    >use breathing color fine art paper with the Epson. I run a HP
    >Designjet and an Epson stulus Pro. By far the HP is the better quality
    >printer. It has inbuilt paper calibration ability.




    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 18, 2008
    #10
  11. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:21:07 -0400, ____
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:11:47 -0400, ____
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <eeEzk.302$>,
    >> > measekite <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >> And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    >> >> printed photo?
    >> >> >
    >> >> > In for a penny and in for a pound - so I bought the Printfix Pro 3
    >> >>
    >> >> So how does that actually work?
    >> >>
    >> >> > printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    >> >> > Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    >> >> > have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    >> >> > the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude. I
    >> >> > hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    >> >> > exactly like the screen.
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> >
    >> >> > Eric Stevens
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >You have to calibrate the printer with the Spyder paper calibration
    >> >device, he is using another brand.

    >>
    >>
    >> ?????
    >>
    >> Why should that not work as well as the Spyder?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >Differing formula for arriving at the calibration(s), sensors that are
    >mismatched, would be two examples of why.


    That's all very well, but what is the relevance of your statement "You
    have to calibrate the printer with the Spyder paper calibration
    device, he is using another brand."?

    Why do I HAVE to "calibrate the printer with the Spyder paper
    calibration device" and what is the significance of him "using another
    brand"?

    Are you saying that neither brand A nor brand B correctly calibrates
    the monitor, nor do they correctly calibrate the printer, but that the
    monitor distortions of brand A are corrected by the printer
    distortions of brand A? Are you also saying that the monitor
    distortions of brand B are corrected by the printer distortions of
    brand B? i.e. both paths are crooked but just happen to end up at the
    right place?



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 19, 2008
    #11
  12. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:51:09 -0400, ____
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>
    >> That's all very well, but what is the relevance of your statement "You
    >> have to calibrate the printer with the Spyder paper calibration
    >> device, he is using another brand."?
    >>
    >> Why do I HAVE to "calibrate the printer with the Spyder paper
    >> calibration device" and what is the significance of him "using another
    >> brand"?
    >>
    >> Are you saying that neither brand A nor brand B correctly calibrates
    >> the monitor, nor do they correctly calibrate the printer, but that the
    >> monitor distortions of brand A are corrected by the printer
    >> distortions of brand A? Are you also saying that the monitor
    >> distortions of brand B are corrected by the printer distortions of
    >> brand B? i.e. both paths are crooked but just happen to end up at the
    >> right place?

    >
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >Ok-I am not saying you have to do anything. What I am saying is, you
    >should calibrate the printer if you want the most accurate to monitor
    >prints possible.
    >
    >Using the Spyder printer calibration device is the best way to ensure
    >its an apples to apples calibration when using the Spyder monitor
    >calibration- "what you see is what you get" and keeping a system for lab
    >work of any kind is a "proven".
    >
    >Unless you're sure the color patches your software use are an exact
    >match to the Spyder color patches and your eyes are good enough to
    >adjust for the variances between both systems. Meanwhile I'll be making
    >fewer but better prints and using less ink.


    Spyder Printfix Pro works by having the printer print a test sheet on
    the target paper. The scanner is then used to determine the colour of
    each rectangle on the test sheet. The software then determines the
    difference between what was printed and what was asked for and
    corrects the printer profile accordingly.

    The difference between what was asked for and what was printed is
    shown on the screen and in some cases can be most surprising.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 19, 2008
    #12
  13. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:16:22 -0400, ____
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 07:51:09 -0400, ____
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>,
    >> > Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >> That's all very well, but what is the relevance of your statement "You
    >> >> have to calibrate the printer with the Spyder paper calibration
    >> >> device, he is using another brand."?
    >> >>
    >> >> Why do I HAVE to "calibrate the printer with the Spyder paper
    >> >> calibration device" and what is the significance of him "using another
    >> >> brand"?
    >> >>
    >> >> Are you saying that neither brand A nor brand B correctly calibrates
    >> >> the monitor, nor do they correctly calibrate the printer, but that the
    >> >> monitor distortions of brand A are corrected by the printer
    >> >> distortions of brand A? Are you also saying that the monitor
    >> >> distortions of brand B are corrected by the printer distortions of
    >> >> brand B? i.e. both paths are crooked but just happen to end up at the
    >> >> right place?
    >> >
    >> >> Eric Stevens
    >> >
    >> >Ok-I am not saying you have to do anything. What I am saying is, you
    >> >should calibrate the printer if you want the most accurate to monitor
    >> >prints possible.
    >> >
    >> >Using the Spyder printer calibration device is the best way to ensure
    >> >its an apples to apples calibration when using the Spyder monitor
    >> >calibration- "what you see is what you get" and keeping a system for lab
    >> >work of any kind is a "proven".
    >> >
    >> >Unless you're sure the color patches your software use are an exact
    >> >match to the Spyder color patches and your eyes are good enough to
    >> >adjust for the variances between both systems. Meanwhile I'll be making
    >> >fewer but better prints and using less ink.

    >>
    >> Spyder Printfix Pro works by having the printer print a test sheet on
    >> the target paper. The scanner is then used to determine the colour of
    >> each rectangle on the test sheet. The software then determines the
    >> difference between what was printed and what was asked for and
    >> corrects the printer profile accordingly.
    >>
    >> The difference between what was asked for and what was printed is
    >> shown on the screen and in some cases can be most surprising.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >Should I take it that you agree. Or have you not actually used the
    >printer calibration....and if so how many color patches did you read to
    >arrive at the end result?


    I've only done it once so far but I have other papers so I will do it
    several more times.

    There is a choice of 150 patch, 225 patch and 729 patch targets. I
    used the 225.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 20, 2008
    #13
  14. tomm42

    D-MAC Guest

    On Sep 18, 8:03 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:51:26 -0700 (PDT), D-MAC
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Sep 16, 11:46 am, measekite <> wrote:
    > >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    > >> > <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >>It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    > >> >>on the screen during edit v. the end printed result.  In effect, why I
    > >> >>want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    > >> >>couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    > >> >>are off.  (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)

    >
    > >> > I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    > >> > prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    > >> > and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    > >> > Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    > >> > printed output didn't look at all like the screen.

    >
    > >> > Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    > >> > My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    > >> > started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    > >> > things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    > >> > calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    > >> > somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    > >> > either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    > >> > screen.

    >
    > >> So what is actually wrong with Samsung or Viewsonic for that matter.

    >
    > >> And what is so good about Dell?

    >
    > >> And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    > >> printed photo?

    >
    > >> > In for a penny and in for a pound  -  so I bought the Printfix Pro 3

    >
    > >> So how does that actually work?

    >
    > >> > printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    > >> > Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    > >> > have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    > >> > the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude.. I
    > >> > hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    > >> > exactly like the screen.

    >
    > >> > Eric Stevens

    >
    > >I have a 20" Samsung SyncMaster XL20, LCD. It comes with calibration
    > >and seriously leaves the crap Apple promote as their "Cinama" range,
    > >for dead. This is the monitor with full CMYK colour gamut.

    >
    > >I also have an (aging Eizo) LCD that cost nearly as much as the
    > >Samsung. Given the chioce again, I'd take the Samsung any day. I too
    > >use Printfix Pro and although it gets pretty  close to calibrating
    > >"most" papers, I still payed for a profile to be created with high end
    > >profiling gear for the Epson I have.

    >
    > Do you have Printfix Pro with the scanner or the earlier version?
    >
    >
    >
    > > I use Migiclee paper and canvas almost exclusively although I also
    > >use breathing color fine art paper with the Epson. I run a HP
    > >Designjet and an Epson stulus Pro. By far the HP is the better quality
    > >printer.  It has inbuilt paper calibration ability.

    >
    > Eric Stevens


    The earlier version Eric. I'm not so impressed with it I wanted to
    upgrade.
    D-MAC, Sep 20, 2008
    #14
  15. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:49:08 -0700 (PDT), D-MAC
    <> wrote:

    >On Sep 18, 8:03 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:51:26 -0700 (PDT), D-MAC
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> <> wrote:
    >> >On Sep 16, 11:46 am, measekite <> wrote:
    >> >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> >> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    >> >> > <> wrote:

    >>
    >> >> >>It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    >> >> >>on the screen during edit v. the end printed result.  In effect, why I
    >> >> >>want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    >> >> >>couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    >> >> >>are off.  (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)

    >>
    >> >> > I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    >> >> > prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    >> >> > and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    >> >> > Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    >> >> > printed output didn't look at all like the screen.

    >>
    >> >> > Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    >> >> > My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    >> >> > started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    >> >> > things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    >> >> > calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    >> >> > somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    >> >> > either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    >> >> > screen.

    >>
    >> >> So what is actually wrong with Samsung or Viewsonic for that matter.

    >>
    >> >> And what is so good about Dell?

    >>
    >> >> And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    >> >> printed photo?

    >>
    >> >> > In for a penny and in for a pound  -  so I bought the Printfix Pro 3

    >>
    >> >> So how does that actually work?

    >>
    >> >> > printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    >> >> > Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    >> >> > have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    >> >> > the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude. I
    >> >> > hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    >> >> > exactly like the screen.

    >>
    >> >> > Eric Stevens

    >>
    >> >I have a 20" Samsung SyncMaster XL20, LCD. It comes with calibration
    >> >and seriously leaves the crap Apple promote as their "Cinama" range,
    >> >for dead. This is the monitor with full CMYK colour gamut.

    >>
    >> >I also have an (aging Eizo) LCD that cost nearly as much as the
    >> >Samsung. Given the chioce again, I'd take the Samsung any day. I too
    >> >use Printfix Pro and although it gets pretty  close to calibrating
    >> >"most" papers, I still payed for a profile to be created with high end
    >> >profiling gear for the Epson I have.

    >>
    >> Do you have Printfix Pro with the scanner or the earlier version?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > I use Migiclee paper and canvas almost exclusively although I also
    >> >use breathing color fine art paper with the Epson. I run a HP
    >> >Designjet and an Epson stulus Pro. By far the HP is the better quality
    >> >printer.  It has inbuilt paper calibration ability.

    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >The earlier version Eric. I'm not so impressed with it I wanted to
    >upgrade.


    I wasn't sufficiently impressed with how it worked and what it did
    that I wanted to buy it. As far as I can see the same capabilities are
    built into the driver for my Epson 1800. But the later version with
    scanner is an entirely different kettle of fish.



    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 20, 2008
    #15
  16. tomm42

    D-MAC Guest

    On Sep 21, 8:58 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 01:49:08 -0700 (PDT), D-MAC
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Sep 18, 8:03 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > >> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 00:51:26 -0700 (PDT), D-MAC

    >
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >> >On Sep 16, 11:46 am, measekite <> wrote:
    > >> >> On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:15:41 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > >> >> > On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 17:53:56 -0400, Alan Browne
    > >> >> > <> wrote:

    >
    > >> >> >>It's not the profile of the printer I'm so worried about, but what I see
    > >> >> >>on the screen during edit v. the end printed result.  In effect, why I
    > >> >> >>want my own printer is due to the hit and miss results I get with a
    > >> >> >>couple photo 'labs' where a few prints are right and then a few prints
    > >> >> >>are off.  (lost detail in the whites, of all things...)

    >
    > >> >> > I'm going through the same trauma right now. At first I couldn't get
    > >> >> > prints which looked anything like my screen. Then I bought a Spyder2
    > >> >> > and found out how far out of kilter was my several year old 21"
    > >> >> > Samsung LCD. Getting that right made quite a difference but the
    > >> >> > printed output didn't look at all like the screen.

    >
    > >> >> > Then I saw an Eizo screen and said WOW! The pictures were magnificent.
    > >> >> > My daughter bought a new Apple 24" screen and I said WOW! again. This
    > >> >> > started me digging and I have just bought a 24" 16:10 Dell (of all
    > >> >> > things) and I am very pleased with it. Spyder says that the
    > >> >> > calibration was almost exactly spot on. The picture quality falls
    > >> >> > somewhere between the Eizo and the Apple at a fraction of the price of
    > >> >> > either. But still the printed output still didn't look like the
    > >> >> > screen.

    >
    > >> >> So what is actually wrong with Samsung or Viewsonic for that matter..

    >
    > >> >> And what is so good about Dell?

    >
    > >> >> And if the Spyder says it is right on then why does it wonder from the
    > >> >> printed photo?

    >
    > >> >> > In for a penny and in for a pound  -  so I bought the Printfix Pro 3

    >
    > >> >> So how does that actually work?

    >
    > >> >> > printer calibration device. So far I have only profiled one paper, the
    > >> >> > Epson Matte, but that has made a considerable improvement. By the time I
    > >> >> > have done a few more papers and gained more experience with it I expect
    > >> >> > the quality of my prints will have improved by an order of magnitude. I
    > >> >> > hope I'm right. But even so, I know I will never get prints which look
    > >> >> > exactly like the screen.

    >
    > >> >> > Eric Stevens

    >
    > >> >I have a 20" Samsung SyncMaster XL20, LCD. It comes with calibration
    > >> >and seriously leaves the crap Apple promote as their "Cinama" range,
    > >> >for dead. This is the monitor with full CMYK colour gamut.

    >
    > >> >I also have an (aging Eizo) LCD that cost nearly as much as the
    > >> >Samsung. Given the chioce again, I'd take the Samsung any day. I too
    > >> >use Printfix Pro and although it gets pretty  close to calibrating
    > >> >"most" papers, I still payed for a profile to be created with high end
    > >> >profiling gear for the Epson I have.

    >
    > >> Do you have Printfix Pro with the scanner or the earlier version?

    >
    > >> > I use Migiclee paper and canvas almost exclusively although I also
    > >> >use breathing color fine art paper with the Epson. I run a HP
    > >> >Designjet and an Epson stulus Pro. By far the HP is the better quality
    > >> >printer.  It has inbuilt paper calibration ability.

    >
    > >> Eric Stevens

    >
    > >The earlier version Eric. I'm not so impressed with it I wanted to
    > >upgrade.

    >
    > I wasn't sufficiently impressed with how it worked and what it did
    > that I wanted to buy it. As far as I can see the same capabilities are
    > built into the driver for my Epson 1800. But the later version with
    > scanner is an entirely different kettle of fish.
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    So l they refund us or give us a replacement? I don't think so.
    Do you also get photographs (as in chemically developed ones) printed
    at a photo lab?
    I had a r2400 Epson for a couple of years mainly for B&W work but
    whenever I managed to get it printing accurate colour, I had to alter
    the output image to reduce the ink flow or lighten the print.

    I probably would have bought another Epson desktop printer if I could
    have made any sense out of it all. When I print to my Designjet 130
    (Dye ink) or the 'Z' (pigment ink) the results are identical to what I
    get back from a print lab. I'd love to get to the bottom of it all.
    D-MAC, Sep 21, 2008
    #16
  17. tomm42

    Eric Stevens Guest

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 00:26:15 -0700 (PDT), D-MAC
    <> wrote:

    >> >> > I use Migiclee paper and canvas almost exclusively although I also
    >> >> >use breathing color fine art paper with the Epson. I run a HP
    >> >> >Designjet and an Epson stulus Pro. By far the HP is the better quality
    >> >> >printer.  It has inbuilt paper calibration ability.

    >>
    >> >> Eric Stevens

    >>
    >> >The earlier version Eric. I'm not so impressed with it I wanted to
    >> >upgrade.

    >>
    >> I wasn't sufficiently impressed with how it worked and what it did
    >> that I wanted to buy it. As far as I can see the same capabilities are
    >> built into the driver for my Epson 1800. But the later version with
    >> scanner is an entirely different kettle of fish.
    >>
    >> Eric Stevens

    >
    >So l they refund us or give us a replacement? I don't think so.
    >Do you also get photographs (as in chemically developed ones) printed
    >at a photo lab?


    Not as yet. I'm only just getting back into this kind of stuff. My
    first serious photography was in the mid 1950s, followed by many years
    of routine bread and butter work. I adopted digital in circa 2000 and
    have only just started to consider it seriously. I'm learning fast.
    :)

    >I had a r2400 Epson for a couple of years mainly for B&W work but
    >whenever I managed to get it printing accurate colour, I had to alter
    >the output image to reduce the ink flow or lighten the print.
    >
    >I probably would have bought another Epson desktop printer if I could
    >have made any sense out of it all. When I print to my Designjet 130
    >(Dye ink) or the 'Z' (pigment ink) the results are identical to what I
    >get back from a print lab. I'd love to get to the bottom of it all.




    Eric Stevens
    Eric Stevens, Sep 21, 2008
    #17
    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. Scott O

    Sharing Printers and Files

    Scott O, Oct 12, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    641
    Scott O
    Oct 12, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?QmVuIC4gUg==?=

    Sharing files and printers and firewalls

    =?Utf-8?B?QmVuIC4gUg==?=, Mar 7, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    496
    Chuck
    Mar 7, 2005
  3. Benji

    wireless printers

    Benji, Apr 19, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    423
    Edward W. Thompson
    Apr 20, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?R09UX3NuYWNrcw==?=

    Problems with Networked Computers and Printers

    =?Utf-8?B?R09UX3NuYWNrcw==?=, May 11, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    443
    =?Utf-8?B?anJtaXR0?=
    May 11, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBN?=

    Unable to see machines on the ethernet; Unable to find printers

    =?Utf-8?B?Sm9obiBN?=, Jun 6, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    876
    Jack \(MVP\)
    Jun 7, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page