Custom profiles: Who's best?

[Tom Westbrook]

I finally broke down and got a decent inkjet printer a couple of weeks ago--Epson R2400--and I think I may have to eat some previous words about inkjet prints. I'm not completely happy with the results yet, but I think that's mostly due to using canned paper profiles and having to reprint too much to get close to what I want--wasting a ton of very expensive paper in the process.

Anyway, I need custom profiles made for about 3 paper/ink combinations, but not sure who makes good ones, so I'd like to hear others' experiences. I'd also like to hear if customer support is adequate. Will I be better off just buying profiling software and doing this myself?

I use Gretag-Macbeth Eye-One to calibrate my monitor, so that part is covered. I'm still not getting a close enough match from monitor to print, though.

[MJSfoto1956]

What profiles are you using?
Epson's stock ones? (or worse, none? or "Epson Naural Color"?)
How are you previewing in Photoshop?
Mac or PC?
Do you intend on proofing small on your 2400 then sending out for "big" prints?
If so, then to whom will you be sending?
Would they be using an inkjet as well? Or something like Fuji Crystal Archive?
More info please....

J Michael Sullivan

[Doug Dolde]

I have an R2400 and have found the Epson profiles to be quite good. Just got some Crane Museo Silver Rag and the Crane profile looks good too.

You might not want to hear this but....if I had it to do over I'd never buy an R2400 and would go for at least a 4800. Why? The obvious larger print size capability for one. But mainly the fact that the tiny R2400 ink carts are always on empty.

I read somewhere that the price of an R2400 plus enough ink to equal what comes with the 4800 will buy a 4800 outright.

[Helen Bach]

Before I got an Eye One and Profilemaker, I used profiles from Dry Creek. On the whole these were good, but they were taking weeks to get. I've seen some good results from Cathy's Profiles (http://www.cathysprofiles.com/) and if I hadn't got Profilemaker, that's who I would have turned to. I can't recommend the PrintFix Pro, which I tried before Profilemaker. Those profiles were no better than the Epson ones, worse in some cases.

Best,
Helen
PS I use a CIS with ink removed from 4800 carts. That cuts ink costs in half.
PPS If anyone wants my PrintFix Pro, they can have it for $300.

[Bruce M. Herman]

The Epson profiles have worked well for me, particularly the Velvet Fine Art. Have you downloaded the most recent driver and profiles from their site? Also, keep in mind that some of the profiles have multiple versions. According to Epson's tech help, you should use the "best photo" profiles for photographs. Not only does the profile have to be selected, but "Best Photo" must also be selected in the Epson GUI.

I was not as pleased with Crane's profiles. They are OK, but you can achieve much better results with profiles that you make yourself. I reviewed ColorVision's PrintFIX PRO suite for the Alaska Apple User's Group. I was quite pleased with the results I obtained. You can read the review at http://www.akappleug.org/reviews/. If you already have a monitor calibration capability, you would only have to purchase PrintFIX PRO.

I have to agree with Doug about going for the 4800 in terms of ink usage. I've been very frustrated with how quickly I burn through cartridges. However, I do not have room in my workspace for a printer of the size and weight of the 4800. But I may still sell the R2400 and make the jump.

Best of luck.

[Bruce Watson]

Since no one is actually answering your question, I'll toss out two that I've had recommended to me, these being Andrew Rodney (http://digitaldog.net/services.html) and Chromix (http://www.chromix.com/ColorValet/index.cxsa?-session=tx:448E1E2A1e0182F71FqyN169709B). I've never used either. Since I print mostly B&W with PiezoTone inks, I just never got around to custom ICC profiles. But I have tried canned profiles from various sources for the same printer, paper, and ink, and can definitely tell the difference.

Be forwarned though that nothing you can do will give you an exact match between monitor and paper. It's just impossible to match a transmission source and a reflection source like that. But you should be able to get close, especially with color matching. The ends of the scale, mostly shadow detail, are what I find most difficult to deal with. And no matter what I do, I can't escape having to make a work print or two.

[Ken Lee]

The Epson profiles have improved dramatically, and are "almost" perfect. Even so, it's still best to have a real profile made for yourself. I had one done by Chromix for $99, and it was worth every penny. InkjetArt now charges $25.00 a pop, and frankly, that's cheaper than the cost of a package of paper, and thus is money well spent. Of course, you need a monitor calibration setup also, or you're shooting in the dark, as it were.

When evaluating a profile, be sure to print out one of the well-known targets, such as the Kodak photo-disc, and view it in the appropriate lighting conditions. Once you become familiar with the target image, you will be able to tell right away whether the profile is good or not.

[Ken Lee]

By the way, one of the best things about Photoshop is that it will allow you to simulate the look of your image, within the colorspace defined by your printer profile. Thus, you can create a set of adjustment layers that are tailored to the limitations of your ink/paper combination. As Bruce has so rightly stated, nothing will work perfectly, but it's darned close, and will save you lots of time, paper, ink and... exasperation.

[Tom Westbrook]

Everything basically looks darker on the print than what I see on screen. I have calibrated the monitor and that doesn't seem to be the issue. Perhaps calibrating it to a different standard? I'm using recommended color temp value of 6500K, luminance of "100", & gamma=2.2. I evaluate prints mostly in daylight near a north-facing window (EV6 metered from a grey card).

> What profiles are you using?
Stock profiles from the paper manufacturers, latest Epson profiles to feed the print driver.

> How are you previewing in Photoshop?
Just looking at the screen, mostly. I have tried the proof thing, but that doesn't seem to help much.

> Mac or PC?
PC.

>Do you intend on proofing small on your 2400 then sending out for "big" prints?
For now I will only be printing from the 2400.

[Henry Ambrose]

Tom,
How about your Photoshop settings?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Look at the white border around this forum thread against the blue background post field. Does it look white or kind of cream colored? It's actually 255 RGB white but to me it looks cream colored on my EyeOne Display calibrated CRT.

Welcome to the world of adaptation. Looking at your prints in daylight as compared to your display will have the same effect. Blue of daylight desaturates while a comparitive warm cream cast of a 6500K display along with 5000K artificial lighting slightly increases perceived saturation of greens, reds and fleshtones viewed on a display. If you add in density changes as you describe, in an RGB display world that can also increase perceived saturation.

Before you get into changing everything around, start by examining your prints in a consistantly lit controlled viewing environment. Get a 5000K light fixture like the Solux. Make sure you get clear specific instructions on how to set up color management between your Epson and Photoshop as well.

The reason for the oversimplified instructions is because most folks including myself get very accurate predictable results with even canned Epson profiles and/or the minilab profiles I use off of DryCreekPhoto.com. You shouldn't be having this much trouble and before you get into spending a lot of time and money, you need to be dealing with a controlled nonchanging viewing environment. Daylight is not a very reliable constant.

A while back Peter Figen, a professional photographer, nearly 2000 miles away sent me by mail a print of the PhotoDisc PDI image target off his professionally calibrated Sony Artisan/Epson 2200 system. I downloaded and Soft Proofed with RelCol intent the canned Epson profile and it precisely rendered it to what I saw under my 5000K Sunlite flotubes.

Even the slight barely noticeable increase in yellow in the fleshtones on the print that wasn't showing up on my display without Soft Proof was nailed exactly. I was blown away by the precision. I thought my display calibration was off until I Soft Proofed and noticed the yellow increase which is very hard to see due to adaptation.

As for testing the light and dark appearance between display and print, start by printing a grayramp under your normal print setup you'v been using and then assign a 1.8 gamma type profile to the grayramp see if it gives a better match. It may be the Epson is internally referrencing some default monitor profile. It's hard to tell since you haven't described how off your prints are.

[Ken Lee]

In addition to Tim's excellent advice, I would suggest that you read this brief Epson document (ftp://ftp.epson.com/webfiles/icc/Color-Managed-Workflow.pdf).

There are so many options in Photoshop, that one step can easily be overlooked. The the results will be way off, when in fact, you already have a fine profile.

[Tom Westbrook]

Tom,
How about your Photoshop settings?

If you mean color settings, I set it to use the NA General purpose 2 predefined settings.

[Brian Ellis]

It would be useful to know whether you're printing color or black and white, I do both and they're very different animals.

Apart from that, if you're "wasting a tone of very expensive paper" to get what you want it sounds like it's your monitor that you need to profile (calibrate), not your ink and paper. You should be able to see on the screen exactly what your print will look like or so close to it that any difference is insignificant, subject to the inescapable fact that your screen is backlit and your paper isn't. "Canned" paper profiles can be just fine, the Epson canned profiles for my Epson 2200 are excellent for Velvet Fine Art and Enhanced Matte paper, as is the profile that you can download from the Moab web site for its Entrada Natural paper (a paper that I now use almost exclusively and that I highly recommend).

So if I were you I'd first look at a monitor profiling system such as Monaco's Spyder 2 or Monaco's even less expensive new one, the name of which escapes me but which costs about $75 (as opposed to Spyder 2 which costs about $150 from New Egg). You say you've profiled your monitor but you don't say how. If all you did was use Adobe Gamma that's not good enough IMHO. If your monitor is properly calibrated and you're still wasting tons of paper then I don't think custom paper profiles are going to fix that problem, the difference between the Epson canned profiles and a custom profile for those papers just isn't that dramatic. In that case the problem lies elsewhere, perhaps in how you have "Print With Preview" set up in relation to your settings in the Epson driver.

Helen Bach said: "Before I got an Eye One and Profilemaker, I used profiles from Dry Creek. On the whole these were good, but they were taking weeks to get."

I'd guess that Helen hasn't deal with Dry Creek in the last year or two. Dry Creek apparently was fine at one time but something happened, I'm not sure what, I've heard that Andy, the original owner, got sick and retired or sold the business but left the web site up (assuming it's still up, I haven't visited there in a year or so). In any event, when I sent them $50 for a profile they just cashed the check and and I never heard from them again. They don't respond to phone, letter, or email, I know, I've tried all three many times and have now given up on ever getting either a profile or my money back. Under no circumstances should anybody send any money to Dry Creek.

[Tom Westbrook]

OK, I'll go back and check everything to be sure I'm using the right procedures. Mostly my prints are too dark, so maybe it's the evaluation lighting. I'm printing both BW and color, but mostly am concerned with BW for now. Color prints appear a bit greenish to me. As mentioned in my original post I use an Eye One for monitor calibration.

[Ken Lee]

Monitors do "drift", although I imagine that LCD's are less subject to it. Nevertheless, the software will prompt you to re-calibrate on a regular basis. It's a good idea to do so, especially if you plan to print a lot of images, or anything important.

Make sure to do the monitor calibration in a way that no ambient light can reach the sensor. Night time in a black room is good for that. If you print a well-known target, your monitor should be no influence at all, since you are printing the target as-is, with no corrections. The target is already perfect, as long as you haven't fiddled with it.

[Helen Bach]

EV 6 @ ISO 100 (about 175 lux) seems a bit dim for evaluating prints. I would have thought that you would want at least EV 8 (about 700 lux) up to EV 10. I use about EV 9.

Best,
Helen

[Tom Westbrook]

Ken, I usually calibrate weekly, but I hadn't thought of the room light affecting things. The Eye One takes general ambient light into account: it has a step early in the calibration process using a white diffusing cap over the colorimeter. I don't know whether that would compensate for light leaks during color calibration, though. I'll try the dark room trick to see if that helps.

Helen, it hovers between EV 6-7. I have halogen track lighting in another room, so I'll see if I can set up a spot on the wall to use for an evaluation area. Those Solux halogen bulbs look interesting--I think mine are 3200K. My wet darkroom's print eval area is set up for EV7, which has worked well for me when displaying prints in various locations.

Thanks for the help.

[Doug Fisher]

Tom -

Since you mentioned you had a 2400 and also said, "Mostly my prints are too dark, ...", I thought I might pass along a tip from Clayton Jones' website. Try reducing your ink density by 5% in the Epson driver (and then experiment a % or two up and down). That really helped me with an issue similar to your situation.

Doug
---
www.BetterScanning.com

[Brian Ellis]

If you're printing black and white using Epson color inks you should give Roy Harrington's RIP, QTR, a try. I understand that the 2400 does a better job with color inks and b&w printing than was the case with earlier printers but I think you still will need a RIP and Roy's is very good plus it costs only $50 and then only if you decide to keep it after giving it a try. You can download the RIP from Roy's web site. You can also use QTR to do your own profiling if you have the right equipment.

[Ted Harris]

Tom, just in case things are getting a bit confused .... RIPs and profiles for your most comonly used papers will both improve then final prints but one doesn't substitute for the other, they are complementary. If B&W prints are your primary interest then the advice on Roy Harington's QTR RIP is right on, it has a fw less features than the more expensive RIPs but should dramatically improve your output and the cost is absolutely right. For the 2400 the two other RIP choices tht I am familiar with are ColorByte's ImagePrint and the RIP from PowerX. ImagePrint is far more full featured than QTR but many blackand white printers are totally satisfied with QTR. Neither I nor the few others I hace talked with have had as much success wih PowerX as with the other commonly available RIPs.

If you do decide to go with ImagePrint then you will also have available to you a fairly large library of paper profiles that ColorByte has developed specificaly for their RIP, profiles that are quite good. I have never used any of the professional profiing services but I believe they all have their champions and detractors. If you are going to be profiling more than 3 papers then you might want to consider "rolling your own." The necessary hardware for you own paper profiling is not inexpensive (figure ~1000 minimum) but balance that against the cost of commercially produced profiles, wasted paper and ink and it may not seem so high. One caveat though, it may not be completely an exact science, especially with the lower priced, handheld spectrophotometers.

As we all know the entire world of digital printing, from commercial printing systems through our photo efforts, is in its infancy. As with any craft that is just developing there is much for all of us to learn. There is no more a single "right path" to the ultimate" digital print than there is to the "ultimate" print produced in a traditional darkroom.

[Henry Ambrose]

Tom,

First pardon me if I restate anything thats been written, I just scanned since my last post and not read carefully everything thats been written.

Your RGB setting of sRGB will cause you problems but it probably won't be the biggest thing here. I suggest you switch to Adobe 98 and do all your work there. Unless you are using a device that captures or outputs in sRGB only - stay away!

What Tim wrote about maybe some part of your set-up using an incorrect profile is worth looking into. I can't help much with a PC though I bet you can figure it out if you read up on exactly how your system uses profiles. Make sure everything is in its correct location. You might even remove any extra profiles beyond the ones for the very devices you are using. (Save them in another directory for later)

Adjusting the Epson driver may be a good move for fine tuning but I'd save it for last after the other profile things have been positively resolved.

Just how much difference are we talking about? Can you quantify it in f-stops perhaps? i.e. - Are your prints 1/4 stop dark or?????

Viewing environment is crucial. For you to judge colors on screen or on print you MUST have exactly the same environment each time. For critical prepress work I used to run only one bank of 5000 degree K floursecents in the room. The back of the studio was far enough from any window that I didn't have to close the blinds. This gave me a light level and color temp that was the same each session. You might be in a very different situation - most residential settings would require that you close the blinds or even black out the windows with black foamcore. Thats what I do here in my daylight basement work area - I cut black board to close over most of the windows.

Once you establish a viewing environment be sure to use it exactly the same each time. and re-calibrate your monitor under your new standard conditions. Monitor drift is not that big a deal over a week or two or even a month for most users. Its a bigger problem in a prepress house with multiple shifts as the hours powered on and running really add up. And be sure to give your moniitor about one half hour to stabilize after you turn it on and before you start any critical work.

Finally - until all the above conditions are satisfied I wouldn't bother with a custom profile.

[Tom Westbrook]

I think I found my problem. I started fresh with a recent scan and noticed that the scan file didn't have a profile assigned, so that may have started me off on the wrong foot. I switched color settings as Henry advised and assigned Adobe RGB to the scan file. I printed it (print w/preview) on Silver Rag using Crane's profile and it matched the screen image just fine, or close enough--I still need to see to my evaluation lighting situation.

I'll try the RIP suggestion out, too. Sounds interesting.

I'm working my way through the 'CS2 for Photographers' book by Evening, so I'll go away until I get finished with that--he should have put color management first!

Thank you all!

[Greg Miller]

Note that the R2400 does not have a closed loop color management system (the 4800, 7800, 9800 do have this). This means every R2400 manuafactured will be slightly different. Therefore stock profiles, like the ones supplied by Epson, may work fine for on person but not another. If you buy a 4800, the closed loop system means that a profile should yield consistent results when compared to every other 4800.

The screen print you provided is you Photoshop settings. Much more important is your Epson driver settings. You must set "no color adjustment" there. And you will need to specify your printer profile there too (unless you convert your imnage to that profile in Photo shop just prior top printing).

[MJSfoto1956]

As for Dry Creek -- I had the exact same experience, profile never arrived, sent endless email, finally got through and had him send it to another email address. Trouble really turned out to be my main email program flagged his email as spam. If he would manually send each email with a personal note, then I'm sure that the "spam problem" would go away.

So I actually don't think he took anyone's money, but rather, there is SOMETHING in the way he sends his email that some (perhaps many) of our email programs think is junk mail. Hence we never get the profile he sent and come to a conclusion that may not be accurate.

J Michael Sullivan
MAGNAchrom

[Ken Lee]

One other question: Are you using an LCD monitor ? If so, then perhaps your viewing angle is not straight enough.

Some LCD monitors are better than others in this regard, but on mine, the brightness varies, depending on the angle of view. Calibration tools like EyeOne attach to the monitor at angle "normal to" the screen, IE they look straight ahead.

Some people still use CRT monitors for graphics work, because they are fairly immune to this problem. Perhaps some of our esteemed members can recommend an a suitable monitor (or brand of monitors) that is also affordable.

[Tom Westbrook]

It's a CRT--a Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 100e. It's a bit old, but it still calibrates OK.

One odd thing that's puzzling me is that Crane advises using the proof set-up method for printing (see http://www.crane.com/museo/files/Epson_Generic_Museo_Instructions.pdf), while most other papers I've used (not many I admit) use the document method. I'm referring to settings in Print with Preview under Color Management. Is it likely to make any difference which method is used?

[Greg Miller]

One odd thing that's puzzling me is that Crane advises using the proof set-up method for printing (see http://www.crane.com/museo/files/Epson_Generic_Museo_Instructions.pdf), while most other papers I've used (not many I admit) use the document method. I'm referring to settings in Print with Preview under Color Management. Is it likely to make any difference which method is used?

The "proof" (instead of document) setting definitely does not sounds correct. Generally you would only use that setting if you are trying to emulate some other printer (like an offset printer).

[JohnnyV]

Since no one is actually answering your question, I'll toss out two that I've had recommended to me, these being Andrew Rodney (http://digitaldog.net/services.html) and Chromix (http://www.chromix.com/ColorValet/index.cxsa?-session=tx:448E1E2A1e0182F71FqyN169709B). I've never used either.

I've used both Andrew and Chromix. All profiles were top notch and both tweaked the proflies to my liking if needed. Chromix got a little slow responding as many people use them. Andrew Rodney responds to emails in a few hours. Tough choice really.

[Dominique Labrosse]

The Eye One takes general ambient light into account: it has a step early in the calibration process using a white diffusing cap over the colorimeter.

Tom,

This step is just an informative step and does not influence the monitor profile at all. The ambient light measurement step just tells you how far you are from the standard that Eye One Match likes to recommend for optimal ambient lighting conditions in both temperature and brightness. The profile is not affected by this step.

Regards,
DL