Printer / Monitor Profiles

Fruit2O wrote:

I have a LaCie monitor which I keep calibrated at least once a week using a Lacie calibrator which adjusts the color guns. I am using Ian Lyon’s printer profiles for the Epson 1290 (I use the Epson 1280 but Ian says they’re both the same). If I understand correctly, when using soft proofing, if the monitor profile and printer profile are accurate, both my original and soft proof should look identical.

No, in theory the soft proof and the PRINT will look the same … the ‘original’ as seen on the screen prior to applying the soft proof will typically look a bit brighter, especially if you turn on ‘paper white’ to model the effect of the paper’s lower brightness compared to the screen.

In practice soft proofing works OK *IF* you have very accurate profiles for the monitor and printer and IF the colors are in gamut, but there are a lot of inaccurate profiles.

I am willing to pay for more
accurate printer profiles for my Epson 1280 if they are much better the Ian Lyon’s profiles. Thanks.

The 1289/1290 is supposed to be difficult to profile accurately because of the inks. I had this printer for a while and used Ian’s profiles and also ones from Jon Cone, plus the updated Epson ones … at some point early on during the ‘orange shift’ fiasco Epson changed the ‘formula’ for the inks and some of the early profiles (including the early ones from Ian) were considerably off.

Bill Atkinson is famous for his work on color management and his profiling of the Epson pro printers (also for being one of the early employees at Apple) … I took a 3 day class with him shortly after he released the Epson profiles and someone asked him about profiling the 1280 and Bill’s reply was that it was a very difficult printer to profile, that doing something as basic as changing the inks or even running a clean cycle would change the profile too much (by his standards), so he would not release any of the profiles he built for this model. He also said there was considerable variation from printer to printer and in a single printer over time, making it difficult to get accurate generic profiles.

So if you are finding that you are getting a good match then you are probably in the minority. Or to put it a different way, if you are having problems matching the print to the soft proof with the 1280 then you are not alone. I felt I got OK matches with the profiles I had (I think the latest from Epson were the closest) but nothing like I can get with the pro printers like the Epson 4000. YMMV …

Bill

The 1289/1290 is supposed to be difficult to profile accurately because of the inks. I had this printer for a while and used Ian’s profiles and also ones from Jon Cone, plus the updated Epson ones … at some point early on during the ‘orange shift’ fiasco Epson changed the ‘formula’ for the inks and some of the early profiles (including the early ones from Ian) were considerably off.

Bill Atkinson is famous for his work on color management and his profiling of the Epson pro printers (also for being one of the early employees at Apple) … I took a 3 day class with him shortly after he released the Epson profiles and someone asked him about profiling the 1280 and Bill’s reply was that it was a very difficult printer to profile, that doing something as basic as changing the inks or even running a clean cycle would change the profile too much (by his standards), so he would not release any of the profiles he built for this model. He also said there was considerable variation from printer to printer and in a single printer over time, making it difficult to get accurate generic profiles.

So if you are finding that you are getting a good match then you are probably in the minority. Or to put it a different way, if you are having problems matching the print to the soft proof with the 1280 then you are not alone. I felt I got OK matches with the profiles I had (I think the latest from Epson were the closest) but nothing like I can get with the pro printers like the Epson 4000. YMMV …
Bill

What does YMMV mean? Also, I am planning on purchasing a "pro" printer soon. Whay would you suggest?

"Fruit2O" wrote in message

The 1289/1290 is supposed to be difficult to profile accurately because of the inks. I had this printer for a while and used Ian’s profiles and also ones from Jon Cone, plus the updated Epson ones … at some point early on during the ‘orange shift’ fiasco Epson changed the ‘formula’ for the inks and some of the early profiles (including the early ones from Ian) were considerably off.

Bill Atkinson is famous for his work on color management and his profiling of the Epson pro printers (also for being one of the early employees at Apple) … I took a 3 day class with him shortly after he released the Epson profiles and someone asked him about profiling the 1280 and Bill’s reply was that it was a very difficult printer to profile, that doing something as basic as changing the inks or even running a clean cycle would change the profile too much (by his standards), so he would not release any of the profiles he built for this model. He also said there was considerable variation from printer to printer and in a single printer over time, making it difficult to get accurate generic profiles.

So if you are finding that you are getting a good match then you are probably in the minority. Or to put it a different way, if you are having problems matching the print to the soft proof with the 1280 then you are not alone. I felt I got OK matches with the profiles I had (I think the latest from Epson were the closest) but nothing like I can get with the pro printers like the Epson 4000. YMMV …
Bill

What does YMMV mean? Also, I am planning on purchasing a "pro" printer soon. Whay would you suggest?

1. YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary
2. Epson 2400, 3800, or 4000.
Jim

"Fruit2O" wrote in message

The 1289/1290 is supposed to be difficult to profile accurately because of the inks. I had this printer for a while and used Ian’s profiles and also ones from Jon Cone, plus the updated Epson ones … at some point early on during the ‘orange shift’ fiasco Epson changed the ‘formula’ for the inks and some of the early profiles (including the early ones from Ian) were considerably off.

Bill Atkinson is famous for his work on color management and his profiling of the Epson pro printers (also for being one of the early employees at Apple) … I took a 3 day class with him shortly after he released the Epson profiles and someone asked him about profiling the 1280 and Bill’s reply was that it was a very difficult printer to profile, that doing something as basic as changing the inks or even running a clean cycle would change the profile too much (by his standards), so he would not release any of the profiles he built for this model. He also said there was considerable variation from printer to printer and in a single printer over time, making it difficult to get accurate generic profiles.

So if you are finding that you are getting a good match then you are probably in the minority. Or to put it a different way, if you are having problems matching the print to the soft proof with the 1280 then you are not alone. I felt I got OK matches with the profiles I had (I think the latest from Epson were the closest) but nothing like I can get with the pro printers like the Epson 4000. YMMV …
Bill

What does YMMV mean? Also, I am planning on purchasing a "pro" printer soon. Whay would you suggest?

In general, it is impossible to get an exact match between an RGB device such as a monitor and a CMYK device such as a printer. How you proceed depends on how picky about the matching that you are.

Jim

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:13:06 GMT, "Jim" wrote:

"Fruit2O" wrote in message

The 1289/1290 is supposed to be difficult to profile accurately because of the inks. I had this printer for a while and used Ian’s profiles and also ones from Jon Cone, plus the updated Epson ones … at some point early on during the ‘orange shift’ fiasco Epson changed the ‘formula’ for the inks and some of the early profiles (including the early ones from Ian) were considerably off.

Bill Atkinson is famous for his work on color management and his profiling of the Epson pro printers (also for being one of the early employees at Apple) … I took a 3 day class with him shortly after he released the Epson profiles and someone asked him about profiling the 1280 and Bill’s reply was that it was a very difficult printer to profile, that doing something as basic as changing the inks or even running a clean cycle would change the profile too much (by his standards), so he would not release any of the profiles he built for this model. He also said there was considerable variation from printer to printer and in a single printer over time, making it difficult to get accurate generic profiles.

So if you are finding that you are getting a good match then you are probably in the minority. Or to put it a different way, if you are having problems matching the print to the soft proof with the 1280 then you are not alone. I felt I got OK matches with the profiles I had (I think the latest from Epson were the closest)

Where can I get these ‘latest’ Epson profiles for the 1280? I looked at the Epson site and couldn’t find them. Matter of fact, I couldn’t find ANY profiles for the 1280.

but nothing like I can

get with the pro printers like the Epson 4000. YMMV …
Bill

What does YMMV mean? Also, I am planning on purchasing a "pro" printer soon. Whay would you suggest?

1. YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary
2. Epson 2400, 3800, or 4000.
Jim

Thanks again.

Fruit2O wrote:

Where can I get these ‘latest’ Epson profiles for the 1280? I looked at the Epson site and couldn’t find them. Matter of fact, I couldn’t find ANY profiles for the 1280.

Google "epson 1280 icc profiles" and it lists Epson sites like this one …. support.epson.com/hardware/printer/inkjet/pho128/index.html … I didn’t follow it any further to verify the profiles are still there but I assume you can find the most recent profiles down the chain a bit.

What does YMMV mean?

"Your mileage may vary" … it’s a way of saying you will probably see something similar but don’t be surprised if it’s less than advertised …. in the USA the car makers had to test their vehicles and post highway and city miles-per-gallon ratings, say 23 highway/15 city … they always had a disclaimer at the end of the ads saying "Your Mileage May Vary" and inevitably it vaired downward to say 19 highway and 12 city since they tested under ideal conditions you were unlikedly to experience in real life.

Also, I am planning on purchasing a "pro" printer soon. Whay would you suggest?

I used Epsons because they got there first but now it appears Canon is competitive as well in this market … how wide do you need to print? Epson has 17" wide models (what I have), 24" models and I think the big boy is 44" wide … I wouldn’t buy one unless you are able to sell a lot of prints though.

Bill