Are manufacturer's profiles best?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

If I use the printer manufacturer's brand of inks and papers, and use
the manufacturer's recommendations for the printer settings/profiles,
will I get the most accurate (not exaggerated or subdued or shifted to
favor, say, flesh tones) colors and detailed resolution? Or am I likely
to do better by experimenting with custom settings for each ink as well
as contrast, brightness, dithering, etc.?

I'm assuming outdoor scenes, properly exposed, with the subject
illuminated by midday color temperature light.

Thanks,

Ray

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<EEFWc.29738$Nk4.11884002@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> If I use the printer manufacturer's brand of inks and papers, and use
> the manufacturer's recommendations for the printer settings/profiles,
> will I get the most accurate (not exaggerated or subdued or shifted to
> favor, say, flesh tones) colors and detailed resolution? Or am I likely
> to do better by experimenting with custom settings for each ink as well
> as contrast, brightness, dithering, etc.?

Other than perhaps a professional custom job, yes it's probably your
best bet to use as your printer's profile. That said, there's a lot
more than that to one's color management. It's like asking what brand
of fertilizer one uses on one's lawn. Some brand may be best, but things
like watering, variety of grass, how much sun it gets, what temperature it
gets, etc all count as well.

One has the capability of the images's source and it's profile. One
has the capability and profile for one's computer screen for mid-point
evaluation and adjustment, and one has the printer's profile. One
has the color-space the the image file is stored in. One has the
algorithms for conversion between spaces to tend to as well, and this
would include input->working space conversion as well as working->printer
conversions (not to speak of working space -> monitor conversions). The
only conversion algorithm control I know of is working space -> printer
where at least in Photoshop one has a few choices (where for me,
relative colorimetric seems to be the most accurate although conversions
seem to otherwise use "perceptual". There's the matter of conversions
done for what you like vs what's most accurate (often different). Some
images may not have convertable colors due to gamut mismatches (related
to which algorithm to use in the force-fit).

So if one has a really tuned color mangement system, then yes there's
probably a way of doing better with custom profiles -- but even the
guys at the Epson Printing seminar said that even for the professionals,
the mfgr profile is probably just fine 90% of the time. So for the rest
of us, it's probably closer to 100% (given that the materials being used
are the ones the profiles were made for).

My two cents anyway... 🙂

Mike

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Anoni Moose wrote:
> Ray K <raykosXXX@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<EEFWc.29738$Nk4.11884002@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>>If I use the printer manufacturer's brand of inks and papers, and use
>>the manufacturer's recommendations for the printer settings/profiles,
>>will I get the most accurate (not exaggerated or subdued or shifted to
>>favor, say, flesh tones) colors and detailed resolution? Or am I likely
>>to do better by experimenting with custom settings for each ink as well
>>as contrast, brightness, dithering, etc.?
>
>
> Other than perhaps a professional custom job, yes it's probably your
> best bet to use as your printer's profile. That said, there's a lot
> more than that to one's color management. It's like asking what brand
> of fertilizer one uses on one's lawn. Some brand may be best, but things
> like watering, variety of grass, how much sun it gets, what temperature it
> gets, etc all count as well.
>
> One has the capability of the images's source and it's profile. One
> has the capability and profile for one's computer screen for mid-point
> evaluation and adjustment, and one has the printer's profile. One
> has the color-space the the image file is stored in. One has the
> algorithms for conversion between spaces to tend to as well, and this
> would include input->working space conversion as well as working->printer
> conversions (not to speak of working space -> monitor conversions). The
> only conversion algorithm control I know of is working space -> printer
> where at least in Photoshop one has a few choices (where for me,
> relative colorimetric seems to be the most accurate although conversions
> seem to otherwise use "perceptual". There's the matter of conversions
> done for what you like vs what's most accurate (often different). Some
> images may not have convertable colors due to gamut mismatches (related
> to which algorithm to use in the force-fit).
>
> So if one has a really tuned color mangement system, then yes there's
> probably a way of doing better with custom profiles -- but even the
> guys at the Epson Printing seminar said that even for the professionals,
> the mfgr profile is probably just fine 90% of the time. So for the rest
> of us, it's probably closer to 100% (given that the materials being used
> are the ones the profiles were made for).
>
> My two cents anyway... 🙂
>
> Mike


Mike,

Thanks so much for the informative answer. It had a lot more info than I
expected, but gave me a lot to think about. That's what makes newsgroups
so great.

Regards,

Ray

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

======Some fine stuff from Mike snipped========================

>Thanks so much for the informative answer. It had a lot more info than I
>expected, but gave me a lot to think about. That's what makes newsgroups
>so great.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ray

Since I didn't see it explicitly mentioned, the foundation to a color
managed workflow is a properly calibrated monitor. You can have the
best profiles in the world, and still end up scratching your head if
your monitor is not calibrated.

Start with a calibrated monitor, the printer manufactureres profiles,
print some images with the proper workflow, and see what you think.
Even if they aren't perfect, they are likely to be 'off' consistantly;
as in always to flat, green, contrasty, etc. Easier to deal with and
work around than the random output from an unmanaged flow.

Do be forewarned, there are plenty of pitfalls and mines along the
road. If you are not careful, it is rather easy to end up with a
double managed workflow, where both Photoshop and the printer driver
are trying to manage things. Just as bad as none at all.

Note: Perhaps the most difficult thing to ask of a color inkjet and
profile, is a neutral B+W print, using the color inks. ;-) From a
personal experience standpoint, Epson's newest ICC profiles for the
2200 work pretty darn well, in this respect, with my printer. The
original profiles did not. Color ain't half bad either. YMMV.

David Glos