http://www.color.org/srgbprofiles.xalter – sRGB v4
hearkane - http://flickr.com/arkane
2010-04-18 (Sunday, week 15) at 09:31
Related info is here http://wp.me/pDHKZ-Un
2010-06-26 (Saturday, week 25) at 08:33
2011-11-09 (Wednesday, week 45) at 17:40
Manual attempts to calibrate printer output
Intro to color management:
2014-07-09 (Wednesday, week 28) at 19:42
A real nice Explanation of color spaces and bit depths:
2011-11-09 (Wednesday, week 45) at 17:51
Introduction to Icc Profiles and Their Use:
2011-12-25 (Sunday, week 51) at 20:10
> ProfileMaker from gretagmacbeth.com
> $69, Profile Prism
1: Try canned profiles. It sounds like the ones you have used do not match your printer well. If the profiles are Epson’s older ones, these will have been made for the made in Japan inks. When Epson switched to a Chinese manufacturer, the formulation changed enough to throw the old profiles out of whack. You may get lucky and find some other profiles posted on the web that are a better match to your printer.
2: Fiddle around with your printer controls until you get good results or your supply of paper, ink , or patience is exhausted.
3: Let’s assume you are tired of wasting time with the above approaches. Think about purchasing scanner-based profiling software. These range from cheap ($69 for Profile Prism) to about $1000. Whether or not any particular software package works depends on the combination of printer, paper, ink, scanner, and software. Price is not a reliable indicator of performance here. Sometimes the results are adequate, often not. It also depends on how picky you are about color. If you are satisfied with getting 80% of the way calibrated, a scanner system may be just the ticket. Don’t buy anything that does not come with a money back guarantee.
4: Get a dedicated profiling system. The difference between a good spectrophotometer (Gretag) or colorimeter (XRite) and a scanner system is comparable to the difference between calibrating your monitor with Adobe Gamma and using a hardware calibrator. The entry cost here is not cheap; a Gretag Eye-One plus software will set you back over $2000.
5: Purchase custom profiles for the inks and papers you use. These will likely provide the most accurate solutions, as the profiles will be made by an experienced person using top of the line equipment and software. We make profiles as do several other companies. The heavyweights in the business are Andrew Rodney’s DigitalDog.net, Chromix, and ProfileCity.
If you have a profile viewer, you can see all sorts of information about the profiles. There are freeware/shareware ones around, or you can download ProfileMaker from gretagmacbeth.com. Install the ProfileEditor — you won’t be able to actually editr profiles without paying them money, but you get a nifty gamut viewer and utility to view the profile information.
You may want to check out this months articles on Color Management and recommended color workflow at http://www.digitalfocus.net.
Some good recommendations on inexpensive systems which can actually outperform much more expensive ones as well.
> Which item in particular did you have in mind? Profile prism?
> The problem with that is that I have an old, cheapie flatbed
> scanner that I suspect is not up to the job of proper printer
> profiling. I have good quality 35 mm film and slide scanner, so I’m
> not motivated to spring for a new flatbed scanner.
Scanner quality matters to some extent. A top-notch flatbed can improve scanner profiles, but I suspect this is the result of more even lighting and detection than anything else.
As I mentioned in an eralier post, whether a scanner-based system works for you depends first on how stringent your expectations are, and then on the combination of software, printer, paper, etc. used. Another confounding issue is the target used. Taking Profile Prism as an example, the target has two deficiencies. First, the actual colors are not custom measured, but a batch average is used instead. On a PP target I have, the reference values were consistently lighter than the actual colors. Substituting my measurements for the provided values gave distinctly better values. The other consideration is that the target has a smaller gamut than a typical good inkjet can produce. The profiles made, therefore, either estimate or exclude the limits of your printer’s gamut. In other words, accuracy falls off for the most saturated colors your printer can produce.
Now, for $69, one should not expect more. A custom measured, high gamut Hutch target alone costs $250. Also, some of the more expensive profiling applications don’t perform as well even with a calibrated target as does PP. Change priinters or scanners, however, and which product performs best may change as well. For the money, PP is hard to beat. The output side of the profiles seems better than the simulation side, so soft proofing is a bit iffy. Whether you are satisfied with the results is another question. You can do much better, but it will cost you.
I did a series of tests using a Fuji FineScan (2750 if memory serves) scanner at a graphics house I use. This is a fairly high end tabloid size scanner — getting one will only set you back $8-9K. When I substituted a Hutch target for the default Monaco target, the profile quality improved. I couldn’t do this with PP, as PP only allows the standard target sets. Even with the fancy scanner and target, the profiles still were not as good as those made with dedicated profiling hardware. The balance was off, and matching between screen and print in D50 light booth was not as good.
It is possible, however, to spend thousands and get really lousy profiles. Using Heidelberg’s PrintOpen with a SpectroScan (~10K of kit) made for some spectacularly bad profiles. Use Gretag’s ProfileMaker software instead, and the profiles were fantastic.
If you are looking for cheap profiling software, PPrism is probably as good or better than most. If you do not have other uses for good flatbed, I would not buy one for profiling. I can’t give an unqualified recommendation to PP, as I have never been satisfied with any of the profiles it produced. Then again, for much of my work, excellent color accuracy matters. For close but not perfect color, it may work for you.
2011-12-25 (Sunday, week 51) at 20:19
Custom printer driver, to replace the original
2011-12-26 (Monday, week 52) at 17:50
2012-05-14 (Monday, week 20) at 18:06
Tip of the day, almost affordable PRINTER calibration capable products:
Colormunki ( €400 )
(Sensor count? 3?)
Spyder 4 PRINT ( €300 ) add ELITE and buy them as “STUDIO” ( €400 )
(7 sensors in this one)
2012-12-24 (Monday, week 52) at 21:25
Keywords: Screen / Display Calibration, Profiling, Swedish:
2013-02-06 (Wednesday, week 06) at 22:27
Film color profiles:
2014-01-03 (Friday, week 01) at 11:11
B&W printing, oldish references but maybe still useful:
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.