Hi, the deeper I dive into color management the more I realise how much is there to learn. Another day I was playing with soft-proofing in Photoshop, and tried different output profiles. My monitor (Iiyama CRT) is calibrated with i1display. Output profiles of interest were: 1) custom made ICC for Frontier 570 from local pro-lab; 2) Canon 9500 + Ilford Fibre Silk; 3) Epson 1900 + Ilford Fibre Silk; 4) Epson R800 and Ilford Smooth Glossy (three last profiles downloaded from Ilford website). One of the photos that I've used for tests was some of my real images, not a test target (jpeg version at http://citadel.nobulus.com/~ilya/singles/images/IMG_9206-dpp-web.jpg but I've used PSD source in ProPhoto color space for actual tests). Another one was a color real image with a lot of saturated red tones. What I've noticed is that Epson R800 soft-proof showed significantly lift in dark areas and reduced highlights; with Frontier profile effect was similar but as big as with R800. Tne Epson 1900 profile resulted in look more close to original tonality (i.e. what I saw when soft-proof was turned off); and finally Canon 9500 was even better and quite close to reproducing most of original tonality. All that for B/W image. For color image differences were less noticible between profiles. I thought: "right, looks like I shouldn't bother buying anything less than Canon 9500, and until then just bring photos to Frontier lab". Then I've stumbled upon few 3D ICC comparisson tools and decided to evaluate profiles that I've used. It was interesting to see that Epson R800 color space wasn't much smaller than Canon 9500, it was just different. Curiously, Canon 9500 had biggest overlapping with monitor and Adobe RGB gamuts. This is probably reason why in soft-proofs Canon 9500 was showing closest similarity to original images. Now the game became more interesting, lets compare printer profiles with monitor profiles, including my current Iiyama CRT and two Eizo monitors (CE210W and S2231W) that I'm looking at as possible purchase in the future. One thing I've noticed that my monitor is quite good in terms of color space size (slightly more than that of CE210W). All monitors covered more or significantly more than printers in some parts of spectrum. However even wide-gamut S2231W did not extend enough to cover yellow-red part of Epson printer profiles. My understanding is that such difference in gamut between monitors and printers (not bigger, but covering different areas of spectrum) is part of the answer why with some printers difference from monitor image was bigger than with other - monitor just couldn't reproduce some colors from printer color space. Another though is that Epson R800 is probably not inferior to Frontier and could sometimes give better results depending on the image. I'm confused: if dealing with an image that has colors not reproducible on the monitor (and I have examples of such images where colors lie beyond gamut of explored monitors and Adobe RGB) but supposedly in the spectrum reproducible by printers (e.g. yellow-red zone), how can monitors be used for accurate soft-proofing when they don't cover desired part of the color gamut for target printer and source image? Isn't it then just hit-or-miss game and ultimately test prints are still necessary at least for some if not for many photos, like printing those test stripes back in darkroom days? Surely absolute match is never possible, but is soft-proof close enough to justify time (tuning image on the monitor just to notice on the print that tuning need to be done in different direction) and expenses (colorimeters, spectrometers, wide-gamut monitors) for doing it? P.S.: Photography is just my hobby, so budget for it has quite low limits, that's why I'm trying to determine which expenses are justified for me and which are not.