Profiling printers

So far I have been using the paper manufacturers icc profiles with my Canon Pro 1000. I am happy with the result, but I wonder if I could do better....

Is it worth considering, for example, an x-rite i1Studio for my printer? (I already uses a Spyder Pro 5 for my monitor).

So far I have been using the paper manufacturers icc profiles with my Canon Pro 1000. I am happy with the result, but I wonder if I could do better....

 

Is it worth considering, for example, an x-rite i1Studio for my printer? (I already uses a Spyder Pro 5 for my monitor).

It depends, not all ICC profiles are created equally even from the same source:

Not all ICC profiles are created equally

In this 23 minute video, I'll cover:

The basic anatomy of ICC Profiles

Why there are differences in profile quality and color rendering

How to evaluate an ICC output profile

Examples of good and not so good canned profiles and custom profiles on actual printed output.

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4

Low resolution (YouTube):

The X-Rite i1 Studio is a grating (probably a hologram) spectrophotometer, which can distinguish finer gradations between colors than a colorimeter, which uses three filters. The down side is that it is less sensitive. A colorimeter is probably the better choice for calibrating a monitor, but the i1 Studio can do both.

Calibration with this device takes about 15 minutes, plus the time it takes to print the color patch sheets under test. It is done in two stages, using two patch sheets, with 60 patches each time. The i1 Pro uses about twice as many patches, but is $1500 vs $500 for the Studio. Digital Dog uses many more patches, but using a robotic device.

You must set up the printer exactly as instructed. This can be a challenge with Mac computers, for which the built-in drivers are greatly simplified. You can download real drivers from the manufacturer and install them, but it takes some effort to do so. (I'm convinced that Apple designs computers for people who don't like computers, and they do very well at that for most people.)

In addition to printers and monitors, the i1 Studio will also calibrate scanners, projectors and digital cameras. It is a lot of bang for the buck in a nice little package.

Another alternative is to use RIP (Raster Image Processor) software, such as ImagePrint (by ColorByte), traditionally used with large format printers to make high quality, wall-sized prints (17+ inches wide). A new version is called "Red", which works on smaller printers, with some limitations. ImagePrint takes over the print driver functions, and makes use of an existing profile. The full version includes hundreds of high quality profiles, but is specific for a single printer, and can cost between $700 (17") to about $1500 (24") or more. The "Red" version is much cheaper ($400), but uses the print driver and comes without access to the library of profiles. The demo version is full-function, but puts a huge, distracting watermark on the print.

I can't tell the difference between the same image printed with ImagePrint Red and the updated Canon driver, on my Canon Pixma Pro-10 (13"). That said, the profile I used was generated using an i1 Studio.

To paraphrase Digital Dog, there is a lot more to profiling a printer than meets the eye (irony intended).

I watched the first 10 mins of this and browsed through the 2nd 10 mins, I didn't understand a lot of the details and I almost never make prints. But I found it fascinating all the same. Thanks for sharing.

It depends, not all ICC profiles are created equally even from the same source:

Not all ICC profiles are created equally

In this 23 minute video, I'll cover:

The basic anatomy of ICC Profiles

Why there are differences in profile quality and color rendering

How to evaluate an ICC output profile

Examples of good and not so good canned profiles and custom profiles on actual printed output.

 

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4

 

Low resolution (YouTube):

It depends, not all ICC profiles are created equally even from the same source:

Thanks for the link! I just watched it, and it was very useful. Follow up question though: do you think that the i1Studio handheld is up to the task of producing profiles that are better than canned profiles? The price difference between it and the i1isis is very big, but that does not necessarily mean that the i1Studio is not capable of making a difference.

do you think that the i1Studio handheld is up to the task of producing profiles that are better than canned profiles?

It depends on the quality of the commercial profiles. They're worth a try, but there are so many paper types and so many printers that the possible combinations are almost endless. For example I had little chance of finding profiles for Epson paper and a Canon Pro-10. I have a lot of Epson Photo Matte paper lying about, and it was worth while giving it a try.the i1 Studio did at least an adequate job. The hard part was getting and using the right printer driver for an iMac, which had all the options you get in Windows (without trying). The ColorByte website was where I discovered what was necessary in that regard.

The alternative to printer profiles is endless trial and error, wasting time, expensive paper and ink in the process, for each new challenge.

As you see in Digitaldog's video, profiles are actually a set of curves for each primary color. Since the curves are based on actual prints, factors such as dot spreading and other non-linear characteristics are taken into account. You can't tweak a curve to duplicate those results, not in this lifetime anyway.

Technically, the curves are interpolated (not extrapolated) between each data point using a third-order (Bezier) curves. That can create "lumpy" results if the data is subject to large random errors. The fact that the curves are very smooth indicates the measurements and analysis using an i1 Studio are pretty good.