Calibrating Paper - Every Pack???

[bkkstudios]

Hi I bought the quite expensive PrintFix Pro and with my cheapo Canon printer

and Canon semi-gloss paper, did a 725 sample calibration. The prints came out

quite good, albeit, a bit dark.

 

Then I bought a new pack of the exact same paper, and my prints look very poor,

meaning color is off, quite dark, and generally not impressive.

 

Does anyone have experience with this? I am wondering if the new paper I got is

not original (but I bought it at a reputable store), or if perhaps there is

some storage or temperature factor at play here, or could it be that I just

have too low an end printer, or, is this normal?

 

Thanks!

[fanta]

Is it possible you changed something in the way you print instead? Any setting in the ptiner driver and/or application you are using? Try printing on some left over of the previous pack, if you have it. You should not need to make a new profile when you buy a new pack of the same paper.

[bkkstudios]

I don't believe so, as I created a printer profile to avoid that, and am printing from Photoshop using the same (created) profile.

 

I can only think it is due to 'fake' paper (I live in Thailand, where this is, unfortunately, common) or perhaps I changed one ink cartridge and it was 'fake'.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"I can only think it is due to 'fake' paper (I live in Thailand, where this is, unfortunately, common) or perhaps I changed one ink cartridge and it was 'fake'."

 

Either would do it. On the other hand for slightly more money you could have a much better printer profiling toolset.

[peter_mounier]

Ellis

Over the last several months, I've heard nothing but good things about the PrintFix Pro.

Mostly on the EpsonWideFormat group at Yahoo. At $500.00 there doesn't seem to be any

other profile maker that makes good quality profiles. The alternatives are lousy scanner

based outfits. The next step in quality is the EyeOne that is at least twice the price, but more

like 3x the price. Is that what you mean by slightly more money? What do you suggest?

 

Peter

[ellis_vener_photography]

Then they must have fixed it. But using a 725 patch profiling target is like only having directions to a neighborhood without street signs when you want an exact street address.

[peter_mounier]

Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all to me. What were you talking about when you said

that for slightly more $$$ you could have a much better profiling toolset?

I'm curious because I'm looking to upgrade my profiling hardware (which I've had since mac

OS 9), and would like to know if there are comparable alternatives to PrintFix Pro.

 

Peter

[kirk_thompson]

See the Luminous-Landscape site for reviews, both favorable & unfavorable.

 

While Ellis states the point pretty boldly, he's basically right - you can indeed see the

difference between profiles from 1700 patches & the Atkinson target with 4K patches. So I

assume the differences would ne as obvious with even fewer swatches.

 

A more general question: I've long been curious about why so many folks want to make

their own profiles. If you've worked out a consistent style, you probably print on onlly 1 to

3 papers (a work-print paper, an archival rag paper, & perhaps a luster paper for

commerical uses &/or richer blacks).

 

How often do you play with new papers? You can get useful experimental profiles - just to

try out new papers/inks/printers - for $25 from InkjetArt, & the highest quality profiles

from Andrew Rodney for $100. I never spend more than $2-300 a year on profiles this

way, & if I bought a good profiling system (1700 patches) it would be obsolete long before

I amortized its cost. Instead I'm getting latest equipment & technical expertise.

 

I don't want to start an argument about this - I'm just genuinely curious!

[peter_mounier]

I first started using profiles when color managment was introduced in Photoshop. I

reproduce artwork, so my intent was to match colors, rather than just make a good print

on a variety of papers. In the beginning, profiles were about $100 (+) each, and the

quality, or even existence of Atkinson profiles hadn't really been known, to me at least. So

I bought some profiling hardware/software and everythinghas been peachy since then.

You bring up a good point though. Profiles are cheap now. Maybe I'll rethink the issue. But

still, for $500, I and can make new profiles if I want to try out new papers as they are

released.

I looked at the Luminous -Landscape site, and they say...

"My impression is that of a very solid package that offers the reliability and accuracy of

spectro-colorimetric generation of printer ICC profiles at a more accessible price point

than previously available. The basic instrument and software design is good".

Their only complaint was that the profiles create a profile that uses "saturation" rendering

intent as the default. No complaints about the profiles themselves. So I wouldn't say their

review is mixed.

 

Peter