printing profiels

[megan_stone]

<p>been reading up more about colour management and profiling etc.<br>

what i've been doing when i print to my Epson 3800, is select<br>

the profile for the paper im using that i had downloaded from the net,<br>

in my case - Hahnmuehle.<br>

in this article that im reading, its states that downloading canned profiles<br>

is the worse way to go - and that having someone do a custom profile<br>

is the best way to go and reasonably unexpensive. noting that the best<br>

way to go, but very expensive is to make the profiles myself and investing<br>

in expensive equipment etc - but states that it's not really worth it unless<br>

im constantly using different types of media.</p>

<p>my question is - should i no longer be using hahnmuehle's canned profiles?<br>

they've been working fairly well - but i also always like to improve and<br>

maximizing quality - im confused as i always thought that was the right<br>

way to go.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>While custom made profiles would be a bit more accurate, paper profiles supplied by the manufacturers are mostly very good and perfectly usable.<br>

They tightly control the production process of the paper and use probably much more precise instruments to create the profiles than the average end user would be able to afford.<br>

It's not like with monitor profiles, that need need to be re-done regularly by the user because monitors deteriorate over time.</p>

[alan_goldhammer]

<p>Martin is correct. Most of the profiles you get are indeed very good (Epson's are wonderful as they want to insure that their paper works with the printer). If you are interested in making your own profiles you can purchase a ColorMunki which does a darn good job (I've been using one for a year now to profile papers) and can also be used to profile your monitor.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>Canned profiles and their quality: Depends on the printer. The Epson profiles are quite good because the devices are <strong>very</strong> stable, and the unit to unit variation is tiny. That said, I just taught a class in color management where I had to use the classroom’s HP 9000 series printers and the unit to unit differences were shocking! I’m talking a max deltaE of 9 in one case. Now maybe they needed maintenance or were beat to pieces, but in this case, we had to use custom profiles, which was kind of the point of the class. But canned profiles with that high a deltaE would never work. </p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Thru my camera club, I met a color management professional consultant who also writes columnists in our country's photography magazine. She also visits printery companies and professional photographers to calibrate their stuff. Some of them want a professional to set up everything for them, they are not that technical minded. *I am not in the USA.</p>

<p>Basically her view was that for most poeple, out of the box profiles are fine, unless you have a older printer like the Epson 2100 (2200 in the USA) and of course if you are using papers that does not provide profiles for your printer.</p>

<p>I have had a 2100 for a couple of years, I have never gotten it to work, I got it calibrated, I got it done in the USA via someone in Dpreview.com which I won't name, the prints just didn't match. She offered to edit my profiles for free and now they are superb. She also says the 2100 or 2200 should not be bought for those interested or get it calibrated, even a Colormunki is a very good option. However she did advise me if I could is to just upgrade to a "newer printer".</p>

<p>Your question:<br /> Of course if canned profiles for your v good printer is not good enough, there are rewards to be reckoned with - by using custom profiles or even a Colormunki.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Andrew makes a good point regarding different manufacturers and variations between units. I admit that my experience is mostly based on Epson printers, which seem to be rather well behaved in that regard.</p>