Is a custom printer profile much better than a generic one?

[jespdj]

Another chapter in the quest for perfect colour accuracy...

<p>I have my monitor calibrated and profiled with a ColorVision

Spyder. With my printer (Epson Stylus Photo 950) I'm using Epson inks

and Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper. I have a bunch of ICC profiles

for my printer and different types of Epson paper. With this setup,

the colours on my prints match reasonably well (at least much better

than the online printing services I tried, who don't (want) to know

anything about colour management and ICC profiles... see my post of a

few days ago). However, the colours do not always match perfectly.

<p>Now there are a few online services that can make a custom printer

profile for you - you print a special target with colour patches,

send it to them, they'll measure the colours and send you a custom

profile. Creating a profile this way costs about $100.

<p>Is it worth it to have a custom profile made, or are generic

profiles for the specific printer, ink and paper type combination

accurate enough? Before I spend $100 I'd like to know if it's worth

it...

[robert_martin5]

You need a custom profile for each ink paper combination you use to get the best color. You can have custom profiles made like you indicated or purchase software and generate your own. I purchased Profile Prism software for less than $100 and now generate profiles when ever I need a new one. The profiles generated by Profile Prism work great. You do need a flatbed scanner to use the software. There is a user group for this software at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prismtalk

[michael gordon httpwww]

Yes. Go with Chromix.com if you want a guarantee that their custom profile will be better than your canned profile. It will be.

[rayliguori]

Custom profiles are the way to go. I use the Epson 1280 and never liked their paper-specific profiles. I then used a do-it-yourself flat bed scanner system (ColorVision's Profiler Plus) which was worse than the Epson profiles. I then took a course in color management at the International Center for Photography where they taught us how to use a spectrophotmeter to make custom profiles. These have solved my problem.

 

Given the number of questions on this topic, I have been thinking of buying a spectrophotometer (they cost about $1,300) and making enough profiles for individuals to cover the cost (26 profiles at $50 a profile would cover the cost). I have no intention of starting a business (making the profiles is actually a pain in the neck). However, if enough people were interested, I would consider making the investment.

[jespdj]

Thanks for your responses.

<p>I know that you can buy a photospectrometer, but these things are very expensive. I'll have a look at the cheaper solutions. What about the ColorVision PrintFIX? Wow, I just looked at <a href="http://www.colorvision.com">ColorVision</a>'s website and I see that they have a $100 rebate if you already own a Spyder. The offer is only valid until December 31, 2003. Hmmmmm.... my printer is not in the list of supported printers for PrintFIX....

<p>Nevertheless, ColorVision also has a <a href="http://secure.colorvision.com/store_spec_pf-rightforme.shtml?">page that answers a large part</a> of my question.

[phil_v.]

Jesper: Even after the $100 savings, ColorVision's PrintFIX will cost you approximately $230. On the other hand, you can get DDI Software's Profile Prism for $70 and if you don't have a flatbed-scanner, you can get a Canon LIDE 30 (which works very well with PP) for another $70, saving you $90 compared to ColorVision's 'deal' (and you're getting a general-purpose flatbed-scanner in the PP 'package')!

[phil_v.]

I forgot one other 'minor' point... Unlike PrintFIX, Profile Prism works with all printers!

[eric_perlberg]

I bought a Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Photo system a few months back and have been doing profiles for friends and friends of friends. I'll be setting up a small online business serving primarily folks here in London, the UK and in Europe.

 

The current prices on profiling are a real rip-off if you're using the latest technology. Making profiles with the latest equipment is a no-brainer. The software won't let you make an error. It takes something like 15 to 30 minutes to do depending on which target you use and the speed of your computer. It's slightly more challenging than buttering bread.

 

I'm charging £35 for a basic target (which has 288 colour samples) and £50 for a TC 9.18 target (which has 850 colour samples). Contact me off list if you're interested.

[jespdj]

Phil V.: OK, it costs $230, but you can make as many profiles as you like... Also, I'm a bit wary of this: with Profile Prism you're also using your scanner, so doesn't the quality and the settings of the scanner affect the profiling process? If your scanner can't scan the printed colours really accurately, the scanner introduces a large error in the whole process, doesn't it?

[phil_v.]

The answer is no, because the scanner too is being profiled by Profile Prism's process. But 'just to play safe', the Canon LIDE 30 is very popular in the PP community and it's very inexpensive.

 

Besides, if your printer is not on ColorVision's supported list, why on earth would you still consider PrintFIX?

[kevinconnery]

1. Profiles are almost always worthwhile. It's possible your

printer matches the exact profile that was provides by the

manufacturer for the paper/ink you use, but that's unusual.

Worse, none of the vendor-supplied profiles I've seen did a

decent job of soft-proofing, and that's quite important if you want

to maximize image quality without printing and reprinting.<p>

2. The scanner-based print profilers can do an OK job on some

papers. Others will not work well--different optical brighteners,

for example, can be excited unduly by the high-UV output of the

scanner lamps, and give very (very very) bad profiles. (I've used

2 different ones.)<p>

Until I get a spectrophotometer--not cheap, as noted--I'll be

getting custom profiles for the papers I use, and have limited my

output to 3 papers (so far). While it's only 3 surfaces, they all look

as close to the preview/softproof as the paper is capable of.