Jump to content

asimpod

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    27

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by asimpod

  1. asimpod
    Thanks JD, I get that pigment printers are less prone to clogging than when they first came out; certain models do stand out as being robust in this respect. Dyes by nature though are less prone to clogging (and cheaper to buy, run and maintain)... in what i do think is a risk (i accept that if i buy a dye printer, it may well not work after two months unused), choosing dye is a better bet than pigment. I do really like the pigment prints i've had made. There's a quality to textures that looks almost like an oil painting... In the next life! :)
  2. asimpod
    Conrad, Robin, that is really good to know, two Pro 100 users who have faith it would fuction after two months. I would use original inks, definitely. (And i live by a river, with wet winters). I'm rather surprised /shocked by the prices you're stating: in the UK the Pro100 is £350 plus! Thank you all for your feedback. I'm encouraged to pursue this course and will be looking into it seriously. Best Wishes :)
  3. asimpod
    It could be 'soft-proof' is not the right language... the only way i can describe it: When i first start working with an image, i have multiple versions /files printed as C-41 prints on Fuji Archive paper. This is because (1) C-41 is much cheaper; (2) I can't truly evaluate from a screen, i need a print to look at. I choose the version i like most, re-work it, and then send the new version to be printed as a pigment print on Canson Platine. If i don't like the overall feel /look of a C-41 print, i won't like the pigment version of it. -The colours will not be the same, among other things, but for those things i can trust my monitor. So, the C-41 prints are my 'soft-proofs'. And, i wanted to know if a dye-inkset could function in the same way for me.
  4. asimpod
    Thanks Bill, Ed and Robin for your responses... So, i'm getting that a dye printer (properly profiled, of course) is good enough for soft-proofing /master-prints. "If I wanted an extra large print, then I would not hesitate to send my file to a commercial printer, assuming I was happy with my PRO100 print" - this is exactly what i wanted to know. Robin, i'd send the final files out for pigment printing because of the kudos, yes! There are certain expectations in the fine-art world, justified or not, and pigments command more respect. But also, i only have pigment prints to base my judgement on... i know i like them (more than chemical prints), so that's where i was coming from when i said i'd send out for the final prints. I take the point you're making, that dye printers can be as good as pigments -i simply hadn't considered it. Now i am. (Certainly, it would be much more satisfying to have a dye printer i could make final prints with, rather than just soft-proofing. It's something i can only know when i have dye prints to judge myself.) Robin: "The Canon PRO100 does not clog in general with little use. I use mine only in bursts about 4 times a year." This seems so close to my own situation, but for clarity's sake, would you tell me: If you had to leave your Canon unused completely for two months, a couple of times a year (but otherwise used regularly and maintained well) would you expect it to work when you returned? Or, would you return knowing there's every chance it may not?
  5. asimpod
    Hello Jochen, Ha! -no you didn't derail; in fact, you got the jist of where i'm coming from. I appreciate it's not going to be an exact match. What i meant by soft-proofing is this: I'm into the print as the ultimate output for my work, photographs intended for a screen are not my aim. If you're printing, whether wet or digital, there's a learning curve, not only the technical side, but (more relevant for me) the creative side, the purely artistic choices you make. In order to learn /evaluate /practice the skill, you need to make and look at prints. ATM, when i first start working on an image, i make different versions and get them made as C-41 /Lightjet prints, because it costs almost 5 times less than a pigment print. I then sit with the C-41 prints, looking at them, using them to see if i'm on the right track. When i feel i'm close, i start getting pigment-prints made. The C-41's are not comparable to the pigments -the pigments are lush- but they are accurate in that that there are no surprises when i come to getting the pigments made (only good ones). So, this is the kind of 'accuracy' i require from a dye-inkset. (I have no experience of owning /running an inkjet myself, and all my 'knowledge' about them so far is from the internet.) A 'sit around and do nothing' printer is exactly what i'm looking for! -the Selphy (inks) doesn't seem good enough to use as a soft-proofing tool... but, i am going to look into it, because i don't actually know that's the case. Thanks for that suggestion.
  6. asimpod
    @conrad_hoffman Regarding your Pro 100 and the inkset it uses, would you use this printer to soft-proof i.e. if you make a print on it, would it accurately reflect the same image-file printed on a higher-end, pigment print? @digitaldog Thanks for your reply. Would you advise buying a printer (dye or pigment) if it was to be left unused for 8 weeks at a time?
  7. asimpod
    Regarding your Pro 100 and the inkset it uses, would you use this printer to soft-proof i.e. if you make a print on it, would it accurately reflect the same image-file printed on a higher-end, pigment print?
  8. asimpod
    Thanks Conrad, Yes, this is the thing, i've picked up that weeks at a time is reasonable with Canon, but 8 weeks at a time... this is the thing. I am aware of Wilhelm's site, is there something i could look up there? -I've only found information on pigment-inks and papers... I'm not concerned about longevity with dye-inks for my purposes (the final prints will be on pigment through a print-studio), only that the prints i make with a dye-inkset will be accurate soft-proofs for the final pigment prints.
  9. asimpod
    Hi All, I've been building up my digital darkroom over the last year with the aim of producing prints as the goal. Most of what i've done to date has been test-printing, i.e. making versions of an image, sending them off to a print-studio, then re-working the image. I've resisted buying a printer myself mainly for this reason: i am away from home up to two months at a time, a couple of times a year, and i was (am) concerned that leaving a printer unused for a couple of months would cause clogging issues with the print-head, and end up being an excessive expense as a result. However, due to the number of test-prints i'm making, and the time it takes to get them back, i've been wondering if it'd be better to get a printer of my own. I'm not considering a pigment-ink printer because from my research it seems that leaving it unused for two months is definitely going to be an issue. Dye-printers, it seems, are less prone to clogging, and perhaps will be ok if properly stored /cleaned. My strategy in regards to producing my work is that i hope to be able to make my test-prints at home, then, when i finally acheive the print that i'm happy with, i'll send it to be printed by the studio (on their pigment-ink printer). So, i have two questions i'd appreciate input on: 1. Will a dye-printer (using Claria HD or ChromaLife 100+ inksets) produce prints which are accurate enough to be used as soft-proofs for the final destination of a pigment-ink print? 2. Will a dye-printer not clog if left for a couple of months? Thanks :)
  10. asimpod
    Ah OK, i have both metrics in the report, so good. Great, thanks for your help on this. I feel a bit clearer following up with Eizo about it. Best Regards :)
  11. asimpod
    Thanks. Sorry, i have a language issue: Are u saying there's only one dE00 colour-patch you'd be concerned with...? -And is that a good thing? (Tried uploading reports again -scrolled again :(
  12. asimpod
    (There may be a problem with the site today, i couldn't view the reports fullsize when i posted them without them scrollong endlessly in a loop.) Ah so, this is the thing -i thought there was only one dE of importance: dE2000; also, that deltaC was a measurment worth taking. Reports from CN give dEab and dE2000 measurments, dEab is where i'm getting much poorer results generally, with some patches 4-8. dE00: Max_2.16, Avg_0.39, White_0.24 dEab: Max_8.88, Avg_1.04, White_0.20 The dE00 i understand to be (very) good values...? Of 134 patch-test, ISO:12646 dE00: max: x2 patches @ 2>, x4 patches @ 1-2. dEab: max: x4 patches @ 4>, x8patches @ 2-4. I can see from ur list (thanks for that) that dEab refers to LAB colour-space... but, what does it mean...? -"No idea what -dEab is." -Brilliant, that cheers me up for some reason :) So, perhaps a better way of asking my question is (bearing in mind that the ARGB gamut numbers are excellent all-round): -Would you, personally, be 'concerned' about the display based on this report's dE*ab numbers, despite the good dE00 numbers? (Not compared to a Spectraview or CG display, but for this display, and generally agreed expectations of what it should do.)
  13. asimpod
    Hello DD, In respect to gamut and dE2000, i get it (in fact many of ur other posts are how i have learned about it :) I wondered why Native gamut would show values which were cause for concern, while ARGB gamut would show excellent values? -I thought they would be equally as good (or equally as bad). I have been in contact with Eizo, they agreed the numbers were 'odd'. After sending the reports to Japan, they advised my colorimeter may be the problem -i'll get another to compare as soon as i can. Also, thanks for confirming the dEab is an issue. -dEab is not a measurment i've come across before (dE2000 and deltaC is what i understand), and i wanted confirmation that the values here should be addressed. Regards.
  14. asimpod
    Hello All, I've hardware-calibrated an Eizo CS2420 with ColorNavigator and i1Display Pro. I've attached reports from (i) Native-gamut and (ii) AdobeRGB gamut target calibrations. As you will see, the AdobeRGB report is much better than the Native report, in both dE2000 and dEab values. The Native report measures a max dEab of 8+. (1) Would someone explain the Native-gamut report to me, please? -Why is there (such) a difference between the Native and AdobeRGB reports, particularly in dEab values? (2) Could this be down to a problem with my i1Display? (Support from Eizo has suggested Red is not being correctly measured by the colorimeter; at the moment i'm unable to get another colorimeter to check this.) I've done a number of hardware-calibrations in Native gamut over the last 10 days with different colour-temperature and brightness settings -the reports have been consistent in the values measured. Any insight would be appeciated. With thanks, :)
  15. asimpod
    Well those are rather excellent figures :) As i said before, something has (fortunately) clicked and i've got the perspective i needed on this subject. I decided to send the monitor back based on the overall innaccuracy of the panel... i'd rather work in 100% sRGB on a uniform, colour-correct display, i think (the limitation of sRGB colour-space is not a limitation on technique, as long as the display is accurate). Anyway, a good introduction to getting the right photo-dedicated display -i feel confident i can assess the next one, whatever it may be. With thanks for your help and advice. Regards.
  16. asimpod
    (Sorry, a little lost in language there -) You're saying if i run a patch-test multiple times from the same point on my display, a variation of up to dE_0.25 is OK...? Formula-wise, yes, dE 2000. The ISO 14861:2015 reports from displayCAL seem to be quite deep (seems a better tool for verification than i1Profiler, to me anyway).
  17. asimpod
    I have one more question relating to measurments and consistency: I've taken measurments from the the *same spot* on the screen 3 times, with 5 minute intervals between each measurment. Each time i get slightly different results; the greatest difference being in RGB grey balance. Is this to OK? -Or does it indicate that either the display or colorimeter is not consistent? The 3 measurments:
  18. asimpod
    Helpful information. I've listened to your piece on AdobeRGB /sRGB as well.. which encourages my thoughts that AdobeRGB is the colour-space i need to be working in. I've finished doing my test-measurments from multiple points in the centre of the display (roughly the area of the 9 centre grids from my original, 25-grid report). -Because this centre-area is large enough for me to view photos in. Would you confirm that my interpretation of the measurments is correct? In-depth measurments from the centre are generally dE max <=2, passing all recommended-tolerances (according to the measurment standard). In measurments taken from the centre-edges, which give the poorest results, it is only the White-point which fails even a nominal tolerance. -Below are 2 of the reports which are typical of the best and worst results; the first sampled from off-centre, the second from edge-centre: 2: * Are these results saying that i can trust the centre-area of my screen to be colour-accurate, except in respect to luminance? * Grey-balance and Shadows are going to spot-on? (I guess this confirms what you noted in the original uniformity-report, that colour-values were less off than luminosity?)
  19. asimpod
    Hi Wouter, Yes, this is it, what everyone who can't go out and buy an Eizo has to weigh-up and balance-out :) Like most people, i think i've read about it and thought about it too much. However, i feel like i've come through the worse of it and have a level of clarity about my 'acceptable-minimum' needs. Yes, i bought the U2413 because of what it cost (about £130) and because of its wide-gamut and potential to be colour-accurate and uniform. The latter i confirmed through reviews of the model from sources whose approach i respect. So, it's not that i feel i need an Eizo (CS2420, btw, if ur wondering) for my work. I bought it with the expectation that if it was a good copy then it would satisfy my needs. When i originally posted, the place where i was coming from was: Is this U2413 copy a good one, or is it a dud? -Homogenity across copies has always been a reasonable concern for this model, according to the web. I thought i might hear from someone who had a U2413 they were happily working with, who would indicate the quality of my measurment-report compared to their own. So, i'd be more than happy with this monitor if (i knew) the panel was performing to expected standard. If i decide to return it, it will only be because i think it's a sub-standard copy. If i do return it, then god, yes, i'll be back in that hole of weighing-up and balancing out. AdobeRGB gamut is the way i'd choose to go... but also, i have no issue working in sRGB (100% gamut, colour-accurate across the display to <=2 dE) if that's the way it has to be -better making photos than evaluating colour-spaces, right? Thanks for the monitor recommendation, i've put it on the Plan (sRG) B list. Regards, :)
  20. asimpod
    @ digitaldog Thank you for your time on this. Discussing this on the forum has helped a few pennies to drop in my understanding of calibration and the numbers, i feel i know what i need to know now, and can direct my attention there. For example, i can identify exactly which colours are innacurate (dE 3+) in different parts of the screen by doing full measurment-reports from different parts (rather than the minimal uniformity-report which i first posted). At the moment i'm noticing that only specific colours in the shadows return a dE of 3-4, the others are all within recommended-tolerance -this tolerance being what i need. Will be repeating the tests again tomorrow to confirm repeatability. So yes, i feel i've progressed, and can make a decision (after further measurments and calibrations) that i'll be comfortable with. Thanks again. Regards :)
  21. asimpod
    (bit of a mis-post, not sure what happened there...) OK. The deltaC report nominally-passes every grid. -But actually, i think something's clicked! The numbers are saying that where i've got: dE <1 = technically colour-accurate display; dE 1-2 = display which can be regarded as colour-accurate for the majority of eyes; dE 2-3 = there is gonna be a perceptible difference between actual colour and displayed colour -a deal-breaker, or workable? dE 3-4= not suitable for colour-accurate evaluation. Is that fair enough to say? If this is so, perhaps the question should be: Is deltaE 2-3 accuracy an acceptable minimum for a photography oriented display? Would you, for example, be comfortable working on a display which was accurate to dE 2-3?
  22. asimpod
  23. asimpod
    That is something i hadn't thought about, although now it seems obvious :) Do you know, in this respect, if that is essentially what the 'Avg Lum & deltaC' measurement (the 2nd of the two reports) relates to? -Colour. With thanks for your input.
  24. asimpod
    Hi Hector. The U2142m isn't a 98% AdobeRGB gamut display; the reason i'm persevering with the U2413 is because it is -otherwise i would've already sent it back :)
  25. asimpod
    Yes, i made the measurments after first calibrating the monitor to my working conditions. (D65, g2.2, 80cd/m). The tint in the lower-corner, and the light-bleed from the edges seems to correlate with the report... max and avg dE is much higher in these grids, even when they get a nominal pass, compared to the dE's from the centre-9 grids. A misunderstanding on luminosity -i have no intention of changing luminosity for the screen, i was referring to the measured difference in luminosity from one grid to another in the report, and saying that the centre-9 grids are all within 10% of the optimum (in my case, 80/cdm). I mentioned this because i read a (well written, well argued) article on panel uniformity, where the author gave 10-15% luminance difference as an acceptable number for what is essentially an entry-level, not quite 'pro', wide-gamut display. I guess the idea being that if the uniformity was within these numbers, the display, while not 100% colour-accurate, would be a tool you could trust enough to work with, creatively, if not so technically.
×
×
  • Create New...