f



PS Printer Management vs. Epson Printer Management

Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson's color
management,
rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely
matches my
monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using GretagMacbeth's
Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo Glossy paper
and MIS inks.

Too frequently, when I run a test on 4x6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy
paper (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using
my
profile & letting PS manage the printing,
that the print fails miserably to match my monitor's image. (I
recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)

When I try letting Epson
manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I
need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the
Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS
& guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.

I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the
fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So,
you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is
best, use that. 4x6 paper isn't that expensive.

I'm just curious why I can't standardize on one color management
printer system. It's incredible to me that the Epson system, using
non-
Epson inks, can produce more accurate results than the PS system with
my profile. Maybe some of you have run into the same situation & that
what I have to do is all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my
printer, paper, and inks, altho my printer hasn't changed, my paper
hasn't changed, and my inks haven't changed.
0
Empedocles
7/12/2008 2:57:38 PM
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop 8034 articles. 0 followers. ronviers (102) is leader. Post Follow

9 Replies
899 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 14

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Empedocles wrote:

> Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson's color management,
> rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely
> matches my monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using
> GretagMacbeth's Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo
> Glossy paper and MIS inks.

This is the cris de cour of almost anyone who is very discerning about how
well their printer matches their monitor.    Millions of dollars have been
spent on it, with no sure fire solution in sight.

A problem that seems simple to understand, isn't simple at all.  It's a
problem that unravels as you chase it.

> Too frequently, when I run a test on 4x6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper
> (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using my profile
> & letting PS manage the printing, that the print fails miserably to
> match my monitor's image. (I recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)

Well, right there I would question the accuracy of your printer profile.
There are a number of things you can do to assess the accuracy of your
profile - one is to convert a grayscale gradient, and check the individual
channels for blending.  I provide an action that does this, then plots the
components as a graph.  See if your profile looks like the Frankenprofile
example.
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/profileplotter/index.htm

> When I try letting Epson
> manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I
> need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the
> Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS
> & guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.

Perhaps by Epson color management, you mean either the PhotoEnhance4 mode,
or the mode with explicit color sliders.  I've used both of these to good
effect, and have to agree with you that it works.

> I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the
> fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So,
> you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is
> best, use that. 4x6 paper isn't that expensive.

The choice probably depends on the subject matter of the image.  

> I'm just curious why I can't standardize on one color management
> printer system. 

This is key, I believe, to understanding what the basic flaw in
over-reliance on color management and calibration is.  That is the belief,
that perfect calibration will produce excellent images - it will not.
Calibration can produce OK images, but it will not produce great ones.  It
takes a person to squeeze the last 10, 20, or 30 percent out of an image.
No profile alone can do that, even as well as a moderately skilled person.

> It's incredible to me that the Epson system, using non- Epson inks, can
> produce more accurate results than the PS system with my profile. Maybe
> some of you have run into the same situation & that what I have to do is
> all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my printer, paper, and inks,
> altho my printer hasn't changed, my paper hasn't changed, and my inks
> haven't changed.

The fact that the inks match Epson's reasonably well is a testimony to the
folks who made the inks.  Epson, as well, has a great economic interest in
providing a good out of box experience for people who purchase their
equipment.  Both of these companies have spectrophotometers and other color
measurement instruments that cost as much as your house - or at least your
car.  The fact that they can accomplish this is a testimony to their
collective calibration abilities.

Can you accomplish the same thing with a minimum of training, and a device
that clocks in at just over $1000?  I don't think so.  Can you recognize a
good image, and adjust it to look better?  Absolutely, and this is the key
to why Epson's manual controls give you such an advantage over reliance on
a profile.  

Color editing, over and above calibration, is the key to get the most out
of your images.  Whether you spend a few seconds, or hours on an image, you
can improve your color, provided you trust your own eyes, color judgment,
and make effective use of the all important numbers in Photoshop's
info-palette.

OK, that was a bit long, but as of two minutes ago, it's my birthday, LOL.
-- 
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
0
Mike
7/13/2008 7:02:50 AM
On Jul 13, 2:02 am, Mike Russell <group...@MOVEcurvemeister.com>
wrote:

> Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

I'm glad I never print.
Happy birthday:-)
0
ronviers
7/13/2008 7:51:16 AM
Thanks for the great insight, Mike. I have the same problem and almost 
always use the Epson workflow.
Glad I'm not alone :-)
Happy Birthday! 

0
Fred
7/13/2008 8:06:36 AM
There are so many variables.
Even though the inks and papers are made to a tolerance there are bound to 
be variations beteween batches.
The printer caibration will also change over time wear and tear etc.
We check the calibration each working day and on average recalibrate about 
every 3 months.

Regards
Denis 


0
Denis
7/13/2008 2:56:08 PM

Denis Fitzgibbon schrieb:
> There are so many variables.
> Even though the inks and papers are made to a tolerance there are bound to
> be variations beteween batches.
> The printer caibration will also change over time wear and tear etc.
> We check the calibration each working day and on average recalibrate about
> every 3 months.
>
> Regards
> Denis

I'm using a wide format Mutoh inkjet printer and the RIP Colorgate
ProductionServer5. Calibration partly by ColorGate (Linearization)
and partly by GMB ProfileMaker5 for the ICC profile.
The calibration is rather stable, as tested by FOGRA/UGRA
MediaWedge. There is really no need to re-calibrate the system
each working day or every week.

'Each working day' is IMO nonsense.

Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

0
hoffmann
7/13/2008 3:59:15 PM
"Empedocles" <dwerner@bresnan.net> wrote in message 
news:dc65fe6e-9d23-43bd-b3e5-6693b805e250@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson's color
> management,
> rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely
> matches my
> monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using GretagMacbeth's
> Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo Glossy paper
> and MIS inks.
>
>SNIP



agree 100% I use the Epson color management with the rare mismatch (that can 
usually be fixed in curves)
I wasted so much  paper and ink on the PS color matching I gave up



0
KatWoman
7/13/2008 7:30:46 PM
"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message 
news:f84mjb68jugq.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Empedocles wrote:
>
>> Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson's color management,
>> rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely
>> matches my monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using
>> GretagMacbeth's Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo
>> Glossy paper and MIS inks.
>
> This is the cris de cour of almost anyone who is very discerning about how
> well their printer matches their monitor.    Millions of dollars have been
> spent on it, with no sure fire solution in sight.
>
> A problem that seems simple to understand, isn't simple at all.  It's a
> problem that unravels as you chase it.
>
>> Too frequently, when I run a test on 4x6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper
>> (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using my profile
>> & letting PS manage the printing, that the print fails miserably to
>> match my monitor's image. (I recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)
>
> Well, right there I would question the accuracy of your printer profile.
> There are a number of things you can do to assess the accuracy of your
> profile - one is to convert a grayscale gradient, and check the individual
> channels for blending.  I provide an action that does this, then plots the
> components as a graph.  See if your profile looks like the Frankenprofile
> example.
> http://curvemeister.com/downloads/profileplotter/index.htm
>
>> When I try letting Epson
>> manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I
>> need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the
>> Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS
>> & guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.
>
> Perhaps by Epson color management, you mean either the PhotoEnhance4 mode,
> or the mode with explicit color sliders.  I've used both of these to good
> effect, and have to agree with you that it works.
>
>> I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the
>> fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So,
>> you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is
>> best, use that. 4x6 paper isn't that expensive.
>
> The choice probably depends on the subject matter of the image.
>
>> I'm just curious why I can't standardize on one color management
>> printer system.
>
> This is key, I believe, to understanding what the basic flaw in
> over-reliance on color management and calibration is.  That is the belief,
> that perfect calibration will produce excellent images - it will not.
> Calibration can produce OK images, but it will not produce great ones.  It
> takes a person to squeeze the last 10, 20, or 30 percent out of an image.
> No profile alone can do that, even as well as a moderately skilled person.
>
>> It's incredible to me that the Epson system, using non- Epson inks, can
>> produce more accurate results than the PS system with my profile. Maybe
>> some of you have run into the same situation & that what I have to do is
>> all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my printer, paper, and inks,
>> altho my printer hasn't changed, my paper hasn't changed, and my inks
>> haven't changed.
>
> The fact that the inks match Epson's reasonably well is a testimony to the
> folks who made the inks.  Epson, as well, has a great economic interest in
> providing a good out of box experience for people who purchase their
> equipment.  Both of these companies have spectrophotometers and other 
> color
> measurement instruments that cost as much as your house - or at least your
> car.  The fact that they can accomplish this is a testimony to their
> collective calibration abilities.
>
> Can you accomplish the same thing with a minimum of training, and a device
> that clocks in at just over $1000?  I don't think so.  Can you recognize a
> good image, and adjust it to look better?  Absolutely, and this is the key
> to why Epson's manual controls give you such an advantage over reliance on
> a profile.
>
> Color editing, over and above calibration, is the key to get the most out
> of your images.  Whether you spend a few seconds, or hours on an image, 
> you
> can improve your color, provided you trust your own eyes, color judgment,
> and make effective use of the all important numbers in Photoshop's
> info-palette.
>
> OK, that was a bit long, but as of two minutes ago, it's my birthday, LOL.
> -- 
> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

both worth saying twice

Calibration can produce OK images, but it will not produce great ones.  It
takes a person to squeeze the last 10, 20, or 30 percent out of an image.
No profile alone can do that, even as well as a moderately skilled person

and happy Birthday to You
and happy Birthday to You 


0
KatWoman
7/13/2008 7:32:57 PM
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:32:57 -0400, KatWoman wrote:

> and happy Birthday to You

Thanks - it has been!
-- 
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
0
Mike
7/14/2008 9:35:26 AM
Empedocles <dwerner@bresnan.net> wrote:

> Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson's color
> management,
> rather than PS's color management, to get a print that most closely
> matches my
> monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I've profiled using GretagMacbeth's
> Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson's Premium Photo Glossy paper
> and MIS inks.
> 
> Too frequently, when I run a test on 4x6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy
> paper (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using
> my
> profile & letting PS manage the printing,
> that the print fails miserably to match my monitor's image. (I
> recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)
> 
> When I try letting Epson
> manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I
> need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the
> Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS
> & guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.
> 
> I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the
> fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So,
> you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is
> best, use that. 4x6 paper isn't that expensive.
> 
> I'm just curious why I can't standardize on one color management
> printer system. It's incredible to me that the Epson system, using
> non-
> Epson inks, can produce more accurate results than the PS system with
> my profile. Maybe some of you have run into the same situation & that
> what I have to do is all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my
> printer, paper, and inks, altho my printer hasn't changed, my paper
> hasn't changed, and my inks haven't changed.

	Why?

1. Photoshop controls the color base on the monitor profile

2. Photoshop uses the default printer mamanger

3. Not only Epson's but many other printers don't share the exact same value
(different setting, ink, paper etc..) as well as many Photolab don't share
the same setting either.

	So yes, if you want to have more control of the result you can get from
the photolab's, you may want to check with their web site's see if they have
the printer profile available for customer to download.  And you may need to
check frequenly because they may change the setting once awhile.

	*If* they don't provide the Printer Profile (many don't) then you may have
to find out the Name, Model of the printer/paper they use then try to match
it using the similar setup from other Photolab, and hope they have similar
or close setting.

	And about your Epson 1280 which was one heck of a photo printer many years
ago, I read Epson has released many better printers and some even have 7
colors instead of 6, and some uses separated ink cartridge for each color
(or it may have 7 cartridges instead of 2)

	Almost forgot, Photoshop has the Ctrl-Y (I think it's the right command)
to toggle between Monitor vs Printer (you have to setup the Printer Profile
first before you can Toggle to see the difference).
0
Joe
7/14/2008 1:55:51 PM
Reply: