|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
My printer's an Epson 2000P, and my scanner's an Epson 1640. I was trying to calibrate the printer using Epson photo paper, which, though it's not listed as one of the standard media types in the 2000P driver, I've found produces reasonably good prints if I select Watercolor Paper. The results were absolutely horrible. I followed the instructions very carefully, twice, once using Photoshop 6 and the second time using Photoshop 5 (under Win2K). For printing, I tried both method 1 (associate profile with printer in Windows, and then select ICM in the print driver) and method 2 (turn off color mangement in the driver and select the profile in the Print dialog box. The two results were vastly different, which implies that one of them is wrong. According to the docs, method 1 is buggy, so I would expect that the results from method 2 are what the program was "supposed" to produce. However, the results from method 1 were only a bit duller than the screen, while the results from method 2 were very over-saturated. However, the method 1 print had a serious problem in that a gradient with a mild purple tint turned heavily saturated purple at the dark end, with a fairly sharp boundary between the dark, saturated purple and the more nearly correct purplish-gray around it. I suspect that somehow the profile has a discontinuity in it, but the ICCInspect utility that I use to look at profiles doesn't know how to display 3D curves graphically. They boast about how their package doesn't require a calibrated scanner, and doesn't need an IT8 target to be scanned along with the printout. Well, thanks a lot. I'd much rather get an accurate reference target to scan, since the profile built from a scanner can't possibly be any better than the calibration of the scanner. They're obviously operating under the assumption that any decent, modern scanner will produce fairly accurate color out of the box, without user calibration, and that the resulting printer profile will be roughly as close to the screen as an original scan was. In my case, my Epson 1640 has always produced okay color, but not so good that I wouldn't feel the need to tweak it in Photoshop. Therefore, I'd expect to have to tweak colors in Photoshop roughly the same amount, prior to printing via a profile built with that scanner. But that doesn't leave me any better off than using the canned profile. And indeed, the ProfilerPlus generated profile is worse, due to the nasty purple discontinuity in it. Their profile builder includes sliders for tweaking the color, saturation and contrast of the profile, and they suggest making iterative test prints in order to get the profiles right. But that defeats the purpose of profiling. I'd sooner start with the canned Epson printer profile, and tweak that using the same tools, and entirely skip the part about printing a target and running it through the scanner. So, two questions. First, can anyone explain why turning on ICM in the 2000P driver and associating the profile with the printer in Win2K (method 1) produces such very different results from assigning the profile in Photoshop and turning off color control in the print driver (method 2)? And second, can anyone give me any ideas on how I might coax some better profiles out of this thing? -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paul mailto:email@example.com - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.