|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
I spent some more time today with the spectrocam and PP. It appears that the biggest problem is not with PP, but with the Spectrocam. While I though the spectrocam was defective, I now believe that not to be the case. Essentially, the meter is so sensitive, that it can take a partial reading from one patch and average the value with the adjacent patch casing an error. I resorted to spraying down the slide rule holder with some silicone spray to avoid any friction. The slightest hesitation can cause the meter to catch and then "jump" to the next patch, which results in an error. What a touchy piece of equipment! Calibrating the meter is also very touchy. This caused my first error. I am now saving my file before I export the data. I then create my profile and check it with the soft proof of PS6 using the original target file PP creates. If any of the patches are lighter or darker, you've got a problem. It appears to happen a lot. If an error is found, I then can go back and read the faulty row again, and recreate the profile. At least one can check! I also changed the illuminate to D55 instead of the default 5000K. This helps a lot with the normal green cast in daylight of Epson pigment ink. Question: I can pick up a DTP-41 for $300.00 more than the Spectrocam. Has anyone compared the two meters with Epson's pigment inks? As touchy as the Spectrocam is, I think I may send it back and go with the X-rite if it produces equal readings. Thanks! Troy - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.