I saw in another post that someone had profiled their printer using a 3600 patch print. What software/hardware was used for this?

I run Windows XP and bought a Gretag Macbeth Eye-One Photo kit about 18 months ago. I've profiled my printer and have fairly good results. How much of a difference will a 3600 patch profile make?

--
Justin

Hard to say. In ProfileMaker Pro, you can use the MeasureTool to generate a custom target of virtually any size up to a limit (yesterday I output an RGB target for my 2400 that contained 11000 patches). I could have typed in 3600 if I wanted and had such a custom target generated.

There's most certainly a point of diminishing return here with patch size. For non linear printers like the Epson's using the native driver, I find using Bill Atkinson's 4096 patch target produces a tad better results than his 2700 patch target (which itself is a tiny bit better than his original 918 patch target).

The 11000 patches is for testing a new Spectrophotometer and I'll compare the profile quality with the 918 "standard" patch target to the Epson just for fun. The older 918 does a pretty darn good job.

Thanks Andrew.

Don't think I can justify buying ProfileMaker Pro. Eye One Match 3.6 comes with the 918 patch target. It seems to work well but I do get some blocking in the shadows which I thought may clear up with a more detailed target. Need more time to spend playing with colour management I think.

It'll be interesting to know your results in comparing the 11000 and 918 patch targets. Will you post them here?

Justin.

Does anyone know a way to get Eye-One Match to recognize some of these larger targets? I've tried all the obvious places for dropping the files in, but Match doesn't show them in the target selector drop-down box.

While a fun exercise and useful to test this new unit, even with synthetic images, I could barley see any differences in the output.

If someone works this out I'd certainly be interested, though from Andrew's test it may not matter.



Interesting. Hmm...I wonder if this is a function of the printer you were using. I suspect the higher end Epson's (I assume that's what you were testing on) are more linear given they are calibrated in the factory. I currently use a consumer level Epson (dye based ink), looking at upgrading but want to see what the new Canons will be like. I'd hazard a guess that the consumer level printers are quite a bit less linear.

If someone knows how to get Match to work with different targets per above I'll give it a test on my printer and see if there's any difference.

Justin.

I was using an Epson 2400 on Glossy Epson paper...

You can kind of get EyeOne Match to use a different target but it means going into the Package (on the Mac) and replacing it with a target formatted for the EyeOne. Since you'd need MeasureTool to make a reference and target, you might as well stick with the TC918.

Did you experiment with the media type setting before printing your target? Ethan is out of the custom profiling business currently but he provided a "Printer Evaluation Target" that helped you determine the best media type. I just checked drycreekphoto.com and can't find the target but the instruction PDF is there with the target embedded, and Ethan provides a link to a Norman Koren density test image that should be useful for the same purpose. FWIW for the papers I use (rag matte), Watercolor Radiant White is clearly the setting of choice. Other settings plug (overink) the shadows.

- DL

Yep, I'll stick with it for the moment. I'll see how it goes with a new printer as well. Just need to work out how to get the purchase past my wife given I just bought a new camera and lens.



Thanks I'll try different media type settings and see how it goes. I'll also download an evaluation target to check the profile, it may well be that I've just printed out a dodgy image.