Since I got such great response to my soft proof question in CS3, I have one more question.

While I was reasonably happy with the image quality I got using the soft proof method espoused by Jeff Schewe, I noticed a bit of a color cast on the printed image as compared to the monitor image.

Here's the background. Mac Pro with Photoshop CS3 Extended, Eizo ColorEdge CE240W (just calibrated today with an Optix device), print made on an Epson 2200 printer on Epson Premium Luster paper, using the Epson supplied paper/printer profile SP2200 Premium Luster_PK. I printed a portrait image of a woman wearing white and black, against a gray mottled background. Now, I readily admit that I do not have the ideal viewing environment for the print, or for that matter, the monitor, however, it seems clear that the gray background, which does tend to head a bit toward blue when soft proofed, is more blue tinted in the print than the soft proofed monitor image.

Just for fun, I modified the proofed monitor image by using the channel mixer, on the blue output channel, and increased the blue channel from 100% to about 120%, and the gray background AS PRINTED seems to match, to a better degree, the monitor image. The monitor image also seemed a bit oversaturated compared to the print, so reducing saturation made the 'match' even a touch better. Now, I know that doing something this strange, the idea of manipulating the monitor image to better match a print, is of no practical value; the only reason I mention this is to give those with some experience in Photoshop an idea of the magnitude of the color issue.

Given that I've followed all of Jeff Schewe's advice from the "From Camera to Print" video, I'm wondering if I'm simply going to have to break down and either purchase a calorimeter to create my own printer profile (I've never been happy with the VERY old PrintFix from Colorvision and the more recent Monaco EasyColor printer profiling solutions) or perhaps go the 3rd party route to get a better profile. I'm a bit frustrated, given that I've read so many good things about the Epson 'canned' profiles. Mind you, I think the profile yielded a decent image, but not good enough. By the way, I also performed the same evolution with the Epson canned SP2200 Prem.Luster 1440.icc profile, with results quite similar.

Thoughts?

I think your problem is more than likely the canned Epson profile. Have yourself a custom profile made and you should see extremely close matches. If you're tweaking the image on screen to compensate for your print being off, it's a pretty sure sign that the profile is not accurate. I've been making my own profiles for seven or eight years now and have monitor to print matches that are extremely close, but every time I've used a stock Epson profile, I always been disappointed.

I was expecting metamerism to have raised its head here as I started to read since there is so much grey, black and white, but it is normally green or red depending upon the light. Its a problem with the 2200 for sure and not a problem with the K3 inks on the 3800. Also---I think the profiles Jeff is referring to (not putting words in his mouth) are the newer ones for the K3 inks--the 8 series printers. Having printed with a 2200 for several years and now a 3800 since Dec.--even the profiles are just better. So I agree--you will probably have to get a custom profile made for the 2200. For my monos, I went to Quadtone RIP---so a RIP may also help.

Diane

There are at least two sets of canned Epson profiles. The ones built in the US using X-Rite technology are vastly superior to those from Japan. They approach the quality of a custom profile (I've tested both on a 3800 and 4800). My custom profile was a bit better but the differences were subtle.

There's also the issue of the profiles whereby you have two tables: one controls the output, the other the soft proof. There can be a disconnect between the two and profile editing here is useful IF you have a good editor and the patients to burn a good deal of media. This is the one area where profile tuning is useful if you're so willing. But you need to first determine if the issue is the proofing or output table (does the output look good? Is it the display softproof that needs a tweak?).

For those who don't want to go the distance with profile editing, you can build an adjustment layer that alters just the preview (don't have it on for print). Its a but of a kludge but can help. So the idea is to edit an adjustment layer to produce a better soft proof ONLY for viewing. Be kind of cool if in the future, we could use such layers for viewing but not output and somehow incorporate them into the customize proof setup.

Andrew, I think he's printing with a 2200. There are 2 sets of profiles for that printer too, but the 3800 profiles are much better in my experience. I don't know how the 2200 profiles were built--or where. If you know, that would probably be helpful. I also think the K3 inks vs. the 2200's older inks may make a difference--I don't know. I do know that for the same image file, printing with the canned profiles on the 2200 vs. the 3800 is quite different--otherwise I wouldn't have bought the 3800 (well, LOL--yes I would have--for the increased size, but its just SO much better for my monos).



Diane

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/Editori...es&oid=42114986

Download Your ICC Profiles by Media Type
PDF How to Use ICC Profiles
Premium Luster Photo Paper Mac Win
Premium Semigloss Photo Paper Mac Win
Premium Glossy Photo Paper Mac Win
Enhanced Matte Mac Win
Watercolor Paper - Radiant White Mac Win
Velvet Fine Art Paper Mac Win
PremierArt™ Water-Resistant Canvas for Epson Mac Win

Yes, those are the ones I have and I bet he has those also--I had forgotten but looked in my old dl file and ICC folder. I had forgotten that they were from Epson USA since I dled them a good long while ago. Better than the ones that came with printer but still not as good as 3800 profiles IMO. I had custom ones done and used QTR for monos.

Thanks for pointing those out for 2200 printers. Its still an excellent printer but Epson just improved everything in their next generation--or 2--it seems. Wonder what the new ones to be introduced in Sept. will be like--how much better in IQ will we be able to see? I understand the change in magenta ink makes a difference though.

Did I understand from your post above that there are profiles for the 3800 made in Japan AND in the US---two sets?


Diane

Andrew, this is something I have played around with too - but please remind me, because Epson provides both the Japanese and the US-made profiles in the same package with the 4800 driver installation. For the naming, one starts with "Pro4800" and the other with "SP4800". Do you remember which set is Japanese and which American?

The good ones say PRO. The 3800 PRO profiles are different still (going back to Japan). These however are also very good profiles (the profile building in Japan has improved with this newer printer).

Fine. Corresponds with my experience too. Thanx.

Thanks. That helps because I had only been able to find the one set--though I have 2 for the 2200.

Diane