I'm having a real problem printing certain types of images and would be extremely grateful for any advice on how to solve it.
Basically I'm having problems printing certain shades of green and brown without losing fine detail.Being primarily interested in nature photography this is obviously a major problem.
The issues I'm having are most evident on subjects such as detailed folliage,short grass,animal fur,human skin tones,etc.
These subjects look beautifully crisp and detailed on screen but the subtle graduations in tone and fine detail often result in losing a lot of the fine detail when printed,and basically looking like a 'mush' of colour (for want of a better word)
I'm using a Gretag Macbeth calibrated screen and printing on an Epson Stylus Photo 1290S from Photoshop CS2.
I use genuine Epson inks and paper type is either Epson Premium Glossy,Epson Semi-Gloss,Epson Heavyweight Matt,Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss or Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl.
The images colour space is always Adobe RGB.
The screen to print match is very good and I have no issues with this side of things whatsoever.
The workflow I use consists of usually just a levels adjustment,low saturation increase,possibly curves and the usual dust-spotting,etc.
Everything is fine up to this point and I'm happy with the image so I save it as a PSD master file.
My issue now occurs when I select the appropriate paper type and soft proof the image in preperation for printing,this is the point when a lot of fine detail ends up merging into a bit of a 'mess'
I duplicate the image,to have an image to compare and try and improve the original with a new curves adjustment layer,usually with varying degrees of success.
HELP!
Is anyone familiar with this problem? and more importantly how do you solve it??
What adjustments do you find yourself making to get the Soft Proofed version looking as good as the original?
Any advice on this issue would be really appreciated.
Thanks
Posted by Alan Bryant on September 18, 2006 at 2:13 PM
This might be a long shot but have alook at this ?.
When you go to print does the Epson menu box come up ?.Showing what ink levels there is and what paper to choose etc etc.
If it does then click into the advanced part of the menu.In there you can change loads of stuff.With my Epson menu it was putting it on "hard" making the colour on the prints very dark and not what its supposed to look like.When i put it on normal it printed it out the way i looked at it on the screen.
So im just saying the Epson menu could be changing the way its printed ?.
Sorry if i'm way off of what your problem is .
Posted by Brian Phipps on September 18, 2006 at 2:24 PM
Hi Justin,
Have you recieved any emails from me, apparently Orange are having problems with a spam filter and some emails aren`t being recieved or delivered.
Unfortunately that's isn't the problem,I've got the colour management and printing side of things Ok and all the correct options selected,i.e.Paper type,no colour adjustment,1440dpi setting,etc,etc.
I'm also very satisfied with the screen to print match it's just the loss of detail and quite considerably muted tones that the soft proof function often reveal.
You say you're happy with the screen to print match...when you actually print, does the print you're happy with match the "soft-proofed" image, or the aRGB one..???
Has this always happened, or is it something new?
You may find that greens and browns are always somewhat weaker in terms of detail etc as in most printing processes they're made up of other colours and include a good element of yellow - yellow is often a very weak colour in printing.
Posted by Brian Phipps on September 18, 2006 at 2:43 PM
Justin,
Nope not a thing yet, could you try sending it through UKNP`s email link.
The printed image is a really good match to the soft proofed image.The colours always look very accurate indeed,the shadow and highlight detail always matches fine,etc.
If I was to turn off 'soft proof' the print always looks a bit flat and lacking in 'oomph' compared to the screen image,which I accept because of the contrast difference between screen and print.
It isn't a gamut issue or anything like that because I check that prior to printing.
This isn't something new,it's always done it and I've been meaning to get to the bottom of it for ages.Some images are fine,but many arn't especially with shades of green,brown,etc.
One particular type of image I've found that quite routinely exhibits this problem is a sharp,detailed close-up of a persons face which I often use when testing a new lens for instance.
On screen,whether at 25%,50% or actulal pixels the face looks tack sharp with every bit of detail shown (far too much detail in fact,and certainly not desireable for a flattering portrait I know,but for testing lens resolution I find it works well )
Anyhow, the image is printed and a lot of that detail I've tried so hard to record has been quite drastically reduced.I guess the best way to describe it is, as if too heavy a dose of noise reduction has been applied and you get that overly smooth plasticky un-natural look.
Not all over the face but just in certain areas.
I usually duplicate the original so I've got a proofed and un-proofed version on screen,I then try and get the proofed one to look close to the un-proofed version usually by applying a slight curves adjustment,I thought I had it sussed by lightening the mid tone areas sligtly to bring back the subleties of colour and tone which gives the detailed look I'm hoping for.
However it doesn't always work as well as hoped and results in a disappointing print.
Not all prints are disappointing in fact I'm extremely pleased with most of them,it's just seems to be certain ones that are a nightmare.
Just re-sent message through your NPN e-mail icon at 20.11 hours
Posted by Sean Bolton on September 18, 2006 at 3:23 PM
Hi Justin
I am a bit unclear about your problem, is it a problem with the 'soft proofing' on the monitor display or a problem with the actual output on paper.
If it is a printing issue, then I feel your problem may be mainly due to the fact that it is not always possible for a printer to reproduce the full range of colours and tones that your monitor can display. Maybe your expectations exceed the abilities of the Epson 1290.
You could try having some custom profiles made (although I think you might have done this as I recall a post from you on this topic some months ago).
Also some papers reproduce colours better than others, but you have tried various paper types so other papers are probably not going to help.
My other suggestion is to buy a more modern printer.
I previously owned a 1290, and I was reasonably happy with it, although skin tones where never as good as I would have liked, but also I only ever used generic profiles so possibly I could have improved them.
However this year I decided to upgrade my printer and I purchased the Epson R1800. Personally I feel the print quality and colour reproduction is better with the R1800 than my 1290, not that the 1290 was that bad, but the R1800 is an improvement.
Another option is to try third party inks such as the Lyson inks, these claim to have improved colour gamut and longevitity.
If you are interested I would be happy to print a sample A4 image for you on my R1800 and send it to you so you can do a comparison against your 1290. Just email me your test image if you would like to try this out. I have various papers (Epson Glossy, Archival Matte, Ilford Satin).
I am not quite sure what you mean by 'soft proofing'. My method for printing in PhotoShop is I go to the Printer Preview option, make sure the sizing, paper type, paper profile, etc is setup correctly and then I print the image. I mostly work in AdobeRGB colour space, occasionally sRGB. In the printer driver I use the 'advanced' or 'custom' mode and select ICM mode with no colour profiling as I am using the profile specified in PhotoShop. This ensures the printer driver is not 'tweaking' the colours between the Photoshop profile and the printed output.
I can't think of anything else to suggest at this moment but maybe this gives you some ideas to think about.
cheers
Sean
Posted by Sean Bolton on September 18, 2006 at 3:33 PM
Hi Justin
I have just read your last response to Nick. Can you describe your 'soft proofing' process and how you end up with two image versions, an unproofed and a proofed version. This is not something I am familiar with. I just open an image, go to print preview, select the appropriate options in Photoshop and the driver and then print. Maybe I could learn something here....
Apologies if I take a while to reply but my typing is appalingly slow.
Anyway,thanks for helping.
Rather than me try to explain my soft proof method which will take forever and a day If you've got the time to have a quick read, the process is explained superbly HERE and is in fact where I learn't it from.
This particular tutorial emphasises the changes that need to be made primarily to the colours of the proofed image.For reference,my problem is along the same lines but isn't a colour issue but more of a contrast one.
Posted by Sean Bolton on September 18, 2006 at 4:13 PM
Hi Justin
Thanks for the link, I have had a quick read but need to read it fully and maybe try it out to appreciate what is going on in the soft proofing process.
This is new to me although I understand the basic principles which is to try to replicate on the monitor as accurately as possible the final printed output.
Unfortunately I don't think I can help much with your contrast problems in the soft proof.
Thanks anyway Sean,I appreciate your help and also appreciate the offer of making a comparison print, which I'll probably take you up on if I don't get to the bottom of this issue.It will be interesting to see what differences the newer 1800 produces over the older 1290.
Hope you get something useful from the tutorial.
Posted by John MacTavish on September 18, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Justin,
You seem to work in a totally different way to which I do when it comes to printing. I stick with what I see on my monitor being the finished print...all things being equal they are almost always identical as the paper/ink profiles and the calibrated monitor have been adjusted to suit each other accurately.
You seem to be running into trouble with muddy greens and browns and what Nick says about yellows in printing is very true....could be that you have reached the limits of your printer here and need to move up a league.
You also mention a contrast problem and that when you see skin tones on your monitor they are sharp (maybe too sharp); remember that printing will always dull monitor sharpness a fair bit, so when you have a sharp monitor shot give it a bit more USM to compensate for the print process.....a bit like a scanned slide always needing sharpening to give it oomph. I can't tell you how much to give it because every shot will need different amounts, but if you are giving a shot say 0.5, 170,0 then for printing purposes you could easilly get away with 0.8-1.0, 150, 0.
The 1290 is getting a little long in the tooth now when compared to the new 2400, 1800 etc printers. I know that there will be hundreds of folk reading this who still use one and they will be in total denial, but old tech is old tech and time marches on at a fair pace in the inkjet printing game. Take Sean up on his kind offer and let us know what the outcome is. I'd be willing to bet that you have just outgrown your printer.
John
Edit,
After looking at the tutorial I can see that you do work the same way as me....only I didn't know it was called soft proofing and have always worked this way, I thought you were talking about the print preview thing that Epson drivers seem to have that are of no use to anyone.
Sorry to hear you are having a few problems with your prints....
Might I ask what profiles you are using for your soft-proofing and for your final print...
Have you tried a different rendering intent? Perceptual is normally used for photographic images as it moves out of gamut colours into the printers gamut which will normally result in smoother gradations but might cause some of the problems you describe, the colourmetric options move out of gamut colours to the edge of the new gamut.
Also make sure you have black point compensation checked...
If it is a profile problem I may be able to help.....
Firstly, a very big thank you to everyone for taking the time to help,it's really appreciated as always.
The saying about a problem aired is a problem shared is certainly true in this case.I've been getting progressivly more frustrated with this issue for quite some time now, but having searched the archives of numerous forums and google searches,etc for a satisfactory answer,I never really found one,so was beginning to think it wasn't a known problem at all,but rather an error in my workflow process,which I was unsure how to correct.
Having read through all your suggestions several times and having now had the oppurtunity to retry printing a problem image I feel I'm now getting to the bottom of the issue.
I now know it's just a combination of: a) the printers struggle to accurately reproduce all the green and brown tones (thanks Nick,Sean and John), b) my editing technique (or rather lack of) and c) perhaps my expectations.
I think the main problem was my editing process.I was basically getting an image to a satisfactory stage for web/screen display and then expecting to be able to get a good print without any further work,or at least,very little.
Whilst this works fine for a large proportion of images and results in pleasing prints,there are some,primarily the ones with green and brown tones,that require a little more work and attention to detail in order to get the best out of them.
I guess I need to print with a little less haste and be prepared to work a little harder on the problem images.
I've decided to keep using my 1290S for the foreseeable future as it isn't that old,and on the whole it works well and will hopefully work even better, now I understand more of the print processes shortcomings (i.e. difficulty with yellow tones).
Many thanks to Sean for the very kind offer of a comparison print,however I shan't take you up on your offer as I know I'll want to upgrade after seeing your 1800's results ,and the expense of a new printer is one I'd rather delay for a while ,thanks anyway
Phil H
Thanks for your help.To answer your questions.
I use the Epson and Ilford profiles.When I originally bought my printer and Gretag Macbeth Eye One my intention was to get custom profiles made,however after using the Gretag I found my screen to print match was something I was very satisfied and happy with and decided not to bother.
I'm sure I'd get even better results with custom paper profiles but for my demands, the generic ones appear to be ok.
I certainly plan on taking the advice given,on upgrading my 1290 for a more up to date model,at a later stage.I'll probably reconsider the idea of getting profiles made then.
Regarding the print settings.I do have black point compensation checked and I select the appropriate paper profile in the Proof drop down box,I then toggle between Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual and will usually choose the one that gives the most pleasing results (and as little change from the original as possible)
If you think of anything else that I should know,please let me know.Thanks.
Philip T
I tried a comparison between 1440 and 2880 dpi when I first got the printer and couldn't see any noticeable difference,I also noted that everyone seemed to advize using 1440 dpi as the quality difference was negligable,and also the speed and ink usage was favourable.
I've just done another comparison and it doesn't appear to effect my 'issue' at all' and again I can't see any difference between the two quality settings even when viewed through a 6X loupe.
Thanks anyway for the suggestion.
In case anyone thinks of any further suggestions,and in case it may be of help to anyone else in the future.
This is an image I first became aware of the problem on,and found it really hard to get a pleasing print from.
I've now tried re-printing it,but with the advice given in mind, and the results are a lot more pleasing.
The problem area was the lawn in the foreground,there's very little detail in the grass anyway,even when viewed at 100%,probably because it is so short and undetailed,not to mention the maximum resolving power of the lens (A Tamron 11-18mm) and the camera (a 10D).
The problem was, that when printed the whole lawn area appeared to lose what little detail it had and take on a really unsatisfactory smooth appearance.
I originaly thought that any detail was not being printed as well as it could be,which was the reason for the poor result.
However on trying to print it again today, I discovered that it wasn't actually losing any detail at all,but was in fact losing it's quite fresh and vibrant appearance that was visible on screen and becoming quite dull,muddy and muted.
A little experimentation and patience with using various selective adjustment layers seemed to help considerably in restoring it's 'greenness' not perfect but quite a considerable difference,and dare I say it,acceptable
Great sky in that image... I can see where you are coming from here....
As a rule the Epson 'canned' profiles for their larger format printers are quite good, in fact I have difficulty bettering the ones for our 10000 and 4000 printers using Epson media, it is normally the profiles for the smaller format printers that are poor (sorry wrong word, I should say biased towards consumer expectations).
(BTW wasn't suggesting I did profiles, I am considering removing that service from my web site as it is too much of a can of worms)
However if you were using custom profiles I do have the technology to make adjusments to them, and also to check their integrity and have been trained by Gretag Macbeth in colour management.
All the best if you need any help just let me know...
Discussion
19 repliesI'm having a real problem printing certain types of images and would be extremely grateful for any advice on how to solve it.
Basically I'm having problems printing certain shades of green and brown without losing fine detail.Being primarily interested in nature photography this is obviously a major problem.
The issues I'm having are most evident on subjects such as detailed folliage,short grass,animal fur,human skin tones,etc.
These subjects look beautifully crisp and detailed on screen but the subtle graduations in tone and fine detail often result in losing a lot of the fine detail when printed,and basically looking like a 'mush' of colour (for want of a better word)
I'm using a Gretag Macbeth calibrated screen and printing on an Epson Stylus Photo 1290S from Photoshop CS2.
I use genuine Epson inks and paper type is either Epson Premium Glossy,Epson Semi-Gloss,Epson Heavyweight Matt,Ilford Gallerie Smooth Gloss or Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl.
The images colour space is always Adobe RGB.
The screen to print match is very good and I have no issues with this side of things whatsoever.
The workflow I use consists of usually just a levels adjustment,low saturation increase,possibly curves and the usual dust-spotting,etc.
Everything is fine up to this point and I'm happy with the image so I save it as a PSD master file.
My issue now occurs when I select the appropriate paper type and soft proof the image in preperation for printing,this is the point when a lot of fine detail ends up merging into a bit of a 'mess'
I duplicate the image,to have an image to compare and try and improve the original with a new curves adjustment layer,usually with varying degrees of success.
HELP!
Is anyone familiar with this problem? and more importantly how do you solve it??
What adjustments do you find yourself making to get the Soft Proofed version looking as good as the original?
Any advice on this issue would be really appreciated.
Thanks
When you go to print does the Epson menu box come up ?.Showing what ink levels there is and what paper to choose etc etc.
If it does then click into the advanced part of the menu.In there you can change loads of stuff.With my Epson menu it was putting it on "hard" making the colour on the prints very dark and not what its supposed to look like.When i put it on normal it printed it out the way i looked at it on the screen.
So im just saying the Epson menu could be changing the way its printed ?.
Sorry if i'm way off of what your problem is
Have you recieved any emails from me, apparently Orange are having problems with a spam filter and some emails aren`t being recieved or delivered.
Unfortunately that's isn't the problem,I've got the colour management and printing side of things Ok and all the correct options selected,i.e.Paper type,no colour adjustment,1440dpi setting,etc,etc.
I'm also very satisfied with the screen to print match it's just the loss of detail and quite considerably muted tones that the soft proof function often reveal.
Thanks for your help anyway.
I got your e-mail,thanks, and sent a reply this afternoon,did you not get it?
I'll re-send it now just in case
Message just re-sent to your e-mail address and also through NPN.
Let me know if it doesn't arrive
A couple of things:
You say you're happy with the screen to print match...when you actually print, does the print you're happy with match the "soft-proofed" image, or the aRGB one..???
Has this always happened, or is it something new?
You may find that greens and browns are always somewhat weaker in terms of detail etc as in most printing processes they're made up of other colours and include a good element of yellow - yellow is often a very weak colour in printing.
Nope not a thing yet, could you try sending it through UKNP`s email link.
The printed image is a really good match to the soft proofed image.The colours always look very accurate indeed,the shadow and highlight detail always matches fine,etc.
If I was to turn off 'soft proof' the print always looks a bit flat and lacking in 'oomph' compared to the screen image,which I accept because of the contrast difference between screen and print.
It isn't a gamut issue or anything like that because I check that prior to printing.
This isn't something new,it's always done it and I've been meaning to get to the bottom of it for ages.Some images are fine,but many arn't especially with shades of green,brown,etc.
One particular type of image I've found that quite routinely exhibits this problem is a sharp,detailed close-up of a persons face which I often use when testing a new lens for instance.
On screen,whether at 25%,50% or actulal pixels the face looks tack sharp with every bit of detail shown (far too much detail in fact,and certainly not desireable for a flattering portrait I know,but for testing lens resolution I find it works well
Anyhow, the image is printed and a lot of that detail I've tried so hard to record has been quite drastically reduced.I guess the best way to describe it is, as if too heavy a dose of noise reduction has been applied and you get that overly smooth plasticky un-natural look.
Not all over the face but just in certain areas.
I usually duplicate the original so I've got a proofed and un-proofed version on screen,I then try and get the proofed one to look close to the un-proofed version usually by applying a slight curves adjustment,I thought I had it sussed by lightening the mid tone areas sligtly to bring back the subleties of colour and tone which gives the detailed look I'm hoping for.
However it doesn't always work as well as hoped and results in a disappointing print.
Not all prints are disappointing in fact I'm extremely pleased with most of them,it's just seems to be certain ones that are a nightmare.
Just re-sent message through your NPN e-mail icon at 20.11 hours
I am a bit unclear about your problem, is it a problem with the 'soft proofing' on the monitor display or a problem with the actual output on paper.
If it is a printing issue, then I feel your problem may be mainly due to the fact that it is not always possible for a printer to reproduce the full range of colours and tones that your monitor can display. Maybe your expectations exceed the abilities of the Epson 1290.
You could try having some custom profiles made (although I think you might have done this as I recall a post from you on this topic some months ago).
Also some papers reproduce colours better than others, but you have tried various paper types so other papers are probably not going to help.
My other suggestion is to buy a more modern printer.
I previously owned a 1290, and I was reasonably happy with it, although skin tones where never as good as I would have liked, but also I only ever used generic profiles so possibly I could have improved them.
However this year I decided to upgrade my printer and I purchased the Epson R1800. Personally I feel the print quality and colour reproduction is better with the R1800 than my 1290, not that the 1290 was that bad, but the R1800 is an improvement.
Another option is to try third party inks such as the Lyson inks, these claim to have improved colour gamut and longevitity.
If you are interested I would be happy to print a sample A4 image for you on my R1800 and send it to you so you can do a comparison against your 1290. Just email me your test image if you would like to try this out. I have various papers (Epson Glossy, Archival Matte, Ilford Satin).
I am not quite sure what you mean by 'soft proofing'. My method for printing in PhotoShop is I go to the Printer Preview option, make sure the sizing, paper type, paper profile, etc is setup correctly and then I print the image. I mostly work in AdobeRGB colour space, occasionally sRGB. In the printer driver I use the 'advanced' or 'custom' mode and select ICM mode with no colour profiling as I am using the profile specified in PhotoShop. This ensures the printer driver is not 'tweaking' the colours between the Photoshop profile and the printed output.
I can't think of anything else to suggest at this moment but maybe this gives you some ideas to think about.
cheers
Sean
I have just read your last response to Nick. Can you describe your 'soft proofing' process and how you end up with two image versions, an unproofed and a proofed version. This is not something I am familiar with. I just open an image, go to print preview, select the appropriate options in Photoshop and the driver and then print. Maybe I could learn something here....
cheers
Sean
Apologies if I take a while to reply but my typing is appalingly slow.
Anyway,thanks for helping.
Rather than me try to explain my soft proof method which will take forever and a day
This particular tutorial emphasises the changes that need to be made primarily to the colours of the proofed image.For reference,my problem is along the same lines but isn't a colour issue but more of a contrast one.
Thanks for the link, I have had a quick read but need to read it fully and maybe try it out to appreciate what is going on in the soft proofing process.
This is new to me although I understand the basic principles which is to try to replicate on the monitor as accurately as possible the final printed output.
Unfortunately I don't think I can help much with your contrast problems in the soft proof.
cheers
Sean
Hope you get something useful from the tutorial.
You seem to work in a totally different way to which I do when it comes to printing. I stick with what I see on my monitor being the finished print...all things being equal they are almost always identical as the paper/ink profiles and the calibrated monitor have been adjusted to suit each other accurately.
You seem to be running into trouble with muddy greens and browns and what Nick says about yellows in printing is very true....could be that you have reached the limits of your printer here and need to move up a league.
You also mention a contrast problem and that when you see skin tones on your monitor they are sharp (maybe too sharp); remember that printing will always dull monitor sharpness a fair bit, so when you have a sharp monitor shot give it a bit more USM to compensate for the print process.....a bit like a scanned slide always needing sharpening to give it oomph. I can't tell you how much to give it because every shot will need different amounts, but if you are giving a shot say 0.5, 170,0 then for printing purposes you could easilly get away with 0.8-1.0, 150, 0.
The 1290 is getting a little long in the tooth now when compared to the new 2400, 1800 etc printers. I know that there will be hundreds of folk reading this who still use one and they will be in total denial, but old tech is old tech and time marches on at a fair pace in the inkjet printing game. Take Sean up on his kind offer and let us know what the outcome is. I'd be willing to bet that you have just outgrown your printer.
John
Edit,
After looking at the tutorial I can see that you do work the same way as me....only I didn't know it was called soft proofing and have always worked this way, I thought you were talking about the print preview thing that Epson drivers seem to have that are of no use to anyone.
J
Sorry to hear you are having a few problems with your prints....
Might I ask what profiles you are using for your soft-proofing and for your final print...
Have you tried a different rendering intent? Perceptual is normally used for photographic images as it moves out of gamut colours into the printers gamut which will normally result in smoother gradations but might cause some of the problems you describe, the colourmetric options move out of gamut colours to the edge of the new gamut.
Also make sure you have black point compensation checked...
If it is a profile problem I may be able to help.....
All the best
Phil
Phillip.
Firstly, a very big thank you to everyone for taking the time to help,it's really appreciated as always.
The saying about a problem aired is a problem shared is certainly true in this case.I've been getting progressivly more frustrated with this issue for quite some time now, but having searched the archives of numerous forums and google searches,etc for a satisfactory answer,I never really found one,so was beginning to think it wasn't a known problem at all,but rather an error in my workflow process,which I was unsure how to correct.
Having read through all your suggestions several times and having now had the oppurtunity to retry printing a problem image I feel I'm now getting to the bottom of the issue.
I now know it's just a combination of: a) the printers struggle to accurately reproduce all the green and brown tones (thanks Nick,Sean and John), b) my editing technique (or rather lack of) and c) perhaps my expectations.
I think the main problem was my editing process.I was basically getting an image to a satisfactory stage for web/screen display and then expecting to be able to get a good print without any further work,or at least,very little.
Whilst this works fine for a large proportion of images and results in pleasing prints,there are some,primarily the ones with green and brown tones,that require a little more work and attention to detail in order to get the best out of them.
I guess I need to print with a little less haste and be prepared to work a little harder on the problem images.
I've decided to keep using my 1290S for the foreseeable future as it isn't that old,and on the whole it works well and will hopefully work even better, now I understand more of the print processes shortcomings (i.e. difficulty with yellow tones).
Many thanks to Sean for the very kind offer of a comparison print,however I shan't take you up on your offer as I know I'll want to upgrade after seeing your 1800's results
Phil H
Thanks for your help.To answer your questions.
I use the Epson and Ilford profiles.When I originally bought my printer and Gretag Macbeth Eye One my intention was to get custom profiles made,however after using the Gretag I found my screen to print match was something I was very satisfied and happy with and decided not to bother.
I'm sure I'd get even better results with custom paper profiles but for my demands, the generic ones appear to be ok.
I certainly plan on taking the advice given,on upgrading my 1290 for a more up to date model,at a later stage.I'll probably reconsider the idea of getting profiles made then.
Regarding the print settings.I do have black point compensation checked and I select the appropriate paper profile in the Proof drop down box,I then toggle between Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual and will usually choose the one that gives the most pleasing results (and as little change from the original as possible)
If you think of anything else that I should know,please let me know.Thanks.
Philip T
I tried a comparison between 1440 and 2880 dpi when I first got the printer and couldn't see any noticeable difference,I also noted that everyone seemed to advize using 1440 dpi as the quality difference was negligable,and also the speed and ink usage was favourable.
I've just done another comparison and it doesn't appear to effect my 'issue' at all' and again I can't see any difference between the two quality settings even when viewed through a 6X loupe.
Thanks anyway for the suggestion.
In case anyone thinks of any further suggestions,and in case it may be of help to anyone else in the future.
This is an image I first became aware of the problem on,and found it really hard to get a pleasing print from.
I've now tried re-printing it,but with the advice given in mind, and the results are a lot more pleasing.
The problem area was the lawn in the foreground,there's very little detail in the grass anyway,even when viewed at 100%,probably because it is so short and undetailed,not to mention the maximum resolving power of the lens (A Tamron 11-18mm) and the camera (a 10D).
The problem was, that when printed the whole lawn area appeared to lose what little detail it had and take on a really unsatisfactory smooth appearance.
I originaly thought that any detail was not being printed as well as it could be,which was the reason for the poor result.
However on trying to print it again today, I discovered that it wasn't actually losing any detail at all,but was in fact losing it's quite fresh and vibrant appearance that was visible on screen and becoming quite dull,muddy and muted.
A little experimentation and patience with using various selective adjustment layers seemed to help considerably in restoring it's 'greenness' not perfect but quite a considerable difference,and dare I say it,acceptable
Great sky in that image... I can see where you are coming from here....
As a rule the Epson 'canned' profiles for their larger format printers are quite good, in fact I have difficulty bettering the ones for our 10000 and 4000 printers using Epson media, it is normally the profiles for the smaller format printers that are poor (sorry wrong word, I should say biased towards consumer expectations).
(BTW wasn't suggesting I did profiles, I am considering removing that service from my web site as it is too much of a can of worms)
However if you were using custom profiles I do have the technology to make adjusments to them, and also to check their integrity and have been trained by Gretag Macbeth in colour management.
All the best if you need any help just let me know...
Phil