I recently switched over to Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 as my main paper. I print on an Epson 4800. I had Michael Gordon do a custom profile for me. I printed numerous shots with the custom profile but never compared it to the canned profile available from Hahnemuhle.
I have been working on a very tough image, lots of strange reds. I have spent hours trying to get the colors right. Just for yuks, I printed the same exact file with the same paper, one with the custom profile and one with the canned profile. The print with the custom profile is far, far superior. No comparison. It astounds me that a paper company cannot get a profile right. Maybe each printer is so different that a custom profile is required. Don't know.
Custom profiles are very, very reasonable. Based on my test, I would highly recommend them if you are doing your own printing.
Posted by Bill Chambers on July 14, 2007 at 11:45 PM
I will second that Harley. I was very unhappy with the canned profiles from Moab. I got a custom profile from Chromix and the difference was like night and day! I didn't realize Michel did custom profiles.
Harley, the paper manufacturers have to make a "one size fits all" generic paper profile. The paper manufacturers cannot test every paper they make in every printer that has been made and create profiles for all combinations. You had a custom profile made for your specific printer using a specific paper. It is unfair of you to compare a custom profile to a generic profile from the manufacturer. Your custom profile better be a lot more accurate than the generic profile in your printer. Cut the paper manufacturers some slack.
Tom is right, although some mfgrs. go to greater trouble to provide more accurate stock profiles. I can tell you with respect to Moab papers and the HP Designjet 130, it was MY printer that printed the targets for the profiles (which were made by Andy Biggs). Assuming tight tolerances of the DJ130, the profiles Andy made should be pretty dang nice for most users. Tom is right in stating that a custom profile will always produce a very accurate profile compared to a stock profile.
There are some stock profiles that are hard to beat even with custom profiles, and those are the Epson profiles made by Bill Atkinson. He uses state of the art equipment, writes his own targets, and tweaks the heck out of the profiles to near perfection.
Yes, Bill, I make custom profiles for very fair prices, I just don't advertise nor do I have a web page yet dedicated to this. Contact me off-line if you're interested.
Thanks for the input, but I am not convinced I am being too harsh on the paper manufacturers . I print on a 4800. From what I read, you should be able to take a file and get essentially the same result out of every 4800. Epson calls it their Epson PreciseColor™ Technology. Not sure if it is hooey or fact, but that is what they claim. I would expect that if not right on, printing on different copies of the same model would be reasonably close.
I print test prints on Enhanced Matte (Epson's profile) and the images are extremely close to my monitor. I print using Michael's profile on the Photo Rag and they again match the monitor and the EM paper, accounting for the differences in the paper warmth. I use the Hahnemule profile and the print doesn't match anything. It is significantly off. The prints are unacceptable. I even downloaded the profile from the Hahn. website a couple of times to make sure it was not a pilot error on my part.
Hahnemuhle created the profile JUST FOR THE 4800 for their photo rag. It says so on their website. I think that if the manufacturer builds a profile specific to a printer , it should at least come very close to matching the monitor or a custom profile. Hahnemuhle's profile is not in the ballpark. In my mind, that is good reason to feel the company is dropping the ball.
Posted by Tom Webster on July 17, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Hahnemuhle may be "dropping the ball". I don't know. I've never used their papers. Do keep in mind that the "gold standard" you are comparing to is a company (Epson) who built the printer, makes the inks, and makes the paper. Their profiles better be dead on. I emailed Michael Gordon to see if he can improve the Epson profiles for the Super Duper Glossy Rooster paper they make.
Discussion
5 repliesI have been working on a very tough image, lots of strange reds. I have spent hours trying to get the colors right. Just for yuks, I printed the same exact file with the same paper, one with the custom profile and one with the canned profile. The print with the custom profile is far, far superior. No comparison. It astounds me that a paper company cannot get a profile right. Maybe each printer is so different that a custom profile is required. Don't know.
Custom profiles are very, very reasonable. Based on my test, I would highly recommend them if you are doing your own printing.
Tom is right, although some mfgrs. go to greater trouble to provide more accurate stock profiles. I can tell you with respect to Moab papers and the HP Designjet 130, it was MY printer that printed the targets for the profiles (which were made by Andy Biggs). Assuming tight tolerances of the DJ130, the profiles Andy made should be pretty dang nice for most users. Tom is right in stating that a custom profile will always produce a very accurate profile compared to a stock profile.
There are some stock profiles that are hard to beat even with custom profiles, and those are the Epson profiles made by Bill Atkinson. He uses state of the art equipment, writes his own targets, and tweaks the heck out of the profiles to near perfection.
Yes, Bill, I make custom profiles for very fair prices, I just don't advertise nor do I have a web page yet dedicated to this. Contact me off-line if you're interested.
Thanks, Harley!
Thanks for the input, but I am not convinced I am being too harsh on the paper manufacturers . I print on a 4800. From what I read, you should be able to take a file and get essentially the same result out of every 4800. Epson calls it their Epson PreciseColor™ Technology. Not sure if it is hooey or fact, but that is what they claim. I would expect that if not right on, printing on different copies of the same model would be reasonably close.
I print test prints on Enhanced Matte (Epson's profile) and the images are extremely close to my monitor. I print using Michael's profile on the Photo Rag and they again match the monitor and the EM paper, accounting for the differences in the paper warmth. I use the Hahnemule profile and the print doesn't match anything. It is significantly off. The prints are unacceptable. I even downloaded the profile from the Hahn. website a couple of times to make sure it was not a pilot error on my part.
Hahnemuhle created the profile JUST FOR THE 4800 for their photo rag. It says so on their website. I think that if the manufacturer builds a profile specific to a printer , it should at least come very close to matching the monitor or a custom profile. Hahnemuhle's profile is not in the ballpark. In my mind, that is good reason to feel the company is dropping the ball.