You do realize that my monitor calibration has NO bearing on how my printer prints, right?
Incorrect. An improperly calibrated monitor may induce you to falsely adjust an otherwise prefect file. Only Dan Margulis can make a perfect color print from a washed out monitor, probably even from a monochrome display.
You do realize that my photographic technique has NO bearing on how my printer prints, right?
GIGO
You do realize that, when the same settings produce different results from two different programs, that all of the remaining variables of which you speak have been factored out?
Again, what are these settings you keep mentioning? There are settings and there are SETTINGS.
I could do screenprints of all the myriad permutations of LR settings, and their associated output, but it would take all day. And I'm sure it would be for naught.
You could probably do it in four screen shots. This task, including posting is less than a ten minute ordeal.
What I do know is that, despite your aspersions that I have no concept of color management, I had no problems with it whatsoever prior to LR, and as best I can recall, prior to pairing it with this Epson printer. Ergo, any basic critical thinking would indicate that if there is actually a way to make LR do what it's supposed to do...they've made it unnecessarily difficult.
I consult with many people who actually have gotten lucky doing "default" types of printing. But when asked to reproduce something specific, make a print with a high degree of color accuracy, or to move into a truly colormanaged environment, it's the old deer in the headlights thing. The Colormanagement workflow, ICC/ICM workflow is ten years old. It's pretty much as smooth as its going to get by now.
Perhaps there is a fourth or fifth screen of settings that needs to be adjusted? Perhaps "Managed by printer" doesn't REALLY mean the same thing on LR as "Managed by printer" on Picasa? After all, you'd expect that to eliminate all these variables, right?
A workflow that uses any sort of "Managed by Printer" is not a properly colormanaged workflow. Sorry. Too many variables.
Perhaps my expectations are too high. As an engineer, I suppose I have a different definition of "common sense". It's apparent that, if the LR people think the same way as you do, that they have made a bunch of non-appicable nonsense somehow apply to their color management workflow. Somehow, they have tapped into my monitor settings, the color temperature of my room lighting, and even the temperature of my wine fridge. All of these somehow factor into how my printer prints???
No need to be condescending. But since you opened that can of worms, here is a brief snippet of my curriculum vitae: :lecture:
Bachelors Degree 1983 from Brooks Institute. Began doing color work with the actual dye transfer process there. Studied amongst other, Industrial and Scientific photography with Vernon Miller. I took weekend labs in holography with UCLA guys. Studied light emmissions with a spectrometer I made myself. Brooks also had affiliations with Jet Propulsion Labs, NASA, TRW, amongst others.
I worked extensively with conventional transparency and negative film stocks, processing in E6, C41, Cibachrome, and a myriad of other printing including with a Kreonite (pre RA-4 process). I first began doing digital imaging and digital printing in 1993 with the Kodak DCS200 and a Kodak Dye Sub printer. I studied photomultiplier tube drum scanning, CCD scanning, worked with RIPs and film output, DuPont Chromalin proofing, 3M MatchPrint digital proofing, and Kodak Approval digital proofing. Took seminars from colormanagement guys like Michael Brown of Kodak in 2000. Began following industry leaders like Andrew Rodney, Jeff Schewe, the late Bruce Fraser, John Paul Caponigro, Bruce Lindbloom, Don Hutcheson, Robin Myers, Don Atkinson, and a whole of other too numerous domestic and abroad to mention. Heck, I've even met Thomas Knoll. (whoops, forget to mention Jack and Guy. I've been networking with these guys for several years now. Best in the biz IMO.)
I take colormanagement very seriously. It is my lifeblood. Here's one of my favorite quotes:
Amateurs practice to try to get it right. Professionals practice so they can't get it wrong.
Sorry for the sarcasm. I do appreciate the effort, but apparently there isn't a simple answer, which again means only one of two things can be concluded:
1. LR does not talk well with my printers, for an unknown reason.
2. LR is unnecessarily complicated in its printers settings.
When colormanagement first hit the scenes, it seemed to be made for engineers. Clunky interfaces, unfamiliar language, hidden menus, convoluted processes and procedures, but us mere photographers did figure it out, and we stuck with it working hard with hardware and software people until it flowed much easier. :toocool: