The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Paper Profiling?

RMR

New member
I have an Epson 7900 and really enjoy the printer a lot. I've been using the paper profiles from Epson (for the cold/hot press series and others) along with profiles from Ilford on the Galerie Gold Fiber Silk and Canson's on the Platine & Arch Rag papers, etc. The results appear really good to me. Years ago I tried paper profiling with my old Datacolor widget and the results didn't warrant making profiles for ink & paper. I couldn't see any difference. The other night a local photographer was telling how much he likes paper profiling with a Color Munki and how the results are so much better than the manufacturer's profiles.

My question: Is there a difference that is really noticeable & worthwhile? What are you guys doing? I want great detail (both highlight & shadow detail plus) and proper color in my prints so if I need to go this way I will. Any recommendations on this would be much appreciated. Thanks. Bob Ring
 

archiM44

Member
i1Profiler from x-rite for both paper profiling and screen calibration gives me prints from a variety of papers that match my screen both as to brightness and colors extremely well.
My screen is calibrated to a value in the high 70's and the program allows the paper profiles to be made for a variety of lighting types the prints will be shown under
 

RMR

New member
Thanks for your comment. I've also heard that Color Munki was very good as well. I'm just not sure beyond brightness level if I'm really going to see a huge/subtle difference in my prints from mfr or custom profiles. Bob
 

stngoldberg

Well-known member
I used color Munki and the results were fair. Then I bought The RIP from ColorByte and the results were phenomenal.
Stanley
 

RMR

New member
Stanley, great comment. So did the colorbyte provide more 'depth' in the print? Not surewhat made it phenomenal. Thaks for your help. It's tough without knowing anyone that has these tools nearby to actually se results. Bob
 

stngoldberg

Well-known member
What makes the Colorbyte RIP phenomenal is the colors on my profiled screen match the colors on the paper exactly regardless what paper I use.
The above makes printing a joy
Stanley
 

PeterL

Member
I've used the ColorMunki with really good results, the screen and prints are a very close match. But you have to profile the printer as well as the screen and make sure to follow the steps outlined.

Cheers, -Peter
 

Rand47

Active member
I had Eric Chan create profiles for Ilford Gold Fibre Silk for both my R3000 & 4880 Epson printers.

Results:
- Noticeable improvement in subtle gradation/transition of color yielding more dimension in the prints.
- More pop in the color over all (probably related to the above)
- Greater apparent DR - more detail in shadows
- My two printers now produce identical output on this paper

To be honest I was happy with Ilford's profile and only had a custom profile created to "see what it was all about." I was not expecting to see a really noticeable difference. I was dead wrong.

IMO, unless you intend to make lots of custom profiles it seems better and less expensive to have a pro like Eric create profiles for you than to purchase "consumer grade" profiling equipment and do it yourself. I just sent off my targets for HPB & HPN so that I'll have profiles for all three papers I use as my standards.
 
Last edited:

Agnius

Member
I have been creating profiles for printers for past 15 years, and scanner based profiling solutions (Datacolor, Monaco) never worked too well for me.

Then I used i1 solution, but the profiles were never quite "right on".

Only after I invested into ProfileMaker software, I was able to get profiles that were "right on the money". That was like 10 years ago.

Now days I have used Colormunki system, and it is not bad (as long as I use v2, not v4 profiles). I think it is a big improvement over scanner based system, and even over old i1 software.

I still find Profilemaker to be able to produce superior profiles, and that's what I use for my clients.
 
Top