Bernard, I use three printers - well two printers and one "printer" and
three scanners:
Printer 1 is an HP inkjet which had no profile, but does have its own
printer driver enhancement/optimisation facility.
Printer 2 is a Minolta Magicolor laser which has OEM profiles
Printer 3 is a Fuji Frontier 340 at the local supermarket, for which I have
a custom profile
Sacnner 1 is part of the above HP inkjet which had no profile
Scanner 2 is a Xerox 2400 flatbed which had no profile
Scanner 3 is a Nikon 4000ED which has an OEM profile
The PC has LCD screen which had no profile
Since profiling monitor and inkjet printer (which required profiling at
least one scanner) I can get satisfactorily absolute consistency between the
Fuji Frontier and the inkjet, meaning I can proof at say 15x10cm before
getting a Fuji Frontier print at 30x20cm. I cannot say there is absolute
consistency between monitor and print because I find it very hard to equate
screen with paper - but I do find that I can now have a good foretaste of
what will appear on paper (by whichever process) before committing to paper,
and I can also avoid the huge expense (in money and time) of running off
several A4 inkjet prints trying to get "the right one" because I get a proof
from the inkjet which I now know is comparable with the Fuji Frontier.
Before, it was a matter of luck what turned out from the Frontier (and the
turn round time on Frontier prints was longer and more inconvenient - a
trip to the supermarket). Now, I know what I am going to get.
My remaining problem is to find a way of profiling the laser printer for
different papers. It's a problem because of the way the printer makes
shades and tones, essentially by cross hatching the CMY toners at different
weights - when it comes to scanning the colour patches, the profiling
software can't read the patches properly. More work required!
To answer your drect question this way - the inbuilt HP driver optimisation
provides nice-looking prints, no doubt. But there is no way to describe the
results as reproducible across different printers/different papers/different
inksets. ICC profiles make that possible, equally no doubt. If you aleady
have the XR, what is stopping you?
HTH!
--
Piers
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Bernard Frangoulis
Sent: 28 November 2005 19:56
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Re: Monaco Optix XR
I have been using the Monaco Optix XR to profile my monitor for almost 2
years now and am very satisfied. I use the "standard" version, not the Pro
one. I wouldn't mind upgrading, but... :-)
However, I have never tried calibrating the (oldish) printer (EPSON Stylus
Photo 890) as well. Piers, what printer are you using, and have you found
that the profile you made using MonacoEZColor software was better than the
EPSON-provided profiles? I am rather satisfied with the EPSON profiles for
the Matte Paper Heavyweight and ColorLife papers, although the prints often
tend to be darker than the screen (I attribute this to the viewing
conditions of my screen rather than an inaccuracy of the profile), but the
colors are consistent with what I see on screen - mostly, but not quite.
Would MonacoEZColor allow me to make a custom profile which might improve
on this?
I also have a scanner (Nikon Coolscan IV ED) which could perhaps benefit
from being profiled - although I do mostly digital these days, I still have
a whole bunch of slides to scan!
Bernard
>When the question of profiling software arose last week, I was in the
>middle of a frustrating problem using a Monaco Optix XR with EZColor
>software, so I held off on giving a recommendation (I was not
>especially happy with its refusal to accept output from two different
>scanners, and its less-than-fulsome explanation of what was lacking).
>
>On the strength of the support received, I can now 'fess up. Strongly
>recommended!
>
>I sent a support email describing the problem, asking what information
>they needed from me for a resolution. Had an initial response within
>an hour, and a very clear explanation, illustration and recommendation
>in a similar timeframe after my followup. The scanner problem was
>completely resolved without the usual "please downlaod the latest
>drivers, re-install the software and we will take it from there" kind of
response.
>
>That wasn't the end of my problems, I needed help with one printer,
>sent a further email to support. Guess what? I got a phone call to
>talk me through my problem and the workaround.
>
>That kind of support (from the UK distributor) is very unusual in my
>experience, and counts for a very great deal.
>
>The same distributor handles the Spyder, but the tech I was speaking to
>seemed very reluctant to offer any opinion on that particular product.
>
>I have been using the Optix XR derived profiles for a couple of months
>now, and wasted ink/paper levels have dropped significantly - the
>difference a fully-profiled system makes is hard to believe.
>
>--
>Piers
>
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|