Velvet Fine Art on the R2400?

I got a question.
I tend to use the Ilford papers and the Costco Glossy 95% of
the time, but 
have used others like the Museo. I have seldom had a problem
getting a good 
print, but I always use the settings to make the software
set the print 
requirements, not the printer, other than setting a paper
type (not by name 
but Prem Gloss or enhanced matte, ie, etc).
I am using the Epson 220 and 1800 printers and PSE5.
My monitor was recently calibrated, but it was so very close
to what I had 
done by eyeball that I can not determoine any difference.
My question, or rather a statement, is, if I feel that I
like my results, 
will there be that much difference between "now"
and "if I set up some other 
way using profiles, etc"?
I personally find it hard to believe that I can get much
better prints than 
I already do.  Please don't take this as bragging, just
wondering to what 
nth degree you folks are working toward 

Walt 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDMLpdml.net
http:/
/pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

All I'm trying to do is to get the print to end up looking
as close as
possible to what I see on the screen.

At the moment I'm pretty damn close, using Epson papers
& profiles (I
also let PS handle colour management). I think the only
thing that I
could do to improve the process is to start making my own
custom paper
profiles. (I got a ColorVision PrintFix profilee with my
Spyder but
I've never used it.)

Cheers,

Dave

On 2/28/07, Walter Hamler <whamlerbellsouth.net> wrote:
> I personally find it hard to believe that I can get
much better prints than
> I already do.  Please don't take this as bragging, just
wondering to what
> nth degree you folks are working toward 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDMLpdml.net
http:/
/pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

If you're getting the print results you want, don't change
anything. 

Using a color managed workflow is a means to obtain
production  
consistency. It is also a means by which you can take files
from one  
system and bring them to another while maintaining color
balance  
fidelity.

I was going nuts, once upon a time, trying to make a set of
B&W  
exhibition prints that matched properly in tone and tint.
And the  
same went for trying to produce a set of color prints ...
the blue  
sky's tint kept changing as I printed. Once I went to a
profiled,  
color managed processing regimen, all those difficulties
disappeared.

A week or two back, I decided to do a comparison test
between four  
different papers to see how the surface qualities affected
the  
presentation of the photographs. By using the profiled
printing  
process with known-good print profiles, I was able to print
four high  
quality prints on different papers by simply changing the
profile I  
for the paper I was targeting, no other changes or
adjustments  
necessary, to get a representative picture of how the paper
surface  
affects things.

But again, if you are getting the print results you want,
there is no  
reason to change anything. One of the folks I know who does
beautiful  
printing work doesn't even calibrate his monitor ... he
knows his  
computer, his printer and the paper he's using so well that
he just  
eyeballs all the settings and produces a beautiful print
every time.

G

On Feb 28, 2007, at 6:34 AM, Walter Hamler wrote:

> I got a question.
> I tend to use the Ilford papers and the Costco Glossy
95% of the  
> time, but
> have used others like the Museo. I have seldom had a
problem  
> getting a good
> print, but I always use the settings to make the
software set the  
> print
> requirements, not the printer, other than setting a
paper type (not  
> by name
> but Prem Gloss or enhanced matte, ie, etc).
> I am using the Epson 220 and 1800 printers and PSE5.
> My monitor was recently calibrated, but it was so very
close to  
> what I had
> done by eyeball that I can not determoine any
difference.
> My question, or rather a statement, is, if I feel that
I like my  
> results,
> will there be that much difference between
"now" and "if I set up  
> some other
> way using profiles, etc"?
> I personally find it hard to believe that I can get
much better  
> prints than
> I already do.  Please don't take this as bragging, just
wondering  
> to what
> nth degree you folks are working toward 
>
> Walt
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDMLpdml.net
> http:/
/pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDMLpdml.net
http:/
/pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

What I've found, after trying three sets of sample profiles
made by  
highly respected color management experts is that the Epson
profiles  
for Epson Enhanced Matte and Epson Velvet Fine Art supplied
with the  
R2400 are about as good as I can get. So I stick with the
Epson  
profiles and don't worry about it.

That's not true of the Hahnemühle Fine Art Photo Rag profile
supplied  
by H___, the aftermarket profiles worked better. Since I
don't print  
on this paper very often, I find I get better results going
to the  
Epson driver's controls and tweaking the settings there
myself. I  
don't see a heck of a lot of difference in the print quality
between  
this paper and the Epson VFA, but it does have a slightly
smoother  
surface.

Godfrey

On Feb 28, 2007, at 7:16 AM, David Savage wrote:

> All I'm trying to do is to get the print to end up
looking as close as
> possible to what I see on the screen.
>
> At the moment I'm pretty damn close, using Epson papers
& profiles (I
> also let PS handle colour management). I think the only
thing that I
> could do to improve the process is to start making my
own custom paper
> profiles. (I got a ColorVision PrintFix profilee with
my Spyder but
> I've never used it.)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDMLpdml.net
http:/
/pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

I have about a 99% success rate getting prints to my liking
off of three 
different Epson printers.
The prints will never match the screen exactly, but I find
the buyers like 
what I'm printing very much.
I only use Epson inks & papers and have a spyder
calibrated monitor.

I'm still amazed that I can get the quality I get on a home
setup.

Kenneth Waller

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Savage" <ozsavagegmail.com>

Subject: Re: Velvet Fine Art on the R2400?


> All I'm trying to do is to get the print to end up
looking as close as
> possible to what I see on the screen.
>
> At the moment I'm pretty damn close, using Epson papers
& profiles (I
> also let PS handle colour management). I think the only
thing that I
> could do to improve the process is to start making my
own custom paper
> profiles. (I got a ColorVision PrintFix profilee with
my Spyder but
> I've never used it.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
> On 2/28/07, Walter Hamler <whamlerbellsouth.net> wrote:
>> I personally find it hard to believe that I can get
much better prints 
>> than
>> I already do.  Please don't take this as bragging,
just wondering to what
>> nth degree you folks are working toward 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDMLpdml.net
http:/
/pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Profiles generally offer some improvement over other methods
of 
printing that tend to be more hit and miss. I once used
ColorSynch 
workflow, and I was completely happy with  my results, but
Godders 
talked me into printing with the profiles and color
management turned 
off. I have to say the results are superior, particularly on
difficult 
prints, such as those with a lot of shadow detail.
Paul
On Feb 28, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Walter Hamler wrote:

> I got a question.
> I tend to use the Ilford papers and the Costco Glossy
95% of the time, 
> but
> have used others like the Museo. I have seldom had a
problem getting a 
> good
> print, but I always use the settings to make the
software set the print
> requirements, not the printer, other than setting a
paper type (not by 
> name
> but Prem Gloss or enhanced matte, ie, etc).
> I am using the Epson 220 and 1800 printers and PSE5.
> My monitor was recently calibrated, but it was so very
close to what I 
> had
> done by eyeball that I can not determoine any
difference.
> My question, or rather a statement, is, if I feel that
I like my 
> results,
> will there be that much difference between
"now" and "if I set up some 
> other
> way using profiles, etc"?
> I personally find it hard to believe that I can get
much better prints 
> than
> I already do.  Please don't take this as bragging, just
wondering to 
> what
> nth degree you folks are working toward 
>
> Walt
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDMLpdml.net
> http:/
/pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDMLpdml.net
http:/
/pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net