Moab Entrada Profile

[Roaring Bearcub]

I have just received a sample box of some Moab papers for use with my R2400, and have downloaded and installed the ICC profiles for the papers from Moab Paper.
So far, I have only made 1 print with Entrada Bright 190gsm, but I have noticed that when I soft proof my images in Photoshop using the profile, they appear to be far brighter than any Epson paper profile I have ever used.
The black-point of the paper also seems to be higher than Epson Archival Matte, which I've used for the past 6 or so months - I can't seem to just use a curves layer to darken the photo in Photoshop, because the blacks seem to be 'washed-out', and far worse than Epson's matte paper.
Is this normal? Have other people seen this? I've only printed on one sheet so far - it looks fine, but this is after adjusting brightness for the print, and it doesn't have much black in it. I don't want to waste too much of the limited amounts of paper I have...

Just wondering - thanks for all replies.

[Dale_Cotton]

I see exactly the same thing when soft-proofing from the Moab profiles for my Epson 4000. Perhaps one of the colour experts will read this and chime in with an explanation.

Understanding full well your not wanting to waste paper, nevertheless, I suggest you sacrifice one or two sheets for testing so that the others may live. Print small sections and/or small versions of whole images, such that you run multiple tests on the same sheet, or cut a sheet into 4x6s. Concentrate on what are likely to be problem areas: black clipping, shadow colours, near-whites, and highly saturated colours.

If my experience with the 4000 holds for your 2400, you'll find Entrada Bright White is weaker in black and possibly bright red compared to Epson's Archival (AKA Enhanced) Matte. (Perversely, Entrada Natural White has better blacks than Entrada Bright White.) I suggest you abandon any attempt to work with the Moab profiles and try the Archival Matte profile - it works smashingly for me, both for print accuracy and soft-proofing accuracy. If that fails, you may have no recourse but to take an expensive gamble with custom profiles.

[mikeseb]

...If that fails, you may have no recourse but to take an expensive gamble with custom profiles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74431\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not meaning to be snarky, but why are custom profiles an "expensive gamble"? I have been considering them myself for use with my Epson 4000, at least the next time I have to shell out $500-1000 to upgrade ImagePrint.

[digitaldog]

I've been making a fair number of profiles for this paper lately. Seems nice and I guess people like it but apparently the supplied profile isn't so hot. Its not difficult to profile.

[Dale_Cotton]

why are custom profiles an "expensive gamble"?

My thinking is: $100 per each paper+ink combo and - I assume - non-refundable. I've come close to taking the plunge a few times but so far never have. If I did, Andrew Rodney (AKA digitaldog) would be my first choice. One reason: I've yet to find his name involved in a complaint on a printing forum about money taken but profiles not received. Some others: his endless patience sharing knowledge on this and other forums; plus the fact that he is far beyond the stage of shelling out for an EyeOne and putting up a shingle.

Roaring: re-reading your orignial post, I just noticed that you are working from the Moab samples box of 25 @ 8.5x11 sheets. For some reason I assumed you had a box of 13x19s, so my second paragraph about test printing may not make a lot of sense given your context. Remember that these are double-sided sheets; for purposes of evaluation, using both sides makes a lot of sense.

[JeffKohn]

The Moab Entrada 2400 profile sucks, to be blunt. In fact when I first got my 2400 and was evaluating rag papers I immediately ruled Entrada out because a test print on that paper using the Moab profile looked terrible in comparison to the others. I later found out the problem was the profile, not the paper.

You may actually want to try downloading Hahnemuhle's Photo Rag profile and using that. While not as good of a match as a custom profile would be, I think you'll find the results are better than using the Moab profile.

[Roaring Bearcub]

I just noticed that you are working from the Moab samples box of 25 @ 8.5x11 sheets

Actually, it is a box of 14 papers - 2 samples of each paper kind (Bright 190, 300, Natural 190, 300 etc.) of A4.

So far, everyone seems to support the belief that the canned profiles are bad. However, I'm wondering what profile to use when prinitng to these papers - I've heard Epson Archival Matte and Hahnemuhle Photo Rag so far - any suggestions as to which is better?
What about in the Epson printer dialogue - do I use Archival Matte, Velvet Fine Art, or Watercolour Radiant White as the Moab people suggest? I've always though about why I have to give Photoshop a profile to use when printing, and also give the Epson driver a paper choice - what difference does the Epson driver choice make? Shouldn't Photoshop choose the settings if I tell the printer 'no colour management'?