Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wierd Print Bureau Experience  (Read 16103 times)
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« on: December 23, 2007, 05:18:30 PM »
ReplyReply

A nearby dealer, who I frequent, and does my Velvia Processing - recently aquired an Epson 11880 printer.  The timing could not be more fortuitous for me as I have a large 7-shot panorama of the recent Chehalis, WA flood, that several clients have expressed interest in.

With a minimum stated charge of $200 for a 60x40" image on Epson Luster, I was very eager to aquire the same ICC profile that they are using, to include in the image file I would submit.   I asked about aquiring the profile here (without the driver) and quickly found the answer, but the shop's refusal and or inability still bothered me - after all this *is* $200; I really want to use the *same* profile they are . . . .

I went in person and talked to the manager and explained that providing ICC profiles makes good marketing sense, especially to the more sophisticated audience they cater to.  I mentioned that Costco's profiles are available from Dry Creek Photo, and in my experience have been generally excellant, with the particular location I use.  The manager immediately pronounced the Dry Creek profiles "junk" and "outdated" and asked if I had seen the "overwhelming negative feedback" on the profiles.  I politely mentioned that the Costco Tumwater #1 profiles are current, and very good. - and asked what this had to do with his refusal to supply me his printer's profiles?  After a stern lecture about humidity, and paper variations, etc., I asked him why is he not using custom profiles as opposed to the "canned" epson profile, or even Bill Atkinsons?  The short answer was "we find the Luster Profile to be very good" - fair enough - may I have a copy?  After a $6 "research fee" I was promised that I would recieve the profile via email . . .

Is this the norm?Huh  Anyone know of alternatives to this in the Seattle or even Portland area?

-John
« Last Edit: December 23, 2007, 05:25:50 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1631


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2007, 05:36:21 PM »
ReplyReply

John - can't help with a recommendation for an alternative, but I can add that if you download and install the driver you will have access to the canned profiles yourself.  At least a starting point and if they're using the canned profiles then you'll have the same one (assuming they follow a standard workflow, should all be good).

Some of the print shops here (Australia) offer profiles with the white point damaged to make them unusable for actual printing.  I guess they're protecting their time and effort in creating their own custom profiles.
Logged

DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2007, 08:09:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I may not have the answer but I'd point out that the only reason for you to use the profile for their machine would be for soft proofing in photoshop -- they shouldn't need to have you convert your file to the printer's colour space and normally you should leave it in adobe or  sRGB depending on the format they require.   Personally I find that the display portion of the profiles only marginally helpfull and no substitute for a test print.

If the profile used was created by an outside outfit they probably would not be able to distribute it without permission.     Even if they did their own profiles there seems to be some issues with copyrights or other legal issues as happened with the inkjetart generic profiles for example.   If they are using a RIP other than the Epson driver the profile may be of no use to you anyway but I'm not really sure how this works.

Good luck....
Doug
« Last Edit: December 23, 2007, 08:38:30 PM by DougMorgan » Logged
TylerB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 383


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2007, 09:57:08 PM »
ReplyReply

John, I'm in Seattle but not after your business, just adding info to the thread. I stopped supplying the profiles made here to clients, for many reasons. Unfortunately this business has become brutal, and frankly my profiles would be used more for criticism of the output here for others to use as marketing fodder than anything else.
Additionally, with some papers, the profile becomes obsolete with each batch that comes in.
Provided with the print cost here is a proof on the actual paper, and within reason edits will be made  if a disappointing departure from the monitor image.
I have yet to have to do that, though occassional edits and re-proofs have been done simply because the artists desired some changes.

All of this has been working perfectly, the exceptions being for people without calibrated monitors when they prepped their files.

I'd like to add, $200 for a 40x60 is a great price, jump on it, after approving a proof even if you have to pay a little for it.
Tyler
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9314



WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2007, 08:30:12 AM »
ReplyReply

There's NO good reason a shop shouldn't provide the output profile. Leave em!

And supply a profile is far more than allowing you to soft proof (with what rendering intent?). You should control this and may very well wish to do minor editing of the document in the output color space to make it more closely resemble the original. You need the profile for that. Find another lab, service isn't their game.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 24, 2007, 10:46:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know -- I'm a photographer first, printer 2nd -- but editing an image in the output profile space for an outside lab's printer using a profile of unknown quality sounds like a hit or miss affair and an easy way to waste a lot of time and paper.   If the profile is the generic epson supplied number than it isn't even specific to their printer.

$200 sounds high for an unmounted single 60x40 on premium luster.  I'd expect to pay less than that for canvas in BC.

Doug
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9314



WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 24, 2007, 11:09:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know -- I'm a photographer first, printer 2nd -- but editing an image in the output profile space for an outside lab's printer using a profile of unknown quality sounds like a hit or miss affair and an easy way to waste a lot of time and paper. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only if you don't know how to work with Photoshop (and the profile sucks).

You open the original image in the original working space. You duplicate the image. You setup a soft proof on the dupe and have both it and the original at the same screen position and zoom (hold down space bar and shift key, you can pan around in sync).

Do minor edit on dupe (on adjustment layers). A slight curve perhaps, maybe a slight hue/sat adjustment. The goal is to make the soft proofed image appear a bit closer to original (gamut limitations not withstanding). Why settle on the default rendering using an output profile?

We show this technique in depth at the Epson Print Academy, I'm pretty sure Jeff shows it in his print video here.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 24, 2007, 11:39:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for that Andrew!  

The image *is* very wide DR, including filtered sun in the shot - I'm just barely able to get a decent print on my B9180 without blowing highlights.  I'll keep looking for a shop that is willing to share profiles . . .

Happy Holidays  - John

Logged

DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 24, 2007, 11:45:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Digitaldog:  Without the feedback from the actual printed image I don't see much value in this but I'm not the one paying the lab to print it.

John:  I think your biggest problem is going to be banding, not color rendition.   I would crop some test sections of the sky particularly on the right to print on your HP at the full size they would be in the final print (if that makes sense).   There's no guarantee that the results will extrapolate between the HP driver and whatever the lab uses for a printer driver but it can at least locate problem areas in advance -- chances are banding will be worse on the HP.

You also might have a seam issue about 3/4 across in the sky as there appears to be some diagonal stripes going both directions though it could be only an artifact of downsizing the image.    

I'm also not getting the 40x60 inches as it looks more like 8x60 unless you are putting multiple copies on one page.   If that is the case $200  is way too high and you would be better off printing a couple at the real size.   Premium luster comes in rolls as small as 10 inches wide so there is no need to print to a standard page size.  PM if you want some more information about panorama printing as that is what I do.


Doug
« Last Edit: December 24, 2007, 12:08:05 PM by DougMorgan » Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2007, 02:18:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Are Custom Digital in Seattle and Cirus in Portland too good for ya?

http://www.custom-digital.com

http://www.cirrus-digital.com/Alfano.html


They are both some of the best in the business.

john
Logged
adiallo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 87


« Reply #10 on: December 24, 2007, 04:25:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There's NO good reason a shop shouldn't provide the output profile. Leave em!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here's three:
1. Client may not have a display in optimum working condition AND recently AND correctly calibrated AND profiled
2. Even if client has #1, he/she may not be working in proper ambient lighting condition, which affects what they're seeing onscreen to make the edits.
3. The underlying assumption behind a soft-proof adjusted image is the hard copy will be viewed under consistent and specific luminence conditions.
People who print for actual paying customers deal with these scenarios every day. Does this mean they're used-car salesman looking to rip you off or just plain  incompetent? No. High-end print shops work with proofs. THe shop does the work to make the proof resemble the file and sends this to the client so everyone is looking at the same thing. That's what service is, not some dogmatic adherence to whether or not to make profiles available. Some do, some don't because they've found it leads to worse, not better files from clients.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9314



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2007, 05:00:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here's three:
1. Client may not have a display in optimum working condition AND recently AND correctly calibrated AND profiled

The output profile then isn't going to be an issue.

Quote
2. Even if client has #1, he/she may not be working in proper ambient lighting condition, which affects what they're seeing onscreen to make the edits.

Same comment. The output profile, in terms of ambient lighting only assumes or can be told otherwise, D50. So there's still no harm done in supplying the profile.

Quote
3. The underlying assumption behind a soft-proof adjusted image is the hard copy will be viewed under consistent and specific luminence conditions.

That's part of what soft proofing accomplishes. And that any workflow may have less than ideal configuration, anyone with sense about ICC color management still provides the best descriptor they have of THEIR device and often advise customers to their best use.

Not supplying the profile thus has no excuse.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 25, 2007, 12:37:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here's three:
1. Client may not have a display in optimum working condition AND recently AND correctly calibrated AND profiled

2. Even if client has #1, he/she may not be working in proper ambient lighting condition, which affects what they're seeing onscreen to make the edits.

3. The underlying assumption behind a soft-proof adjusted image is the hard copy will be viewed under consistent and specific luminence conditions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

1: Display profiled usding Eye-One Pro / Eye-One Match
2: Ambient K and intensity - optimal per Eye-One
3: Also - optimal

I'm currently getting excellent display / soft / proof results using my existing HP B9180, also profiled using Eye-One.  In short my color workflow, to the best of my budget and ability is per "best practices" recommended in Andrew's book as well the LL Video Series.

These questions are *exactly* what I would expect, and appreciate from the print lab - unfortunately my experience was otherwise.

Regards - John
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 12:42:39 AM by Joh.Murray » Logged

deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #13 on: December 25, 2007, 10:04:50 AM »
ReplyReply

It is nothing but silly to suggest that a  supplied "profile" and "soft proofing" technique is some kind of workable holy grail that gives anyone accurate linearization and balanced hue content for their specific unique printer. Epson, Canon, and HP, wish the tolerances were that close!

John






Quote
The output profile then isn't going to be an issue.
Same comment. The output profile, in terms of ambient lighting only assumes or can be told otherwise, D50. So there's still no harm done in supplying the profile.
That's part of what soft proofing accomplishes. And that any workflow may have less than ideal configuration, anyone with sense about ICC color management still provides the best descriptor they have of THEIR device and often advise customers to their best use.

Not supplying the profile thus has no excuse.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 11:07:11 AM by deanwork » Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #14 on: December 25, 2007, 10:39:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Deanwork:  I think you have mis-understood, I'm not asking that the lab accept my profile, I'm merely asking them to supply theirs.

-John
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9314



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 25, 2007, 11:08:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have to tell you Mr. Dog that your extremely weak response to Mr. Diallo's attempt to clarify this situation shows clearly that you are not a printer and have no real practical experience in this disipline.

I ran a service bureau with all nature of output devices for years (well before providing ICC profiles was even possible). I do have somewhat of an idea of this production workflow.

I also of course, print for myself.

That said, I think I have a fair idea of his "discipline."
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9314



WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 25, 2007, 11:11:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is nothing but silly to suggest that a  supplied "profile" and "soft proofing" technique is some kind of workable holy grail that gives anyone accurate linearization and balanced hue content for their specific unique printer. Epson, Canon, and HP, wish the tolerances were that close!

John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can only speak of Epson and later models. I built the canned profiles for them for the new Premium Fiber Paper. I know how close the various printers behave from the K3 models and they are indirectly close in terms of average deltaE 2000 values. Even the 2400 showed this ability, so we built the profile for that as well.

[a href=\"http://pixelgenius.com/epson/profile-faq.html]http://pixelgenius.com/epson/profile-faq.html[/url]
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 11:25:22 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9314



WWW
« Reply #17 on: December 25, 2007, 11:26:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Deanwork:  I think you have mis-understood, I'm not asking that the lab accept my profile, I'm merely asking them to supply theirs.

-John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

He most certainly did!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 750


« Reply #18 on: December 25, 2007, 11:49:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Which ever direction you are going to exhange this profile, lab to client or client to lab, it becomes a canned profile for all practical purposes on the other guy's machine. That is true even if the printer was made on the same day in the same factory. They have improved, but not that much.

If that were not the case we would never have to make our own profiles would we, except for exotic media? We could just all download perfectly engineered ones from Epson's website couldn't we, and it would one big happy world. A world in which we wouldn't need books about color management because Epson would do it all for us.  I wish that were the case, but it isn't. Merry Christmas.

john






Quote
Deanwork:  I think you have mis-understood, I'm not asking that the lab accept my profile, I'm merely asking them to supply theirs.

-John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9314



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 25, 2007, 12:07:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Which ever direction you are going to exhange this profile, lab to client or client to lab, it becomes a canned profile for all practical purposes on the other guy's machine. That is true even if the printer was made on the same day in the same factory. They have improved, but not that much.

That's ridiculous and wrong.

The lab builds a profile of a stable device, provides it to customer, customer uses to convert output color space, lab prints the doc. What makes it canned?

What makes a canned profile no good? It doesn't describe the device. Good canned profiles work when the device they represent are fixed in that assumed behavior. The canned profiles from Epson K3 unit, when that unit is behaving as it should (and it will remain that way handled correctly) are excellent and in some ways, indistinguishable from a custom profile.

Quote
If that were not the case we would never have to make our own profiles would we, except for exotic media?

We don't (always). Sometimes you do. Depends on the device.

Quote
We could just all download perfectly engineered ones from Epson's website couldn't we, and it would one big happy world.

For Epson profiles, that's IS the case!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad