Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Epson 3800/Exibition Fiber Profiles  (Read 3636 times)
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233


WWW
« on: December 14, 2008, 12:03:18 PM »
ReplyReply

A couple of months ago I got an Epson 3800 printer and am currently using it with Epson Exhibiton Fiber paper, with extremely pleasing results. Initially I was using the profiles available on the US Epson site authored by PixelGenius (SP3800_EFP_PK_2800.icc). This combination was giving me a good match between the image on my monitor and the printed results, although there was a VERY SLIGHT yellow colour cast on the print compared to the monitor. I put this down to my particular monitor/printer combination.

The Exibition Fiber paper is called Traditional Photo Paper in the UK, and recently I discovered that on the UK Epson site there are profiles for Traditional Photo Paper (Pro 3800 Traditional Photo Paper_PK.icm). When I softproof with this profile the result is a slightly more yellow image, matching my print output more. The brightness/contrast of the two profiles is very slightly different too, with the PixelGenius profile being a little darker.

Let me say that none of the above should be considered a criticism of the PixelGenius profile (I know Jeff Schewe is a participant of this forum). It could well be that the PixelGenius profile is the more accurate of the two.

The point of my post is to mention that there are alternative profiles for this paper if any of you are getting the same results from your softproof/output combinations as I am.

My monitor is an NEC 2090 Spectraview, profiled with an XRite Display 2 and the Spectraview software.

Pete
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2008, 07:17:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Pete-

Is the paper base warm to begin with, or is it an overall ink warmth right down to the shadows?
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2810



WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2008, 10:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

How your monitor matches the prints isn't a very good indicator of how well a profile is made.  I think you would be better off re-calibrating your monitor to a different white point to match the Pixel Genius profiles, considering how meticulous those from Pixel genius were made.

http://www.pixelgenius.com/epson/profile-faq.html

 I think it is almost a necessity to profile your monitor with a white point to achieve a match.  This is the only place in the entire color management workflow where an adjustment can be made.  Unless your viewing conditions happen to match a default white point (rare) the only other option is using a different white point when making the monitor profile.  I use 6100k, and have a great match with Epson Luster.  The profiles from Pixel Genius match just as well.
Logged

Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2008, 05:43:21 AM »
ReplyReply

John,

It's not the paper base, which I find pretty white, it's the ink and appears to be overall, although it's more noticeable in the mid neutral tones. On some files the yellow is not a problem and is not as noticeable but on others especially if they have areas of neutral greys it "muddies" up these tones. I may add that I use a Hasselblad CFV back and this has a reputation for producing a yellow cast that other users have found difficult to remove. Maybe that is what I am seeing, the problem is not helped by my preference for a warm look anyway, I just want to be able to control it better.

I'm going to stick with the PixelGenius profile for now and try work arounds, including Wayne's monitor suggestions. I am profiling the monitor to native white point at the moment.
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
Ralph Eisenberg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 82


« Reply #4 on: December 18, 2008, 02:56:40 PM »
ReplyReply

In my initial use of the Epson Traditional Photo Paper I used the Pixel Genius profile for Exhibition Fiber Paper on my Epson 3800, with very mixed results. When the Epson France site made available profiles for the TPP, I found these to give me better results. It is not clear to me whether these papers are indeed identical (if memory serves, I believe that on the box two slightly different weights are indicated, but when I raised the question about a year ago, I never received an answer).
Logged

Ralph
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2008, 01:51:17 PM »
ReplyReply



I can't find an authoritive spec for Epson TPP on the UK site but on the Australian site the spec seems very similar to Epson EFP. You are right though, the weight of TPP is
330 gsm whereas that of EFP is 325 gsm. Also the instruction sheet that comes with TPP suggests setting paper type to Premium Glossy Photo Paper whereas the suggested setting for EFP is Premium Lustre. Somehow I can't believe the product is essentially different but maybe Epson are sourcing the US paper from US mills and the European paper from an European mill.

What would you say characterises the difference between the Pixel Genius profile and the Epson European profile, in your experience?
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
hairyotter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2008, 10:29:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
How your monitor matches the prints isn't a very good indicator of how well a profile is made.  I think you would be better off re-calibrating your monitor to a different white point to match the Pixel Genius profiles, considering how meticulous those from Pixel genius were made.

Hi Wayne, all

This is quite interesting.

I just bought a R2880.
My monitor is profiled with ColorMunki, with a D50 target, but I also use the function that reads the ambient light.

I have to say that the epson profiles for both the Luster and EFP papers were printing with a slight yellow/warm cast.
Not ugly, but noticeable.

When I created the paper profiles with Colormunki, the difference is gone.
Whatever is left is due to the paper being more/less yellow between luster and efp.

I cannot believe my humble CM is better than professionals.
Could it be that if you use the same colorimeter for both monitor and paper, it applies the same "errors" ?

Thanks, Marco.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad