PS Printer Management vs. Epson Printer Management

O
Posted By
One4All
Jul 12, 2008
Views
615
Replies
9
Status
Closed
Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson’s color management,
rather than PS’s color management, to get a print that most closely matches my
monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I’ve profiled using GretagMacbeth’s Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson’s Premium Photo Glossy paper and MIS inks.

Too frequently, when I run a test on 4×6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using my
profile & letting PS manage the printing,
that the print fails miserably to match my monitor’s image. (I recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)

When I try letting Epson
manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS & guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.

I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So, you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is best, use that. 4×6 paper isn’t that expensive.

I’m just curious why I can’t standardize on one color management printer system. It’s incredible to me that the Epson system, using non-
Epson inks, can produce more accurate results than the PS system with my profile. Maybe some of you have run into the same situation & that what I have to do is all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my printer, paper, and inks, altho my printer hasn’t changed, my paper hasn’t changed, and my inks haven’t changed.

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

MR
Mike Russell
Jul 13, 2008
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Empedocles wrote:

Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson’s color management, rather than PS’s color management, to get a print that most closely matches my monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I’ve profiled using GretagMacbeth’s Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson’s Premium Photo Glossy paper and MIS inks.

This is the cris de cour of almost anyone who is very discerning about how well their printer matches their monitor. Millions of dollars have been spent on it, with no sure fire solution in sight.

A problem that seems simple to understand, isn’t simple at all. It’s a problem that unravels as you chase it.

Too frequently, when I run a test on 4×6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using my profile & letting PS manage the printing, that the print fails miserably to match my monitor’s image. (I recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)

Well, right there I would question the accuracy of your printer profile. There are a number of things you can do to assess the accuracy of your profile – one is to convert a grayscale gradient, and check the individual channels for blending. I provide an action that does this, then plots the components as a graph. See if your profile looks like the Frankenprofile example.
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/profileplotter/index.htm

When I try letting Epson
manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS & guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.

Perhaps by Epson color management, you mean either the PhotoEnhance4 mode, or the mode with explicit color sliders. I’ve used both of these to good effect, and have to agree with you that it works.

I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So, you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is best, use that. 4×6 paper isn’t that expensive.

The choice probably depends on the subject matter of the image.

I’m just curious why I can’t standardize on one color management printer system.

This is key, I believe, to understanding what the basic flaw in over-reliance on color management and calibration is. That is the belief, that perfect calibration will produce excellent images – it will not. Calibration can produce OK images, but it will not produce great ones. It takes a person to squeeze the last 10, 20, or 30 percent out of an image. No profile alone can do that, even as well as a moderately skilled person.

It’s incredible to me that the Epson system, using non- Epson inks, can produce more accurate results than the PS system with my profile. Maybe some of you have run into the same situation & that what I have to do is all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my printer, paper, and inks, altho my printer hasn’t changed, my paper hasn’t changed, and my inks haven’t changed.

The fact that the inks match Epson’s reasonably well is a testimony to the folks who made the inks. Epson, as well, has a great economic interest in providing a good out of box experience for people who purchase their equipment. Both of these companies have spectrophotometers and other color measurement instruments that cost as much as your house – or at least your car. The fact that they can accomplish this is a testimony to their collective calibration abilities.

Can you accomplish the same thing with a minimum of training, and a device that clocks in at just over $1000? I don’t think so. Can you recognize a good image, and adjust it to look better? Absolutely, and this is the key to why Epson’s manual controls give you such an advantage over reliance on a profile.

Color editing, over and above calibration, is the key to get the most out of your images. Whether you spend a few seconds, or hours on an image, you can improve your color, provided you trust your own eyes, color judgment, and make effective use of the all important numbers in Photoshop’s info-palette.

OK, that was a bit long, but as of two minutes ago, it’s my birthday, LOL. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com
R
ronviers
Jul 13, 2008
On Jul 13, 2:02 am, Mike Russell
wrote:

Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

I’m glad I never print.
Happy birthday:-)
F
Fred
Jul 13, 2008
Thanks for the great insight, Mike. I have the same problem and almost always use the Epson workflow.
Glad I’m not alone 🙂
Happy Birthday!
DF
Denis Fitzgibbon
Jul 13, 2008
There are so many variables.
Even though the inks and papers are made to a tolerance there are bound to be variations beteween batches.
The printer caibration will also change over time wear and tear etc. We check the calibration each working day and on average recalibrate about every 3 months.

Regards
Denis
GH
Gernot Hoffmann
Jul 13, 2008
Denis Fitzgibbon schrieb:
There are so many variables.
Even though the inks and papers are made to a tolerance there are bound to be variations beteween batches.
The printer caibration will also change over time wear and tear etc. We check the calibration each working day and on average recalibrate about every 3 months.

Regards
Denis

I’m using a wide format Mutoh inkjet printer and the RIP Colorgate ProductionServer5. Calibration partly by ColorGate (Linearization) and partly by GMB ProfileMaker5 for the ICC profile.
The calibration is rather stable, as tested by FOGRA/UGRA MediaWedge. There is really no need to re-calibrate the system each working day or every week.

‘Each working day’ is IMO nonsense.

Best regards –Gernot Hoffmann
K
KatWoman
Jul 13, 2008
"Empedocles" wrote in message
Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson’s color management,
rather than PS’s color management, to get a print that most closely matches my
monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I’ve profiled using GretagMacbeth’s Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson’s Premium Photo Glossy paper and MIS inks.

SNIP

agree 100% I use the Epson color management with the rare mismatch (that can usually be fixed in curves)
I wasted so much paper and ink on the PS color matching I gave up
K
KatWoman
Jul 13, 2008
"Mike Russell" wrote in message
On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 07:57:38 -0700 (PDT), Empedocles wrote:
Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson’s color management, rather than PS’s color management, to get a print that most closely matches my monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I’ve profiled using GretagMacbeth’s Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson’s Premium Photo Glossy paper and MIS inks.

This is the cris de cour of almost anyone who is very discerning about how well their printer matches their monitor. Millions of dollars have been spent on it, with no sure fire solution in sight.

A problem that seems simple to understand, isn’t simple at all. It’s a problem that unravels as you chase it.

Too frequently, when I run a test on 4×6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using my profile & letting PS manage the printing, that the print fails miserably to match my monitor’s image. (I recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)

Well, right there I would question the accuracy of your printer profile. There are a number of things you can do to assess the accuracy of your profile – one is to convert a grayscale gradient, and check the individual channels for blending. I provide an action that does this, then plots the components as a graph. See if your profile looks like the Frankenprofile example.
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/profileplotter/index.htm
When I try letting Epson
manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS & guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.

Perhaps by Epson color management, you mean either the PhotoEnhance4 mode, or the mode with explicit color sliders. I’ve used both of these to good effect, and have to agree with you that it works.

I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So, you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is best, use that. 4×6 paper isn’t that expensive.

The choice probably depends on the subject matter of the image.
I’m just curious why I can’t standardize on one color management printer system.

This is key, I believe, to understanding what the basic flaw in over-reliance on color management and calibration is. That is the belief, that perfect calibration will produce excellent images – it will not. Calibration can produce OK images, but it will not produce great ones. It takes a person to squeeze the last 10, 20, or 30 percent out of an image. No profile alone can do that, even as well as a moderately skilled person.
It’s incredible to me that the Epson system, using non- Epson inks, can produce more accurate results than the PS system with my profile. Maybe some of you have run into the same situation & that what I have to do is all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my printer, paper, and inks, altho my printer hasn’t changed, my paper hasn’t changed, and my inks haven’t changed.

The fact that the inks match Epson’s reasonably well is a testimony to the folks who made the inks. Epson, as well, has a great economic interest in providing a good out of box experience for people who purchase their equipment. Both of these companies have spectrophotometers and other color
measurement instruments that cost as much as your house – or at least your car. The fact that they can accomplish this is a testimony to their collective calibration abilities.

Can you accomplish the same thing with a minimum of training, and a device that clocks in at just over $1000? I don’t think so. Can you recognize a good image, and adjust it to look better? Absolutely, and this is the key to why Epson’s manual controls give you such an advantage over reliance on a profile.

Color editing, over and above calibration, is the key to get the most out of your images. Whether you spend a few seconds, or hours on an image, you
can improve your color, provided you trust your own eyes, color judgment, and make effective use of the all important numbers in Photoshop’s info-palette.

OK, that was a bit long, but as of two minutes ago, it’s my birthday, LOL. —
Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com

both worth saying twice

Calibration can produce OK images, but it will not produce great ones. It takes a person to squeeze the last 10, 20, or 30 percent out of an image. No profile alone can do that, even as well as a moderately skilled person

and happy Birthday to You
and happy Birthday to You
MR
Mike Russell
Jul 14, 2008
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 15:32:57 -0400, KatWoman wrote:

and happy Birthday to You

Thanks – it has been!

Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com
J
Joe
Jul 14, 2008
Empedocles wrote:

Why, on many of the prints I make, I must use Epson’s color management,
rather than PS’s color management, to get a print that most closely matches my
monitor? I have an Epson 1280 that I’ve profiled using GretagMacbeth’s Eye-One system. I profiled it for Epson’s Premium Photo Glossy paper and MIS inks.

Too frequently, when I run a test on 4×6 Epson Premium Photo Glossy paper (soft-proofing is a waste of time for me), I find that, using my
profile & letting PS manage the printing,
that the print fails miserably to match my monitor’s image. (I recalibrate & profile my monitor monthly.)

When I try letting Epson
manage the printer, the print matches the monitor almost exactly. If I need to tweak the image, using the Epson system, I can do so in the Epson printer controls. With PS, I have to go back to the image in PS & guess & by gosh. This is very inefficient.

I would use Epson color management exclusively if it were not for the fact that on some images, PS control is better than Epson control. So, you could say this is my workflow: If PS is best, use it. If Epson is best, use that. 4×6 paper isn’t that expensive.

I’m just curious why I can’t standardize on one color management printer system. It’s incredible to me that the Epson system, using non-
Epson inks, can produce more accurate results than the PS system with my profile. Maybe some of you have run into the same situation & that what I have to do is all I can do. Maybe I should reprofile my printer, paper, and inks, altho my printer hasn’t changed, my paper hasn’t changed, and my inks haven’t changed.

Why?

1. Photoshop controls the color base on the monitor profile

2. Photoshop uses the default printer mamanger

3. Not only Epson’s but many other printers don’t share the exact same value (different setting, ink, paper etc..) as well as many Photolab don’t share the same setting either.

So yes, if you want to have more control of the result you can get from the photolab’s, you may want to check with their web site’s see if they have the printer profile available for customer to download. And you may need to check frequenly because they may change the setting once awhile.

*If* they don’t provide the Printer Profile (many don’t) then you may have to find out the Name, Model of the printer/paper they use then try to match it using the similar setup from other Photolab, and hope they have similar or close setting.

And about your Epson 1280 which was one heck of a photo printer many years ago, I read Epson has released many better printers and some even have 7 colors instead of 6, and some uses separated ink cartridge for each color (or it may have 7 cartridges instead of 2)

Almost forgot, Photoshop has the Ctrl-Y (I think it’s the right command) to toggle between Monitor vs Printer (you have to setup the Printer Profile first before you can Toggle to see the difference).

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections