Re-profiling

[The Hat]

Nice one @RogerB, and I for one appreciate the included zip file because it can come in very handy for testing various printers not just one, but I would also say if anyone is considering storing sample images for later testing then these samples should be handled with gloves, not hands...

 

[stratman]

You are misrepresenting what I wrote, and changing the OP's original question.

Simmer down, Roy.

First, I was posting to OP, not you.

Second, you were not the only one in the thread to suggest a proof be printed and used for comparison. Note that I used the word "others", the plural form. I agreed with the proof recommendation by you and Ink Stained Fingers. Inexplicably you appear to have a problem with that.

Third, as to misrepresenting what you said, there was absolutely no intention. Heck, I didn't even mention you by name or indicate anything you posted as incorrect.

No Mention of monitor profile - a factor you introduced.
No mention of WYSIWYG - another factor you introduced.
It also has nothing to do with editing on a monitor, or even WYSIWYG, which you introduced into the discussion.

And...? I added something to the mix that I felt was tangentially important in relation to OP's original inquiry. It had absolutely nothing to do with you, Roy.

As a seasoned printer of images you probably know that no matter how valid your printer ICC is, or how unchanged your ink and paper are, your monitor can drift in its accuracy. If you do any editing changes to the image before printing, which I assume you do from time to time, then it is optimal the monitor be calibrated appropriately in order to get printer output approaching WYSIWYG, typically a desired outcome I've read. Therefore, since all the usual variables for the printer are hypothetical constants, the only potential variable, ie not constant as per OP's initial post, is the monitor. (What do you know, I did read and understood OP's initial post) Hence, calibrate the monitor regularly to facilitate success and eliminate, or decrease, the need for printer re-calibration.

I have the sense that the OP is quite capable of understanding the principles/suggestions each of us put forth and can take from them what he wants. Don't you?

I hope these words clarify the issue for you. We do not always have to agree, but we actually do in this instance concerning an archival proof.

 

[apetitphoto]

Thanks all for your responses to my question. If I reask it now it would be "Are printers subject to as much drift as monitors?" And the answer that I have learned is "Not so much." It's just a matter of controlling what you can and being aware of changes that you recognize. The printer is most likely one of the more stable variables.

 

[Roy Sletcher]

Simmer down, Roy.

First, I was posting to OP, not you.

Second, you were not the only one in the thread to suggest a proof be printed and used for comparison. Note that I used the word "others", the plural form. I agreed with the proof recommendation by you and Ink Stained Fingers. Inexplicably you appear to have a problem with that.

Third, as to misrepresenting what you said, there was absolutely no intention. Heck, I didn't even mention you by name or indicate anything you posted as incorrect.


And...? I added something to the mix that I felt was tangentially important in relation to OP's original inquiry. It had absolutely nothing to do with you, Roy.

As a seasoned printer of images you probably know that no matter how valid your printer ICC is, or how unchanged your ink and paper are, your monitor can drift in its accuracy. If you do any editing changes to the image before printing, which I assume you do from time to time, then it is optimal the monitor be calibrated appropriately in order to get printer output approaching WYSIWYG, typically a desired outcome I've read. Therefore, since all the usual variables for the printer are hypothetical constants, the only potential variable, ie not constant as per OP's initial post, is the monitor. (What do you know, I did read and understood OP's initial post) Hence, calibrate the monitor regularly to facilitate success and eliminate, or decrease, the need for printer re-calibration.

I have the sense that the OP is quite capable of understanding the principles/suggestions each of us put forth and can take from them what he wants. Don't you?

I hope these words clarify the issue for you. We do not always have to agree, but we actually do in this instance concerning an archival proof.

Consider me fully simmered, and the issue fully clarified.

Incidentally I never post or comment for agreement. "The facts Ma'am, just the facts".

In my defense, my response was predicated on the fact that your reply was posted 30 minutes after mine and followed it in the thread sequence separated by several several hours from other related postings. I felt it was a reasonable connection to relate your reply to my recent post.

Incidentally, like everybody including myself you are entitled to submit a respectful opinion and I respect that and have no problems with you disagreeing with me.

I still have issues with the veracity of some of your comments relating to the OP's problem but that is not what this particular post is about.

For the record anybody is free to disagree, refute, or otherwise counter anything I say at anytime providing it is polite discourse. I have learned more from disagreements and the consequent verification of facts than from nods of agreement.

I will be back.

rs

 

[stratman]

@Roy Sletcher - Thank you, my brother from the great Canadian Mother.