Well this is a warning of sorts as I was a victim of my own warning without knowing until I had spent the better of two days figuring out what the problem was.
Now don't take this the wrong way. The last batch of Kirkland stuff I had been using was quite good and I reported that it was from Mexico and not from the USA.
So like in my last post I went out and got some more Mexico stuff and thought that everything had been good. Well without noting it in my mind, on Monday I started to test some more formulations to confirm some results that I was having. I was then comparing these to prior prints from my last batch and something was wrong. So I proceeded to make changes and nothing was improving.
Now on the surface everything looked fine but the differences I was tweaking was in the fine details where the sweat work really is. The difference between good enough and really good, because that's the kind of guy I am. It was driving me up the wall as things I had expected were not turning out.
Last night at 11pm I realized my problems started with the new batch of paper I had been using since Monday. I proved it by using another stock of paper I had that was from the same batch and was a higher grade.
On lesser printers ( and owners of these please don't feel offended) like the iP4200 and the CMYK "photo"printers, they simply cannot delve into the dark shadows and retrieve color and detail like their big brother like the Pro9000 can. So for these printers, the batch will not materially affect the output as even with the better batch, the printer cannot resolve those colors anyways. So any Kirkland is good enough for these printers. When dealing with printers with higher performance, and depending on how detailed a person you are, the differences between batches could be significant enough. I fell in the latter category.
Being an economical person, I don't test and print a lot of samples with true premium high performance papers. I never really gave thought that some printers can be better than papers and it didn't seem to make sense. I admit to this error now and have learned the hard way. High performance printers need high performance papers to bring out their best.
So this could explain the different experiences users could be having with Kirkland brand. That even with the same source country variances are there, and that some of these could either be of no significance depending on the printer being used with it or the amount of detail that the end user seeks.
Ultimately this means that canned profiles for Kirkland papers could be troublesome because of the variances in the papers even when the source country is specified.
Now don't take this the wrong way. The last batch of Kirkland stuff I had been using was quite good and I reported that it was from Mexico and not from the USA.
So like in my last post I went out and got some more Mexico stuff and thought that everything had been good. Well without noting it in my mind, on Monday I started to test some more formulations to confirm some results that I was having. I was then comparing these to prior prints from my last batch and something was wrong. So I proceeded to make changes and nothing was improving.
Now on the surface everything looked fine but the differences I was tweaking was in the fine details where the sweat work really is. The difference between good enough and really good, because that's the kind of guy I am. It was driving me up the wall as things I had expected were not turning out.
Last night at 11pm I realized my problems started with the new batch of paper I had been using since Monday. I proved it by using another stock of paper I had that was from the same batch and was a higher grade.
On lesser printers ( and owners of these please don't feel offended) like the iP4200 and the CMYK "photo"printers, they simply cannot delve into the dark shadows and retrieve color and detail like their big brother like the Pro9000 can. So for these printers, the batch will not materially affect the output as even with the better batch, the printer cannot resolve those colors anyways. So any Kirkland is good enough for these printers. When dealing with printers with higher performance, and depending on how detailed a person you are, the differences between batches could be significant enough. I fell in the latter category.
Being an economical person, I don't test and print a lot of samples with true premium high performance papers. I never really gave thought that some printers can be better than papers and it didn't seem to make sense. I admit to this error now and have learned the hard way. High performance printers need high performance papers to bring out their best.
So this could explain the different experiences users could be having with Kirkland brand. That even with the same source country variances are there, and that some of these could either be of no significance depending on the printer being used with it or the amount of detail that the end user seeks.
Ultimately this means that canned profiles for Kirkland papers could be troublesome because of the variances in the papers even when the source country is specified.
