ThrillaMozilla
Printer Master
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,206
- Reaction score
- 348
- Points
- 253
This is an almost desperate situation for me. I sort of gave up printing years ago because the blacks were blocked up. And now I have a new Epson ET-8550 with lot of Red River Premium Matte 11x17" double-sided for calendars (with lots and lots of pictures). Using my profile or the Red River profile, either way the blacks are blocked up and the shadows are murky.
Now I find out that Jose Rodriguez and others have the same darned problem. Keith Cooper shows a picture made with his wonderful profile that's just ghastly. Someone showed a screen shot of the graphical presentation of the profile for that paper -- I think it was the same paper -- which shows pretty badly blocked shadows. He says it's good paper, and there's nothing really wrong with the profile -- you just can't use that paper for that kind of picture -- and he prints a high-key photo to prove it! I thought a profile is supposed to take care of those problems, and there's no way I would call it a good profile if it doesn't work. I understand that one paper might not print as black as the next one, and I know something about the rendering intent (usually Perceptual) for attempting mitigate the situation. But it's still quite black. I reject the notion that the papers can't reproduce the shadows, and the profile doesn't take care of it. It seems pretty poor to me that even Keith Cooper has to resort to lots of test prints. At some point it's just trial and error.
So is Jose telling us that a profile made with a VFA paper setting gives good results, but the only paper he found that works right is not even intended for inkjet printing?! (Sorry to be a pessimist, but what a miserable situation unless you're using the same paper.)
Now I'll be happy as a clam if I can get superior results without blocking the shadows. I've calibrated the heck out of my already accurate monitor (with an X-Rite i1 Studio), and I've been through the settings check list with a pro. Proofing doesn't even work because it gives a poor representation of the print. It just shows the images as fogged. Until I can get results, I really don't know what I'm doing.
Any suggestions? Do I understand the situation correctly?
Now I find out that Jose Rodriguez and others have the same darned problem. Keith Cooper shows a picture made with his wonderful profile that's just ghastly. Someone showed a screen shot of the graphical presentation of the profile for that paper -- I think it was the same paper -- which shows pretty badly blocked shadows. He says it's good paper, and there's nothing really wrong with the profile -- you just can't use that paper for that kind of picture -- and he prints a high-key photo to prove it! I thought a profile is supposed to take care of those problems, and there's no way I would call it a good profile if it doesn't work. I understand that one paper might not print as black as the next one, and I know something about the rendering intent (usually Perceptual) for attempting mitigate the situation. But it's still quite black. I reject the notion that the papers can't reproduce the shadows, and the profile doesn't take care of it. It seems pretty poor to me that even Keith Cooper has to resort to lots of test prints. At some point it's just trial and error.
So is Jose telling us that a profile made with a VFA paper setting gives good results, but the only paper he found that works right is not even intended for inkjet printing?! (Sorry to be a pessimist, but what a miserable situation unless you're using the same paper.)
Now I'll be happy as a clam if I can get superior results without blocking the shadows. I've calibrated the heck out of my already accurate monitor (with an X-Rite i1 Studio), and I've been through the settings check list with a pro. Proofing doesn't even work because it gives a poor representation of the print. It just shows the images as fogged. Until I can get results, I really don't know what I'm doing.
Any suggestions? Do I understand the situation correctly?
Last edited:
