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 4x6 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. 4x6 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.
|
