Figured I might as well: I downloaded all three packages of the latest paper profiles from Epson ... Glossy, Matte and Fine Art. Adding the profiles adds Photo and Bst Photo versions for EEM, HM, and VFA, and Photo, BstPhoto, RPM for Lustre and Glossy. (others too but I don't use anything other than EEM, HM, and VFA ordinarily)
I just printed three tests in Photo, Best Photo comparing against my old use of the previous profiles with Best Photo quality. On HM, EEM and VFA ... differences are extremely small to my eye. Which is better ... hard to say. I'll wait a day and see how they dry down. I still haven't printed a page of glossy or luster with this printer ... ! Bought a box of Premium Luster 8.5x11, though, maybe I'll try it someday. ;-) What does RPM stand for again? (I print primarily A3 size paper in EEM. Been working with some beautiful 11x17 paper: Somerset Enhanced Photo Velvet ... but it's expensive as heck. Same stock as VFA, with an uncoated surface. Sexy stuff. I've got some new fine art paper on the way to play with.) Godfrey On Mar 31, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > On pics with a lot of detail, RPM makes a difference, particularly in > large sizes. but only on glossy or luster papers. I print a lot of 11 > x17 on Premium Luster paper. You can see the difference there. On > matte papers, there is no noticeable difference. (I don't even think > they have an RPM profile for Velvet Fine Art, although you can choose > it in the Print dialog box.) I've found that the specific ICC > profiles make a bit of difference in rendering, particularly with > Velvet Fine Art, where I use the VFA "Best Photo" ICC profile rather > than the drive installed profile. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
