> > After making some mistakes I think I am getting pretty good results from > it, but still it doesnt quite deliver what I (probably unreasonably) hoped > I would get out of it.
I usually preface my presentations about color management by saying, "Color Management is a combination of equipment management, workflow management and expectations management. > > Is this just due to the limitations of the Eye-One? Or is it just a pretty > normal approach to need to fine tune the profiled output with something > like a curve adjustment? Is your monitor well calibrated? Even so, frequently you need to tweak the profile (specifically the back end which Photoshop uses to create a soft-proof on your monitor) This is one of the strong features of GM ProfileMaker 4.1 > > Of course I understand that its possible to spend loads more money on more > and more powerful tools... but where does this end? For me, 1000 quid for > the Eye-One represents a fairly substantial investment. Am I wrong to be a > bit under impressed by the results? > > I am of course, pretty picky and have to admit that the printed results > are way better than I have achieved with Lyson ink sets in the past. That's where the expectations management comes in to play > > > The variance in results which I have observed seems far more related to > the inkset than to the substrate. I have profiled Hahnemule Photo Rag, > Epson Photo Paper, Epson Premium Semi Gloss, Epson Archival Matte and > Iford Galerie Smooth Fine Art paper, Permajet Oyster test charts could > not be read by the Eye-One, I expect due to UV brighteners in the paper. ProfileMaker 4.1 has a feature that allows you to factor optical brighteners out of the profile, as well. John O'Donnell Technical Sales - Digital Photography Professional Graphics Systems & Services, Inc. 3 West Main Street Elmsford, NY 10701 (914) 345-3033 x34 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
