Hi Jack I changed the thread title as graybalancer applies to other printers than 2100. Your's was a 9600, therefore other users may be interested too.
jack-at-jacklowe.com (Jack Lowe)::25/6/04::7:11 pm:: GMT+0100 >On 25/6/04 17:56, Tony Riley wrote: > >> You don't need it....in fact I woould go further and say you don't >> want it! > >Hi Tony, > >Why's that? We used it for over a year before buying a RIP - suffice >to say that it really improved the performance of my 9600. > >Maybe NeilB has a moment to chip in with the technicalities of that as >he built the profiles at the time... With a standard Epson printer driver and non standard papers I always advise clients to get the printer working as well as it can before starting to print profiling charts. This means, at the very least, to test every paper and relevant driver setting to ascertain the best one. I beleive in that process to the extent that I made up a kit to make it relatively straightforward for my profiling clients who wish to do so. I've even found improvements over standard driver settings for standard papers in some cases. By this I mean you might get best results using e.g. watercolour paper setting on Epson's semi gloss paper. However, with some printers / papers they are just laying down too much ink and that can, amazingly, mean LOWER max DENSITY. After a lot of testing and experimentation in conjunction with a friend who has a 7600 used with Photorag we worked out a way of using graybalancer to ameliorate the problem. You don't need the Epson KIT (prints) to do this, just the graybalancer SW (AFAIK OS9 printer drivers only, however, not tried it for a while). It's a LOT of work and doesn't always result in an improvement. I gave up with it. One reason, Epson apparently lay down lots of light inks under an image (perhaps as a way of <smoothing> output) and that feature is not affected by graybalancing. SO - I still prefer a GOOD linearisable RIP, ideally Proofmaster, as a solution for ultimate printing quality. (I'm not talking about printing postscript, I like the linearisation part of the RIP AND the way it places inks on paper, nice clean images. And it's best for ultimate colour fidelity too, so, more accurate proofs. Unfortuntely it's a BIG investment to buy a good RIP and get it set up right so it's not really a practical consideration for a 2100. With 4000 and up I'd go for a RIP every time. Regards, Neil Barstow :: Apple Solutions Expert :: colourmanagement.net Consulting in Imaging & Colour Management, custom profiling, training, seminars implementation :: WE RESELL :- Gretag+eyeOne :: basICColor Squid, Display etc. XRite. :: GTI viewing booths :: Epson :: Proofmaster RIP + ISO Proofing solutions www.colourmanagement.net/ :: www.apple.com/uk/creative/neilbarstow/ =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
