Calibrate Computer display

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.

Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?

Thanks.
26 answers Last reply
More about calibrate computer display
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Will in SF" <willinsf@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1117439241.540255.129430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
    > Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
    > see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
    > camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
    > that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >
    > Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    You need a calibration program (Monaco or Colorvision) which uses a spider
    that is suitable for an LCD screen.
    Jim
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
    > Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
    > see?

    This site may help;
    http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

    --
    Patrick
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Will in SF wrote:
    > Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    > Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    > what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    > Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
    > be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >
    > Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >
    > Thanks.

    If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor is
    *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the chain.
    This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -

    Monitor
    Printer
    Scanner (if using)
    Camera

    Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you need
    to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of media
    you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to perform
    12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.

    How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
    £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around £500.
    This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
    calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth calibration
    plates, costing around £250.

    No one said it was going to be cheap.


    --
    In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On 30 May 2005 00:47:21 -0700, "Will in SF" <willinsf@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    >Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
    >Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
    >see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
    >camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
    >that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >
    >Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >
    >Thanks.

    Yes, it's called Colour Management and to do it you need to know how
    to colour manage the system from computer to printer. A good starting
    place would a book such as PS Artistry to give you the basics of
    colour management followed by the purchase of something like the
    Gretag MacBeth Eye One to calibrate your monitor. Unfortunately, you
    won't have nearly as much control as you would with Photoshop, but it
    should get you there.

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
    you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    > Will in SF wrote:
    >
    >>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    >>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    >>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    >>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
    >>be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>
    >>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>
    >>Thanks.
    >
    >
    > If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor is
    > *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the chain.
    > This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
    >
    > Monitor
    > Printer
    > Scanner (if using)
    > Camera
    >
    > Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you need
    > to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of media
    > you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to perform
    > 12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
    >
    > How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
    > £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around £500.
    > This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
    > calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth calibration
    > plates, costing around £250.
    >
    > No one said it was going to be cheap.
    >


    LOL - for goodness sake...
    The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
    poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
    processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
    is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
    basic colour balance.
    Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    same as a screen image anyway.
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Frederick wrote:
    > Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >> Will in SF wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    >>> Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    >>> what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    >>> Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but
    >>> will be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>
    >>> Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks.
    >>
    >>
    >> If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the
    >> monitor is *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of
    >> equipment in the chain. This means you need specialist calibration
    >> equipment for your: - Monitor
    >> Printer
    >> Scanner (if using)
    >> Camera
    >>
    >> Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer,
    >> you need to perform a separate calibration for each of the different
    >> types of media you might be using (including CDs). In my case that
    >> meant I had to perform 12 separate calibrations for each of my three
    >> printers. How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it
    >> professionally up
    >> to £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for
    >> around £500. This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer
    >> and scanner. For calibrating your camera, you will need a set of
    >> Gretag Macbeth calibration plates, costing around £250.
    >>
    >> No one said it was going to be cheap.
    >>
    >
    >
    > LOL - for goodness sake...
    > The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    > ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    > by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    > Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a
    > rat's poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of
    > film they processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it
    > right. There is plenty of free software available to help you to set
    > grey-scale and basic colour balance.
    > Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    > representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    > Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    > spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    > same as a screen image anyway.

    You're an idiot, aren't you? I have the following set up: -

    Lacie 321 21.3" LCD monitor
    Pixma 8500
    R800
    i9950
    Perfection 4990
    EOS 350D

    I purchased the calibration suite I have recommended above and used it to
    calibrate all my equipment (with the exception of the monitor which was
    supplied with its own calibrator) and the prints match the screen *EXACTLY*

    Those downloads rely on the human eye which is *NOT* an accurate judge of
    colour.

    And why are you telling me that the suggestions "are not necessary and out
    of touch with your probable needs" they aren't out of touch with my needs at
    all or I wouldn't have purchased them. Tell the OP (not that you know what
    his needs are, either...)

    Yes, you can use something like Adobe Gamma to approximately calibrate your
    monitor. But, as I stated, a calibrated monitor is useless if the other
    equipment isn't calibrated either.


    --
    In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Frederick" <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1117533665.575000@ftpsrv1...
    > Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    > > Will in SF wrote:
    > >
    > >>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    > >>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    > >>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    > >>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
    > >>be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    > >>
    > >>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    > >>
    > >>Thanks.
    > >
    > >
    > > If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor
    is
    > > *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the
    chain.
    > > This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
    > >
    > > Monitor
    > > Printer
    > > Scanner (if using)
    > > Camera
    > >
    > > Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you
    need
    > > to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of
    media
    > > you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to
    perform
    > > 12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
    > >
    > > How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
    > > £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around
    £500.
    > > This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
    > > calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
    calibration
    > > plates, costing around £250.
    > >
    > > No one said it was going to be cheap.
    > >
    >
    >
    > LOL - for goodness sake...
    > The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    > ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    > by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    > Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
    > poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
    > processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
    > is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
    > basic colour balance.
    > Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    > representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    > Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    > spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    > same as a screen image anyway.
    >

    I have to agree totally with your remarks, most of these have never been a
    film proceeding lab in their lives, add to this they most likely have never
    had to correct prints done in such a lab for colour cast, or tried to get a
    good print first time from a negative using a colour analyzer.

    How easy it is to read about the equipment available for correcting monitors
    and printers and then becoming internet experts on the subject. They then
    become Legends in their lunch hour.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Will - PE2 came with Adobe Gamma which installed itself in the control
    panel. Check it out in PE3. Simple to use and, although not the thousand
    dollar solution, is reasonably accurate. I see the IP4000 on sale with
    rebates in the SF (I assume that SF stands for San Francisco and not Santa
    Fe?) area fairly frequently. I don't know about the Epson 300. Very
    different animals. Although I use and enjoy a Canon i960 (six color dye
    based printer) I would suggest that you study the pros and cons to make your
    decision about Canon or Epson. You can Google either printer and follow the
    links to the several web services that do price comparisons if you want to
    buy online. The Sunday Chronicle has sales fliers every week from Office
    Depot, Office Max, etc. and you may see one or the other of these printers
    on sale there.

    Check out Neil Slade's site at
    http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html for info on Canon printers
    (his favorites), inks, and paper. Good info before buying. Each mfgr and
    each model has pros and cons.

    "Will in SF" <willinsf@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1117439241.540255.129430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
    > Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
    > see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
    > camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
    > that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >
    > Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
    news:1J_me.2949$C72.2499@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
    > Frederick wrote:
    > > Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    > >> Will in SF wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    > >>> Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    > >>> what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    > >>> Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but
    > >>> will be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    > >>>
    > >>> Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    > >>>
    > >>> Thanks.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the
    > >> monitor is *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of
    > >> equipment in the chain. This means you need specialist calibration
    > >> equipment for your: - Monitor
    > >> Printer
    > >> Scanner (if using)
    > >> Camera
    > >>
    > >> Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer,
    > >> you need to perform a separate calibration for each of the different
    > >> types of media you might be using (including CDs). In my case that
    > >> meant I had to perform 12 separate calibrations for each of my three
    > >> printers. How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it
    > >> professionally up
    > >> to £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for
    > >> around £500. This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer
    > >> and scanner. For calibrating your camera, you will need a set of
    > >> Gretag Macbeth calibration plates, costing around £250.
    > >>
    > >> No one said it was going to be cheap.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > LOL - for goodness sake...
    > > The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    > > ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    > > by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    > > Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a
    > > rat's poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of
    > > film they processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it
    > > right. There is plenty of free software available to help you to set
    > > grey-scale and basic colour balance.
    > > Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    > > representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    > > Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    > > spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    > > same as a screen image anyway.
    >
    > You're an idiot, aren't you? I have the following set up: -
    >
    > Lacie 321 21.3" LCD monitor
    > Pixma 8500
    > R800
    > i9950
    > Perfection 4990
    > EOS 350D
    >
    > I purchased the calibration suite I have recommended above and used it to
    > calibrate all my equipment (with the exception of the monitor which was
    > supplied with its own calibrator) and the prints match the screen
    *EXACTLY*
    >
    > Those downloads rely on the human eye which is *NOT* an accurate judge of
    > colour.
    >
    > And why are you telling me that the suggestions "are not necessary and out
    > of touch with your probable needs" they aren't out of touch with my needs
    at
    > all or I wouldn't have purchased them. Tell the OP (not that you know what
    > his needs are, either...)
    >
    > Yes, you can use something like Adobe Gamma to approximately calibrate
    your
    > monitor. But, as I stated, a calibrated monitor is useless if the other
    > equipment isn't calibrated either.
    >
    >
    > --
    > In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
    >
    >

    You are talking out of a book or your arse. I will not waste my time pulling
    all of your words apart but will take you up on one single point. You talk
    about those downloads and the human eye not being able to see the correct
    colour. OK lets take an example, you have all your expensive gear set up
    for your printer to give you a colour perfect print, the print runs off and
    you view it under different lighting conditions, your perfect print is going
    to have a cast.

    Now if you view your print in the same light as processed it will look
    correct and to keep that correct you will always have to view in the same
    light. It's called Colour Temperature and Colour Temperature differs at
    different times of day and with different types of lighting. So, if digital
    photographic gear is set to auto, and that is the camera, the monitor and
    printer the chances are you will get good prints most of the time and save a
    fortune to spend on inks and paper and memory cards and enjoy digital
    photography all the more. I could send you prints printed on an Epson 2100
    with Epson photo paper and dye ink that would knock you out.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >Will - PE2 came with Adobe Gamma which installed itself in the control
    >panel. Check it out in PE3. Simple to use and, although not the thousand
    >dollar solution, is reasonably accurate. I see the IP4000 on sale with
    >rebates in the SF (I assume that SF stands for San Francisco and not Santa
    >Fe?) area fairly frequently. I don't know about the Epson 300. Very
    >different animals. Although I use and enjoy a Canon i960 (six color dye
    >based printer) I would suggest that you study the pros and cons to make your
    >decision about Canon or Epson. You can Google either printer and follow the
    >links to the several web services that do price comparisons if you want to
    >buy online. The Sunday Chronicle has sales fliers every week from Office
    >Depot, Office Max, etc. and you may see one or the other of these printers
    >on sale there. These are great places to buy inks.
    >
    >Check out Neil Slade's site at
    >http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html for info on Canon printers
    >(his favorites), inks, and paper. Good info before buying. Each mfgr and
    >each model has pros and cons.
    >
    >"Will in SF" <willinsf@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >news:1117439241.540255.129430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >
    >>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
    >>Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
    >>see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
    >>camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
    >>that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>
    >>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>
    >>Thanks.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Will in SF" <willinsf@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:1117439241.540255.129430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
    > Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
    > see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
    > camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
    > that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >
    > Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >
    > Thanks.
    >

    Hi there.

    Some slightly overheated discussion going on here again. At least it shows
    that people are committed to doing things right and getting others to do
    likewise.

    However you all seem to have missed one little but very important detail, it
    is a Sony VAIO. I have used one of these and from what I could see there
    was no way of adjusting any of the display settings.

    Adobe Gamma could do nothing on the one I was using. ( I am aware that it is
    not recommended for Flat Panels)

    Perhaps an Eye One might be able to write a proper Monitor Profile, but I
    would doubt if that would be of much help.

    Changing from 9500 K to 6500 K using a Profile in Color Managed software,
    like Photoshop, is going to make the display more than a little dull.

    Roy G
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:KE6ne.900$wy1.600@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    > Burt wrote:
    >
    >>Will - PE2 came with Adobe Gamma which installed itself in the control
    >>panel. Check it out in PE3. Simple to use and, although not the thousand
    >>dollar solution, is reasonably accurate. I see the IP4000 on sale with
    >>rebates in the SF (I assume that SF stands for San Francisco and not Santa
    >>Fe?) area fairly frequently. I don't know about the Epson 300. Very
    >>different animals. Although I use and enjoy a Canon i960 (six color dye
    >>based printer) I would suggest that you study the pros and cons to make
    >>your decision about Canon or Epson. You can Google either printer and
    >>follow the links to the several web services that do price comparisons if
    >>you want to buy online. The Sunday Chronicle has sales fliers every week
    >>from Office Depot, Office Max, etc. and you may see one or the other of
    >>these printers on sale there.

    Again, Measekite changed my post to include his bias as follows - These are
    great places to buy inks. - not my words. I can't believe that he would
    waste his time just trying to be annoying to someone he doesn't even know.
    He has a serious character flaw that has come out very clearly with his
    postings to this NG.

    I didn't mention inks as the OP didn't ask about them. Yes, Measekite,
    they are good places to buy OEM inks, but generally terrible places to buy
    non-OEM inks. If you want me to write a few long paragraphs that tell the
    truth about aftermarket inks, and more important, the truth about the lack
    of veracity of your posts to this NG I will be glad to comply. Again you
    produce the exact opposite of what you are trying to do. By bringing up the
    ink issue you expose more and more people to that fact that aftermarket inks
    exist and that several of them and the vendors who sell them are excellent.
    The ones I have used produce prints every bit as beautiful as OEM inks at a
    fraction of the cost. Without your stupid response I wouldn't have even
    brought up the subject. MIS and Alotofthings thank you.
    >>
    >>Check out Neil Slade's site at
    >>http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html for info on Canon
    >>printers (his favorites), inks, and paper. Good info before buying. Each
    >>mfgr and each model has pros and cons.
    >>
    >>"Will in SF" <willinsf@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>news:1117439241.540255.129430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
    >>>Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
    >>>see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
    >>>camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
    >>>that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>
    >>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>
    >>>Thanks.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Burt wrote:

    >"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    >news:KE6ne.900$wy1.600@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    >
    >
    >>Burt wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Will - PE2 came with Adobe Gamma which installed itself in the control
    >>>panel. Check it out in PE3. Simple to use and, although not the thousand
    >>>dollar solution, is reasonably accurate. I see the IP4000 on sale with
    >>>rebates in the SF (I assume that SF stands for San Francisco and not Santa
    >>>Fe?) area fairly frequently. I don't know about the Epson 300. Very
    >>>different animals. Although I use and enjoy a Canon i960 (six color dye
    >>>based printer) I would suggest that you study the pros and cons to make
    >>>your decision about Canon or Epson. You can Google either printer and
    >>>follow the links to the several web services that do price comparisons if
    >>>you want to buy online. The Sunday Chronicle has sales fliers every week
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>from Office Depot, Office Max, etc. and you may see one or the other of
    >>
    >>
    >>>these printers on sale there. Great place to buy ink too.
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >Again, Measekite changed my post to include his bias as follows - These are
    >great places to buy inks. - not my words. I can't believe that he would
    >waste his time just trying to be annoying to someone he doesn't even know.
    >He has a serious character flaw that has come out very clearly with his
    >postings to this NG.
    >
    > I didn't mention inks as the OP didn't ask about them. Yes, Measekite,
    >they are good places to buy OEM inks, but generally terrible places to buy terrible
    >non-OEM inks. If you want me to write a few long paragraphs that tell the
    >truth about aftermarket inks, and more important, the truth about the lack
    >of veracity of your posts to this NG I will be glad to comply. Again you
    >produce the exact opposite of what you are trying to do. By bringing up the
    >ink issue you expose more and more people to that fact that aftermarket inks
    >exist and that very few of them and the vendors who sell them are excellent.
    >The ones I have used produce prints every bit as beautiful as OEM inks at a
    >fraction of the cost. Without your stupid response I wouldn't have even
    >brought up the subject. MIS and alotofcrap thank you.
    >
    >
    >>>Check out Neil Slade's site at
    >>>http://www.neilslade.com/papers/inkjetstuff.html for info on Canon
    >>>printers (his favorites), inks, and paper. Good info before buying. Each
    >>>mfgr and each model has pros and cons.
    >>>
    >>>"Will in SF" <willinsf@comcast.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:1117439241.540255.129430@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my Sony
    >>>>Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as what I
    >>>>see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony Cybershot
    >>>>camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will be changing
    >>>>that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>>
    >>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >
    >
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:0f7ne.908$wy1.298@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

    Burt wrote
    >>>Again, Measekite changed my post to include his bias as follows - These
    >>>are
    >>great places to buy inks. - not my words. I can't believe that he would
    >>waste his time just trying to be annoying to someone he doesn't even know.
    >>He has a serious character flaw that has come out very clearly with his
    >>postings to this NG.
    >>
    >> I didn't mention inks as the OP didn't ask about them. Yes, Measekite,
    >> they are good places to buy OEM inks, but generally terrible places to
    >> buy [terrible]
    >>non-OEM inks. If you want me to write a few long paragraphs that tell the
    >>truth about aftermarket inks, and more important, the truth about the lack
    >>of veracity of your posts to this NG I will be glad to comply. Again you
    >>produce the exact opposite of what you are trying to do. By bringing up
    >>the ink issue you expose more and more people to that fact that
    >>aftermarket inks exist and that [very few] of them and the vendors who
    >>sell them are excellent. The ones I have used produce prints every bit as
    >>beautiful as OEM inks at a fraction of the cost. Without your stupid
    >>response I wouldn't have even brought up the subject. MIS and
    >>[alotofcrap] thank you. <------

    Brackeded words were added or substituted by Measekite to change what I had
    written. As dishonest an approach as anyone can have on this NG. He
    insists on slandering alotofthings by calling them alotofcrap, a vendor that
    many others have found honest and reliable. He's never done business with
    them or used their products but he continues to call them names. Probably
    the best advertising they could have as everyone on the NG knows that
    Measekite's information on these vendors and their products is bogus.
    And --- right on cue, he will pull the same garbage again in responding to
    this post. The poor fool always feels that he has to have the last word.
    As if that makes his point more believable. Measekite - the more you
    continue on this path the less people believe you!
    >>
    (snip)
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    > Frederick wrote:
    >
    >>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >>
    >>>Will in SF wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    >>>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    >>>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    >>>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but
    >>>>will be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>>
    >>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the
    >>>monitor is *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of
    >>>equipment in the chain. This means you need specialist calibration
    >>>equipment for your: - Monitor
    >>>Printer
    >>>Scanner (if using)
    >>>Camera
    >>>
    >>>Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer,
    >>>you need to perform a separate calibration for each of the different
    >>>types of media you might be using (including CDs). In my case that
    >>>meant I had to perform 12 separate calibrations for each of my three
    >>>printers. How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it
    >>>professionally up
    >>>to £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for
    >>>around £500. This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer
    >>>and scanner. For calibrating your camera, you will need a set of
    >>>Gretag Macbeth calibration plates, costing around £250.
    >>>
    >>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>LOL - for goodness sake...
    >>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    >>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    >>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    >>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a
    >>rat's poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of
    >>film they processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it
    >>right. There is plenty of free software available to help you to set
    >>grey-scale and basic colour balance.
    >>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    >>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    >>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    >>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    >>same as a screen image anyway.
    >
    >
    > You're an idiot, aren't you? I have the following set up: -

    Read my post properly, and ask yourself who the idiot is.

    > Lacie 321 21.3" LCD monitor
    > Pixma 8500
    > R800
    > i9950
    > Perfection 4990
    > EOS 350D
    >
    > I purchased the calibration suite I have recommended above and used it to
    > calibrate all my equipment (with the exception of the monitor which was
    > supplied with its own calibrator) and the prints match the screen *EXACTLY*
    >
    > Those downloads rely on the human eye which is *NOT* an accurate judge of
    > colour.
    >
    > And why are you telling me that the suggestions "are not necessary and out
    > of touch with your probable needs" they aren't out of touch with my needs at
    > all or I wouldn't have purchased them. Tell the OP (not that you know what
    > his needs are, either...)
    >
    > Yes, you can use something like Adobe Gamma to approximately calibrate your
    > monitor. But, as I stated, a calibrated monitor is useless if the other
    > equipment isn't calibrated either.
    >
    >
    The OP is using a laptop, a sony cybershot, and plans to buy a IP300 or
    Epson 300 printer.
    I'm not telling you what to do at all. If you need something as
    critical as you have put the time and money towards, then good on you.
    Using something like Adobe Gamma should be adequate for the OP, and is
    adequate for most people. If you plan to do commercial product shots,
    art reproduction etc, and use a wide range of papers, then it will
    probably not be enough. If you are just very fussy, you might want to
    do it too.
    For the purpose of printing your own photos - and expecting reasonably
    accurate control of colour - to the extent that your results will be
    better than most normal people achieved from a photo lab - is quite
    achievable.
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:
    > "Frederick" <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1117533665.575000@ftpsrv1...
    >
    >>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >>
    >>>Will in SF wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    >>>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    >>>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    >>>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
    >>>>be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>>
    >>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor
    >
    > is
    >
    >>>*NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the
    >
    > chain.
    >
    >>>This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
    >>>
    >>>Monitor
    >>>Printer
    >>>Scanner (if using)
    >>>Camera
    >>>
    >>>Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you
    >
    > need
    >
    >>>to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of
    >
    > media
    >
    >>>you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to
    >
    > perform
    >
    >>>12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
    >>>
    >>>How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
    >>>£7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around
    >
    > £500.
    >
    >>>This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
    >>>calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
    >
    > calibration
    >
    >>>plates, costing around £250.
    >>>
    >>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>LOL - for goodness sake...
    >>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    >>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    >>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    >>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
    >>poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
    >>processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
    >>is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
    >>basic colour balance.
    >>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    >>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    >>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    >>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    >>same as a screen image anyway.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I have to agree totally with your remarks, most of these have never been a
    > film proceeding lab in their lives, add to this they most likely have never
    > had to correct prints done in such a lab for colour cast, or tried to get a
    > good print first time from a negative using a colour analyzer.
    >
    > How easy it is to read about the equipment available for correcting monitors
    > and printers and then becoming internet experts on the subject. They then
    > become Legends in their lunch hour.
    >
    >
    Thank you.
    I use DSLR equipment with good quality lenses, and now print using an
    Epson R1800 on a range of papers. I use an average quality crt monitor,
    calibrated by eye/software. I have had years of experience in the
    printing industry where the search for accurate colour reproduction is
    so critical that it is absurd. Perhaps I have become a cynic. The fact
    that the most anally critical clients were cigarette companies has added
    to my cynicism.
    I do not do fine art reproduction, nor product shoots. I consistently
    produce photo prints that are incomparably better than anything a lab
    has ever done for me.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    For me, the bottom line is do you want the most accurate colors relative to
    the subject photographed, or do you want a print that is very close in color
    match and pleasing to your eye. In this regard, some people like more color
    intensity and some less. Some like slightly warmer skin tones and some
    less. This takes me back to the days of Kodachrome 10 ASA slide film -
    very pleasing slides but very saturated colors. Then we had the big jump in
    ASA to Ektachrome ASA 25! Colder color response - stronger toward the blue
    spectrum. Each film brought its own slightly different color values.
    Nonetheless, all produced pleasing results. Finally we had pro packs of
    color print film in 120 and 35 mm formats so we were able to shoot a
    standard color card with a controlled light source as an index of the
    specific batch of film and the print lab was then able to compensate for any
    differences in the emulsion batch or storage variance (these films had to be
    "aged" for a short while on the shelf and kept at correct storage
    temperatures) to give the most accurate color prints. I photographed
    several artists' works for their portfolios and the prints had to be as
    close to the original as possible. This was all custom lab work.

    Fast forward to current digital cameras, different brands and types of
    monitors, different brands and models of printers, and a tremendous variety
    of photo and fine arts papers, each with its own required profile for the
    combination of ink and paper used. If I were to do the same portfolios
    today I would need to use sophisticated calibration techniques on all the
    equipment, but if the work of art that had been photographed was near at
    hand I could also compare the print to the original and immediately product
    a tweaked print. In the real world, if we are just trying to produce a
    highly pleasing picture that is reasonably accurate, color-wise, we do quite
    well flying by the seat of our pantswith minimal calibration..
    "Frederick" <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1117581573.811611@ftpsrv1...
    > Shooter wrote:
    >> "Frederick" <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:1117533665.575000@ftpsrv1...
    >>
    >>>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Will in SF wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    >>>>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    >>>>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    >>>>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
    >>>>>be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor
    >>
    >> is
    >>
    >>>>*NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the
    >>
    >> chain.
    >>
    >>>>This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
    >>>>
    >>>>Monitor
    >>>>Printer
    >>>>Scanner (if using)
    >>>>Camera
    >>>>
    >>>>Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you
    >>
    >> need
    >>
    >>>>to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of
    >>
    >> media
    >>
    >>>>you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to
    >>
    >> perform
    >>
    >>>>12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
    >>>>
    >>>>How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
    >>>>£7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around
    >>
    >> £500.
    >>
    >>>>This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
    >>>>calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
    >>
    >> calibration
    >>
    >>>>plates, costing around £250.
    >>>>
    >>>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>LOL - for goodness sake...
    >>>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    >>>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    >>>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    >>>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
    >>>poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
    >>>processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
    >>>is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
    >>>basic colour balance.
    >>>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    >>>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    >>>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    >>>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    >>>same as a screen image anyway.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> I have to agree totally with your remarks, most of these have never been
    >> a
    >> film proceeding lab in their lives, add to this they most likely have
    >> never
    >> had to correct prints done in such a lab for colour cast, or tried to get
    >> a
    >> good print first time from a negative using a colour analyzer.
    >>
    >> How easy it is to read about the equipment available for correcting
    >> monitors
    >> and printers and then becoming internet experts on the subject. They then
    >> become Legends in their lunch hour.
    >>
    >>
    > Thank you.
    > I use DSLR equipment with good quality lenses, and now print using an
    > Epson R1800 on a range of papers. I use an average quality crt monitor,
    > calibrated by eye/software. I have had years of experience in the
    > printing industry where the search for accurate colour reproduction is so
    > critical that it is absurd. Perhaps I have become a cynic. The fact that
    > the most anally critical clients were cigarette companies has added to my
    > cynicism.
    > I do not do fine art reproduction, nor product shoots. I consistently
    > produce photo prints that are incomparably better than anything a lab has
    > ever done for me.
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Federick, I see you are using the R1800, is it true Epson have got rid of
    Bronzing that is present with the 2100 or is it still there but reduced, I
    was considering the printer to use with dye ink to get the better resolution
    but if there is no sign of bronzing I may stay with the pigmented.


    "Frederick" <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1117581573.811611@ftpsrv1...
    > Shooter wrote:
    > > "Frederick" <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1117533665.575000@ftpsrv1...
    > >
    > >>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Will in SF wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    > >>>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    > >>>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    > >>>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
    > >>>>be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Thanks.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor
    > >
    > > is
    > >
    > >>>*NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the
    > >
    > > chain.
    > >
    > >>>This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
    > >>>
    > >>>Monitor
    > >>>Printer
    > >>>Scanner (if using)
    > >>>Camera
    > >>>
    > >>>Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you
    > >
    > > need
    > >
    > >>>to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of
    > >
    > > media
    > >
    > >>>you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to
    > >
    > > perform
    > >
    > >>>12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
    > >>>
    > >>>How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
    > >>>£7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around
    > >
    > > £500.
    > >
    > >>>This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner.
    For
    > >>>calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
    > >
    > > calibration
    > >
    > >>>plates, costing around £250.
    > >>>
    > >>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>LOL - for goodness sake...
    > >>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    > >>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    > >>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    > >>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
    > >>poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
    > >>processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
    > >>is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
    > >>basic colour balance.
    > >>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    > >>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    > >>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    > >>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    > >>same as a screen image anyway.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > I have to agree totally with your remarks, most of these have never been
    a
    > > film proceeding lab in their lives, add to this they most likely have
    never
    > > had to correct prints done in such a lab for colour cast, or tried to
    get a
    > > good print first time from a negative using a colour analyzer.
    > >
    > > How easy it is to read about the equipment available for correcting
    monitors
    > > and printers and then becoming internet experts on the subject. They
    then
    > > become Legends in their lunch hour.
    > >
    > >
    > Thank you.
    > I use DSLR equipment with good quality lenses, and now print using an
    > Epson R1800 on a range of papers. I use an average quality crt monitor,
    > calibrated by eye/software. I have had years of experience in the
    > printing industry where the search for accurate colour reproduction is
    > so critical that it is absurd. Perhaps I have become a cynic. The fact
    > that the most anally critical clients were cigarette companies has added
    > to my cynicism.
    > I do not do fine art reproduction, nor product shoots. I consistently
    > produce photo prints that are incomparably better than anything a lab
    > has ever done for me.
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:

    > You're an idiot, aren't you?
    >

    You really can't help yourself, can you? Is it a medical condition,
    like Tourette's syndrome? Or do you honestly believe being abusive to
    everyone you respond to makes your information more likely to be read
    and observed?

    Maybe you already have too many friends and want to make sure to
    alienate any potential new ones. Or maybe it's something you learned in
    childhood from parents that were constantly berating you.

    Perhaps it's some kind of "class" thing, although I'm not sure if you
    are trying to be elitist to show yourself upper class, or just plain
    foul-mouthed and ill tempered.

    You're not an idiot, but you certainly come off as a lout, and pretty
    much everything you type after your first introductory couple of words I
    expect for most just is ignored because the packaging is so unattractive.

    Art
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:
    > Federick, I see you are using the R1800, is it true Epson have got rid of
    > Bronzing that is present with the 2100 or is it still there but reduced, I
    > was considering the printer to use with dye ink to get the better resolution
    > but if there is no sign of bronzing I may stay with the pigmented.
    >
    There is no bronzing at all if you use gloss / semi-gloss paper with the
    gloss optimiser. I haven't tried it without (I haven't looked - but I'm
    sure that there's an option to turn it off). I have only run a few test
    prints off on full glossy paper, and they look fine - with the comment
    that although the gloss level across the print is even, it is slightly
    reduced on the printed area compared with an unprinted border. I don't
    see this with semi-gloss unless I look so closely that it is irrelevant.
    If that was a concern, then I think you can set the printer to apply the
    GO over the border as well as the printed area. My preference so far is
    either the Epson premium semi-gloss, or Lyson darkroom pearl, which both
    look absolutely stunning. But I haven't tried a huge range of media
    yet. Archival Matte prints are also stunning.

    I think that the new "K3" pigment inks on the upcoming R2400 may offer
    no bronzing without gloss optimiser. It will be quite a bit more
    expensive than the R1800, and will produce better B&W - with three black
    cartridges. Unfortunately, there are two "deep black" cartridges, one
    for gloss and one for matte, which will require a cartridge change and
    no doubt an ink flush when changing papers.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Frederick wrote:

    > Shooter wrote:
    >
    >> Federick, I see you are using the R1800, is it true Epson have got
    >> rid of
    >> Bronzing that is present with the 2100 or is it still there but
    >> reduced, I
    >> was considering the printer to use with dye ink to get the better
    >> resolution
    >> but if there is no sign of bronzing I may stay with the pigmented.
    >>
    > There is no bronzing at all if you use gloss / semi-gloss paper with
    > the gloss optimiser. I haven't tried it without (I haven't looked -
    > but I'm sure that there's an option to turn it off). I have only run
    > a few test prints off on full glossy paper, and they look fine - with
    > the comment that although the gloss level across the print is even, it
    > is slightly reduced on the printed area compared with an unprinted
    > border. I don't see this with semi-gloss unless I look so closely
    > that it is irrelevant.
    > If that was a concern, then I think you can set the printer to apply
    > the GO over the border as well as the printed area. My preference so
    > far is either the Epson premium semi-gloss, or Lyson darkroom pearl,
    > which both look absolutely stunning. But I haven't tried a huge range
    > of media yet. Archival Matte prints are also stunning.
    >
    > I think that the new "K3" pigment inks on the upcoming R2400 may offer
    > no bronzing without gloss optimiser. It will be quite a bit more
    > expensive than the R1800, and will produce better B&W - with three
    > black cartridges. Unfortunately, there are two "deep black"
    > cartridges, one for gloss and one for matte, which will require a
    > cartridge change and no doubt an ink flush when changing papers.


    That is a big pain in the ass. Similar to the same pain in the ass on
    some HP printers.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    measekite wrote:

    >
    >
    > Frederick wrote:
    >
    >> Shooter wrote:
    >>
    >>> Federick, I see you are using the R1800, is it true Epson have got
    >>> rid of
    >>> Bronzing that is present with the 2100 or is it still there but
    >>> reduced, I
    >>> was considering the printer to use with dye ink to get the better
    >>> resolution
    >>> but if there is no sign of bronzing I may stay with the pigmented.
    >>>
    >> There is no bronzing at all if you use gloss / semi-gloss paper with
    >> the gloss optimiser. I haven't tried it without (I haven't looked -
    >> but I'm sure that there's an option to turn it off). I have only run
    >> a few test prints off on full glossy paper, and they look fine - with
    >> the comment that although the gloss level across the print is even, it
    >> is slightly reduced on the printed area compared with an unprinted
    >> border. I don't see this with semi-gloss unless I look so closely
    >> that it is irrelevant.
    >> If that was a concern, then I think you can set the printer to apply
    >> the GO over the border as well as the printed area. My preference so
    >> far is either the Epson premium semi-gloss, or Lyson darkroom pearl,
    >> which both look absolutely stunning. But I haven't tried a huge range
    >> of media yet. Archival Matte prints are also stunning.
    >>
    >> I think that the new "K3" pigment inks on the upcoming R2400 may offer
    >> no bronzing without gloss optimiser. It will be quite a bit more
    >> expensive than the R1800, and will produce better B&W - with three
    >> black cartridges. Unfortunately, there are two "deep black"
    >> cartridges, one for gloss and one for matte, which will require a
    >> cartridge change and no doubt an ink flush when changing papers.
    >
    >
    >
    > That is a big pain in the ass. Similar to the same pain in the ass on
    > some HP printers.

    For the home user it certainly is. A professional user might have
    several printers dedicated to particular uses and have a controlled
    workflow, so this may not be such an issue. Unless you want to do B&W
    seriously, it appears that an R1800 may be a better value choice for
    home users / serious amateur photographers.
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Well, I don't agree, and I ran several print processing labs.

    Depending on the process we were using, and the printers involved,
    different tact was taken.

    I've worked everything from customized prints produced from an enlarger
    with a color pack or dichroic filter set, to a fully computerized
    commercial printers. They all require color management, both in terms
    of chemically and light.

    The color paper itself is all rated differently from the factory, with
    filter factors. Then each lamp, as a light source, has to be calibrated
    for color and as it ages, that needs to be altered. We did this twice a
    day. Each film base requires differing starting filter packs, or
    channels, and finally, depending on the lighting used, or color failure
    that may occur, or how old the film was and how it was stored,
    alterations of the adjustments had to be made in the exposure and color
    pack per roll and per image. Although many images fell into reasonable
    averages, each and every negative was viewed and evaluated prior to
    printing. Beyond that, yet another inconsistency was the chemistry,
    Although tests were done several times a day, replenishment rates and
    temperature fluctuations altered how prints responded to the chemistry,
    and the film processing itself was also altered by those factors, which
    then altered the printing characteristics. Even with all that, we still
    had "redos" because the human print evaluator can only guess at skin
    tones, and other aspects of exposure and color and until the client sees
    the result, one can't be sure it's to their liking.

    Good color management can be both costly and time consuming, and
    although one can get much closer in a digital "darkroom" because you get
    to see the results immediately without you or the print needing to be in
    pitch darkness during the print making process, getting the work flow to
    run smoothly may involve some expense and time.

    If close enough is good enough, and you don't mind wasting ink and
    paper, you can do OK without major color management products. For a
    time efficient workflow as required in a commercial setting, color
    management products have their place.

    Art

    Shooter wrote:

    > "Frederick" <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1117533665.575000@ftpsrv1...
    >
    >>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >>
    >>>Will in SF wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    >>>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    >>>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    >>>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
    >>>>be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>>
    >>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>>
    >>>>Thanks.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor
    >
    > is
    >
    >>>*NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the
    >
    > chain.
    >
    >>>This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
    >>>
    >>>Monitor
    >>>Printer
    >>>Scanner (if using)
    >>>Camera
    >>>
    >>>Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you
    >
    > need
    >
    >>>to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of
    >
    > media
    >
    >>>you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to
    >
    > perform
    >
    >>>12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
    >>>
    >>>How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
    >>>£7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around
    >
    > £500.
    >
    >>>This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner. For
    >>>calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
    >
    > calibration
    >
    >>>plates, costing around £250.
    >>>
    >>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>LOL - for goodness sake...
    >>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    >>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    >>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    >>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
    >>poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
    >>processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
    >>is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
    >>basic colour balance.
    >>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    >>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    >>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    >>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    >>same as a screen image anyway.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I have to agree totally with your remarks, most of these have never been a
    > film proceeding lab in their lives, add to this they most likely have never
    > had to correct prints done in such a lab for colour cast, or tried to get a
    > good print first time from a negative using a colour analyzer.
    >
    > How easy it is to read about the equipment available for correcting monitors
    > and printers and then becoming internet experts on the subject. They then
    > become Legends in their lunch hour.
    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    The issue of color temperature of the viewing situation is a bit of a
    red herring. That's true of every image viewed in light. Your slide
    projectors aren't color corrected for color temperature either.

    Now, metamerism is one matter, and that's a big problem, but color
    temperature of lighting is quite another. Our eyes (and our brain)
    adapt to changes of color temperature all the time. That's why after a
    short period of time, a sunset looks more muted than it did when you
    first look at it. It's why your "red" light B&W darkroom doesn't look
    red after several minutes, but when you leave everything looks green
    outside. The cones of our eyes produce chemicals to adjust for color
    temperature. Unless the lighting source is literally lacking a whole
    part of the spectrum, the print will look "close" to the same in
    differing lighting.

    Certainly, there is value in printing to a known light source, if that
    is the case, and it also makes sense to evaluate the output under as
    close to natural daylight (about 5500 degree K, with a high CRI) but
    let's not excuse poor color management due to the fact that we never
    know what light source an image will be viewed.

    Now, having said all this, I don't use color management in my closed
    loop printing situation. I have a very trained eye for color. I've been
    at it for all my life as a photographer, photo lab tech manager and
    artist, and I've learned a lot of the quirks of the drivers, inks and
    papers, but that's in a closed loop. I know damn well if I bring my
    work to another printer I'll likely have trouble, unless they have a
    calibrated system and a sense of what I'm after.

    I will agree that working with a LCD screen one likely has so much
    variation of color and or exposure just by moving one's head around that
    all the calibration in the world won't fix it.

    So, for closed loop systems were people are happen with "pretty close"
    and don't mind having an occasional reprint, or an occasional print that
    just can't be gotten "right" using just Adobe Gamma and playing with the
    driver settings may be enough for 95% of the prints most people do,
    without the cost of a calibration puck. If, however, you are sharing
    files between one another and those need to be printed in differing
    locations and have to match, then, a color calibration system is in order.

    Art

    Shooter wrote:

    > "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
    > news:1J_me.2949$C72.2499@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
    >
    >>Frederick wrote:
    >>
    >>>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Will in SF wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    >>>>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    >>>>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    >>>>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but
    >>>>>will be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the
    >>>>monitor is *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of
    >>>>equipment in the chain. This means you need specialist calibration
    >>>>equipment for your: - Monitor
    >>>>Printer
    >>>>Scanner (if using)
    >>>>Camera
    >>>>
    >>>>Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer,
    >>>>you need to perform a separate calibration for each of the different
    >>>>types of media you might be using (including CDs). In my case that
    >>>>meant I had to perform 12 separate calibrations for each of my three
    >>>>printers. How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it
    >>>>professionally up
    >>>>to £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for
    >>>>around £500. This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer
    >>>>and scanner. For calibrating your camera, you will need a set of
    >>>>Gretag Macbeth calibration plates, costing around £250.
    >>>>
    >>>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>LOL - for goodness sake...
    >>>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    >>>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    >>>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    >>>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a
    >>>rat's poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of
    >>>film they processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it
    >>>right. There is plenty of free software available to help you to set
    >>>grey-scale and basic colour balance.
    >>>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    >>>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    >>>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    >>>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    >>>same as a screen image anyway.
    >>
    >>You're an idiot, aren't you? I have the following set up: -
    >>
    >>Lacie 321 21.3" LCD monitor
    >>Pixma 8500
    >>R800
    >>i9950
    >>Perfection 4990
    >>EOS 350D
    >>
    >>I purchased the calibration suite I have recommended above and used it to
    >>calibrate all my equipment (with the exception of the monitor which was
    >>supplied with its own calibrator) and the prints match the screen
    >
    > *EXACTLY*
    >
    >>Those downloads rely on the human eye which is *NOT* an accurate judge of
    >>colour.
    >>
    >>And why are you telling me that the suggestions "are not necessary and out
    >>of touch with your probable needs" they aren't out of touch with my needs
    >
    > at
    >
    >>all or I wouldn't have purchased them. Tell the OP (not that you know what
    >>his needs are, either...)
    >>
    >>Yes, you can use something like Adobe Gamma to approximately calibrate
    >
    > your
    >
    >>monitor. But, as I stated, a calibrated monitor is useless if the other
    >>equipment isn't calibrated either.
    >>
    >>
    >>--
    >>In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > You are talking out of a book or your arse. I will not waste my time pulling
    > all of your words apart but will take you up on one single point. You talk
    > about those downloads and the human eye not being able to see the correct
    > colour. OK lets take an example, you have all your expensive gear set up
    > for your printer to give you a colour perfect print, the print runs off and
    > you view it under different lighting conditions, your perfect print is going
    > to have a cast.
    >
    > Now if you view your print in the same light as processed it will look
    > correct and to keep that correct you will always have to view in the same
    > light. It's called Colour Temperature and Colour Temperature differs at
    > different times of day and with different types of lighting. So, if digital
    > photographic gear is set to auto, and that is the camera, the monitor and
    > printer the chances are you will get good prints most of the time and save a
    > fortune to spend on inks and paper and memory cards and enjoy digital
    > photography all the more. I could send you prints printed on an Epson 2100
    > with Epson photo paper and dye ink that would knock you out.
    >
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    And, Frederick, you have a well trained eye, which grants you that
    skill. You recognize when an image is too blue, and that its not too
    magenta, while most people can't tell which it is.

    The c.m. tools help people who don't have the ability to easily adjust
    the image correctly. For them, the cost of having the computer tell
    them how to get the best print might be worth the expense. I'm not
    saying it is, but it might be. The time and material waste may justify
    several hundreds of dollars worth of color management hardware and software.

    It is sometimes hard to see how the rest of the world sees ;-)

    Art

    Frederick wrote:

    > Shooter wrote:
    >
    >> "Frederick" <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:1117533665.575000@ftpsrv1...
    >>
    >>> Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Will in SF wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
    >>>>> Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
    >>>>> what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
    >>>>> Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but will
    >>>>> be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the monitor
    >>
    >>
    >> is
    >>
    >>>> *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of equipment in the
    >>
    >>
    >> chain.
    >>
    >>>> This means you need specialist calibration equipment for your: -
    >>>>
    >>>> Monitor
    >>>> Printer
    >>>> Scanner (if using)
    >>>> Camera
    >>>>
    >>>> Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer, you
    >>
    >>
    >> need
    >>
    >>>> to perform a separate calibration for each of the different types of
    >>
    >>
    >> media
    >>
    >>>> you might be using (including CDs). In my case that meant I had to
    >>
    >>
    >> perform
    >>
    >>>> 12 separate calibrations for each of my three printers.
    >>>>
    >>>> How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it professionally up to
    >>>> £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for around
    >>
    >>
    >> £500.
    >>
    >>>> This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer and scanner.
    >>>> For
    >>>> calibrating your camera, you will need a set of Gretag Macbeth
    >>
    >>
    >> calibration
    >>
    >>>> plates, costing around £250.
    >>>>
    >>>> No one said it was going to be cheap.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> LOL - for goodness sake...
    >>> The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
    >>> ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
    >>> by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
    >>> Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a rat's
    >>> poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of film they
    >>> processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it right. There
    >>> is plenty of free software available to help you to set grey-scale and
    >>> basic colour balance.
    >>> Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
    >>> representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
    >>> Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
    >>> spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
    >>> same as a screen image anyway.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> I have to agree totally with your remarks, most of these have never
    >> been a
    >> film proceeding lab in their lives, add to this they most likely have
    >> never
    >> had to correct prints done in such a lab for colour cast, or tried to
    >> get a
    >> good print first time from a negative using a colour analyzer.
    >>
    >> How easy it is to read about the equipment available for correcting
    >> monitors
    >> and printers and then becoming internet experts on the subject. They then
    >> become Legends in their lunch hour.
    >>
    >>
    > Thank you.
    > I use DSLR equipment with good quality lenses, and now print using an
    > Epson R1800 on a range of papers. I use an average quality crt monitor,
    > calibrated by eye/software. I have had years of experience in the
    > printing industry where the search for accurate colour reproduction is
    > so critical that it is absurd. Perhaps I have become a cynic. The fact
    > that the most anally critical clients were cigarette companies has added
    > to my cynicism.
    > I do not do fine art reproduction, nor product shoots. I consistently
    > produce photo prints that are incomparably better than anything a lab
    > has ever done for me.
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 23:53:22 +1200, Frederick
    <nomailplease@nomail.com> wrote:


    >I think that the new "K3" pigment inks on the upcoming R2400 may offer
    >no bronzing without gloss optimiser. It will be quite a bit more
    >expensive than the R1800, and will produce better B&W - with three black
    >cartridges. Unfortunately, there are two "deep black" cartridges, one
    >for gloss and one for matte, which will require a cartridge change and
    >no doubt an ink flush when changing papers.

    Actually changed somewhat. It only requires an ink flush on the black
    cartridge.,

    --

    Hecate - The Real One
    Hecate@newsguy.com
    Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
    you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Peripherals