Optimizing a profile with the Colormunki Software. Does it make it better???

[Ink stained Fingers]

thanks, that was quite an interesting and revealing exercise overall. Those little wobbles on the gray response curve are almost within measurement error and not visible in actual printouts. I must admit I have Gamutvision installed but almost never use it --- for some reason or another

 

[RogerB]

thanks, that was quite an interesting and revealing exercise overall. Those little wobbles on the gray response curve are almost within measurement error and not visible in actual printouts. I must admit I have Gamutvision installed but almost never use it --- for some reason or another

I think you may be underestimating the effect of those wobbles, at least if you believe the soft-proof. Here are the soft-proofs for the original (left) and the B&W "optimised" profiles (right).



The original is pretty good which is more than I can say for the optimised version. I wonder if the actual print would look like the soft-proof?

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

an actual print of a gray scale step chart and a measurement of the resp. lightness values should show differences between the profiles on teh gray axis , I don't think that Colormunki has a kind of a 'verify' function

 

[martin0reg]

I wonder if the actual print would look like the soft-proof?

When I print similar "radial grads" there is no such stepping like in the softproof on the left,with both profiles.


After having profiled more papers for my latest aquisition,
here is a profile (standard + 1 optimization) with targets, again for a cheap cast coated, but glossy photopaper. If some analyst wants to compare...

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

that Labelheaven paper (I assume) is really not bad for its low price, the gamuts of the profiles vary by less than 2% in volume, that does not make a visible difference.

Green and red are yours, I added my Labelheaven profile used on a R265 with pigment inks for comparison, in light blue, it is not so much different here in the lighter parts, these are the plots at L=50 where the gamut volumes have the widest horizontal extension

You see your R800 curves more extending in the lower part of the graphs specifically in the +a-b quadrant which is most likely the visible benefit of the additional red and blue inks.
This difference, this benefit is even stronger at L=25, at darker colors

where you have much better , higher saturated colors in this segment.
The dark point of your colors is at L=9, mine is at L=12 which is due to different black inks, I'm using at this time a mix of various previously used black inks of which not all have the best black level, but that's o.k. for me.

 

[martin0reg]

Thank you for analize and compare, it's indeed labelhaven.

First I tried to profile the Aldi/Sihl glossy, but while it is certainly a high quality resin coated paper, the r800 tends to puddle on this paper when printing the first target with ICM off.. the paper seems to dry not quickly enough, though I tried various settings to slow down the printer.
Too bad: this "oversupply" of ink happens only on the first target AND ICM OFF ... all other printing seems to reduce the amount of ink enough to avoid the puddling.

No such issue with lableheaven in my r800, it seems to be a very reasonable media for epson's high-gloss pigment ink. Even without GLO (which helps), the ink itself is obviously different from "normal" pigment ink. When you dilute one drop in a glass, it is less opaque, almost as translucent as dye ink (except for the matte black).

With ultrachrome K3 the same paper comes out of a 3880 with a dull surface and heavy gloss differential. Here the Aldi/Sihl looks much better, having the better coating... with dye ink it really shines, more classy less plasticky than the labelheaven (no wonder regarding the price difference)

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Finding a good combination of inks and papers is tricky and not simple, I tried as well several R1900 inks in the R265 claimed to be compatible with the Epson Higloss inks - o.k. - forget it. I used them without GO, an ink from farbenwerk was o.k., but they don't sell that version anymore....The R800/1800/1900/2000 use some special Ultrachrome Higloss (II) inks which at least in Epson marketing terms implies that they are different to the (standard)K3 etc inks. There is no reason not to use such inks as well in the Pro3880 diluting the light inks yourself, so you only would have to buy and store one set of inks.
Yes, the Sihl paper has an ink limit, that is not a drying issue but how much ink the coating can take. Try lower quality paper settings -e.g. glossy paper instead of premium glossy or ultra glossy, and don't use the RPM option. The other Aldi-Nord Paper by Netbit is better in that respect and takes more ink, that paper was in the stores again last week. But be aware - more ink does not necessarily mean more color saturation. Printing with or without the RPM option in the driver settings just makes a few % difference in the gamut volume - not worth the additional ink, and printing takes more time. Overall I agree that the Labelheaven paper is pretty good for its price, but it gets a bit more wavy than the Sihl or Netbit papers because the PE layer is missing between the coating and the paper base, and the solvent passes through to the paper base.

 

[martin0reg]

Astonishingly RPM makes a little less puddling, I guess because of slower printing .. but I found no setting with no puddle at all, with this printer on this paper. So you're right, it must be the ink limit of the paper.
Good idea to use the high gloss ink instead of K3! I will try that, not in 3880 (which OEM printing quality stands out of all my other printers) but in a R285 "convertible". Much easier to try out with a cheap set of small refillable carts.
BTW I'm using highgloss compatible ink "photochrome R8.1" from farbenwerk too, with very good results (in stock on their website) Shortly I ordered another set from precision colors for this printer, less expensiv than farbenwerk/lyson. It seems to print out well too, obviously both are the more translucent sort of pigment.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

you may try another setting in the driver for the Sihl paper, color adjustment instead of ICM off, that puts less ink onto the paper, and you can even adjust the ink amount with the color sliders , do all colors by the same amount to avoid a color shift, you can test at which settings +5 or .... you are at the threshold not yet getting ink puddles, don't use RPM, and just use that same driver setting when you print with the profile.
Try those inks in the R285 and see what you get without a gloss opt. and test different papers. The Sihl gives a pretty good gamut but I don't like the surface appearance that much, it looks pretty glossy but a tiny bit grainy at the same time. A HP premium glossy photo paper does better, Tecco A4 papers, glossy, 230gr , for the DL printers look as well better. I only can comment that pigment inks and glossy papers are difficult to select and match, it's much easier with dye inks.

 

[martin0reg]

Playing with saturation and brightnesss can help.. but I think printing targets with those settings, instead of profiling with "ICM off" which is the standard, would be a compromise. Okay, a compromise can be good or bad, perhaps it's only way to profile this certain paper in this printer.

Printer drivers should have an option to measure and set the ink limit! Printfab can do this, but my free evaluation version has just expired.. :-(