P900 Premium glosssy paper not enough patches or fake Epson ink?

[Ink stained Fingers]

Let me adress an issue with your profile which may or may not be related to the problem in the dark blue area, there is a small inconsistency at the yellow corner

There is a irregularity at the yellow corner, the display may not match exactly the table values of the profile but I know from other similar tests that MonacoGamutWorks is more susceptible to such inconsistencies than other gamut viewers - like Gamutvision - iccview.de - barely showing anything. There is an issue with the monotony of the table data - this can have lots of different reasons - but this issue would not be visible in printouts I'm pretty sure

- it could be a scan/read error, and rescanning eliminates the kinky profile corner

- or there is a problem with the spectrometer reading wrong data - which can be caused by bronzing effects of the paper/ink combination - and the problem goes away if you change the position of the spectro slightly - tilting the spectro by a few degrees - e.g. lifting an i1Pro spectro slightly on an i1iO table. If such action gives you different scan data you are victim of a bronzing effect, it can ge worse with lustre - semiglossy like paper surfaces. XRite offers the i1Pro3 with polarized light for this reason . You may compare scan data with an I1Pro and the i1iSys scanner which may deliver different readings as well.

I was testing the effects of a gloss optimizer longer time ago - such GO takes away virtually all such bronzing effects and increases the overall gamut significantly including a better/darker black level.

This let me come to the assumption that your weak dark blue could be a problem that your spectro is measuring some bronzing light as well which distorts the profile in that range.




-

 

[Smile]

Can I ask where such unit can be purchased ? - I killed already one unit - I probably created too many profiles...........

As you know X-rite did not develop anything, their spectrometers are released with rev A as first but usable with at least rev D. Their XRGA standard is a scam is a way tactics to turn attention from the fact that they slept under a rock for few years manufacturing spectrometers that did not measure same color same way, because initially the company was called GretagMacbeth, Swiss company. Made in only one factory in Switzerland.

Later when they started manufacturing in China and US, they discovered after few years ! that there is "inter instrument agreement" as they call it.

Don't know if the employees of the GretagMacbeth made this to happen or just bad management. I don't want to even begin mention the bus in i1Profiler, you can read on luminous landscape forums about how one version does not work with that or that, gets wrong kelvin degrees or makes corrupt v4 profiles or ......

So I have original device you cant buy these new obviously used is possible.

There was Russian article that X-rite service of the device when they change the light source is a money making scam, anyone can exchange the bulb. The bulbs are made by OSRAM. No fancy calibration or programming is needed, except if you want to read zero lamp burning hours. The calibration is task of the white tile, that's it.

 

[Smile]

This let me come to the assumption that your weak dark blue could be a problem that your spectro is measuring some bronzing light as well which distorts the profile in that range.

Could be the bronzing effects, I expected the original ink to be way better in this regard, the meatamerizm under different light sources like daylight an halogen is unacceptable too.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

the meatamerizm under different light sources like daylight an halogen is unacceptable too.

This would support my opinion that such secondary color effects interfere with the patch reading process and screw up the profile generation - that's effectively the limit what you can do with an i1Pro or i1Pro2 , I would assume that the i1Pro3 Plus with the pol filter may be more accurate with the M3 measurement method.

I made the experience that a different number of patches resulted in somewhat better readings - accidentally - but this does not fix the original problem - the color effects you are describing.

Every ink - OEM or 3rd party - in combination with any OEM - or 3rd party - paper - shows different efffects - some stronger or almost not visible at all - I haven't seen a general rule for it with glossy and silk type papers. I had a few inks/paper combinations I could not profile at all - the math subroutines calculating the profile tables stopped working with error messages or locked up the system or forced a reboot.

I recommend you to do a test - profile a glossy paper - and do an overspray with hair spray - and profile it again next day and compare them.

 

[Smile]

I recommend you to do a test - profile a glossy paper - and do an overspray with hair spray - and profile it again next day and compare them.

Yes I've done this multiple times with other media/printer etc.
Does the GO optimizer sprayed with say dedicated printer (P900 has no GO optimizer AFAIK) the results would be comparable with coating with hair spray, or better / worse?

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I tried hairspray - there are different types and versions on the market - with different densities in the range from 1 - 6 - but you only find the 3 - 5 versions in the stores - 3 light - 4 middle - 5 strong density, and there are differences how fine the mist is you get from the nozzle. And I have seen some slight yellow in the spray yellowing the paper - the unprinted areas when you compare it to an unsprayed paper - this with some products. The hairspray is o.k. for a demonstration of the effects but I wouldn't be able to maintain the same level of density on a print today and another print in 3 weeks, that wouldn't work for me.

I was using an Epson P400 printer for quite a while and testing the effects of the Gloss optimizer, the competing Canon printer is the Pro-300 , as well with a Chroma optimizer as Canon calls it. Epson gave up the gloss optimizer with the newer P700 and P900 printers, Canon still uses it. Epson claims the Ultrachrome HD(X) inks don't need the GO anymore and have better gloss differential and lower bronzing effects over the older K3 inks. We know better ... I tested the GO option of the P400 intensively but was not really happy with it - it basically covers the unprinted and lighter color ranges with the GO but not completely over the print so I did it differently - I was using a separate 2nd print pass to cover a print completely with GO - with the same amount everywhere - from edge to edge. This adds printing time but delivers a much better look of the print. There is no way in the P400 driver to adjust the overall GO level, prints on some paper types were not able to handle that much additional GO in a 2nd pass , the paper coating was not absorbing enough anymore. So I switched and used the GO via the matte black ink channel, and I could control the density by printing a full page gray sheet in grayscale mode via the matte black ink channel, the gray level from black to darker gray let me change the GO density as needed for the best result/look.

But again - I did this with a 2nd print job applying the GO which adds printing time. That gave me about 11 A4 sheets per cartridge refill.
And there was another caveat - not all GO's by different companies are alike - the Epson GO works very well, the Inktec Chroma optimizer for the Pro10 does not show much effect at all, a GO from octopus-office is yellowing the paper visibly, and is even adding some bronzing effects, the Canon CO is o.k. as well, and I got about a litre from a Chinese ink supplier which does not yellow the paper and works o.k.
I'm not doing such prints anymore with a GO overprint since Corona stopped that type of printouts, I scrapped the P400 in the meantime but still have a GO cartridge - just in case - for A4 prints with a WF2010W, it's slow but it's o.k.
To conclude all this I can state that a GO overprint eliminates all bronzing and gloss diff. effects, the gamut increases visibly, the black level gets better, pigment ink prints are less sensitive to the touch of fingers and profiling works more reliable. But I would not use hairspray as a standard practice - I probably would need some more practice for consistent results.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Let me conclude this thread with these comments

P900 Premium glosssy paper not enough patches or fake Epson ink?​

This was the starting point - but I don't think that the reported problem of the profile generation is an Epson ink problem - not at all - it's not fake ink - it's Epson ink which creates particular side effects on the reported glossy paper - effects like bronzing - it may not exhibit a strong effect at all but it most likely screws up the readings you get from the spectrometer

and I don't think that there are not enough patches - no - there are plenty in the affected region - dark blue - you are using 3024 color patches in total which is already quite a lot - and these are distributed across the complete color space with equal distance.

 

[Smile]

I tested Brother printer with EPSON ink 673 and the profile gamut on same EPSON premium glossy paper is the same as P900.

The P900 OEM ink 50Eur for cartridge with 673 series (4CMYK colors used). The gamuts are nearly identical at 676 for 673 and 681 for P900 with it's 10 INKS all OEM. This means this printer is very very bad to Quality / Price Performance ratio.

And refilling P900 is not an option because there is almost no full inkset providers, there are no cheap chinese ARC chips.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

The essence is that the P900 is not a printer for refill users , they should stay with the predecessor P800 and live with the black ink switch; the refill situation with the competing Canon Pro-1000 is no better really to my understanding

 

[Smile]

P800 is discontinued AFAIK, Canon Pro-1000 like all Canons is thermal head printer. 10 Years ago few could afford EPSON compared to Canon, now the Tank printers. No more difference to to buy Canon when Piezo is more reliable.