[vonBaloney]

Well i've no idea what you're doing, you havent even told us what software you use for example.
From the sound of it i'm still assuming there is an user error.

I don't think he (graphicgr8s) is claiming there is an error. He is just being mysterious about some supposed secret he knows. I suggest you do not waste anymore time on his trolling.

In any case, the only reliable way to really calibrate things is to do tests with specific equipment and prints -- profiles only get you so far. So make small test prints, and then adjust color as needed. When working with a new lab or even just making a particular image that we haven't made before with a lab we've used previous, we always do at least one small (i.e. cheap) test print -- color bracketing basically -- before making an order for a full large print. Some printers are not good at greens or will skew magenta or whatever, and then the paper has its own tone and so you adjust. With our home printer, we spent a lot of time making a custom monitor profile to get our monitor to look like how the printer prints (and having a wide-gamut monitor helps for photographic work), but if you just calibrate to an objective standard and then use the provided profiles it doesn't work as well even though it ought to in theory. Too much variance in equipment, papers, inks used, etc. Luckily my wife has a talent for it -- she can do it all by eyeball...

---

Last edited by vonBaloney; 01-20-2013 at 12:18 PM.

[graphicgr8s]

Well i've no idea what you're doing, you havent even told us what software you use for example.
From the sound of it i'm still assuming there is an user error.

I use Photoshop. Used it for years. You know what happens when you assume don't you? There is no user error. It's a fact. Some shots look perfect onscreen. On a fully calibrated system. Using the correct printer and paper profiles. And yet it still prints out too dark, or too red, or too....something. Add your own problem, it happens. And it's simple to get it to print right. If you know the secret. So do I know Photoshop? Not really sure. But after folks like Bert Monroy get done with the alpha testing I am one of the ones who test it next. Then you folks get it for public beta. For the record. I also use to do this stuff the hard way. By hand. In fact I use to do dot etching for color correction before plates were burned for offset printing. Do you have any idea how long it takes to etch dots for color correction? On four separate flats?

[graphicgr8s]

I don't think he (graphicgr8s) is claiming there is an error. He is just being mysterious about some supposed secret he knows. I suggest you do not waste anymore time on his trolling.
.

von Baloney, my post count belies my actual time on this forum. I was here for a long time and was a site supporter for many years. I took a hiatus for a couple of years. You could ask people like Blue, Parallax, Peter Zack, and others to verify. Or you could search my user name. Just look before the P&R posts.
You are right though. There is no error on the users part for bad prints if everything looks right on a calibrated (hardware calibration) system.

[vonBaloney]

von Baloney, my post count belies my actual time on this forum. I was here for a long time and was a site supporter for many years. I took a hiatus for a couple of years. You could ask people like Blue, Parallax, Peter Zack, and others to verify. Or you could search my user name. Just look before the P&R posts.

So? I made no comment about your time on the forum.

All I can see is that you repeatedly post "unless you know the secret" with no explanation and no attempt to be helpful in any way. Seems like you are just being obnoxious for the sake of it, and there doesn't seem to be any other point to it. That's what I'd call trolling. I don't want to argue about it -- the moderators will probably get after me just for pointing it out, but I don't get it. I can't think of a reason someone would post that there exists a problem, that they know the secret solution to it, but then not reveal that secret or at least elaborate instead of just repeating over and over "unless you know the secret". If you intend to keep it a secret, why post at all other than other than to crow "I know a secret! I know a secret!" like a little child? If you intend to be helpful, then go ahead and explain what you are talking about. I mean, what are we here for? (Are you trying to sell your services but want to be sly about it so you don't get accused of spamming?) So yeah, I don't get it -- your posts (in this thread) are the equivalent of, "Boy, wouldn't you like to know what I know? Sucks to be dumb like you and not smart like me." I can't imagine why an adult person would post such things. Again, I don't want to argue about it, so I won't comment further. But that's what I see, and it is weird and obnoxious.

---

Last edited by vonBaloney; 01-22-2013 at 01:49 AM.

[Anvh]

I was under the impression you had a problem with printing!
Thats why i HAD to assume since you were not giving any technical info besides that it doesnt work and you're looking for "a" magical secret that is isnt there.

But now that i know you intentions, i'm really laughin right now...
Really a secret!

Well have fun, with your secret

My prints look perfectly fine under calibration light and they match with the monitor for 99% and i've used Windows, Mac and Epson and Canon printers. What else do i want, maybe i know the secret or i've beaten the system

[JohnInIndy]

I was under the impression you had a problem with printing!
Thats why i HAD to assume since you were not giving any technical info besides that it doesnt work and you're looking for "a" magical secret that is isnt there.

But now that i know you intentions, i'm really laughin right now...
Really a secret!

Well have fun, with your secret

My prints look perfectly fine under calibration light and they match with the monitor for 99% and i've used Windows, Mac and Epson and Canon printers. What else do i want, maybe i know the secret or i've beaten the system

He could also be trying to make you think. Make you look for the answer. Made me think about some of my shots that didn't turn out although according to the numbers should have been perfect. The "secret". if I am correct, and I usually am, is really simple.

[vonBaloney]

He could also be trying to make you think. Make you look for the answer. Made me think about some of my shots that didn't turn out although according to the numbers should have been perfect. The "secret". if I am correct, and I usually am, is really simple.

Another misanthropic post -- what a helpful bunch! This thread really brings them out for some reason...

[graphicgr8s]

john you are correct. I was trying to get them to THINK. But alas it's about as impossible as fitting a square peg into a round hole.
Sending a small test print only works if they run the small print as the same equipment as the large one. Not always the case however.
I got your PM John and you do have the secret. And you are also correct it's not a real secret. It's more common sense which appears lacking here.

Another misanthropic post -- what a helpful bunch! This thread really brings them out for some reason...

mis·an·throp·ic (msn-thrpk, mz-)adj.1. Of, relating to, or characteristic of a misanthrope.
2. Characterized by a hatred or mistrustful scorn for humankind.

I see no indications in any post where this would apply according to this definition. Because you choose not to want to think?

[mee]

I have a secret too.. but you have to pull my finger to have the answer revealed to you.

[graphicgr8s]

I have a secret too.. but you have to pull my finger to have the answer revealed to you.

Try Gas-X

[Mallee Boy]

I print on a HP z3200. It uses Vivera ink by HP and they claim 200+* years (that what it says on the box & the * refers to internal tesing supporting their (HP) claim). Please yourself on that one, none of us will be around to prove or dis-prove that claim.

Have had this printer for a couple of years now and am impressed, also get good feed back from clients. The HP is very easy to use, the in built paper profiling facility is great and I am happy with its economy.

[Miguel]

Hello all,

I am writing to inquire about archival inks in particular and also papers. I have an upcoming show and as a result bought a Epson XP600 inkjet printer. The reason I bought it was that they advertised it as having 'archival ink' -- which, to my mind (as an art major who majored in painting and sculpture, archival means freaking archival -- archival as in 'the stuff they did the cave paintings with' archival, not 5 years as long as it is framed under UV resistant glass). The reason it is important to me to have archival inks and papers that will not degrade is that I dont want to sell a print that is going to fall apart in a few years, or fade to the point of it looking like a newspaper photo.

In any case, compatible with this line if printers is this Epson 'claria' inks, described as 'ultra premium' (which to my mind sounds like entry level and overpriced). If they really are archival and capable of reproducing a vast range of values and colors, then fantastic. But if not, I was thinking I may need to upgrade my printer and use this one for proofs.

Is there anyone out there who can attest to the following:

--a brand of printer/inks that are archival in the true sense of the word (not "archival" as a marketing buzz word)
--a brand of printers/inks that have a wide dynamic range and intelligence -- something that doesnt look like the buck toothed apprentice calibrated the CMYK settings
--High resolution and fidelity to the original photo. good color separation.

Unfortunately, I know a lot of this is trial and error. With an upcoming show, I hate wasting ink just trying to get a a faithful reproduction of what it looks like on my monitor. I am finding that I have to pretty much overexpose all of my values in order to get the final print to look good. I am fairly happy with the Epson (it is an XP600), beats any printer I have had prior, but I am curious if anyone out there has any tips or favorite inks or printer combinations.

Thanks!

To answer your question . . . no one has lived the 100 years to attest to prints looking good over that time period. So testing is all we got right now, though I would love to say be patient.

There are two reliable online resources that test prints. One, Wilhelm, has been noted prior. They mostly do contract testing and sometimes the results are only available privately, or we hear about it in ad copy from the customer.

The other is Aardenburg Imaging. The owner, Mark McCormick is a valuable contributor to a few good forums online. Registration is free and you can then access their results. One interesting aspect is that they test third-party inksets. Generally my personal policy is to stick with OEM inks (though third party art papers I enjoy using a lot) and suck up the outrageous costs.

That all said, the weakness is that your printer is a consumer-oriented business printer that outputs decent art. It is probably impossible to obtain anything but generic paper profiles which means trial-and-error testing for art papers. A good home printing solution will cost you $500 to get going with very high consumable ink ongoing costs too. If you are pumping out dozens of prints per month then the business case may be there; otherwise it may behoove you to outsource the work to a reputable printer in your community.

Finally, archival presentation means that your framing materials have to be up to snuff. That's expensive too so find a good framer.

Hope this helps.

M