Thanks Mike, yes I think I may have been editing out of gamut colors.

I was using this image here http://www.smugmug.com/img/help/calibration-print-1400-2.jpg. The only issue I saw really with the PP profile was that the car was not a perfect red on the print.. it seemed a bit orange/oversaturated. The man's skin tone was a tiny bit off as well, not by much. Everything else I can't complain. brightness, colors, grayscale were all very good. Profiles done with the Munki are spot on (on the softproof), but I like I said there are situations where Profile Prism is good to have. 4x6 or 5x7 papers come to mind. Love it for my scanner too ! 

I was able to correct the print by adding adding two clicks of yellow in the Profile Tweak Wizard. The resulting print of my edit using Profile B perfectly matched the soft proof of Profile A. That's what led me to think something may have been missing from the profile editor. My edits did change the soft proof but in a very bad way.

I may have simply been seeing a difference between how PP and the x-rite software deals with out of gamut colors. I may have not seen these issues with normal, real-life images.

My monitor is calibrated using Argyll. 110 cd/m, gamma 2.2, at native white point (6400K in the case of this monitor, didn't think it was worth changing the WP via the profile). I ran argyll with about 2400 patches, the profile should be pretty decent

I typically don't completely rely on soft proofing, I just use it to get an idea as to which rendering intent will give a better result with a specific image. I've always had far better results with Perceptual when using PP.

I had a quick question, and I don't know if anyone else has experienced this. I generated a profile using the latest version of PP. The profile was not bad, but saturation was a bit high, and reds were very slightly orange. The issues are easily fixable in the profile editor. I noticed that when the editor is used, the prints are closer to the original image but the soft proof gets changed and is no longer useable.

I thought the point of the profile editor was to make the profile more accurate?

Without edits, the soft proof is more accurate (except less saturated than the actual print, with reds a tiny bit off).

Now this is not huge deal to me.. I was just curious. I have a Colormunki I use for most profiles now, but I like PP when I want to try new papers quickly, or profile smaller sized papers like 4x6.

Hi, my target unfortunately was misplaced. "Lucky me" it was a couple of years old, so I ordered two new ones from Wolf Faust (Prism uses the Wolf Faust R1 targets). I could of ordered from Mike, but that was 25$ and 30$ gave me two targets from WF.

The first target I ordered is the R1, printed on Kodak paper. This is the same type that is supplied with Profile Prism. The second type RF has the same size and layout but printed to Fuji paper. I figured I would try both to see if there were any differences. Maybe some papers will profile better with the RF target, depending on how my scanner reacts to it. Who knows?

Has anyone else ever tried these out of curiosity, like me?

Charles

Hello Francois, you are from Canada aren't you?

I honestly wouldn't mind printing one picture without a profile and one with a profile I made with Prism and a Canon LIDE60 scanner.
It'll probably just cost me a loonie to send them off by mail.

I don't know what kind of setup you have, but here is mine:
Printers:
Epson R220 now used by my wife, with Image Specialists ink
Canon IP4500 used by myself, with Hobbicolors Ink.
Papers used:
Costco Glossy, Staples double sided matte.
Scanner: Canon LIDE 60, used with Canon original software. I downloaded Vuescan
trial, saw no improvement. Try your Canon software before you spend anything
else....

I've profiled both papers on both printers and everything matches up pretty close.
(of course there will be difference between matte and glossy papers).

Before the profiling, my R220 used to have a slight green tint and the ip4500
had a reddish tint.

I'm in the process of re profiling my IP4500 now, because i've switched from
Windows to Linux. Now this might be a plus for you or not, but PP works fine under
Linux using WINE emulation. I had no problem re-profiling my scanner with the
open source XSane driver.

Overall, I'm verry happy with the purchase I did a couple of years ago! It saved me a
ton of money (I can use whatever ink/paper combo I want). And, on my system, with
my printers, there was a noticeable improvement vs the manufacturer's profiles.

EDIT: I forgot to mention I also calibrated my screen with a Spyder2, so we have pretty
close setups, except for (recently) my major OS/driver switch

I for one would be all for having a new target for CDs/DVDs..... I've tried using the regular PP target, chopping it up to small pieces and printing on multiple CDs.. it works, but it's a very long process and wastes a TON of discs to get decent results.

It would be nice just being able to print a target directly to the CD, scan it in with the IT8 and generate a profile. Even if it's not as precise as a paper profile, just getting something in the ballpark would be a cool addition. (fewer patches for CDs maybe?)

I'm guessing that getting a good scan could prove difficult however, since the disc is round, it would have to placed in the right direction. PP might need some code to rotate the image on the CD.

To the original poster, if you really can't wait. I know colorvision's Spyder3print comes with CD profiles, but it's expensive!
Some ebay sellers offer CD/DVD profiles (search for them). I haven't tried any of those services/products myself.

I recently renewed my Prism FTP subscription (after reading about a possible version 7.0 soon!)

Mike, is there any chance we could get a sneak peak at the features/improvements?
I work in IT and fully understand why you can't/won't commit to a timeline too soon, but I'd love to see what's coming

I'm currently using a Canon LIDE 60 with reasonable results.
The only strange issue i've ever had was grayscale always having a green tint in the shadows. Ordered a new IT8 from Wolffaust and never looked back.

I just saw an Office Depot flyer advertising a 6 color scanner. It supposedly used two different kind of red, green and blue. Their explanation is that different lights produce different effects on pictures and this is to correct this. (sounds like a marketing description for metamerism if you ask me)
They say that combined with 96-bit color depth, this is a much more accurate scanner in terms of color reproduction.

Sounds quite good to use with Prism. Has any one ever tested this (Scanjet G4010)?

I won't rush out and buy a new scanner since i'm already getting good results, but I thought I'd share the info.