Hi Don
As no one has answered you I'll have a go. I created a profile as normal from the A4 size of the same make/paper type as the 6x4 and chose that when using 6x4 size.  It seems to work OK.
HTH
John

Over 1 year now and no update
John

Hello Terry
Certainly Lightroom was the problem as my new profile printed from Qimage is nigh on spot on.
Comparing the target prints from LR and Qimage it was obvious the the one from LR was quite a lot lighter.
Prints from Qimage are very good while those printed from LR, using the new profile, are not so good so it does seem that some alteration/profiling is being applied.  I wonder why?  I have the latest beta version3 so I'll see if that does the same.
Thank you for the pointer as I would have never figured out it was LR at fault.
Best wishes
John

Thank you for your prompt reply Terry.
I'll make another profile using Qimage and will report back when done.
Cheers
John

Hello
I have had PP for sometime and got very good results with it.  However, profiling new glossy paper is giving awful results from the profile.
My printer is a Canon iP4500, scanner canoscan 5000F, Vuescan, Qimage and used Lightroom to print the printer target.
Let it dry for 12 hours. Scanned as recommended and get these results:-

Prism target
Exposure:image is properly exposed (251)
White balance accuracy: 5% (Excellent - white balance is very accurate)
Lighting variance: 4% (Excellent - even lighting across chart)
Note : 3 patches marked with "X" are at minimum/maximum brightness.
Shadow detail: Excellent - no gray patches clipped.

Printer target
Exposure : 254
Note: 4 patches marked with "X" are at minimum/maximum brightness.
-------------
Printer/paper/ink dynamic range: 84.5
Printer/paper/ink coverage of Lab space: 8.8%
Smoothing required: 3 passes
Printer profile usable range: 0-255,38-255,0-255

They seem quite good to me but as I say the results using the profile are awful.  Shadows are grey, red is too vivid, the image is flat and looks 'silvered'.
The results are the same from LR and Qimage.

Any ideas gratefully received.
Thank you
John

Thanks for your replies again.  I would like the file numbering to start at 0001 so I'll wait and see if Mike adds that to the 'wish list'

Yes, well spotted. The Tardis is outside BBC TV Centre.  My wife and I were about to do a tour of the Centre.

Best wishes
John

Thank you for your replies guys.
I have attached my settings box where I want the file to be named with the date it was taken plus an increasing file number.
You will see that there are two files which were the only ones taken on one day 14-09-2009 and 16-09-2009.
I would like to see 0001 appended to them even though they are the only ones for those days.
The rest, taken on 15-09-2009, have numbers appended apart from the first file which has no number.
This means that when listed the file taken first comes last in the list which is not what I want.
I'm sure I'm doing something wrong.
Thanks again
John

Hello
I'm using the latest trial version.
When copying files to the HD, files are numbered e.g *****(001), ****(002) etc) but the very first file does not have a number attached so really (001) is the 2nd file not the first.  Is this the way it works or am I missing something?
Thanks
John

A few more weeks to wait I guess
John

Thanks again.  Yes, I have printed 4 test images onto an A4 from Qimage and they were the best I have seen. However, printing some personal photos using the same settings were somewhat disappointing as the results were flat and slightly cyan.  My monitor has been profiled with a Spyder FWIW.  I can tweak the printer profile using the function in PP but wonder why my shots were different?
John

Thanks guys for your input.  Terry.  I am using the correct IT8 chart supplied with my software.  It's a different number to yours.

I was firstly trying to profile the scanner, thinking I would HAVE to do that before making the printer profile but apparently not. I scanned the chart supplied as a RAW .tiff with all the settings recommended in the help file but was not sure as to what colour space I should use for the scanner so used 'built-in'.  In Vuescan's Color tab I selected NONE for the Color Balance. I was never able to get a really satisfactory result from PP as detailed above so went on to create a printer profile.

Here is where I am puzzled because using the same Vuescan settings as for scanner profiling, selecting Printer profiling in PP, gave me an excellent result with just 3 xs. The resultant profile produced excellent results from the test images printed from Qimage, easily the best I have ever seen them so much progress has been made there.

So, I suppose there is really no need to profile my scanner but I would like to get to the bottom of why I could not get a good result from the scanning profile project.

Further thoughts/comments greatly appreciated.
Regards
John

I used the chart that came with ProfilePrism and put the Vuescan settings to those recommended in the help files.
Because the resultant scan was so poor (according to PP) I never used it.
Thanks for your input
John

Some more tests.
Using my former Vuescan settings I created a new scan and imported it into PP using the Camera/Scanner-Prism target setting.
The result was:
Exposure image is properly exposed (247)
WB accuracy 2%
Lighting variance 5%
Warning 14 patches marked with X
Shadow detail - Poor 3 or more dark grey patches are clipped.

I changed PP setting to Printer-Prism target and imported the same file.
The result was:
Exposure image is properly exposed (252)
WB accuracy 2%
Lighting variance 5%
Warning 4 patches marked with X
Shadow detail - Excellent- no grey patches clipped.

I found this out earlier by going ahead and creating a Printer profile which produced excellent results with an earlier scan.
I am confused as to why changing the PP setting from Camera/scanner to Printer should give such different results with the same file.
Regards
John

Since posting the above I have done some more tests in PP.  I set Brightness to -8, Contrast to -8 and Saturation to +8 and the result was exactly the same.  That cannot be right surely?  Something odd going on don't you think?
Regards
John

Thank you Terry for that reply.
My Vuescan settings are as follows.
Scanner - Calibrate
Input - Bits per pixel - 48 bit RGB
Input - Scan resolution - 300dpi
Color - Color balance - None
Color - Scanner color space - Built-in
Color - Output color space - sRGB
Output - Printed size - Scan size
Output - Only raw file ticked
Output - Raw file type - 48 bit RGB
Output - raw output with - Scan

Those are the only ones I think are relevant to this project unless you know differently
This is what I got with these settings.

I assume that before I profile my printer it is essential to get the scanner profile correct?
Many thanks again.
Regards
John