Hi Fred, Terry et al,

I found this free software useful for the Epson 1800 (and many others) - http://www.ssclg.com/epsone.shtml  For some printers it allows nozzles to be cleaned individually, etc.

At the end of the day, even if the monitor, printers, etc. are completely and accurately profiled, it still comes down to personal preferences. The pp standard profile editing 'digitaldog' test image is OK for skin tone assessment, but not so good for skies and shadow detail. I think perhaps the only true test, maybe, is to take a photo of an existing image in a known lighting situation, then print onto the same paper and size as the original image, and compare the two in the same lighting situation**. Comparing a reflective image (print) with a light transmitting image (vdu) is virtually impossible to do - you have to make allowances. Comparing a photo of real world scenery, say, with the actual scene is almost pointless, since you are going from 3d to 2d, and size certainly matters with how we view small images/full size real world.

In an earlier post, Mical mentioned about the ink density. Now, when running the profiles, it is important to keep all the settings the same as when creating the profile. But, this is not apparently true, since I also get a far better rendering of the colours and shadows by reducing the ink density by 25% when printing compared to the setting used when generating the profile. I think it is very much concerned with the type of material being profiled. I've been profiling course canvas - it gives a lot of grey patches within the colour chart - due to the texture/shadow of the surface. A commercial profile of the same material probably uses a brighter/more directional light source, which may give rise to the resulting darker images. The op's problems may be due to the colour temperature of the lamp in his scanner and how that light is reflected from the relatively glossy reference card compared to I guess a less glossy paper.

**Now, even if you get it right in the original lighting situation, all bets are off if viewed under different lighting conditions.

If it was easy, everyone would be doing it   (or they'd be doing it in Black and White )

Best wishes,

Ray

Hi Erwin,

Glad you've got it sorted, and thanks for letting us know the results.

Best wishes,

Ray