The information that I have come away with is that printer manufacturers formulate their inks to be optimal for their brand of paper, although there are posts in the Elements forum that state that papers marketed under another label perform well with an ink marketed by an "alien" manufacturer. My own take on this is that the variables that go in to the process are multiple: printer, printer settings, editing software, software settings, ink, paper, picture source (pixels), computer and cards, operator skill, etc.
The only "authoritative" document that I have seen is one relating to certain Epson printer output space settings.
Unfortunatly, I think you misunderstood my question.....it wasnt about ink/paper. It was about ICC profiles and detangling the pre-configured one (in other words knowing which profiles defined which peramiters instead of playing ICC profile hit and miss....which is a HUGE waste of ink)
Wouldnt it be nice to recieve like 10 profiles Epson already had (like I got from a download from them) and have some kind of documentation saying.....profile SP960CL or SP960PGPP (actual profiles names I just took from my available profiles on my printer) were designed this way,and we reccomend this when using these profile. (wether it be what ink/printer/document format (like .raw vs .jpg....etc) whatever.....
There has to be some design intent on these profiles....just want to know what they were instead of there being some some proflie.....and you dont have a clue as to what it will (or might) offer you in some kind of benifit.
LOL.....my rant for the morning....ill get off my soap box now....
Thats all im saying.
I'll make the suggestion one last time and then shut up...
Profiles don't get you results. There are too many variables to account for, and in my not always so humble estimation, profiles ADD a layer to that complexity rather than remove it. If you can get results WITHOUT profiles, you can always be sure you will get the results. If you get them with a profile...you may end up getting something you didn't expect if you send the same file to another device -- depending on what you are doing with profiles.
To push your seeming analogy...I wouldn't place so much trust in a 'company stock', as you can see the stock market can crash. The only people that make money on the deal is the guys who study the market...or the guys you pay to make the trades.
So, if you really want to get the best results, learn to control your output WITHOUT a profile first, then improve it with profiles once you know what you want to achieve.
I know of no site that tracks profiles; I do know of lots of discussions that point out the trouble with profiles and the problem with trusting manufacturer EXIF data and other such complexities. I have suggested a simpler profiling to Adobe which puts control back in the user's hands, something like a trasnfer function. Sometimes I think they like it to by 'mystical.'
In answer to your second question about resetting Photoshop Elements to out of the box configuration. This may be the answer. Assuming you are using a PC and not a Mac.
Click on your PSE icon to open the program, immediately press ctrl + shift + alt at the same time. A dialog window should open to "Delete the Adobe Photoshop Settings File" yes or no. Click on yes and PSE will automatically rebuild all the preference files.
You may have to reset your preferences to your liking. This will also correct any corrupted tools or settings if your PSE starts acting crazy. I hope this was what you needed.
Thanks again for your input.....jeeze...I must not be expressing myself well....as I find I have been misunderstood in here more than I ever have in any forum.
I haver read and heeded your advice about profiles creating more problems then they cure. I think its good advice.
Most of my questions from this point on are based on 2 points.
1. I am also a Computer Technicain (Desktop Support)....its my job to understand how stuff works, and to know my resources available so I can be the best technician I can be. My curious natue is driving me now....not me actually looking to ICC profiles as some sort of "cure" for inequitys in my prints. : ) Hopefully I capture good enough images for my images to speak for themselves...LOLOL.
2. The fact that there is an ICC means this concept (while maybe in its beginning stages) might have some merit. TCP/IP adhears to a strict layer model.....and works with darn near anything...and you can do a lot with it. Can you imagine a world where color input and output from all devices would adhear to some standard where profiles wouldnt be needed.....while still not getting in the way of advanced users creativity? (in otherwords....stuff holding to a baseline...that can be a default if you will (a default you can return to if your "customiation" went belly up)....and yet still be able to create any profile you want?
Maybe im being naive in my new understanding of profiles...lol....guess I have a lot to learn.
But please understand....I do see the wisdom in your words Richard......and for my non -inquisitive needs, I will adhear to it....(on my image editing workstation)
but for curiositys sake, my other computer (I have 7 networked in the house here) im gonna play so I can undestand it better. So understand I will definatly be asking more questions in that context.
Hopefully you wolnt stop answering cause you think im still trying to fix somthing....and not listening to you.
Oh, no...don't think that i want you to listen. I was just assuming that *I* was not being clear on my take. If you understand, then you are going at profiles for better reasons -- I just want to be clear.
If I were doing help-desk work, I don't think I'd always give people the answer they want. In fact, having done help desk work [ :-) ]I am pretty sure what they want isn't always the right thing.
I don't mean to threaten that I'll stop answering, I just don't want to say the same thing too many times...gets boring, you know -- for the reader.
My take on profiles is: There isn't really a right way to handle them. You are basically looking to get a profile that will trick the result. Sometimes it can be for the right or wrong reason. In the long run, it doesn't matter, really, but it can be confusing. Point in fact: Most people are confused about profiles. Some think they have to use them because they are there, and there is a lot of talk about them.
The reason for the confusion is, as I mentioned: Adobe sometimes likes to hide information for what may seem like (to them) a helpful reason. On the other hand, if I can get in and change a profile with a profile editor, then the process isn't mystical anymore -- AND I get to learn from it AND improve my result. What I like least about profiles is that they get locked in...and they make decisions for you. I've found i am better at making an artistic decision than a computer.
the profile you make by calibrating is useful in that it helps you get a good preview of a result and helps 'normalize' the view of your screen. A profile for a scanner (built with, say, an IT8 target) helps the scanner know what it should see and then provides a means for matching that. To this point you are 100% digital. The print end of profiles, however, is where I think the profiling theory falls apart. Variables in ink, paper, drivers, possible separations, handling, humidity, temprature...a nozzle partially plugs on a cartridge, flow is impeded or enhanced, a new driver is installed, a new box of the same paper is opened and the paper has been enhanced or color changed from the last batch...One day a profile might work to print an image fabulously, and the next it won't give the same result. Try to explain that to someone who doesn't understand all the potential variables -- or those that don't care why there might be a difference.
TCP/IP is ALL digital. The digital end of color management actually makes a good case. It is the PHYSICAL from digital that makes a case in the other direction. While profiles CAN make a better image, and theory can be used to enhance a potential result, it is done by understanding conversion of light color theory (RGB) to absorptive color theory (CMYK) where the effective difference is made.
Limitations in the conversions have proved to me time and again that a good correction is as good as choosing a proper profile...and less complicated. The end arguement becomes much like the 16 bit vs 8 bit editing and the amount of difference made in the result. The reality becomes that it is more theoretical than actual -- at least for current standards.
The only profile that might be the right choice would be the one that made the best decisions in converting an image...and that, as far as I know, may be delicate: the choice may be better made as per the image rather than the printer.
That probably doesn't answer your question. However, maybe it makes clearer why I am saying profiles may not be the best choice.
But in a help-desk kind of way...What about your output is bothering you?
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|