HIgh Quality Color Profile for Epson3800/Kirkland Pro Glossy

It doesn't seem that Costco has an official support site for the Kirkland brand inkjet paper that they sell, so no color profiles are available. Never fear, The Dima is to the rescue!

Well at least for those of you that are using an Epson Stylus Pro 3800 with the Ultrachrome K3 ink-set.

I have created a custom profile using outstanding test-charts by Bill Atkinson that he provides for free to all interested parties.

I used a 1452 RGB target which was measured three times and averaged using weighted method to compensate for the possible measurement errors.

In order to use this profile successfully you must use following settings when you print out of Photoshop or any other color aware application:

• Setup a soft-proofing space as such: View>Proof Setup>Custom>Device to Simulate>EPSONKirkProGloss.icc. Chose either perceptual or relative colorimetric intent, tick the black point compensation. (You must have a calibrated and preferably profiled monitor for this to work well)
• Print your file with the following settings: Photoshop manages color. Intent that matches the one you setup in your soft-proof settings.
• In the printer driver chose custom. Use Premium SemiGloss paper setting, it will change your black to photoblacK if it's not already active.
• Under the Custom, click advanced and choose SuperPhoto 2880 as your resolution.
• Turn Off High Speed and Finest Detail.
• Printer Color Management is set to Off (No Color Adjustment)
• Click Paper Config and type 3 as a paper thickness, don't change other settings.
• Click all of the OK's and print.
• This settings are for the USA made Kirkland Professional Glossy Inkjet Photo Paper Itm./Art. 126755 and Itm./Art. 933656. sold at Costco.

Download Link

Save it in your profiles folder Windows>System32>spool>drivers>color

If you done everything right it looks amazing!

Use at you own risk. Have fun printing.

Practical side to the AdobeRGB versus ProPhoto RGB discussion.

After reading the mentioned article I have decided to find all the truth about it myself. I used an image I took last year in San Juan, Puerto Rico as a test dummy.

to purchase this print please click here

I converted this image from a CRW file format as a 16-bit ProPhoto RGB image using the Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw. Then I saved it as a PSD file and resaved as a copy after a conversion to AdobeRGB using the Adobe ACE with relative colormetric and a black point compensation.

After opening both 16-bit files inside the ProPhotoRGB color space and pasting the AdobeRGB tagged file as a layer into the ProPhotoRGB tagged image I switched a blending mode of the pasted layer to the Difference mode, thus getting the following image.

click to see a Flickr! of this image

It is granted that the original image does not represent an ideal test subject as it can't contain all of the colors involved. It is, however a real world image, and it does show the actuall application implication of using different profiles when converting RAW images and chosing a workspace.

Now, about the real world application.
The ProPhotoRGB version of the image and AdobeRGB version of the image were both printed on the Canon i9900 printer, using a custom profile for the paper built with the Eye-One Match 3 from GretagMacbeth hardware and software solution. This is how the custom printer/paper combination profile compares to the AdobeRGB colorspace.

Shaded shape is AdobeRGB, mesh is a printer profile.

As you can see many of the colors fall out of the range of the AdobeRGB color space. Yet all of this colors are contained within the ProPhotoRGB as it is a much larger color space.

After letting the prints dry I have evaluated them visually under the 5000K light and under the available daylight. The prints were very similar, but the ProPhotoRGB print had slightly "punchier" orange in the color of the building. The AdobeRGB print had more magenta in it and was further from the image rendition on the calibrated CRT screen then the ProPhotoRGB print.

Interestingly enough, when both versions were viewed on the screen there was virtually no difference in the color appearance. This is probably due to the limited capabilities of the CRT color reproduction.

As an added bonus I have printed an 8-bit image version but could not see a quality difference from the 16-bit version with a naked eye. This, however, might be due to the nature of the image subject. When using the difference blending mode procedure described above as well as boost in saturation and brightness of the resulting image the minor difference was descovered. Here is the map of it.

please, click for a Flickr! of the image

So, here you have it. There is an undeniable destinction in theory, that, while having a practical realization, not absolutely critical as far as ink-jet printer concerned. Also, color space proved to be more affecting the final output then the 8-bit versus 16-bit difference.

I will follow up with the instrumental measurment analysis of the different prints of the test image in the near future.

What a difference the green ink makes.

So. It was a time for me to change a green ink tank. I decided to do a little experiment, to see how much of a difference in color fidelity would printing without a green ink tank make. Granted, I am not sure that the printers driver was aware of the fact that the green ink tank was absent.

The difference is obvious. Look closely at the lemon tree leaves and a fruit.

With the green ink tank.

Without the green ink tank.

Minolta Normal AF 50mm f/1.4 Autofocus Lens review

I have originally written this review for epinions.com couple years ago.

Here we go. My first Minolta camera was the Minolta Dynax 7. I bought it in the summer of 2001. Well, thinking about being Cartier-Bresson, second edition, I decided not to have a standard and cheap mid-range zoom like 28-80 3.5/5.6 and to buy powerful 50mm lens with the quality optics.
When the lens arrived (I ordered it on B&H Photo&Video) and I installed it on my brand new camera I was amazed by the brightness of picture in the viewfinder, it was also crystal clear and sharp. However, after first test film my enthusiasm started to slip down.
What do you usually expect from a lens that is 1.4/50mm and costs about $240 (shipping and handling included)? Correct! You expect to get some vivid and sharp pictures. Well, the pictures were vivid in colors but, alas, not as sharp as you would expect.
As a mysterious Russian soul I tried to blame it on myself (what if I left my fingerprints on UV filter (you must protect your lens) or had a dust on the lens) but everything was OK with that. Aha, exclaimed I. Probably printer in the photo lab was out of focus or the positioning frame that holds the film during the paper exposure was not well adjusted. But, again, after reprint in another lab the same problem persisted: the more or less OK center but awful corner sharpness.
After that, I decided not to use lens at f-number of 1.4 and use it at least at f/2, 2.4. It still be the larger opening than other lenses can usually provide. And it was ok until I took a close-up picture of a leaf with an ambient (clouds) and frontal directional (sun) light. After the developing, I noticed subtle yet noticeable blurred white spots that were semitransparent. There were few of them.
After I looked inside of the lens through the frontal optical element, I saw a few white spots on the surfaces of the inner lenses. That was it and I made a decision to send it to Minolta Factory Service Center in California. After 6 weeks or so (I've been promised 2 to 3) I received it back. Spots were on the same places, documentation stated that the lens was tuned-up to the factory standards.
After that it happened one more time. I send the lens back (time, postage, insurance) and after that manager promised me on the phone to send me a new one, but warned me, that she can not guarantee that the new one would not have the same defect. As she explained me that were not the dust, that was a bubbles of the air entrapped in between two optical elements during gluing them together.
I swear, my cheap Nikon lens did not have all this defects and picture was sharper and without confusing spots on the image. Finally, when you are paying $240 for just fixed focal distance lens you are expecting some quality of the workmanship for your money.
The sent lens had bubbles too, in the different spots of optical system of the lens.
It is all too bad, because I really liked my Minolta camera. Even though I do not feel that the company really cares.
I think that I am going to change my camera system. (Edit: and I did)
Sorry for being too emotional.