I have the 1270 and largely follow Ian Lyons advice and found it works well
:
Follow the link "Tutorial - Basic Printing in Photoshop 6 for PC Windows
Users!" - there's a Mac one too.
The direct link is currently:
but is possibly more likely to change.
I am colour blind so I may be more easy to please - but other people are
impressed by the prints too.
I find my 1270 has greater contrast than my screen and blues in particular
come out quite a bit darker especially on EHWM. There are also a few squares
of colours from my Q60 that change into something significantly different.
But I would say that my Epson matches the screen far nearer than my
calibrated Artixscan 4000 (SS4000) whether I use Silverfast/Vuescan or Scan
Wizard Pro. The Fuji Frontiers at Photobox also match my Epson prints fairly
closely (to me) - more contrast still, sharper and a little more neutral
(Photobox colour balancing ?).
If I do the colour proof in PS the screen looks slightly closer to the
print. It's still quite a bit off perfect but I do know 95% what will come
out of the printer. It seems adequate to me if not perfect. But as Rob says
its a £300 printer.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Custom ICC printer profiles
> "Arthur Entlich" <artistic@ampsc.com> wrote:
> > Tony Sleep wrote:
> > > saturation, contrast). This has worked far, far better than anything
> else :
> > > prints are now as close to the screen image as is possible within the
> > > limits of a different gamut. And it's free.
> > And I thought it was a result of my working with older printers (Epson
> > Stylus Color Pro, Color Pro XL, and 850) that brought me to these same
> > conclusions.
>
> Er. I wouldn't call the 1200 new. Even my 1160 is a generation old in
> Epson
> models. But before we bag Epson completely, I for one get prints I still
> look
> at and boggle that it came from a home printer. Are they perfect? No,
not
> by a long shot. But they're better than I can get in a colour
photographic
> print
> from a lab in terms of highlight and shadow information, I get to choose
> pretty
> much what I want - and the print is significantly cheaper. They won't
last
> as long
> as Fuji crystal archive prints, but maybe one day I'll be able to afford a
> CIS and
> Generations pigmented inks and give the Fuji papers a run for their money.
> :)
>
> It's a bit like the arguments comparing $10,000+ drum scanners with $1000
> CCD
> scanners. How can you really compare things not in the same league? It
> makes
> just as little sense to compare a $500 inkjet printer with a $30,000+
> lightjet.
> Just as with film scanners I just think we need to figure out what the
> limitations are
> of a particular device and adjust our expectations accordingly. I think
> I've been
> told enough times about the limitations of my LS30. :)
>
> OK, you can flame me now. 8^D
>
> Rob
>
>
>
