Inkjet Color Proofing

[FlashMac]

Got a similar problem now. My creatives used to use a couple of Epson Stylus 1160's, and they were very good at matching the screen image. Of course these are old and no longer available.
I bought a Stylus Photo 1800 on the strength of a couple of reviews and its awful. Can't match any calibrated screen image, can't compensate for the weird photo finish emulsion it adds at the end.

[Natobasso]

Originally Posted by jwennet

Can anyone recommed an inkjet that produces accurate colors, that will print CMYK files. I'm looking to bring some a good amount of preliminary proofing in house.

I currently use an Epson 1280, and that requires me to convert my files to RGB and rebalance them. Very unpredictable and ill suited for what I need.

Config- OSX.3.7 on a Dual 2ghz G5 with 1.5 ram. Printing through an Airport express network.

Thanks,

J

You're just not going to get "accurate" proofing with an inkjet printer when compared to a professional press. In fact, DON'T DO IT. It's just not an accurate representation of color for screen or print.

The closest you can get, and what professional printers and production houses use, are iris printers. Even then the BEST proof is one right off the press from which your actual job is printed.

Since the screen and paper are inherently different, the fact your "proofs prints" match the screen doesn't really help you on the final product.

[Qion]

Being an art director and a freelancer, I believe any proof other than a press run should be assumed imperfect. If your client demands perfection, get a match print. If not, explain to them that it is not physically possible to show them a 100% proof, and use your own printer to emulate what they want.

Very large accounts will almost always be aware of prepress limitations anyway... I just think it pedantic to scrutinize something that is not a finished product. I try to remind myself when buying a new printer that I am not selling anything that comes off it; it is a sales tool, and doesn't need to have the accuracy of an eight-color Roland press.

[Natobasso]

I'm not "Trashing" anything. It's just not correct to believe, assume or think that a desktop inkjet printer is going to be anywhere near the same print as the final product from a professional press. That's basically comparing apples to oranges. Each has it's purpose, but they are not nearly the same process.

Where you work or how much experience you may have doesn't not discount the fact that the printing conditions between a desktop printer and a professional press (not to mention the different paper absorptions used on each!) I've been doing graphic design for 13 years now and this doesn't make the facts any different either.

Please don't be confused by the energy in my comments as thrashing or supporting one print process over the other.

[Natobasso]

Matching a screen image is basically useless unless you are handing digital, flatscreen monitor versions of your printed pieces to clients. The screen and paper are DIFFERENT media.