Inkjet Color Proofing

jwennet

jwennet

Registered
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
 
Inkjets are HORRIBLE for accurate color proofing. But if you go with one, I wouldn't recommend Epson because of their proprietary ripping software. Don't like it at all.

If you can, get a color laser printer. But if color's really important to you then send out for a matchprint for your jobs. That's the best way to get the most accurate color proofing.
 
Believe me, I hear you about match prints. Unfortunately, for freelance jobs, the clients would like to see a close proximity to color without springing for the cost of a match print. Believe it or not, the Epson 1280 gave much better color representation than the color laser (believe it's a Canon with some windows based rip). What I don't like about the 1280 is that the files have to be converted to RGB, whether from Photoshop, or in InDesigns print menu.

Call me old fashioned, but when it comes to print, I like CMYK.
 
I hear what you're saying, and totally valid points. I'm a freelancer too…

You've already screwed up the color when you convert to RGB, no matter what you print to.
 
The inkjet gave me a closer proximity. At this point I'm sending those with some color chips.

I used to have an Epson 1520. Color was amazingly accurate. It died.
 
Sorry about your printer dying! What do you mean by accurate? Compared to the screen or the final print?
 
It was old, and I found out that our 3 jumping on to it to get to a window.

But, the color was amazingly calibrated to screen and final print. The Epson Rip software worked great with the monitor profile.

The only reason I didn't replace it was that at the time, Epson didn't make the RIP software for OSX, and I was looking for a printer wth higher resolution. The 1520 was 720x1440 dpi.

Anyway, was hoping there was an updated version of the 1520.
 
I simply have to disagree with the thrashing that Inkjets are taking in the above posts. Natobasso, maybe you've had some bad experiences with a workflow without color management. Sure, a matchprint looks sweet, but most of the colors can't be reproduced in a press gamut, so you end up fooling yourself into believing your colors will reproduce when they simply won't. I've worked on projects for some of the top magazines and publishers in the world, and inkjets can produce very accurate, reliable color. Creo's Iris and Veris are very accurate, and the Epson Ultrachrome series is also very good. Word on the street is that the next generation front-end for the Ultrachrome series will be a Mac-native RIP...so no need to invest in an Oris or other RIP.

BTW, you should never convert CMYK to RGB if you can help it. Stay in RGB
if possible till you know what your intended output profile needs to be...
 
I stand by the 1520. The last agency I worked at did their initial proofing with an Epson 3000.

As far as coverting CMYK to RGB- it's the only way to print anything close to what you want. The Epson 1280 (and probably some of the other ultra photo printers) will totally mess up CMYK files. Guess they're making life very easy for people with digital cameras, and not pros. I found that InDesign actually took my CMYK files and in program printed them as composite RGB. Must know what's up with the printer profile.

Enough of my rambling. Thanks for the heads up on the new printers.

J
 
you can get an Iris 2print for pretty cheap on eBay, but the Brisque RIP and your electric bill will make you sad...
 
You'll hardly find an inkjet producing reliable CMYK color proofs without additional RIP software. I have been using an EPSON Stylus Photo 1290 with iProof X PostScript RIP (http://www.iproofsystems.com) for several years unter PageMaker, Freehand, InDesign and others, and the results are quite good, even better than most of those produced by very expensive color lasers. iProof X has different CMYK settings for EVERY SINGLE inkjet printer of most major brands, and all that testing and calibrating just costs some money ... which you'll earn back in just a few weeks if working as a graphics free-lancer like me. Just try their demo.
 
Most in-house places are migrating over to the Epson Ultra-Chrome series machines.. and you can rest assured, they are not printing rgb images.
Perhaps you should take a look at some of the newer models, as I've heard most of the success coming in the past few months...

The iris/veris printers are good but as another poster pointed out the rip costs, etc.. they're essentially overpriced options aimed at large pre-press shops.

A side note... if you are converting to rgb... i hope that's only for your own proofing process. If you end up supplying the client with rgb files.. they'll end up having them converted by the final prep house who will hit them for conversion and color-match cost all over again.
 
I'm looking into the Epson's you've mentioned. Stupid question- any difference between the UltraChrome and the Durabright inks?

As far as RGB- I found out after wasting a lot of paper and ink that the Epson 1280 prints color files accurately from RGB. It totally screws up CMYK files. InDesign has an option in it's print menu for composite RGB printing that seems to handle my CMYK files very well.

Thanks for the reply.

J
 
BTW-I'm seriously considering an Epson 1880. Anyone have/use one? More specifically, use it with Quark 6? For some reason, Quark won't see my 1280, and I'd rather not deal with similar issue.

Thanks.

J
 
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.
 
jwennet said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top