# Can't get accurate colors even with profiles installed



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

I've been trying to sublimate onto aluminum plates and have done so successfully. However, the colors are terrible when printing from my Epson WF7010. I got "High Temp" ink from a reliable supplier that everyone talks about on here and downloaded the correct profile for my WF7010. Watched their videos and followed everything step by step.

My main issues: reds are practically magenta and blacks are very light and have a yellowish greenish tint. Everything else looks pretty much perfect.

I tried the stock "Epson IJ Printer 07" profile and I got MUCH better results. Now the blacks look like a very dark blue, and the reds look somewhat orange. Although they look better, it's still not acceptable for a business. I'm very aware of getting custom profiles made for this ink, but the suppliers website says to print the color chart on the substrate that I use (which is aluminum in this case). However, I cannot find an 8.5 x 11 aluminum plate to print on.

I tried emailing them days ago to see if they can help me out with this but they haven't answered. I've had terrible luck with this company as far as communication. I got a hold of them twice out of maybe 10 calls that I made this past week when trying to place an order for the ink.

Has anyone had problems like this? Although it's a generic profile on the website, I am very surprised that it would make my images look this bad. I can't imagine that I did something wrong when following their instructions step by step.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

These people have aluminum sheet large enough to print a color chart:

Digital Grafx Dye Sublimation License Plates and Blanks

The generic "HT ink" profile for the 7010 should be closer than what you are getting, so I'd suspect some setting or other is wrong. Could you review what you're using for both the document and printer files, as well as note the application you're using to print from, and what type of computer (Mac, PC) you have?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I've been trying to sublimate onto aluminum plates and have done so successfully. However, the colors are terrible when printing from my Epson WF7010. I got "High Temp" ink from a reliable supplier that everyone talks about on here and downloaded the correct profile for my WF7010. Watched their videos and followed everything step by step.
> 
> My main issues: reds are practically magenta and blacks are very light and have a yellowish greenish tint. Everything else looks pretty much perfect.
> 
> ...


Your color should be very good. You shouldn't need to have a custom profile made.

Please post screen shots of:

1. Settings in the Epson Driver
2. Screen shots of your color management options in your graphic application.
3. The name of your "generic profile".


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Here you go....really hope someone can help me figure this out. I watched the video once again and did everything exactly as I should but still no luck.

I'm using Photoshop CS6 to print with on a PC.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

These settings look okay.

One thing to make sure of is that you downloaded the PC version, and not the Mac version. If these profiles are from where I expect they're from, it's relatively easy to accidentally download the wrong file.


----------



## paintersspouse (Jul 26, 2012)

Is your monitor calibrated? Have you tried printing out a color swatch and than pressing it on fabric. In other words do you know that the monitor is correctly showing the color that would print on any other printer?


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Once you verify you are using the right version of the profile, download and print this file:

DOWNLOAD PDI TEST IMAGE Photodisc Color Management Calibration Target Reference Image Baby Faces How To Achieve True Print Color

and press it onto a piece of 700D white 100% polyester (available at Joann's and most other fabric stores). This material will have weight and heft, and is good for all-around sub testing. (As you said you've subbed before you probably already have some of this. Select a fabric that when held up to your eyes shows light, but not a distinct image. It should have little or no texture, for obvious reasons.

The first thing to look at is the blacks and grays. They should be a true black and true gray. Look for tinging toward blue or brown (though the brown could indicate over-subbing).

There is a chance, though slight, that your inks got prematurely activated because of the hot weather. Not all delivery trucks are air conditioned; this ink can be harmed by a half day in a hot shipping container. You can test this by taking the re-priming syringe that came with your inks, and dropping a tiny bit of ink directly from the bottle and onto a piece of sub paper. Clean the syringe completely between drops. Do all four colors. Wait about 10 minutes to be sure the ink is completely dry, then press it onto your test fabric. 

The colors should be true and perfect. If they are not, call your source and talk to them about what might have happened.

As for the communications, or lack thereof, if this company is the one I'm thinking, they moved to a new location last week. They were unavailable during that time, and I'm sure are super-swamped for a few days. I've never had to wait more than a day for the owner to call me back.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

And (keeping this separate so the ideas don't get too crossed up), do a couple of nozzle checks. Be sure all the colors are fully firing. The yellow will be hard to see, so view the tests under a good light.

You don't mention if you're using cartridges or a CISS. Even if you got pre-filled cartridges, don't assume anything. One or more of them might not have been properly primed at the factory. Cartridges (pre-filled or CISS) can be become de-primed. If you get large voids in the jet patterns, or no color at all for some of the channels, then the ink isn't properly primed in the cartridge. You'll have to re-prime the affected cartridge(s). If a channel is out, the colors will be all wrong.


----------



## paintersspouse (Jul 26, 2012)

GordonM said:


> And (keeping this separate so the ideas don't get too crossed up), do a couple of nozzle checks. Be sure all the colors are fully firing. The yellow will be hard to see, so view the tests under a good light.
> 
> You don't mention if you're using cartridges or a CISS. Even if you got pre-filled cartridges, don't assume anything. One or more of them might not have been properly primed at the factory. Cartridges (pre-filled or CISS) can be become de-primed. If you get large voids in the jet patterns, or no color at all for some of the channels, then the ink isn't properly primed in the cartridge. You'll have to re-prime the affected cartridge(s). If a channel is out, the colors will be all wrong.


I agree. I use Cobra inks and a WF7010 and when I could not get my grays right it was because one head was clogged. I printed squares of colors and found that of of my blue heads was the problem.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Here you go....really hope someone can help me figure this out. I watched the video once again and did everything exactly as I should but still no luck.
> 
> I'm using Photoshop CS6 to print with on a PC.


Need 1 more screen. Need the document color management settings .... Edit>Color Settings

That must be configured also.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Once you verify you are using the right version of the profile, download and print this file:
> 
> DOWNLOAD PDI TEST IMAGE Photodisc Color Management Calibration Target Reference Image Baby Faces How To Achieve True Print Color
> 
> ...


Gordon, there are many files on that page, the file in question is ...

http://www.gballard.net/dl/PDI_TargetFolderONLY.zip


Suggest he just print the file and not get carried away on "exposed ink" and not cross that 1% chance far far off bridge _unless _the PDI target doesn't print correctly and all color managment configuration has been confirmed first. Slim chance on this and best he isn't confused getting sidetracked off on a very unlikely tangent at this point. Nothing personal, but you get way way ahead of things at times.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> These settings look okay.
> 
> One thing to make sure of is that you downloaded the PC version, and not the Mac version. If these profiles are from where I expect they're from, it's relatively easy to accidentally download the wrong file.


"Those" settings are OK, but "those" are not all the color management settings ..


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> Need 1 more screen. Need the document color management settings .... Edit>Color Settings
> 
> That must be configured also.


Here's the screenshot...let me mention that the only thing I tried changing on this screen is the RBG. I tried both the sRGB setting and the Adobe RGB setting. No difference.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Here's the screenshot...let me mention that the only thing I tried changing on this screen is the RBG. I tried both the sRGB setting and the Adobe RGB setting. No difference.


Use Adobe RGB1998, it won't fix your problem but needs to be set up correctly. I will post a screen shot when I get at my home computer. A few other things will need to be checked on that page.

Print and transfer the PDI target file on some blank poly then we go from there. If you can post a pic of that after transferring it would be help. Before you transfer look at the solid color squares and see if any missing colors or banding (comparing to what you see on screen). Even with an uncalibrated monitor it will be close enough for comparison.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Need 1 more screen. Need the document color management settings .... Edit>Color Settings


The first printer screen shows it. Photoshop thoughtfully indicates the current document profile (though not any profile policies) above the selector for color management. That way you don't have to back out of the print dialog just to check..


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> The first printer screen shows it. Photoshop thoughtfully indicates the current document profile (though not any profile policies) above the selector for color management. That way you don't have to back out of the print dialog just to check..


Close but no cigar, there are other settings on the document screen too, you can't know what they are unless you have the default screen memorized ....

And srgb is for web work. Adobe RGB 1998 is the standard for printing.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> I tried both the sRGB setting and the Adobe RGB setting. No difference.


It wouldn't. The colorspace in sRGB is narrower than that in Adobe1998, so you don't gain by switching up. 

Mike suggested making your working space Adobe1998. This is to allow the widest (practical) gamut in your files as you edit them. 

You can use Photoshop's soft proofing tools if you need a real-time look at how your work will appear when printed. You need your printer profile properly installed to do that, however. This is something you can play with once you get this solved.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Close but no cigar, there are other settings on the document screen too,


Explain how they would impact color printing using sRGB document profile. How he sets up his default workspace is not the issue here. He's not going to get crazy colors just by having an sRGB tagged document.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish and GordonM....just a few questions

1. When printing that PDI image, should all profiles be set to OFF? Or should I have the WF7010 profile loaded? I'll get some fabric tomorrow to transfer the image on. My family is in the sewing business so we should have 100% polyester somewhere.

2. I accidentally looked over the post about the CISS comment by GordonM. I'll tell you that I had a TOUGH time setting mine up. No matter what I did, I had air in the tubes. It happened every time I picked up my cartridge to put it inside the printer. Could this really be the problem?

3. I found a post somewhere on this forum...it may have been from one of you....that had a 7520 profile attached for the WF7010. I tried that and got much better results. However, the blacks were more of a dark gray. When I go into color management, custom, advanced, "color control" and try to make it darker by playing with the contrast and darkness, the reds print magenta again. The weird thing is that even if I leave all settings to 0 but I have the radio button on "color control", the reds still look magenta. I'd think that they shouldn't be affected if I don't touch any of the sliders?


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> 1. When printing that PDI image, should all profiles be set to OFF? Or should I have the WF7010 profile loaded?


Backing up a bit, Mike makes a good point about picking the right PDI test image. I haven't looked closely at Gary's page in a while, and he sure does have a lot of extra crap in there. Download the zip Mike pointed to, and go from there. You can refer to the page I noted for background.

When using the image (say, the one tagged Adobe1998), just open it, then print it. All the other selections you have shown are okay.

(The reason to be concerned about the document profile is that some people get confused about this, and apply the *printer* profile to the document. That's can create the kind of results you got, but that's not your problem. You can also get crazy colors using a CMYK document profile. People think, "hey, my printer is CMYK, so this one must be what I use." But it doesn't work that way.)



> I'll get some fabric tomorrow to transfer the image on. My family is in the sewing business so we should have 100% polyester somewhere.


My suggestion of the 700 denier polyester is that the thinner fabrics that are common in that section of the store can give confusing results. The fabric lacks enough body to truly show the effect of the colors.



> 2. I accidentally looked over the post about the CISS comment by GordonM. I'll tell you that I had a TOUGH time setting mine up. No matter what I did, I had air in the tubes. It happened every time I picked up my cartridge to put it inside the printer. Could this really be the problem?


Can we just say you're using Cobra's CISS and inks? Would be so much easier!  Anyway, yes, it can be a challenge to get this working. I've done it so many times now (four printers so far), it's second nature.

If you're getting de-priming problems turning the cartridges over there's still air in there. Gotta get it ALL out. If it's air in the tubes, as opposed to still in the cartridge, double-check those filters on the tanks. Verify the levels in the two reservoirs. Recheck the connections of the tubes; make sure they're well seated. Check the height of the tanks against those he shows on his Web site. Yours should be within an inch or so. Do nozzle checks to make sure all the channels are firing. 



> 3. I found a post somewhere on this forum...it may have been from one of you....that had a 7520 profile attached for the WF7010. I tried that and got much better results. However, the blacks were more of a dark gray. When I go into color management, custom, advanced, "color control" and try to make it darker by playing with the contrast and darkness, the reds print magenta again. The weird thing is that even if I leave all settings to 0 but I have the radio button on "color control", the reds still look magenta. I'd think that they shouldn't be affected if I don't touch any of the sliders?


If you're using a color profile, printer color management should be off, and those sliders are no longer available. Leave it where you show in the printer box, and work only to get the right colors using a proper color profile.

Have you verified:

1. You're using the right profile file? I checked his versions, and the PC ones have a .icm extension. Check that.

2. Your inks were prematurely activated because of the heat. Do that drip test. You should get pure black, cyan, magenta, and yellow after the heat press.

3. Try another one of the profiles in the zip, just to see. 

If the above check out, drop me a PM and I can get you a 7010 profile for Richard's ink that I did myself. I no longer use his HT inks, but when I did my own profiles, they worked well for the various substrates I used.

You do mention you've done subbing before. But it might be useful to double-check what paper you're using. The lack of saturation and shifts can also be attributed to A) a bad sub paper and B) printing to the wrong side of the paper. Did you get the paper from Richard? On his, the whiter side is the printing side. This is the side that's coated. The uncoated side will simply soak up the ink, and won't release much of it back.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Explain how they would impact color printing using sRGB document profile. How he sets up his default workspace is not the issue here. He's not going to get crazy colors just by having an sRGB tagged document.


Gordon, CACA.

The PDI target file is *ADOBE RGB 1998,* he could set to srgb and still "honor" the embedded profile, but then his default workspace is gamut limited if he chooses to compose from scratch. If he forces conversion then his color YES CAN BE SCREWED UP.

Don't take my word for it, go thru the Greg Ballard "Assign vs. Convert" tutorial and see for yourself. It's not just the website opinion HE ACTUALLY PROVES IT and one can see for themselves. Try the test files.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Gthru the Greg Ballard "Assign vs. Convert" tutorial


This isn't what you said. Where in Photoshop can you get a history of what happened to the colorspace? We can only ever go off how the document is tagged.

You asked for the document settings, and those will not tell you if a colorspace has been forced by converting or assigning. 

Do this simple test:

1. Create a new document tagged Adobe1998. Put in some color swatches. Print it.

2. Create a new document tagged sRGB. Do the same with the swatches and print it.

Are you saying the sRGB document is going to have wacked colors?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> mgparrish and GordonM....just a few questions
> 
> 1. When printing that PDI image, should all profiles be set to OFF?
> 
> ...


 
See my markups above.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> This isn't what you said. Where in Photoshop can you get a history of what happened to the colorspace? We can only ever go off how the document is tagged.
> 
> *You asked for the document settings, and those will not tell you if a colorspace has been forced by converting or assigning.*
> 
> ...


Nope, not what I am saying. Try again.

*"You asked for the document settings, and those will not tell you if a colorspace has been forced by converting or assigning."*

It most certainly will if you set it to warn you.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> This isn't what you said. *Where in Photoshop can you get a history of what happened to the colorspace? We can only ever go off how the document is tagged.*
> 
> *You asked for the document settings, and those will not tell you if a colorspace has been forced by converting or assigning. *
> 
> ...


See the attached screens ...


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Make, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY about the wisdom setting up profile policies. But reread the OP's description of the colors he's getting. With such a HUGE shift, there's no way this can be a document profile conversion issue that he can't also see on his screen. 

You don't even know if conversion is taking place. For all anyone knows here, from the information given, the OP creates documents with sRGB. And that's not going to cause the problems he's described, either.

It is timely and worthwhile to note profile policies after this kind of problem is solved. The benefits of good profile policy can be more appreciated then.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Make, I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY about the wisdom setting up profile policies. But reread the OP's description of the colors he's getting. With such a HUGE shift, there's no way this can be a document profile conversion issue that he can't also see on his screen.
> 
> *You don't even know if conversion is taking place*. For all anyone knows here, from the information given, the OP creates documents with sRGB. And that alone is not going to cause the problems he's described.
> 
> It is timely and worthwhile to note profile policies after this kind of problem is solved. The benefits of good profile policy can be more appreciated then.


Gordon,

"You don't even know if conversion is taking place" How can you even argue this? See the screen shots IF YOU SETUP TO WARN IT WILL 100%.

Oh _now_ you agree about profile policies  No charge for the education. You're creating things I haven't said. I NEVER STATED HIS EXACT PROBLEM WAS A DOCUMENT CONVERSION. But It is necessary to set the document color management screen correctly, No?

Between your wild goose chases with "spoiled inks" "expired inks" (from another post) and your lack of graphic software fundamentals 101 (including Corel Draw from a post a week or so ago) it's real simple, sometimes you are way way off in far far away galaxies. 

First* you* encourage him to download the target file (from a page that has many many target files), then argue setup ... until you are shown your information is wrong, now you state that is not his problem anyway? What's up with that. 

You need to print a file to look for banding, No?. 

The PDI target file will show banding and most certainly the purge file I referred to will. 

Beyond a nozzle check which is not comprehensive you need to actually PRINT SOMETHING to see how your printer and setup is doing. No?

Now why not just print the file I posted which can show banding? At the end of the day he should check his setup using the same file... No? 

He didn't setup the document color management screen correctly AND_ if_ he has clog issues then he has at least one problem maybe 2. He was not setup correctly FACT. Clogs aside.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

I didn't know if it would be a good idea to mention Cobra but let me clarify a few things:

1. My inks are from Cobra but I got the hotzone360 CISS. Had no issue installing it aside from the air bubbles just not going away from the tubes.

2. I definitely used the PC version of the profiles from Cobra. Tried all of the different options within the zip file and they were are fairly similar. Again, only the reds and blacks had major issues.

3. I believe my paper is causing issues with my print heads sometimes. Every once in a while, the corner of my paper gets a blotch of black ink. I think it may be because the paper was curled up when I opened up the package. I've had some banding/lines a couple times since I set this whole thing up a few days ago. Doing the cleaning through the Printer Preferences fixed the problem both times.

4. My paper is not from Cobra. A friend gave it to me and he didn't even remember where he got it from but I'm assuming that it's generic. Could the paper really be an issue though if all the other colors look good? I know that I'm printing on the correct side because I did make the mistake printing it on the wrong side the first time. Very obvious difference.

5. I am 100% new to sublimation. Sorry if my post seemed like I've had experience. What I meant was that I was able to transfer the image to my substrate just fine.

Attached is an image using Cobras profile on the left, the Epson 07 IJ one next to it. On my computer monitor, they look damn near exactly how they look in person (aside from them being blurry in this pic). As you can see, yellowish tint and magenta on Cobra's profile, and a very dark blue and orange on Epson one. The real image is supposed to look like the one on the right.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> I4. My paper is not from Cobra. A friend gave it to me and he didn't even remember where he got it from but I'm assuming that it's generic. Could the paper really be an issue though if all the other colors look good?


Using a known good paper is a good idea. Blacks can indeed be weak if the paper isn't made for sublimation, if you're printing on the wrong side, or is just plain not very good.

I'd recommend:

1. Get some Image Right or other name brand paper. Be sure to print on the correct side.

2. Talk to Hotzone about priming your system. If not primed properly, with all the air out, you'll have one problem after another. (The cleaning process temporarily re-primed the cartridge, in addition to clearing any clogged jets because the head ran over the paper edge. But you can't keep doing clean cycles.)

3. Try an image with more colors. The sample you showed has just black and red? It's not possible to tell anything with that.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> It's only a prompt. Options turned off Photoshop will accept the embedded profile without conversion. His document obviously had one, or the print dialog would have said otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Common sense and logic troubleshooting says if you are having "spoiled ink from temperature" how can you detect this? Would you not need to first ... 

1. Ensure the color management setup is correct.
2. Print and transfer know GOOD test file

????

You have the cart before the horse Gordon. Or would you rather he not worry about his setup then print something GORY and complain to Richard his inks got spoiled in shipping? That dog don't hunt.

If a channel isn't printing then the SOLID SPOT COLORS won't show up in the PDI target file or the Purge file of pure color bars? ... _are you kidding me_?

Please don't start the parsing word houey, CLOGS, AIR BUBBLES, poor prime, there are all kind of reasons, end results are missing colors or banding in the printout? No? Just word games Gordon.

The OP stated specifically he was just getting setup and had questions about PROFILES? No?

*YOU* started the setup dialog before any mention of "ink delivery" issues.

First you stated ...

"The generic "HT ink" profile for the 7010 should be closer than what you are getting, so I'd suspect some *setting *or other is wrong. *Could you review what you're using for both the document and printer files*, as well as* note the application you're using to print from*, and what type of computer (Mac, PC) you have?"

Are you kidding me, it's now "Irrelevant" ?


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> "You don't even know if conversion is taking place" How can you even argue this? See the screen shots IF YOU SETUP TO WARN IT WILL 100%.


It's only a prompt. Options turned off Photoshop will accept the embedded profile without conversion. His document obviously had one, or the print dialog would have said otherwise.



> But It is necessary to set the document color management screen correctly, No?


Makes no difference for the stated color shift problem. Helps down the road, but we're not there yet.



> Between your wild goose chases with "spoiled inks" "expired inks"


It's the middle of summer and Cobra ships ground. It's a simple test, costs nothing, and is part of the process of elimination.

The rest of your questions are irrelevant. The nozzle check is obviously for verifying a channel is printing ink.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I didn't know if it would be a good idea to mention Cobra but let me clarify a few things:
> 
> 1. My inks are from Cobra but I got the hotzone360 CISS. Had no issue installing it aside from the air bubbles just not going away from the tubes.
> 
> ...


Print the PDI target file first !!!! You cannot adequately tell from random artwork. The PDI file will show color problems right away. Your paper is important too, but use the PDI target file with paper and print on the bright white side.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> If a channel isn't printing then the SOLID SPOT COLORS won't show up in the PDI target file or the Purge file of pure color bars? ... _are you kidding me_?


They won't show, but you won't know why. Is it a printer problem? A printer profile problem? What? How is it so hard to understand that a nozzle check is outside any issues with color profiles. This is just common sense. 

I got the info I needed about how the document was tagged from the print dialog. I didn't need to see how his profile policy was set up. Doesn't help him with this document.

I reposted my message to trim it down to essentials, and it now comes after your reply. Same sentiment, though. Start simple, then go from there. None of my suggestions take more than a minute or two.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> It's only a prompt. Options turned off Photoshop will accept the embedded profile without conversion. His document obviously had one, or the print dialog would have said otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The OP just stated he had some banding before, it was cleared up. 

Printing solid colors squares will show banding or other "ink delivery" issues. *Minor banding will not cause his "huge color shift*". If a few nozzles are not firing that is not causing a "huge color shift" if the nozzle check is good that does not go far enough, his real images can still be bad. If his nozzle check is bad enough to cause "huge color shifts" it will appear in printed squares as well. Printing a test file is also a SIMPLE TEST.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

GordonM said:


> Using a known good paper is a good idea. Blacks can indeed be weak if the paper isn't made for sublimation, if you're printing on the wrong side, or is just plain not very good.
> 
> I'd recommend:
> 
> ...


Here's an image with some more color....lighting wasn't great when I took this picture but I can tell you that besides the black areas, the colors were pretty accurate. The original image is on the bottom.

The black and red image was attached to show you exactly the main problem that I'm seeing. Those are the only 2 colors that are giving me major problems.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> Print the PDI target file first !!!! You cannot adequately tell from random artwork. The PDI file will show color problems right away. Your paper is important too, but use the PDI target file with paper and print on the bright white side.



Trust me I will do that tomorrow. I don't have the fabric right now so I'm talking out the other possibilities.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Here's an image with some more color....lighting wasn't great when I took this picture but I can tell you that besides the black areas, the colors were pretty accurate. The original image is on the bottom.
> 
> The black and red image was attached to show you exactly the main problem that I'm seeing. Those are the only 2 colors that are giving me major problems.


Trust me, these are not "huge color shifts" caused by ink delivery problems. This is color management. You can eval the entire range of your colors with the PDI file. How you manage your imported image will matter as well.

Look at the grayscales and blacks on my printed and transferred poly, your results should be the same.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

The colors aren't all that bad, apart from what appears as poor transfer, possibly from the paper you are using. Changing to a better paper may resolve the mottling that I can see, and could improve the blacks. The other colors are accurate enough that I don't think it's a wholesale profile issue, like using the wrong one.

If your document started out as sRGB, and you printed it as such (which you did according to the print dialog), there is nothing you can change in the color settings or profile dialogs that will correct any colors you see as off. Not everyone seems to be willing to accept this point.

Do work out the problems with air in the lines on your CISS, which you say you've had. They are not "clogs" as another poster suggests, but outright starvation of ink to the heads. It's actually not good for this type of printer, and can ruin the printhead.

Finally, do understand that a 4-color printer like the 7010 cannot reproduce all the colors you can see, even with the best profile in the world.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

GordonM said:


> Finally, do understand that a 4-color printer like the 7010 cannot reproduce all the colors you can see, even with the best profile in the world.


I do understand that... But at the same time, I know for a fact that the colors I'm having issues with should not show up the way they do. I mean a black part of the image should just use the K shouldn't it? At least a majority of it should come from the K. 

When changing profiles and getting closer to a true black, it makes me think that the generic 7010 profile that I download just isn't working correctly for some reason. 

I will print the 4 color purge file and transfer it to the aluminum plate tomorrow. I'm almost certain that I'll still have a yellow tint on the black bar where using the Cobra profile but we'll see.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Trust me I will do that tomorrow. I don't have the fabric right now so I'm talking out the other possibilities.


I have a Adobe RGB 1998 calibrated monitor and an 8 color 4880 with pigments. 

If you can email me those those source files I can see how the colors should look and print under ideal conditions. I will PM you my email. 

When you upload the files you posted to this or any CMS system the files are usually no good for download since the web software will usually resample the files and "hose" them for anything else except for viewing on this forum. 

So the original files are needed. I can scan in photoshop with the color picker for your RGB values for your blacks and such. If you don't have a calibrated monitor you cannot know exactly what is true onscreen.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I do understand that... But at the same time, I know for a fact that the colors I'm having issues with should not show up the way they do. I mean a black part of the image should just use the K shouldn't it? At least a majority of it should come from the K.
> 
> When changing profiles and getting closer to a true black, it makes me think that the generic 7010 profile that I download just isn't working correctly for some reason.
> 
> I will print the 4 color purge file and transfer it to the aluminum plate tomorrow. I'm almost certain that I'll still have a yellow tint on the black bar where using the Cobra profile but we'll see.


You're photo is made from a composite black, not a true "K". But with those inks and a proper setup composite black is very good, see my transferred poly.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> The colors aren't all that bad, apart from what appears as poor transfer, possibly from the paper you are using. Changing to a better paper may resolve the mottling that I can see, and could improve the blacks. The other colors are accurate enough that I don't think it's a wholesale profile issue, like using the wrong one.
> 
> If your document started out as sRGB, and you printed it as such (which you did according to the print dialog), there is nothing you can change in the color settings or profile dialogs that will correct any colors you see as off. Not everyone seems to be willing to accept this point.
> 
> ...


Gordon please stop the word games. CLOGS, POOR PRIME, STARVATION whatever. CACA

He needs to confirm his color management and print the target file irregardless. DUH


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> I have a Adobe RGB 1998 calibrated monitor and an 8 color 4880 with pigments.
> 
> If you can email me those those source files I can see how the colors should look and print under ideal conditions. I will PM you my email.
> 
> ...


Which source files? The images that I posted in this thread?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Which source files? The images that I posted in this thread?


Yes both files. I sent you my email. Black requires proper temp and dwell, it is easy on poly so we can perhaps rule out the inks and color setup if you print on poly. You should test all your profiles as well this way. You may find a profile or 2 is "off" more than the others.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> CACA


Sorry, I'm not two years old. I'm sure you can express yourself better than this.



mgparrish said:


> He needs to confirm his color management and print the target file irregardless. DUH


His color management is fine. He opens the target file, and with the default settings, which he has, Photoshop will keep the embedded tagging. Much simpler than you make it out to be.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Sorry, I'm not two years old. I'm sure you can express yourself better than this.
> 
> 
> 
> His color management is fine. He opens the target file, and with the default settings, which he has, Photoshop will keep the embedded tagging. Much simpler than you make it out to be.


Must be confirmed Gordon, at first you said it was "fine" and it wasn't. HIS DEFAULT SHOULD BE ADOBE RGB 1998 I know this from hands on.
And please don't start the "well it wasn't his problem &^%$" when you setup you test methodically and use a known good file and transfer it. *Again first you were making that case now you don't. In many posts you state the same thing use the target file print on test material ... No? Now you want to argue it? Shall I post some of your posts where you state this?*

I know from using those inks TODAY and tested all the RECENT profiles Richard made for my printer model and from helping others with other Epsons. Print and transfer onto poly, it will also show any limitations, and there are differences in some of the profiles, he needs to test all his profiles no matter what they are titled.

The only way to verify limitations of the system is to use OBJECTIVE color as you state the printer has limitations... no? Or should he use a random photo for that?

Schools over.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

What part of this do you not understand:

"He opens the target file, and with the default settings, which he has, Photoshop will keep the embedded tagging."

Where have I said not to do a test on poly (I did), or that he shouldn't print a known good file (I did). You keep wanting to insist that having Photoshop PROMPT for the document profile will actually correct colors. If you just let the program open the test file IT WILL PRINT WITH THE EMBEDDED PROFILE. That's all he needs to do at this point. You can wow him with your knowledge about setting up profile policies later.

Okay it's true, I make suggestions of simple tests to rule out larger problems. Keyword on simple. A nozzle test is simple. So is a drop drip test, which you should always do with new bottles of sublimation ink anyway, especially if you use a CISS.

Many people cannot determine where a problem is by looking at a full color print. They lack the experience to know what they are looking at. Simple tests like a nozzle check can be analyzed by anyone, because they show simple results. Simple tests do not preclude a full test. They're not mutually exclusive, and they all help solve problems.


----------



## HeadhunterX (Oct 23, 2007)

Every thread you guys go to all you do is argue... Are you both 2 years old or something??? I have been reading this to maybe pick up something useful but both of you could use some time out this bickering is BS..........


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> What part of this do you not understand:
> 
> "He opens the target file, and with the default settings, which he has, Photoshop will keep the embedded tagging."
> 
> ...


Gordon,

1. He is not having nozzle issues for any color shift

2. He does not need to do a drop drip test

3. Been sublimating with ink jets since it was first available, never needed a "drip test".  Not in my galaxy anyway, I use objective color to test for ink/profile/color management problems. 

I understand what the profile policies are. Even though his screen shot in the printer driver showed what the tagged profile was sRGB you ASSUMED he had the other settings correct. 

He did not show screen shots yet of what I asked for ... he could have had the "ask" for profile turned off and had a forced conversion and the sRGB profile could have been from a forced conversion and still show up in the print preview as srgb _I can prove this_. He only stated "srgb" was tried and Adobe RGB 1998.

Again it could be he had those correct, I DO NOT EVER ASSUME. His default workspace should be *Adobe RGB 1998*, no matter what the immediate problem is. 

Even IF he had the "ask" on mismatch AND preserve embedded profiles he still needs *the best default workspace.* I know from hands on with this ink and profiles that composing from scratch the best workspace is Adobe RGB 1998, not srgb. Again, even if it correctly managed the profile his default workspace should be Adobe RGB 1998 for going forward. 

Now I don't want to "WOW" him with profile policy later. In my galaxy if something is not set optimium FIX it regardless, it's only a couple of mouse clicks Gordon. Do things right the first time. You see something that is not the best practice fix it.

Again you are "wordsmithing" me ... where you state 

"You keep wanting to insist that having Photoshop PROMPT for the document profile will actually correct colors. " 

I have never stated nor implied that. NO NO NO

FACT. If the document is tagged and you honor the profile IT WON"T CORRECT COLORS ... *IT LEAVES THE COLORS ALONE* WHICH IS WHAT YOU WANT WITH A TAGGED DOC. Don't fix the colors this way but DON"T SCREW THEM UP EITHER by forcing a different profile. 

I repeat ... at this point he needs to work with objective color and use test material. Test all the profiles (6 of them) using the Adobe RGB PDI target file. Anything else at this point, drip drops, nozzle checks, "spoiled ink from shipping" is a wild goose chase.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Alright guys...just a little update.

I spoke to Richard and he was surprised that I had issues. He said that I have newer ink labeled as NZ-4 (NOT the RZ280) but my colors shouldn't be this off so he recommended I try printing with no profiles telling me that this ink should still "put me in the ballpark". I tried it after I got off the phone and I got decent colors out of it but the red still looks sort of magenta. He told me that creating new profiles are on his to do list and should be done within the next few weeks.

I also did a little bit of experimenting and noticed that I got much better results with my paper settings set to Matte. Images are printing darker and generally just look much better. However, there is always a color that is way off. One of the profiles gave me a perfect red and black, but then the blue was practically purple while the other colors looked fine. Then other profiles gave me a perfect blue but the reds were back to magenta. So I was able to accurately print every single color but not together on one profile (is there a way to get some colors from one profile and some from another?  joking..). I'm starting to think that this new ink just needs a new profile, plain and simple. 

Here are the images of the PDI file pressed onto 100% polyester. The colors look better on the fabric than the aluminum, but the issues are still there. It looks like the PolyesterDyeTrans profile worked the best on this fabric.

One thing that I think I should say is that the grays on all of these images are not a definite gray. They ALL have a red, blue, or yellow tint to them. 

I wanted to mention that I also bought 50 pieces of Royal Sub paper just to see what would happen....wow. TERRIBLE. Everything was very light. I'm not sure if I had to press longer or what but nothing came out right. I tried pressing for an extra 30 seconds but no difference.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Here is the last image that I couldn't attach in the last post.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Alright guys...just a little update.
> 
> I spoke to Richard and he was surprised that I had issues. He said that I have newer ink labeled as NZ-4 (NOT the RZ280) but my colors shouldn't be this off so he recommended I try printing with no profiles telling me that this ink should still "put me in the ballpark". I tried it after I got off the phone and I got decent colors out of it but the red still looks sort of magenta. He told me that creating new profiles are on his to do list and should be done within the next few weeks.
> 
> ...


Yes, those are poor compared to the RZ280 with the latest profiles. 

The Royal sub paper has had several complaint postings here.

I would assume that all the RZ280 is being replaced so it's good to know that when I re-order.

Suggest to sit tight till he updates the profiles. If you have stuff that is not so color critical what you have now can get you by in those cases.

I don't know if you have Corel or not but here is a good resource for getting tight color matching with vectors. Even with a very good profile some spot colors are a challenge to match, works best with vector though since you can easily click on an object and change colors.

CMYK & RGB Color Charts - MultiRIP Sublimation, Transfers, Photograph and Direct-to-Garment Printing RIP Softwares


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Let's just hope he gets it done soon. I know that they've been behind lately. 

Now to bring up another issue that I mentioned before....after about 10 full pages of prints, I start getting lines all over my images. I know that I shouldn't be doing head cleanings too often so I want to figure out what the issue is. Any ideas?​


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Let's just hope he gets it done soon. I know that they've been behind lately.​
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You likely still have some air in your CIS lines. If you are printing frequently then not likely clogged heads. Prime your CIS again. Usually if a head cleaning "fixes" the problem but returns after printing "x" number of pages, and the printer has been used frequently, then you have air/priming or other issues not related to clogging. _This is why I don't believe in nozzle checks alone, you need to actually print something_. Nozzle checks by themselves can be misleading.

Some CIS have pressure issues if the ink levels get too low, not sure you have that problem since your setup is new though.

It also looks like you have banding in one direction, and "tractor tails" in the other. If you have "hi speed" turned on suggest to turn it off for the tractor trails. Slow drying paper and/or the fact you have put it on "matte" can contribute to that as well.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Let's just hope he gets it done soon. I know that they've been behind lately.​
> 
> Now to bring up another issue that I mentioned before....after about 10 full pages of prints, I start getting lines all over my images. I know that I shouldn't be doing head cleanings too often so I want to figure out what the issue is. Any ideas?​


I should also mention that not printing thru an ICC profile can cause that since you lay down more ink ... the rollers are going over the paper before the ink is fully dried.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> I wanted to mention that I also bought 50 pieces of Royal Sub paper just to see what would happen....wow. TERRIBLE. Everything was very light. I'm not sure if I had to press longer or what but nothing came out right. I tried pressing for an extra 30 seconds but no difference.


Are these print tests with the Royal paper or something else? For a definitive test, maybe use TexPrint HR, which is a known, quality paper designed for textiles. Then there's no question if it's your ink. 

In the future, would you please include the specifics -- paper, time, temp, paper setting, etc. -- on any sample you post? As you're trying many different things, it's hard to know what you're using when.

Does your fabric have a slub or definite texture to it? I'm seeing a definite mottling texture where it should be solid black or color. The image should not look like some 18th century fresco. This can from crap paper, or if you're printing to the wrong side, or if the heat/temp is not right. For 700D poly, which I recommended earlier, I use 400 degrees, light to medium pressure, 40 seconds. Other settings can work, too, but just be consistent about it.

I'm concerned most of your grays/blacks have that chocolate look to them. This happened to me with Richard's profiles, and is why I had my own made. But it can happen with a perfect profile if you "over-cook" the transfer. Have you verified your press is really at 400 degrees?

I have already recommended that you contact Hotzone and ask about the issues with air and other problems. Have you done that yet? It's their CISS and they know best how to make it behave.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Are these print tests with the Royal paper or something else? For a definitive test, maybe use TexPrint HR, which is a known, quality paper designed for textiles. Then there's no question if it's your ink.
> 
> In the future, would you please include the specifics -- paper, time, temp, paper setting, etc. -- on any sample you post? As you're trying many different things, it's hard to know what you're using when.
> 
> ...


The inks have changed but no profiles for this ink is the problem outside of anything else.

While I agree that overcooking can screw up black if you look close at the pictures he posted where the gradients are at the top there is clear and obvious non linearity.

Your mention of making your own profile is not his solution, so you are implying there is something wrong with Richards profiles. Prior to changing to these new inks Richards profiles were _very good_ after he got new and more expensive equipment.

Those reading your statement without context could be lead to believe that Cobra has poor profiles.

You had inks and his older profiles before he changed his setup, you forgot to mention that.

But in this case there is a profile issue with the new inks ... there aren't any profiles _yet_ for the new inks.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

The prints that I've posted are from other paper. I do not know where they came from. My friend gave them to me and he doesn't even remember. I can tell you that if you compare it side by side with the Royal Sub paper, the Royal paper looks more of a pure white than this generic paper. I definitely printed on the correct side...I made mistake of printing on the wrong side the first time. The quality of the image was blurry.

As for the temperature and time, I've been doing 380 degrees for 70 seconds on the fabric. I noticed that I got the best results that way.

For the aluminum plates, I've been pressing at 380 degrees at 90 seconds. However, I've went all over the place with the temperature and dwell time (anywhere from 350 degrees to 400 degrees, and 30 seconds to 90 seconds) and it seemed to make no difference. All of the transfers looked exactly the same.

I have not verified that the heat plate is accurate. Is it THAT important to make sure it's putting out the correct temperature? I assumed that there are no standard press times and temperatures since the substrate, paper, and ink I use can be different than others.

As for contacting hotzone...not yet. I want to try to work on it first and see if I did something wrong. I watched a few videos and realized I probably messed up while filling it up with ink. I don't know how important this is, but I just saw a video that had the plug removed from the large ink containers while putting the syringe in the cartridge to pull the ink. Then after the ink got into the cartridge, they put the plug back into the big containers. My plug was in the whole time when I did this. It was only removed once I installed the cartridge so that I can put the air filter in. I'm going to follow the video I saw and see if that fixes anything.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> The prints that I've posted are from other paper. I do not know where they came from. My friend gave them to me and he doesn't even remember. I can tell you that if you compare it side by side with the Royal Sub paper, the Royal paper looks more of a pure white than this generic paper. I definitely printed on the correct side...I made mistake of printing on the wrong side the first time. The quality of the image was blurry.
> 
> As for the temperature and time, I've been doing 380 degrees for 70 seconds on the fabric. I noticed that I got the best results that way.
> 
> ...


Suggest for now you get Richards papers, at least the 'Dye trans" paper, optionally the "TexPrint HR" as the profiles he will be making will be based on those papers. Later you may opt for Coastals paper to substitute for the "Dye Trans" paper.

But for sure you have a profile problem, you don't have one for the new inks.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> Now to bring up another issue that I mentioned before....after about 10 full pages of prints, I start getting lines all over my images.


You should be doing nozzle checks IN ADDITION to any prints whenever you see something like this.

The 7010 has some printing issues related to operating temperature and humidity. This happens to me, too, and my CISS is fully and properly sealed. You must remember you are using an inexpensive consumer-grade printer -- Epson's cheapest for its size. You have to learn how to work it.

Whenever you see this in your prints, you already have the print results, so there's no reason to print something else (this should be obvious). So now do a nozzle check. You can do it from the front panel if you don't want to go through the Maintenance tab. Worry if you keep getting voids in any of the patterns just by printing.

On this printer you may also get banding, quite suddenly, and this can be caused by using the printer in temperatures >80, or in higher humidity. Move your printer to a more controlled environment if you get wide temperature and humidity swings. This alone solved a lot of problems for me.

You're having a lot of problems because you still haven't addressed the core issues, or haven't mentioned that you have. These include making sure your CISS is properly functioning.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

They sent me samples of both papers yesterday so I'll hopefully get them by tomorrow. 

Do you have any experience with the TexPrint? The price isn't bad so I may just purchase that if it's recommended.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Your mention of making your own profile is not his solution, so you are implying there is something wrong with Richards profiles.


Not implying; I've gone on record last year saying his profiles for the 7010 were poor. I'm glad he's improved them. He needed to.

But save it. You are on my ignore list. Your pettiness is not worth my time.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Not implying; I've gone on record last year saying his profiles for the 7010 were poor. I'm glad he's improved them. He needed to.
> 
> But save it. You are on my ignore list. Your pettiness is not worth my time.


Not saying the implication was intentional, but without context _there is clear implication_. Again, while not intentional, giving Cobra a black eye for _outdated_ information is not "petty" in my book.

"I'm concerned most of your grays/blacks have that chocolate look to them. This happened to me with Richard's profiles, and is why I had my own made."

Anyway, good you cleared that up, your color issues where due to old profiles and lessor equipment they used _at that time_ to make those profiles, not due to current profiles.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> They sent me samples of both papers yesterday so I'll hopefully get them by tomorrow.
> 
> Do you have any experience with the TexPrint? The price isn't bad so I may just purchase that if it's recommended.


Texprint HR is for _some_ fabric and back coated glass. It has higher release and will help "pop" depending on the fabric. Glass tiles are generally not a great white substrate since the dyes have to penetrate it to be seen on the front surface due to being back printed, and the images tend to be weaker as a result. Having more dye release helps that.

For anything else the Dye Trans (general purpose) paper will cover you.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

GordonM said:


> You should be doing nozzle checks IN ADDITION to any prints whenever you see something like this.
> 
> The 7010 has some printing issues related to operating temperature and humidity. This happens to me, too, and my CISS is fully and properly sealed. You must remember you are using an inexpensive consumer-grade printer -- Epson's cheapest for its size. You have to learn how to work it.
> 
> ...


I have done many nozzle checks. But if everything looks good on the nozzle check, a few prints later I still get the lines. If the nozzle check doesn't look good, then what is my next step? I'm hoping priming the CISS as mgparrish said would fix the problem.

The room that the printer is in right now does vary a lot. It has a lot of windows and the temperature changes. I'm in Chicago so the temperate this past week has been anywhre from 60 degrees to 95 degrees. Humidity is all over the place too but I keep the door open from another room that generally stays at around 75 degrees at around 50% humidity. It usually feels fine when I do that.

As for my core problems...what else is a problem besides the air bubbles in my CISS?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I have done many nozzle checks. But if everything looks good on the nozzle check, a few prints later I still get the lines. If the nozzle check doesn't look good, then what is my next step? I'm hoping priming the CISS as mgparrish said would fix the problem.
> 
> The room that the printer is in right now does vary a lot. It has a lot of windows and the temperature changes. I'm in Chicago so the temperate this past week has been anywhre from 60 degrees to 95 degrees. Humidity is all over the place too but I keep the door open from another room that generally stays at around 75 degrees at around 50% humidity. It usually feels fine when I do that.
> 
> As for my core problems...what else is a problem besides the air bubbles in my CISS?


I am only speculating on the CIS prime, but suggest you do as you mentioned, review the video again, I don't have that specific equipment but everything else I have primed before plugs were out till finished. So what you mentioned seems plausable. Don't rely on nozzle checks, print something like the color bars like you did before to confirm.

For others reading here ... my previous mention

_"This is why I don't believe in nozzle checks alone, you need to actually print something_. Nozzle checks by themselves can be misleading."

The reason is bubbles in the system may not always show up in nozzle checks, unless you do a ton of them in a row. The amount of ink in the printhead required to do a nozzle check is so small that very little ink movement is needed. Once you start printing and much more ink flowing is required for the image then it's a different situation.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> I have done many nozzle checks. But if everything looks good on the nozzle check, a few prints later I still get the lines. If the nozzle check doesn't look good, then what is my next step?


Job one is to make sure that CISS is working okay. On my first CISS printer, a Workforce 30, I had to reprime three times until I got it right. There's a learning curve to this. (I also exclusively use Richard's CISSs and cartridges. IMO they are superior to the others out there.)

One option is to turni off High Speed, as has been noted before. This causes the printer to print in one direction only. This can sometimes help in reducing this artifact.

You can also try increasing the ink density, but you're already getting tractor marks, which says the ink is not drying fast enough on the paper. More ink will only make this worse. The tractor-trails are something better paper might help with, and a working profile, so worry about it again when you have these in place.

Check your head alignment. Have you done this before or recently? 

What I'm seeing in that picture -- apart from the ink tracking -- is exactly what I got when my 7010 was in an uneven working environment. Some evenings last summer I had to stop for the night, as no amount of re-alignment, clean cycles, etc. would fix it for long. 

Next morning (I live in a climate where the nights get cool), everything would be back to normal again. I would make no changes in between.

I've sometimes felt that the 7010 is not made for continuous printing. You may want to stop printing for an hour or so, to see if things clear up. 

On one of my 7010s, I use it to print 13x19 posters. I have to stop every 10-12 posters to let it "cool." I'm not sure what the actual problem is, but a half-hour later, the printer is back to its own self.



Mdrake said:


> As for my core problems...what else is a problem besides the air bubbles in my CISS?


Paper and profile are the main things. Good paper can make a lot of difference. 

Two questions: 

1. When you let the printer manage colors, or you manually select the Epson IJ Printer 07 profile, do your blacks turn out on the blue side?

2. Were all the poly cloth samples you posted made with a sublimation profile? Since colors can change when you take a picture, could you post the one that has the truest grays and blacks, to your eyes. And note which profile that is.

I have another 7010 with cartridges, and can do a test with one of Richard's new profiles to see what I get. That machine still has Richard's older ink in it, so the profile will match the ink it was originally intended for.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

One other things to try, though it uses up ink, is to reset the cartridges. This makes the printer think it has new cartridges, and it goes through a priming process. You might see what effect that has the next time. 

On a CISS with an auto reset you just put the printer into the ink change position (press the ink button on the front panel), lift the hood, open the cartridge door, and press the reset button for about 3 seconds. Close up everything, and press the ink button again. Wait until the green power light stops flashing, and then try printing.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Job one is to make sure that CISS is working okay. On my first CISS printer, a Workforce 30, I had to reprime three times until I got it right. There's a learning curve to this. (I also exclusively use Richard's CISSs and cartridges. IMO they are superior to the others out there.)
> 
> One option is to turni off High Speed, as has been noted before. This causes the printer to print in one direction only. This can sometimes help in reducing this artifact.
> 
> ...


The OP should clarify on the profile usage or not, but since he has 6 profiles and 6 photos, each slightly different ....

Assuming if he was using the 6 profiles in those 6 photos then what good does it do to further analyze old inks. It's your time to setup for the inks you have with the newer profiles ... but at the end of the day just a pure exercise in trivial pursuit. (in other words a Wild Goose Chase). 

Your inks in that printer you mention are no longer available, his inks need it's own new profile. What ever you end up with using the new profile will have zero bearing on his current inks.

Yes your inks will match the profile it was intended for, but his inks _won't ever match until he gets a new profile_.  What valuable lesson or solution will come of that?


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

GordonM said:


> Check your head alignment. Have you done this before or recently?
> 
> Paper and profile are the main things. Good paper can make a lot of difference.
> 
> ...


I have not checked the head alignment....I'll research that. I know absolutely nothing about printers but I've learned a lot just this past week because of my problems.

Yes the blacks look like a very dark blue when I use either Epson IJ07 or when I let the printer manage colors.

The poly cloth samples were all sublimation profiles from Cobra. The best one in my opinion is the "Polyester TexPrintXP". It's the one that definitely stands out the most. I just took another pic and reattached it. Sorry about the quality...I'm not sure how to adjust it on my S3 (modded the hell out of it). My ONLY issue with this one is again, the reds. It looks almost like a Koolaid red than a regular red. When using the Epson IJ 07...the red is perfect.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I have not checked the head alignment....I'll research that. I know absolutely nothing about printers but I've learned a lot just this past week because of my problems.
> 
> Yes the blacks look like a very dark blue when I use either Epson IJ07 or when I let the printer manage colors.
> 
> The poly cloth samples were all sublimation profiles from Cobra. The best one in my opinion is the "Polyester TexPrintXP". It's the one that definitely stands out the most. I just took another pic and reattached it. Sorry about the quality...I'm not sure how to adjust it on my S3 (modded the hell out of it). My ONLY issue with this one is again, the reds. It looks almost like a Koolaid red than a regular red. When using the Epson IJ 07...the red is perfect.


See my highlight areas in the attached, it show the non linearity by not having a matched profile to your new inks. Notice that instead of the squares having a more gradual change in levels like in the poly photo I have a few pages back, the levels "steps" are not clearly right. This means that with the exception of the "bolder" spot colors you will have "posterization" in nearly everything you do. In the primary colors gradient towards the top (circled) the lightest colors are pretty much gone. 

Suggest for now, till Cobra gets profiles for the new inks posted, use what ever you feel is best. But it will never be right until the new profiles are out.

You can tweak your images piecemeal but this is very tedious and you really won't be able to use the same adjustments on each and every photo or art because of the non-linearity. The blacks and grayscales are horrible, fine details in hair and grays/blacks in arts and such are going to not be seen anymore, or will not longer be showing as some level of black.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

I should also point out that those grayscale squares at the bottom are not just about black or gray, those are printed as composites of all primary colors. 

For this reason the grayscales being "true" are the hardest to achieve and those grayscales go very far to indicate the total overall color capability, even though you might think those are only applicable for grayscale art. They are important to re-create accurately or else not all colors can print accurately.

So the non-linearity of those gray squares actually indicates non-linearity of all the colors. The gradient chart of the primary colors at the top shows that as well, if you were to get a file that had all the primary colors presented like the grayscale squares at the bottom you would see something similar, the colors do not increase in intensity evenly and gradually either.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> My ONLY issue with this one is again, the reds. It looks almost like a Koolaid red than a regular red. When using the Epson IJ 07...the red is perfect.


Overall I'm seeing a mottling that suggests poor transfer of dye from the paper to your cloth. Until you get a known, decent paper, I think you'll be twisting in the wind and getting more and more frustrated. Your ink transfer has to be good to start with. The mottling I'm talking about looks like a coarse grain. It's the most obvious in what should be solid areas.

Get that new paper in, and try again. I bet you'll see a world of difference right there.

While you're waiting, re-download the profile zip; Richard has added a couple of profiles for your NZ ink.

Note that he indicates Plain paper setting, highest quality on his profiles. You said you're using matte paper setting. Matte puts down more ink, which could be causing your roller tracks problem. It could also be altering your color and grayscale fidelity. Ideally your printing choices should reflect how the profile was made.

So after you install the new profiles, and get the replacement paper, go back to Plain and Quality. Reset all the things you've done to compensate, and begin from square one. Use the profiles precisely in the manner they were created. You're starting over now.

(Note that in one NZ profile he calls it "Photo Quality." The 7010 doesn't offer that for Plain paper. You can try either Fine or Quality to see what works best, though I think he means Fine here.)


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> They sent me samples of both papers yesterday so I'll hopefully get them by tomorrow.
> 
> Do you have any experience with the TexPrint? The price isn't bad so I may just purchase that if it's recommended.


Epson Printer settings are in the zip file ...

7010 profile settings.jpg

I will post PS setup screen shots later since I am at my graphics computer now. You need to setup per all the color management setup locations,

Document
Print settings
Epson Driver

It appears that the profile naming convention is not followed completely for the 2 new profiles... probably Cobra wanted to get this out fast and not clear that the "Dye Trans" paper is the paper used, perhaps Richard can confirm, the dye release of the paper matters for the color outcome, so hopefully this can be clarified before your paper arrives.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

It looks like he only sent me one sample. I'm not sure which one it is though but I'll give it a shot with the new profile that he posted. Thanks for pointing that out Gordon...I didn't expect him to do it so quickly. Mgparrish....I'm still just testing so I might as well try it with the paper he gave me and see how it goes.

You mention that you saw mottling on the paper....I'm not sure which area you're referring to but I know that I accidentally touched the ink while it was still not perfectly dry. I've been doing that a lot while in this testing phase.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> It looks like he only sent me one sample. I'm not sure which one it is though but I'll give it a shot with the new profile that he posted. Thanks for pointing that out Gordon...I didn't expect him to do it so quickly. Mgparrish....I'm still just testing so I might as well try it with the paper he gave me and see how it goes.
> 
> You mention that you saw mottling on the paper....I'm not sure which area you're referring to but I know that I accidentally touched the ink while it was still not perfectly dry. I've been doing that a lot while in this testing phase.


Suggest then use the WF7010_Polyester Cloth_Plain Paper_Max Quality_NZ4 ink.icm profile. I will post screen shots shortly of PS setup.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> Suggest then use the WF7010_Polyester Cloth_Plain Paper_Max Quality_NZ4 ink.icm profile. I will post screen shots shortly of PS setup.


For the aluminum plate? Or for the fabric? I will mainly be sublimating onto the plates for now.

I printed those colors that I tested yesterday...and they're spot on with these new profiles. I never knew profiles were THAT important until now. Hopefully people see this thread and learn from it.

Thanks for all your help.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> For the aluminum plate? Or for the fabric? I will mainly be sublimating onto the plates for now.
> 
> I printed those colors that I tested yesterday...and they're spot on with these new profiles. I never knew profiles were THAT important until now. Hopefully people see this thread and learn from it.
> 
> Thanks for all your help.


Then use the plate profile. You can still transfer on poly even though it is not a plate you can still judge it. If you have a blank plate to spare then use that instead of poly if you like. Technically it should be more close on the substrate the profile was designed for, but poly is cheap. I guess your really need more transfer paper if you want to do more testing.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> For the aluminum plate? Or for the fabric? I will mainly be sublimating onto the plates for now.
> 
> I printed those colors that I tested yesterday...and they're spot on with these new profiles. I never knew profiles were THAT important until now. Hopefully people see this thread and learn from it.
> 
> Thanks for all your help.


Yes, sublimation requires a proper ICC for your inks and proper color management setup.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> You mention that you saw mottling on the paper....I'm not sure which area you're referring to but I know that I accidentally touched the ink while it was still not perfectly dry. I've been doing that a lot while in this testing phase.


Look at the girl's hair on the left. There are streaks caused by something else, but it shouldn't look so grainy. Her hair should show definition. On a good print you'll be able to make out the variation of her hair color. 

Look at the baby girl's neck and chest skin. It shouldn't look like she has some skin disease.

Look at your blacks zones. There shouldn't be any tiny white or gray sprinkles in them. It should be solid black.

These are likely caused by your old paper. Now that you have some better paper you can proceed. TextPrint HR is watermarked on the back. Dye Trans (and Image Right) paper has no watermarking. On both you print to the brighter side.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Ok so for the most part....my results are MUCH better. However, I'm still getting a little bit of a yellow/greenish tint on images. For the aluminum plates, I'm doing 365 degrees for about 90 seconds. Do you have any recommendations on the temp and dwell time?


----------



## djque (Feb 5, 2013)

where can I get these icc profiles for mac


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> For the aluminum plates, I'm doing 365 degrees for about 90 seconds. Do you have any recommendations on the temp and dwell time?


This is exactly what I use. Temp is cooler at 365F to avoid orange peel. 90 seconds works for me. The key is that you get good, solid blacks.

Be sure to continue reviewing your colors as printed from the known photo source. Your own image viewed on an uncalibrated monitor is not an accurate gauge. Such images are not reliable sources for how the colors should actually look when printed.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

I'm getting very frustrated now....I've wasted a lot of materials and time.

I just tried both of the new profiles onto the aluminum plates. The "alu plate" one is giving me good colors, still a greenish tint on the black. The "polyester cloth" is giving me an ALMOST perfect black, but the rest of the colors are terrible.

I've tried different settings, profiles, temperatures, dwell times. Nothing's giving me accurate results. I'm really not sure what to do at this point.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I'm getting very frustrated now....I've wasted a lot of materials and time.
> 
> I just tried both of the new profiles onto the aluminum plates. The "alu plate" one is giving me good colors, still a greenish tint on the black. The "polyester cloth" is giving me an ALMOST perfect black, but the rest of the colors are terrible.
> 
> I've tried different settings, profiles, temperatures, dwell times. Nothing's giving me accurate results. I'm really not sure what to do at this point.


Your graphics settings should be set and locked down. Your own images may need be adjusted case by case (with the appropriate tools, not color management settings) if they need be as all images do, but the PDI target file is a perfect photo, it should not be adjusted.

I emailed you all the correct setting with screen shots. Don't use you own photos and poor paper to judge the setup. If the PDI prints correct then it's a matter of keeping consistent settings and making sure your source images are good going in and managed properely... or you have garbage in garbage out.

Suggest that you wait until you get correct paper, then use the PDI target file to print for both the plates and poly cloth. If you post pictures of those later when you get your paper I can look at see if the profile has issues or not.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> I've tried different settings, profiles, temperatures, dwell times. Nothing's giving me accurate results. I'm really not sure what to do at this point.


Is this with the old paper or the new? If you're still using the old paper, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and go see a movie or something. You're wasting your time with it. This forum is full of people who used no-name eBay paper only to discover the results were terrible. Things got better when they used good paper.

There may be other things still in the mix, but good paper is a must.

I think in this thread all the good advice that can be given has been. Key things to review:

1. Use only a good, quality paper. Don't skimp here.

2. Install and use the profile for your inks. Use the cloth profile for poly cloth; the aluminum profile for aluminum. Don't mix these; aluminum has a high reflectivity that can affect the colors when the chart is scanned. These profiles can be fairly different.

3. Double -- even triple -- check the color management settings. In fiddling sometimes options get unset that you thought were set.

4. Be sure to match the paper and quality type to those specified for the profile. Don't try to "cheat the profile" by selecting matte paper. That just covers over a deeper problem, and usually not very well.

5. Keep testing with cloth and the PDI test print. Cloth is cheap. Those aluminum phone blanks are close to a buck each. Stay away from your art until you get a good PDI test print.

6. Stabilize your temp and time. Look for settings that give you good blacks and non-tinged grays, then stick with them. Time and temps within the suggested ranges should work well. Don't try to fix colors by altering these beyond the prescribed limits.

You might want to wait until Monday to call Richard, and ask if he's had the time to actually test the new profiles for the 7010. In his eagerness to get them out, he may not have tested them as much as he otherwise would have.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Is this with the old paper or the new? If you're still using the old paper, you need to stop, take a deep breath, and go see a movie or something. You're wasting your time with it. This forum is full of people who used no-name eBay paper only to discover the results were terrible. Things got better when they used good paper.
> 
> There may be other things still in the mix, but good paper is a must.
> 
> ...


Disagree.

This is OK for testing, on an actual substrate use the correct profile in _most_ cases. Poly is cheap substrates are not. 

I am easily able to test any profile on poly._ In my case I ended up using the plate profile for everything, it was a better profile hands down._ Know this from extensive and actual testing on the previous Cobra inks.

The poly cloth I posted was made with the plate profile. The fabric profile was good, but even on poly the plate profile was better.

Theory vs. reality sometimes.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Michael...those settings you sent me are exactly how I have everything set. I can say for a fact that nothing there is incorrect.

Gordon...I used the paper samples that Cobra sent me. And since it didn't have a watermark on it, I'm assuming its the Dye Trans paper. I got about 10 sheets. However, I want to say that the paper I had before I got these samples are giving me the same exact results as far as the color. It is a tiny bit more grainy but that's about it. So when judging the color, I feel that using my paper should be fine.

After multiple failed attempts at using my images, I tried a few basic colors (black, red, blue, green, orange). Using both of the new profiles on the new paper, I sublimated onto an aluminum plate AND the polyester cloth. Both of them did not have a true black, using both the "alu plate" and the "polyester" for each material. I got the results I described in my previous post.

I tried the "drip test" using just the black ink, on both the cloth and the plate, and it was a perfect black once sublimated. It's looking like the profiles that were put up still have issues. I'm thinking I might have to just get a custom profile made.

I'll get the PDI file on the new papers and sublimate them onto the cloth in the next couple hours. I will be out of the new papers after this.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Michael...those settings you sent me are exactly how I have everything set. I can say for a fact that nothing there is incorrect.
> 
> Gordon...I used the paper samples that Cobra sent me. And since it didn't have a watermark on it, I'm assuming its the Dye Trans paper. I got about 10 sheets. However, I want to say that the paper I had before I got these samples are giving me the same exact results as far as the color. It is a tiny bit more grainy but that's about it. So when judging the color, I feel that using my paper should be fine.
> 
> ...


The perfect black by "driping" the K ink will only be valid if you are not utilizing composite black in your graphic application. You need to know how to do that. It's easier in programs like Corel or if you force black print only in the Epson driver ... but forcing black print only in the Epson driver is only for grayscale art.

Suggest that we look at the PDI on poly, I don't think you should get a custom profile at this point, save your money, Custom profiles are really for very fine tune subtle improvements. You should be getting good colors even with a "generic" profile. The majority of sublimators do fine with a generic profile made for a specific printer model and not their specific individual printer.

Cobra might update the profile or try to improve if they get some feedback on the results, your poly pressing can help make your case.

Of course nothing wrong with getting a custom ICC made just for your printer, however, other users will be stuck with a less than acceptable ICC if Cobra isn't informed on the results and doesn't know if they need to improve.

They just moved to a new location and I'm sure trying to get all the models profiles out ASAP, so I think a good idea to let Cobra know these results so they can update the 7010 profiles if needed.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

This is the way your blacks should look when subbed to aluminum. I picked this image because it has large areas of black. When transferred to the aluminum sign, the black is solid, without the mottling (uneven transfer) I'm seeing in your test prints. For paper issues if the mottling is there, the dye transfer is incomplete, and the colors won't be right.

If it's not being caused by the paper, the ink is good, the profile is good, and you're doing everything else as you've said you are, then that pretty much leaves the CISS.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Attached are the results. That piece of black fabric is put there as a reference.

Second pic is the Polyester profile. Third is the Alum Plate profile. First pic is a comparison side by side of the black gradient. Both were pressed with the same temperature and dwell time.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

GordonM said:


> This is the way your blacks should look when subbed to aluminum. I picked this image because it has large areas of black. When transferred to the aluminum sign, the black is solid, without the mottling (uneven transfer) I'm seeing in your test prints. For paper issues if the mottling is there, the dye transfer is incomplete, and the colors won't be right.
> 
> If it's not being caused by the paper, the ink is good, the profile is good, and you're doing everything else as you've said you are, then that pretty much leaves the CISS.


Well like I said, the original paper that I had was a little grainy. Everything however looks even to me. I did mess up quite a few times by touching the print while they weren't dry. I'm not sure if that's what you noticed though. Take a look at the new transfers and let me know if you see the same issues.

Could the CISS be causing my accuracy problems? Earlier, I got a message on my screen saying the cartridges are almost empty. Shouldn't it not say that since I have the huge containers filled with ink on the side of my printer?


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

It's pretty clear the fabric profile isn't any good, even without the comparison. Be sure to tell Richard about it. The image for the fabric profile should be at least as good as the aluminum plate profile when printing to fabric, or else what's the purpose of having profiles made for different substrates. Obviously Richard is intending to provide optimized profiles.

The aluminum plate profile is not bad, and any qualitative issues that I see may be from your photo.

The mottling I am talking about isn't your smudging. It's the all over weakness in the saturation of the transfer, most apparent in the poly profile example you provided (much, much less so in the alum profile). But maybe it's only in the photos, and what I'm seeing is the texture of the fabric.

But since you note it, how long does it take your prints to dry enough that they don't smear with a light finger rub? Mine, in average humidity, and almost completely dry out of the printer, and certainly all dry to the touch within 15-20 seconds.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

I was about to say you're crazy but I realized I mislabeled the files. The alum plate is the one with a lighter shade. Sorry about that. I can tell you that on aluminum, the transfers look much smoother so I'm guessing it is the fabric that you're seeing. Or my camera isn't taking the picture accurately. I'll have to find my digital camera and take better pictures soon.

I'd say that my prints dry up in about 30 seconds on the Dye Trans paper. However on the original paper that I had, It would take at least 2-3 minutes. I gave it up to 5 minutes sometimes just in case.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Okay, so the poly fabric profile on the fabric is looking much better than what you posted before. In fact I'd say it's a marked improvement, though I am aware you haven't posted up all your results. Small photos posted to the Web can be hard to judge, so let your own eyes be the decider.

One last thing: Did you ever mention that you tested the temperature of your press? If so, what were the results? If not, you'll want to do that, just to rule out that your press is up to the temperature you think it is.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I was about to say you're crazy but I realized I mislabeled the files. The alum plate is the one with a lighter shade. Sorry about that. I can tell you that on aluminum, the transfers look much smoother so I'm guessing it is the fabric that you're seeing. Or my camera isn't taking the picture accurately. I'll have to find my digital camera and take better pictures soon.
> 
> I'd say that my prints dry up in about 30 seconds on the Dye Trans paper. However on the original paper that I had, It would take at least 2-3 minutes. I gave it up to 5 minutes sometimes just in case.


Open up Word Pad, using a large bold font (maybe 72 point or larger) type in something in black, print that straight out of word pad and the Epson driver set as though you are sublimating, then transfer that. On the better profile I think you are seeing the limitations of composite black. Word pad should force your K inks.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Gordon...I ordered a temperature gun and it should arrive on Wednesday.

Michael...there's no way to choose a profile when printing from WordPad. In that case, do I make sure the color adjustments are still off?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Gordon...I ordered a temperature gun and it should arrive on Wednesday.
> 
> Michael...there's no way to choose a profile when printing from WordPad. In that case, do I make sure the color adjustments are still off?


The idea is to force your K inks so you can compare to the composite RGB black. Keep the Epson driver "no adjustments" just like you were sublimating. We don't want any influence from color managment, just print pure K.

I can't tell not having the poly in front of me but is there any tint to the black? I can't tell other than not being as dense ...


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> Gordon...I ordered a temperature gun and it should arrive on Wednesday.


What kind of press do you have? The contactless guns don't work on several types of heat presses. If yours has an uncoated, unanodized (basically bare) aluminum block, the heat gun will show a temperature a good 150-175 degrees cooler than it really is.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

I got a fairly cheap one from Amazon called the Power Heat Press. Attached is a pic I just took. I believe some of the reviews said they used the temperature gun just fine with theirs.

Also, here's an image I took of the Polyester Profile transfer I did if it helps at all: https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrbnf3qg87r3mbi/CIMG0286.JPG

There is a little bit of a bluish tint to the black areas but it's almost impossible to tell on the polyester. You can easily see it on the aluminum plate though. 

Here is a pic comparing a pure Black, Red, Gray, and Green pressed onto an aluminum plate: https://www.dropbox.com/s/d1rp0cmasgfd9j4/aluplatepressed.jpg

As you can see, the black looks ALMOST perfect on the bottom piece (the polyester profile). The blocks on the right side were pressed earlier but the dwell time was too low so it didn't transfer correctly.

I'll try the wordpad thing shortly.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I got a fairly cheap one from Amazon called the Power Heat Press. Attached is a pic I just took. I believe some of the reviews said they used the temperature gun just fine with theirs.
> 
> Also, here's an image I took of the Polyester Profile transfer I did if it helps at all: [media]https://www.dropbox.com/s/rrbnf3qg87r3mbi/CIMG0286.JPG[/media]
> 
> ...


You don't have a black teflon coated platen, that IR thermometer will not be accurate. Without getting crazy into physics and "blackbody radiation" your heated surfaces all have "emissivity" factors, you need a black coated surface for a cheap IR. Even with a black platen then the accuracy is only "so so" on the cheaper IR's. 

Emissivity Coefficients of some common Materials

Hi end $$$$ IR thermometers you can input the emmisivity into the device and it can scale accordingly.

Infrared Thermometer with 50:1 Field of View

Doubt that the one you mentioned is in this class.

You can still use a cheap one though. Get a contact thermometer for the absolute measurement, you can use the IR for heat variation measurements across the platen and find cold spots, if any. 

BTW The first 2 of your photos did not come through.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> You don't have a black teflon coated platen, that IR thermometer will not be accurate. Without getting crazy into physics and "blackbody radiation" your heated surfaces all have "emissivity" factors, you need a black coated surface for your IR.
> 
> Emissivity Coefficients of some common Materials
> 
> ...


While it is ideal to get an accurate temperature, is it really that important if I can test out different temperatures and dwell times?

I edited my post. Try them again.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> While it is ideal to get an accurate temperature, is it really that important if I can test out different temperatures and dwell times?
> 
> I edited my post. Try them again.


Pay attention to the text in the PDI target file. If you cook too long or too hot the text will be more blurred, and can shift color some. To experiment you can set the temps 5 - 10 degs higher and lower and see if any difference. On the poly cloth I use I go 60 seconds.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> Pay attention to the text in the PDI target file. If you cook too long or too hot the text will be more blurred, and can shift color some. To experiment you can set the temps 5 - 10 degs higher and lower and see if any difference. On the poly cloth I use I go 60 seconds.


It also depends on the quality of cloth correct? I got some cheap stuff from Joann's and when I tried using 400 degrees at 90 seconds earlier, the image didn't transfer completely. I added 20 more seconds and it worked much better on the next transfer.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

See if you can return that IR gun. From the looks of your press, it's not going to work.

The LCD strips available from places like Stahl's are handy and inexpensive alternatives. 

Heat Press Machine Test Kit | Stahls

I use a BBQ thermometer, but I first tested with an electronic contact probe, and found the BBQ thermometer was within 5-7 degrees. That's close enough for verification. I have no idea of the overall accuracy of these things. Mine was a Taylor, from Walmart. YMMV.

What you want to look for is a variation of 20, 30 or more degrees. Not unheard of on some of these low-end presses. Lacking a calibrated electronic contact probe, I'd probably opt for the LCD strips.

I don't know the exact fabric you're using, but 90 seconds should me MORE than enough. I don't think I've ever done more than 60 seconds, and that provides jet blacks and other rich colors.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Ok this pic shows a couple prints from Wordpad. The bottom "test" was printed with "color" selected in the printer settings. The top was selected with "black/grayscale". The top looks darker to me but maybe I'm just being anal about it. They were pressed together: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vhlbn2kkgjlnz6x/CIMG0290.JPG

Here's something that was strange to me. I printed 4 different colors in Wordpad: black, red, blue, green with the basic settings (no color adjustment). Then I printed the same exact colors in Photoshop with no profile selected (Printer manages colors, No color adjustment). They were COMPLETELY different. I'm assuming that Wordpad prints it with no profile as well correct? The top is from Wordpad, the bottom is from Photoshop: https://www.dropbox.com/s/64wt6e0zyfx02xu/CIMG0291.JPG

Same thing here with the image I sent to Michael....top is from Photoshop, bottom is from wordpad: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1c3exo33qqnvjf9/CIMG0293.JPG


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> Then I printed the same exact colors in Photoshop with no profile selected (Printer manages colors, No color adjustment). They were COMPLETELY different. I'm assuming that Wordpad prints it with no profile as well correct?


Since Wordpad doesn't offer to manage colors, you use'd the Printer Manages Colors option, and turn color management back on in the Advanced tab. The printer defaults to the Epson IJ Printer 07 profile.

When you post these pictures, could you say something about your intent with the colors. For the red and black art, which is closer to your intent? Or are they both way off?


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Well the reason I did that was to see if Photoshop somehow could have been the problem. So I wanted to print from Wordpad and from Photoshop with the same exact settings. Are you saying that to match the settings, I'd need to have the color adjustment to Automatic for the photoshop file? 

For the black and red art, they are both pretty off. It should be a darker red. However, the top one (photoshop) has a closer black than the one at the bottom (wordpad). Attached is the actual image.

It's looking like I simply need to talk to Richard about this. If one profile gives me a good black but bad colors...and another profile gives me good colors but a bad black, I really feel that the profiles are just bad.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> Are you saying that to match the settings, I'd need to have the color adjustment to Automatic for the photoshop file?


No, I'm saying that Wordpad doesn't manage colors at all, so it's not a meaningful comparison. You might try a test with Photoshop where the printer manages colors. Be sure to reset everything, including in the Advanced tab. This won't solve your problems other than to satisfy a curiosity. While you can sometimes get some accurate colors with printer managed colors, for sublimation others won't be. Every image is bound to have different wild colors in it.

I can't say is these new profiles are a problem or not. Call Richard to ask if he tested them afterward, and also what were all of his settings, so you can recreate as much as possible.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Quick update....I tried using the profile he made for the WP4020 and they work GREAT. I'm not sure yet if they're perfect because now I'm back to my old paper. But there is a night and day difference....take a look at the pic attached. The one on the right is with the WF7010 profile, the one on the left is with the WP4020 profile. The original picture is also attached. My camera isn't doing a great job but in person, the final result looks very close to the original.

I checked the main page for Cobra ink and noticed a message that said "WF7010 and WP4020 OK"...so I thought maybe he might have accidentally reversed them. I tried it and got real good results. I'll give them a call tomorrow and talk to him about this.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Quick update....I tried using the profile he made for the WP4020 and they work GREAT. I'm not sure yet if they're perfect because now I'm back to my old paper. But there is a night and day difference....take a look at the pic attached. The one on the right is with the WF7010 profile, the one on the left is with the WP4020 profile. The original picture is also attached. My camera isn't doing a great job but in person, the final result looks very close to the original.
> 
> I checked the main page for Cobra ink and noticed a message that said "WF7010 and WP4020 OK"...so I thought maybe he might have accidentally reversed them. I tried it and got real good results. I'll give them a call tomorrow and talk to him about this.


Of course I have the original inks, but I was looking at my transferred poly cloth. My black (the far left square in my picture post) is black black, it is as black as the piece of black fabric you put up next to your poly cloth.

If there was a mix-up suggest you try the 4020 profile using the PDI target file. Using your own images you cannot gauge performance except for that specific image. A bad profile may print some images very well that you might like subjectively, however, find another random picture and it may look horrible. You could print a dozen different random photos and still not see the total color capability of the PDI file.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> No, I'm saying that Wordpad doesn't manage colors at all, so it's not a meaningful comparison. You might try a test with Photoshop where the printer manages colors. Be sure to reset everything, including in the Advanced tab. *This won't solve your problems other than to satisfy a curiosity*. While you can sometimes get some accurate colors with printer managed colors, for sublimation others won't be. Every image is bound to have different wild colors in it.
> 
> I can't say is these new profiles are a problem or not. Call Richard to ask if he tested them afterward, and also what were all of his settings, so you can recreate as much as possible.


Correct, just needed to know how well the single K worked. Later if he works in vector this is important though. I wasn't trying to solve the composite black problem this way, but needed to know the true K capability since the new inks are different. 

It should also give him a reference for a printed "black" black to compare the composite black to. My R0 G0 B0 composite black is hard to tell from my "K" black. Ideally the new inks are too.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Well the reason I did that was to see if Photoshop somehow could have been the problem. So I wanted to print from Wordpad and from Photoshop with the same exact settings. Are you saying that to match the settings, I'd need to have the color adjustment to Automatic for the photoshop file?
> 
> For the black and red art, they are both pretty off. It should be a darker red. However, the top one (photoshop) has a closer black than the one at the bottom (wordpad). Attached is the actual image.
> 
> It's looking like I simply need to talk to Richard about this. If one profile gives me a good black but bad colors...and another profile gives me good colors but a bad black, I really feel that the profiles are just bad.


The idea was not to see if Photoshop was the problem, I wanted to see the "K" output by itself.

Photoshop would still give you a composite RGB black if you are in a color workspace, Notepad won't.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> Of course I have the original inks, but I was looking at my transferred poly cloth. My black (the far left square in my picture post) is black black, it is as black as the piece of black fabric you put up next to your poly cloth.
> 
> If there was a mix-up suggest you try the 4020 profile using the PDI target file. Using your own images you cannot gauge performance except for that specific image. A bad profile may print some images very well that you might like subjectively, however, find another random picture and it may look horrible. You could print a dozen different random photos and still not see the total color capability of the PDI file.


I'll print the PDI file in the morning and transfer it. I'm just not sure how much you would see with me taking a simple picture with my camera. Are my larger images that I posted earlier good enough?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I'll print the PDI file in the morning and transfer it. I'm just not sure how much you would see with me taking a simple picture with my camera. Are my larger images that I posted earlier good enough?


The most important things is what do you see with the actual poly fabric in front of you. In lieu of a calibrated monitor if you have another inkjet printer with pigments inks or dye inks you can print the PDI on good inkjet paper and use it for a baseline reference.

The images you posted with the 7010 were sufficient for me to see, but if you are trying another profile then you need to repeat the PDI for the 4020 profile, your own images you obviously need to print well, but using your own images instead of the PDI file with the 4020 profile (if profiles were mixed up) won't tell much. Need to see the linearity and the overall capability. Also the last black square at the bottom left. Even if the profiles are not mixed up then the last black square on the far left it if prints "black black" then you can in theory get a good composite black.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Definitely not as black as it should be. Here's the image: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cl5p8p7zinxxxxr/4020transfer.jpg

The aluminum plate looked a lot better as far as the blacks. I had a setting of 380 degrees for 80 seconds for this transfer. When I tried 400 degrees at 45-60 seconds that I'm seeing recommended everywhere, the whole image would not transfer. I'll have to take Gordon's advice and get the actual temperature figured out on this machine.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Definitely not as black as it should be. Here's the image: [media]https://www.dropbox.com/s/cl5p8p7zinxxxxr/4020transfer.jpg[/media]
> 
> The aluminum plate looked a lot better as far as the blacks. I had a setting of 380 degrees for 80 seconds for this transfer. When I tried 400 degrees at 45-60 seconds that I'm seeing recommended everywhere, the whole image would not transfer. I'll have to take Gordon's advice and get the actual temperature figured out on this machine.


Were you able to confirm if the the profiles were mixed up? In either case based on what I am seeing there should be another attempt at the profile, the black should be nearer to the "K" black that you did out of word pad. The far left black square at the bottom is not as dense as it should be.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> When I tried 400 degrees at 45-60 seconds that I'm seeing recommended everywhere, the whole image would not transfer.


Does this mean the image didn't transfer at all (or was very weak), or that you got a transfer, and was weaker than you wanted.

Out of curiosity, have you tried *really* baking one on, like 2.5 minutes, or something outlandish? The colors may shift, but if you get better saturation that could really tell you the press is running cool.

Your photo of your press showed a teflon sheet. If you use that, set it aside. Use a single sheet of plain copier paper, or baking parchment paper, to prevent any ink blow-out from the transfer. Teflon sheets, especially the thicker ones, can reduce the temp by 5-10 agrees.

Finally, before you transfer, close the press for about 15-20 seconds to pre-heat the bottom platen. Do your transfer after this warming step. This can help on presses with slow recovery times.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

I called Cobra and asked for Richard. They said he'd call me back but it looks like he didn't get a chance to.

Gordon...I was wrong when I said it wouldn't transfer at 400 degrees. What happened is I'm using this brown craft paper on the silicon piece, then I put another one on top of the substrate and transfer paper. I realized that the paper on the silicon was wrinkled. So the cloth wasn't laying flat. That's why I thought it didn't transfer. I did is successfully at 400 degrees for 45 seconds but the color was still not a true black.

I have not tried anything too crazy. The most I tried was 420 degrees at 90 seconds. The black had a reddish tint when I tried that though. I want to mention that the temperature goes down pretty quickly when I press. It got down to around 405 degrees by the time it finished.

Let me remind you both that I'm back to using my old paper. I'll purchase the Dye Trans paper tomorrow when I get a hold of them.

One more thing I wanted to say. I tried the "drip test" earlier this week using just the black ink straight out of the bottle. After sublimating that drip onto fabric, it still is not as black as the fabric that you see in those pictures. Some of my sublimated tests using the WP4020 profile do look as black as the drip.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Referring to the image in post 116, how large is your image on the fabric? I see some very definite weave that, when zoomed in, adds to an overall whitish look to the fabric. It's almost like a denim, or something. This may have been what I've been seeing in previous images, and calling "mottling."

Anyway, I think it's making your prints look lighter, because the transfer isn't solid into the fabric. I've attached a chip chart I scanned a while back. The size is about 5 x 8 or so when printed. I used 700D (denier) polyester I got for about $6/yard at Joann's. It has a texture, but it's very fine, and the texture doesn't materially alter the tonality of the printing. I wonder if the test fabric you are using is too coarse. 

Your test prints need to be large enough to make sense on the low-resolution of the fabric. So if you're getting such strong weave in your test prints, you may want to make bigger transfers, to use more area of your "canvas." Otherwise, the texture of the cloth starts to overwhelm the print.

I've also attached an extreme closeup of the corner of the test photo, showing what the weave looks like on the fabric I use. While there is tonal variation caused by the weave, when viewed at a normal distance it looks okay. The print size on this was about 4x5 for the whole test image (I use a bigger image with more elements than the one you have).


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

I thought you might also be interested in what the 7010 does inherently as far as blacks go. This image is the first pass color chart for a Colormunki, along with the edge of the test photo. Both are unprofiled. The Colormunki prints its own targets without color management; the edge of the test photo was printed in Photoshop using a version that still allowed printing without a profile. All were printed using Plain paper, Quality setting on Dye Trans paper.

The images were pressed onto gloss FRP. The light stripe near the top is from heat tape.

Some of the colors are "wild," but the black is pretty good There are several blacks, actually, one jet black and the others are slightly lighter. Profilers need to do this in order to judge how much black is needed.

I'm using the current firmware in my 7010, though it's well over a year old now. I'm not sure if they've made any internal changes, but this target print shows that this printer can indeed do good blacks inherently using sub ink. This target was made with Richard's RZ inks. I would assume -- and hope! -- his NZ inks can produce deep blacks just as well.

Aluminum and FRP behave similarly pressing wise (though I don't do them at the same temp), but you really should be able to get black blacks. If you haven't already, try the Abobe utility to make prints without a profile. I recall you are using CS6. For this version you'll need the Adobe ACPU utility. 

No Color Management option missing | Printing | Photoshop CS5


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Referring to the image in post 116, how large is your image on the fabric? I see some very definite weave that, when zoomed in, adds to an overall whitish look to the fabric. It's almost like a denim, or something. This may have been what I've been seeing in previous images, and calling "mottling."
> 
> Anyway, I think it's making your prints look lighter, because the transfer isn't solid into the fabric. I've attached a chip chart I scanned a while back. The size is about 5 x 8 or so when printed. I used 700D (denier) polyester I got for about $6/yard at Joann's. It has a texture, but it's very fine, and the texture doesn't materially alter the tonality of the printing. I wonder if the test fabric you are using is too coarse.
> 
> ...


But his tags whcih are solid solid no weave has poor black too.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I called Cobra and asked for Richard. They said he'd call me back but it looks like he didn't get a chance to.
> 
> Gordon...I was wrong when I said it wouldn't transfer at 400 degrees. What happened is I'm using this brown craft paper on the silicon piece, then I put another one on top of the substrate and transfer paper. I realized that the paper on the silicon was wrinkled. So the cloth wasn't laying flat. That's why I thought it didn't transfer. I did is successfully at 400 degrees for 45 seconds but the color was still not a true black.
> 
> ...


Compare the "K" Black you transfered after printing from notepad to the left most black sqaure at the bottom of the PDI transfer. 

Assuming you used the same cloth, how do they compare, is the "K" black better? It appears so onscreen but you have the actual fabric.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> I thought you might also be interested in what the 7010 does inherently as far as blacks go. This image is the first pass color chart for a Colormunki, along with the edge of the test photo. Both are unprofiled. The Colormunki prints its own targets without color management; the edge of the test photo was printed in Photoshop using a version that still allowed printing without a profile. All were printed using Plain paper, Quality setting on Dye Trans paper.
> 
> The images were pressed onto gloss FRP. The light stripe near the top is from heat tape.
> 
> ...


Wild goose chase.  Why not just print the PDI in "Paint". Either case all you are seeing are uncorrected RGB "blacks".


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

The reason for using the "K" black coming from the notepad print is so that an argument can be made that the RGB composite black in the left most square at the bottom of the PDI file should be as black as possible.

The previous RZ inks and profiles the PDI file left most black square and pure "K" were very near each other. This means in most photos were you have black (and composite RGB blacks) then the blacks in photos should be very good if the profile is correct.

Highly likely the profiling needs to be re-done. Use the "K" black as the benchmark then this would be argument to Cobra. The profile is not allowing a very "black" black when it is a composite black compared to a "pure" black make from K ink.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> Compare the "K" Black you transfered after printing from notepad to the left most black sqaure at the bottom of the PDI transfer.
> 
> Assuming you used the same cloth, how do they compare, is the "K" black better? It appears so onscreen but you have the actual fabric.


It's pretty much exactly the same. I think it's important to note that the drip of black ink on the same fabric looks the same as the PDI transfer as well. I'm thinking it may be the fabric making it look like that as Gordon said. I will try to find finer polyester today at Joanns.

I want to retract my statement earlier in this thread about the paper giving me the same exact color. I noticed that the transfer of the black drip (which was on dye trans paper) gave me a better black than the transfer from the original paper that I had. I'll have to do more tests using the dye trans paper. I wasted alot of the samples using the WF7010 profile.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> It's pretty much exactly the same. I think it's important to note that the drip of black ink on the same fabric looks the same as the PDI transfer as well. I'm thinking it may be the fabric making it look like that as Gordon said. I will try to find finer polyester today at Joanns.
> 
> I want to retract my statement earlier in this thread about the paper giving me the same exact color. I noticed that the transfer of the black drip (which was on dye trans paper) gave me a better black than the transfer from the original paper that I had. I'll have to do more tests using the dye trans paper. I wasted alot of the samples using the WF7010 profile.


On that then I think the profile is where it needs to be in terms of black. 

The "drip" black is also a pure "k" black, the only difference is that it wasn't placed on the paper under printer control which doesn't reflect the real world, unlike the note pad "k" black.

Looks like your fabric is suspect, of course proper dwell/temp and correct papers are needed too.

My other question was the issue of the 4020 profile vs. the 7010 profile ... was there a mixup on that as you had hinted? 

Both are 4 color Epson printers using the same OEM ink type so they should be close, but still leads me to believe that if there was no mixup then the 7010 profile could still be improved if a profile made on another printer looks better than a profile made for the 7010.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> On that then I think the profile is where it needs to be in terms of black.
> 
> The "drip" black is also a pure "k" black, the only difference is that it wasn't placed on the paper under printer control which doesn't reflect the real world, unlike the note pad black.
> 
> ...


Still not sure if there was a mix up...I've been unable to reach them but I'll call again pretty soon.

But saying that the 7010 profile could be improved is a STRONG understatement. It is ridiculous how bad it looks. Just completely unusable. I either believe that there was a mistake made when he worked on it, or they were mixed up. If you say that the 2 printers are very similar, then most likely the profile was just done incorrectly.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> Still not sure if there was a mix up...I've been unable to reach them but I'll call again pretty soon.
> 
> But saying that the 7010 profile could be improved is a STRONG understatement. It is ridiculous how bad it looks. Just completely unusable. I either believe that there was a mistake made when he worked on it, or they were mixed up. If you say that the 2 printers are very similar, then most likely the profile was just done incorrectly.


All Epson printers using the same OEM ink base are similar.

4 color desktop printers use Durabrite inks, the carts may differ but the same inks are inside.

Same with "claria" and "K3's".


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> . I'm thinking it may be the fabric making it look like that as Gordon said. I will try to find finer polyester today at Joanns.


I think in my first post on the subject I recommended looking for a more opaque fabric. The selection of 100% polyesters at Joann's tends to be for things like bridal or formal dresses, and many of the fabrics are too sheer. Look for one that when you put it up to your eyes you can't see definite objects beyond. A blob of light and color at most. 

My post 121 shows that on a 7010 you should still get good blacks without a profile, and you can use this to look for printing and transfer problems. If you get weak blacks with no color management, then at least some of your problem could be the ink and/or the transfer. You're the first person I know who has used this ink. It's an unknown variable to the rest of us. Also whenever possible stick with using Photoshop to produce your test targets. It supports document profiles, and gives you a consistent workflow between tests and production.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

GordonM said:


> My post 121 shows that on a 7010 you should still get good blacks without a profile, and you can use this to look for printing and transfer problems. If you get weak blacks with no color management, then at least some of your problem could be the ink and/or the transfer. You're the first person I know who has used this ink. It's an unknown variable to the rest of us. Also whenever possible stick with using Photoshop to produce your test targets. It supports document profiles, and gives you a consistent workflow between tests and production.


I'll be printing the PDI test today with no profile selected. I can tell you that when I tried it before with one of my images. the blacks were definitely better than using the profile that Cobra made. The other colors were pretty off though.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I'll be printing the PDI test today with no profile selected. I can tell you that when I tried it before with one of my images. the blacks were definitely better than using the profile that Cobra made. The other colors were pretty off though.


If as you state with your current setup that the "K' from the "drip" and the "K" from the notepad "K" setup resulted in the same quality of black as the left most grayscale square in the PDI file then what will printing without a profile tell you that hasn't already been determined? 

The reason for the forced "K" is to bypass profiles all together, you are effectively just repeating what you have already done.

Whatever the situation with the 4020 vs. 7010 profile is, you have determined, using your latest setup the K black (no profile) = the same as the black square in the PDI file.

If you run the PDI file without a profile it can't make the "black" any denser than the drip or the notepad "K". If the PDI black is as "black" as the Notepad "K" or the drip "k" running the PDI file without a profile shouldn't make it a blacker black, instead you are going to see other grays have poor linearization and most likely will have green brown, blue tints in them.

Wild goose chase but it's your time. What useful knowledge will you gain from this that you don't already know? When you state "the blacks were definitely better than using the profile that Cobra made" Which profile are you talking about?

The 7010 RZ profile with the different inks? The 7010 profile for for the new inks? You just now stated with your current setup that the "K" black and the PDI black are the same.

Any further experimenting at this point is just chasing your tail.

You need the correct paper, the best profile and if either "K" or PDI "black" is not dense enough then your material should be changed for this testing. True "K" is as good as it gets. If the composite black is the same as the forced K then that is as good as it can get. Comes down to paper, substrate, and pressing method.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> If as you state with your current setup that the "K' from the "drip" and the "K" from the notepad "K" setup resulted in the same quality of black as the left most grayscale square in the PDI file then what will printing without a profile tell you that hasn't already been determined?
> 
> The reason for the forced "K" is to bypass profiles all together, you are effectively just repeating what you have already done.
> 
> ...


I meant that the blacks with no profile were better than the blacks with the 7010 profile, both the RZ and the NZ versions. 

You're right though...I think the only thing left to do is speak to Richard and make sure there weren't any mistakes. 

Do you recommend better paper that's a similar price to the Dye Trans paper? So far, $24 for 100 A4 letter size sheets looks hard to beat. I looked up Image Bright from coastal and the shipping was ridiculous.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> I'll be printing the PDI test today with no profile selected. I can tell you that when I tried it before with one of my images. the blacks were definitely better than using the profile that Cobra made. The other colors were pretty off though.


The colors will be off because there is zip/nada/zero color correction going on. However, there will be no influence from a profile, which to test mechanical printing and transfer function is what you want. 

Profiles are created without using any profile at all, just the inks as they are naturally laid down for the given paper type/quality setting you select. The profile corrects properly and fully applied color. It cannot effectively correct badly or incompletely applied color. 

Moving forward I would advise on developing a consistent approach to your troubleshooting. Avoid using applications for testing when they are not going to be part of your workflow. If Photoshop is your chosen app for printing, do your tests from there whenever possible. Believe me, you will soon forget what you tested and how, especially if you don't write it all down on the substrate afterward. Just remember that your version of Photoshop cannot make an unprofiled print without the utility Adobe so thoughtfully provides.

The best advice I can give you at this point is to wait for your new stock of paper, and start afresh. Now that you've learned what to look for, and why, write down how you're going to test things, then follow your procedure. The more structured your troubleshooting, the better.

One final thing: Once you get your new paper, and if you continue to have problems, you might want to mail (not photograph and e-mail) Richard some physical samples of your transfers. Your photos only go so far, and in themselves do not provide color-consistent results.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> Do you recommend better paper that's a similar price to the Dye Trans paper? So far, $24 for 100 A4 letter size sheets looks hard to beat. I looked up Image Bright from coastal and the shipping was ridiculous.


Use Coastal for when you are ordering $149 or more, then you get free shipping. (And remember to use the forum discount.)

Dye Trans paper is good. For hard goods especially it transfers as well as Image Right. Transfer onto some fabrics might be slightly less than something like TexPrint, but it's still reliable paper. The 700D poly seems to transfer well with either paper, though sometimes I give it another 5 seconds or so when using Dye Trans or Image Right. 

I keep a stock of TexPrint 11x17 for when I need it. I cut down to smaller sheets when required. I mainly use 8.5x14 and 13x19 Image Right for everything else, as 90% of what I do is FRP and aluminum. And of course, I only buy it when I have enough of an order to get the free shipping.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I meant that the blacks with no profile were better than the blacks with the 7010 profile, both the RZ and the NZ versions.
> 
> You're right though...I think the only thing left to do is speak to Richard and make sure there weren't any mistakes.
> 
> Do you recommend better paper that's a similar price to the Dye Trans paper? So far, $24 for 100 A4 letter size sheets looks hard to beat. I looked up Image Bright from coastal and the shipping was ridiculous.


I recommend for now use the papers that the profiles were written for. Any other paper may be fine later but in your testing phase just adds another variable using a different paper.

It is good later to have an alternate paper just in case your supplier is out of stock sometimes.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Got a hold of Richard. At first he said that it must be my printer, but then when I mentioned that the WP4020 profile worked well, he said that it doesn't make sense why that would happen since both the 4020 and the 7010 are 4 color printers. So he said he'd try them out and update the files if there was a mistake.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

OK the WF7010 profiles are updated. Bad news is that the "alum plate" for the WF7010 did not change at all. Still terrible results with the blacks looking like a dark grey with a green tint. The "polyester" one is definitely an improvement though. However, the WP4020 is still the best one overall. I got much better polyester (just some scraps though) from a company that we work with that sublimates all of their clothing. Their sublimated material are darker than mine, but not by much. I'll compare again when I get the new paper.

I know that I'm not doing anything wrong. There must be a reason why I'm getting good results from one profile and the complete opposite with the other. I hate to keep bothering Richard about this so hopefully someone else with the same printer can try these inks and these profiles and put up their results.

I'll retest the PDI files once I get more Dye Trans paper. I was practically working with scrap of my old paper on my tests a few minutes ago.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> OK the WF7010 profiles are updated. Bad news is that the "alum plate" for the WF7010 did not change at all. Still terrible results with the blacks looking like a dark grey with a green tint. The "polyester" one is definitely an improvement though. However, the WP4020 is still the best one overall. I got much better polyester (just some scraps though) from a company that we work with that sublimates all of their clothing. Their sublimated material are darker than mine, but not by much. I'll compare again when I get the new paper.
> 
> I know that I'm not doing anything wrong. There must be a reason why I'm getting good results from one profile and the complete opposite with the other. I hate to keep bothering Richard about this so hopefully someone else with the same printer can try these inks and these profiles and put up their results.
> 
> I'll retest the PDI files once I get more Dye Trans paper. I was practically working with scrap of my old paper on my tests a few minutes ago.


I'll get a cart set and try in my WF1100, I have the old inks. I am going to be switching over to Brother printers soon (using the same inks) but good to know the new inks are viable, I think any profile issues will be addressed as we go forward, at least you were able to get a good one for now.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> I'll get a cart set and try in my WF1100, I have the old inks. I am going to be switching over to Brother printers soon (using the same inks) but good to know the new inks are viable, I think any profile issues will be addressed as we go forward, at least you were able to get a good one for now.


I'm curious...If I were to buy other inks from a different company and get refillable cartridges, can I simply disconnect my current cartridge and CIS and swap it with the new cartridge? Or would I have to something before trying to print with the new inks?


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> I'm curious...If I were to buy other inks from a different company and get refillable cartridges, can I simply disconnect my current cartridge and CIS and swap it with the new cartridge? Or would I have to something before trying to print with the new inks?


Sure you can swap out, though you'll need a profile for the new ink just as much as you need one for your current ink. Run a purge print to get all the old ink out before re-testing.

Also see my PM to you.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I'm curious...If I were to buy other inks from a different company and get refillable cartridges, can I simply disconnect my current cartridge and CIS and swap it with the new cartridge? Or would I have to something before trying to print with the new inks?


I swap carts all the time. If other inks mean sublimation inks then unless you go Sawgrass hard to find ICC support. If you get pigments for other purposes and swap when you need, then in most cases you won't need an ICC.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

mgparrish said:


> I swap carts all the time. If other inks mean sublimation inks then unless you go Sawgrass hard to find ICC support. If you get pigments for other purposes and swap when you need, then in most cases you won't need an ICC.


I was actually planning on getting Artanium inks since they can be found for a decent price. But that will probably be sometime in the future if I get any complaints about the cobra inks.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I was actually planning on getting Artanium inks since they can be found for a decent price. But that will probably be sometime in the future if I get any complaints about the cobra inks.


I used Artainium inks for years. The "K" black is an "eggplant" black it has a definite purple tint most noticeable on glossy surfaces. The composite black in the left most bottom square is OK, but the other shades in the grayscales at the bottom have tints to them. You can even see the purple tint in the "K" bulk bottle.

Only for the WF1100 did Sawgrass finally address the Artainium problem with the "K", they changed the "K" on the WF1100 to a "Jet Black" ink not previously offered. 

If you are getting the Artainuim inks at half price on Ebay those are the original "K" with the purple tint and not the "Jet Black" version, which are in "bags" for the CIS system, not in bulk bottles like the cheaper Artainium you are referring to.

Notice the Artainuim part number for the WF30 black does not include the WF1100 as do the CMY colors

WF30 refill bags

Sawgrass Technologies - ArTainium UV+ Sublimation Inks for WorkForce 30

ArTainium UVB WF30/WF1100/C88/C120 - Refill Bag 110 ml - CYANUVB WF30/C88/C120 C$140.00ArTainium UVB WF30/C88/C120 - Refill Bag 110 ml - BLACKUVB WF30/C88/C120 K$140.00ArTainium UVB WF30/WF1100/C88/C120 - Refill Bag 110 ml - MAGENTAUVB WF30/C88/C120 M$140.00ArTainium UVB WF30/WF1100/C88/C120 - Refill Bag 110 ml - YELLOW

The WF1100 has been taken off the Sawgrass website for current offerings since it is no longer made but Conde stocks the WF1100 inks.


ArTainium - DyeTrans.com 
EZ Flow for the Work Force 1100


I haven't tried the new Cobra inks, so I'll reserve judgement, however based on the Cobra inks I have now Cobra wins hands down vs. Artainium.

I did a side by side on tile years ago Artainium vs. one of my laser sublimation systems from Colorstar ...

On the WF1100 the grayscales were improved using the WF30 profile (Sawgrass profile was for Jet Black K so I used the WF30 instead) but not as good as what Cobra had with the RZ inks.

The tiles were done on a C86 and the WF30 profile (used on the WF1100) improved the Art inks noticeably, however the Cobra RZ inks were noticeably better than the best profile for the original Art inks. You can see why I pay a lot of attention to grayscales, since they are made from 3 colors it indicates the overall color linearity as well.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

I'm about ready to give up on this ink. No matter what I try, nothing is working.

I even rented the Colormunki and it's giving me the same results as Richard's profiles. I wish there was someone else that would try this ink but I'm not finding anyone talking about it online.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Have you physically mailed Richard samples of your printed tests to see if he feels they are within the color capabilities of a printer like the 7010? As I noted earlier, this printer -- like all four-color printers -- is not capable of simply reproducing all the colors of the rainbow. It will take someone looking at your actual output, and not photographs of it, to determine this.

The Colormunki allows you to optimize a profile based on the colors used in a specific photograph. You may find this helpful, for instance, if your blues are turning out purplish, but all or most of the other colors are fine. The optimizing process adds more tables in the profile to handle specific colors.

If you are going for specific solid colors, do remember to research all the intent choices available to you. I forget which one you're using, but some cause a shift all of the colors to make them more visually appealing, while others only shift those that are out of gamut. Wikipedia has a fairly decent page on this. For example, they say "perceptual intent smoothly moves out-of-gamut colors into gamut, preserving gradations, but distorts in-gamut colors in the process." You need to understand what this means for the types of images you are printing.

Finally, if you haven't already, research soft proofing in Photoshop. You can use it to visually see what colors are out of gamut for each printer profile you are using. It will help you fine tune your color profiling selections.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

Well it looks like I got perfect results when using the Colormunki on poly fabric, and changing the paper to matte. Everything I tried came out great. No weird printer marks since I'm using the Dye Trans paper. Blacks are about 99% pure black (I'm picky) but very acceptable for a business.

I tried the optimization after profiling from the Aluminum plate but still made absolutely no difference. I have a feeling that the glossy coat interferes with the Colormunki.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

What aluminum are you using?


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

The plates from the website you told me about. What was real frustrating was the test charts had perfect blacks when printed on the plates...but then after creating the profiles, the blacks looked like Cobra's profiles.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Have you soft proofed all your completed profiles? That helps to show if you've got decent profiles to begin with, and lets you try out different settings without wasting a print and transfer.

On my 7010, to get a good black I use Matte print setting, or opt for TexPrintHR over the Image Right. Otherwise, it's still jet black, but the transfer is ever so slightly weak when viewed with a magnifier.

On my WF30 I made all my profiles using Plain paper setting. For the 7010, some of the hard surfaces turned out better using Matte paper setting. I think the WF30 naturally lays down more ink.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

GordonM said:


> Have you soft proofed all your completed profiles? That helps to show if you've got decent profiles to begin with, and lets you try out different settings without wasting a print and transfer.
> 
> On my 7010, to get a good black I use Matte print setting, or opt for TexPrintHR over the Image Right. Otherwise, it's still jet black, but the transfer is ever so slightly weak when viewed with a magnifier.
> 
> On my WF30 I made all my profiles using Plain paper setting. For the 7010, some of the hard surfaces turned out better using Matte paper setting. I think the WF30 naturally lays down more ink.


I'll have to look into that. I don't know much about soft proofing. But it looks like no matter what I tried as far as the profiles, using the Matte setting always got the closest to the colors I've been looking for. Not one profile that I used gave me a solid black under the Plain Paper setting.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I'll have to look into that. I don't know much about soft proofing. But it looks like no matter what I tried as far as the profiles, using the Matte setting always got the closest to the colors I've been looking for. Not one profile that I used gave me a solid black under the Plain Paper setting.


Did you test the Cobra profile you thought was the best with the matte paper setting?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I'll have to look into that. I don't know much about soft proofing. But it looks like no matter what I tried as far as the profiles, using the Matte setting always got the closest to the colors I've been looking for. Not one profile that I used gave me a solid black under the Plain Paper setting.


Soft proofing and sublimation?

Another waste of time ... wild goose chase.

I do soft proofing all the time, but _never_ for sublimation.

Soft proofing requires 2 things.

1. A _calibrated_ monitor. And to further that ... for best results a calibrated _wide gamut_ monitor.

2. Final output to be on _paper_.

Soft proofing will show you what your printed page would look like, not what your final heat transfered image will look like.

Soft Proofing: Matching On-Screen Photos with Prints

Prints That Match Your Monitor - Soft Proofing In Photoshop

Viewing Images with Soft Proofing in Photoshop

When sublimating the only thing you would learn about out of gamut images are is that _they are out of gamut_. Even if you had the abilty and knowhow to deal with out of gamut colors, you can't make changes and view on-screen because the "soft proof" shows you what your printed paper image would look like. 

Even with a calibrated quality monitor (such as I have) you just see more accurately what the un sublimated ink looks like on paper = no useful information.

As far as rendering intent you should use Perceptual.

Some use Relative Colormetric for line art and illustrations. What I find sublimating is that Relative Colormetric is less useful since many colors are out of gamut anyway. I do use Relative Colormetric on my 8 color 4880 occasionally for fine art prints and photography using pigments on photo or art paper, not for heat transfer. 

Since I can use softproofing for pigment as I have a wide gamut calibrated monitor and a 8 color wide gamut pigment printer, then Relative Colormetric rendering is useful since the wider gamut of my printer and inks can be fully utilized often without the colors being re-assigned.

This article explains it better.

Understanding Rendering Intents


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Mdrake said:


> I'll have to look into that. I don't know much about soft proofing.


It's easy. It does not require a calibrated monitor to check for out of gamut colors -- though you have the ability to do just that with the ColorMunki. Photoshop can show out of gamut colors as gray (or other color you choose). You're not looking to see what the colors will be like when printed. You're looking to see what colors in your image are out of gamut for each profile and rendering intent you may wish to use. Photoshop knows when a color in your image cannot be reproduced with the profile, because it reads the tables in the profile and does a match-up against those in your image. 

Gamut Warnings and What to Do About Them - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light

Soft proofing with gamut warnings is a must if you're doing your own profiles. It's the easiest way to know your profile isn't junked to begin with.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> It's easy. It does not require a calibrated monitor to check for out of gamut colors -- though you have the ability to do just that with the ColorMunki. Photoshop can show out of gamut colors as gray (or other color you choose). You're not looking to see what the colors will be like when printed. You're looking to see what colors in your image are out of gamut for each profile and rendering intent you may wish to use. Photoshop knows when a color in your image cannot be reproduced with the profile, because it reads the tables in the profile and does a match-up against those in your image.
> 
> Gamut Warnings and What to Do About Them - Photo Tips @ Earthbound Light
> 
> Soft proofing with gamut warnings is a must if you're doing your own profiles. It's the easiest way to know your profile isn't junked to begin with.


1. You need a calibrated monitor to soft proof. You cannot "soft proof" without one. Out of gamut information alone is not soft proofing.
2. All kinds of colors are going to be out of range due to SUBLIMATION INK DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH GAMUT TO BEGIN WITH IT CANNOT MATCH THE COLOR SPACE THE TARGET FILES ARE CAPABLE OF. 

USELESS TRIVIAL INFORMATION as you are going to get out of gamut information NO MATTER WHAT.

_You are still going to get out of gamut information irregardless if your profile is junked or not._ Best way to evaluate a SUBLIMATION profile is to print a known test file AND transfer to something.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> 1. You need a calibrated monitor to soft proof.


He's perfectly capable of having one. Why are you assuming he wouldn't take the three minutes it takes with his ColorMunki? 



mgparrish said:


> You cannot "soft proof" without one. Out of gamut information alone is not soft proofing.


Nor did I say otherwise. Gamut warnings are a part of soft proofing. In the context of this thread it's a MUST when making profiles. But since you've never made a profile, you are unaware of this.



mgparrish said:


> 2. All kinds of colors are going to be out of range due to SUBLIMATION INK DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH GAMUT TO BEGIN WITH IT CANNOT MATCH THE COLOR SPACE THE TARGET FILES ARE CAPABLE OF.


The same is true when printing with a 4- or 6- color printer on paper, so what's your point. Soft proofing is going to show some colors out of gamut with the majority of source files destined for a consumer printer, regardless of the inks used. 

As you've not made a profile I'll educate you on this matter. You use the tools Photoshop gives you to first demonstrate your profile is within acceptable limits. Sometimes they are not; when this happens you remake the profile. You then evaluate your profiles looking for the least out-of-gamut ranges in your files. Profiles can be further optimized and soft proofing CLEARLY demonstrates the benefit of doing this. You do not need to guess, make all sorts of wasted prints, or spend time chasing your tail. After this, you can make a transfer, which more often than not will be perfect first try.

The fact that it's sublimation is irrelevant. Any limitations in the process becomes part of the profile. That's the idea of profiling actual output on the paper or substrate you are using.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> He's perfectly capable of having one. Why are you assuming he wouldn't take the three minutes it takes with his ColorMunki?
> 
> *IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE SUBLIMATING SOFTPROOFING WITH A CALIBRATED OR UNCALIBRATED MONITOR. WHAT PART OF "ONSCREEN VIEWING OF UNSUBLIMATED INKS CANNOT REPRESENT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER HEAT PRESSING DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?*
> 
> ...


caca 

You CANNOT softproof sublimation.

Evaluate these out of gamut soft proof print preview screen shots. 

There are too many out of gamut colors AND you cannot judge _in gamut_ sublimation colors with or without a calibrated monitor because you only see what the printed paper will look like. 

Both are good profiles, there are so many colors out of gamut you cannot judge good/bad unless something like bad equipment where the optics were way too dark, then maybe everything is out of gamut.

Proof is in the pudding. By your statements I would think I could look at the out of gamut colors in my screen shots and figure out a "trashed" profile. NO WAY JOSE, both are about as optimized as you can get for the inks.

Even if the OP could make use of soft proofing just looking at out of gamut colors then he MUST have a reference of a _known good profile_ using his inks. That would only show by comparison to an unknown profile using his inks and then it would only show relatively side by side with the known good profile and compare the out of gamut colors. 

*Earth to Gordon*, he does not have a KNOWN GOOD profile to compare against starting out. The only chance of seeing difference in profile gamut is to start out with a known good one, then see if the unknown profile has a lot more out of gamut indication vs. the known good one.

And even with that YOU CANNOT softproof in gamut colors onscreen since you won't have clue how the final pressed colors will look like. 

It is very very possible to have 1 good profile and 1 "trashed" profile but both could have the same out of gamut indications, because the in gamut colors get "re-assigned" and you cannot tell if in gamut colors (but re-assigned) are accurate sublimating. DUH

The soft proofs are from Cobra and Artanium profiles, the worst one for out of gamut clearly is Artanium.

You throw out one wild goose chase after another. I strongly suspect you put the idea in his head to go get Artainium inks, then later go rent his own profile equipment, now the sad part is that renting his own equipment and probably didn't need to waste his money and time.

I won't argue that getting a profile for your own printer is _marginally_ better but any problem with the inks and profile the vendor has to be responsible to fix it, you should get what you pay for, if not you should work with the vendor to get things fixed first. Since the inks are new it's unfortunate the profiles were not out and tested before the inks were released but Cobra would make things right. Now others using the inks won't benefit _if_ there really was a problem with the new profiles.

Sorry, but you just give bad advice sometimes in your posts.

Between all your claims about "spoiled inks from shipping" "banding causing his color problem", nozzle checks being the only way to tell ink delivery issues, and your other posts "expired inks" (but brand new shipped from a reliable vendor) when it was obvious that person was not using a profile was the reason for his color issues, insisting you need to profile to your own heat press because of differences in presses, all the garbage about not using Corel Draw for regular heat transfer because of features that you claimed Corel lacked but wasn't aware those features existed ... on and on.

Sorry but when you provide bad advice either leading to wild goose chases or having impact to a user financially or functionally I'm gonna call you out on it.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Here is what is possible with a good profile. I suggest you have another look at whatever you are claiming as a good baseline profile. You are working on wrong assumptions.

The screen shot shows I'm using the tagged Adobe 1998 test file, and the soft profile settings I'm using -- it's one of my custom profiles. Far better than "marginal" I think. I set it to Perceptual same as you, though Relative Colormetric is my preference and allows you to preserve in-gamut colors.

If the gamut warning is entirely off, the result is far different, and the profile is assuredly bad. Time to do it over. THAT is the simple point of my post to the OP, a fact you seem unable to comprehend.

Finally, what is this about? 

"ONSCREEN VIEWING OF UNSUBLIMATED INKS CANNOT REPRESENT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER HEAT PRESSING DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?" 

What I don't understand is how you think a profile is made from a printed but not transferred image. PS is showing you the *result of the profile metrics*. It has no concept of "ink," sublimation or otherwise. In case you were unaware, the profile is made from transferred *sublimated* ink onto a substrate.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Here is what is possible with a good profile. I suggest you have another look at whatever you are claiming as a good baseline profile. You are working on wrong assumptions.
> 
> The screen shot shows I'm using the tagged Adobe 1998 test file, and the soft profile settings I'm using -- it's one of my custom profiles. Far better than "marginal" I think. I set it to Perceptual same as you, though Relative Colormetric is my preference and allows you to preserve in-gamut colors.
> 
> ...


On screen viewing cannot show what a heat transfer looks like I don't care where the target came from. Onscreen viewing see the printed paper thru the "eyes" of the profile.

And check again on your soft proofing NO WAY I AM BUYING THAT YOU HAVE SUBLIMATION INKS WITH THAT MUCH GAMUT.

Send me that profile and let me look in the print preview with the _appropriate_ settings, I bet you assigned the document profile with the sublimation profile. BS 
fail ...


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Here is what is possible with a good profile. I suggest you have another look at whatever you are claiming as a good baseline profile. You are working on wrong assumptions.
> 
> The screen shot shows I'm using the tagged Adobe 1998 test file, and the soft profile settings I'm using -- it's one of my custom profiles. Far better than "marginal" I think. I set it to Perceptual same as you, though Relative Colormetric is my preference and allows you to preserve in-gamut colors.
> 
> ...


This is what am talking about.

The soft proof takes the source image and presents it thru the "eyes" of the printer profile.

A weaker image is expected with the onscreen preview if you set to "Match print colors" . How this looks after pressing there is no way to simulate that on screen. Your target is made uncorrected DUH.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Artanium as would look printed. Sublimation proofs are too weak to tell on paper. And there is no way I can really tell the inevitable shift in tints especially in the gray scales in the Artainuim transfer, they are not nearly as extreme when on paper. Besides being weak the color are not as accurate once transfered


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

I'd be happy to send you the profile. PM me your email.

"Onscreen viewing see the printed paper thru the "eyes" of the profile."

This is exactly what you want, because the profile is showing the final result that you scanned in, after pressing. Why you keep on talking about how the inks look like when just printed on the paper is beyond me. Really strange comments you're making.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> I'd be happy to send you the profile. PM me your email.
> 
> "Onscreen viewing see the printed paper thru the "eyes" of the profile."
> 
> This is exactly what you want, because the profile is showing the final result that you scanned in, after pressing. Why you keep on talking about how the inks look like when just printed on the paper is beyond me. Really strange comments you're making.


Then why is it looking weak and identical to what I see on paper before I transfer? Thru the eyes of the profile onto paper. CACA

You are seeing what the printer is supposed to print. It will never look like what I transfer.

You cannot softproof sublimation accurately.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Please RE-REVIEW what I actually wrote, not what you wanted me to say to make your point. I suggested soft proofing, with gamut warning, because IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE SAME PROFILING TOOL the OP is now using you can EASILY determine if the profile needs to be redone. 

All of my comments are in the context of using this device, which you have never used, so I'm clueless as to why you feel you can speak about it with authority.

Now you've shifted focus to who knows what, grasping at straws. I am not going to debate using the other soft proofing tools, trying to match paper color, matching printing colors, or anything else you want to throw at this. If you want to have an argument with yourself, feel free.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Then why is it looking weak and identical to what I see on paper before I transfer?


Beats me why you're getting that. But have you stopped to wonder how the profile, made from a heat transferred image onto a completely different substrate, could possibly know what the image looks like when first printed on paper? Or are you thinking profiles have a sixth sense of some kind?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Beats me why you're getting that. But have you stopped to wonder how the profile, made from a heat transferred image onto a completely different substrate, could possibly know what the image looks like when first printed on paper? Or are you thinking profiles have a sixth sense of some kind?


Of course it can't know what it would like, on anything except paper.

Your dog don't hunt neither does your soft proofing.

Knock yourself out with your soft proofing, profiles made just for specific heat presses, expired inks, inks spoiled from shipping, nozzle checks that can show everything, whatever. I got better things to do.

No sublimation inks have the gamut of regular pigment or dye inks NONE. Now explain what his inks are supposed to look like without a known good reference? Never mind, I don't have time to hang out in your galaxy. Inks are what they are no profile can expand gamut beyond the ink capability. Profiles can only linearize colors within the gamut limits of the inks.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

One final time to see if it's evenly remotely possible to sink in.

This isn't a color-as-printed issue. Get over it. It's a good profile/bad profile issue. But as I've said, since you have never made a profile, you haven't a clue how to go about this.

My screen shot is how you determine a bad profile. Using the print dialog isn't how you do it. I used the method frequently in building my profiles, and profile makers suggest the same thing. It's not new. You're mixing apples and tables by insisting -- so you won't be shown wrong -- to also combine gamut warning with print color matching, something *I* never said to do. 

That was all in your own head.

But while we're on that subject, I'm happy to see even when using the match print colors option my profile made with a 4-color printer still has good gamut. Compare to your examples. Maybe you should look at ways to improve your profiles now that you see what's possible.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> One final time to see if it's evenly remotely possible to sink in.
> 
> This isn't a color-as-printed issue. Get over it. It's a good profile/bad profile issue. But as I've said, since you have never made a profile, you haven't a clue how to go about this.
> 
> ...


Gordon,

Give it a rest, you have only shown whatever ink you have whatever profile you used has many out of gamut colors WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR ANY SUBLIMATION INK BRAND. 

Your profile shows me you have less out of gamut but then again explain how the OP can judge this way without a known good reference. If what you used to make your original profile and you deem that profile "golden" then you can compare your out of gamut colors from the unknown profile against that "golden" profile for comparison. Inks are what they are you CANNOT extend ink gamut, you can only linearize up to the gamut limits of the inks.

Clearly you don't understand the print preview. 

Looks like to me you have been hanging around on forums with others that make paper profiles.

I'm sure that it was really wise for the OP who is barely starting out not understanding color or sublimating to be advised to run off and make a profile and never had any prior experience to figure he could get a better profile than what Richard can make since Richard has been doing them now a couple of years now and upgraded his equipment when they were not coming out good and making good ones after the equipment change. BAD BAD ADVISE. 

If there is an issue with the new profiles then other users would not benefit from having someone else not have Richard fix the problem if one exists. I take exception to that you are not helping solve others problem this way having all those complaining run out and rent equipment by PMing them, or recommend Artainuim inks which for sure have poor blacks. Likely in a year or two his printer will be toast and will need to rent equipment again. If the profiles need more work Richard needs to be advised and fix then so *others* can benefit. Many are going to have to swap inks due to RZ being not available *IF* THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE NEW PROFILES WE NEED TO HAVE IT FIXED NOT HAVE EVERY NEWBIE SUBLIMATION USER GO OFF ON HIS/HER OWN AND RENT PROFILE EQUIPMENT EACH TIME.

Good night.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

All ...

Forgive my rants. I'm not against custom profiles but if one wants to push the limits of sublimation you really need to have a > 4 color PRO printer, preferably a RIP and go and buy your own profiling equipment. New users cannot learn enough in a short rental period to be become experts at this. 

There are too many variables to sublimation (as evidenced by these postings) for a new sublimation user with no color management concepts and little art and printing experience to go out and become an expert renting equipment only to split fine hairs on a low end 4 color printer, when you should be able to get by just fine using the vendor generic profile (90% of us). The 10% that really have higher color requirements shouldn't buy $200 printers.

In this case there are new inks, it is not clear if the profiles are good yet or not, but unless a vendor doesn't get enough feedback (and time) to resolve what could either be a profile problem, or a user problem, or a substrate problem, then these things can go on and on and not get resolved if the profiles need work.

I would think all the Cobra users out there would like to know when they have to switch to NZ they won't need to go out and rent equipment.


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

The problem is that when I told Richard that the colors were not showing up correctly, he blamed my printer. Not until I said "there is a night and day difference between your WP4020 profile and your WF7010 profile" did he actually say he'll redo the profiles.

When he redid the Alum profile for the 7010, it still came out bad. The Poly one looked better and I will test it shortly and compare it to the one I made. But I can tell you that when I made the profile using my alum substrate, it looked EXACTLY like Richards Alum profile. I just have a strong feeling that with this equipment, scanning off of a glossy substrate interferes with the scan and throws the colors off. And I only say that because why would the scan off my Poly fabric look way better than the scan off of the alum plate? And the same thing with Richard's Poly profile vs his Alum profile?


----------



## Mdrake (Aug 2, 2013)

I tested Cobra's Poly profile for the 7010, and I can say that using the Matte setting definitely makes a huge difference. However, I have to honestly say that the profile I made is slightly better. I only say slightly because the Cobra one has a bluish tint (very unnoticeable though unless you put it side by side with my plate under good light) which you mostly notice on the blacks.

It may be because I did additional optimization for the blacks when I used Colormunki. But again, a normal person would not notice a difference. I'm a little OCD about everything so I wouldn't say I'm a normal person when it comes to this stuff.

Michael, Gordon didn't actually recommend that I get the Colormunki. I did some research and read about it way before I even knew he used it and when I found out that he did use it, I asked him how well it worked. That's about it.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> The problem is that when I told Richard that the colors were not showing up correctly, he blamed my printer. Not until I said "there is a night and day difference between your WP4020 profile and your WF7010 profile" did he actually say he'll redo the profiles.
> 
> When he redid the Alum profile for the 7010, it still came out bad. The Poly one looked better and I will test it shortly and compare it to the one I made. But I can tell you that when I made the profile using my alum substrate, it looked EXACTLY like Richards. I just have a strong feeling that with this equipment, scanning off of a glossy substrate interferes with the scan and throws the colors off. And I only say that because why would the scan off my Poly fabric look way better than the scan off of the alum plate? And the same thing with Richard's Poly profile vs his Alum profile?


I agree with your assement, that substrate seems not very good as a ICC target. Sublimation ICC's are much more difficult than paper ICC's. And the ICC profile hardware is designed for the paper market, not to say you can't get a good ICC for sublimating, but I don't think anyone makes anything most of us could afford that is really designed for things much outside of paper. 

What I learned from working with _real experts_ that sold laser and ink jet sublimation inks and that made sublimation ICC's is that the better target material is the uncoated but natural polymer plastics like Unisub uses for key tags and such, but just bigger pieces. 

I recall that the NZ profiles didn't mention which paper (dyetrans or texprint) was used if I am not mistaken. Did you try the TexPrint HR paper with your different profiles on AL? If you had to set the paper to matte then that means you needed more ink. The TexPrint HR has more release so the effect is more dye release.

I think if you are getting a good color and black on poly with any of the profiles then it won't be difficult to do some simple adjustments in PS that you apply universally to any source image. 

Not the long term solution but should get you by, I have some substrates that are difficult with any of the sublimation inks and toners I have or have used so for those I need to tweak, 90% of the stuff I do a single profile gets me by but some stuff you have to tweak.

If you want to do this let me know, basically you would use the PDI target file, print "4 up" or "2 up" on a single transfer, each of the images would be slightly tweaked then transfered and compared. Not very hard. 

I have a doc I made for someone I need to dig up that illustrates the gamma adjustment and how it helps, the doc shows a pigment opaque inkjet paper for darks and I didn't have a special profile for it, but the concept is the same sublimating.

I'm going to order some NZ ink for my WF1100 in carts then I can better see what is going on. I think the substrate is the real issue.

Either way we'll get this figured out if you think you need further improvement on your plates.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Mdrake said:


> I tested Cobra's Poly profile for the 7010, and I can say that using the Matte setting definitely makes a huge difference. However, I have to honestly say that the profile I made is slightly better. I only say slightly because the Cobra one has a bluish tint (very unnoticeable though unless you put it side by side with my plate under good light) which you mostly notice on the blacks.
> 
> It may be because I did additional optimization for the blacks when I used Colormunki. But again, a normal person would not notice a difference. I'm a little OCD about everything so I wouldn't say I'm a normal person when it comes to this stuff.
> 
> Michael, Gordon didn't actually recommend that I get the Colormunki. I did some research and read about it way before I even knew he used it and when I found out that he did use it, I asked him how well it worked. That's about it.


My bad on the rental issue, I think when he did his it was before Cobra got the better equipment, but I figured somehow you at least got the idea from him, but does seem he did encourage you before you rented it after asking him about it. 

Hindsight is 20/20 but I don't think going out and renting profile equipment just starting out is not a good idea and no one should encourage this. But lessons learned I suppose.

I would expect you being able to get a slightly better profile on your own printer, but my experience has been you are splitting fine hairs on cheap printers if the "generic" profile is OK.


----------

