# Getting brighter colors/getting colors to pop



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

I am still working through getting my colors correct with my printer, I have the correct ICC profile installed and the setting on my printer corrected.. However, some colors do not want to "pop" off of the shirt.. I am sure it has to do with what kind of polyester I am printing on, but I was wondering if theres a way to make my colors brighter on the shirt or does it come down to what type of surface I am printing on?

**EDIT**
I am using an Epson 1400 Printer with a Cobra Ink system as well as the ICC profile they provided..


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Doing a test print on a hard-surface substrate can help you determine if the problem is lack of saturation and brightness in the inks or printing, or if it's due to the use of fabric.

If you are using PhotoShop, you can also do a soft proof to more readily visualize how the printing will appear, and whether you are using out-of-gamut colors. A test photo that includes a luminosity patch or swatch (looks like it's glowing with color) is helpful. Your sub printer will not be able to reproduce these tones, and you'll see them as out-of-gamut in the proof.

Here's a test target that I use:

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

I think this is the one Mike (mgparrish here) mentioned carries the appropriate document profile. The one I use has an embedded Adobe 1998 profile, but I'm not 100% sure where I got it. You want to make sure your test target also has the Adobe 1998 profile, or at least is not unprofiled.

Get a couple of aluminum license plates. They're pretty cheap at just dollars each. You can do some print comparisons that way. Because of the smooth surface colors should be overall sharper and clearer, and that will help you with a baseline.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

If I read correctly your are missing brightness (pop) or certain colors which would mean that most of your colors are good.

That would eliminate most everything and put the problem to the ink/profile. If your issue was the fabric all the colors would be sup par.

The good news is you seem to be able to recognize it is not right. I have seen samples where people love the colors and it is simply because they have never seen great colors.

When we looked at changing ink brands some years back we heard all sorts of wonderful tales about colors, etc. To be honest - did not believe one of them. I sent the fabric we were using to several vendors and asked for a color chart back. 

The difference between the samples sent back floored me. With the right ink and profile colors should explode.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

Gordon, I actually saw that post earlier today when I was looking around, I am going to read the articles adn do the test tomorrow.. and I will give the license plates a try, I think that was one thing I didnt order to try out...

Riderz... yeah, alot of colors come out nicely (a few are still off, but not by much) When my first blue came out purple, I knew I had a problem somewhere along the line, a switch to the correct ICC profile fixed that one quick (as well as turning off the printers color management option), I have seen reds that look absolutely bright and cherry, but the red I printed and press out looked like a fire truck that had been through a cloud of smoke (maybe not that dull, but it wasnt what I thought a true red (255 RGB) would look like) Any recommendations of who I should look at for inks? I bought a CIS for my 1400, so I dont think I am limited to certain inks/brands (I am probably wrong on that though)


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

What you're looking to do is verify the *transfer* of the dye. A weak transfer, for whatever reason, can cause loss of brilliancy in some colors. Poor blacks and reds are the most common. The blacks look grayish or even blue; red looks orange.

This is why I recommend a hard surface transfer. First off, it takes less ink to image onto the typical hard surface. You generally need a higher release paper to have the best results with poly fabrics. This is why most folks recommend TexPrint HR over the generic DyeTrans or similar when pressing on fabrics.

Things I'd try:

1. Increase dwell time.
2. Ensure your press really is at 400 degrees.
3. Use a higher release paper.
4. Select a paper type or print quality that will lay down more ink. Turn off High Speed printing (that lays down less ink when it's on).

If you use a test print with a gray scale, you can "lock" the grays and blacks first, then go to the other colors. If the grays turn a chocolate brown, it's too much time, or too hot. You're now destroying the dye with too much heat.

When done properly, your reds will look like the goriest slasher movie you've ever seen! As RR sez, the system is capable of bright and brilliant colors.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

I was wondering if that High Speed printing played a part in things, I will turn that off for sure, right now I am using the DyeTrans paper (I saw it all over so I figured it had to be ok to use) but I will order the TexPrint to try out.

My blacks were so-so, sometimes they would turn out a but light.. (maybe that will be fixed by taking the fast print off?) 

Samples I have been show were bright, so I know it can get there haha, its just a matter of reaching that point


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

For dye-pressing fabric Riderz Ready is the go-to guy, so well see what he suggests. But in general, weak blacks are caused by:

1. Not enough time or heat. I'd up one, or the other, and see how that works. (Avoid changing two things at once. Best to take it one step at a time.)

2. Not enough ink. On the Epson 7010 turning off High Speed takes it up a notch, dpi-wise. The higher the dpi, the more ink is laid down.

3. Not great paper. Try some higher release stuff first chance you get.

4. Not great fabric. I test on a 600D (fairly tight weave) white polyester I get at Joann's. Avoid the more sheer material. It should be heavy enough so that you can only see light when looking through it, but not make out much actual shapes of things. This has proven (for me) to be a reliable test fabric. It takes up dye well, and shows deep and bright colors.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

Are you using an ICC for fabrics? or hard surfaces?
Have you got the printer settings the same as the ICC was created with/for?
You mentioned buying a CISS filled with ink for your 1400, and thinking about changing ink brands ... each ink brand will have its own colour and need a different ICC to compensate.
What ink brand are you currently using?
Are you using an ICC that is from that ink maker, or one that was custom made for your printer and inks?


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

pisquee said:


> Are you using an ICC for fabrics? or hard surfaces?
> Have you got the printer settings the same as the ICC was created with/for?
> You mentioned buying a CISS filled with ink for your 1400, and thinking about changing ink brands ... each ink brand will have its own colour and need a different ICC to compensate.
> What ink brand are you currently using?
> Are you using an ICC that is from that ink maker, or one that was custom made for your printer and inks?


I am not 100% sure what the icc profile is set for, could it be optimized for both?

Yes, I went through and made sure the settings were correct (as provided by cobra ink)

I am using cobra inks r7820 (I think I have the number right, going from memory at this point, will edit if wrong) high temp ink and the icc profile provided by them


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

Gordon,

I played around with the temp and time yesterday and I believe I found a good mixture for my heat press, compared to what I had tried for my first print 2 days ago..

I used one of vapor apparels performance shirts, it was a real heavy weight material and the print came out really nice, ill post a picture, but even then I didn't think a few colors "poped". And maybe it's just me, I donno

But I will try taking off the high print speed and im going to order some paper this afternoon


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Gordon,
> 
> I played around with the temp and time yesterday and I believe I found a good mixture for my heat press, compared to what I had tried for my first print 2 days ago..
> 
> ...


This is the link to the test file ....

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

You should post your graphic application settings and your printer settings.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mustangFWL said:


> I am not 100% sure what the icc profile is set for, could it be optimized for both?
> 
> Yes, I went through and made sure the settings were correct (as provided by cobra ink)


Cobra's (as with most) profiles are made using a specific substrate, but he doesn't always tell you what that is. It's not really possible to optimize a single profile for two vastly different substrates, because they exhibit different properties. These properties, as well as the colors themselves, are registered by the spectrographic scanner used to make the profile. 

All profiles establish white and black points as the "top" and "bottom" of the color range. Fabrics have a different white and black reference than does gloss FRP, matte FRP, aluminum, glass, and so on.

As I've said before, you first want to verify the transfer of your dyes. The transfer provides a known baseline for things like temperature, time, ink laydown, and paper type. Once you're sure you're not doing something like pressing for too short, or using crap paper, you can worry about color fidelity. The best profile in the world will not correct for these issues. 

It's always better to use reference photos rather than arbitrary artwork, because no one else knows how the art is supposed to look. The PhotoDisc example Mike provided is a good one. It's the image I use on everything to test. 

Cobra inks will provide reasonably acceptable appearance without a profile, so you might test the transfer settings you have by temporarily turning off profiles. There will be colors that shift, but that's not your concern at a the moment. You want to verify you're getting adequate ink laydown, and a good, solid transfer using quality paper and the right press settings.


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

Our experience is that if you have the right ink and profile many of the other variables really do not matter to any degree when it comes to fabric.

With the right ink/profile we have zero need for multiple profiles based on the substrate, Maybe if you were doing professional photography on Chromoluxe but for us we use the same profile for jerseys as we do number plates. Both print perfectly.

With the right ink/profile I really cannot tell the difference between pressing at 380 vs 400 or pressing for 45 seconds or 55 seconds. There is a lot of wiggle room with the right inks/profiles.

When it comes to paper I really cannot tell any significant difference between the brands in the print quality. For us we use Beaver tacky simply because it speeds production by no ghosting and no need for using additional blow through paper.

Gordon mentioned laying down more ink. I would agree that will help you determine if it is settings or ink/profile. 

This just goes back to the idea of never changing inks unless the vendor is willing to send a sample on a similar substrate to what you will be using.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Gordon,
> 
> I played around with the temp and time yesterday and I believe I found a good mixture for my heat press, compared to what I had tried for my first print 2 days ago..
> 
> ...


I actually use the same inks. 

With _that vendors_ profiles ...

1. Papers matter
2. Substrates matter
3. Having the right profile for the right paper _and_ substrate matter.
4. This vendor is not making a one size fits all profile like you may be hearing about from those who don't actually use _these_ profiles and inks.

Other things like improper color management setup can hose you too.

Nearly all photographers use different profiles for different papers. Sublimation profiles have to cover a wider substrate reflectivity and gamma range than exists on photo papers. If one gets a "one size fits all" profile it cannot be 100% optimized for every substrate/paper combination.


----------



## pisquee (Jan 8, 2012)

We bought our own profiling system to be able to make ICCs for the different substrates we print to (with both sublimation and pigment inks) as we are printing artwork for artists and designers who really care about their colours, we wanted to be able to get the best achievable colours from our systems.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

I cant thank you all enough for the information...

I have been stuck screen printing all day (although its not really a problem  ) I have yet to try different settings, but tomorrow and this weekend I will be for sure.

Mike, is there a way to tackle to task of getting the correct profiles for the paper and substrates? 

I will also post a screen shot of my settings in both photoshop and my print screen tomorrow as well.

Profiles are specific to the type of ink that goes into the type of printer correct?


----------



## Riderz Ready (Sep 18, 2008)

In closing I would suggest to keep it simple, keep it common sense and will all come together.

When colors are effected by paper, humidty, time, presure, type of fabric, etc etc. all colors are effected. It does not discrimiate against a few colors

Same with substrate - if a fabric prints poorly it does not print just a few specific colors poorly it prints them all poorly.

When you have most of your colors on target and a few that are not - the vast majority of time it is the profile/ink.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> I cant thank you all enough for the information...
> 
> I have been stuck screen printing all day (although its not really a problem  ) I have yet to try different settings, but tomorrow and this weekend I will be for sure.
> 
> ...


For whatever reason they only have posted 1 ICC now. Before they had 2 other different ones up for download. Anyway I have those others as per my links below.

I have 2 for the 7010, one is for WA_Signs, the other is WA_tags. I'm not sure what the "WA" means.

On the WF1100 there are 5 ICC's for 

1. Plain Paper_Photo Quality_White Fab
2. Plain Paper_Photo Quality_off White Fab
3. Unisub panel-plain paper-photo
4. For Tags
5. Plain paper_Photo Quality 

See my links for the WF1100 ICC's as well, don't use the WF1100 profiles yet, the WF1100 is very close to the 7010 but let's make sure everything is OK first and use only the 7010.

Keep the WF1100 as they may be handy later once you get "baselined". Most 4 color Epsons sublimation ICC's work well across the other 4 color models.

So first use the latest one you downloaded, let's establish your color setup and then print and transfer the PDI target file. The one you have appears to be for some hardgood as it is titled "MaxQuality".

http://www.mgparrish.com/Epson WF1100 High Temp.zip

http://www.mgparrish.com/PC WF7010.zip


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> I cant thank you all enough for the information...
> 
> I have been stuck screen printing all day (although its not really a problem  ) I have yet to try different settings, but tomorrow and this weekend I will be for sure.
> 
> ...


See the post here, it is a good representation of the "pop" of the inks once you have things nailed down. 

http://www.t-shirtforums.com/dye-sublimation/t160848-3.html#post967521


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

Does it matter that I have the 1400, which is a 6 color printer? Or do the same rules apply?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Does it matter that I have the 1400, which is a 6 color printer? Or do the same rules apply?


I thought you had the 7010? *Don't use those profiles I posted then*. It was Gordon's post that mentioned the 7010, you hadn't mentioned yours, my bad.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Does it matter that I have the 1400, which is a 6 color printer? Or do the same rules apply?


The 1400 and the 1430 is really the same printer, there is one for "tags" and one for "best photo". Best photo likely means some hardgood substrate. I don't think he made any for fabrics for the 14XX. Let's see your setup screens and go from there.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Sorry, I thought you had a 7010. Someone else has been talking about profiles and recently got a 7010.

As you just recently loaded the ink into the printer, have you done a head check? Are all the channels showing? 

There are a bunch of folks who will do a custom profile for abound $25 o $30. That's probably worth your time and wasted ink/paper/substrate. Just do a Web search for 'custom printer profiles.' The process is pretty easy: You print out the targets and mail them in. 

You just need to make sure they can take non-paper targets. I've used matte (not gloss) Unisub FRP in the past as one of my "generic" substrates. If you're going to be doing just fabrics, you could print those on some cut-up white Vapor Apparel shirts, and maybe mount them to a white board if they need something stiff for their scanner.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Sorry, I thought you had a 7010. Someone else has been talking about profiles and recently got a 7010.
> 
> As you just recently loaded the ink into the printer, have you done a head check? Are all the channels showing?
> 
> ...


Need to determine 2 things first.

1. Proper setup and color management
2. If the profile can produce acceptable results with the correct setup.

Going out to someone else for a profile that will cost money is both premature at this point and likely not necessary as Richard makes profiles all the time. 

_If_ there is a problem with the profile then Richard will likely fix it. Most of his customers are 4 color users so unless he got any feedback from other users using 6 colors he may have just figured it was OK.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

Setup is nearly always the reason for color issues. See this post. It still could be the 14xx profile needs some adjustment, but must rule out everything else first.

http://www.t-shirtforums.com/dye-sublimation/t208991-2.html#post1220764


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

I will post my settings first thing in the morning... Just so I am clear, you would like me to post my printer settings and my photoshop print settings? Any others?


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

I also see a big rip between using photoshop and Corel, I use Corel on a day to day basis, for my screen printing, and general graphic design, I have been using photoshop for my sublimation due to the power of photoshop with raster images, but if I read correctly, Mike, you like using Corel for color matching. 

I also printed out a large color chart on one of the vapor shirts I had, I assume that is a good reference for color and colors I should be aiming to use?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> I will post my settings first thing in the morning... Just so I am clear, you would like me to post my printer settings and my photoshop print settings? Any others?


Yes, both printer and PS screens.

For the PS screens should be for 

From the main pull down menu ..

1. Edit <<< Color settings
2. File<<< Print <<< Color Managment.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> I also see a big rip between using photoshop and Corel, I use Corel on a day to day basis, for my screen printing, and general graphic design, I have been using photoshop for my sublimation due to the power of photoshop with raster images, but if I read correctly, Mike, you like using Corel for color matching.
> 
> *Yes and no. I typically work with mixed bitmap and vector anyway. So I start in PS then end up in Corel.*
> 
> ...


I marked up in your post above.


----------



## jasonsmith (Mar 30, 2011)

mgparrish said:


> Yes.
> 
> For the PS screens should be for
> 
> ...


With the color managment adjustment.

Is it simply that you're just using the ink companies ICC profile, and then telling it to let Corel or photoshop manage colors, then in the printer when printing turning color management off in the printer preferences?

I figured it was simple setting it up correctly, but didn't know if there was more to it than that.

I use Cobra inks, but noticed they only have one profile. So I assume it will work for both fabric and license plates with regards to dye sub.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

jasonsmith said:


> With the color managment adjustment.
> 
> Is it simply that you're just using the ink companies ICC profile, and then telling it to let Corel or photoshop manage colors, then in the printer when printing turning color management off in the printer preferences?
> 
> ...


I marked up above in your post. Which printer do you have?


----------



## jasonsmith (Mar 30, 2011)

mgparrish said:


> I marked up above in your post. Which printer do you have?


Epson 1400 with Cobra inks. I'm using dye now, but may get into pigment ink or dye sub. If I get into dye sub, then it would be for fabrics and things like puzzles and license plates.

I noticed the Cobra ICC profile for 1400 and dye inks didn't look right compared to a default Epson profile.

So I kind of wondered also how their dye sub ICC profile would work out if the colors come out looking wrong since you'd be pretty much stuck with that dye sub ICC profile. Where as with dye and pigment inks, you can try all different kinds of profiles like Adobe 1998, etc.

Not up to date on all the custom ICC profiles people are doing as I just have been using stock ICC profiles. Plus I noticed the colors come out different anyways with the 1400 Cobra dye ink when printing on transfer paper compared to regular printing paper. Had to make adjustments to a photo as it looked right on regular paper, but came out too dark on transfer paper.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

jasonsmith said:


> Epson 1400 with Cobra inks. I'm using dye now, but may get into pigment ink or dye sub. If I get into dye sub, then it would be for fabrics and things like puzzles and license plates.
> 
> I noticed the Cobra ICC profile for 1400 and dye inks didn't look right compared to a default Epson profile.
> 
> ...


I use Cobra pigments and found their profile was a little off compared to not using it. 

In spot colors the "pop" was brighter than running straight, but I found the Cobra pigments (at least on the WF1100) are a good match to Epsons pigments but without the yellow shift when heated as Durabrites suffer from. So a profile isn't really needed for their pigments on tshirts IMO.

[media]http://www.mgparrish.com/DSC_0344.jpg[/media]

The top image on the tshirt is with the profile, the lower image is without. Spot colors are brighter but at the expense of overall accuracy.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Yes, both printer and PS screens.
> 
> 1. Edit <<< Color settings *<-- I dont think I changed anything here *


I might have found a problem with my settings already without them in front of me.. 

When stating a new doc in photoshop, should I also set the color profile there? or will setting within Color settings manage that?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> I might have found a problem with my settings already without them in front of me..
> 
> When stating a new doc in photoshop, should I also set the color profile there? or will setting within Color settings manage that?


That is a global setting,_ generally_ once you have it set correctly then you leave it alone. If you are using a PS for a wide variety of applications then you can name a preset then select it piece meal as needed.

If all you ever did was sublimate then it's set once forever. The sublimation ICC is set in the PS printer dialog, the workspace and any imported image have profiles on their own and must be managed as well, but seperatly.


----------



## jasonsmith (Mar 30, 2011)

mgparrish said:


> I use Cobra pigments and found their profile was a little off compared to not using it.
> 
> In spot colors the "pop" was brighter than running straight, but I found the Cobra pigments (at least on the WF1100) are a good match to Epsons pigments but without the yellow shift when heated as Durabrites suffer from. So a profile isn't really needed for their pigments on tshirts IMO.
> 
> ...


The top pic looks better and has better pop and would probably wear better than the bottom pic. Looks like the bottom pic had the saturation turned down, or muted colors or something.

Do you do any Cobra dye sub? Wondering if their ICC dye sub profile is good for that as I don't use their profile for regular dye inks since the colors look better on the default profile.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> That is a global setting,_ generally_ once you have it set correctly then you leave it alone. If you are using a PS for a wide variety of applications then you can name a preset then select it piece meal as needed.
> 
> If all you ever did was sublimate then it's set once forever. The sublimation ICC is set in the PS printer dialog, the workspace and any imported image have profiles on their own and must be managed as well, but seperatly.


 That is what I kinda figured but wasn't 100% sure on.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

jasonsmith said:


> The top pic looks better and has better pop and would probably wear better than the bottom pic. Looks like the bottom pic had the saturation turned down, or muted colors or something.
> 
> Do you do any Cobra dye sub? Wondering if their ICC dye sub profile is good for that as I don't use their profile for regular dye inks since the colors look better on the default profile.


Actually no on your first paragraph. The bottom image much more closely follows the source image. Subjectively you may like the top image better, but proper color managment means keeping the output as close to the input as possible. The image was not adjusted for anything, it is a perfect source photo, that is the concept, take out any error due to source image so additional source errors are not mistaked for setup errors.

A profile is supposed to correct system errors, not source image errors, those, _if they exist_ are adjusted on their own piecemeal and not by altering the workspace and color managment settings. You don't bend your axles on your car to fix wheel alignment issues. 

Colro management and profiles are not supposed to make your source image better, the purpose is to make them accurate assuming they don't need editing. If they need editing to imporve error or subjective impression, then that is a seperate excercise.

Yes, I do Cobra dye sub, on the WF1100 I am very happy using their profile(s).


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Going out to someone else for a profile that will cost money is both premature at this point and likely not necessary as Richard makes profiles all the time.


Well this is what I've been saying -- get the setup first, then worry about profiles. I think Scott has that point by now. But eventually, you may need to look at getting the profile if you don't want to keep going back and forth tweaking every little thing.

As much as I like Cobra, I've not found their profiles are as usable as I'd like -- and I have 4-color printers. So this past fall I just gave up trying to get them to work. Maybe it's just me. I ended up making my own, which was not too expensive because I rented the equipment, rather than buying it outright.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

Another question I also have is how much does screen calibration play into effect? I know the main screen I do work on is close to great calibration, but I know its far away from perfect calibration... should I look into a calibration software?


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mustangFWL said:


> This is one of the prints I tried out yesterday (I guess technically 2 days ago at this point)


You're right -- it lacks vibrancy. These things can be a little hard to see just from a picture, but both the red and the blue should be popping out at you.

Overall the image looks flat to me, and I'd say the problem may be more due to lack of adequate transfer than color trueness because of the profile.

Try the 600D polyester non-knit fabric from Joann's I was talking about. It will suck up all the ink you can give it. If your art looks flat on that fabric, there's something seriously wrong with your setup. The reds should be R-E-D. I have some samples I can post if you'd like.

Take the target test image we've been talking about and make some small 4x6" prints, with and without the profile, and do some test pressings. Get your specific art out of the picture for now, and use a known test image. You can also do some pure-color swatches in CorelDraw. They may not come out color-perfect without a profile, but they shouldn't look flat.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Well this is what I've been saying -- get the setup first, then worry about profiles. I think Scott has that point by now. But eventually, you may need to look at getting the profile if you don't want to keep going back and forth tweaking every little thing.
> 
> As much as I like Cobra, I've not found their profiles are as usable as I'd like -- and I have 4-color printers. So this past fall I just gave up trying to get them to work. Maybe it's just me. I ended up making my own, which was not too expensive because I rented the equipment, rather than buying it outright.


Did you read the other post on the WF7010? 

Perhaps you are not color managing properly. If you were turning off the profiles for any reason even for test I have to question that. In any case it works fine for me on the WF1100, and I have artists for customers.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

GordonM said:


> You're right -- it lacks vibrancy. These things can be a little hard to see just from a picture, but both the red and the blue should be popping out at you.
> 
> Overall the image looks flat to me, and I'd say the problem may be more due to lack of adequate transfer than color trueness because of the profile.
> 
> ...


I deleted that image due to the quality.. the shirt looks better in person, I will try to take a better picture when I have better lighting.. 
The golds in the image stand out out best.. they look amazing to me actually haha

I would love to see some samples


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

jasonsmith said:


> The top pic looks better and has better pop and would probably wear better than the bottom pic. Looks like the bottom pic had the saturation turned down, or muted colors or something.


As Mike sez, the top picture is color-inaccurate. You can see from the gray tones in the bottom picture that it's tracking blacks much better.

But this also demonstrates that how we *perceive* colors is often far more important than the actual colors. We gravitate toward the warmth (added brown tones, as you can see in the gray swatches), as it looks more natural, healthy, and inviting.

What I found worked (for me) was to get my color balance looking like the bottom photo. I then knew the system was calibrated. I then *intentionally* can alter the colors to make it cooler, warmer, or whatever. For photos with people, I'll almost always warm it up, just like how Mike did for the top photo.

Incidentally, with Cobra pigment inks, going without a profile will result in more like the bottom photo, and using their profile results in the warming tones -- the reverse of what I expected. That's how it happened for me, at least.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> You're right -- it lacks vibrancy. These things can be a little hard to see just from a picture, but both the red and the blue should be popping out at you.
> 
> Overall the image looks flat to me, and I'd say the problem may be more due to lack of adequate transfer than color trueness because of the profile.
> 
> ...


NO NO NO! It will only prove either he is not setting the profile at all, or if he is setting it correctly then it will look different.  

He should stay out of Corel until it can determined if PS can with that profile is accpetable. If it won't work acceptable in PS then it won't work acceptable in Corel either.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> As Mike sez, the top picture is color-inaccurate. You can see from the gray tones in the bottom picture that it's tracking blacks much better.
> 
> But this also demonstrates that how we *perceive* colors is often far more important than the actual colors. We gravitate toward the warmth (added brown tones, as you can see in the gray swatches), as it looks more natural, healthy, and inviting.
> 
> ...


I agree, note that I didn't "warm up" the photo on my own, the profile caused it.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Did you read the other post on the WF7010?
> 
> Perhaps you are not color managing properly. If you were turning off the profiles for any reason even for test I have to question that. In any case it works fine for me, and I have artists for customers.


I'm absolutely using color management properly. It's not that hard, after all, though some people like to say it is. The problem is in people's instructions, not the science behind it.

When I finally made my own profiles, everything worked, meaning the stock profiles are only good for starting out. Turning off profiles for testing shows if the profile is wrong, or being misapplied. That's a common sense process of elimination step.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> NO NO NO! It will only prove either he is not setting the profile at all, or if he is setting it correctly then it will look different.
> 
> He should stay out of Corel until it can determined if PS can with that profile is accpetable. If it won't work acceptable in PS then it won't work acceptable in Corel either.




Dont worry, I dont have that computer in front of me at the moment so were safe haha


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> NO NO NO! It will only prove either he is not setting the profile at all, or if he is setting it correctly then it will look different.


We have a difference in opinion here. I recommend doing tests WITHOUT the profile to rule it out as causing problems. In troubleshooting you eliminate as many variables as you can, then start adding in elements one at a time. 

In my case, I used two color profiles, provided by the ink supplier, that were not at all accurate -- one so inaccurate at first I thought something was seriously wrong with my printer. Finally testing without a profile proved that was not the case. It prompted me to have my own profiles made, and these work perfectly.

One simply CANNOT make assumptions here. I did, and wasted many weeks of my time. Much better not to take anything for granted, and start as simply as possible.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mustangFWL said:


> Another question I also have is how much does screen calibration play into effect? I know the main screen I do work on is close to great calibration, but I know its far away from perfect calibration... should I look into a calibration software?


Screen profiling won't help in improving printing, but it'll help in more accurately showing the colors as they will print. Ideally you need a program that supports soft proofing, as PhotoShop does. That program also lets you select a printer profile, then toggle the display to show which color(s) are out of gamut. You can more easily play with the perceptive and black point options, to see how they affect the result.

Calibration software only provides an approximation. You can rent color calibration hardware from a number of online photography supply outfits. The ColorMunki is a mid-range colorimeter (it's not a spectrometer) that can make profiles for both displays and printers. There are some even fancier ones, so it all depends on your budget.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Another question I also have is how much does screen calibration play into effect?
> 
> *In theory you could have a black and white (grayscale) monitor and print perfect color if your source image was perfect and your PS settings are proper. The problem arises when your source image is off and needs adjusting. You need an accurate reference on-screen for that.*
> 
> ...


I marked up in your post above.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

GordonM said:


> We have a difference in opinion here. I recommend doing tests WITHOUT the profile to rule it out as causing problems. In troubleshooting you eliminate as many variables as you can, then start adding in elements one at a time.
> 
> In my case, I used two color profiles, provided by the ink supplier, that were not at all accurate -- one so inaccurate at first I thought something was seriously wrong with my printer. Finally testing without a profile proved that was not the case. It prompted me to have my own profiles made, and these work perfectly.
> 
> One simply CANNOT make assumptions here. I did, and wasted many weeks of my time. Much better not to take anything for granted, and start as simply as possible.


The first icc profile I tried from cobra was the 1400 high temp icc profile for a Mac, but I'm on a pc, and it turned my blues purple and greens into a weird shad if green but kept my red like a tomato red, not a cherry red.. But I switched it to the icc profile labeled for the 1430 (knowing there's not much different between the two) and for the pc version and that is the profile I am currently using..


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> We have a difference in opinion here. I recommend doing tests WITHOUT the profile to rule it out as causing problems. In troubleshooting you eliminate as many variables as you can, then start adding in elements one at a time.
> 
> In my case, I used two color profiles, provided by the ink supplier, that were not at all accurate -- one so inaccurate at first I thought something was seriously wrong with my printer. Finally testing without a profile proved that was not the case. It prompted me to have my own profiles made, and these work perfectly.
> 
> One simply CANNOT make assumptions here. I did, and wasted many weeks of my time. Much better not to take anything for granted, and start as simply as possible.


Still don't get the no profile thing. If your profile is bad then your image is bad. If your profile is fine but you don't use it ... your image is bad.  If your setup is bad then your image is bad. If all things are bad then your image is bad.

Anyway, to each his own. My opinion is that this would throw _one big curve ball_ to a new user not familiar with color management.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> I marked up in your post above.


I should have phrased that better, I really meant how important is it for seeing colors before they are printed, I knew it wouldn't effect how the colors were printed . 

Thanks to both of you for the info on that... I may look into a better monitor when I start producing a bit of income with my sublimation, I may need to get a bigger printer first though haha if it takes off like I hope/believe it will, it's not going to happen quick, but one day ill get there


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Still don't get the no profile thing. If your profile is bad then your image is bad. If your profile is fine but you don't use it ... your image is bad.  If your setup is bad then your image is bad. If all things are bad then your image is bad.


Sorry, I'm not following your logic. If the (printer) profile is bad, you have a bad profile. It has nothing to do with the image.

Turns out Scott was using a Mac profile on a PC. (Good profile for a Mac, bad profile for a PC.) No profile at all is usually more accurate than a bad profile. Simple test, takes two minutes, solves a lot of head scratching, and allows you to move on to the next step.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Sorry, I'm not following your logic. If the (printer) profile is bad, you have a bad profile. It has nothing to do with the image.
> 
> Turns out Scott was using a Mac profile on a PC. (Good profile for a Mac, bad profile for a PC.) No profile at all is usually more accurate than a bad profile. Simple test, takes two minutes, solves a lot of head scratching, and allows you to move on to the next step.


I mean the RESULTANT final *printed image* from all the other errors, I just provided a good source image so it is assumed the image is not bad on it's own originally.  

No, in many cases a less than perfect profile is not better than no profile, unless it is grossy screwed up. 

If I turn off my sub profile(s) any of them ... no way I am getting a better image.

I'd like to hear how you setup and printed the target file for the profile you had made. What version of Photoshop are you using?

If your setup and methodology is is wrong then it is very possible a profile made from your system was adjusting your "bent" setup. In other words did you bend your axles to correct your wheel alignment problem?


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> If I turn off my sub profile(s) any of them no way I am getting a better image.


If better means more accurate, your own tests above show this is not the case, so I'm not sure what your point is. The version with the profile (supplied by the ink seller) is not color accurate, whereas the one without the profile is. This is what you've demonstrated, and this exactly the same result I've gotten. (Yes, I know this is for his pigment inks, but it shows using a profile doesn't necessarily mean you're going to now have accurate colors.)

So, where does this leave us? You can't trust a color profile. If you're having color problems, turn it off. SIMPLIFY. Go back to the very, very basics. Then work back up, one step at a time.

Honestly, this is no different than suggesting people not tweak dwell, temperature, and pressure settings all at once. You adjust one at a time.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> If your setup and methodology is is wrong then it is very possible a profile made from your system was adjusting your "bent" setup. In other words did you bend your axles to correct your wheel alignment problem?


This isn't how color profiles are made*. They are made without color management, and with color swatches generated by the profiling software. There's no axle to bend, because there are no axles.

(*Some folks print pre-made swatches from PhotoShop and then send into a service. In this instance, you must be careful that PhotoShop -- or your printer -- is not attempting to manage colors. However, if you're using profiling hardware in your own shop, you don't need to print the charts with PhotoShop, or other graphics program, as the profiling software manages the process.)

Mike, I'm trying to tell you I've now made dozens of my own profiles, which print with much better color fidelity than anything else I've gotten. I've got nothing to prove to anyone, except to say this is my direct experience in the matter.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> I should have phrased that better, I really meant how important is it for seeing colors before they are printed, I knew it wouldn't effect how the colors were printed .
> 
> Thanks to both of you for the info on that... I may look into a better monitor when I start producing a bit of income with my sublimation, I may need to get a bigger printer first though haha if it takes off like I hope/believe it will, it's not going to happen quick, but one day ill get there


Yes, IPS monotors designed for graphics are around $500 just for entry level, they go up from there, but they have been getting cheaper.

An accurate monitor is always best. Once you make swatches and get your setup properely then you can use those along with the pdi target file to determine your monitor accuracy. 

Your monitor is not critical for this execise, the PDI source image does not need to be adjusted. The PDI file contains colors you should be familar with. If you have a acess to a good regular inkjet printer using standard inks then print the PDI on good photo glossy paper.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> This isn't how color profiles are made*. They are made without color management, and with color swatches generated by the profiling software. There's no axle to bend, because there are no axles.
> 
> (*Some folks print pre-made swatches from PhotoShop and then send into a service. In this instance, you must be careful that PhotoShop -- or your printer -- is not attempting to manage colors. However, if you're using profiling hardware in your own shop, you don't need to print the charts with PhotoShop, or other graphics program, as the profiling software manages the process.)
> 
> Mike, I'm trying to tell you I've now made dozens of my own profiles, which print with much better color fidelity than anything else I've gotten. I've got nothing to prove to anyone, except to say this is my direct experience in the matter.


Yes, I know they are not made with color management on, how did _you_ output your target file onto paper to send to your profile maker? 

I have printed targets for all my laser sublimation and those were used to create profiles for distribution to all users.

I understand IF you have software and equipment then Photoshop is not needed, but you stated you have a 3rd party make those for you. So what did _you_ use to print the target?

Anyway, another experienced sublimator with a 7010 just got his output to be nearly comparable to his 4800. I can't believe your profiles were that bad to have to turn them off to get better color.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Yes, I know they are not made with color management, how did _you_ output your target file onto paper to send to your profile maker?


I've not been obtuse with this. I've said several times in this thread I used my own hardware. These were not made by a third-party.



mgparrish said:


> I can't believe your profiles were that bad to have to turn them off to get better color.


One was bad, as in B.A.D. Richard no longer includes it in his zips. The other simply wasn't good enough.

I determined the profiles were not as accurate as they could be by turning the profiling off, and running tests. I've not said that this is how I'd recommend printing actual jobs.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> I've not been obtuse with this. I've said several times in this thread I used my own hardware. These were not made by a third-party.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, You mentioned that you had rented your equipment ...

you also mentioned 

"In my case, I used two color profiles, provided by the ink supplier, that were not at all accurate -- one so inaccurate at first I thought something was seriously wrong with my printer. Finally testing without a profile proved that was not the case. *It prompted me to have my own profiles made,* and *these* work perfectly."

http://www.t-shirtforums.com/dye-sublimation/t209454-4.html#post1220857

Who with a_ licensed_ software package that is _highly likely valid only for their use, _and likely a required dongle rents these? Not saying it isn't possible, just you have discrepancies in your statements in this respect. 

Anyway, you are just making the OP's task way to complicated at this point, and unless he can get everything setup correctly _no way_ he is going to make a target for someone from his computer. 

Printing a target sucessfully from Photoshop currently is not a task for a beginner. It's possible in PS but you have to know the "jump thru Adobe bridge trick" on any recent version of Photoshop. Unless he can find someone who is willing to rent out equipment (likely in violation of their EULA), even then setting that all up is not a beginner task either.

Cart is before the horse. Keep things simple for now.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

All engineering tasks can be troubleshooted by first deconstructing to eliminate all extant variables, then adding in each one individually to run separate tests.

For color profiles, there are three possible outcomes between candidate profile and no profile, and each one can tell a story:

* No change. Suggests color management is not properly applied in software, as it's not likely there would be no difference between profile/no profile.

* Colors are improved. Suggests profile is incorrect -- wrong OS, wrong profile for printer, etc. 

* Colors are worsened. Suggests profile is correct, so problem is not in the profile, but something else. At least now you've verified the profile, and you can move on to the next variable.

Dongle? The hardware itself is the dongle. There are several online resources that cater to photographers that rent these. If there is a EULA violation that's their problem, but since they've been renting the hardware for some time, I imagine the manufacturer can't do anything about it, or it isn't an issue -- likely the latter. Eventually I'll buy my own, but the rental got me over the hump. 

Of all the graphics programs that offer color management PhotoShop is probably the easiest (the settings are not scattered), and the profile makers provide specific details, even for the latest PhotoShop that requires a utility. Really, it's not that hard if you have the right instructions.

Simplicity? Nothing is more simple than turning everything off you can and trying each element one at a time. That's what I've been suggesting all along.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

Hopefully you all can read this one


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

In the dialog box upper left, you should select Adobe RGB (1998), not the printer profile. The other settings look okay. You can play around with the rendering intent if you'd like to see what they do.

I'd also do test prints on letter size. Gotta be going through the paper if you're using 13x19s for all this!


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> All engineering tasks can be troubleshooted by first deconstructing to eliminate all extant variables, then adding in each one individually to run separate tests.
> 
> For color profiles, there are three possible outcomes between candidate profile and no profile, and each one can tell a story:
> 
> ...


You mentioned

1. You made profiles with _your_ hardware
2. You rented profile equipment
3. You had these made for you.

????

Do you have any links to those renting that equipment? I suppose they could exist, just renting out your software is illegal, in other words it is a crime. I haven't seen any EULA language before allowing one to rent their software out.

You are missing the larger picture and again you are way way off in a far off galaxy.

_If_ there is a problem with _his_ 1400 profile (not _your_ 7010 profile) responsibilty lies with Cobra to improve it, and they are always updating them. 

It was your choice to not pursue this further with Cobra, however, other users will not benefit in the future _if_ there is a problem with the 1400 profile if Cobra isn't informed and given a chance to make it better. It's in everyone's best interest to do this through Cobra.

He paid for something and _if _it is unsatisfactory then it should be fixed by the responsible party And at this point it is not confirmed that the 1400 profile is bad. The cart is before the horse.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Lensrental.com

Grow up.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

GordonM said:


> In the dialog box upper left, you should select Adobe RGB (1998), not the printer profile. The other settings look okay. You can play around with the rendering intent if you'd like to see what they do.
> 
> I'd also do test prints on letter size. Gotta be going through the paper if you're using 13x19s for all this!


I cut the deigns out and reuse most of the paper on the 13x19's, well as much as I can, I will make tha change too


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Hopefully you all can read this one


Yes, working space should be Adobe RGB 1998. For textiles I use "Premium Matte paper" in the paper type in the Epson driver, you can try both ways. 

Usually when setting to plain paper the Epson driver will switch the resolution on you to a lower resolution. I don't have that printer to confirm though.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

But my other settings look ok?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Lensrental.com
> 
> Grow up.


Nobody at that link. 

You dodged my question. You have 3 different explanations of how you got your profiles?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> But my other settings look ok?


Yes. 

Artanium setups for some reason have "Convert to working RGB" in the Color Managment Policies" section. That is a bit un-orthodox but I find it works for sublimation both laser and inkjet. Since the PDI file is Adobe RGB 1998 tagged then it won't matter for that file. If importing a sRGB tagged file then it would force a conversion per the way Artainium handles it.

For now just set working space to Adobe RGB1998 and not change any other settings in PS. 

Try the paper types as both plain paper and matte paper in the Epson driver and compare. Matte paper your settings for quality should be either "Photo" or "Best Photo" whatever the 1400 allows. "Best photo" is usually overkill, especially on garments.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

The epson does both the photo and best photo, but I found best photo makes images darker.. I have the source image printed out, so as soon as I get a moment from screen printing I will go press the image... should I print it on a shirt or something else?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Ooooh, you caught me!
> 
> It's lensrentals.com -- with an s.
> 
> ...


I accept your explanation, just asked to explain the discrepancies which you threw out there, that's all.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

My post somehow got deleted when I tried to edit it. But you got the gist of it.

On the subject of an ink supplier providing a good profile: Yes they should, but they are only responsible for providing one for generic use, not for your particular paper, substrates, or printing preferences. Even Richard has removed the really bad profile from the zips for the 7010 and WF30, so he recognized they weren't good.

I agree Scott does not yet need his own profile, but it is something to consider, and I feel there's no harm in saying if you want optimized (his term), you make or have made your own.

Anyway, it looks like he might have hit on the problem if PS is trying to double-correct the image through both the document and print profiles.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

mustangFWL said:


> The epson does both the photo and best photo, but I found best photo makes images darker.. I have the source image printed out, so as soon as I get a moment from screen printing I will go press the image... should I print it on a shirt or something else?


It'd try it both ways to see what you like best. Here's what I do: I reduce the target image to half page, and print that on the top of the paper with whatever I want for the first print option. I then wait about 4-5 minutes, change to the second print option, and print again with the paper upside down.

You can now press both images together, and in doing so guarantee that the time, temperature, and pressure are the same for both.

For some tests I do it in quarters, and do four on a page. Just remember to let the ink dry each time. If you lay down loads of ink -- matte paper + best photo ("quality") + High Speed off, you need to wait a little longer.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> The epson does both the photo and best photo, but I found best photo makes images darker.. I have the source image printed out, so as soon as I get a moment from screen printing I will go press the image... should I print it on a shirt or something else?


Print it on a poly shirt.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> It'd try it both ways to see what you like best. Here's what I do: I reduce the target image to half page, and print that on the top of the paper with whatever I want for the first print option. I then wait about 4-5 minutes, change to the second print option, and print again with the paper upside down.
> 
> You can now press both images together, and in doing so guarantee that the time, temperature, and pressure are the same for both.
> 
> For some tests I do it in quarters, and do four on a page. Just remember to let the ink dry each time. If you lay down loads of ink -- matte paper + best photo ("quality") + High Speed off, you need to wait a little longer.


Suggest to add a distinguishing text on each item or pay attention to which item is which.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

I forgot to mention, when I do these tests, I'll use just fabric to start, because it's cheaper. Then when I feel I'm closer to the look I want, I'll do a test on a scrap substrate closer to what I'm pressing. I typically use license plate aluminum for testing on metal, Unisub FRP sheet stock cut up into pieces if I'm using FRP, and whatever corner is left open on ceramic tile. I do lots of glass work, and I will save one piece to do test strips on. I can usually do 2-4 tests per glass blank, though the test images are small. I'm really looking at the overall appearance by this point.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

Ok, so something is not correct... The image that you all told me to use, the grays have brown in them and the brown/tans have grey in them..

I fixed that problem by changing my paper type...


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Ok, so something is not correct... The image that you all told me to use, the grays have brown in them and the brown/tans have grey in them..
> 
> I fixed that problem by changing my paper type...


Which paper type did you use? And was that after transfering or just on the printed paper?


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Which paper type did you use? And was that after transfering or just on the printed paper?


I used the Plain paper and it was after I printed it out on the shirt..


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> I used the Plain paper and it was after I printed it out on the shirt..


Looks like "Matte" may have been setting down too much ink. It may be a good setting for mousepads and/or off white items though.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Looks like "Matte" may have been setting down too much ink. It may be a good setting for mousepads and/or off white items though.


I will keep that in mind..

Now what do I need to do to compare what I put on the shirt to what its supposed to look like? Or do I go by just looking at it and saying it looks good?

I notice the Reds and the oranges are still not poping like I have seen, do you know of any good images to try on that front?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> I will keep that in mind..
> 
> Now what do I need to do to compare what I put on the shirt to what its supposed to look like? Or do I go by just looking at it and saying it looks good?
> 
> I notice the Reds and the oranges are still not poping like I have seen, do you know of any good images to try on that front?


Can you scan and post? 

If you have access to another good inkjet printer with regular inks print the PDI on glossy photo paper in photo quality.

The question is if the Reds are Oranges are accurate. Refer to the photo of the tshirt I posted, how much they "pop" is subjective, we want accuracy and not any "pop" beyond what is in the source image.

The top image has "pop" but not as accurate as the bottom.

http://www.mgparrish.com/DSC_0344.jpg

You setup should be accurate as possible, if you need more "pop" beyond what your source had then you must adjust seperate for that, gamma, saturation etc.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)




----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


>


Your workspace is very likely setup correctly now, good chance this profile is best for glossy hardgoods, it's "pop" is weak overall, not just in red/orange. 

For now you can use the gamma setting to compensate, use the same photo and transfer adjust the GAMMA control that you see in the attached photo.

See the attached for the setting ... set Gamma (the middle slider somewhere between 1.0 and .9) 

If you can get the boost better with the PDI then use that same setting for everything ... for now. 

Long term this is not acceptable, but this should help you get by for now till another profile can be obtained.

If you like then the 1430 profile can also be tried, the printers are pretty much identical. This says it's for tags. Won't hurt to try for now. It will setup the same way, try both paper types plain and matte.

http://cobraink.com/Profiles/1430/PC%201430%20high%20Temp.zip

Cobra will need to make one for you for fabrics, the color accuracy is decent, just needs some boost. I can help you discuss with Richard if you like.

Also, make sure you are printing on the correct side of the transfer paper, the brightest white side if there is no watermark on the paper.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> Your workspace is very likely setup correctly now, good chance this profile is best for glossy hardgoods, it's "pop" is weak overall, not just in red/orange.
> 
> For now you can use the gamma setting to compensate, use the same photo and transfer adjust the GAMMA control that you see in the attached photo.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info, and that would be great to know what to talk to Richard about, sense most of the time I will be printing on shirts instead of hard goods


**EDIT**
The profile I am using now is the one you linked... thats the one that worked much better for me when I first started playing around with the settings


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Thanks for the info, and that would be great to know what to talk to Richard about, sense most of the time I will be printing on shirts instead of hard goods


There could some other adjustments but try gamma first and let me know. Since you have that picture transfered now Richard can see where the weakness is.

OK, so another profile needs to be made since you tried both, could be he has some that has been posted.

BTW did you try the first profile AFTER you setup your workspace to the current settings? I think you resolved the setup issues now.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

mgparrish said:


> There could some other adjustments but try gamma first and let me know. Since you have that picture transfered now Richard can see where the weakness is.



Let me play with the gama, and get the paper printed on the correct side.. (that is likley to have been a problem for me, never knew which side to print on )


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

How do I go about talking to Richard to get a profile made up? Any do's or donts?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> Let me play with the gama, and get the paper printed on the correct side.. (that is likley to have been a problem for me, never knew which side to print on )


Do the paper on the correct side first, then adj gamma if needed.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

mustangFWL said:


> How do I go about talking to Richard to get a profile made up? Any do's or donts?


Let's do the paper on the correct side first. drop me a PM and we can take any discussion with Richard off line.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Scott, Would you say your scanned image more or less accurately represents the actual item, or is the scan a little weaker? 

Apart from the overall weakness in density, which may be a profile issue or it may not. I see the slight bluing that's common in Cobra's sub profiles I've tried, though that may also be an artifact of your scan. The gamma issues already mentioned are "crushing" the blacks on the low end, so there's not much delineation in the deeper blacks.

You should strive for detail in shadows and all but the brightest highlights. I've attached a sample test printed on 600D poly fabric that shows detail in the hair of the girl on the left.

Your DyeTrans paper does not have a watermark. You can instead test to see which side is the coated side by doing the wet fingers test. Wet thumb and forefinger and pinch the corner of the paper. The side that sticks the most is the coated side. On the DyeTrans product, it's the whiter side.

Look at your range of blacks. Try to get some visible separation between by the second or third chip in the gray scale.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

GordonM said:


> Scott, Would you say your scanned image more or less accurately represents the actual item, or is the scan a little weaker?
> 
> Apart from the overall weakness in density, which may be a profile issue or it may not. I see the slight bluing that's common in Cobra's sub profiles I've tried, though that may also be an artifact of your scan. The gamma issues already mentioned are "crushing" the blacks on the low end, so there's not much delineation in the deeper blacks.
> 
> ...


The scanned image is pretty close to what I printed, might be a tad lighter, but not much... but even so, looking at what you posted and looking at my print, my prints not even close.. theres only black in the older girls hair, the eyes are almost grey on the baby yours looks 1000% better


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

GordonM said:


> Look at your range of blacks. Try to get some visible separation between by the second or third chip in the gray scale.


 The image will not pull up, also your first image is actually a bit different from the image I printed, same people, just more of their faces


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

We'll see if this loads: This is a simple color patch test, showing some reds, and one patch of black to set the black point reference. All these so far are printed on 600D poly fabric. The scanned image here is a bit lighter than what's on the fabric. I wanted to post these unaltered to help you compare.

On edit: I added a version (target-c) with modified gamma to show it more closely looks in person.


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

GordonM said:


> Scott, Would you say your scanned image more or less accurately represents the actual item, or is the scan a little weaker?
> 
> Apart from the overall weakness in density, which may be a profile issue or it may not. I see the slight bluing that's common in Cobra's sub profiles I've tried, though that may also be an artifact of your scan. The gamma issues already mentioned are "crushing" the blacks on the low end, so there's not much delineation in the deeper blacks.
> 
> ...


Gordon, he has the "tags" profile, he mentioned he is getting great results on plaques and iPhone covers, so he needs one made for fabrics, which shouldn't be a problem.

The wet thumb trick I didn't know about, beats taking the paper outside in the bright sun to see which side is whiter.


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Here are three test files, all printed on 600D poly using a Workforce 30, my first sub printer. It still has a lot of my hair in it that I pulled out.

The first two are profiles as provided by the seller of the ink (and which he no longer appears to provide; the zip for this printer now contains only one file, and it's neither of these -- I have not tried it yet). Neither of these first two are particularly good. The bluish one actually looks better here than the sample does in real life. It is basically unusable for the work I do.

The third (no-profile) uses no printer profile at all (document is Adobe RGB in all of these). This third one isn't great either, but there's no wholesale color shift. You can see colors are muted and blacks are crushed. However, as a reference to whether color management is at least functioning I believe it has merit.

More coming up...


----------



## GordonM (May 21, 2012)

Once I have the colors verified on fabric, I will print test images on hard substrate, because A) that's my main business and B) fabric lacks the resolving power of a hard surface, so it's easier to see detail.

Image on the left is a small 5x7 aluminum blank of the Photodisc Adobe RGB target. This version contains luminosity swatches, something that's important to me for the control and instrument panel work I do. (I'm not sure how well the appearance converts, but ideally you want these parts to look like they're glowing.)

The image on the left is my original ColorMunki first-pass target on Unisub gloss FRP sheet stock, followed by a test strip for a quick test to be sure the resulting profile is at least passable (it was, though it was later optimized.

The colors swatches on the FRP has been pressed a total of three times, once originally to do the target, and two more times for the top and bottom test strips. 

On edit: now that they're uploaded, with my browser these images are a little darker than the actual articles.


----------



## mustangFWL (Feb 27, 2012)

GordonM said:


> Once I have the colors verified on fabric, I will print test images on hard substrate, because A) that's my main business and B) fabric lacks the resolving power of a hard surface, so it's easier to see detail.
> 
> Image on the left is a small 5x7 aluminum blank of the Photodisc Adobe RGB target. This version contains luminosity swatches, something that's important to me for the control and instrument panel work I do. (I'm not sure how well the appearance converts, but ideally you want these parts to look like they're glowing.)
> 
> The image on the left is my original ColorMunki first-pass target on Unisub gloss FRP sheet stock, followed by a test strip for a quick test to be sure the resulting profile is at least passable (it was, though it was later optimized.


 What is a luminosity swatch? is it a special type of ink? or is it something completely different?


----------



## ChefScott (Nov 25, 2011)

mgparrish said:


> The wet thumb trick I didn't know about, beats taking the paper outside in the bright sun to see which side is whiter.


Old printers trick to find both the grain of the paper and the clay coated side. Works really good.

Also, just take and gently fold the paper over onto itself (don't crease, just curve) and you can see both sides of the paper, the whiter (coated) side is easy to see then.

Thanks to everyone for the wealth of information in this thread!


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

ChefScott said:


> Old printers trick to find both the grain of the paper and the clay coated side. Works really good.
> 
> Also, just take and gently fold the paper over onto itself (don't crease, just curve) and you can see both sides of the paper, the whiter (coated) side is easy to see then.
> 
> Thanks to everyone for the wealth of information in this thread!


I'll have to give it a shot.


----------



## jasonsmith (Mar 30, 2011)

So, in Corel Draw in "color management" under "Document color settings". You want the RGB color profile to be the same ICC profile that you use in "print" under "color"?

I only changed the ICC profile in the "print" under "color" when printing when I was trying out different color profiles.

What "rendering intent" do you normally use?


----------



## mgparrish (Jul 9, 2005)

jasonsmith said:


> So, in Corel Draw in "color management" under "Document color settings". You want the RGB color profile to be the same ICC profile that you use in "print" under "color"?
> 
> *Yes and No. *
> 
> ...


I marked up above.


----------

