Next, I scanned the target, being sure to turn off all color calibration in the scanning software. Eye-One Match then provided a tool that matched up the scanned image in TIFF format with the calibrated target saved in the first step. Finally, it created a profile, or tried to.
This final step proved an obstacle for the Version 1.0 software. It refused to build the profile even after I repeated the entire process several times and checked the scanner software.
After I installed the recently released Version 1.1 update from www.eye1color.com, the software was able to finish the job, although it wasn’t altogether sure of the results. It provided this warning message before saving the profile: “The profile check resulted in some deviations. If you decide to continue, test the profile before you use it in production.”
Still, for my problematic scanner, this “suspect” profile was a great leap forward and significantly better than no profile at all. You can see the improvements this detail from a scanned Polaroid photograph (see figures 7 and 8) and some swatches from the target (see figure 9). After I turned on ColorSync in the scanner software, my color fidelity improved.
Figure 7: My daughter wore a vampire cape to the opening of Transylvania 6-5000 in 1985. This is the raw image from the scanner and has a definite yellow cast.
[Figure 8: This scan uses the new Eye-One Match profile and its colors are very close to the original photograph.
Figure 9: Here is a selection of colors from the target (the top row is before and the bottom is after). The colors on the bottom row are very close to the printed target.
I tested the new profile by rescanning the target. Here and there were a few color swatches that differed noticeably from the printed target — most likely the reason for the error message from Eye-One Match. But what was causing the problem: erratic light intensities in the scanner, unknown issues with the scanning plug-in, or Photoshop itself? Or perhaps a foible of the Eye-One Match transformation routines?
A tough call without closer examination, GretagMacbeth application engineer Paul Hultgren said in response to my query. However, he admitted that “the mathematics involved in color conversion gets a little dicey when handing off from one device to another.”
Whatever, I’m more than pleased with my new scanner profile. Regardless of the color calibration, all images need some work and my color-corrected scanner now gives me a vastly better image to begin my tweaking.
Taking on the Hardcopy
Following my experience with the scanner, calibrating my printer was straightforward.
Eye-One Match includes a pair of CMYK and RGB target files for calibrating a wide range of printers and presses, with and without RIPs, including color laser, dye-sublimation, gravure, ink jet, newspaper, offset and solid ink devices. I used the RGB target for my consumer inkjet printer, right now a Lexmark Z32 inkjet printer (my old Epson photo printer just went south and, hey, the Lexmark came free with my iBook).
I then printed out the target on several types of papers and then read the printouts with the sensor using the same process as with the scanner. Finally, I saved a set of profiles for coated photo paper and a plain ink-jet paper.
Regrettably, when I went to print out some images, the Lexmark’s printer driver software wouldn’t accept the new Eye-One Match profile. Even though there’s a ColorSync setting, the only option available is Lexmark’s own profile. My attempt to fool the driver by renaming the Eye-One profile, only managed to crash Photoshop.
While this driver incompatibility may appear a tragedy to some, Photoshop 6 and soon Version 7 provide a convenient work-around. Bruce Fraser pointed out that these applications allow users to apply a printer profile, such as our new Eye-One Match profile, in the program itself and then bypass ColorSync when finally heading to hardcopy. He said this can be accomplished in Photoshop 5, however, it’s “no fun.”
Yet, even the standard printer profile produced very reliable results when combined with my now highly calibrated monitor. The change was striking — the colors on the screen and on the page were very close. Of course, there’s always a difference in the quality of colors emanating from the monitor and their result on a reflective printed page. Then again, before the Eye-One calibration, I was forced to work around significant shifts in color, rather than a small qualitative difference.
A New True Believer
The Eye-One Pro with Eye-One Match proved itself a valuable addition to my color workflow, establishing for the first time reliable colors for my monitor, scanner and printer. Both the software and hardware were easy to use and successfully accommodated the vagaries of my problematic scanner.
At the same time, the high sticker price of the package will daunt almost all professional content creators, although inexpensive compared to high-end professional packages on the market today. At more than $3,000, its cost is in the range of single-line budget item for a large shop or design house.
What is the value of a color-calibrated workflow? For me, it’s the extended life of my scanner; the expectation of many fewer hours spent fixing colors and more time to improving images; and a newfound confidence in my color images, on the screen and on the page.
Fortunately, GretagMacbeth’s licensing arrangement permits owners to calibrate as many setups as they’d like, wherever they are located. A licensing restriction comes into play only if you wanted to sell a profile of a device.
So, five or ten people could form a color calibration co-op, spreading out the price into reasonable territory. For a group of ten that’s about $300 each, still more than many readers might want to spend on color quality.
However, when you run the numbers and spread out the sum over one or two years, the cost would be very reasonable. I calculate that with a group of 10. and counting only work days (as if we don’t all work on the weekends and in holidays), the cost of the device comes to about a dollar a day per year, or 50 cents over two years.
After experiencing a total color workflow in person, that seems a bargain.
This article was last modified on January 18, 2023
This article was first published on March 21, 2002
Commenting is easier and faster when you're logged in!
