Epson P900 Print Colors Don't Match Screen Colors

[wilfredo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Friends,

Perhaps someone can clarify a mystery for me.  I previously owned an Epson 3880 printer and loved it.  I now have the P900 and the colors coming out of the printer are less saturated than what I have on my screen.  I printed a photo I had previously printed with the 3880 and the colors - to my disppointment - don't match the 3880 print.  The P900 has a Printer Profile selection with a list of profiles to pick from. I don't recall this feature on the 3880.   I've been using EPSON RGB Printer Profile since there is no Adobe Photoshop Printer Profile option.  Any suggestions.  I use my apple computer screen for PP.  

Thanks!

Wilfredo+

[Boojay]

Have you tried printing from the Epson Print Layout software using the ICC and Paper Profiles. 

I use the same printer and find colours to be very accurate.

 

Edited March 10 by Boojay

[250swb]

Yes it could well be the ICC profile which should be the one supplied by the paper manufacturer for the P900. 

Edited March 10 by 250swb

[adan]

The Epson Printer profiles should be chosen based on their name vs. the printing PAPER type being used.

For example:

If you are using Epson's Premium Photo Paper Glossy, you should select the profile "SC-P900 Series Premium Photo Paper Glossy." (I still use an older P800 printer, which is why my profiles are named for that printer - but same idea).

If you are not using the Epson paper specifically, but a similar high-gloss photo paper from Kodak or other maker, that profile will still usually produce good results.

Although most paper producers provide their own Printing Profiles, which can be downloaded and installed, and will then also show up on the list.

Note especially that all the profiles X-ed out in my screen shot below SHOULD NEVER BE USED FOR PRINTING. They are for other types of color conversions, such as saving pictures for best color on the Internet, or for video-output color matching, and so on.

It is just an oddity of how profiles are stored on computers that they show up alongside the REAL printing profiles. But they will screw up printed colors - roughly the equivalent of trying to translate English into German using a Spanish dictionary - you will be sending the printer relative gibberish as to which inks to print in which amounts. 🤪

See also: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4670013

A lot has to take place for inks on paper, lit only with reflected light, to reproduce what you see on a computer screen (glowing backlit LCD pixels). The process is called "color management" and takes careful work to set up, and knowledge of all the steps involved, to get right. But once set up, it becomes simple and transparent.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

[pedaes]

3 hours ago, wilfredo said:

The P900

I have the P900 and colours are fine from calibrated screen. As above I would also strongly recommend exporting final (PP'd) image to (free) Epson Print Layout for printing, and use the profile for the parer or a good proxy as also mentioned by Adan. There are good Epson video's on EPL on YouTube.

 

[wilfredo]

Thank you all for the responses.  I tried "Epson Print Layout" as suggested by Jayne and others, and it worked beautifully.  You learn new things every day.  What a relief!

Edited March 10 by wilfredo

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I stick with ImagePrint Black for printing (after LR edits), despite the cost.  It provides superb custom profiles for virtually all papers, is printer-specific, always in soft proof mode, provides some terrific optional final editing tools,  and optimizes all printer settings for a given paper choice without any additional user input required.

I recently switched from the P800 to the P900, and immediately experimented with some new (to me) papers, both semi-gloss and matte. The process was seamless, and the prints render accurately and superbly.  

[pedaes]

46 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

ImagePrint Black

For completeness. $895 versus FOC.

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, pedaes said:

For completeness. $895 versus FOC.

I wrote “despite the cost.” And worth every penny to me. I wouldn’t be without it. Btw, far more versatility and capabilities than Epson print layout.  

[Jeff S]

Almost forgot.. I saved $1500, and a lot of time, by not having to buy and use custom profiling gear.

[pedaes]

5 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I wrote “despite the cost.”

You did indeed, just qualifying it. Although you would expect software costing $895 to offer something over a 'freebie' shame we can't see two prints side by side for evaluation.

[Jeff S]

14 minutes ago, pedaes said:

You did indeed, just qualifying it. Although you would expect software costing $895 to offer something over a 'freebie' shame we can't see two prints side by side for evaluation.

I’ve made my evaluation, which required a lot more than 2 prints, and appreciation for a lot more functionality. Also looked at Piezography, other RIPs, etc.  George DeWolfe, a well respected printer, years ago wrote about his extensive tests with several B&W print software options, and concluded IP worked best for him. It’s an even better product now. 

$895 is a lot, but a drop in the bucket on what I spend overall on photography, and IP provides me a much better bang for the buck than a lot of other purchases.  I wouldn’t spend the $ without the value added.  

Mileage will always vary, however, as user input and decision making matters far more than gear, software and materials for all aspects of photography, including use of IP.