On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > In general you seem to be doing the right thing. Yes, but another thing I'd suggest: before comparing output with a photograph of original artwork, compare output with a synthetic file of a color chart. For example, use your ColorMunki to measure the patches of a ColorChecker and create a Photoshop file that has square patches in the same arrangement with the same Lab values as the ColorMunki read, and compare the original ColorChecker with a print of your synthetic one. And if you don't have SoLux or comparable artificial lights to view the prints with, compare them in actual outdoors (or through-the-window) sunlight. The problem could just as easily be your initial capture of the watercolor -- and, more likely, a combination of a mixture of variables. What you're aiming to do is most emphatically possible; I myself make prints of watercolors that the original artist has to pore over side-by-side with the original to spot the differences. One other suggestion: watercolor papers lack inkjet-receptive coatings and thus don't offer very good gamuts. High quality watercolor papers (such as Arches) generally produce not-miserable inkjet prints, but you're unlikely to get the saturation and shadow density of the original. You have two options: you can apply a coating to the paper (doable, but much easier said than done) or you can use a quality fine art inkjet paper instead. If you can get your hands on Canon's Fine Art Watercolor paper, that's an excellent choice; a superlative choice is Museo Portfolio Rag. Cheers, b&
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
