Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: David Mantripp on April 14, 2018, 12:29:18 pm
-
Recently Lasersoft has been hawking around these "Silverfast Advanced Targets (Part 2)", which they claim:
"With our newly designed Part 2 Targets, users receive three times more measuring fields, while even more precise measurements provide a significantly larger color spectrum. The color profile is further supported by additional dark, grey and pastel toned color fields, which are supported by significantly truer measured values."
Do any colour gurus out there (a) have any idea what Lasersoft are talking about, and (b), if so, is there any tangible benefit likely over standard IT8 calibration ?
-
Recently Lasersoft has been hawking around these "Silverfast Advanced Targets (Part 2)", which they claim:
"With our newly designed Part 2 Targets, users receive three times more measuring fields, while even more precise measurements provide a significantly larger color spectrum. The color profile is further supported by additional dark, grey and pastel toned color fields, which are supported by significantly truer measured values."
Do any colour gurus out there (a) have any idea what Lasersoft are talking about, and (b), if so, is there any tangible benefit likely over standard IT8 calibration ?
Hawking? Not really, it's not their invention; it's based on a new spec (ISO 12641-2). But they do offer it. And yes, I've tested it.
Very initial impressions of two targets used to build a reflective scanner profile (Epson V750).
One made with the IT8 original from LaserSof: IT8.7/2-1993 2015:03
One made with the new target: ISO:12641-2 2017:11
The newer target has a larger color gamut and gamut volume which is to be expected. But this expectation is good! The gamut of a profile cannot be any larger than the target used to build it and thus, this new target is a major improvement there compared to the original as seen below. Now what I'm still testing (or waiting to hear back from LaserSoft) is why using the two profiles produces so little actual difference in two scans of my Gamut Test File printed on a 3880. I'd have expected the wider gamut input profile would produce a wider gamut scan and I'm not sure why the deltaE differences of the two are so small.
--------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 208500
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (208500 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.57
Max dE: 6.01
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.51
Best 90% - (187649 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.44
Max dE: 1.21
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.30
Worst 10% - (20851 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 1.73
Max dE: 6.01
Min dE: 1.21
StdDev dE: 0.52
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
What you see is the deltaE differences in the two are tiny and largely invisible. I'd expect that colors that fall outside the gamut of the 'standard' scanner profile would show larger dE values than using the Advanced profile. Note I'm using Standard and Advanced to name the two targets and thus the profiles they create.
-
Thanks for the detailed reply Andrew. By "hawking" I guess I was referring to the calibration targets they're pushing, not the standard.
If I understand correctly, the older standard targets may have a narrower gamut than the hardware - since anyway that is the physical limit - but the new ones _might_ be able to better exploit the capabilities of the scanner. Or maybe not...
-
If I understand correctly, the older standard targets may have a narrower gamut than the hardware - since anyway that is the physical limit - but the new ones _might_ be able to better exploit the capabilities of the scanner. Or maybe not...
There's no question the new target has a wider color gamut. The profiles show us that fact. Now why I don't see a difference in the scans of a wide gamut print I can't explain but I'm far, far from an expert on using SliverFast. Mark may have some comments. I've tried, using differing CMS settings in the software to run some initial tests and the data below was scanned such that the image was provided in the scanner color space, not converted to a working space. My initial concept, which may be wrong (again, waiting on LaserSoft) is this would provide a scan to evaluate with the least effect on the scanned data. Yet with the two profiles, the deltaE differences are small. But again, there's no question in my mind that the two resulting input profiles provide a difference in color gamut resulting from the differences in the targets. How that affects the resulting scan when the rubber meets the road is still questionable for me.
-
Very useful insights Andrew. Please keep us advised of any feedback you get from LSI on the questions you put to them. I just received copies of these targets the day before yesterday and intend to get into some testing in the near future. I'll be reporting results as and when - could be a while, as some stuff is in the queue ahead.
-
Well, Andrew, you are now being quoted on the product page over at Silverfast, so with such an impressive endorsement, I have now ordered my own advanced target to play with 8).
Incidentally, while I have the attention of the experts, does anybody know what on earth the IT8 cal button in Silverfast HDR is supposed to do ? It doesn't make sense to me.... what would I be calibrating ?
-
Well, Andrew, you are now being quoted on the product page over at Silverfast, so with such an impressive endorsement, I have now ordered my own advanced target to play with 8) .
Yeah, but they never got back to me as to WHY the two profiles behave the same. I even sent them the URL for this series of posts. So I'm not sure I'm happy about all this or not. Again, the profiles do have a wider color gamut. The scans do not. A tad troubling.
-
Hi David,
As I mentioned, I shall be testing these targets in the near future. I received them a couple of days ago.
Your question about why the IT8 Cal in the HDR application? First point, just to be picky and sticky, I'm not keen on using the word "calibration" to describe this procedure. It is primarily profiling, of which calibrating certain key parameters to put the scanner into a known state should be an internalized first step. At first blush it would appear to make no sense because HDR is not a scanning application and this process is meant for profiling scanners. So we'll talk about profiling.
The option to create profiles did not exist in the first round of the HDR 8 application, but has been added since we published the book. On pages 290-293 of my SilverFast book, I discuss the need for coherent colour management (profiles and working spaces) between HDR and Photoshop or Lightroom for scanned photos being working between these applications. The same principle would also apply to working scanned photos coming say from third parties with different scanners. In the SilverFast Forum, LSI once explained as follows:
<<The purpose of the IT8 calibration in HDR is exactly the same as in the scan software, create a calibrated ICC profile (for whatever your source is).
<<Imagine you have a friend constantly sending you pictures for editing. He/She scans with different scanners. To obtain a solid color reproduction, your friend sends you a raw scan (48 bit) of his/her IT8 target appart from the scanned pictures, in that way you can create a calibrated profile which you will be using for the editing the rest of the pictures.>>
(I.E. he means you would create this profile in the HDR application using the Auto IT8 function provided there, whose purpose you are asking about.)
-
Thank you Mark - that makes sense. After many, many years of (generally happily) using Silverfast I still now and then get a sinking feeling that maybe I‘m doing it all wrong...
(I did do a search on my HDR profiling question, but nothing came up. I should have searched the forum. I do wish they’d open up the Silverfast forum a little, maybe even (gasp) allow search engines to index it. Still, I guess eccentricity is core to Lasersoft‘s corporate identity)
-
Yeah, but they never got back to me as to WHY the two profiles behave the same. I even sent them the URL for this series of posts. So I'm not sure I'm happy about all this or not. Again, the profiles do have a wider color gamut. The scans do not. A tad troubling.
I guess this is a really stupid question, but is it at all possible that the software is tagging the advanced scan with the basic profile? Or scrambling the metadata somehow? (Note I have not even started to research how profiles are „embedded“). It wouldn’t be the first time they released a version with colour management bugs, especially as related to profiling.
-
You can join their Forum free of charge. It can be useful!
-
I guess this is a really stupid question, but is it at all possible that the software is tagging the advanced scan with the basic profile? Or scrambling the metadata somehow? (Note I have not even started to research how profiles are „embedded“). It wouldn’t be the first time they released a version with colour management bugs, especially as related to profiling.
I'll be testing all that anon.
-
I guess this is a really stupid question, but is it at all possible that the software is tagging the advanced scan with the basic profile?
It's tagging with each profile which is what's so odd.
-
You can join their Forum free of charge. It can be useful!
What I mean is that they could stop requiring that every single post and answer needs moderator approval, which often takes days, and quite often for strange policy reasons are not approved. This completely strangles user to user debate. The forum could actually be a strong indirect marketing tool for them, if they allow it to become a centre of user to user excellence on scanning. But they won't. I honestly cannot think of any other consumer software support form that is managed like this in 2018...
The frustrating thing is that Lasersoft staff are very engaged in the forum, are helpful and patient, and present a very positive image. And their direct customer support (accessed from within the software) is also way above industry standards.
I'm not knocking Lasersoft/Silverfast, I'm a satisfied and enthusiastic customer, but I want them to stick around, and have a healthy business, and I'm convinced that their very, er, unique approach to marketing and customer engagement is not doing them any favours...
-
You can join their Forum free of charge. It can be useful!
Hi Mark,
Their forum was of great help to me, as was their direct support, with what turned out to be a scanner fault (ICE hardware), but it seems to be no longer in use?
Also found your Silverfast book to be invaluable, even though I'm considered a bit of a scanning expert!
Cheers,
Phil
-
Hi Mark,
Their forum was of great help to me, as was their direct support, with what turned out to be a scanner fault (ICE hardware), but it seems to be no longer in use?
Also found your Silverfast book to be invaluable, even though I'm considered a bit of a scanning expert!
Cheers,
Phil
Hi Phil, many thanks - much appreciated.
ICE is software that depends on the scanner's ability to scan for an infrared channel, which is a software directed hardware function. So if you say you were having a hardware problem it was with the infrared, not likely the software. LaserSoft Imaging has not used ICE ever since I started using SilverFast back in the late 1990s. Their iSRD tool is far superior. That tool is still there, as you know, for working with scanner-enabled infrared to do the scratch and dirt detection. But LSI has developed and bundled a new tool - SRDx, which works on the same principles as iSRD but does not need an infrared channel for defect detection. This makes it more usable for Kodachrome and usable for cleaning-up B&W media, which iSRD with infrared could not do.
-
Hi Phil, many thanks - much appreciated.
ICE is software that depends on the scanner's ability to scan for an infrared channel, which is a software directed hardware function. So if you say you were having a hardware problem it was with the infrared, not likely the software. LaserSoft Imaging has not used ICE ever since I started using SilverFast back in the late 1990s. Their iSRD tool is far superior. That tool is still there, as you know, for working with scanner-enabled infrared to do the scratch and dirt detection. But LSI has developed and bundled a new tool - SRDx, which works on the same principles as iSRD but does not need an infrared channel for defect detection. This makes it more usable for Kodachrome and usable for cleaning-up B&W media, which iSRD with infrared could not do.
Sorry Mark,
I meant IR, as it was def. hardware and was fixed by the manufacturer/importer Reflecta under warrantee.
Cheers,
Phil
-
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying.
-
LaserSoft Imaging has not used ICE ever since I started using SilverFast back in the late 1990s.
I can't resist a touch of pedantry here... Silverfast v6 certainly used, or enabled the use of, ICE, for compatible scanners, such as the Minolta DualScan MultiPro. To quote Alejandro Morales at Lasersoft:
"ICE is a patented technology developed by Kodak. In previous versions of SilverFast some scanners had ICE included because the scanner manufacturers had special licensing to leave ICE as it was.
This licences do not have effect anymore in SilverFast 8, hence we could implement our own infrared dust and scratch correction technology iSRD."
iSRD has better detection than ICE, and far more controls (arguably ICE didn't need them - I never saw the sometimes crazy alignment problem that iSRD has with ICE). But the patching that iSRD applies is truly abysmal. Just a horrible, sharp edged, super coarse blur. I've no idea why they don't use the same algorithm as the Clone/Heal tool, which works quite well.
-
I can't resist a touch of pedantry here... Silverfast v6 certainly used, or enabled the use of, ICE, for compatible scanners, such as the Minolta DualScan MultiPro. To quote Alejandro Morales at Lasersoft:
"ICE is a patented technology developed by Kodak. In previous versions of SilverFast some scanners had ICE included because the scanner manufacturers had special licensing to leave ICE as it was.
This licences do not have effect anymore in SilverFast 8, hence we could implement our own infrared dust and scratch correction technology iSRD."
iSRD has better detection than ICE, and far more controls (arguably ICE didn't need them - I never saw the sometimes crazy alignment problem that iSRD has with ICE). But the patching that iSRD applies is truly abysmal. Just a horrible, sharp edged, super coarse blur. I've no idea why they don't use the same algorithm as the Clone/Heal tool, which works quite well.
I don't know whether it enabled the use of ICE, but it didn't bundle that tool.
iSRD is a detection tool. Once the defect is detected, it does use algorithms similar to clone/heal for fixing them. I have not experienced anything like the "horrible. sharp edged super coarse blur" you mention. Of course the success of using this tool, like for most others, depends on the tool settings. I have always found iSRD detection and subsequent clean-up to be amongst the more successful aspects of this software. It provides much more user control than ICE ever did, which is one of the things I like about it.
-
I don't know whether it enabled the use of ICE, but it didn't bundle that tool.
iSRD is a detection tool. Once the defect is detected, it does use algorithms similar to clone/heal for fixing them. I have not experienced anything like the "horrible. sharp edged super coarse blur" you mention. Of course the success of using this tool, like for most others, depends on the tool settings. I have always found iSRD detection and subsequent clean-up to be amongst the more successful aspects of this software. It provides much more user control than ICE ever did, which is one of the things I like about it.
A little off the topic, but I'm using VueScan and sometimes I scan in RBGi with a 4th infrared channel. In photoshop I use the IR channel to create a "dust mask" and use Photoshop controls to paint out the dust and scratches as needed. Works pretty well, and sometimes a bit better than the VueScan auto dust removal.
-
I have not experienced anything like the "horrible. sharp edged super coarse blur" you mention.
Well, I'd like to follow up on that somewhere else, as I've always just shrugged my shoulders and put up with it...
But getting back on topic, I've received my new target, and profiled my OpticFilm 120. Using Apple ColorSync Utility (I don't own ColorThink, I'm not THAT dedicated :-) ) with my inexpert eyes I can see that the new profile has a larger volume and in particular appears to extend more into the greens. How that will bring any actual benefit I don't know, but the first scan I've tried with the new profile is absolutely spot on. Of course that is 100% subjective... But if there is anything I can do to add data points for those who really do know what they are doing / talking about, please don't hesitate to ask. I also have a Canonscan 9000F here (a vastly underrated flatbed imho) and have intermittent access to an X5.
-
Useful information, thanks David.
-
I honestly cannot think of any other consumer software support form that is managed like this in 2018...
Not hard at all - dp review. They seem to very actively censor posts and ban people at the drop of a hat if there's a whiff of a commercial angle that they haven't got their cut of. Result is a forum that I regard as useless for providing support though.
-
Not hard at all - dp review. They seem to very actively censor posts and ban people at the drop of a hat if there's a whiff of a commercial angle that they haven't got their cut of. Result is a forum that I regard as useless for providing support though.
+1 a cesspool of a forum filled with a lot of nonsense and awful censorship at the same time.
-
+1 a cesspool of a forum filled with a lot of nonsense and awful censorship at the same time.
Well Dpreview is not a manufacturer’s (supposed) user to user forum. So it’s really not comparable. The problem with LaserSoft is that nobody there understands the difference between a support channel for paying customers and a forum. They consider all forum posts as support requests- and yet I have had posts declined because they tell me that they support cases. Basically about 90% of all posts get answered by staff, which isn’t really leveraging the benefits of a user to user forum, and really user to user replies are discouraged. The structure is also a nightmare, I think they’ve got more topics than dpreview. Basically they show all signs of not having any understanding of web-enabled discourse. And they are so unbelievably stubborn :-) But still, I absolutely convinced they mean well. Whatever...
-
Well Dpreview is not a manufacturer’s (supposed) user to user forum.
OK, it's not a manufactures supported user to user forum but a cesspool of a forum filled with a lot of nonsense and awful censorship at the same time. ::)
-
Not hard at all - dp review. They seem to very actively censor posts and ban people at the drop of a hat if there's a whiff of a commercial angle that they haven't got their cut of. Result is a forum that I regard as useless for providing support though.
Well, they let Andrew Rodney promote his 'commercial angle'. :)
-
Well, they let Andrew Rodney promote his 'commercial angle'. :)
Do tell, what angle would that be? Have you read their terms? Seems not so let me place that data in front of you:
Commercial advertising. Commercial website linking or advertising is not allowed, if you wish to advertise on the site please contact us. This rule includes owners of other digital photography websites promoting themselves on the forum. You will be banned and have all of your messages removed. Other things we consider spamming that will result in removal of messages and a possible ban: never posting anything but links to your own site, soliciting votes / support for your entry in a contest, soliciting contributions (be it for charity, a Kickstarter project or a survey). If you wish to post such content please contact us first.
I'm sorry the facts again continue to ruin your posting life....
-
Do tell, what angle would that be? Have you read their terms? Seems not so let me place that data in front of you:
Commercial advertising. Commercial website linking or advertising is not allowed, if you wish to advertise on the site please contact us. This rule includes owners of other digital photography websites promoting themselves on the forum. You will be banned and have all of your messages removed. Other things we consider spamming that will result in removal of messages and a possible ban: never posting anything but links to your own site, soliciting votes / support for your entry in a contest, soliciting contributions (be it for charity, a Kickstarter project or a survey). If you wish to post such content please contact us first.
I'm sorry the facts again continue to ruin your posting life....
Well, they clearly let you promote frequent linking back to your own site / material, etc., those pdfs, videos, etc. I know there was some notion of an education angle. But, come on, commercial angle was all too visible also. Especially, considering that many things could be clarified with a few lines, but instead you are quite insistent, many times, on people seeing those 30+ mins videos from your website / youtube.
-
Well, they clearly let you promote frequent linking back to your own site / material, etc., those pdfs, videos, etc.
It's their site, take it up with them bud!
I know there was some notion of an education angle.
Yup, free and thus non commercial.
But, come on, commercial angle was all too visible also.
A. You can't answer the question as to what that would be and
B. With thousands of posts there, the power's to be have no issue with all those posts.
So maybe you should gather up your sizable funds and buy the site then enforce rules you think are better!
Especially, considering that many things could be clarified with a few lines, but instead you are quite insistent, many times, on people seeing those 30+ mins videos from your website / youtube.
Yes, I hold a gun to their heads to view free video's.
You realize your concept and post is absurd don't you? Of course you don't. Why the trolling? Of course you can't answer that question either.... :P
-
Everything from Reply 23 onward is off topic and wasting peoples' time. Not being a moderator, thank goodness, I can only make suggestions to fellow posters, so I'd like to suggest that if participants have nothing more useful to say about SilverFast Advanced Targets they stop posting in this thread.
-
Everything from Reply 23 onward is off topic and wasting peoples' time. Not being a moderator, thank goodness, I can only make suggestions to fellow posters, so I'd like to suggest that if participants have nothing more useful to say about SilverFast Advanced Targets they stop posting in this thread.
+1 Mark. BTW, a couple of engineers and Jan-Willem Rossée of LaserSoft and I will be discussing my findings in a Webex some time next week. So hopefully we can get some useful data and ignore the troll who AFAIK, has no data about these targets to provide....
-
You realize your concept and post is absurd don't you? Of course you don't. Why the trolling? Of course you can't answer that question either.... :P
I agree with you Mark (in the other post) that this is a sub topic that should not go forward. And, I have no further desire to take it any further. However, I must say, that while Andrew Rodney presence on DPR on the whole has been beneficial - I myself learned many things from his postings - there is no denying the fact that commercial angle was clear in many of his posts. Thats all I wanted to say in my original message to GW Gill's misplaced assertion regarding DPReview.
-
- there is no denying the fact that commercial angle was clear in many of his posts.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Hopefully, so long unless again, you have anything factual to state about these new targets. Or Sliverfast. Own it?
Least we refrain from the pot calling the kettle black, donations, seriously?:
-
Thats all I wanted to say in my original message to GW Gill's misplaced assertion regarding DPReview.
My comment was based on very firm, personal experience. As a result, you won't get any help or assistance from me in regard to ArgyllCMS or related issues on that forum!
-
My comment was based on very firm, personal experience. As a result, you won't get any help or assistance from me in regard to ArgyllCMS or related issues on that forum!
+1: what comes around, goes around.
-
My comment was based on very firm, personal experience. As a result, you won't get any help or assistance from me in regard to ArgyllCMS or related issues on that forum!
I'm sorry you had that experience. Based upon what I gather from the comments on DPR and here you are a respected and knowledgeable person. So I think it is a loss for DPR. I would still encourage you to reconsider your decision. DPR is a larger forum. As you already know the audience over there is very varied. Luminous-Landscape is a selective forum, and the topics of discussion here are limited, IMHO. And, the PST forum at DPR is quite scholarly many times. Somebody with your knowledge will be quite helpful.
I wish Bart Van der Wolf also participated at DPR. I respect his knowledge and insight and his polite demeanor. Similarly Doug Gray.
-
So I think it is a loss for DPR. I would still encourage you to reconsider your decision.
DPR deserves it is based on it's larger audience of many posters who are fact deniers, or trolls (which this site isn't immune from but to a massively lesser degree), overt censorship and a few complete morons. Yes it's a larger site filled with many of the above. Thankfully that's not much the case in these forums. But an important data point is this:
I agree with you Mark (in the other post) that this is a sub topic that should not go forward. And, I have no further desire to take it any further.
Looks like you're better off over on DPR where when pointing out that you've gone against your word to move on, after hijacking a topic without a single on topic comment, many members there will not call you out for said misstatement! You say you have no further desire to take it further, then you go ahead and do so.
Do you own SilverFast, have access to the advanced target that was under discussion until you came along and is your agenda to simply to turn LuLa forums into those like DPR? Don't answer, go post over there please.
-
Joofa, you have made four posts to this thread, none of which has had the slightest bearing on the topic and the first of which was wholly unnecessary personal attack.
Be relevant or be silent.
Jeremy
-
Joofa, you have made four posts to this thread, none of which has had the slightest bearing on the topic and the first of which was wholly unnecessary personal attack.
Be relevant or be silent.
Jeremy
I don't understand. I have been silent. It is either Andrew Rodney, and now you, who keep bringing this 'silent' and 'on-topic' stuff again.
From your title I can see you that you are a moderator. Though, I don't know you. I joined this forum from Michael Reichman time when he was alive. Though I don't participate here much. I know it is under your purview as an administrator to keep order. However, a quick glance shows that small deviations always happen (of course not just limited to this forum) and judging by history I don't think all of us, including yourself, have been consistent.
In any case, as I said I'm silent on this topic, but you better put the dog on a leash also. :)
-
I would still encourage you to reconsider your decision.
It's not my decision, it's theirs.
-
It's tagging with each profile which is what's so odd.
I do have a conference call with LaserSoft tomorrow but I think I may have been using the settings incorrectly (so Mark, here is a chance to comment).
I updated the settings in CMS preferences and now I do see a major difference in the scans in terms of deltaE and saturation with Standard vs. Advanced profile. Below are the settings I used, different from the first test where the dE's were nearly the same. This setting seems to be 'correct' in that I believe only the conversions are to the scanner profiles but I find it odd that they are not embedded as shown. When I examine the differences in the two scans, the deltaE is quite large!
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 208500
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (208500 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 7.29
Max dE: 17.86
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 3.05
Best 90% - (187649 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 6.79
Max dE: 10.94
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 2.79
Worst 10% - (20851 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 11.77
Max dE: 17.86
Min dE: 10.94
StdDev dE: 0.86
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Also see a visual of the differences with ColorThink Pro below. Again, I need the ear of LaserSoft engineers and/or Mark to verify that this is the best way to scan the same print.
-
The scans in 3D gamut movie.
Red dots are Advanced Scanner Profile.
Green are Standard Scanner Profile.
Low rez but it should give an idea of how much larger the gamut is of the scan with the larger color gamut profile. IF (big if) the settings I used for scanning are correct.
-
Hi Andrew,
I can't respond on this without knowing your SilverFast scan settings in detail. Can you do some screen grabs and post them? That said, their Auto IT8 process is supposed to work internally without the user needing to do anything other than load the target, trigger the procedure and follow their instructions. For rescanning the target with the new profile if I remember correctly this should be done with the same settings in CMS that are active for the Auto IT8 procedure, which I think should be <none> wherever possible, because profiling is supposed to characterize the native behaviour of the scanner in "scanner space", but best to check with LSI when you speak with them and do let us know.
Mark
-
Hi Andrew,
I can't respond on this without knowing your SilverFast scan settings in detail. Can you do some screen grabs and post them?
The CMS settings below, what else do you need?
There's something kind of funky about these scanner profiles too. The scans are untagged as shown (why the settings below show Working Space CIE Lab is odd, they are most certainly RGB). When I open them in Photoshop, I get the untagged profile warning. If I select the profile and ask to open them, they still come in untagged. The Assign Profile command works however. If instead of picking the scanner profile when opening, instead I pick say ProPhoto RGB, they open tagged as such. So PS seems to have issue with the profiles being tagged in the dialog that appears when opening untagged doc's. Odd.
-
Sorry, I think you forgot to add-in the image of the CMS settings. I don't think you can show the CMS options being used by the Auto profiling process, but you can show the settings active when you made the verification scan of the target (with the new profile loaded - one hopes). If you could attach a photo of these CMS settings it may help decipher the rest of what's going on there.
-
Sorry, I think you forgot to add-in the image of the CMS settings. I don't think you can show the CMS options being used by the Auto profiling process, but you can show the settings active when you made the verification scan of the target (with the new profile loaded - one hopes). If you could attach a photo of these CMS settings it may help decipher the rest of what's going on there.
I'm confused but then I don't know this app as well as I should. The CMS settings are below #43. The settings when making the profile isn't an issue; it made them just fine. It's the settings for using them that's confusing. Like the setting below for working space CIE-Lab which results in an RGB document (untagged) shown below again.
Isn't this what we need to setup after profile creation?
-
Goofy but...
IF I set "Output" dropdown to any RGB working space, the Input (scanner) profile is shown and can be configured. But I don't want an RGB working space.
IF I toggle the scanner profile I wish in the Input dropdown while RGB working space is on, then pick None, the Input dropdown grays out but the profile is seen there. But is it used?
With such a setting, I'm shown that the embedded profile is the scanner profile. I believe I tried this kind of setting, toggling "Output" to switch from Standard to Advanced profile and ended up with that tiny dE result so I figured this was all wrong. Anyway, here's what I'm talking about in terms of actually getting the scanner profile to show as being embedded but again, the input dropdown is grayed out and how one configures it to change is a rather odd GUI maneuver.
Hopefully in our conference call tomorrow, the LaserFast folks can clear this up.... :o
-
Yes indeed - the settings in 47 are what you need to make scans using the profile you've created.
In the top three rows that are headed "Color Management":
Input-working space is OK as you have it.
Working space-monitor should say <colorsync>.
Working Space-Output should say <RGB>
Then in the next section headed "Profiles":
Input should be the new profile you just created.
Internal should be <Adobe RGB (1998)> - (My experience - this works best with their software and the scanners I've used it with)
Grey is fin as you have it.
Output/printer is fine as you have.
Rendering intent: As you have it, or change to RelCol to taste (I use RelCol)
Then in the bottom section "Embedded ICC profiles:
If everything is set as above, Profile to embed" should say Adobe RGB (1998).
Then when you open the scan in Photoshop, assuming your Photoshop default colour working space is ProPhoto and your warnings are switched on, you should get a profile mkismatch warning. You can keep ARGB(98) or convert as you see fit.
-
Goofy but...
IF I set "Output" dropdown to any RGB working space, the Input (scanner) profile is shown and can be configured. But I don't want an RGB working space.
IF I toggle the scanner profile I wish in the Input dropdown while RGB working space is on, then pick None, the Input dropdown grays out but the profile is seen there. But is it used?
With such a setting, I'm shown that the embedded profile is the scanner profile. I believe I tried this kind of setting, toggling "Output" to switch from Standard to Advanced profile and ended up with that tiny dE result so I figured this was all wrong. Anyway, here's what I'm talking about in terms of actually getting the scanner profile to show as being embedded but again, the input dropdown is grayed out and how one configures it to change is a rather odd GUI maneuver.
Hopefully in our conference call tomorrow, the LaserFast folks can clear this up.... :o
In the very first line under Color Management you disabled Colorsync and that's why it isn't letting you put a scanner profile into the first line of the Profiles section.
Why don't you want an RGB working space?
-
If everything is set as above, Profile to embed" should say Adobe RGB (1998).
I don't want Adobe RGB (1998)! I don't want to funnel the color into something that 'small' for testing the differences in the two input profiles.
The new target has a wider color gamut and gamut volume. I want to see the differences in that input profile vs. the standard and smaller input profile alone. So I want two scans in the scanner RGB color space, not an RGB working space. Then I can (and have) plotted the two scans in CTP. Bringing a working space into the mix adds too much 'noise' into this process.
-
I don't want Adobe RGB (1998)! I don't want to funnel the color into something that 'small' for testing the differences in the two input profiles.
The new target has a wider color gamut and gamut volume. I want to see the differences in that input profile vs. the standard and smaller input profile alone. So I want two scans in the scanner RGB color space, not an RGB working space. Then I can (and have) plotted the two scans in CTP. Bringing a working space into the mix adds too much 'noise' into this process.
OK, understood. Now, going back to your settings, in the Color Management section (top), the row "Working space-output" is basically useful for softproofing a print that would be made from the scan. For that one, normal practice when printing to RGB printers would be the set it to RGB, which allows you in the Profiles section to select a printer profile for soft-proofing. So forget that setting - it's not relevant to this exercise.
For the Internal profile in the Profiles section, my pull-down menu does not allow me to set a non-RGB profile such as CIE-Lab. So if you want the least possible gamut compression from a smaller RGB working space, I would suggest setting it to ProPhoto (of course still RGB but big) or to <none>. If set to <none> it also reverts the Input Profile (top row of settings) to None, and produces a scan that embeds the scanner profile. So the internal working space becomes the scanner space as defined by the scanner profile. If you do the same with the old target and compare the two scans in CTP it should give you the comparative information you are looking for on gamut volume without impacts of a small RGB tunnel.
-
I should add, I don't think gamut volume is the key issue here. I think it's more important to test for accuracy of colour rendition. I have these new targets as well and my forthcoming "to do" list includes testing them, so we can compare notes as it goes along.
-
I should add, I don't think gamut volume is the key issue here. I think it's more important to test for accuracy of colour rendition.
So scan a color target and compare the RGB values to the TDF?
-
So scan a color target and compare the RGB values to the TDF?
Forgot to mention in CMS for accuracy testing purposes I think the RI should likely be set to Abs Col.
For accuracy testing, the exercise I have in mind is to (1) create a new profile using their advanced profiling target, whether reflective or transparent, (2) with that new profile active, make a scan of the same target used for creating the profile. (3) Extract the colour information of the scanned image and (4) compare it to the reference values of the scanner target. Most likely CTP can be used for this, but I haven't put my mind to it yet. Otherwise, a more selective manual process is doable, as described in Appendix 3 of my book (confined to the grayscale patches). BTW, the IT8 process did achieve pretty accurate results when I tested this on three scanners back in 2011/2012.
One of the first problems I detected just as we're bantering back and forth here this afternoon is that I see no way to give the profiles I create a name. If true, this is THE PITS. One MUST be able to distinguish between iterations of custom profiles or custom profiles from canned profiles to make any of this tractable. You may wish to raise this with LSI when you talk to them. In the old days, one was given the option to name the custom profile. The new one doesn't even distinguish itself by date. Either that, or they are storing it somewhere unusual that I can't find.
-
I was able to name the profiles differently.
-
Where did that option come up when you did the profiling?
-
Where did that option come up when you did the profiling?
Yup. I stand corrected and yes, it's a mess. Just tired again, wants to overwrite the original and that original has a unique name I must have provided in the ColorSync utility. But what's odd is, I'm asked do I want to overwrite (I say yes, I have a copy) and it doesn't do so. The default name comes up SF_R (Epson Perfection blabla). Viewing the Localized description tag in the CS utility, I see that I must have updated the names there. So yeah, this is a very bad behavior on their part!
-
Yes indeedy. :-)
-
Getting back to accuracy, it's clear to me, IF I scanned the Epson 3880 print correctly that one scanner profile has a wider color gamut than the other. As do the scans! So if that's true, the lower gamut input profile alone is going to be less 'accurate' if our goal is to capture what's on the print.
Now comparing a scan of the target to the TDF does tell us about accuracy within the gamut of the profile and target. But then what happens if we place a wider gamut original onto the scanner? The printer I used has a pretty darn wide color gamut. The scanner really doesn’t have a color gamut but the profile from the target used to build that profile does and it's 'limited'. So color accuracy here would need to define what the scanner can capture no? And with the Standard target, I can't capture as wide a gamut from a print than I can with the Advanced target; again IF (big if) my scan settings are correct.
What one might have to do is create a custom target that mimics both of the IT8's but printed on a much wider gamut output device. These are RA4 prints right? An Epson has a wider color gamut.
We'd need to measure each patch and produce a custom TDF and maybe build a profile from that if possible. At the very least, we could use the profiles from those supplied by LaserSoft, scan our custom IT8 from the Epson and compare that to the custom TDF of the Epson print. That's a LOT of work! By all means Mark, go for it. ;D
-
Getting back to accuracy, it's clear to me, IF I scanned the Epson 3880 print correctly that one scanner profile has a wider color gamut than the other. As do the scans! So if that's true, the lower gamut input profile alone is going to be less 'accurate' if our goal is to capture what's on the print.
Now comparing a scan of the target to the TDF does tell us about accuracy within the gamut of the profile and target. But then what happens if we place a wider gamut original onto the scanner? The printer I used has a pretty darn wide color gamut. The scanner really doesn’t have a color gamut but the profile from the target used to build that profile does and it's 'limited'. So color accuracy here would need to define what the scanner can capture no? And with the Standard target, I can't capture as wide a gamut from a print than I can with the Advanced target; again IF (big if) my scan settings are correct.
What one might have to do is create a custom target that mimics both of the IT8's but printed on a much wider gamut output device. These are RA4 prints right? An Epson has a wider color gamut.
We'd need to measure each patch and produce a custom TDF and maybe build a profile from that if possible. At the very least, we could use the profiles from those supplied by LaserSoft, scan our custom IT8 from the Epson and compare that to the custom TDF of the Epson print. That's a LOT of work! By all means Mark, go for it. ;D
The gamut volume of the scanner profile I think it created for me (that damn naming business) is over 2.3 million according to CTP. The widest gamut volume I have achieved out of any inkjet printer, close to 1 million, is using Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (or similar) in my Epson SC-P5000 - which can print a much wider gamut than an Epson 3880. So roughly 1 million is the ultimate constraint on usable gamut volume if one is scanning in order to make prints from the scans. Ignoring gamut shape, which is OK - we're talking about the critical constraint being less than half the potential input volume. Back-up to the media being scanned - what do you think the equivalent gamut volume is of a colour negative or a colour transparency or a reflective image? I'll bet it's nowhere close to 2.3 million, so I don't think one needs to worry about this. Just to give you a feel for it, here is a view of the unique colours in the LSI advanced reflective target (seen as points) mapped against the gamut volume of the custom scanner profile. The word "unmanaged" means I did not impose an RGB colour space on the scan. I think it speaks for itself. So I'm not concerned about any accuracy measurements being impacted by gamut constraints when comparing a scan of the target to the TDF all staying within the gamut of the profile.
-
Here's another example that gives me more confidence. This is a very saturated version of a CC target (to be used for a forthcoming article on printer stress testing) whose colours come very close to the boundaries of the widest printer/paper profiles I have ever created, a print of which I scanned and plotted against the scanner profile. You can see that even for this there is no contest - you can throw just about anything at that profile and it won't clip.
-
The gamut volume of the scanner profile I think it created for me (that damn naming business) is over 2.3 million according to CTP. The widest gamut volume I have achieved out of any inkjet printer, close to 1 million, is using Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (or similar) in my Epson SC-P5000 - which can print a much wider gamut than an Epson 3880.
I think you're thinking of this in an odd way. I'll tell you why.
First, gamut volume without context isn't that useful. Suppose I tell you that Joe weights 185 pounds while Sam is 170. Until you find out that Sam is 5 feet tall, or Joe is 6 foot five, you don't know which is over or under weight.
Next, these are just containers of a fixed size. Without pixels, they contain no useful data.
Now let's look at what I've done and hopefully with correct scanner settings (I'll know more tomorrow).
I have two scanner profiles and the Advanced Target has a larger color gamut than the Standard Target but what happens when the rubber meets the road; I make two identical scans and plot that data! The actual scanned data from the Advanced Target has a larger color gamut than the same scan settings made with the Standard Target. That's simply factual if we are to believe the 3D gamut plots of the actual scanned data in CTP. I've provided a video of the two.
So accuracy aside, the print scanned with the Advanced Target has a larger color gamut than the Standard Target. Doesn't matter what the gamut volume reported for two ICC profiles state or the gamut volume of a printer profile.
Do you have CTP (specially Pro) and know how to load images, build a color list and plot that? That's what I suggest you do and with a pretty low rez scan unless you have hours for CTP to plot this data. The only difference should be what input profile is selected and you shouldn’t scan into an RGB working space. Again, it's very possible my settings are wrong but that doesn’t explain how one scan has a larger color gamut than the other.
-
Here's another example that gives me more confidence. This is a very saturated version of a CC target (to be used for a forthcoming article on printer stress testing) whose colours come very close to the boundaries of the widest printer/paper profiles I have ever created, a print of which I scanned and plotted against the scanner profile. You can see that even for this there is no contest - you can throw just about anything at that profile and it won't clip.
SCAN the target, plot the scan. NOT the gamut of the printer profile; the print which was scanned. Big difference.
-
I think you're thinking of this in an odd way. I'll tell you why.
First, gamut volume without context isn't that useful. Suppose I tell you that Joe weights 185 pounds while Sam is 170. Until you find out that Sam is 5 feet tall, or Joe is 6 foot five, you don't know which is over or under weight.
Next, these are just containers of a fixed size. Without pixels, they contain no useful data.
Now let's look at what I've done and hopefully with correct scanner settings (I'll know more tomorrow).
I have two scanner profiles and the Advanced Target has a larger color gamut than the Standard Target but what happens when the rubber meets the road; I make two identical scans and plot that data! The actual scanned data from the Advanced Target has a larger color gamut than the same scan settings made with the Standard Target. That's simply factual if we are to believe the 3D gamut plots of the actual scanned data in CTP. I've provided a video of the two.
So accuracy aside, the print scanned with the Advanced Target has a larger color gamut than the Standard Target. Doesn't matter what the gamut volume reported for two ICC profiles state or the gamut volume of a printer profile.
Do you have CTP (specially Pro) and know how to load images, build a color list and plot that? That's what I suggest you do and with a pretty low rez scan unless you have hours for CTP to plot this data. The only difference should be what input profile is selected and you shouldn’t scan into an RGB working space. Again, it's very possible my settings are wrong but that doesn’t explain how one scan has a larger color gamut than the other.
Yes of course, I have and use routinely ColorThink Pro and I'm very familiar with building and using their colour worksheets, extracting colours from image files, plotting imgae data against profile volume,m etc, etc, and if I run into arcane issues where I think there's yet another trick in that rich application I phone Pat or Steve for a bit of help which they are wonderful at giving, so we can comfortably set that question aside.
We can also set aside concern about "oddity" in what I'm doing, because I know exactly what I'm doing and it's very straightforward - I know both the size and shape of the "container" from CTP's graph and statistics for the profile. I can then see whether the image data over-spills any boundaries of the profile. If it does, I known I have a gamut compression issue on my hands; if it doesn't, I know the profile is not going to constrain anything smaller than what I mapped against it, which is massive in the last screen grab I posted above.
I have no problem with what you are proposing, but that is addressing a different question than the one I'm exploring. You are exploring how the previous and current LSI profiles compare, while I'm looking at whether the profile gamut of the current version is large enough to handle the media that could be thrown at it. Different matters, both good questions in their own right.
In the illustration I provided in my last illustrated post, the points in the diagram are a scan of the printed colour values of a colorchecker variant (using very wide gamut paper/printer) to be explained in a forthcoming article. Suffice to point out here what I said about its characteristics above. The most saturated color values in that print considerably exceed the most saturated patches in the LSI target. I'd use the LSI target as scan media for doing the round-tripping in the context of an accuracy test we were discussing above, but as a test to challenge what the scanner profile made from that target can accommodate by way of media to be scanned without clipping, the CC variant is a more interesting test print. Horses for courses.
-
Yes of course, I have and use routinely ColorThink Pro and I'm very familiar with building and using their colour worksheets, extracting colours from image files, plotting imgae data against profile volume,m etc, etc, and if I run into arcane issues where I think there's yet another trick in that rich application I phone Pat or Steve for a bit of help which they are wonderful at giving, so we can comfortably set that question aside.
Gamut volume per se isn't telling; that's my point.
We can also set aside concern about "oddity" in what I'm doing, because I know exactly what I'm doing and it's very straightforward - I know both the size and shape of the "container" from CTP's graph and statistics for the profile. I can then see whether the image data over-spills any boundaries of the profile. If it does, I known I have a gamut compression issue on my hands; if it doesn't, I know the profile is not going to constrain anything smaller than what I mapped against it, which is massive in the last screen grab I posted above.
So how to explain that the newer Advanced target produces a wider gamut scan than the standard? Seems to be the case. I'm not plotting containers, I'm plotting the scans. The only logical difference I can come to is that the Advanced Target produces a wider gamut scan. Viewing the gamut of the profiles (printer or scanner) is useful to a degree. But again, when the rubber meets the road, IF my settings are correct, the newer target should produce a more accurate scan because it's not clipping colors that Standard Target must be clipping, no?
-
Gamut volume per se isn't telling; that's my point. So how to explain that the newer Advanced target produces a wider gamut scan than the standard? Seems to be the case. I'm not plotting containers, I'm plotting the scans. The only logical difference I can come to is that the Advanced Target produces a wider gamut scan. Viewing the gamut of the profiles (printer or scanner) is useful to a degree. But again, when the rubber meets the road, IF my settings are correct, the newer target should produce a more accurate scan because it's not clipping colors that Standard Target must be clipping, no?
I'm using gamut volume in comparison to other data, and as such it's a component of a story that IS telling. There are reasons why CTP provides calculations of gamut volume - it's useful.
I think both approaches are valid - i.e. whether you get a wider gamut scan from one profile versus the other, or whether the size and shape of the profiles are different enough to be significant. One doesn't see the significance with that information alone, and perhaps that's what you are getting at, in which case I would agree; but I do not agree that knowing the size and shape of the profile gamut doesn't provide useful information. And your last line is exactly the point - the profile made from the newer target should enable a more accurate scan if it is not clipping colours that the profile made from the Standard target would clip. To see this a priori, the two approaches are useful. Well, let's see what you learn from the LSI folks tomorrow - that could be an interesting call.
-
OK I got some clarification from Lasersoft
Man is their GUI super confusing. But I believe I've set the scans tested correctly with the exception of the profiles being embedded which isn't necessary for the gamut comparisons (I'm handing off Lab values).
First, one must first toggle Input to ColorSync THEN select the scanner profile then again select None for it to show up (grayed out) and be embedded. Otherwise, if one selects ColorSync, <RGB> and input to the scanner profile, embedded shows for no reason I can understand, ProPhoto RGB! See screen captures below.
<blockquote>
On Apr 26, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Jan-Willem Rossée <silverfast.com (jan.rossee@silverfast.com)> wrote:
AR: I am curious why the scanner profiles isn't embedded ("profile to embed <none>"). Hopefully this is the correct setup such input is each scanner profile and that's it in terms of color space conversions.
Jan: That's because you chose CIELab under "Working space --> Output". Set this to RGB and the scanner profile will be embedded. Let me know if you'd still like to chat.
This is the correct setting as per your instructions. Input is grayed out, it MUST be selected FIRST (screen capture #2 below this one) for me to see the scanner profile embedded.
Again, Please verify that the settings just below are correct (they seem to be, confugiring them is far more difficult than it should be):
To even get the scanner profile to show up, one must select RGB for output, THEN the scanner profile, THEN ColorSync to None or ProPhoto RGB shows up:
-
One of the first problems I detected just as we're bantering back and forth here this afternoon is that I see no way to give the profiles I create a name.
Here's the fix: In preferences, go to the auto tab and select Custom ICC profile name and then you'll be asked to name it!
-
Here's the fix: In preferences, go to the auto tab and select Custom ICC profile name and then you'll be asked to name it!
Yes of course (says he) page 73 of my book - it's right there. Why didn't I think of this? Because in previous times I had it checked by default and never thought of it again. Then with application updates and preference resets it got unchecked at some point when I wasn't creating profiles. Me oh my. There shouldn't even be such a choice. One should be forced to name a custom profile as a matter of course. So thanks for reminding me :-)
-
OK I got some clarification from Lasersoft
Man is their GUI super confusing. But I believe I've set the scans tested correctly with the exception of the profiles being embedded which isn't necessary for the gamut comparisons (I'm handing off Lab values).
First, one must first toggle Input to ColorSync THEN select the scanner profile then again select None for it to show up (grayed out) and be embedded. Otherwise, if one selects ColorSync, <RGB> and input to the scanner profile, embedded shows for no reason I can understand, ProPhoto RGB! See screen captures below.
<blockquote>
On Apr 26, 2018, at 8:05 AM, Jan-Willem Rossée <silverfast.com (jan.rossee@silverfast.com)> wrote:
AR: I am curious why the scanner profiles isn't embedded ("profile to embed <none>"). Hopefully this is the correct setup such input is each scanner profile and that's it in terms of color space conversions.
Jan: That's because you chose CIELab under "Working space --> Output". Set this to RGB and the scanner profile will be embedded. Let me know if you'd still like to chat.
This is the correct setting as per your instructions. Input is grayed out, it MUST be selected FIRST (screen capture #2 below this one) for me to see the scanner profile embedded.
Again, Please verify that the settings just below are correct (they seem to be, confugiring them is far more difficult than it should be):
To even get the scanner profile to show up, one must select RGB for output, THEN the scanner profile, THEN ColorSync to None or ProPhoto RGB shows up:
Andrew,
Let's get Working Space-Output out of the way first: You have three choices: <RGB>, <Colorsync> and <Cie-Lab>.
If you select <RGB>, it means in effect that you aren't using that setting for anything but scanning, and it shows the embedded profile (under Embedded ICC Profiles) as the one you selected as the Internal Profile (which is Silverfastese meaning to the rest of us Color Working Space, such as ProPhoto ARGB(98) etc.).
If you select <ColorSync> it lets you select a printer profile (in Output/Printer)because this choice assumes you want to SoftProof your eventual print in SilverFast before scanning the media (for making scan settings copacetic with your intended print; the company philosophy is that you should be able to do everything you need to do in SilverFast to get a fine print from a scan).
If you select <CIE-Lab> it means you don't want to embed any profile, so it makes "Profile to embed" = <none>.
The only places that control whether a scanner profile can show up are as I said further above: your selection at Input-Working Space where you have two choices: <colorsync> or <none>.
If you select <colorsync> as Input-Working Space, then under Profiles Input you can select your scanner profile.
If you select <none> as Input-Working Space, it disables being able to select a scanner profile.
That's pretty much "all there is too it". :-)
-
Andrew,
Let's get Working Space-Output out of the way first: You have three choices: <RGB>, <Colorsync> and <Cie-Lab>.
I asked LaserSoft but haven't heard back yet: why do we need any of the color management dropdown boxes at all (Input> working space, working> space monitor, working space> Output) with the three options (ColorSync, None or in one, CieLab)? Seems pointless. Everything seems to be set-able below.
Moving on, here's more oddity.
Now examine this one example below.
Input set to scanner profile (fine).
Internal set to Adobe RGB (1998) which is fine.
Embedded profile set to AR's 3880EFP. Where on earth did you get that from? Output/printer is set to none. That's just wrong (or again, massively confusing). Makes no sense. And the little video they provide is of really no help in figuring out what is really going on here.
-
Further comments to them, maybe you can explain:
Why does the user even need a None setting instead of ColorSync or ICM? Without them, the graying out of the profiles section wouldn't be an issue either. I seriously cannot see why anyone would need to alter anything in this area but please enlighten me.
I asked you this in the last post, forgive all this copy and past to them....
Input should only show the possible scanner profiles. Which it somewhat appears to do (I see input profiles that are not associated with the scanner but that's to be expected). So that dropdown is fine.
Internal dropdown makes zero sense to me. Internal means what? It shows RGB working space, call it that. I believe what you're asking for is the RGB color space for conversions FROM input such as Adobe RGB (1998) etc.
Gray I presume is only accessed if and when someone makes a grayscale scan, that's fine.
So that leaves output. I see both RGB and CMYK output spaces so it's again confusing since you have 'Internal' which doesn't gray out IF someone selects a printer profile. IOW, I can have Interal set to Adobe RGB (1998) and Output set to some CMYK output space. Are you really converting from Scanner RGB ( Input) to RGB working space (Adobe RGB (1998)) to output (CMYK)? Seems utterly pointless. You can convert from Scanner RGB to Output directly no? If so, then gray out Output/Printer when the user selects a profile in Input. Gray out Input if the user selects an output color space in Printer.
Even more odd, If I select Input (where you actually use the correct term, RGB working space not Input) to none, Input grays out; why? Again I don't see the need for that entire area. Next, if I do select ColorSync there, I can select the scanner profile below, and with Internal, gray and output set to none, I'm shown an output profile being embedded. Bug? No difference if I now select Adobe RGB (1998) in Internal.
Then you have Rendering Intent. I can pick Adobe RGB (1998) and Perceptual but you're not going to produce that conversion as there's no such table in these simple profiles. IF Input is set to Adobe RGB (1998), and Output is set to None, that drop down should gray out yet it doesn't.
And people say Photoshop's color settings are difficult to understand? ;)
-
Embedded profile set to AR's 3880EFP. Where on earth did you get that from? Output/printer is set to none. That's just wrong (or again, massively confusing). Makes no sense. And the little video they provide is of really no help in figuring out what is really going on here.
"I" didn't get that at all. The application on your computer did. !! :-).
But I tried to replicate the result your copy of the application pulled up and I understand what happens. When you select <Colorsync> as Working Space-Ouput and you have in a previous session selected your 3880EFP as Output/Printer profile, the "Profile to embed" will show up as that printer profile. Now, if you thereafter change Output/Printer to <none>, the embedded profile remains as the previously selected printer profile, in your case 3880EFP, probably because it isn't programmed to know what to do once you disable "Output/Printer" by selecting <none> in that box. Now please don't shoot the messenger. I'm not saying this makes any generic sense, but that is simply a description of how the application behaves in these circumstances.
As to why you have all those choices under "Color Management": They are giving the user full control over the color management set-up in one place: choice of working space, choice of monitor profile, choice of scanner profile, choice of printer profile. Once you've made those choices in this section, the second section underneath it then lets you select profiles according to the logic of what you selected in the upper section. The final section is confirming information about the embedded working space emerging from those choices.
-
Further comments to them, maybe you can explain:
Why does the user even need a None setting instead of ColorSync or ICM? Without them, the graying out of the profiles section wouldn't be an issue either. I seriously cannot see why anyone would need to alter anything in this area but please enlighten me.
I asked you this in the last post, forgive all this copy and past to them....
Input should only show the possible scanner profiles. Which it somewhat appears to do (I see input profiles that are not associated with the scanner but that's to be expected). So that dropdown is fine.
Internal dropdown makes zero sense to me. Internal means what? It shows RGB working space, call it that. I believe what you're asking for is the RGB color space for conversions FROM input such as Adobe RGB (1998) etc.
Gray I presume is only accessed if and when someone makes a grayscale scan, that's fine.
So that leaves output. I see both RGB and CMYK output spaces so it's again confusing since you have 'Internal' which doesn't gray out IF someone selects a printer profile. IOW, I can have Interal set to Adobe RGB (1998) and Output set to some CMYK output space. Are you really converting from Scanner RGB ( Input) to RGB working space (Adobe RGB (1998)) to output (CMYK)? Seems utterly pointless. You can convert from Scanner RGB to Output directly no? If so, then gray out Output/Printer when the user selects a profile in Input. Gray out Input if the user selects an output color space in Printer.
Even more odd, If I select Input (where you actually use the correct term, RGB working space not Input) to none, Input grays out; why? Again I don't see the need for that entire area. Next, if I do select ColorSync there, I can select the scanner profile below, and with Internal, gray and output set to none, I'm shown an output profile being embedded. Bug? No difference if I now select Adobe RGB (1998) in Internal.
Then you have Rendering Intent. I can pick Adobe RGB (1998) and Perceptual but you're not going to produce that conversion as there's no such table in these simple profiles. IF Input is set to Adobe RGB (1998), and Output is set to None, that drop down should gray out yet it doesn't.
And people say Photoshop's color settings are difficult to understand? ;)
Andrew, I'm assuming from all this that you did not have your conference call with them today as originally intended; is that correct? Because if you did they probably would have been able to address all these questions. I have an appointment outside the house shortly, so I cannot get into working out all the issues you are raising here just now, and in any case it would be good to see the feedback from Kiel. So how about we do this: wait and see how they answer these questions - please do fill us in here with what you learn from them, and then if there remain any residuals that need further discussion we can get back down to it tomorrow, either here in the first instance, or bilaterally over Skype and Teamviewer and then feedback the conclusions here for whatever audience is looking in on all this discussion.
Mark
-
But I tried to replicate the result your copy of the application pulled up and I understand what happens. When you select <Colorsync> as Working Space-Ouput and you have in a previous session selected your 3880EFP as Output/Printer profile, the "Profile to embed" will show up as that printer profile. Now, if you thereafter change Output/Printer to <none>, the embedded profile remains as the previously selected printer profile, in your case 3880EFP, probably because it isn't programmed to know what to do once you disable "Output/Printer" by selecting <none> in that box. Now please don't shoot the messenger. I'm not saying this makes any generic sense, but that is simply a description of how the application behaves in these circumstances.
That's just messed up Mark. The settings are the settings. When no profile is selected in Output/Printer as shown, there should be no profile that was selected at any time showing up.
As to why you have all those choices under "Color Management": They are giving the user full control over the color management set-up in one place: choice of working space, choice of monitor profile, choice of scanner profile, choice of printer profile. Once you've made those choices in this section, the second section underneath it then lets you select profiles according to the logic of what you selected in the upper section. The final section is confirming information about the embedded working space emerging from those choices.
Again, that make sense to have two areas. Color management and then Profiles. And depending on what you do in the upper area (color management), stuff below gets grayed out. Overly complicated. ColorSync and/or RGB for Output, why? Remove it all; then in Internal (which should be called working space), pick an RGB working space; period. Ditto for Output/Printer.
How they could take a Photoshop concept and make it ever more complicated and redundant is beyond me.
Four dropdown menu's only:
- Input (select scanner profile).
- Internal (call it RGB working space and allow the option to pick RGB working spaces). Gray out Output/Printer as you're asking to scan into an RGB working space. Gray out Rendering Intent, you can't alter RI anyway.
- Gray (for grayscale profiles IF scanning in gray).
- Output/Printer (only printer profiles, gray out Internal when selected).
Embed ICC Profile: no need, embed what the user selects above. If you want to show that, fine.
-
Andrew, I'm assuming from all this that you did not have your conference call with them today as originally intended; is that correct?
Correct, only a series of emails from Jan.
-
I'll be interested to read their feedback on your suggestions.
-
Here's all we need. In this example, pick scanner profile, desire to scan into RGB working space and embed profile (no option NOT to, just informational):
Note: gray could be configured only accessed when scanning gray but now Embed profile info is iffy.
RI grayed out when picking RGB working spaces. (wish PS would do so too).
Pick Output/Printer, RGB working space grays out, RI is accessible.
Done.
-
If all you are using the application for is scanning that would be sufficient; but as I mentioned, there is a corporate philosophy which sees SilverFast as a complete solution for photo ingestion, editing and output.
-
If all you are using the application for is scanning that would be sufficient; but as I mentioned, there is a corporate philosophy which sees SilverFast as a complete solution for photo ingestion, editing and output.
I don't see how the settings I've removed are at all necessary for anything, can you explain how their philosophy is such they are needed? What's the difference between selecting ColorSync/ICM versus RGB? RGB what? Why would I set Monitor to anything but ColorSync? For the 3rd dropdown, same question and if I want CIElab, why not simply select that option in the appropriate dropdown below (output/printer)?
Further, why is it when I toggle Input from ColorSync to None, Input (with what has to be an already set scanner profile) toggles to grayed out while ever other option remains the same? What proposes does that serve when I'm told, that scanner profile is still being used?
-
I'll be interested to read their feedback on your suggestions.
Neither of us should hold our breaths....
-
I don't see how the settings I've removed are at all necessary for anything, can you explain how their philosophy is such they are needed? What's the difference between selecting ColorSync/ICM versus RGB? RGB what? Why would I set Monitor to anything but ColorSync? For the 3rd dropdown, same question and if I want CIElab, why not simply select that option in the appropriate dropdown below (output/printer)?
Further, why is it when I toggle Input from ColorSync to None, Input (with what has to be an already set scanner profile) toggles to grayed out while ever other option remains the same? What proposes does that serve when I'm told, that scanner profile is still being used?
Andrew, I hear you, but life's too short - it's their application, their design, best you raise these issues with them and let them explain as they wish, or not. I've confined my interest in it to understanding how it works so I can get what I need out of it, I've explained how to manage these settings in my book so the customers can get what they need out of it, and I'm leaving it at that. I'd only get agitated if it produced fatal errors I can't deal with, but that's not the case.
-
Andrew, I hear you, but life's too short - it's their application, their design, best you raise these issues with them and let them explain as they wish, or not.
Not sure they will, that's why I've asked the 'guy who wrote the book' ;)
I've confined my interest in it to understanding how it works so I can get what I need out of it, I've explained how to manage these settings in my book so the customers can get what they need out of it, and I'm leaving it at that.
Do you cover those items above in the book? If so, I'll buy it. You commented that: If all you are using the application for is scanning that would be sufficient; but as I mentioned, there is a corporate philosophy which sees SilverFast as a complete solution for photo ingestion, editing and output.
Does the book only cover scanning or are those areas used outside scanning covered such I can get an understanding of why they exist?
I don't expect them to change anything and I'm unlikely to use the product much only because I don't scan much. I only dug up the old V750 and dug into their software because they asked me to look over the new targets and comment (probably for marketing reasons for their web site). That said, when people ask for recommendations on what software to use to drive their scanners, I'm going to recommend this product. But I'd like to have a better idea behind the color management hurt me buttons they appear to provide.
-
Not sure they will, that's why I've asked the 'guy who wrote the book' ;) Do you cover those items above in the book? If so, I'll buy it. You commented that: If all you are using the application for is scanning that would be sufficient; but as I mentioned, there is a corporate philosophy which sees SilverFast as a complete solution for photo ingestion, editing and output.
Does the book only cover scanning or are those areas used outside scanning covered such I can get an understanding of why they exist?
I don't expect them to change anything and I'm unlikely to use the product much only because I don't scan much. I only dug up the old V750 and dug into their software because they asked me to look over the new targets and comment (probably for marketing reasons for their web site). That said, when people ask for recommendations on what software to use to drive their scanners, I'm going to recommend this product. But I'd like to have a better idea behind the color management hurt me buttons they appear to provide.
The book is structured to do two basic things: (1) explain all the tools and controls in the SilverFast application for scanning and editing scans - what they do and how to use them, and (2) how to use SilverFast for scanning and photo editing as part of structured workflows involving LSI's HDR application and/or Lightroom and/or Photoshop in various integrated configurations; different workflow structures draw more or less heavily on the several applications included, depending on the details of each structure. In the course of doing that, I explain how to set the CMS options as a function of these various workflow options.
-
The book is structured to do two basic things: (1) explain all the tools and controls in the SilverFast application for scanning and editing scans - what they do and how to use them, and (2) how to use SilverFast for scanning and photo editing as part of structured workflows involving LSI's HDR application and/or Lightroom and/or Photoshop in various integrated configurations; different workflow structures draw more or less heavily on the several applications included, depending on the details of each structure. In the course of doing that, I explain how to set the CMS options as a function of these various workflow options.
Fair enough, so why do I need to set any options in the top three drop down menus?
-
Fair enough, so why do I need to set any options in the top three drop down menus?
I thought I explained in Reply 71 how the top three interact with the middle three and what they all do for providing CM options. No doubt there are different ways of designing this GUI and that's the way they structured it, so for an explanation of WHY they designed that particular configuration the way they did I think it's best you ask them.
-
I thought I explained in Reply 71 how the top three interact with the middle three and what they all do for providing CM options.
I don't understand the explanation, that is why I'd pick what's available; sorry.
For example:
Why would I set any to None? Why when I set Input to None does why does the other Input below gray out yet still scan into that color space?
Why is there Working Space set for Monitor and why would I set it to None?
Working Space>Output can be set to ColorSync or RGB (or CIElab), what's the difference between CS and RGB?
And why does a printer profile show up as being embedded when none of the drop down's have it listed anywhere?
Yes, the top interacts with the bottom. But why?
-
I don't understand the explanation, that is why I'd pick what's available; sorry.
For example:
Why would I set any to None? Why when I set Input to None does why does the other Input below gray out yet still scan into that color space?
Why is there Working Space set for Monitor and why would I set it to None?
Working Space>Output can be set to ColorSync or RGB (or CIElab), what's the difference between CS and RGB?
And why does a printer profile show up as being embedded when none of the drop down's have it listed anywhere?
Yes, the top interacts with the bottom. But why?
Well, instead of worrying about why the options are structured in the way they are, it is more operationally useful to know what to pick in order to get the results you want, so I focus on that. If you want to get into the whys and wherefores of the GUI design philosophy, I suggest that matter is best discussed with the designers.
That said, I can tell you what I would do to simplify all this, and I may end up pretty close to what you demonstrated above, but it isn't operationally significant because unless they decide to change it, users will have to work with it the way it is, and that is doable with some instruction regardless of the scope for simplification.
-
I’m not worrying Mark, I was hoping to learn the ideas behind the options but I guess I’ll have to find another resource to do so. :-[
If someone asked me to explain why one would pick the Covert vs. Preserve policy options in Photoshop’s Color settings and the ramifications on the data and workflow, I (and you) could. No worries at all. I’m hoping for the same explanation for the three drop down menus shown in my screenshots!
-
I’m not worrying Mark, I was hoping to learn the ideas behind the options but I guess I’ll have to find another resource to do so. :-[
In a nutshell: the first two allow you to turn colour management of each of those parts of the colour management chain on or off. I don't know that there is any really important reason to turn the scanner profile off unless it's needed for making profiles not using SilverFast's Auto-IT8 process, but one could achieve this by selecting <none> for Input in the second section. Turning off a monitor profile is something I can't see ANY reason to do. As for the third, it gives you the choice of embedding nothing, or a printer profile or a Color Working Space such as ProPhoto etc. Normally you would select the latter, especially for onward consistency with Lr or Ps working spaces in onward editing scenarios, but if you want to softproof an eventual print from a scan, it allows that, which can be handy. Or if you wanted to embed say a press profile (with which you have softproofed) in a scan for later use in a press operation, it allows that. Once you've made those choices, the next section, as I've mentioned above, enables one to make the corresponding profile selections.
-
In a nutshell: the first two allow you to turn colour management of each of those parts of the colour management chain on or off.
That's what I'd expect, that's not what the product tells me. Let's simply start with that one dropdown. See the differences below in terms of what's embedded with the option for Input>Working space set to either ColorSync or None. None should be none. It isn't:
-
As for the third, it gives you the choice of embedding nothing, or a printer profile or a Color Working Space such as ProPhoto etc.
I don't see an option to ever embed nothing, dropdown as shown set to <RGB> embeds ProPhoto. But so does ColorSync (a profile that's not selected ANYWHERE); what's the difference between these two and why is my printer profile showing up here? Output/Printer set to None. Do you see the same on your end?
-
For both replies 92 and 93, note that if you don't want to embed any profile, you don't check the box beside "Embed ICC Profile".
Now let's revert to Reply 92: Starting with your first illustration: You've turned off input to working space, meaning you've turned off your scanner profile, so beside Input there is only an exclamation point, no profile. That's correct behaviour.
Let's forget about the monitor profile, and just assume it should always be active by default for all normal photographic work.
For working space to output as I've mentioned before, this is for the colour management policy dealing with final output. You've selected RGB. When you select RGB it embeds your scanner profile unless you have Embed ICC Profile unchecked.
For your second illustration: Input - Working Space: you've selected Colorsync, so it selects the scanner profile, which is correct behaviour. Working Space- Output is unchanged from above.
For your third illustration: We've dealt with Input-Working space above; for Working Space-Output you've selected Colorsync so as discussed further above, it embeds your printer profile. That is normal behaviour (for this application).
Turning to Reply 93, based on what I've said above and further back, all that is behaving as it is designed to. If you are looking to have as little as possible managed in SilverFast, the settings are shown in the attached screen grab.
Gotta to step out - hope this answers your queries - otherwise later will be greater.
-
Reply #93, third image is a bug according to an email I just got from Jan.
-
Reply #93, third image is a bug according to an email I just got from Jan.
There is no third image in Reply 93. Perhaps you mean Reply 92. If so, what is the nature of the bug?
In that dialog you have Working Space-Output set to ColorSync. In that mode, for Output/Printer you can select <none> as you have there, or any one from a bunch of printer profiles. The bug may be that if you select <none>, the last profile loaded sticks beside "Profile to Embed", (the last previous printer profile used) which is something I mentioned yesterday. I agree it is a bug. But by unchecking "Embed ICC Profile", the effect of <none> is retained if that is what you want. Anyhow they should fix it, and likely will now that he has acknowledged it.
-
Shows 93 for me but maybe we are sorting differently? Anyway, three captures, 3rd one, Epson printer profile is shown as embedded but not selected anywhere else. Jan says it’s a bug. I also asked if you can replicate a similar printer profile on your end.
-
Shows 93 for me but maybe we are sorting differently? Anyway, three captures, 3rd one, Epson printer profile is shown as embedded but not selected anywhere else. Jan says it’s a bug. I also asked if you can replicate a similar printer profile on your end.
I don't sort - just keep the order presented, but OK, I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same screen grab and the same error.
-
Just wanted to say that you've got at least an audience of 1 for this discussion :-)
By the way, just to throw another spanner into the works, see what happens if you check "L* gradation" in Preferences ? (I wish Lr had that option, btw). Actually in my case I'm using that in Silverfast HDR, I just scan to "so-called RAW".
Still, it is encouraging that Lasersoft are actually engaging with the outside world. Hopefully it will eventually dawn on them that their "our way or the highway" attitude is doing them a lot more harm than good.
-
So no definitive answer yet on whether these advanced targets are worth it?
I ask because this holiday weekend Lasersoft has a 40 percent off sale.
Allan
-
With a 40% sale the cost of buying and trying is pretty low. Speaking for what I'm doing, all I can tell you now is that my testing is underway, but not complete, and from what I see they work - nothing regrettable found to date. It's a much larger patch set with significant emphasis on the grayscale, so in principle that augurs well assuming (reasonable) the patches are well designed for the purpose. How much better or different from the previous target set I'm not ready to discuss yet but that is of course on the menu, plus other related topics. It will be some weeks before my examination is completed and published.