Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Dale Allyn on December 13, 2006, 05:36:59 pm
-
There is a current thread in the forum regarding the profiling of Epson printers, but I felt this question was better suited to a separate thread so as not to derail things over there.
For printing on a Canon iPF 5000 via the 16-bit PS plug-in, is it reasonable to assume that one can get good profiles with the EyeOne Photo and the provided GMB software? In other words, if I do not buy third-party software such as ProfileMaker 5, am I wasting time and money on building profiles myself rather that outsourcing the profiles?
I have not been making profiles myself and I'm considering adding the EyeOne Photo + iO, but the cost of ProfileMaker 5 seems over the top for my scale. The iO appeals to me very much, but I may postpone that part of the purchase until making some profiles without first.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
--
Dale
-
There is a current thread in the forum regarding the profiling of Epson printers, but I felt this question was better suited to a separate thread so as not to derail things over there.
For printing on a Canon iPF 5000 via the 16-bit PS plug-in, is it reasonable to assume that one can get good profiles with the EyeOne Photo and the provided GMB software? In other words, if I do not buy third-party software such as ProfileMaker 5, am I wasting time and money on building profiles myself rather that outsourcing the profiles?
I have not been making profiles myself and I'm considering adding the EyeOne Photo + iO, but the cost of ProfileMaker 5 seems over the top for my scale. The iO appeals to me very much, but I may postpone that part of the purchase until making some profiles without first.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
--
Dale
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90355\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My knowledge in this area is somewhat limited, Andrew Rodney would be better able to answer this question. However, from what I know the Eye-One Match software is a subset of Profilemaker Pro. For making RGB profiles for D50 light, I think they would probably do quite well. With profilemaker you have the choice of several different models: Logo Chroma, Logo Chroma Plus (what I use), and Logo Colorful (claimed to be better, but I still prefer Logo Chroma Plus). You only get one of these with Eye One Match, not sure what the default is.
--John
-
The iOne with its associated "IOne Match" software is quite good and sufficient for most people's needs. It is worth mentioning that there is currently a 50% discount on the ProfileMaker software, so that may tip the scales in favor of the more Professional software.
In fact, I would suggest the ProfileMaker Pro software with the iOne instead of the iOne with the I/O table. Money is better spent on the PMP software, IMHO!
Cheers,
-eric-
-
In fact, I would suggest the ProfileMaker Pro software with the iOne instead of the iOne with the I/O table. Money is better spent on the PMP software, IMHO!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as I could work out, the only tangible benefit of PM5 PhotoStudio over the Eye-One package for RGB work is a more sophisticated profile editor. This assumes you're happy with Match's default of LOGO Colorful which is the main attraction of this package over others, IMHO.
-
It is worth mentioning that there is currently a 50% discount on the ProfileMaker software, so that may tip the scales in favor of the more Professional software.
-eric-
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am pondering this too. I am a neophyte, but have had the eye-one for a few years. It worked OK on Epson 2200, but (perhaps due to uncertainty regarding the correct media selection) I have not had as good results with the iPF5000.
Where is the 50% discount available?
While I'm at it (g) - what do you see as the relative value in the process of:
1. The to be released Imageprint
2. Colorthink
3. Profilemaker/Match
Thanks,
Steve
-
I am pondering this too. I am a neophyte, but have had the eye-one for a few years. It worked OK on Epson 2200, but (perhaps due to uncertainty regarding the correct media selection) I have not had as good results with the iPF5000.
Where is the 50% discount available?
While I'm at it (g) - what do you see as the relative value in the process of:
1. The to be released Imageprint
2. Colorthink
3. Profilemaker/Match
Thanks,
Steve
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90395\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Colorthink of interest, but at the bottom of the list. The PC version of Colorthink Pro is still quite buggy, I think the regular Colorthink is fairly stable. Don't know about Mac. The keys with Imageprint may be the linearization and pattern of ink laydown. Don't know if it is optimal with non-Canon papers (or even Canon papers) and best settings are hard to come by. In the past, I got best results with Imageprint plus custom profilemaker for Imageprint with Profilemaker Pro. Eye-One Match would probably do as well. This was for Epson 2200. For Epson 2400, didn't bother to use Imageprint much, as I thought it was a lot better. The Canon is a bit of an unknown re: Imageprint. Since I have 6.0 for a 13 inch printer, I might upgrade to the 17 inch printer size depending on price of upgrade.
--John
-
Colorthink of interest, but at the bottom of the list. The PC version of Colorthink Pro is still quite buggy, I think the regular Colorthink is fairly stable. Don't know about Mac. The keys with Imageprint may be the linearization and pattern of ink laydown. Don't know if it is optimal with non-Canon papers (or even Canon papers) and best settings are hard to come by. In the past, I got best results with Imageprint plus custom profilemaker for Imageprint with Profilemaker Pro. Eye-One Match would probably do as well. This was for Epson 2200. For Epson 2400, didn't bother to use Imageprint much, as I thought it was a lot better. The Canon is a bit of an unknown re: Imageprint. Since I have 6.0 for a 13 inch printer, I might upgrade to the 17 inch printer size depending on price of upgrade.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Very helpful. Thanks.
-
Thanks, all, for the feedback. Maybe Andrew will have time to chime in too. This is all very helpful.
I had the impression that the iO can read sample charts with greater than 918 patches, and in so, would contribute to better profiles. This may be entirely in error.
The idea of ProfileMaker at a 50% discount is great, but I missed it as today was the last day for the promo. I wasn't up to speed in time to take advantage, and the past two days have been crazy for me, with no time to work on this.
Certainly, I can continue to have profiles made by the reputable sources available, but I'd like to experiment more with various papers and ordering quality profiles for each could really add up. I'm trying to learn if it's worth making my own profiles if I only use the EyeOne Photo with Color Match. If I need to spend $3,000 or more for software and spectrophotometer to achieve quality profiles, then I think I'll simply order custom profiles on my most important papers. If, with a meticulous workflow, one can produce accurate profiles for the iPF5000 with moderate equipment and software then I think it would make sense for me to do it "in house'.
-
Well, I went for the sale today. It did include the SG color chart as well. I supose after the holidays I will get to know how to make good printer profiles. I am also going to experiment with the camera profiles as well.
If it doesn't work out for me I'd be happy to sell you my PM5 for a real steal.... 50% off list!
Seriously, I thought PM5 at 50% off may not be too big a risk because I thought I could get $1250 off ebay if it becomes too involved for my workflow.
-Eric
-
I'm using the Eye-One (non-UV) with the IPF5000 and am reasonably happy with the profiles I've generated. I too am new to profiling for myself, but am making some progress.
I've seen a couple of prints off of ImagePrint and the IPF5000 and my impression is that it's going to be great. The "softness" that many have commented on with the IPF seems to be remediated by the RIP algorithms used within ImagePrint.
As for profiles... ImagePrints profiles are usually very good to excellent, though I'll sometimes make my own.
Good luck!
-
There is a post on the Wiki discussion forum detailing how to trick Eye-One match into making a profile using the 4096 patch target from Bill Atkinson. This gets around at least one limitation of Eye-One Match compared to Profilemaker Pro. Apparently the result was quite good:
http://www.canonipf5000.wikispaces.com (http://www.canonipf5000.wikispaces.com) (Discussion Forum link from there)
--John
-
There is a post on the Wiki discussion forum detailing how to trick Eye-One match into making a profile using the 4096 patch target from Bill Atkinson. This gets around at least one limitation of Eye-One Match compared to Profilemaker Pro. Apparently the result was quite good:
http://www.canonipf5000.wikispaces.com (http://www.canonipf5000.wikispaces.com) (Discussion Forum link from there)
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90537\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm the person who tricked EyeOne Match into using the big Atkinson target, and it's not hard to do (well, the hard part is reading the huge target in, not making the profile).
1. Download target and reference file from www.billatkinson.com (I used the 4096 patch option, because it was the biggest target that would fit on a 17 inch roll without going lengthwise and wasting paper (he also has a 5200+ patch target, but that one is on 3 12x19 inch sheets!).
2. Print target from photoshop plugin
3. Use MeasureTool (from ProfileMaker Pro, but functions in demo mode) to read the target in - it is on 3 12x17 inch sheets, and is so large that you actually have to turn the sheets around in the EyeOne backing board to read the last 15 or so strips on each sheet (the darn target is longer than the backing board). Remember that when reading those last 15 strips with the target upside down, you have to read from right to left instead of left to right. MeasureTool cares about orientation! I'll eventually build a bigger backing board! Measure Tool has a number of settings for reading targets, and here's what I used:
In the Configure dialog box: EyeOne found automatically-spectral ON (default)
In the measurement window: Strips with gaps (it lets you choose between individual patches (yeah, right!), strips without gaps (which requires a scrambled target with a lot of contrast between adjacent patches) and strips with gaps (which is what the Atkinson target is)
All settings correct, spend about 45 minutes reading in 128 strips of patches and wishing you owned an iO or an iSIS...
4. Save the measurement file - Save As in the MeasureTool file menu - save it anywhere you like, although I drop it in EyeOne Match's measurement files folder.
4. Trick EyeOne Match. Remove the original reference file for the 918 patch target to a safe place, then replace it with the Atkinson target reference file, renaming the Atkinson file to the exact name of the 918 patch file. Note that you are playing with REFERENCE files, not the measurement file you just made. EyeOne Match will use an arbitrarily named measurement file, but is picky that the reference file describing the target is in exactly the right place, with the right name.
5. Select the "918" patch reference file - you'll know you have the imposter loaded because EyeOne Match will show a picture of the Atkinson target.
6. Load the measurement file and build the profile...
I'm going to try replacing other reference files - I just appear to have replaced the "easy CMYK" test chart (with about 100 patches) with a 1788 patch CMYK chart - I wonder if THAT will work - guess I'll try profiling the laser printer and find out!
It looks like EyeOne in "photo" license mode is limited to four test charts (three RGB and one CMYK, but they can be any four charts you want if you're willing to use MeasureTool to read them)... I haven't tried profiling with any of these except the Atkinson 4096 yet, but my copy of EyeOne Match now thinks that its fout test charts are:
Its original 918 patch RGB chart
Atkinson's 1728 patch chart - the biggest chart that will fit on letter paper
Atkinson's 4096 patch chart
A 1788 patch CMYK chart replacing the sub-100 patch "Easy CMYK" chart.
-Dan
-
Thank you very much for the info. This is very helpful.
Dan, thank you very much for the detailed description of your approach. I'm having a hard time justifying the cost of ProfileMaker at this time, though may add it eventually. In the mean time, I'd like to make useful profiles with the EyeOne, but if it was better to outsource the profiles for this printer when using the plug-in, I'd take that approach.
I've not yet purchased the EyeOne Photo, but it sounds like one can make good profiles for the iPF5000 via plug-in with a bit of patience.
Does the iO table handle the large sheets used for the larger targets better? I know that Bill Atkinson uses another spectro. scanning tool for really long targets. I guess I'll get the EyeOne Photo and see how it all flows.
Eventually, it sounds like ProfileMaker will be needed (wanted), but I'd love to hold off the expense for a while.
Thank you, all, for the help.
Dale
-
Dan,
Your post added to Wiki (link from main page) as a separate article (with attribution, of course!). Feel free to edit, expand on, etc.
Thanks for a great contribution!!!
--John
-
In the interest of proper attribution, I should mention that I got the procedure for tricking EyeOne Match from something called ColorWiki (www.colorwiki.com/wiki/more_targets_for_i1match). I had the idea of trying to use the Atkinson target, and googled EyeOne Match Atkinson Target to see if anyone else had done this before. The detailed description of procedure is mine, as is the idea of replacing more than one target in EyeOne. As far as I know, I'm the first to apply this to the Canon printers or using the 4096 patch target. The original question was on using the Atkinson 1728 target on an unspecified printer. I have not seen another test of the iPF 5000 with a similarly large target, and I hope others here and on the Wiki will experiment along these lines.
-dan
-
As far as I know, I'm the first to apply this to the Canon printers or using the 4096 patch target. The original question was on using the Atkinson 1728 target on an unspecified printer. I have not seen another test of the iPF 5000 with a similarly large target, and I hope others here and on the Wiki will experiment along these lines.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90592\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have you actually been able to get the 16-bit driver to print with a 4096 patch profile?
Every time I tried it the driver crashed. It didn't matter whether it was a V2 or V4 profile or whether the profile had been generated in the large or default format by Profilemaker.
-
Also note that another excellent profiling package is MonacoPROFILER. I actually prefer the perceptual intent profiles that PROFILER builds over PM5, for most of my images. You can use an Eye-One Photo (both UV and non-UV versions) with PROFILER, too, and PROFILER gives some options for tweaking how much compression is applied to the color gamut. You can use MeasureTool to read the Atkinson targets and then export the LAB data to be read in by MonacoPROFILER.
Eric
-
Have you actually been able to get the 16-bit driver to print with a 4096 patch profile?
Every time I tried it the driver crashed. It didn't matter whether it was a V2 or V4 profile or whether the profile had been generated in the large or small format by Profilemaker.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90603\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mac or PC? Haven't gotten that far yet myself, just seeking more information. What version of the Plugin? On PC, 2.00 comes with the printer, but Canon Europe has 2.01.
--John
-
This thread is continuing to inform. Thank you.
It seems that the iO allows for reading smaller patches on the targets because of it's precision, which allows for using targets with more patches on smaller paper. Note that Bill offers targets in separate sizes for the EyeOne Pro and the iO.
I've also been told that the iO averages three readings from each patch to increase accuracy (theoretically?).
It's also helpful to know that we can, in addition to using Match and MeasureTool, also use MonacoPROFILER. Thank you, madmanchan.
--
Dale
-
Mac or PC? Haven't gotten that far yet myself, just seeking more information. What version of the Plugin? On PC, 2.00 comes with the printer, but Canon Europe has 2.01.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90614\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
PC. V2.0.0 of the plug-in.
-
PC. V2.0.0 of the plug-in.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90616\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rats! Have you called Canon support to see what they have to say about this?
--John
-
It's also helpful to know that we can, in addition to using Match and MeasureTool, also use MonacoPROFILER.
One thing I forgot to mention is that you can use a single set of measurements obtained with MeasureTool to build profiles with either Match, ProfileMaker, or MonacoPROFILER. This is nice because you don't have to re-measure the targets.
For example, let's say you got an Eye-One Photo package (which comes with Match) and also have MonacoPROFILER. You can use MeasureTool as described above to read a target then use the renaming trick to build a profile with Match. But then you can use the same measurement data (without re-reading the targets) to build a profile with MonacoPROFILER. Then when it comes to printing a particular image, you can soft-proof in PS using both profiles and pick the one that gives the most pleasing rendition for that particular image.
Eric
-
That's good to know, Eric. Thank you. It seems that there's a lot more versatility to be had here than I was aware of.
Cheers,
Dale
-
For what it's worth, I've had no problems printing targets. I use the TIFFs that Bill Atkinson provides, open them in Photoshop and send them out the plugin. Other than that I once forgot to turn off color management when printing a target (very little quite as useless as a profiling target printed with a profile for another paper), they have all printed fine... As you can see I'm not attempting to use any profiling software either to generate the target (Bill Atkinson has done that), or to print it (Photoshop to Canon plugin).
My next big experiment is the Canon plugin with Photoshop CS3 - I'm downloading the beta from Adobe right now (it just showed up).
-Dan
-
For what it's worth, I've had no problems printing targets. I use the TIFFs that Bill Atkinson provides, open them in Photoshop and send them out the plugin. Other than that I once forgot to turn off color management when printing a target (very little quite as useless as a profiling target printed with a profile for another paper), they have all printed fine... As you can see I'm not attempting to use any profiling software either to generate the target (Bill Atkinson has done that), or to print it (Photoshop to Canon plugin).
Yes, but are you having any problems printing through the plugin using the profile that you made after measuring the 4096 patch target? That was the problem brought up on page 1 of this thread by another poster.
--John
-
Rats! Have you called Canon support to see what they have to say about this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90619\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On the list for the next call. It's really a low priority since I don't think there is much to be gained with profiles that large.
-
On the list for the next call. It's really a low priority since I don't think there is much to be gained with profiles that large.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I independently found the technique for getting i1Match to handle larger charts about 2 years ago and have been developing new test charts since using my own generator software.
My current chart is 5100 patches over 3 x A3 pages.
There is a world of difference between a profile based on a 918 patch chart and one based on a much larger number of patches (2000, 4000, 5100, whatever).
However, this difference is very much dependant on the printer driver and the printer model.
In my case, I developed the new profiles to address a chronic problem I had with profiling my Epson 4000. Getting usable colour out of a printer is pretty easy, even with a 918-patch chart. The problem is getting the gray balance right at the same time.
The native Epson 4000 space (that is, what you get when you print with all management turned off) produces grays that aren't within cooee of being right with a heavy green cast.
Off-the-shelf test charts basically put test points (patches) uniformly throughout the RGB coordinate "space". In the case of the 4096-patch Atkinson chart, this is basically 16 values of red with 16 values of green with 16 values of blue.
In the case of a 918-patch chart, it is closer to 9 values of each RGB, plus some augmentation around the corners and edges. This basically puts the patches at around 28 units apart or worse.
These control points are simply incompetent at trying to control the wayward gray axis of the Epson.
I have profiled only one Canon printer - a consumer grade 8500. The test charts through that printer/driver were vastly better as far as giving basic grays before profiling. This guaranteed neutral grays, but I then have to wonder whether the printer/driver really was stepping out of the way for colour management and therefore to what degree the available gamut was being compromised.
I would be interested in knowing what you get with the iPF5000 printing a gray-scale test chart with all colour management off (as you would for a profiling test chart).
If the chart does show significant colour cast in the "native" grays, then a chart with additional patches surrounding the gray axis will produce noticable improvements.
The result I now get from the Epson 4000 as far as monochrome prints are as neutral and even as I have ever wanted.
So, run the simple test: if a gray scale test with all colour management disabled produces significant colour cast, then you really should try to use a much larger profiling chart.
The test of any profile chart is how well it produces gray tones as well as the colours.
Andrew
Sydney
-
No problem getting prints based on the new profile, either. The 4096 patch profile is about 1.8 megabytes, while the 918 patch profile is a bit under a megabyte, in case profile size has anything to do with the other poster's problems with the plugin crashing.
-Dan
-
No problem getting prints based on the new profile, either. The 4096 patch profile is about 1.8 megabytes, while the 918 patch profile is a bit under a megabyte, in case profile size has anything to do with the other poster's problems with the plugin crashing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90704\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At time time I tried the 4096 patch profiles I must have had something wrong in the system due to all the software installs and removals I do. I recently did some major system housekeeping so I tried it again and it is now printing with the 4096 patch profile. My sizes are different with the Default size profile being 2.003MB and the Large size being 2.757MB. This could be due to using different profiling packages. I am using ProfileMaker 5.07.
-
I independently found the technique for getting i1Match to handle larger charts about 2 years ago and have been developing new test charts since using my own generator software.
Is this software you wrote available?
-
I would be interested in knowing what you get with the iPF5000 printing a gray-scale test chart with all colour management off (as you would for a profiling test chart).
If the chart does show significant colour cast in the "native" grays, then a chart with additional patches surrounding the gray axis will produce noticable improvements.
The result I now get from the Epson 4000 as far as monochrome prints are as neutral and even as I have ever wanted.
So, run the simple test: if a gray scale test with all colour management disabled produces significant colour cast, then you really should try to use a much larger profiling chart.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My ipf5000 prints a gray-scale test chart with no visual hints of a color cast.
I have to wonder about the validity of this test. Depending upon the algorithms that the driver and printer firmware use, perhaps this only shows how well the printer can produce a gray-scale chart using the gray and black inks and the neutrality of the gray and black inks.
-
Is this software you wrote available?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, no.
I wrote the program to do the patch shuffling required to allow the Eye One to operate in strip mode. It would take a week or two of effort to turn it into something usable to anyone else and I just can't spend that time.
Since then the need for the program has been obsoleted to some degree by new methods of distinguishing patches in a test chart being available via the "demo mode" PM5 package. It is possible to generate charts that don't need to be shuffled now by using black/white edges to the patches.
Andrew
-
My ipf5000 prints a gray-scale test chart with no visual hints of a color cast.
I have to wonder about the validity of this test. Depending upon the algorithms that the driver and printer firmware use, perhaps this only shows how well the printer can produce a gray-scale chart using the gray and black inks and the neutrality of the gray and black inks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh, believe me the test is valid!
I fully expected the result you have received the very first time I printed a "native" gray scale for the Epson 4000. When I saw the heavy colour cast, my reaction was "What the?"! How could it be that outputting gray RGB values could be using anything other than gray inks? I still don't know.
Given the result you have found, the 4096-patch Atkinson chart should work just fine.
If you want to see how much adjusting is going on in a profile to get the grays, try this:
1. Either loadup a gray-scale or create a gray gradient image in photoshop. Make a note of the working colour space for the image.
2. Use "Convert to Profile" with your printer profile selected. You can now see what RGB values are being used to reproduce your grays by looking at the Info window and dragging the mouse over the image.
To really see what is going on, try using "Assign to profile" to assign the image back into its original working space. Comparing this image with the original will show how far the RGB values are being shifted to give the right output.
It really may not even be a problem on the newer Epson K3-based printers either. But on the UltraChrome printers it is very much an issue.
One "professional" profile maker in Australia is in the habit of instructing their clients to print the test charts for the Epson WITH printer-driver colour management enabled on the grounds that it gives better results. And they are right - the driver does most of the correction with the newly-developed profile making finer corrections over the top. You can get some nice neutral grays using this method with a 918 chart. The cost, however, is reduced colour gamut.
Andrew
-
Under Bill Atkinson's color profile downloads (see his web site), there is a Profile Targets FAQ. In this FAQ Bill describes in detail how his older 9600 (regular Ultrachrome) had "lumpy" non-linear behavior and was far from gray-balanced. This is the behavior that Andrew describes with his 4000. I have seen this personally with my 2200. The K3 printers (and their associated drivers) are significantly more linear and gray-balanced and therefore make it easier to create good profiles for them. With the older Ultrachrome printers, it does help to use more patches (e.g., 4096) to help correct the gray balance.
With Bill's targets freely available online for several different measuring devices, several different patch sizes, and several different sheet size configurations, I no longer see the need for using custom software to generate yet more targets. Just browse his profile targets and pick what you need.
Eric
-
With the Canon ipf5000 there is virtually no difference between the values obtained after converting a gray-scale step chart between a 4096 and a 1472 patch profile. It's kind of like putting high octane gas in a car designed for regular gas. It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help and you could spend your resources better elsewhere.
Agreed, that with the older printers, profiles generated from very large test charts probably helped quite a bit, but defintely not with my 5000.