Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: MonsterBaby on June 22, 2011, 03:22:35 am
-
good morning forum,
im generating ICC profiles now for years for my artwork.. and just wanted to open a discussion here about shadow details and how to achieve the best.
im working with a Z3100 and Z3200.
using either the built in spec or a DTP 20.
no metter which i use or which program i use (profile maker, APS) it lacks details in the shadows of a print. just now for the Z32 i did a new profile for HM photo rag baryta. i decided to use more ink and less GE as this turned out to be possible and getting the largest gamut. BUT.. printing an image with a very dark lower half of a new york sidewalk turned out: black!
i dont want to use less ink.. overall.. as the paper can handle it. of course now i edited the ICC with monaco (gave me best results) and opend the shadows quite well..
but is this really necessary ?
or is this really the domain of a RIP where u can use more ink in the channels but then reduce the total ink limit over the printer driver?
thanx for some ideas
-
The perceived reproduction of shadow detail vastly depends on viewing condition. Remember that you're editing images on a bright monitor, in many cases in a dark surround which additionally opens the perceived shadows.
Try to evaluate the print in a strong daylight - it may occur, that the shadow detail is already there, but you can't see it due to dim light in your environment.
The solution to this issue is to calibrate the display to lower luminance and put it on a brighter background, or increase the brightness of the print lighting. You can also calculate the profile using ArgyllCMS with viewing condition compensation, see flag -c and -d description:
http://argyllcms.com/doc/colprof.html
-
I would explore everything you can do in Photoshop to improve the rendition of shadow detail before resorting to playing with the print pipeline. There are all kinds of techniques, do a search on this website.
-
no metter which i use or which program i use (profile maker, APS) it lacks details in the shadows of a print.
Before you bother looking at profiling issues, use Photoshop’s Info panel and set the secondary read-out to Lab Color. Move your mouse over shadow areas in your image and observe the L value. Anything less than an L of 2 will print as black or near black, irrespective of how the shadows appear on your monitor. Only if the values are higher would you then have a profiling and/or ink loading/linearization issue.
-
thnx everyone.
i was not lookin for help actually on how to view a print and to set up monitor lighting.
i was hoping for a top of the line discussion about shadow details - printer driver vs. rip f.e.
and i am just surprised that even with a large atkinson's chart i loose shadow details in the print through f.e. qimage..
-
there are a great many contributing factors to this issue. Rendering intent is a big one to start with, there is no standard with regard to perceptual rendering and it's behavior with regard to shadow detail, amongst many other things. I use two different profiling softwares(sp?), on matte (I'll get back to that) one is wide open and the other more as expected. Additionally both are more open than their corresponding relative colormetric conversions even ( and most relevant) with black point compensation. We do have a standard for colormetric conversions and they should be very similar from one profiler to another, and the big BUT is... there is no standard for black point matching, and 99.99% of the time, black point matching, or compensation, is the only viable way of using relative colormetric for most printing. So the low value contrast may change from one cmm/RIP or driver/application/profiler to another even in colormetric conversions.
Another issue rarely discussed but common to all good printmakers I know- our spectros tend to see into gloss and matte surfaces quite differently, and result in much more dumping down of shadow contrast on photo surfaces than matte surfaces. Because of the way they illuminate and detect during measurement, resulting profiles even from the same software, with as much equal as possible in the build, still result in darker shadows down into black with gloss than matte. You can see it right on the monitor with softproof and ink black turned off to avoid that obvious difference in display. With prints it's obvious. My more "open" profiler works better for me on photo surfaces then...
Editing profiles is generally not recommended as other problems tend to crop up. Your mention of inking controls, either those supplied in your driver, or selecting different media settings, or RIP setup possibilities, are not terribly relevant to internal shadow contrast, but possibly are relevant to the dumping of values down to black. No profiler can know how to map lower values that all read black in the first place.
So first of all, whatever ink controls you have must be set for no "clipping", or dumping of values, even at the expense of gamut. A sweet settings spot must be found with no profile, then profile over that.
I hope I'm not spewing stuff you already know and wasting your time...
So once all that is in place and you have a good profile with good continuous tone down to black, and given all the variables above, IMHO the only option to keep shadows as open as you want are a good color managed workflow, calibrated monitor, and use soft proofing with the profile and rendering intent, then control shadows in the file itself with editing.
Hope some of this helps.
Tyler
-
L* is a relative measure, it is a scale where 100 is the whitest white the media can render.
-
We've been using X-Rite's i1 Match software/hardware to make printer profiles for years with our large format Epson printers. Recently, we compared stock Epson profiles vs custom ICC profiles using our i1 Match software. Hands down the detail in the Epson stock profiles is apparent. The X-Rite custom ICC profiles, while color accurate, seemed flat and lacked shadow detail. What can we do to get the same detail as the Epson stock profiles provide? Will upgrading to i1 Profiler work? Should we invest in ProfileMaker software?
-
+1 for Editing.
"Just do it"
-
The X-Rite custom ICC profiles, while color accurate, seemed flat and lacked shadow detail. What can we do to get the same detail as the Epson stock profiles provide? Will upgrading to i1 Profiler work? Should we invest in ProfileMaker software?
I'm also very interested in a response to this observation.
-
Recently, we compared stock Epson profiles vs custom ICC profiles using our i1 Match software. Hands down the detail in the Epson stock profiles is apparent. The X-Rite custom ICC profiles, while color accurate, seemed flat and lacked shadow detail.
Assuming you are using Epson profiles created in the US, those were built using X-Rite PROFILER.
-
I'm surprised to hear the problem is with photo-black media, in my experience muddy shadows is far more likely to be a problem with matte media because of the much lower DMax, which means the tonal range has to be compressed more heavily (particularly in the shadows). The Hahnemuhle Baryta papers are particularly good, probably some of the easiest papers to profile due to the excellent gamut and dmax.
You might try the Logo Chroma Plus perceptual intent option, I've found that tends to open shadows up a bit more than the Logo Colorful option.
You mentioned you raised the ink limits to get more gamut volume, but gamut volume is not the only indicator of profile quality, or even necessarily the most important one. It may be that while the higher ink limit gives you richer midtones and larger overall gamut, the ink density curve is resulting in too much ink in the shadows - and PMP does not handle that well at all. The ink density curves are not something you can change when using the standard drivers (not for Canon/Epson, anyway; I assume the same is true for HP). So if you really want to go with the higher ink limits you may need to try some different media types to see if one of them has a more suitable curve. Only other option would be if a RIP allows this sort of control.
-
Assuming you are using Epson profiles created in the US, those were built using X-Rite PROFILER.
I'll venture a guess that they didn't scan the targets with an Eye One Pro either which doesn't do the best job with regards to shadow detail.
Cheers, Joe
-
I'll venture a guess that they didn't scan the targets with an Eye One Pro either which doesn't do the best job with regards to shadow detail.
I know they didn’t but I’d like to know details about this issue with shadows and an EyeOne Pro. I’ve never seen such an issue comparing it with say an iSis, using of course the same target.
-
I've noticed that compared to the Spectroscan/lino, the Eye One Pro is a bit lacking when it comes to shadow detail.
Cheers, Joe
-
I've noticed that compared to the Spectroscan/lino, the Eye One Pro is a bit lacking when it comes to shadow detail.
I guess I’ll have to dust off mine and see.
-
I've noticed that compared to the Spectroscan/lino, the Eye One Pro is a bit lacking when it comes to shadow detail.
I haven't seen that, unless I used the polarizer filter (which is a wildcard anyway). I would expect the EyeOnePro data to be a bit "dirty" in comparison the Lino or DTP70 but I haven't seen that translate to the real world visual results you're describing. Interesting. Do you have more than one EyeOnePro to compare with? Does it pass Diagnostics?
-
I haven't seen that, unless I used the polarizer filter (which is a wildcard anyway).
Good to know because after 45 minutes, I’m giving up on even trying to get the Spectroscan to show up via the old Keyspan USB adaptor. Tried on an old G5 running 10.5 and a newer 10.6 machine, both with updated drivers. Keyspan is seen, Spectroscan isn’t. That shows how long its been since I had to hook one up!
Anyone want a screaming deal on a green Spectroscan? I’m not futzing around with this old stuff anymore <g>
-
Anyone want a screaming deal on a green Spectroscan? I’m not futzing around with this old stuff anymore <g>
Oh, but it looks so good next to your letter press in the lobby - LOL! Yeah, the Purple Lino's are a little more handy to have around but, like you, I'm looking more to the future.
-
Anyone want a screaming deal on a green Spectroscan? I’m not futzing around with this old stuff anymore <g>
If you wouldn't mind shipping it to EU, I'd take it - my wife was treating me bad lately, this should give her a lesson :D
-
If you wouldn't mind shipping it to EU...
That’s where it was born, its bilingual.
-
I haven't seen that, unless I used the polarizer filter (which is a wildcard anyway). I would expect the EyeOnePro data to be a bit "dirty" in comparison the Lino or DTP70 but I haven't seen that translate to the real world visual results you're describing. Interesting. Do you have more than one EyeOnePro to compare with? Does it pass Diagnostics?
It does pass diagnostics. Maybe I'll have to revisit that comparison (or perhaps I have an exceptionally good Spectroscan/lino or maybe a sub par Eye One Pro) but I do remember that the SS did better with rendering detail in shadows and it was enough of a difference that waiting forever to scan in a profile was preferable to getting it done faster with the Eye One Pro (of course with the SS, it doesn't involve ME in the scanning process which is nice but if the Eye One Pro did a better job, it would still be worth it). I don't have a second Eye One Pro for comparison although I will be picking up a second unit eventually (the unit I have has the UV cut... I need one without the UV cut filter for a few applications). UV to non-UV wouldn't necessarily be an even comparison... but still interesting to see the difference with a paper that doesn't have any OBAs.
Cheers, Joe
-
Considering the EyeOne Pro scans from 100-200 samples per second (opposed to at best, 5 agonizingly slow measurements from the Lino), that it is newer technology, one certainly would hope and expect the differences to be tiny and if so, you’d expect they would be seen in areas beyond just shadows.
-
Considering the EyeOne Pro scans from 100-200 samples per second (opposed to at best, 5 agonizingly slow measurements from the Lino), that it is newer technology, one certainly would hope and expect the differences to be tiny and if so, you’d expect they would be seen in areas beyond just shadows.
The Eye One Pro of course spends a lot of those samples determining whether or not it's over a patch threshold or not. Looking at the quality of scans it produces compared to the SS, I can't find anything in the Eye One Pro's results that put it ahead of the SS. In terms of ∆E I find that the average ∆E on the Spectrolino is about 1/2 that of the Eye One Pro (and that's using the widest patches possible with the Eye One Pro and scanning very slowly). It may not be taking as many measurements but I would say it's taking higher quality measurements. While the average ∆E is probably not a lot to be concerned about I have noticed more false readings with the Eye One Pro (it's noisier as Scott mentioned) so sometimes I have to go back and rescan or take multiple scans and average. The SS is no speed demon, that's for sure but at the $650 bucks I paid for purple turtle it was well worth the price and I actually find it far more convenient to use than the Eye One Pro. It's time is definitely limited though. I'll probably replace it with an iSis XL or perhaps some flavor of Barbieri (Spectro Swing or Spectro LFP... having that polarizing filter can be quite useful).
Cheers, Joe
-
The Eye One Pro of course spends a lot of those samples determining whether or not it's over a patch threshold or not. Looking at the quality of scans it produces compared to the SS, I can't find anything in the Eye One Pro's results that put it ahead of the SS.
But behind? That’s your premise isn’t it? And presumably only in shadows? It may be true, I can’t this damn SS to run and compare with the two EyeOne Pro’s I have. Or a ColorMunki for that matter. There is however, a lot more measurement data being collected and averaged, not that this guarantees better sampling (but one would hope so).
-
I own a Spectrolino + SS, a ColorMunki, a Discus, more than one i1Pro and other stuff. I also have access to an i1isis. I maybe have some problem because I am becoming a color management hardware collector.
I asked many times X-Rite about what hardware performs better and what they told me is that the i1Pro and the i1isis share the same type of head while the Spectrolino has a better one, shared with other more expensive instruments they make.
I also talked with some color consultants here in Italy and they told me that the best made head is the Spectrolino. They gave me some more tecnical data that I can't find now with a desciption of the materials used for both heads.
Everybody can call X-Rite and ask them directly.
I decided to send my Spcetrolino for a re-cerification.
My 2 cents: my favourite hardaware are the Discus and the SpectroScan when I have time and a sound-insulated room.
-
I decided to send my Spcetrolino for a re-cerification.
How much did that cost ?
-
I don't remeber exactly, I think 350/400 euro including shipping, customs, and italian VAT (20%).
-
350/400 euro including shipping, customs, and italian VAT (20%).
ouch
-
I had the same issue with the blocking of the blacks and spent countless hours, days trying to figure it out. Apparently, this is a fault of the driver from the manufacturer in my case Epson and has been acknowledged by some of the printing gurus in this forum. I also found that the Epson profiles didn't have the blocking issues that my custom profiles did and I suspected that Epson engineered them with the knowledge of the is issue. In the end I bought an old version of Imageprint and it solved all my problems. I didn't believe it until I saw it. The other factor I noticed was that saving the files as JPG caused the blocking in the blacks but saving the same file as an uncompressed TIFF resolved the a great deal of this problem. Since I got IP, I haven't made a profile.
Hope this helps.
Paul
-
I hope I'm not giving away any company secrets or anything, but we use SpectroScan tables with the polarizing filter for most of the matte papers that we do with our profiling service. I think that's one of the main reasons people like these profiles. There's something about the way the polarizing filter directs the light into the measurement head instead of scattering it. It draws out as much detail as you can get from the shadows. It makes no difference for glossy papers - it's primarily for matte and canvas & the like. The only drawback is a profile make from this measurement tends to be overly saturated in its soft-proofing direction (looks okay in the printing direction.)
-
But behind? That’s your premise isn’t it? And presumably only in shadows?
From what I've observed, yes.
It may be true, I can’t this damn SS to run and compare with the two EyeOne Pro’s I have. Or a ColorMunki for that matter. There is however, a lot more measurement data being collected and averaged, not that this guarantees better sampling (but one would hope so).
Regardless of the type of transducer being used, be it a microphone, CMOS sensor, CCD sensor, barometer, thermometer, or the sensor in a spectrophotometer, multiple measurements doesn't contribute anything to increasing the quality of the measurement itself. You can take 1000 measurements with an inferior transducer and never achieve the same quality that you can with one single reading from a higher quality transducer. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the output at ISO 1600 from a point and shoot to a $3000+ full frame camera. Averaging measurements is of course useful when profiling to attain the average value that a printer and media combination produce but I would be extremely surprised if such benefit could be ascertained from a 10mm x 10mm patch. I would think that to be useful that data would need to be sampled from different spots on the media. Printing out multiple targets for example and averaging them together would accomplish that.
The Eye One Pro might require hundreds of measurements in order to mitigate ∆E as a result of the noise inherent in the sensor itself. A less noisy sensor might not require that. We definitely know that the Eye One Pro spends a lot of time using those multiple measurements to detect the edges of a patch and it's also been demonstrated that using larger patches with the Eye One Pro, yields a lower ∆E from scan to scan. Based on how the device performs I'd say the increased samples don't contribute anything to the quality of the measurement, but rather, they are required 1) by design to detect the boundaries of a patch and 2) to smooth the noise and thus reduce ∆E from scan to scan. Those multiple sample points wouldn't improve its ability to extract shadow detail.
This doesn't in any way support that the Spectroscan/lino is better than the Eye One Pro but, I don't believe the Eye One Pro's multiple measurements do anything to improve the quality of the samples it takes. It will serve to smooth out the noise and as such reduce ∆E but I'd say that's about it. Even then, the Spectrolino's ∆E from scan to scan is about half that of the Eye One Pro.
Cheers, Joe
-
im working with a Z3100 and Z3200.
using either the built in spec or a DTP 20.
no metter which i use or which program i use (profile maker, APS) it lacks details in the shadows of a print. just now for the Z32 i did a new profile for HM photo rag baryta.
The problem could be specific to use the "HM photo rag baryta" on the z series.
This is not the first thread on this subject.
I think I know what the OP is talking about. I have been through many papers and as much as I like the feel of the HM Photo Rag it gives me the worst dark tones from any paper I've printed on. By worst I mean - the darkest neutral (B&W) tones are mostly blocked, while I get beautiful details on let's say HP Prof (and ID) Satin (same image, same viewing conditions).
I noticed that even with Photo Baryta preset (ink limit at 32.5) there is some minor ink pooling on the Color Calibration chart (Green and "maybe" Yellow). So I reduced the ink limit to 80% and the pooling is gone now. I re-profiled using the Color Center and compared the new profile with the canned one from HM. They are pretty much identical...Which gives me a good reason to believe that the ink limit is now optimal and there is no need to increase it.
But that did not help to the dark B&W tones. They are still mostly blocked where I can see details on other papers (and in PS' softproof). The color ones are just as fine as on other glossy papers.
The dark B&W tones of an image printed on HM Photo Rag baryta do not much to PS soft-proof. They do for all other papers...
MonsterBaby,
What kind of target did you print to make profile for the "HM photo rag baryta"? The same with the Profile Maker and APS or different?
-
Sergey, as you know, profiling isn't the magic bullet that solves all our printing issues. Otherwise we'd all be a lot happier than we sound on this board! In the end, experience and a certain amount of trial and error come into play.
I, too, have had occasional printing issues with HPR Baryta on the Z3200ps that all the profiling in the world wouldn't completely resolve - mainly blocking and posterization, as well as dodgy softproofing. Now I use my best profile + my hard-earned knowledge of the paper's unique (for want of a better word) printing characteristics + custom correction curves for each image. It's not perfect, but I look at it as the dark art of printing, the thing my customers pay me for. The results, of course, are worth it, because it's such a great paper.
-
I'm planning on building a curve for B&W pictures with lots of dark areas. The rest looks great already.
BTW, have you tried to spray you pictures on HM PRag Baryta with the Hahnemuhle Protective Spray ? It makes the surface perfect! Absolutely eliminates any signs of gloss differential.
SergeyT.
-
I recently did a dozen or so large (A2) B&W prints on PR Baryta for a law-firm office: architectural shots, lots of tarmac, dark shadows etc. I gave the shadows a small bump and they came out looking superb - absolutely all the info in the files was there in the print, without looking in any way unnatural.
Never used the spray because the surface has never given me cause for complaint.
-
I also had problems with lost of details in dark area on HM PR Baryta - so I do not use it any more for low key image. One of the beauty of having so many papers available is that you can use specific paper for specific image.
I do not see the point in spending time, paper and ink to get something right on paper "A" if i can get it right immediately on paper "B". But for me, as a photographer that do his own printing at the end is important that picture look as I want it to look, it is not important on which paper it is printed.
Therefore I have different papers for different effects I need to make different kind of picture "sing".