Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Sunny Alan on April 08, 2014, 04:43:49 am
-
I need to copy paintings using my A7r camera and edit and reproduction print on Epson 9900.
To achieve exact color of painting reproduced, calibration is a must. Monitor, copying camera and printer are involved.
What are to get calibrated, all 3?
What calibration tool competitively priced?
Request your sharing in this.
-
If you are talking of record photography, then you need specialist advice. I dare say Andrew Rodney (aka digitaldog) will be along soon to help...
-
If you are talking of record photography, then you need specialist advice. I dare say Andrew Rodney (aka digitaldog) will be along soon to help...
Well, I doubt if it is what you meant.
My job is normal fine art painting is copied by high MP camera and reprint. This is under agreement with the painter. I print limited copies, say 50, not even 51. All 51 (1 original+50 copies) are considered 'Limited Edition
Originals".
Here biggest problem is matching color with the original paining.
If monitor calibrated with Colormunki is enough is my question.
Thanks...
-
The issue for reproduction of artworks is that it depends on issue like viewing conditions and lighting where the prints will be seen. This is true for all prints, but likely to be especially critical where one is reproducing works of art.
Calibrating the monitor is a must. Calibrating the printer: for some printers, the supplied profiles may be good enough.
Are you in a position to try it out with a few paintings, and see how you get on?
-
Is Monitor calibration alone enough with printer supplied profiles?
I read somewhere that to match the print with original, not only Monitor, but the printer altogether has to be calibrated with the same calibrating gadget/ software.
Yes, I can check it in a couple of weeks...
Thanks
-
Is Monitor calibration alone enough with printer supplied profiles?
I read somewhere that to match the print with original, not only Monitor, but the printer altogether has to be calibrated with the same calibrating gadget/ software.
You would be well recommended to look at camera calibration tools in conjunction with calibration targets like the ColorChecker, ColorChecker Passport or ColorChecker SG. Datacolor also has their SpyderChecker and Integrated Color Camera 20/20. If you are shooting in a studio you should be able to control the lighting enough so that you can build a profile for the artwork to use. Have a look at http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/eye_one_photo_SG.html as an example.
-
Is Monitor calibration alone enough with printer supplied profiles?
I read somewhere that to match the print with original, not only Monitor, but the printer altogether has to be calibrated with the same calibrating gadget/ software.
If you want a match between print and display, you have some work ahead. See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Matching that print to the original artwork is a HUGE undertaking and unless you're serious about spending considerable time and money on just the capture setup, with no insurance all colors in all artwork will match, you've got your work cut out for you. Start just attempting to match print and display.
-
Let me first say that it will be impossible to reproduce the ‘exact color’ of the original in most cases. There are likely colors that the printer cannot reproduce. And without really expensive capture equipment, the best you can hope for is acceptable.
Good lighting is usually the first step in art reproduction with a camera. The standard setup being two identical lights at a little less than 45º to the work, equidistant from the work and each other, feathered so that the left light is aimed at the right edge of the work, and the right light aimed at the left edge. You would meter the lights at the surface of the work and adjust so that there is less than a 1/10 stop difference between the center and corners.
If you don’t have an incident meter, you can shoot a plain sheet in place of the artwork, bring it into your editing software, and examine it for even coverage. Shooting tethered to a computer is enormously helpful.
As far as calibration is concerned, the monitor is the most important, and you would want a monitor with as wide a gamut as you can afford.
Printer calibration isn’t the same as the calibration of most other devices. You need a profile for the printer and the paper you are going to print on. And as already pointed out, many paper manufacture’s profiles are very good.
And no, you do not need to use the same device and software to calibrate your monitor, produce paper profiles for your printer, and calibrate your camera.
With a decent lighting setup, a calibrated monitor, you can always shoot a standard color patch card, something like a ColorChecker mini, on every other shot, and use that to manual adjust images. There are fairly simple methods of producing camera profiles: such as the X-rite ColorChecker Passport.
Brian A
-
Check with custom art dealer and professional printers who do this work and ask how they get theirs done.
-
Good lighting is usually the first step in art reproduction with a camera. The standard setup being two identical lights at a little less than 45º to the work, equidistant from the work and each other, feathered so that the left light is aimed at the right edge of the work, and the right light aimed at the left edge. You would meter the lights at the surface of the work and adjust so that there is less than a 1/10 stop difference between the center and corners.
Good lighting is essential...and if you are shooting digital, pretty much forget about tungsten lighting! Why? Digital camera sensors don't reproduce really good color when that far outside of the sensor's intended design spec–which is essentially daylight (D50-D55). Tungsten produces so little blue light output that many colors may reproduce poorly. It's fine for non-critical color and you can get decent results but the lower the color temp, the tougher it will be.
Strobes would work well as well as certain (but not all) LED lights. I would also avoid florescent light sources because even the best daylight high CRI bulbs still produce spiky spectral responses. Again, yes, you can get decent results but some colors just will not be properly rendered by the sensor.
The other issue you'll prolly face is one of brush texture...if the paintings have strongly 3D type paint buildup, you'll get reflections from the lights on the brush stroke. Sometimes this can help give the painting a more dimensional look when printed...other times it can overpower the painting. This is particularly true if your light sources are small and specular vs a broader more even light. Many specialists rely on using polarized light sources and a polarizing filter on the camera. That way you have control over the relative amounts of reflection coming off the painting.
In terms of camera calibration, I would suggest an X-Rite ColorChecker card and X-Rite's Passport software to create an accurate DNG profile for your camera using your final light sources...X-Rite also has several solutions for display calibration.
In terms of printer/paper profiles, if you are using Epson material for the 9900, the odds are the Epson supplied profiles will be really good (as good as custom profiles I can make). If you are talking about 3rd party media, then that will vary considerable depending on the supplier.
You really need to spell out how you are planning of shooting the paintings, what sort of size they are and what sort of lighting you have. To do this really well is a lot more work than many would expect...good luck!
-
Good lighting is essential...and if you are shooting digital, pretty much forget about tungsten lighting! Why? Digital camera sensors don't reproduce really good color when that far outside of the sensor's intended design spec–which is essentially daylight (D50-D55). Tungsten produces so little blue light output that many colors may reproduce poorly. It's fine for non-critical color and you can get decent results but the lower the color temp, the tougher it will be.
Strobes would work well as well as certain (but not all) LED lights. I would also avoid florescent light sources because even the best daylight high CRI bulbs still produce spiky spectral responses. Again, yes, you can get decent results but some colors just will not be properly rendered by the sensor.
The other issue you'll prolly face is one of brush texture...if the paintings have strongly 3D type paint buildup, you'll get reflections from the lights on the brush stroke. Sometimes this can help give the painting a more dimensional look when printed...other times it can overpower the painting. This is particularly true if your light sources are small and specular vs a broader more even light. Many specialists rely on using polarized light sources and a polarizing filter on the camera. That way you have control over the relative amounts of reflection coming off the painting.
Very informative, I will not forget your points...
In terms of camera calibration, I would suggest an X-Rite ColorChecker card and X-Rite's Passport software to create an accurate DNG profile for your camera using your final light sources...X-Rite also has several solutions for display calibration.
But you forgotten Monitor calibration ?
In terms of printer/paper profiles, if you are using Epson material for the 9900, the odds are the Epson supplied profiles will be really good (as good as custom profiles I can make). If you are talking about 3rd party media, then that will vary considerable depending on the supplier.
Here, apart from Epson and other quality substrates, I will have to print on cheaper, Chinese stuff too as per demand for cheaper varieties.
I was wondering how to make profiles for this category. Chinese make some good, cheaper stuff, but they never heard of 'Profiling' .
You really need to spell out how you are planning of shooting the paintings, what sort of size they are and what sort of lighting you have. To do this really well is a lot more work than many would expect...good luck!
Thanks...
-
Check with custom art dealer and professional printers who do this work and ask how they get theirs done.
Unfortunately nobody in my locality, and thats why I plan to enter this field.
There are art dealers/ art galleries, but they sell original paintings alone. One or two print with Epson, but no color calibrated environments. They just print from the CDs brought by clients. Clients are not even heard of color management tools.
So, finally I have to find my way, hence here...
Thanks.
-
But you forgotten Monitor calibration ?
Sorry...X-Rite offers two levels of display calibration– i1Disply Pro (http://www.xrite.com/i1display-pro) and ColorMunki (http://www.colormunki.com/).
If you will need to do multiple paper/printer profiles, perhaps the i1Photo Pro 2 (http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?ID=1913)(which would handle both camera, display and RGB based printer profiles).
-
You really need to spell out how you are planning of shooting the paintings, what sort of size they are and what sort of lighting you have. To do this really well is a lot more work than many would expect...good luck!
I planed to copy paintings with a Sony A7r camera, with a 'flat-field' lens like a 50mm /2.5 or tr get an old Schneider copy lens or so. Painting could be as big as 6x4 feet. If bigger, I will have to take tiles and stitch.
Is it possible to take such big size in single image, not sure. And I have to reproduce them in exact actual sizes.
-
Is it possible to take such big size in single image, not sure. And I have to reproduce them in exact actual sizes.
Well, you won't be able to repro a 6'x4' painting 1:1 cause, well, the 9900 can only go up to 44".
Shooting in tiles for stitching complicates matters...can be done but in magnifies the technical issues...are you prepared for that?
-
I'd strongly recommend cross-polarized light (as Jeff mentioned). The difference in overall contrast and color richness is huge, see attachments.
That means the light source has to be strobes, because polarizing sheets are not heat resistant.
The most efficient way is to fit pieces of polarizer (equally oriented) directly on the strobe reflectors, and then rotate the lens polarizer for maximum effect. One potential problem is that for very textured paint, or 3d relief type works, point light sources may give you unpleasantly harsh shadows. This can be overcome by fitting larger sheets on strip soft boxes - but in general, diffuse light increases the risk of specular highlights. Some experimenting will be needed.
-
Here, apart from Epson and other quality substrates, I will have to print on cheaper, Chinese stuff too as per demand for cheaper varieties.
I was wondering how to make profiles for this category. Chinese make some good, cheaper stuff, but they never heard of 'Profiling' .
Two sheets of A4 or 8.5" x 11", US$25 up to US$100, postage one way, and you could have a custom profile for the paper of your choice emailed to you.
Brian A
-
Color management:
Quite a bit of learning curve.
But have to learn it.
Any good reference books advisable, preferably giving guidance for day to day work, rather than with highly detailed engineering jargons ?
-
Andrew Rodney (aka digitaldog) wrote the best book on the subject - see the footer to his post above.
I wrote a few much briefer summaries for a local camera club, including a "cheat sheet" which has a lot of links and references to other sources of information I've found useful. See http://www.simongarrett.co.uk/ (http://www.simongarrett.co.uk/)
-
Andrew Rodney (aka digitaldog) wrote the best book on the subject - see the footer to his post above.
I wrote a few much briefer summaries for a local camera club, including a "cheat sheet" which has a lot of links and references to other sources of information I've found useful. See http://www.simongarrett.co.uk/ (http://www.simongarrett.co.uk/)
By having a look, seems your cheat sheet and summaries are great, rather enough, why go for another book? ;D
Thanks a lot...
-
Just keep in mind that it isn't as complicated as many people will tell you it is... it may seem confusing on the surface, but the basic underlying principle is universal and applies everywhere (no, it's not 42 ;D)
Here it is: source color space > profile connection space > destination color space. The PCS in the middle there is the fixed color reference. It's under the hood and hidden to the user, but ties everything together.
So you as a user need to keep track of two profiles - a source profile, and a destination profile. What color space is the file coming from, and what color space is it going to. That's basically it.
What complicates it is when color management stops, in applications that don't do it. Then anything can happen, and troubleshooting consists mainly of figuring out exactly where the chain breaks.
-
Thanks Fosse,
It is a valuable short cut.
In fact I am in a bit bewildered situation thinking to continue my School days once again to crack some hard nuts of physics or science, which was the toughest subjects in my life ;D ???
-
Calibration:
Should I go for X-Rite i1Basic Pro 2 which is cheaper, or X-Rite i1Photo Pro 2 ?
Need my camera and monitor has to be calibrated,and I need to profile various substrates.
Thanks
-
You would be better off getting i1Photo Pro 2 for printer calibration support as well (RGB). Have a look at X-Rite's site to compare the products to see which one is preferable for your requirements (now and future ones).
-
Further on my browsing and study, found a FREE software solution 'ArgyllCMS'.
It is open source, and people acclaim it's effectiveness.
Then why on earth I spent some $2000 on i1Photo pro2, is my question.
Some suggested ArgyllCMS+Colormunki hardware is best.
Some sharing please...
-
Further on my browsing and study, found a FREE software solution 'ArgyllCMS'.
It is open source, and people acclaim it's effectiveness.
Then why on earth I spent some $2000 on i1Photo pro2, is my question.
Some suggested ArgyllCMS+Colormunki hardware is best.
Some sharing please...
I use the ColorMunki Display and Argyll s/w. The only disadvantage (apart from the pain of figuring out how to install Argyll, and the dispcalGUI Windows interface) is that with the ColorMunki Display it's a bit slow - over 30 minutes for "Calibration speed: Medium" and "Profile quality: High".
-
Further on my browsing and study, found a FREE software solution 'ArgyllCMS'.
It is open source, and people acclaim it's effectiveness.
Then why on earth I spent some $2000 on i1Photo pro2, is my question.
Some suggested ArgyllCMS+Colormunki hardware is best.
Some sharing please...
ColorMunki Photo/Design spectrophotometer has some problems regarding reading large amount of colour patches - it gets warm from scanning and operators hand, which has influence on measurements. It's also not convenient in such activities. The sensor has UV-cut LED emitter, so it also doesn't take paper OBA into account. It also captures a lot of noise when measuring dark patches, which implies that it's not the best sensor out there for monitor calibration
i1Pro2 has electronic thermal drift and dark current noise compensation, VIS tungsten and UV LED emitters, a very smart and convenient ruler for semi-automatic scanning of target patches, and wavelength calibration - so it offers faster, more stable, repeatable and "clean" measurements, can compensate for OBA, and has quite good i1Profiler software, which is much simpler in use than mighty ArgyllCMS that's quite complicated and not convenient in use at all - while dispcalGUI simplifies monitor calibration and profiling, there's no reasonable GUI for printer profiling.
In case you have time and skill to play with command line spells of Argyll, I'd suggest getting an used i1Pro1 rather than ColorMunki Photo/Design - a ruler for semi-automatic measurements of target patches for printer profile creation should not be underestimated.
-
+1 to the i1 pro2 photo. I use it and find it very usefull without eating up my time.
-
Further on my browsing and study, found a FREE software solution 'ArgyllCMS'. It is open source, and people acclaim it's effectiveness. Then why on earth I spent some $2000 on i1Photo pro2, is my question. Some suggested ArgyllCMS+Colormunki hardware is best. Some sharing please...
You're paying at least $450 to $1500 for the hardware to handle chart/spot reading (as a true spectrophotometer). At the cheapest you would be spending about $450 for a ColorMunki Photo which is UV-cut as Czornyj mentions (with other issues), or possibly $1150 for the i1Pro2 hardware (in the i1 Basic Pro 2 configuration) which handles both UV-cut and no filter recordings however I'd recommend getting i1Photo Pro 2 so you could at least do RGB profiles. (That's assuming you're buying new - you could get a cheaper second hand i1Pro however there are quite a few combos released over the years that limit what you can do*).
You could use Argyll CMS as Simon mentions with DispCal GUI for monitor profiling or you could use Argyll CMS GUI + the command line tools if you wanted to experiment with chart or spot reading. However, your milage would vary with how much time you can put into it, as Czornyj says. If you wanted to you could download the i1Profiler software (in demo mode) to compare with Argyll CMS to see which one would be easiest to handle for what you're trying to do. You can check the docs for Argyll here (http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Scenarios.htm). Unfortunately I haven't really gotten into Argyll myself - mostly due to lack of time to devote to it unfortunately!
Getting back to your original question i1Profiler itself won't do Camera calibration (though it would do the Monitor and Printer calibration) as you'd need the ColorChecker Passport software or other software + photographable target such as one of the ColorCheckers (original, Passport or SG), SpyderCheckr or some other target with known or measure values you can use to help build the camera profile. In general once you have a target (usually you get the ColorChecker Mini with i1 Photo Pro 2) you can photograph this and use it with different software packages. It'll be up to you to try out and find which one works best for you in your workflow.
* When it comes to second hand i1 Pro's there's a stack of them on the market that have different licensing which breaks down to roughly:
1) Whether you have a license for i1Match or i1Profiler (some rare ones have both if they were upgraded) - if it was a 3rd party OEM product bundled with EFI or CalMAN/ChromaPure it may have no licenses at all.
2) What features are enabled in i1Match (from memory camera, profile editor, CMYK, RGB and scanner support could be enabled from i1Basic Pro).
3) What features are enabled in i1Profiler (generally just Display, then options for Scanner/Camera + RGB or then +CMYK profiling).
None of the above impacts Argyll CMS however, only i1Profiler or i1Match (less of a problem as it's been deprecated). If you were after i1Profiler and buying second hand you should get the i1 Photo Pro bundle (version 1 or 2 with i1Profiler), otherwise it's likely it wouldn't be licensed. If you were happy with Argyll CMS you don't have to worry - you're after the hardware only.
Note: X-Rite changed the names around, so you may see the older bundles as Eye-One (instead of i1), or i1Basic, i1XT, i1XTreme, i1Photo, i1Photo SG, i1Proof, etc with or without UV-cut. So gets pretty difficult to work out exactly what you're getting sometimes on second hand deals.
-
Thank you Simon Garrett, Czornyj, JRSmit, PhilipCummins, D Fosse and many others who helped me with expert advices.
I was about to buy ‘i1photo pro2’, as it calibrate my A7r, monitor, and make printer profiles for 9900.
It is Simon Garrett brought in the ‘Argyll’ thing. I become interested in the FREE software against the $1500 X-Rite.
And also the usual ‘getting something free’ happiness too….
Now if you majority say, FREE is not free, time is the cost, well, I will backtrack to pay for X-Rite.
-
Yup, it's kind of useful to separate the hardware from the software in terms of what you're paying for. The big costs here are of course for hardware (i1Pro-2 or whatever device you end up getting). And indeed, time is money.