Printer Profiles Argyll CMS vs. Color Munki

[LGeb]

I'm using a Color Munki device. Past profiles were made with the provided software and I've been making newer ones with Argyll CMS. Inspecting the profiles in the Apple ColorSync utility I see a difference in that all the Color Munki profiles extend all the way to black and the Argyll profiles seem to stop above black. Both seem to print the same way. What is the difference? Is there a better tool to use to inspect the profiles?

The attached file is the only one I have done for the same paper on the same printer, but the results seem to be the same comparing the older Color Munki profiles from the 3380 to the new ones I'm making for the P800.

[Doug Gray]

I'm using a Color Munki device. Past profiles were made with the provided software and I've been making newer ones with Argyll CMS. Inspecting the profiles in the Apple ColorSync utility I see a difference in that all the Color Munki profiles extend all the way to black and the Argyll profiles seem to stop above black. Both seem to print the same way. What is the difference? Is there a better tool to use to inspect the profiles?

The attached file is the only one I have done for the same paper on the same printer, but the results seem to be the same comparing the older Color Munki profiles from the 3380 to the new ones I'm making for the P800.

Gamut displays typically use either Relative or, more often, Absolute Colorimetry and the gap between the gamut volume and L=0 is from the paper's Dmax.

Most likely they print the same way because you are either using Perceptual Intent or Relative with BPC. If you print with Relative Colorimetry and unselect BPC the prints will most likely not be the same in the shadows. First I've heard of Color Munki profiles doing this. I1 profiler does not. At least in RI for both V2 and V4 profiles.

There is a possibility that the Color Munki, which generates V4 profiles is using the "B and A" curves to scale from the paper's black point. Most gamut display software as well as production apps like the current Photoshop ignore the A and B curves. This can reduce the accuracy of soft proofing.

I don't have a Color Munki profile but have tools to examine profiles. I'd be happy to take a look at yours to see what the issue is.

EtoA:
I see that Color Munki has the option to generate V2 profiles. I would recommend you do that and see if the gamut viewer is correct.

[digitaldog]

Not all gamut viewers are created equally or show you the same attributes:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_26

[Doug Gray]

Not all gamut viewers are created equally or show you the same attributes:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_26

Yikes. So ColorSync doesn't even have an option to use Absolute Colorimetric for displaying gamut. And given that perceptual intent isn't even defined what does it's 3D gamut display even mean?

[LGeb]

Both profiles seem to print the same. I've been using Relative Intent with black point compensation, so it sounds like that's expected. I'll try some testing without BPC on both profiles and see if there's any visible difference there.

Any recommendations on profile tools/viewers to better compare profiles? I started out trying to see the relative gamuts of a couple of papers when I noticed this difference.

[Doug Gray]

Both profiles seem to print the same. I've been using Relative Intent with black point compensation, so it sounds like that's expected. I'll try some testing without BPC on both profiles and see if there's any visible difference there.

Any recommendations on profile tools/viewers to better compare profiles? I started out trying to see the relative gamuts of a couple of papers when I noticed this difference.

If you have Photoshop there's a good chance you will see a difference if you view soft proof using Relative Colorimetric Intent, select shows paper color, but without BPC. Then just switch between profile 1 and profile 2. Look for changes in the deeper shadows.