Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Do I really need a spectro ?  (Read 4588 times)

Bobby17543

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Do I really need a spectro ?
« on: May 14, 2016, 06:26:54 pm »

If I am using papers from a source such as Epson that provides color profiles on their site, what value is it to me to invest in a Spectrometer to create profiles ? 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #1 on: May 14, 2016, 06:33:31 pm »

There may be none. It depends on whether you are satisfied with the reliability and quality of the prints you get using their profiles, which these days on the whole happen to be pretty good. I do make custom profiles for my own use. Sometimes they are better than OEM profiles, sometimes not, and sometimes better in some respects than others. The kit for making seriously better profiles is costly, so I would advise testing whether you are happy with the supplied profiles before going any further. And if you do decide you need a custom profile or two, it would be cheaper to order them from an experienced profile maker such as Onsight or Digitaldog, rather than investing in a good spectro and software.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Bobby17543

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #2 on: May 14, 2016, 06:38:46 pm »

Thank you.  That answers my question perfectly :)
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #3 on: May 14, 2016, 07:13:40 pm »

If I am using papers from a source such as Epson that provides color profiles on their site, what value is it to me to invest in a Spectrometer to create profiles ?
You might, you might not. Not all ICC printer profiles are created equally!


Not all ICC profiles are created equally

In this 23 minute video, I'll cover:
The basic anatomy of ICC Profiles
Why there are differences in profile quality and color rendering
How to evaluate an ICC output profile
Examples of good and not so good canned profiles and custom profiles on actual printed output.

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4
Low resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdR_tIFMME&feature=youtu.be
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1984
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #4 on: May 14, 2016, 07:18:52 pm »

and dont forget that you can rent one or simply pay someone to make a custom profile for you.  All much cheaper than buying one.

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #5 on: May 15, 2016, 10:32:26 am »

and dont forget that you can rent one or simply pay someone to make a custom profile for you.  All much cheaper than buying one.

Yes, the last sentence of reply #1 says as much about outsourcing a profile or several. But I didn't mention "renting". Howard, I have never heard of renting a profile - how/where does one do this? And what are the merits of it in your opinion?
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1984
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #6 on: May 15, 2016, 12:28:45 pm »

'Renting' a profile was totally not what I was saying.

I was simply saying that the OP could rent something like a ColorMunki Photo for a few days and make his own.  As a mid-scale solution between buying one (either the CM Photo or the i1Pro or such) outright and having one or more made for him by DDog or On-Sight or some other enterprise.  Actually, I'm 99.999% sure that On-Sight will NOT make them for the general public.  He only makes them for full color management customers of his.  I dont recall which paper company (or reseller) but one of them will make a custom profile for you for $0 if you buy their paper.

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #7 on: May 15, 2016, 12:32:34 pm »

'Renting' a profile was totally not what I was saying.

I was simply saying that the OP could rent something like a ColorMunki Photo for a few days and make his own.  As a mid-scale solution between buying one (either the CM Photo or the i1Pro or such) outright and having one or more made for him by DDog or On-Sight or some other enterprise.  Actually, I'm 99.999% sure that On-Sight will NOT make them for the general public.  He only makes them for full color management customers of his.  I dont recall which paper company (or reseller) but one of them will make a custom profile for you for $0 if you buy their paper.

You said "you can rent one" - it wasn't clear what you meant by "one". Now it is. Thanks. As for OnSight, the OP can ping Scott Martin and find out if his service policy has changed, but in times past he has made profiles for me, for his usual fee, and I am not one of his "full color management customers". He did an excellent job and that is why I recommended him.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1984
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #8 on: May 15, 2016, 12:40:57 pm »

Actually, I did try to go to his website and verify the stated policy as I was writing my previous response but it seems to be down at the moment.  I do definitely recall a statement though indicating he wasn't in the business of making profiles for non-customers. 

Perhaps he did you a favor or his policy has changed since times past.  That might be true due to the silly EULA fight we all had w/ XRite when the Pro2 came out and they explicitly said you can't go making profiles unless it's part of an on-going customer engagement (ie. you're a color consultant as a full-time gig and travel to customers).  That's how I recall it.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2016, 02:00:42 pm »

Apparently X-rite has changed their EULA such one can rent a Spectrophotometer and build their own profiles which is kind of cool (not that this specific product, while very good for the price, can necessarily compare with higher end Spectrophotometer's and software. Not all profiles are created equally).


I can't imagine how or why anyone would 'rent an ICC profile'.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #10 on: May 15, 2016, 02:25:53 pm »

My experience from manufacturer printer paper profiles is that they are like consumer camera profiles -- too high contrast too high saturation to impress the layman. Maybe there's exceptions to that rule, I haven't found any though but then I haven't used Epson's stuff so I can't review that.

I guess a printer profiling service could help, there are such things around.

In the end what matters is that you can get predictable output. I have a Colormunki Spectrometer and have used Argyll software instead of the bundled to "hot it up" to a pro level, and calibrated/profiled both screen and paper. Totally worth it I'd say. I use simpler screens, Dell usually have good price/performance, and calibrate them -- a good alternative to getting a high end factory-calibrated Eizo. With both screen and paper profiled the matching is great, and one doesn't need to make many test prints.

On the other hand if you're not that picky with color and contrast, factory stuff can be okay. I'm quite picky myself, but I know people that are worse... ;)

Here's an illustration of what you could expect:



In the middle the original image as seen on a screen, to the left a simulation showing how well a printer profile would match made with Colormunki/Argyll, and to the right a simulation with the bundled manufacturer-provided profile. The bundled profile exaggerates contrast and saturation, and the hues are not really correct, most easily seen in the plain blue sky. The monochrome picture is also less neutral, and the stronger contrast kills shadow detail of the original image. Many would think the bundled profile's result is "fine" though.

The image comes from a guide I made last year of how to make printer profiles with Argyll using a Colormunki (for example):
http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/argyll-print.html
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 02:31:00 pm by torger »
Logged

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1984
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #11 on: May 15, 2016, 02:34:03 pm »

Torger,  on the left & right images, do you have the 'Simulate paper/ink' (ie. make my image look like crap) button on or off?

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #12 on: May 15, 2016, 03:08:20 pm »

Torger,  on the left & right images, do you have the 'Simulate paper/ink' (ie. make my image look like crap) button on or off?

LittleCMS tifficc is used for soft-proofing here. I haven't written down which command I used for those images but it's likely:

tifficc -v -w16 -t1 -b -e -i printer.icc -o*sRGB print.tif proof.tif

This command is not simulating the paper or paper white as that is not producing a good perceptual match. For semi-glossy papers and the screen set to 6500k and viewing lamp at 5000k the similarity between screen and paper is very good. It's a bit more tricky to soft-proof matte papers due to the brighter blackpoint.

I know some run the screen at 5000k too as it's "mathematically correct", but that's a mistake as the eye doesn't make a full chromatic adaptation to a screen, probably due to the spiky spectra. That's why 6500k on screen (usually) matches quite well with 5000k on paper. People need to believe their eyes rather than instruments when it comes to screen/paper whitepoint matching.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2016, 03:14:11 pm by torger »
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2197
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #13 on: May 15, 2016, 03:43:29 pm »

LittleCMS tifficc is used for soft-proofing here. I haven't written down which command I used for those images but it's likely:

tifficc -v -w16 -t1 -b -e -i printer.icc -o*sRGB print.tif proof.tif

This command is not simulating the paper or paper white as that is not producing a good perceptual match. For semi-glossy papers and the screen set to 6500k and viewing lamp at 5000k the similarity between screen and paper is very good. It's a bit more tricky to soft-proof matte papers due to the brighter blackpoint.

I know some run the screen at 5000k too as it's "mathematically correct", but that's a mistake as the eye doesn't make a full chromatic adaptation to a screen, probably due to the spiky spectra. That's why 6500k on screen (usually) matches quite well with 5000k on paper. People need to believe their eyes rather than instruments when it comes to screen/paper whitepoint matching.

A few thoughts on this:
  • Targetting to sRGB will limit the proofing of highly saturated cyans and greens. It's a good option if you don't have a wide gamut monitor.
  • If you drop the "-b" flag it should soft proof matte papers better.
  • It normalizes the image output to the paper's white point so you may see some variation depending on the amount of OBAs in the paper.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #14 on: May 15, 2016, 03:46:01 pm »

I know some run the screen at 5000k too as it's "mathematically correct", but that's a mistake as the eye doesn't make a full chromatic adaptation to a screen, probably due to the spiky spectra. That's why 6500k on screen (usually) matches quite well with 5000k on paper. People need to believe their eyes rather than instruments when it comes to screen/paper whitepoint matching.
I don't even think it's mathematically correct considering any CCT value is a range of possible colors of white. Of course, the illuminant under which the print is viewed, next to the display plays a huge role. And the possibility of OBAs in the paper. The correct number, which would vary even using the same measuring device but with differing software products, is the number that produces a match. I suppose if the star's align correctly, it could be CCT 5000K. It's never been for me.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

torger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3267
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #15 on: May 15, 2016, 03:58:20 pm »

A few thoughts on this:
  • Targetting to sRGB will limit the proofing of highly saturated cyans and greens. It's a good option if you don't have a wide gamut monitor.
  • If you drop the "-b" flag it should soft proof matte papers better.
  • It normalizes the image output to the paper's white point so you may see some variation depending on the amount of OBAs in the paper.

Good points. There's a more complete section of how to use tifficc for various soft proofing stuff here:
http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/argyll-print.html#soft_proofing
I need to refresh it myself every time as I don't print as often as I'd like.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12512
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #16 on: May 15, 2016, 04:02:01 pm »

Actually, I did try to go to his website and verify the stated policy as I was writing my previous response but it seems to be down at the moment.  I do definitely recall a statement though indicating he wasn't in the business of making profiles for non-customers. 

Perhaps he did you a favor or his policy has changed since times past.  That might be true due to the silly EULA fight we all had w/ XRite when the Pro2 came out and they explicitly said you can't go making profiles unless it's part of an on-going customer engagement (ie. you're a color consultant as a full-time gig and travel to customers).  That's how I recall it.

Yes Howard - good that you raise the X-Rite EULA issue. Silly doesn't begin to describe it. However, they have modestly "improved" the terms over several releases of this agreement and it has become a bit less rigid. I haven't checked because it doesn't apply to me, but perhaps they also sell a commercial license that costs more for people in the profile-making/colour management business that don't have these kind of restrictions.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1984
Re: Do I really need a spectro ?
« Reply #17 on: May 15, 2016, 04:33:58 pm »

Good points. There's a more complete section of how to use tifficc for various soft proofing stuff here:
http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/argyll-print.html#soft_proofing
I need to refresh it myself every time as I don't print as often as I'd like.

On that page, there is an error in the URL you give for LittleCMS.  It's missing the ':' after 'http'.
Pages: [1]   Go Up