Printing Color Test Patches for a Custom Profile

[BradSmith]

I'm ordering a custom profile from a service.  They've sent me the 2 patch files as tif's.  Below is the first of the patches - "Patches pg1 File".  I'm on a Mac, so I printed the file using the Adobe Color Print Utility.  It printed very dark - see the second file "Print from Ad.Col.Print.Util".  So I printed it again through Adobe Color Print Utility on a very different paper, and it printed similarly dark.  Then as a validity check, I imported the tif file into Lightroom, with no adjustments, and printed it on a glossy paper with appropriate profile and the print is a very close match to the screen, as I'd expect.  I'm an experienced printer, using a calibrated NEC @ 100 cd/m2 with an Epson 3800. In ACPU, I used the correct media type for each of the papers, with color management off in the Epson driver.

Should the prints vary so widely from the appearance of the tif file?  I don't want to send these in and find out something is very wrong on my end.
thanks
Brad

[Mark D Segal]

It's not necessarily wrong that there be a difference of appearance between the print of the target and its appearance on your monitor. What I find troubling is the uneveness of the luminance - the left side being considerably darker than the rest of it. You do not say what your settings were in ACPU and what papers you used. It may help verify whether there are problems to know this

[digitaldog]

There's really nothing to gain visually by viewing those prints. DO triple check all the printer settings, that inks are firing cleanly etc.

[BradSmith]

Mark and Andrew,
Thanks for the quick responses.  The paper I want to order the profile for is Epson Legacy Platine.  The other paper I printed a target for was Eps. Prem Glossy PP.  Here are the print settings for each.  (I used media type Luster for the print on Platine because that is what Epson says to use...I think)
Brad
 

[Mark D Segal]

Those settings look correct Brad, so if there is a problem, that's not the source of it. Quite possibly, those targets reflect the native behaviour of your 3800, which of course the profile you order should help correct for. I'm still wondering about the uneveness of the luminance between the left side and the remainder that you show. Is this really in the target print, or is it a result of how you reproduced the target for posting? Presumably you did a nozzle check before printing. You may wish to reprint the targets using the same settings on the same two papers to see whether you still get the same kind of results. Machines are machines and as good as they are, sometimes "s..t" happens and we may never know why. If they still come out dark, I think it sensible to send them to your profiling contractor and tell him/her what your observations are.

[Rhossydd]

Should the prints vary so widely from the appearance of the tif file?

In the case of Epson printers, yes. I've measured thousands of pages of profiling targets and unprofiled prints from Epson are universally darker than then they appear on screen.

If you think about it, why would you build a printer profile if the screen and unprofiled print matched ?

My concern is whether the profiling business actually has a licence to use i1Profiler for commercial remote profiling as, without separate agreement from X-Rite, it's against the EULA of the software. Unlikely I'd suggest, as they haven't been smart enough to use an optimum patch sample size.

[BradSmith]

If you think about it, why would you build a printer profile if the screen and unprofiled print matched ?

My concern is whether the profiling business actually has a licence to use i1Profiler for commercial remote profiling as, without separate agreement from X-Rite, it's against the EULA of the software. Unlikely I'd suggest, as they haven't been smart enough to use an optimum patch sample size.

Thanks for your feedback based on you having read many profile targets.  I was not expecting the output to match the screen, but I guess I was expecting more random variance in color tone/saturation and not such an overly dark output.  Regarding "optimum patch sample size", they sent two files to print with a total of approximately 1000 patches.  What would you (or the profiling hardware manufacturer)  consider a more optimum number of patches to be?

thanks
Brad

[Mark D Segal]

My concern is whether the profiling business actually has a licence to use i1Profiler for commercial remote profiling as, without separate agreement from X-Rite, it's against the EULA of the software. Unlikely I'd suggest, as they haven't been smart enough to use an optimum patch sample size.

Why are you concerned about such a legal matter when the OP raised a technical question?

[digitaldog]

In the case of Epson printers, yes. I've measured thousands of pages of profiling targets and unprofiled prints from Epson are universally darker than then they appear on screen.

Considering the data is printed without color management, that's not surprising.

[Rhossydd]

Considering the data is printed without color management, that's not surprising.

Maybe, but the behaviour of Canon and HP printers is far less radical and distinctive.

[Rhossydd]

Why are you concerned about such a legal matter when the OP raised a technical question?

I answered the technical aspect first, but many photographers are rightly highly protective of IPR and should respect the IPR of other creators of protected work.

[Mark D Segal]

I answered the technical aspect first, but many photographers are rightly highly protective of IPR and should respect the IPR of other creators of protected work.

Firstly, you don't know what kind of license the profiling entity has - so why speculate; I expect a firm like X-Rite can look after its own commercial interests - that is probably what they do best; and secondly, getting back to the more substantive technical side, I am interested to hear your view on what "an optimum number" of patches is, because I don't think this matter is all that unambiguous.

[Rhossydd]

Firstly, you don't know what kind of license the profiling entity has - so why speculate;

Having inquired about getting an extension to my i1P licence without any success, I'm a little sceptical that this organisation would supply an unbranded chart if they had a full licence agreement for it.
Maybe I'm wrong and in other territories X-Rite are more cooperative.

I am interested to hear your view on what "an optimum number" of patches is, because I don't think this matter is all that unambiguous.

This has been discussed on here at length before in a few different threads since i1P was first released.
Back read the threads and you'll find references to how there are certain 'sweet spots' in the number of patches that can give better results.

[digitaldog]

Having inquired about getting an extension to my i1P licence without any success, I'm a little sceptical that this organisation would supply an unbranded chart if they had a full licence agreement for it.
Maybe I'm wrong and in other territories X-Rite are more cooperative.

Depending on if you want to go with the letter of the law or not, it's kind of moot. It's super easy for someone who knows what they are doing to remove all the tags that identity the profile was built by X-rite. X-rite keeps (or did keep) changing the EULA. For profile services, one can obtain permission from X-rite to do so. What they are really trying to protect themselves from and should is a big company, like a paper company, supplying profiles built with their products; such companies are supposed to pay a hefty licensing fee for this and should. For someone building a custom profile for one user, I think you're fine. They apparently even allow people who rent their equipment to let the renters of the hardware build their own paper profiles.

[Rhossydd]

Depending on if you want to go with the letter of the law or not, it's kind of moot.

Not really.
X-Rite's previous licences for Profile Maker Pro specifically allowed the licensee to offer a general remote profiling service. When i1Profiler was released the EULA changed and no longer allowed it. Remote profiling is only allowable under very specific conditions.
Again this was discussed here in some detail when i1P was first released.

It's super easy for someone who knows what they are doing to remove all the tags that identity the profile was built by X-rite.

Which constitute reverse engineering/modifying the product and is against the EULA too.

What they are really trying to protect themselves from and should is a big company, like a paper company, supplying profiles built with their products;

Probably true, but it also seems to attempt to protect specialist consultants who work making profiles on-site too.

[digitaldog]

Not really.
When i1Profiler was released the EULA changed and no longer allowed it.

And that was again changed due to the uproar. That was then, this is now.

Which constitute reverse engineering/modifying the product and is against the EULA too.

Yes it does depending on your expertise as a lawyer. That part of the EULA can't be enforced if X-rite hasn't a clue what built the profile. I'm not advocating this, I'm pointing out it's not enforceable.
This is like the current silly debate about bathrooms in this country. The 'right' tells us to protect privacy, boys born boys should go to one bathroom while girls born girls go to the other. But to enforce this, everyone would have to provide a birth certificates then pull down their pants, showing their genitals to the bathroom police. So much for privacy. IOW, this is silly can can't be enforced.

Probably true, but it also seems to attempt to protect specialist consultants who work making profiles on-site too.

NOT if said specialist’s contact X-rite for permission which after the flair up over the original EULA, X-rite said they would provide. Again, that was then, this is now.

[digitaldog]

Notification of Revised End User License Agreement (EULA)
for X-Rite i1 Solutions
May 23, 2011
Dear Consultant,
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued support of X-Rite color management solutions. We certainly value the services and education you provide to the imaging community regarding color management workflows. We also recognize that X-Rite's i1 solutions and legacy profiling applications have become part of your go-to tool set to meet your customers' needs. To that end, we are excited about our next generation i1 Professional Color Management Solutions which includes the new i1Profiler software. We certainly hope that you will embrace and adapt our new i1 solutions to deliver unrivaled color quality to your customers.
As you know, the industry has changed quite a bit since our legacy profiling solutions first came to market - even since our last updates. Some of these changes include a broader distribution of generic profiles, as well as broad based online profiling service models (that do not include significant billable services involving personalized customer interaction). As part of the i1 Pro solutions, X-Rite felt it was an appropriate time to update our EULA (end user license agreement) to better reflect current practices of profile distribution business models.
X-Rite did release a new EULA on April 6, 2011 containing some language that several of you voiced concerns over and have since provided us with valuable input. Based on these interactions we are pleased to provide you with a revised EULA, which is retroactively effective as of April 6, 2011.
It is not our intention to question or monitor your business practice. However, there are two types of profile distribution practices that will require a separate distribution agreement with X-Rite. The first point has been in place for many years, while the second point is a newaddition. Taken from the EULA they are as follows:(i) in conjunction with the sale or promotion of an input, display or output device and/or ink or paper if such sale or promotion extends beyond a single customer-specific application,
(ii) in conjunction with profiling services that are offered electronically or online, including through electronic media, email or other network-based communication channels, without significant billable services that involve personalized customer interaction. We recognize that each business is unique and we are happy to grant individual agreements that can be adapted to your business models and requirements. If you think you may need a special agreement, or have any specific questions about this, please visit our website and complete the inquiry form. We will have an X-Rite sales or marketing representative contact you. Visit xrite.com/specialEULA .
For your reference, a copy of the entire EULA can be downloaded by clicking here. You can also find it online under the Support section of related products.
Thank you for your continued support of X-Rite solutions. We look forward to continuing a mutually beneficial relationship with you.
With kind regards
The i1 Solutions Team
X-Rite, Incorporated

[Rhossydd]

Not withstanding your quotes above;
The current EULA that users must agree to on installation http://www.xrite.com/i1profiler-i1publish/support/kb5482 doesn't allow you to offer a remote profiling service without an additional licence.

Maybe that easy or cheap to get in the USA, but in the UK they didn't want to discuss it when I asked.

[digitaldog]

Maybe that easy or cheap to get in the USA, but in the UK they didn't want to discuss it when I asked.

Did try through http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?PageID=244?

[BradSmith]

I'm a little sceptical that this organisation would supply an unbranded chart if they had a full licence agreement for it.

Take a look at the images of the charts in my original post.  Lower right hand corner identified it as an XRite product.  I'd call that "branded"