making printer profiles for the first time...

[smthopr]

I bought a used EFI ES-2000 version of the i1 pro2 for creating 3D LUT with spectro offsets for my i1 Display pro probe.  This worked very well for display calibration for Davinci Resolve motion picture color correction software.

The probe is only licensed for use with the EFI profile making software for making printer profiles and I've just made my 1st printer profile using this software and it looks pretty good!

But I do have a couple questions about settings when making the profile and printing the target.

1. When printing the target I'm presented with a choice of M0, M1, or M2 (having to do with UV settings).  The default was "M0" so I used that with to create the target, but I'm not sure that was the best or proper choice.  I'm using an Epson 3800 printer and Innova Fiba-White_Ultra_smooth_gloss paper.

2. After measuring the target, when creating the profile, I'm given a choice of D50, D60, D65 (I assume this is the viewing environment).  The default was "D50" so I used that, but also created a profile for "D65" (my display setting right now).  I made a couple test prints and could not see any difference between the prints or the soft proof when switching between these profiles.  Maybe there is a very subtle difference between them.  Any suggestions or comments about this?

I know that not many, if any, here are using this software, but I suspect, behind the interface, it's using some version of the i1 software with added functionality for users of the Fiery system.

The first prints I've made look pretty good, and a little bit better than the profile supplied by Innova for their paper

[Mark D Segal]

Bruce, I think the answers to these questions are pretty generic. The Innova papers I'm familiar with, including I believe that one, are pretty rich in OBAs, so you would use M0 or M1 for the measurement condition. But you could try profiling for all three and keep the rendition you like best. You can read the paper white with your spectro and if you see a purplish spike at the 400nm end of the spectrum that's a giveaway - you have OBAs; or use a Black Light UV flashlight. The D50 versus D65 setting is more about the viewing environment of the prints. If you are viewing the prints in relatively warm lighting (such as halogens), D50 is fine. If the viewing conditions are cooler, the D65 profile may produce slightly better looking results. The differences are subtle.

[smthopr]

Bruce, I think the answers to these questions are pretty generic. The Innova papers I'm familiar with, including I believe that one, are pretty rich in OBAs, so you would use M0 or M1 for the measurement condition. But you could try profiling for all three and keep the rendition you like best. You can read the paper white with your spectro and if you see a purplish spike at the 400nm end of the spectrum that's a giveaway - you have OBAs; or use a Black Light UV flashlight. The D50 versus D65 setting is more about the viewing environment of the prints. If you are viewing the prints in relatively warm lighting (such as halogens), D50 is fine. If the viewing conditions are cooler, the D65 profile may produce slightly better looking results. The differences are subtle.

Thanks Mark.  It seems that one needs to print and measure a new target to change the UV setting, so a bit of work.  Yes, this paper has OBAs.  If I had a paper that was OBA free, would I choose a different setting?  And... does this depend on the type of spectro probe that I'm using?  Would it need to be UV cut or something like that?

And about the viewing conditions, I have no idea at this point what lighting would be used to ultimately view a print

[Mark D Segal]

I don't know your software package, or the specifics of the EFI version of the spectro you are using. I am using an i1Pro2 with i1Profiler. Using the dual scan mode, I read the target once (two passes per row of patches), and it stores data for all three M conditions. All I need to do after creating the first profile is go back to the measurement page, change the M condition to one of the others and then revert to the profile tab and recompute the profile. No more measurements, no reprinting. I don't know whether your materials work that conveniently. As for the D50-D65 business, if you are uncertain about the viewing conditions but think they are more than likely not to be daylight, based on what I see with my prints I think the D50 setting should be good. Best is to experiment and see. Only a few sheets of paper and a bit of time.

[smthopr]

I don't know your software package, or the specifics of the EFI version of the spectro you are using. I am using an i1Pro2 with i1Profiler. Using the dual scan mode, I read the target once (two passes per row of patches), and it stores data for all three M conditions. All I need to do after creating the first profile is go back to the measurement page, change the M condition to one of the others and then revert to the profile tab and recompute the profile. No more measurements, no reprinting. I don't know whether your materials work that conveniently. As for the D50-D65 business, if you are uncertain about the viewing conditions but think they are more than likely not to be daylight, based on what I see with my prints I think the D50 setting should be good. Best is to experiment and see. Only a few sheets of paper and a bit of time.

I'll need to check out the dual scan mode.  I'm not sure it's available in my software when making RGB as opposed to CMYK profiles.  And RGB profiles seem to be limited to one patch set (about 960 patches)...  There is a later version of the software, but my license does not allow me to use it...

[Alan Goldhammer]

  If I had a paper that was OBA free, would I choose a different setting?  And... does this depend on the type of spectro probe that I'm using?  Would it need to be UV cut or something like that?

No you do not need a UV cut spectro for OBA free papers.  However, such a spectro won't work on papers with OBA as the UV light is needed to excite the fluorescent dyes so that you can measure the impact of the OBA to prepare an accurate profile.

[Mark D Segal]

No you do not need a UV cut spectro for OBA free papers.  However, such a spectro won't work on papers with OBA as the UV light is needed to excite the fluorescent dyes so that you can measure the impact of the OBA to prepare an accurate profile.

Generally yes, but one qualification: the spectro would "work", but it will just ignore the OBA aspect. How much of a practical, visible impact this has on prints would vary from case to case.

[Doug Gray]

Generally yes, but one qualification: the spectro would "work", but it will just ignore the OBA aspect. How much of a practical, visible impact this has on prints would vary from case to case.

Yep. The biggest difference between M2 and M0-1 will show up using Absolute Colorimetry and only then if the paper has OBAs. Differences can easily exceed 10 dE on papers with a lot of OBAs. However, Abs. Col. is rarely used outside of reproduction work and most of that uses OBA free paper so it doesn't even matter there.

There are relatively small differences with Rel Col, Perceptual, and Saturation intents because these are normalized to paper white which is always the same OBAs or not, M2 or M0-1. That is white, and near white, colors will print the same. So the differences are how the colors shift elsewhere. It turns out the shift is very small, visually hard to see even side by side in most cases. There are options in I1Profiler that amplify the differences. Mostly in how the neutral tones are tweaked in Perceptual mode.  But the default settings don't vary much between the M's. This is why the ColorMunki, which only works in M2, is still a decent profiling instrument.

[Mark D Segal]

Interesting that you raise the distinction of Absolute RI, because in this condition I've seen an additional issue with M0 and M1 profiles for papers that are very high in OBA. It is that printed with Absolute Intent, there can be over-compensation of blue, resulting in yellowish shading of light gray/off-white target test areas that should print neutral. However, once the same target is printed in Relative or Perceptual Intent, the yellowish shading disappears and the neutrals look neutral. So to avoid the yellowish tint using Absolute Intent, one would choose the M2 profile which is blind to the OBA altogether. Papers without OBAs don't exhibit this issue in Absolute Intent.

[digitaldog]

Interesting that you raise the distinction of Absolute RI, because in this condition I've seen an additional issue with M0 and M1 profiles for papers that are very high in OBA. It is that printed with Absolute Intent, there can be over-compensation of blue, resulting in yellowish shading of light gray/off-white target test areas that should print neutral. However, once the same target is printed in Relative or Perceptual Intent, the yellowish shading disappears and the neutrals look neutral. So to avoid the yellowish tint using Absolute Intent, one would choose the M2 profile which is blind to the OBA altogether. Papers without OBAs don't exhibit this issue in Absolute Intent.

I agree and you can throw out any rules here and the best approach is to measure both ways, build a profile each way and run tests on suites of reference images.

[Doug Gray]

Interesting that you raise the distinction of Absolute RI, because in this condition I've seen an additional issue with M0 and M1 profiles for papers that are very high in OBA. It is that printed with Absolute Intent, there can be over-compensation of blue, resulting in yellowish shading of light gray/off-white target test areas that should print neutral. However, once the same target is printed in Relative or Perceptual Intent, the yellowish shading disappears and the neutrals look neutral. So to avoid the yellowish tint using Absolute Intent, one would choose the M2 profile which is blind to the OBA altogether. Papers without OBAs don't exhibit this issue in Absolute Intent.

That's the typical effect printing Abs. Col when viewed indoors under most lighting conditions. Costco Glossy has the highest OBAs of any paper I have. When printing an image of a ColorChecker with M1 or M2 profiles using Abs. Col.  the M1 images appear quite yellow. It's especially intense comparing them side by side with an actual Colorchecker. Indoors, the Costco M1 print looks yellow while the M2 print looks fairly close to the Colorchecker. Take them both outside and the M1 matches while the M2 print looks bluish.

My household lighting is LED and office, high CRI LED and they have little to no uV. The few incandescents I still have show a slight amount of uV but the M2 profiles still provide a better Costco match with a ColorChecker.

This suggests that it may well be better to use M2 unless displaying outside. At least with OBA media.


Here's the layman's explanation for the yellow tint on high OBA media printed with M2 profiles.

Absolute Intent with M1 profiles prints such that the reflected color matches the requested color in daylight. So a very light gray, Lab=90,0,0, when printed in Abs. Intent on a high OBA paper with an M1 profile, will actually add a considerable amount of yellow ink. This is needed because otherwise the uV will shift the printed color, viewed in daylight, quite a bit on the blue side. When viewed indoors, even in daylight through a window, there is still a yellow tint because of the high degree of uV attenuation from regular window glass. Nearly all normal illuminants have much lower uV levels than are used in M0 or M1 profiles.

[smthopr]

I don't know your software package, or the specifics of the EFI version of the spectro you are using. I am using an i1Pro2 with i1Profiler. Using the dual scan mode, I read the target once (two passes per row of patches), and it stores data for all three M conditions. All I need to do after creating the first profile is go back to the measurement page, change the M condition to one of the others and then revert to the profile tab and recompute the profile. No more measurements, no reprinting. I don't know whether your materials work that conveniently. As for the D50-D65 business, if you are uncertain about the viewing conditions but think they are more than likely not to be daylight, based on what I see with my prints I think the D50 setting should be good. Best is to experiment and see. Only a few sheets of paper and a bit of time.

I made a profile today with the M1 setting and the dual measurement.  But, it seems, with my software, I can not use the same measurement data to make an M0 profile.  It seems I need to print another chart under M0 and measure a single pass.  (perhaps I could just make a .pdf of the new chart and that would fool the software though, but I'd need to measure the chart one more time as M0)

I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white.  Does that make sense?  But, the M1 profile shows a significant difference between "perceptual intent and Relative color intent"  where the M0 profile seems to make a Perceptual intent that is identical to Rel Col using black point compensation...  Does this make sense?

Thanks!

[digitaldog]

I made a profile today with the M1 setting and the dual measurement.  But, it seems, with my software, I can not use the same measurement data to make an M0 profile.  It seems I need to print another chart under M0 and measure a single pass.  (perhaps I could just make a .pdf of the new chart and that would fool the software though, but I'd need to measure the chart one more time as M0)

With the i1Pro Spectrophotometer, you need to measure with the specific M-Series you wish.

In terms of what is shown and available in the i1Profiler software, (depending on the instrument):
M0 (No Filter, UV-included)-single pass with i1Pro 2
M1 (No Filter, D50 UV-included)-dual pass with i1Pro 2
M2 (UV cut, UV-excluded)-dual pass with i1Pro 2

[jrsforums]

Yep. The biggest difference between M2 and M0-1 will show up using Absolute Colorimetry and only then if the paper has OBAs. Differences can easily exceed 10 dE on papers with a lot of OBAs. However, Abs. Col. is rarely used outside of reproduction work and most of that uses OBA free paper so it doesn't even matter there.

There are relatively small differences with Rel Col, Perceptual, and Saturation intents because these are normalized to paper white which is always the same OBAs or not, M2 or M0-1. That is white, and near white, colors will print the same. So the differences are how the colors shift elsewhere. It turns out the shift is very small, visually hard to see even side by side in most cases. There are options in I1Profiler that amplify the differences. Mostly in how the neutral tones are tweaked in Perceptual mode.  But the default settings don't vary much between the M's. This is why the ColorMunki, which only works in M2, is still a decent profiling instrument.

Hi, Doug...

So, if not using Absolute Col, you seem to say that using different Mn’s does not make much discernible difference.  Am I understanding that correctly?

[smthopr]

With the i1Pro Spectrophotometer, you need to measure with the specific M-Series you wish.

In terms of what is shown and available in the i1Profiler software, (depending on the instrument):
M0 (No Filter, UV-included)-single pass with i1Pro 2
M1 (No Filter, D50 UV-included)-dual pass with i1Pro 2
M2 (UV cut, UV-excluded)-dual pass with i1Pro 2

Thanks Andrew for your reply.  I only have a license for the EFI software, and not the i1. I'm using the ES-2000/i1 Pro 2 spectro.  The EFI manual is very sparse and doesn't address the issue.

Might you be able to comment on my post a little more?

"I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white.  Does that make sense?  But, the M1 profile shows a significant difference between "perceptual intent and Relative color intent"  where the M0 profile seems to make a Perceptual intent that is identical to Rel Col using black point compensation...  Does this make sense?"

[smthopr]

Hi, Doug...

So, if not using Absolute Col, you seem to say that using different Mn’s does not make much discernible difference.  Am I understanding that correctly?

From my limited experience here I've found that the M0 profile is significantly different than the M1 profile for both Relative intent and perceptual.  And the M1 profile doesn't soft proof the paper white, while the M0 profile does.  As to which is the "better" profile (and intent setting), it seems to depend on the image.  The soft proofs for each profile is accurate to the print, but effect can be quite different depending on the image content.

[digitaldog]

"I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white.  Does that make sense? 

Not to me. Nor does this: And the M1 profile doesn't soft proof the paper white, while the M0 profile does.

[digitaldog]

The soft proofs for each profile is accurate to the print, but effect can be quite different depending on the image content.

You really should always soft proof each image with Perceptual, RelCol and maybe Saturation (Absolute isn't at all useful outside of proofing). The choice is subjective and image specific. ICC profiles know nothing about color in context. They 'see' and deal with one pixel at a time and have zero data about others. Open a high resolution image in Photoshop, zoom in to 1600% and toggle the rendering intents and you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about; you can't make a judgment about the image because you're viewing a screen of individual pixels not in context. Now if you held a gun to my head and demanded I pick on RI blindly, I'd pick RelCol. But I don't have such a gun to my head and I can view each image in total, with differing RI's and pick the one I visually and subjectively prefer.

[smthopr]

Not to me. Nor does this: And the M1 profile doesn't soft proof the paper white, while the M0 profile does.

Didn't make sense to me either, but that's how the EFI software builds the profiles.  Is there some other software I should consider that doesn't cost over $1000?

[Doug Gray]

Thanks Andrew for your reply.  I only have a license for the EFI software, and not the i1. I'm using the ES-2000/i1 Pro 2 spectro.  The EFI manual is very sparse and doesn't address the issue.

Might you be able to comment on my post a little more?

"I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white.  Does that make sense?  But, the M1 profile shows a significant difference between "perceptual intent and Relative color intent"  where the M0 profile seems to make a Perceptual intent that is identical to Rel Col using black point compensation...  Does this make sense?"

This is extremely odd. M1 is much closer to M0 with the I1Pro 2 (and iSis for that matter) so you should see less difference between M0 and M1 than M0 and M2. No idea what you mean by "I did notice the the M1 profile does not allow a preview of paper white."  Is this some "feature" of the Fiery" software? Makes no sense to me.

Photoshop's view proof lets you select show paper white with all Intents and doesn't care about how a profile was created.