Custom Profile

[D White]

Hi,

I print from an iMac Pro calibrated via an X-Rite i1 Display Pro to 6500K. I print to a Canon Pro-2000 using a manufactured supplied profile.

I was generally happy with the output for my landscapes, and my printing test targets, which matched very close to the same targets for my previous Epson 7900. A density correction was sometimes needed depending on display environment.

But recent output for skin tones brought to my attention that there is a degree of color shift from monitor to print, that in retrospect is evident on the other prints. Some levels adjustment layers tuned by eye are needed to closer equalize the differences, and as many know, is not an exact science by eye.

My question is; If I invest in the substantial cost of an X-Rite i1 Photo Pro 2 spectrophotometer for my own custom profiles, can there still be a fudge factor required to more closely match color balance. (Of course I know that there can never be a true match, but reference colors such as skin tones and grey should not have a color shift).

Thanks

[Mark D Segal]

The first question one would ask is whether your display is profiled properly. If it isn't, the cheapest and most effective thing to do is to make sure that your display is correctly calibrated and well profiled.

If that's not the problem, sometimes you can marginally improve on canned profiles by trying a custom profile, but you can do that experiment for far less than the cost of investing in an i1Photo kit from X-Rite which will run you about USD1600. Custom profiling services offer profiles for prices in the 50-100 dollar range, so trying at least one of those to see whether that solves the problem could be worthwhile. If you are only using several papers, a few custom profiles will take you a long way for little investment.

[Jeff-Grant]

Without wishing to hijack the thread, is an iMac Pro able to be calibrated for print matching? My 27" iMac is something that I would never use. It's all gloss and sparkle as Apple is these days.

[Mark D Segal]

is an iMac Pro able to be calibrated for print matching?

Yes.

[D White]

The first question one would ask is whether your display is profiled properly. If it isn't, the cheapest and most effective thing to do is to make sure that your display is correctly calibrated and well profiled.

If that's not the problem, sometimes you can marginally improve on canned profiles by trying a custom profile, but you can do that experiment for far less than the cost of investing in an i1Photo kit from X-Rite which will run you about USD1600. Custom profiling services offer profiles for prices in the 50-100 dollar range, so trying at least one of those to see whether that solves the problem could be worthwhile. If you are only using several papers, a few custom profiles will take you a long way for little investment.

To answer that, the best I can say is the previously mentioned use of the i1 Display Pro colorimeter, with seems to give repeatable results that fall in line with what I had with a spyder device used previously. Perhaps inherent deficiencies in monitor gamuts can not be fully managed with hardware devices?

[Mark D Segal]

To answer that, the best I can say is the previously mentioned use of the i1 Display Pro colorimeter, with seems to give repeatable results that fall in line with what I had with a spyder device used previously. Perhaps inherent deficiencies in monitor gamuts can not be fully managed with hardware devices?

You may wish to try re-calibrating to 5000K and see whether that helps. 6500 is a bit cool and it may be causing you to warm-up the hues a tad too much. I doubt monitor gamut deficiency would be an issue for this kind of problem.

[Wayne Fox]

I print from an iMac Pro calibrated via an X-Rite i1 Display Pro to 6500K.

My question is; If I invest in the substantial cost of an X-Rite i1 Photo Pro 2 spectrophotometer for my own custom profiles, can there still be a fudge factor required to more closely match color balance. (Of course I know that there can never be a true match, but reference colors such as skin tones and grey should not have a color shift).

Thanks

You can't modify the profiles to provide a better match.  I'm doubting that new profiles will offer much to help with your issue.  If you have an appropriately lit viewing station to evaluate the prints, then you need to print a very good target print such as the one from Bill Atkinson, Outback photo or Digital Dog, put it in the viewing station, then re-profile your display using white balance numbers (and brightness values) until the display matches the print in density and in color.  It won't ever be perfect, but I've found that many who set their white point to 6500 tend to end up with prints that look a  little too warm, since that's a pretty cool white point. If judging white balance visually the tendency is to make it a little too warm to offset the coolness of the dsiplay.  Can make skin look a little off.  I'd recommend you try something more like 5500-5700 as a starting point.

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

Hi,

I print from an iMac Pro calibrated via an X-Rite i1 Display Pro to 6500K. I print to a Canon Pro-2000 using a manufactured supplied profile.

I was generally happy with the output for my landscapes, and my printing test targets, which matched very close to the same targets for my previous Epson 7900. A density correction was sometimes needed depending on display environment.

But recent output for skin tones brought to my attention that there is a degree of color shift from monitor to print, that in retrospect is evident on the other prints. Some levels adjustment layers tuned by eye are needed to closer equalize the differences, and as many know, is not an exact science by eye.

My question is; If I invest in the substantial cost of an X-Rite i1 Photo Pro 2 spectrophotometer for my own custom profiles, can there still be a fudge factor required to more closely match color balance. (Of course I know that there can never be a true match, but reference colors such as skin tones and grey should not have a color shift).

Thanks

I think I would suspect the manufacturer's profile (I assume you mean this comes from Canon or the paper manufacturer).  I have never had a profile from a paper or print manufacturer with which I have been happy and thus make my own with a ColorMunki.  They are so much better.

[Garnick]

I agree with Wayne and Mark that 6500K is simply too cool to be an accurate display of skin tones for printing purposes.  With my NEC PA24 and 27 displays I use the NEC Spectraview II software for calibrating and profiling with an x-rite i1 Display Pro colorimeter.  I do two calibrations for both displays, 5500 and 6500K.  I occasionally use the 6500K cal for specific purposes, but I print from the 5500K cal.  My print evaluation area is lit but 4000K high CRI LEDs from a company in Toronto - https://lumicrest.com/.  I would definitely suggest that you at least try the 5500K cal for your purposes.  Or perhaps do both and compare.  One thing to keep in mind though.  When you start using the 5500K display it will seem to be too warm, but you will adapt to that pretty quickly. 

Gary     

[D White]

You may wish to try re-calibrating to 5000K and see whether that helps. 6500 is a bit cool and it may be causing you to warm-up the hues a tad too much. I doubt monitor gamut deficiency would be an issue for this kind of problem.

Changing the white balance point was an important step to a closer match. I recalibrated to 5500K and the viewing is absolutely better. My previous calibration software was by Color Eyes, (which is now defunct), and it had an "in house" white point option that fell some where between 6500K and 5000K. When moving to X-Rite software I obviously went in the wrong direction with the white point.

I still need to add some magenta with a levels layer to remove a green bias on the print outputs, but overall the match is definitely easier to fine tune and just looks better. I am getting the feeling that one can not completely remove some subjective evaluation to the process, there is some art along with the science.

I appreciate the helpful comments by several of you to alter the white point, it was definitely a critical matter.
 

[Mark D Segal]

You are welcome, glad it's better; but you shouldn't be getting a green bias in the prints. Have you tried printing the Outback printer test image (downloadable from the Outbackphoto site)  to see how it compares with your monitor rendition? I recommend doing this without adjusting it at all; see if the whites and grays in that target look neutral on your monitor. It could mean the monitor is still a bit off, or there is something wrong with the printing colour management workflow; if so likely the profile. What printer, ink, paper and profile are you using? What Rendering Intent?

[D White]

You are welcome, glad it's better; but you shouldn't be getting a green bias in the prints. Have you tried printing the Outback printer test image (downloadable from the Outbackphoto site)  to see how it compares with your monitor rendition? I recommend doing this without adjusting it at all; see if the whites and grays in that target look neutral on your monitor. It could mean the monitor is still a bit off, or there is something wrong with the printing colour management workflow; if so likely the profile. What printer, ink, paper and profile are you using? What Rendering Intent?

As I explore this topic further, with more output tests, I am beginning to realize that the viewing light has more effect than I realize. What I thought were full spectrum LED's maybe are not. Until I acquire a higher end viewing environment I may be just spinning my wheels. It is beginning to appear that the current profile may look great under the right balanced light.

[Wayne Fox]

What I thought were full spectrum LED's maybe are not.

The viewing area is critical for any consistent success.

There are many full spectrum LED's but most aren't the best for this use. I've found two brands of LED's that I feel do a decent job at offering "full" spectrum.  Solux halogen bulbs are the gold standard for this, but they run hot. I use LED's from Lumicrest to light my images in my gallery with great success. For a gallery situation they are terrific because for just a few bucks each I purchased some of the other lenses, so I can switch out any lamp to make it a 25 or 35 degree spot, or a 60 degree flood.  One bulb to cover the various needs in the gallery.

I replaced the Solux bulbs with SORAA  Vivid MR16 bulbs in my viewing station  I think they might even be slightly better than the Lumicrest.  My track of 4 lights is only a few feet over my head, so it does help the bulbs don't generate much heat.

I have a track in the ceiling about 4 feet from the wall and about 30" higher than the top of the track I use to hold my prints with 4 fixtures.  It lights a pretty large area so I can view larger prints.  I have some customers who are using a lumicrest bulb in a simple table lamp because they are only evaluating smaller prints and it has helped them. not ideal but certainly better than what many try to use.

[digitaldog]

There are many full spectrum LED's but most aren't the best for this use.

Where?
Here's what I see from the Sorra MR16 vs. Solux, no need to point out which is which I believe. Not at all impressed with Sorra too, they buzz in the dimmer (other LEDs don't). The spectrum isn't anything to write home about.

[Wayne Fox]

Where?
Here's what I see from the Sorra MR16 vs. Solux, no need to point out which is which I believe. Not at all impressed with Sorra too, they buzz in the dimmer (other LEDs don't). The spectrum isn't anything to write home about.

I intended to put full spectrum in “quotes” meaning there are many that claim to be but certainly fall short, especially when compared to solux. 

The challenge is many retail locations are requiring lighting to be LED (my gallery in park city this is required in the lease), so I’ve tried many different LED's to try and find a functional solution.  My method is much like I’ve done in the past 40 years of lab production in trying to find a useful color balancing light source, try various combinations of lights to try to make sure the full spectrum is covered, and compare the results.  Then to take the prints and see how they fair in other types of light. 

So I’m looking for a light source that illuminates the image in a pleasing way and doesn’t have a a huge spectrum hole that will make the image look bad in other light.  That’s the challenge with LED, so I put 2 solux bulbs on an print and two led bulbs on the same print a few feet a way, and look for problems.  So far the best results I’ve had are with the Lumicrest and Soraa.  I’d love a better solution and will continue to keep looking.