Profiling with iOne Proof and 918 target

[tived]

Hi guys,

I am using a i1pro Proof kit, with the iMatch software. I should say I am learning to use it :-)

I have just profiled Epson Traditional Photo Paper, Ilford GoldFibreSilk, Hahnemuehle PhotoRag Pearl, Satin and Baryta as well as the original PhotoRag on my Trusty old Epson 4000 :-) and on a HP Z3100. I am using PC at home and Mac at work.
Using a 918patch, what I am seeing when printing the Outbackphoto's test image is that I don't see any separation in the blacks in most papers until 12-18 on the different papers and in the highlights 252-253 is the last details i see before hitting paper white.

Someone told me, that due to the color patch is an older version, one used to linearize the printer, I would need to profile the printer several times (approx 3 times) to get a really close profile. Now I am new to profiling and was wondering if anyone here had any experience with this.

Thanks

Henrik

[bill t.]

I am only about as experienced as you at profiles.  But on my home brew profiles I am also seeing a darkest perceivable black at about 12 and lightest perceivable gray at about 253.  I think this is pretty good.  On the commercial and canned profiles I have in my kit, minimum black is closer to 30 and even higher in one case, so IMHO we are both seeing good numbers in that regard.  Of course minimum black is greatly affected by the amount of light scattering in the media surface.  Also, since the total contrast range of prints is generally lower than that of screens so one expects the minimum perceivable black to be a higher number on prints than on screens.

[digitaldog]

Someone told me, that due to the color patch is an older version, one used to linearize the printer, I would need to profile the printer several times (approx 3 times) to get a really close profile. Now I am new to profiling and was wondering if anyone here had any experience with this.

That recommendation makes no sense to me. The recommendation to linearize the printer, IF that's possible is a good one. But not all drivers allow such provisions.

It doesn't sound like your output is off but the numbers mean little, how are the prints?

[tived]

Hi Andrew,

thanks for the response. The test prints do look good, with a little tweak in softproof mode, I should be home free.
But could modify the profile within the iMatch software to reflect what I would do in softproof mode, lift the shadows, improve contrast a bit and increase saturation a bit. Does this sound plausible?

thanks

Henrik

[digitaldog]

The test prints do look good, with a little tweak in softproof mode, I should be home free.
But could modify the profile within the iMatch software to reflect what I would do in softproof mode, lift the shadows, improve contrast a bit and increase saturation a bit. Does this sound plausible?

Profile editing is not for the faint of heart. You can try. Don't expect much other than a loss of a lot of media.

Also depends on how you're soft proofing and editing the final image based on the soft proof.

[tived]

Profile editing is not for the faint of heart. You can try. Don't expect much other than a loss of a lot of media.

Also depends on how you're soft proofing and editing the final image based on the soft proof.

Hi Andrew

thanks for the replies.

Well, I am at the moment looking at my test image, and I have duplicated it, and have one with soft proof turned on. I have also printed out the image without any adjustments, as I would print it, PS handles color management, set my profile for the specific paper and using Relative Colorimetric. so I am evaluating the image under a 5000k lamp and have also taken it outside and viewed it in daylight, made my observations and this is where i start.
I get back to the computer and look at the the two images again on screen, as mentioned above and try to look at what I can do to make this image look better. My initial conclusion was to lift the shadows globally in levels by setting the output to 15-20, because my observation was that the shadows was blocking up, or that I was not able to distinct any details on the step-wedge till about 12-18. I then went on to boost the saturation, as I found the colors a bit dull. I initially went a bit too high adding 30points and reduced this to 20. I then placed a curve adjustment in between the two layers, over the level and below the Hue/Sat, there is pulled the 255,255 to down to 252,255 to recover any blown whites, and added some more contrast into 1/4 tone.
This when printing again, seems to have worked reasonable well, I am not too far off, BUT is there a better way, have I missed something. I am having this problem with images going to a Press as well

thanks for taking your time, I much appreciate this

regards

Henrik

[tived]

Hi Andrew

Had a look for your book at the local stores here in Perth, Western Australia but non around, are you coming out with a new one soon, does it cover this topic?

thanks Henrik

[digitaldog]

Had a look for your book at the local stores here in Perth, Western Australia but non around, are you coming out with a new one soon, does it cover this topic?

I suspect not. Book publishing for me wasn't a worthwhile endeavor.