OBC functionality in iProfiler is VERY BADLY programmed! how to bypass?

[JRSmit]

I am redoing the profiling of the papers i provide to customers since i have added another printer.
When profiling papers with larger OBA contect, i used the OBC function of I1Profiler-1.5.6 icm with a i1 Pro2 spectrophotometer.

I got strongly variing results, which made no sense, giving rise to a lot of frustration,

So i did a simple test: measure a chart, create the OBC chart, select a value in each of the four columns and then proceed to create a profile, with M0 as condition.
Then in the profile creation screen changed the name of the profile to create and pressed the create profile button again, in total i did this 6 times in succession with the same opened data, with no changes to the data or obc settings.
Then viewed the profiles in a profile viewer (DocBees profile manager) with the on-sight media selector tif as data to plot on the profile. Profile gamut is shown in absolute colorimetric setting.

The BAD thing: each profile created is different! (Added screenshots: first 3 are from a series of 6 created in succession, the last one is with condition m1 and the second created in succession with condition set to m1)
Differences in tone curve are significant (mainly the b dimension), also the white point "height" in L* dimension variies per created profile.

I repeated this, also saved the measurement and the workflow as well before creation of the OBC chart,  so i can open it to get back at that point in the workflow.

So i opened the saved workflow, i created the OBC chart etc, and profile created is different again!

When i choose a different condition (M1 or M0) i get also very distorted profiles, especially the tone curve, also with some sort of ondulation now in the top part of the profile gamut envelope.

After stopping and starting iProfiler, i open the saved workflow and now the patch sizes are defaulted, so not the sizes used and saved as such. Also it defaults to an Isis (i have no Isis), whereas it was saved with i1 Pro selected. This did not resolve the problem.

Also it does not ask for selection of the condition (M0, M1) during the first profile creation, it just creates the profile.  When i create another profile in succession it then asks to select a condition.

Conclusion: The OBC functionality in iProfiler is very badly implemented by X-Rite, how this has got past their testing and quality control is beyond my comprehension (test took about 15 minutes), assuming they do test and control quality.

And i cannot reproduce the OBC correction like i have in the profiles for my other printer,
nor can i reproduce anyhow with consistent quality.

Has anyone experienced the same problems?
If so, how did you resolve or by-passed the problem?

What is a good alterative to the OBC solution of X-Rite?

[digitaldog]

Conclusion: The OBC functionality in iProfiler is very badly implemented by X-Rite, how this has got past their testing and quality control is beyond my comprehension (test took about 15 minutes), assuming they do test and control quality.

In my experience, over the least X number of years, they do not (test Q&E).

[JRSmit]

In my experience, over the least X number of years, they do not (test Q&E).

Even worse than i imagined, hmmmm!

Andrew can you indicate an alternative for the OBC function? In other words get somehow a compensation for the oba effect on the measurements?

[howardm]

As I recall, Argyll has some mechanism for OBA compensation.

[Alan Goldhammer]

As I recall, Argyll has some mechanism for OBA compensation.

Sure does:   http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/FWA.html   

[Stefan Ohlsson]

I believe that Basiccolor Print also can compensate for OBA. Perhaps we can get Karl Koch and Graeme Gill to add a comment or two to this thread. I know that basICColor Print Production Server has been certified by Fogra to do proofs for printing on papers with a high OBA content.

[howardm]

I was almost surprised at the 1200 Euros cost of that.  Their non-basic class of products do tend to be quite expensive but it's limited market I suppose.

[GWGill]

Perhaps we can get Karl Koch and Graeme Gill to add a comment or two to this thread.

I'm not sure there is much to add to Alan's reference, unless you have a specific question.

[Stefan Ohlsson]

I got an answer from Karl of Basiccolor, who isn't a member of LuLa. So he said that I could post his answer here, if I wanted. And I do, I think it is interesting.

So that follows is Karl Koch's word, not mine:
OBA „compensation“ is something that is sooo old school since ISO 12647-2 (offset printing) and ISO 3664 (lighting) have been revised in 2009 and have been implemented in real life over the last 2 years or so.
Since then, viewing light should contain as much UV as defined in the D50 standard. This UV content excites the OBAs and makes OBA-rich paper look bluish compared with the old „D50“ lighting. Thus the bluish look should be reflected in profiles as well and OBA-compensation is counterproductive.

You are right, we also offered (and still do) OBA compensation in basICColor print and even more elaborately in basICColor IMProve. But those who want to use it should know what they are doing and what to expect. Once OBAs have been excited it is very hard to tell which „part of blue“ is due to OBAs and which one is due to a blue tint in the paper, unless you measure M1 (with UV in the measure illuminant) AND M2 (without UV in the measure illuminant) at the same time.
The OBC functionality in i1 Profiler was made for the old instrument generation that gave you M0 (with an undefined UV portion in the measure illuminant) only. Both, OBC and the brightener correction in basICColor print are guesstimates (at best) or rather guesswork (to be realistic). [/Karl Koch]

I think that this really proves that there are not an answer to how we should handle OBA-rich papers. And it is also a question if it's a profile that we do for fine art printing or for hard proofing.

[Czornyj]

To use OBC you need to work with i1Pro2's dual scan measurement, where you make a scan with tungsten and then UV emitter, so there's some sort of information to tell the difference between OBA and bluishness of the paper.

If I understand it correctly, the purpose of OBA is to get better neutrality in certain situation - we're not ISO-obsessed german printing industry, we don't necessarily use D50-like light bulbs, not to mention the glass we use to frame our prints etc.

Furthermore, we mainly use pigment inks that are quite opaque, so I suppose they can also be considered as UV filter. And if I'm right, the more ink we put on paper, the more OBA emitted blue light it cuts, so bright neutral values may look cooler than darker ones - OBC could potentially compensate such behaviour.

[digitaldog]

There’s also ColorAnt!

http://www.colorlogic.de/help/?p=421&lang=en

In the end, there has to be some visual tweaking as the intended light source can’t always be controlled. X-rite’s solution is visually based and could be considered anything from profile editing to a kludge of a tweak but in the end, it’s useful to have tools to adjust the profile in some areas. We really need a decent profile editor that only affects certain attributes with control over all the profile tables in the process.

[JRSmit]

Czornyj: I worked with dual scan, else you cannot choose between m0, m1 or m2.

I am looking for a tweaking to get for the lighting conditions of my clients (definitely not D50 or similar) a decent looking print. As the OBC allows you to play with the four values, or even use a visual comparison to determine the 4 values, one can tweak the profile so the prints are ok under given lighting condition.

Whether it is old school or not up to given standard, is not the issue here. The issue is that the iProfiler software is ridiculously erratic, thus making it impossible in achieving a desired tweak in an efficient way, which is the whole idea behind this OBC function in iProfiler. 

N.B.: A workaround sofar found is to litterally close the software and restart it after creation of 1 profile. In one instance a reboot was necessary to make it work for just 1 profile creation.

I have looked at Basiccolor and Colorlogic, but both carry a hefty price-tag, which is a showstopper for me. This is not saying that the pricetag by itself is wrong, it is just way too much for me to justify.

P.S.: I added some screenshots to the initial post, sorry for not doing that last night.

[GWGill]

To use OBC you need to work with i1Pro2's dual scan measurement, where you make a scan with tungsten and then UV emitter, so there's some sort of information to tell the difference between OBA and bluishness of the paper.

It certainly improves accuracy of handling FWA/OBA if you have an instrument with a switchable UV sources such as the i1 pro 2 or the Spectrolino, but it isn't necessary to have such an instrument. A normal non-UV cut (ie. UV included) i1 pro or DTP20 etc. is also quite suitable, if you use the right software.

If I understand it correctly, the purpose of OBA is to get better neutrality in certain situation - we're not

The purpose of FWA/OBA is to be able to make good looking paper cheaply.

Furthermore, we mainly use pigment inks that are quite opaque, so I suppose they can also be considered as UV filter.

No ink is opaque when it is at a low tint, and you can't print images unless this is so in places. And all inks other than black and yellow are deliberately transparent to short wavelengths of light - that's what gives them the right color!

And if I'm right, the more ink we put on paper, the more OBA emitted blue light it cuts, so bright neutral values may look cooler than darker ones - OBC could potentially compensate such behaviour.

It changes the hue of the resulting color - there is a "squaring" effect - as an ink allows more UV to hit the paper, it simultaneously allows more of the blue emitted, so it is not linear. Normal, non FWA/OBA papers are better behaved due to this.

[GWGill]

In the end, there has to be some visual tweaking as the intended light source can’t always be controlled.

You don't have to visually tweak - Argyll's illumread provides a means of avoiding that.
See http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/illumread.html and http://ist.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/ist/cic/2011/00002011/00000001/art00013

[digitaldog]

You don't have to visually tweak - Argyll's illumread provides a means of avoiding that.

But it’s oh so  much easier to get the results you desire (assuming the software really does provide WYSIWYG).

IF I could get a dollar for every time a value is supposed to represent a desired match but didn’t, I’d have retired by now.

[GWGill]

But it’s oh so  much easier to get the results you desire (assuming the software really does provide WYSIWYG).

That works if you have access to the illuminant at the time you are printing test charts and making the profile, if your color vision is the same as your clients, and if you are on top of your game when you make the judgement.
A measurement based approach can be used separately from making the profile, and is not subject to the foibles of a particular observer.
Either can work.

[digitaldog]

That works if you have access to the illuminant at the time you are printing test charts and making the profile, if your color vision is the same as your clients, and if you are on top of your game when you make the judgement.

You or someone will have to at some point no? How on earth would you know if the compensation worked or not if you didn’t?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Czornyj: I worked with dual scan, else you cannot choose between m0, m1 or m2.

I am looking for a tweaking to get for the lighting conditions of my clients (definitely not D50 or similar) a decent looking print. As the OBC allows you to play with the four values, or even use a visual comparison to determine the 4 values, one can tweak the profile so the prints are ok under given lighting condition.

Whether it is old school or not up to given standard, is not the issue here. The issue is that the iProfiler software is ridiculously erratic, thus making it impossible in achieving a desired tweak in an efficient way, which is the whole idea behind this OBC function in iProfiler.  

N.B.: A workaround sofar found is to litterally close the software and restart it after creation of 1 profile. In one instance a reboot was necessary to make it work for just 1 profile creation.

I have looked at Basiccolor and Colorlogic, but both carry a hefty price-tag, which is a showstopper for me. This is not saying that the pricetag by itself is wrong, it is just way too much for me to justify.

P.S.: I added some screenshots to the initial post, sorry for not doing that last night.

I had to hunt down what these M0, M1,...etc. measurements were about with regard to getting a "decent print" with OBA papers and found this...

http://www.konicaminolta.eu/en/measuring-instruments/learning-centre/colour-measurement/colour/iso13655-demystified.html

Scroll down to the OBA effects of a collection of papers viewed under different lights.

So from that what I'm to understand in this discussion is that there needs to be a way to create tweaks during the measuring and creation of a paper profile to correct for the constantly changing color of paper white with various levels of OBA's revealed under different illuminants (as shown in that Minolta link image) and the way to do that is to get the profile to make the rest of the non-paper printed color tones match the bluish look of that paper?

I'm assuming this process of OBA compensation also allows targeting the measurement and tweaks within the profile for a specific illuminant/paper OBA behavior.

To ask it simply is this a question of generating a paper profile to put more yellow in the print or less yellow to get the overall look of the print to match a bluish white paper viewed under a light that will make the paper appear bluish?

Who views prints in daylight? Most prints are viewed under lights that don't reach that far into the UV spectrum and if they do you'll be dealing with the EPA and your eye doctor.

BTW define a "decent print" with regard to OBA issues.

Here's a shot I took of one of my Epson prints viewed under two different lights and posted at Photo.net a while back of I'm assuming OBA paper that was printed using "Printer Manages Color". The question I have is which version of the print could do for some OBA compensation and how would it be seen in an ICC printer profile? What would be the results that would deliver a better "decent print"?

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00W/00WpI5-258209584.jpg

[Robert Ardill]

So that follows is Karl Koch's word, not mine:
OBA „compensation“ is something that is sooo old school since ISO 12647-2 (offset printing) and ISO 3664 (lighting) have been revised in 2009 and have been implemented in real life over the last 2 years or so.
Since then, viewing light should contain as much UV as defined in the D50 standard. This UV content excites the OBAs and makes OBA-rich paper look bluish compared with the old „D50“ lighting. Thus the bluish look should be reflected in profiles as well and OBA-compensation is counterproductive.

I would really appreciate it if someone would explain why one would want to use OBA compensation as I find the whole subject very confusing. 

It seems to me that its purpose, for normal printing rather than proofing, should be to adjust the profile so that the effect of more or less UV in the target illuminant (compared to the standard UV content of D50) is minimized.  This would mean that the color shifts due to more or less UV in the target illuminant would be reduced by the profile (so that the print would more nearly match a D50 proof, when chromatic adaptation is taken into account).

Or, as an example, if:
- we do a test print using a profile without OBA compensation for illuminant D50 and view it under illuminant D50
- and we do a test print using a profile with OBA compensation for illuminant D50* (where D50* has a higher UV content than D50, but is the same as D50 in all other respects) and view it under D50*
- then the prints should ideally look the same when viewed side by side (each illuminated by its target illuminant).

The same would apply to an illuminant other than D50*, but we would then be relying on chromatic adaptation (so we could not view the prints side by side).

If we know that the target illuminant has the same UV content as D50 then OBA compensation would be pointless.

If we do not know what the target illuminant is going to be then OBA compensation is also pointless (not possible?).

Is this correct?  Most likely not!

Robert

[digitaldog]

I would really appreciate it if someone would explain why one would want to use OBA compensation as I find the whole subject very confusing. 

In simple terms, the introduction of OBA’s may produce color issues when one measures the paper to build a printer profile. Does the instrument record this UV or does the instrument filter (cut/exclude) the UV? The discontinued GretagMacbeth Spectrolino had provisions to measure with, or without a UV filter that could be attached to the measurement head. The X-Rite iSis has the ability to measure UV or remove that component from the measured data thanks to the use of a dual illuminant inside the unit. Both devices are expensive. For those in the market for an affordable Spectrophotometer the choice was limited to either a UV Cut or Non-Cut product if there was even an option.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/eye_one_pro_ii.shtml

It's even easier to understand than color gamut!