Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Andy_S on January 09, 2018, 12:42:19 pm
-
I have a new monitor – NEC MultiSync PA302W - that I have calibrated using Spectaview II and the following parameters:
White Point D65
Gamma 2.2
Intensity 120 CD/M2
Contrast Ratio 300:1
I then printed Andrew Rodneys’ Test image on Ilford Gold Fibre silk paper on my Epson P800 using the profile provided by Ilford.
The brightness of the printed matched the display and all the other colours are fine except for the dark blues which are purplish.
Wondering what I do to fix this.
-
First make sure there are no nozzle clogs. Yellow is particularly hard to see with the P800 so you need to inspect it under a magnifying glass with bright light at an angle. Cyan, Light Cyan or Yellow nozzle clogs could contribute to this issue. Absent any clogs, it could be that the profile is a bit problematic. Try setting everything up for Printer Manages Color, run the Rodney page again and observe what differences it makes. If the Blue comes out looking more Blue, that would tend to indicate a profiling issue. Even though you are using Gold Fibre Silk, try using the Epson Legacy Baryta profile instead and see whether that improves it. Again, if so, it would point to the Ilford profile.
-
Thanks for your suggestions. I will try them over the next few days.
Andy
-
I observed this exact same thing several years ago using the Ilford profile as a comparison to the one I made myself for an Epson 3880. At the time the Ilford profile was quite poor in other color areas as well. One would assume that the profile you are using is relatively new because of the new model of printer. I would follow what Mark told you and that should solve the issue.
-
Appears to be a profile problem. Printed using the Epson Legacy Baryta profile and had the same problem with the blue.
When I printed with colour management off the blue was much closer to the image on the display. So looks like I need a custom profile. Any suggestions on where to get one made?
Thanks for your help.
Andy
-
Nope - based on what you are saying here it is most likely not a profiling problem. If there were something wrong with the Ilford profile alone, then the print would have come out well using the Legacy Baryta profile because there isn't much difference in the profiling for either of these papers (Epson Legacy Bryta or IGFS). However, if Printer Manages Color is giving you a good result - much better than BOTH those profiles, this indicates that there is something else amiss uniquely in the colour management route (that is, via application colour management) - other than the profiles - causing this issue. Perhaps a setting somewhere, but off hand I can't offer a reliable view of what it may be; could you post all your colour management settings made through the application (Ps, Lr?) for the print pipeline - perhaps we may discover something there.
(typo corrected)
-
I am printing using LR Version 6.13 on an Epson P800. Attached are screens shots of the LR and printer settings.
Andy
-
I don't see anything in these settings that should be causing such a problem. As an aside I could recommend turning off Finest Detail and High Speed in order to optimize print quality of normal photographs, but those have nothing to do with this issue. However, if Blue looks Blue on your display and in the print using Printer Color Management, then there is some other application-based colour management issue at play, apart from these settings in the print pipeline. Not clear to me what it may be - yet. I'm wondering about the version of Lr you are using - I'm on the subscription plan so the numbering is different from the permanent license versions; I think yours is the latter. If your's dates from mid-2016, there was a problem with one of those versions that could be explaining this; if so, perhaps try another version of Lr and see whether it makes a difference.
-
Printed using LL Classic CC 7.1 and same problem. Also printed on Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy and same problem. Appreciate your suggestions and help. Not sure where to go from here.
Andy
-
Printed using LL Classic CC 7.1 and same problem. Also printed on Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy and same problem. Appreciate your suggestions and help. Not sure where to go from here.
Andy
Just on the off chance there is a gamut issue, does the soft proof differ? Prints should match the soft proof more closely than just the image. If the blues are out of gamut there could be a hue shift going on but it should show up in the soft proof if the profile is correctly made.
Also, it might help if you could identify the specific file name and location of the blue shift in the image.
-
Just on the off chance there is a gamut issue, does the soft proof differ? Prints should match the soft proof more closely than just the image. If the blues are out of gamut there could be a hue shift going on but it should show up in the soft proof if the profile is correctly made.
Funny you should mention that - I was going to generate a post about colour space and gamut, but I refrained because I thought it unlikely to be the problem insofar as IGFS has a very large gamut volume in the SC-P800 printer and one trusts the profile to bring OOG colours to their nearest value on the gamut boundary (Relative Intent) or within (Perceptual Intent) - but one never knows, so that brings to mind, thanks to your contribution - one more idea. Try making the same print with the Rendering Intents you have NOT been using. So for example if you were printing in RELCOL, try PERCEPTUAL, try ABSOLUTE, and see if one of those works better. If so we would be back to a profiling issue in the sense of how the profiles are handling OOG colours. But I have to add that I've printed many blue skies in that printer model with that paper using both canned and custom profiles and not experienced this problem.
-
i guess my question from the original post is whether poster thinks the print is inaccurate, or if it just doesn't match. If printed correctly, the print should be accurate but purplish blues could easily be a weak profile.
It can be a little challenging to determine this. One possible way is obtain a print of the same file from a reputable source, which should offer a nearly perfect match to one printed. Another step might be to use a standard high quality paper that has been manufactured and profiled by the printer manufacturer (maybe in this case Epson Premium Luster would be a good candidate). while even manufacturer profiles might not be optimum, most printer makers to a pretty good job supplying decent profiles whereas 3rd party paper profiles are sometimes problematic. If there is a difference perhaps that would indicate the Ilford profile might not be optimum. Once confident the printed output is accurate, if the output doesn't match then adjusting the brightness and white point of the display is necessary until a match is achieved. This all assumes an appropriate and repeatable viewing condition with accurate lights. To some extent the viewingconditions may also be somewhat adjustable.
Personally I find d65 has never offered me colors that match my prints, but then again that is all based on the light used to view the prints once printed. To me it's always been a process of trial and error, tweaking the profile white point until the screen offers a match. With Spectraview II on my NEC, I've ended up dialing in a manual white point, currently set to x=0.346 y=0.373. According to spectraview that equates to @4700 white point. Sounds really warm, but matches by 3500 solux or 3000k Soraa Vivid LED (which surprisingly are cooler than the Solux) viewing lights very nice and really doesn't look extremely warm. My second display is set to 6500 sRGB to simulate something closer to what most display manufacturers factory settings produce and side by side it is obviously "cooler" but it's not as extreme as you might think.
.
-
I have soft proofed the test image. Attached are three screenshots.
1. The test image as displayed in the Print module
2. A soft proof of the image to print
3. Out of gamut display
Since the soft proof does not match the print module image and there are out of gamut colours does that mean I should recalibrate my monitor? If so what values would you suggest?
-
I have soft proofed the test image. Attached are three screenshots.
1. The test image as displayed in the Print module
2. A soft proof of the image to print
3. Out of gamut display
Since the soft proof does not match the print module image and there are out of gamut colours does that mean I should recalibrate my monitor? If so what values would you suggest?
1. Not soft proofing there, ignore what you see.
2. That's a soft proof within the confines of display gamut!
3. OOG overlay is buggy and nearly useless.
The Out Of Gamut Overlay in Photoshop and Lightroom
In this 25 minute video, I'll cover everything you need to know about the Out Of Gamut (OOG) overlay in Photoshop and Lightroom. You'll see why, with a rare exception, you can ignore this very old feature and still deal with out of gamut colors using modern color management tools.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00O-GTDyL0w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00O-GTDyL0w)
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/OOG_Video.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/OOG_Video.mp4)
-
1. Not soft proofing there, ignore what you see.
2. That's a soft proof within the confines of display gamut!
3. OOG overlay is buggy and nearly useless.
.................
1. Agreed
2. The display gamut may well exceed the printer gamut (for example see my IGFS/SC-P5000 gamut versus my PA271W gamut in the appended screen grab.
3. Agreed
These views are useful because they indicate that the "true blue" elements of the image, especially the lapus beads on her hand, really are blue, not purple. So the colour management between the display and the target photo and the soft-proofing portion of the profile seem to working properly. So this would bring the discussion back to the printer - if Andy has a colour-managed reflective scanning capability it could be useful to see unedited scans of the photo printed with the profile and the one printed with <Printer Manages Color>.
-
1. Agreed
2. The display gamut may well exceed the printer gamut (for example see my IGFS/SC-P5000 gamut versus my PA271W gamut in the appended screen grab.
3. Agreed
These views are useful because they indicate that the "true blue" elements of the image, especially the lapus beads on her hand, really are blue, not purple. So the colour management between the display and the target photo and the soft-proofing portion of the profile seem to working properly. So this would bring the discussion back to the printer - if Andy has a colour-managed reflective scanning capability it could be useful to see unedited scans of the photo printed with the profile and the one printed with <Printer Manages Color>.
Yep. Not a question of OOG for the blue jewelry the woman is wearing.
A couple possibilities given the monitor is color managed and profiled.
1. The printer no longer matches the profiles. A custom profile should fix this if it's the cause.
2. There is metameric failure. Perhaps the print is being viewed in light from a CFL or poor quality LED light. The print should be viewed near a window to see if there is a significant difference.
-
The brightness of the printed matched the display and all the other colours are fine except for the dark blues which are purplish.
Just trying to clarify ... are you saying the print has purplish blues (which shouldn’t happen no matter what the display looks like) or the display has purplish blues. I assume you haven’t tried to modify any colors or settings in the file.
What is the lighting you are using to evaluate the print?
-
Mark, I have an Epson V600 scanner but it is not colour managed. You mentioned that you have printed using the P800 on Ilford GFS paper with both an Ilford and custom profile and that the blues were corrected. This would seem to suggest there is something wrong in my workflow rather then the profiles. Is it possible that the PA302W is calibrated incorrectly for this paper?
Wayne, the prints have purplish blues and the colour on the display is correct. The test images has not been modified. I do not have a Solux light source but have viewed the prints under a varied of lighting conditions and the blues are purplish.
Any suggestions where I go from here?
-
Wayne, the prints have purplish blues and the colour on the display is correct. The test images has not been modified. I do not have a Solux light source but have viewed the prints under a varied of lighting conditions and the blues are purplish.
Any suggestions where I go from here?
my recommended step would be to print the image onto a standard popular epson paper using Epson’s profiles, such as Premium Luster. I guess to me the first step is to eliminate the possibility that the paper profile has a problem. It doesn’t matter what settings you have the display and it doesn’t matter if the display matches anything with a test print, it should print correctly. If it doesn’t and you have correctly entered the information into the printing dialog boxes, the color should appear correct on the print. Using two different papers and profiles helps eliminate whether a profile might be problematic. If they don’t match then one profile might be an issue. If they are very close, then maybe the print is correct and the color is what we should expect, so then we move to the process of getting the display to match that output.
Blues such as that are notorious for showing the problem you describe unless using a very well made profile. I use 4101 patch targets when I make my profiles just to help the color management system handle nuances such as this. I’m sure Andrew was quite deliberate in the choice of what he included in his target to help reveal such problems.
-
Mark, I have an Epson V600 scanner but it is not colour managed. You mentioned that you have printed using the P800 on Ilford GFS paper with both an Ilford and custom profile and that the blues were corrected. This would seem to suggest there is something wrong in my workflow rather then the profiles. Is it possible that the PA302W is calibrated incorrectly for this paper?
Wayne, the prints have purplish blues and the colour on the display is correct. The test images has not been modified. I do not have a Solux light source but have viewed the prints under a varied of lighting conditions and the blues are purplish.
Any suggestions where I go from here?
Andy, if you have a V600 scanner, the software driving the scanner, whether it is EpsonScan or SilverFast would have built in profiles, in this case for reflective colour scanning, so you can likely use it without worrying much about the colour management - worth giving it try anyhow.
The P800 and the profiles for Ilford GFS are wide enough gamut that the blues in Andrew's target print should not come out purple. The Ilford profile is pretty decent, but a well-made professional custom profile would be likely superior, if only because it is customized to that very printer, rather than Ilford's printer notwithstanding that the model is the same; manufacturing tolerances are pretty tight these days, but one never knows what performance variance there may be between Ilford's P800 and yours.
The reason for using the target print is that the colours are familiar and known, so what you see on the display doesn't matter, as Wayne mentioned.
As I mentioned above, when I looked at your settings I didn't see anything obviously wrong with your workflow.
The one thing we haven't seen yet is what those purple blues really look like - as I suggested, could be helpful if you could make those scans and let us see the problem "in the flesh".
-
Mark,
One thing I've used myself and recommend to others is to grab a ColorChecker image file from Babelcolor and print it using Abs. Col. intent. It can be compared to an actual Colorchecker which nearly everyone has. This allows checking a known (Colorchecker) to a printer/paper/profile and is a good way to check against gross errors on the printer side. Best to use a low OBA paper but otherwise is a really good check.
-
Doug,
Agreed; as you know, I've been doing this formally (i.e. statistically) in umpteen paper reviews I've conducted for this website going back quite a while now; but your suggestion of a visual check is fine for those that can't be troubled with spreadsheets and formulas. That said, it has a potential limitation on which I'm now starting fresh work - and that is the gamut question. As you know, the 24 patch CC is a "safe" rather narrow gamut target - likely designed that way intentionally many years ago when the gamut volume of devices and processes were generally less than they are today, in order to avoid confounding accuracy testing with the handling of OOG colours; that's one important reason why it's so widely used for these purposes. So, in this particular case, if the described blue to purple colour shift were happening close to the gamut boundary of the printer/paper profile because the profile is coming short on accurate rendition of very saturated blues, the CC24 check wouldn't necessarily reveal this. To illustrate what I mean, see the attached, where the the CC24 is mapped against the IGFS/P800 gamut volume, and the red arrow shows where the "Sky Blue patch" sits within that volume - well ensconced, such if the O/P's problematic blues were closer to the gamut boundary, the CC24 wouldn't be revealing the potential source of the problem, e.g. distortion of highly saturated blue.
-
You can print Absolute Colorimetric but if you wish to use say Perceptual and you witness a magenta shift, I suspect you've got a goofy profile.
-
Doug,
Agreed; as you know, I've been doing this formally (i.e. statistically) in umpteen paper reviews I've conducted for this website going back quite a while now; but your suggestion of a visual check is fine for those that can't be troubled with spreadsheets and formulas.
Your reviews are quite informative and technically detailed but we are fortunate to have the instruments and technical background to do this. The OP, and perhaps the large majority of folks that have purchased high quality printers only have their eyes. No matter how good a person is with spreadsheets and formulas none of that helps when they look at a print and the color seems off. There are a few areas where color perception is both quite picky, and pretty precise. Skin colors and other memory colors. And there are areas where hue shifts are more noticeable such as the blue-purple area.
Badly needed are physical, and accurately reproduced, reference images printed using Rel. Col. that can be purchased or distributed as samples with new printers, combined with the downloadable digital images. The image should be in gamut for a wide selection of printers for a given media type. It's important that they are in gamut because out of gamut mapping is completely uncontrolled. Fortunately, profiles that are accurate over a large set of within gamut colors will also show accurately (soft proofing and/or math) how they render out of gamut colors as the AtoB1 tables are the quite accurate*. They can then be evaluated for how pleasing (or not) those out of gamut color mappings appear. OOG rendering is a different issue that verifying the printer/profile accuracy.
A Colorchecker card is the closest thing we have to a reference image with controlled colors that almost all photographers possess until something like the above is available.
* Aside from profiles created where the RelCol tables incorporate BPC like some Epson canned ones, unfortunately. However, while this screws up soft proofing, amongst other things, it has minimal effect on colors with L* values materially larger than the paper's black point.
That said, it has a potential limitation on which I'm now starting fresh work - and that is the gamut question. As you know, the 24 patch CC is a "safe" rather narrow gamut target - likely designed that way intentionally many years ago when the gamut volume of devices and processes were generally less than they are today, in order to avoid confounding accuracy testing with the handling of OOG colours; that's one important reason why it's so widely used for these purposes. So, in this particular case, if the described blue to purple colour shift were happening close to the gamut boundary of the printer/paper profile because the profile is coming short on accurate rendition of very saturated blues, the CC24 check wouldn't necessarily reveal this.
A working profile will reasonably accurately tell you exactly what colors will be printed from any of the rendering intents regardless of how near or far from the gamut boundary the color is. The AtoB1 tables are well defined and very accurate. At least for those that follow the last V2 ICC spec. or later. :)
To illustrate what I mean, see the attached, where the the CC24 is mapped against the IGFS/P800 gamut volume, and the red arrow shows where the "Sky Blue patch" sits within that volume - well ensconced, such if the O/P's problematic blues were closer to the gamut boundary, the CC24 wouldn't be revealing the potential source of the problem, e.g. distortion of highly saturated blue.
Yes, it would be nice to have an alternative for people without spectrophotometers. Something well defined and controlled with more than 18 colored patches.
-
You can print Absolute Colorimetric but if you wish to use say Perceptual and you witness a magenta shift, I suspect you've got a goofy profile.
Which is why one needs to stick with Rel. Col. or Abs. Col. and in gamut images. "Accurate" only applies to those. If it's accurate there, but goofy in Perceptual, time to get a profile from someone else. You can't fix goofy when it's baked into the profile.
-
..............A working profile will reasonably accurately tell you exactly what colors will be printed from any of the rendering intents regardless of how near or far from the gamut boundary the color is. ................
There is an argument (from a number of expert sources) that the 18 colours in the CC24 are very useful but "low hanging fruit"; so I am taking your statement as the proposition to be tested rather than a confirmed statement of fact. If the tests show it to be correct, that would confirm your statement at least in my mind and make me happy.
The relevance of this issue to the O/Ps problem of course relates to the unconfirmed proposition that hue shifts may be a function of high colour saturation that the profile is not handling well either because the blue is OOG and not being appropriately compressed into the printable gamut, or the blue is say barely in-gamut which the profile is also not handling well. Or what Andrew more directly calls a "goofy" profile. Lending credibility to the profile being the problem is that Printer Manages Color renders the blues more accurately according to the visual perception of the O/P, but distracting from the profile being the problem is the O/Ps observation that another profile has reproduced the problem, so two goofy profiles? Maybe, but maybe not. This is a tough nut to crack, so far.
-
There is an argument (from a number of expert sources) that the 18 colours in the CC24 are very useful but "low hanging fruit"; so I am taking your statement as the proposition to be tested rather than a confirmed statement of fact. If the tests show it to be correct, that would confirm your statement at least in my mind and make me happy.
The relevance of this issue to the O/Ps problem of course relates to the unconfirmed proposition that hue shifts may be a function of high colour saturation that the profile is not handling well either because the blue is OOG and not being appropriately compressed into the printable gamut, or the blue is say barely in-gamut which the profile is also not handling well. Or what Andrew more directly calls a "goofy" profile. Lending credibility to the profile being the problem is that Printer Manages Color renders the blues more accurately according to the visual perception of the O/P, but distracting from the profile being the problem is the O/Ps observation that another profile has reproduced the problem, so two goofy profiles? Maybe, but maybe not. This is a tough nut to crack, so far.
For what it's worth, I just made two prints of Andrew's image on Epson Prem. Luster 250 gsm using Rel Col on my 10+ y/o 9800. One used the canned Epson profile for that paper and one using a new profile made using my Isis. There is no visible difference outside of a very slight difference in rendering of the rainbow gradients used at the top and in some of the lettering. Big difference when viewing soft proofs but even there, both soft proofs are reasonably close. The woman, colorchecker, and image with the hand/jewelry looks the same on both prints.
I then ran a Matlab script on all the image pixels and compared the Lab values reported by the device space image RGB pixels comparing the canned profile and my custom profile.
Average dE00 1.2
Average dE00 w/o the OOG colors, 1.0.
Max dE00 (including OOG rainbow portions) 6.0
Average dE76 1.8
Average dE76 w/o the OOG colors, 1.5.
Max dE76 (including OOG rainbow portions) 8.1
Note that the test image doesn't have significant amounts of very low L* areas which are where the defects in Epson's canned profiles show up "bigly" (see Andrew's stress test image with Bill's Balls).
I've always found Epson's canned 9800 (and earlier 2400) profiles to be quite good but I didn't expect this close a match. Typically enough variation just between spectro brands to produce errors in this range and this was a 10 y/o profile and printer. I've only used OEM inks but haven't been particularly kind to my printer otherwise.
Note to the OP: If you PM me a mailing address I can mail you a print so you can physically compare with what you are getting.
EtoA: The blue jewelry shows no sign of purple/violet and, as noted, looks the same in both prints. The hue is really a long, long way from anything purple. It's closer to a cyanish blue if anything.
-
Without quoting snippets from earlier posts…
Curiously, it’s previously been an issue with the opposite side of the spectrum with photographic materials being made too greenish-yellow from profiles. My guess is the profile was then attempting to compensate for a rather low yellow gamut (expressed as “Kodak-yellow”) and thus using green to make a more lemon-yellow. Modern inkjet technology doesn’t seem to have as much trouble with yellow nowadays.
Although the apparel industry use spectrophotometers, it's common for the mfr to include an actual fabric swatch to their print provider for color match because they know lighting, surrounds, and sample size matter. 15-20 years ago the apparel industry seemed to more disciplined than they are currently. They would only design with a color their promotional materials could reproduce including their website shopping carts. Seems lately, no so much. I have a friend who operates two UPS stores and he tells me besides fit, color is a common reason for the return by customer to vendor.
If you mouse over a deep blue and observe the CMYK info readout, there is usually a considerable amount of magenta in the mix.
If you have a Kodak color print viewing filter kit and look at the blue card, one might say it appears to be rather purple-ish.
I know many pressmen refer to cyan ink as blue and magenta ink as red. Try printing bills balls without an ICC profile.
I believe nobody hates a blue sky, except for landscape photographers on particular occasions and printers because it reveals how their machines are severely banding and…
-
Mark, attached are scans of the printed test image with no colour management and with the Ilford GFS profile. Also a scan of the scanner settings is attached. Color Control was on. The scans colours are not the same as the prints. They are not as bright and the purplish blue is not as intense. Hope these are helpful.
Wayne, I will print the test image on the Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper next week when my order arrives.
-
Thanks Andy. Hard to say much if you think the scans don't adequately portray what the prints look like. But from what I see here: (1) very little difference; (2) the profiled photo is a tad darker all-round than the printer-managed one, so the deeper blue could begin to look a bit purplish but not much; (3) minimal difference for the lapis jewelry; (4) a tad purplish in the row of blue boxes under "Color Match RGB" and in the Blue portion of the rainbow running across the top; (5) neutrals look pretty well preserved in both, except in several of the mid-tone boxes where there appears to be a very slight departure toward greenish/yellow. I'm wondering - if you were to view the target in softproof mode with the IGFS profile active, and in Lr, just lighten the blues a little in the Luminance tab and print it, whether this would largely eliminate the problem in the print. If it does, it could indicate that the profile is rendering blue luminance a bit too dark, causing the appearance of purplish blue.
-
Andy_S,
One thing that might help is to look at the prints and see which of the following clips of the beads hanging on the model's hand most closely matches. The left most is from the Andrew's image, and each of the following clips has the hue angle increased 5 degrees.
-
.................
Badly needed are physical, and accurately reproduced, reference images printed using Rel. Col. that can be purchased or distributed as samples with new printers, combined with the downloadable digital images. ....................
Just reviewing this thread - I forgot to respond to this point you made: Indeed, yes. Such already exists somewhat in the manner you describe: the set of <Roman 16> images from BVDM (Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V.), Wiesbaden Germany (www.roman16.com). Excellent product, but unfortunately the set costs about 300 EUROS, so not something the printer manufacturers are likely to bundle into their printers at the going printer prices.
-
I'am also seeing the purple blue in this image printed on a P800, Win10 with the Ilford profile.
Printing from LR, I made a Hue adjustment blue -7 on a virtual copy and the print is now a good visual match to the original.
-
The Roman 16's are an invaluable tool!
-
Just reviewing this thread - I forgot to respond to this point you made: Indeed, yes. Such already exists somewhat in the manner you describe: the set of <Roman 16> images from BVDM (Bundesverband Druck und Medien e.V.), Wiesbaden Germany (www.roman16.com). Excellent product, but unfortunately the set costs about 300 EUROS, so not something the printer manufacturers are likely to bundle into their printers at the going printer prices.
The Roman 16's are an invaluable tool!
For those that have I1Profiler there is a set of Roman 16 images in the installation. It's in the i1profiler\preview-images in the installation directory.
One can download i1profiler from the xrite website. It won't be enabled w/o an xrite license but the image files are still available.
-
For those that have I1Profiler there is a set of Roman 16 images in the installation. It's in the i1profiler\preview-images in the installation directory.
One can download i1profiler from the xrite website. It won't be enabled w/o an xrite license but the image files are still available.
Nice one Doug! The images are indeed within the "Package" contents, but the route to finding them is a bit complex. I drilled down using "Pacifist" and am attaching a screen grab of the route to the location of interest to those on OSX. It starts from the unpacking of the installation Package. What one misses in this little gift, however, is the printed material in the product set, with all the technical information about them and showing on paper the correct printed colour appearance for each image - rather important.
-
For those that have I1Profiler there is a set of Roman 16 images in the installation.
VERYLow rez, (aprox 800x500 pixels) 8-bit per color in wide gamut space; not that useful really.
-
What one misses in this little gift, however, is the printed material in the product set, with all the technical information about them and showing on paper the correct printed colour appearance for each image - rather important.
Indeed. Most of the images skirt the boundaries of printer capabilities but without going too far so most printers, properly profiled, should render quite similar images. It's particularly good because the smooth gradients near these boundaries provide an excellent, visual, profile check. It's reduced rez but is still quite good for checking profile performance over the smooth gradients.
Significant amount of money to get the printed material and CD but I believe this is the gold standard for people in the color critical pre-press biz.
-
VERYLow rez, (aprox 800x500 pixels) 8-bit per color in wide gamut space; not that useful really.
Yup 1.9 MB per photo in i1Profiler versus 137 MB per photo in the original suite.
I would also be concerned about 8-bit colour in a wide gamut space - especially if they are being used for assessing smoothness of tonal gradations.
-
Yup 1.9 MB per photo in i1Profiler versus 137 MB per photo in the original suite.
I would also be concerned about 8-bit colour in a wide gamut space - especially if they are being used for assessing smoothness of tonal gradations.
It was also highly sharpened when downsized. Very distracting in the fine structure when printed larger than 4x6" or even there looked at with a loupe. However, the color space, egiRGB v2, is only slightly larger than Adobe RGB and it is in tif so no jpeg artifacts which is the main gradient banding culprit. 8 bits are just fine and results in no visible impact on smoothness in the larger gradients where defects in profiles show up. Looks nice with them all uprezed to printer native and printed side by side on a larger sheet and it's easy to check the more extreme colors. Tone curve is in L* so the max error for the B&Ws is .2 dE76. Somewhat larger for the color images. Similar to Adobe RGB 8 bit tifs, about .4 dE76 max.
-
Epson Legacy Baryta was sold out. So bought Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster. Printed the test image with colour Managed by Printer. Colours were accurate in the test print. Them printed using the Epson profile for the paper. The test print has the same purplish blues as in the previous test prints on the Ilford GFS paper.
Since all the test prints using profiles have the same purplish blues this seems to suggest there is something wrong in my
printer set up. I have double check everything and cannot find anything wrong. I'm stumped!
-
Andy_s,
I ran across this article by Mark Segal who investigated a change Apple made a while back. The change resulted in a significant color shift. He looked closely at the accuracy of printing ColorChecker colors. Interestingly, the largest shift occurred on the blue patch which was off 15 dE! Mark was one of the people that worked hard to get this corrected. This sort of thing is hard to track down without instrumentation and experienced people.
Just on the off chance something related is what's causing your blues. :)
It's one of the free pieces on LuLa:
https://luminous-landscape.com/printer-manages-colour-pmc/
-
Hi Doug - yes indeed - that experience ran through my mind early on when Andy brought his problem to our attention, and it is why I asked him what version of software he's using, because that particular issue was bespoke to Photoshop 2015.5 and its corresponding Lr version. Adobe fixed it within short order and as far as I know hasn't come back to haunt us since. The concerned article was "Wither Adobe" here: https://luminous-landscape.com/whither-adobe/, not the one you linked to, which is about printer colour management.
-
Hi Doug - yes indeed - that experience ran through my mind early on when Andy brought his problem to our attention, and it is why I asked him what version of software he's using, because that particular issue was bespoke to Photoshop 2015.5 and its corresponding Lr version. Adobe fixed it within short order and as far as I know hasn't come back to haunt us since. The concerned article was "Wither Adobe" here: https://luminous-landscape.com/whither-adobe/, not the one you linked to, which is about printer colour management.
Mark,
Thanks for posting the correct link as I was also looking at your nice "printer manages color" piece and copied the wrong link. I remember the flail and being concerned it had impacted the Windows version - but it had not. That, and the changes Apple made resulting in removal of the no-color-management print option forcing the null transform trick which only works on Windows AFAIK. One would think that sort of thing would be better controlled. Especially since Apple has such a dominant position in the design arts / photography world.
-
Mark,
Thanks for posting the correct link as I was also looking at your nice "printer manages color" piece and copied the wrong link. I remember the flail and being concerned it had impacted the Windows version - but it had not. That, and the changes Apple made resulting in removal of the no-color-management print option forcing the null transform trick which only works on Windows AFAIK. One would think that sort of thing would be better controlled. Especially since Apple has such a dominant position in the design arts / photography world.
Hi Doug, ACPU works well for printing profiling targets using OSX, especially for Epson printers; less clear for the Canon Pro printers, where Canon Print Studio Pro provides a reliable option.
There was clearly a slip-up back in June/July 2016 - I suppose can happen in any software company. It's been pretty smooth sailing on the whole since then. That issue was an Adobe problem, not Apple. As for Apple - not so dominant in the graphic arts/photography world. Some years ago an audience poll I saw at Photoshop World indicated roughly 50/50. A long time ago this was an Apple preserve, but that got heavily diluted over the years as Microsoft really improved dramatically in these areas.