Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Abdo on January 28, 2018, 06:30:39 am
-
Problems between MAC & Win - Color Management
I know the subject has been discussed here many times.
But the fact is that so far no one can explain and which way to go.
Take the example below:
I made 7 targets:
1 - Win - Iprofiler Color management off
2 - Win - LR color management off
3 - Win - Print Studio color management off
4 - Mac - Print Studio Color management off
5 - Mac - Ipfrofiler - Color management off
6 - Mac - Q1 - Color management off
7 - Mac - LR Color management off
Following what I already researched the correct 1
3 and 4 Print Studio Canon totally different even in MAC
2 5 6 7 - Result is the same, but it is only strange the result 2 equal in LR in Windows. Which leads me to think that the system using ICC embedded in the machine driver.
The media have always been the same and the roles and setup identical in all tests.
What do you think...
-
Not clear exactly what you've done, but a few thoughts.
(1) What printer are you profiling?
(2) did you use the profiles you made to produce test prints of a well-known printer test target to evaluate overall profile performance in their respective computers?
In general and in principle, (A) Photoshop and Lightroom should not be used for producing printer profiling targets because you cannot fully disable colour management in these applications. (B) You should use scrambled patch layout for the profiling targets to avoid possible reading errors from neighbouring colours that are too close to each other. (C) For Epson printers, the Adobe Color Print Utility remains a very reliable application for printing profiling targets. (D) For the latest generation of Canon Pro printers, using Canon's Print Studio Pro with Color Management set to OFF from within that application should work well. (E) For both Epson and Canon printers, printing the targets from i1Profiler's print utility should be good too.
I can't comment on the specific results you obtained for that one Pantone colour.
-
As Mark stated, there is no, NO color management in some of the applications you've mentioned so just toss them out of the mix.
i1 Profiler and Adobe's Color Print Utility work correctly, ColorSync on the Mac when set correctly should too.
If you're printing targets for the creation of a profile, use one of these applications (probably easiest if you're not doing remote work to print targets out of the X-rite package).
-
What do you think...
Hard to tell much from the images. It would be interesting if you scan the targets and post the CGATs files. Then the differences could be easily quantified.
In particular I'd be interested in seeing how closely the I1Profiler Mac and Win compared. They should, of course, be as close as two targets printed by the same OS. One assumes the device print engines are identical between the Mac and Win. But, who knows for sure.
-
Thank you all for the comments,
The created targets were from I1Profiler.
The printer for creation is a Canon Pro 4000
I understand that by producing targets on both MAC and Windows, the result should be absolutely the same, and that is not the case.
-
Thank you all for the comments,
The created targets were from I1Profiler.
The printer for creation is a Canon Pro 4000
I understand that by producing targets on both MAC and Windows, the result should be absolutely the same, and that is not the case.
It is required that they essentially match or else ICC profiles would vary between Macs and Windows. If you could scan the targets made by I1Profiler on the Mac and Win machines and post the files we could compare them to see if they are within normal variation.
-
It is required that they essentially match or else ICC profiles would vary between Macs and Windows. If you could scan the targets made by I1Profiler on the Mac and Win machines and post the files we could compare them to see if they are within normal variation.
Thanks,
You can see in this simple example:
The left, target generated on the MAC, as I1 Profiler.
A right, targe generated on Windows with I1 Profiler.
As I am very annoying and I have two systems installed, this is something that always caused me astonishment, I even consulted X-Rite, but nobody wants to know the problem.
Because in my understanding the graphics should be generated absolutely the same ..
-
This problem I discovered more than 2 years, and nobody has ever been able to explain.
It is necessary to have both systems, win and mac installed and do the procedure.
Because of this I ended up using Windows because it is a system that is lets you turn off color management.
Being that in MAC this is a great discussion and each one has a recipe of cake ... but nobody presents something consistent. :-[ :-[ :-[
I would very much like those who have access to both systems to be able to test the targets on both systems and compare .. surely they will understand what I have been saying ...
-
This problem I discovered more than 2 years, and nobody has ever been able to explain.
It is necessary to have both systems, win and mac installed and do the procedure.
Because of this I ended up using Windows because it is a system that is lets you turn off color management.
Being that in MAC this is a great discussion and each one has a recipe of cake ... but nobody presents something consistent. :-[ :-[ :-[
I would very much like those who have access to both systems to be able to test the targets on both systems and compare .. surely they will understand what I have been saying ...
Well, you have both. And the I1Profiler should produce the same ICC profiles for both. Which is why I asked you to scan the targets with the I1Pro 2 and post the scan text files.
ICC profiles are OS independent and should produce the same thing on any OS (Win, iOS, or Linux) as the drivers operated w/o color management should be the same.
-
Because of this I ended up using Windows because it is a system that is lets you turn off color management.
I don't know whether you are gaining anything, because neither Photoshop nor Lightroom allow you to turn THEIR colour management off; are you - anyone else here - sure that turning it off in Windows over-rides whatever is happening in the applications? And how do you turn off ICM (I don't use Windows since 2010, so I don't recall these details)? If you can do it, and if it continues to operate in the applications, I wonder what kind of soup one ends up with. I'm still curious to know about the results of actually printing real photos or printer evaluation targets with these profiles. In the final analysis, why not just confine your profile target making to applications that we know for sure are suitable for this purpose?
-
Well, you have both. And the I1Profiler should produce the same ICC profiles for both. Which is why I asked you to scan the targets with the I1Pro 2 and post the scan text files.
ICC profiles are OS independent and should produce the same thing on any OS (Win, iOS, or Linux) as the drivers operated w/o color management should be the same.
Exactly, I understand ...
But that's not what happens, I've done everything.
Even I tested this with Win system and Mac with installation of Zero, not to leave no doubt.
Now the ideal is someone more experienced to do this same test, you will surely encounter the same problem.
X-Rite does not want to hear or discuss it.
I think the problem is still related to how you turn off color management on the MAC.
-
I don't know whether you are gaining anything, because neither Photoshop nor Lightroom allow you to turn THEIR colour management off; are you - anyone else here - sure that turning it off in Windows over-rides whatever is happening in the applications? And how do you turn off ICM (I don't use Windows since 2010, so I don't recall these details)? If you can do it, and if it continues to operate in the applications, I wonder what kind of soup one ends up with. I'm still curious to know about the results of actually printing real photos or printer evaluation targets with these profiles. In the final analysis, why not just confine your profile target making to applications that we know for sure are suitable for this purpose?
Mark, I welcome your participation.
But if I'm using the same software, the same printer, the same target.
Should not Win and MAC results be the same?
Because this correct target is going to make the best profile (ICC) for this printer.
Can you understand my question?
-
Your end objective is to have profiles that deliver accurate results with whatever printer and operating system you are using. To know whether your profiles are doing thismthis you need to test your profiles with known printer evaluation targets that have known reference values. Have you done any of this? Yes, OSX and Windows should deliver the same colour management results for the same reference file numbers, paper and printer, but whether they do or not you don't know yet because you haven't done a complete testing cycle, based on information you've provided to date. And if they don't, that's academically interesting but you work around it deploying bespoke profiles for the system they are being used with.
-
But if I'm using the same software, the same printer, the same target.
Should not Win and MAC results be the same?
Because this correct target is going to make the best profile (ICC) for this printer.
Can you understand my question?
Yes, they should. Let's limit this discussion to I1Profiler. There are more complex issues using other apps w/o color management. I1Profiler should print on Macs and Windows targets that are the same and profiles generated from them should closely match.
I will ask again that you scan the two I1Profiler targets made from the different OSes and post the scanned files, CGATs or I1Profile's native format. This will allow us to determine if they are different and in what ways. They should not be significantly different.
-
Sorry to hear that you are having trouble to print the target correctly.
I do see you are running a printing business
so as I
and which means I would put more time on finding business and doing the actual print.
I had found this kind of problems a few years ago and this is why I bout Qimage to eliminate all this "no color management" BS (excuse for my language ;D)
Non of these software could give me a consistent performance and workflow when there is a major update on the OS
Hope this would help you a bit
For your original question, sorry, there nothing I can tell but hopefully the other members could give you a right answer which I would also love to learn too.
Thanks
Aaron
-
I understand that by producing targets on both MAC and Windows, the result should be absolutely the same, and that is not the case.
Not producing, PRINTING. They should produce identical results, in i1Profiler all settings being correct.
-
I just generated two graphs, one in Windows other on the MAC
I made 1 chart with Windows and printing on both systems.
Then 1 graphic on Mac and printing on both systems
I printed both using I1profiler.
Attached are the graphics generated for download.
As you can see the problems persist in any way. :-[
-
I just generated two graphs, one in Windows other on the MAC
I made 1 chart with Windows and printing on both systems.
Then 1 graphic on Mac and printing on both systems
I printed both using I1profiler.
Attached are the graphics generated for download.
As you can see the problems persist in any way. :-[
The attached files are target chart files (txf). They have no measurement data (these are mxf). It's the measured, spectro data from scanning the charts that tells the story. You should also print exactly the same chart directly using I1Profiler on the Mac and I1Profiler on Windows and with the same settings in the printer driver. Then scan the prints. It doesn't matter which machine you use to scan the prints. The process and data will be the same.
It's important to print the charts using I1Profiler, not print images created by I1Profiler outside of I1Profiler.
-
Friends,
I made a try using 'driver match' in windows, result ... is that you get exactly the same as I have on MAC ...
See the photos ... 3 targets .. the first one on the left is win with 'total shutdown color management'
The central one is 'windows' using corresponding driver.
The one on the right is on the MAC.
And now . ? What has always been said is the driver in Windows should be turned off ...
So we have a problem, who is correct ???
-
Here's the instructions for disabling color management when printing targets. It applies to I1Profiler as well.
http://support.datacolor.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/1234/37/how-to-disable-color-management-at-the-printer-driver-level-how-can-i-make-sure-that-color-management-is-disabled-completely-in-my-printer-driver-prior-to-printing-the-spyder3print-sr-color-targets-from-within-the-spyder3printsr-application
-
Here's the instructions for disabling color management when printing targets. It applies to I1Profiler as well.
http://support.datacolor.com/index.php?/Knowledgebase/Article/View/1234/37/how-to-disable-color-management-at-the-printer-driver-level-how-can-i-make-sure-that-color-management-is-disabled-completely-in-my-printer-driver-prior-to-printing-the-spyder3print-sr-color-targets-from-within-the-spyder3printsr-application
Thanks Doug,
But that does not work, if I follow what they say, it's exactly the problems I've been having.
Choosing NONE in Windows. This was my first way.
The only way that the targets are the same in Windows and MAC is doing as I did in the last post.
Now the question is, would not that be the right one ...
-
Thanks Doug,
But that does not work, if I follow what they say, it's exactly the problems I've been having.
Choosing NONE in Windows. This was my first way.
The only way that the targets are the same in Windows and MAC is doing as I did in the last post.
Now the question is, would not that be the right one ...
No, anything other than "none" in Windows is wrong. Can't say about Macs. I don't have one but many here do and can walk you through it. Andrew is very conversant with both Macs and a variety of printers and knows this stuff inside out.
Here's a description of the old iOS 10.5 settings from Andrew's site:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Epson_Driver_Leopard.pdf
-
More up to date:
For the current set of Canon Pro Printers used with Mac OSX beyond version 10.6.8, turn off colour management by using Print Studio Pro to print the targets and setting Color Controls to OFF, or No Color Controls (i.e. No Color Management).
For Epson printers, use the Adobe Color Print Utility. It disables colour management under the hood - the user selects the Paper size and orientation, Media Type, the bit depth, Output resolution, Speed and level of Detail in the Printer Settings menu.
-
Mark, Good morning!
What you're telling me is using Print Studio to print the targets.
I did this test, and differences are greater because it printed one way in MAC and another in Windows.
And it's an issue, so all X-Rite did in their software is wrong?
I wonder if Canon posted some article guiding you to profiling this form that you are indicating is correct. (use Print Studio).
The issue is very confusing and with very little information from both Canon and X-Rite.
Att
-
Hi Abdo.
It appears that you are not able to get consistent prints of targets between Windows and a Mac, so you may not know which to trust.
It is important how you are printing the targets. You can no longer use Lightroom or Photoshop to print targets without colour management either on Windows or a Mac.
Adobe produced the 'Adobe Color Printer Utility' to get round this problem which can be downloaded from here: Adobe Color Print Utility (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/no-color-management-option-missing.html) . There are windows and Mac versions.
On the Mac you can also use the 'Preview' application (bundled with the OS) to print without colour management; you will need to search the internet for instructions on how to do this.
Mark Segal's testing on Canon Pro 2000 printers showed that more accurate target prints can be obtained using Canon's utility 'Canon Print Studio Pro'. You can read about this here:Canon Pro-2000 Review and Related Items of Interest (https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-pro-2000-review-and-related-items-of-interest/) .
Any of the above methods of printing targets will allow you to create some very acceptable profiles for printing. The differences that may be produced by the slightly different targets are probably not worth worrying about provided you are getting some lovely prints at the end of it. The application of colour management is not a precise science however much we hope it will be.
-
Mark, Good morning!
What you're telling me is using Print Studio to print the targets.
I did this test, and differences are greater because it printed one way in MAC and another in Windows.
And it's an issue, so all X-Rite did in their software is wrong?
I wonder if Canon posted some article guiding you to profiling this form that you are indicating is correct. (use Print Studio).
The issue is very confusing and with very little information from both Canon and X-Rite.
Att
Hi Abdo,
You're right about at least one thing - there is very little information about colour management procedures and underlying issues with them from both Canon and X-Rite. But I would also extend this observation to Apple Computer, Microsoft and Adobe. There isn't a wealth of information forthcoming from those vendors either that would allow someone on the outside to understand what differences, if any, there are between Colorsync and ICM in the area of colour management. This means that we users need to do our own homework, as you are doing, in order to discover what combination of software best achieves the objectives we have set for ourselves. I know colour management is supposed to deliver cross-platform consistency of final outputs assuming the use of good profiles, but I'm not convinced you know yet whether that happens to the final results of the profiling. More on this further below.
My recommendations are based on finding out what I have determined works best, sometimes by having to solve issues I too have encountered with profiling printers in the course of doing the research underlying my reviews of these products. In the case of Canon where I did initially encounter a profiling accuracy problem, I had the advantage of discussing it with knowledgeable Canon staff members because I was preparing reviews of their products and to do that they understood I needed some guidance for the reviews to be useful to our readers. As you may have observed, my reviews are very much results-oriented so they depend on how well I can make the equipment and software perform in order to provide a fair perspective on their capabilities. In this context, there are also limits to the information they can provide to me, however they have been helpful enough over the telephone (no documents) to come to some useful conclusions that do give largely correct results. So, the advice I provided to use Print Studio Pro for printing profiling targets from OSX on Canon Pro printers is advice I received from Canon, I tested it using OSX and it worked fine, so I recommend it. I stopped using Windows computers in 2010, so I can't comment on what works with Windows. But once we know what works best on each system, just use that and don't bother too much about differences between them - unless this presents critical and insurmountable operational problems for you that I don't understand.
I don't believe the issue you are raising has anything to do with X-Rite software based on my understanding that so far all you have done with X-Rite software is to produce the profiling targets. Unless I missed something, it appears to me that you are basing your observations on appearance differences between the targets produced from alternative printing applications on OSX and Windows. I don't think this is a good enough basis for defining problems or coming to conclusions. I think you need to make the profiles from each of those targets, install those profiles respectively in the computers from which the targets were printed, make test prints using known printer evaluation targets that have colours which can be measured with a spectrophotometer and see whether the final results still differ.
-
Hello Mark and Simon.
Thank you very much for the comments.
I would like information:
Attached to the Windows screen where we should select the color management:
If you select option 1 (managed by the printer), the targets generated by I1profiler are exactly the same when printed and compared to MAC.
If you select option 4 (management off) in this case the graphics when printed in Windows are different from the MAC.
Well the question is that all literature that is, speaks that must do option in Windows by 4 (management off).
It is at this point that my doubt resides, or MAC is correct and I must follow it, and when using Windows do option 1.
Either Windows is correct and the MAC in this case has problem in all forms printing.
Att
-
Hi Abdo.
I can't really comment on the screenshot you have posted as it is unfamiliar to me. Does it belong to the X-Rite software ? If you are trying to print targets using the X-Rite software I suggest that you stop and start using one of the alternatives suggested by Mark and I – although I would defer to Mark's recommendations as he is familiar with the i1profiler software whereas I am not.
-
Hi Abdo.
I can't really comment on the screenshot you have posted as it is unfamiliar to me. Does it belong to the X-Rite software ? If you are trying to print targets using the X-Rite software I suggest that you stop and start using one of the alternatives suggested by Mark and I – although I would defer to Mark's recommendations as he is familiar with the i1profiler software whereas I am not.
Hello Simon,
This is the print driver screen in Windows.
Att
-
Hello Mark and Simon.
..................
Either Windows is correct and the MAC in this case has problem in all forms printing.
Att
There is no generic problem printing profiling targets from OSX using a very wide range of normal inkjet papers, or in making excellent prints from OSX using the profiles created from those profiling targets. I've been doing this very often and have complete confidence in saying this.
I'll repeat for the last time: use the method for each operating system that works best with that system, and judge the results by printing printer evaluation targets having known colours using the profiles bespoke to the system in which they were created - only then can you be sure of what colour management approach works best for you. If you come back here with those kind of results, I'll be interesting in seeing them; until then - nothing more I can contribute on this topic.
-
There is no generic problem printing profiling targets from OSX using a very wide range of normal inkjet papers, or in making excellent prints from OSX using the profiles created from those profiling targets. I've been doing this very often and have complete confidence in saying this.
I'll repeat for the last time: use the method for each operating system that works best with that system, and judge the results by printing printer evaluation targets having known colours using the profiles bespoke to the system in which they were created - only then can you be sure of what colour management approach works best for you. If you come back here with those kind of results, I'll be interesting in seeing them; until then - nothing more I can contribute on this topic.
Mark,
Thank you for your participation and helped me clarify some issues.
I've always found this question to be just a simple solution technique.
But apparently it is what you are suggesting, I have to test and arrive at the result that pleases me and I feel comfortable with the impressions.
Thanks again.
-
There is no generic problem printing profiling targets from OSX using a very wide range of normal inkjet papers, or in making excellent prints from OSX using the profiles created from those profiling targets. I've been doing this very often and have complete confidence in saying this.
I'll repeat for the last time: use the method for each operating system that works best with that system, and judge the results by printing printer evaluation targets having known colours using the profiles bespoke to the system in which they were created - only then can you be sure of what colour management approach works best for you. If you come back here with those kind of results, I'll be interesting in seeing them; until then - nothing more I can contribute on this topic.
Well, option 4 (Color management Off in English) is the correct setting for printing profile targets in Windows. Why that should produce very different targets than the Mac process makes no sense to me. You can certainly make working profiles selecting option 1 if you set the printer driver to option 1 when printing letting Photoshop manage color but it will result in a smaller gamut volume. Option 4 is designed to print the largest possible gamut volume but it doesn't correspond to standard RGB spaces.
Properly set up, the exact same profile should work in Windows and Macs. Every paper/printer combination where Canson has a downloadable profile, including the Canon 4000, it is used for both Macs and Windows.
This isn't adding up. If the same printed target for Macs visually differs from the Windows one printed with option 4 selected then one must conclude the settings between the Mac and Win differ and the same profile could not be used on both systems. Canson doesn't appear to have that problem..
-
After 18 years of wide format inkjet printer use one wonders why the printer manufacturers themselves did not include a utility to print a target using a bypass that is not interfered by the CM of whatever application or OS. It is available for the HP Z models as part of the integrated bundle of the spectrometer hardware + software but could in fact be just a standalone app for a target print path.
One reason it never happened might be that it used to be easier to print targets correctly in the past, before OS designers decided that everything should be idiot proof (even for the pros) and application designers followed that trail.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
After 18 years of wide format inkjet printer use one wonders why the printer manufacturers themselves did not include a utility to print a target using a bypass that is not interfered by the CM of whatever application or OS. ..............
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
Well, in the case of Canon - they did so with the inclusion of Print Studio Pro that has a checkbox to turn off colour management, and it works well for printing profiling targets in Canon Pro printers. In the case of Epson, there is currently no need because ACPU or i1Profiler do this and they too work well.
-
Well, option 4 (Color management Off in English) is the correct setting for printing profile targets in Windows. Why that should produce very different targets than the Mac process makes no sense to me. You can certainly make working profiles selecting option 1 if you set the printer driver to option 1 when printing letting Photoshop manage color but it will result in a smaller gamut volume. Option 4 is designed to print the largest possible gamut volume but it doesn't correspond to standard RGB spaces.
Properly set up, the exact same profile should work in Windows and Macs. Every paper/printer combination where Canson has a downloadable profile, including the Canon 4000, it is used for both Macs and Windows.
This isn't adding up. If the same printed target for Macs visually differs from the Windows one printed with option 4 selected then one must conclude the settings between the Mac and Win differ and the same profile could not be used on both systems. Canson doesn't appear to have that problem..
I agree with you that it isn't adding up. The question is why. And I agree with you that if Canson doesn't have Abdo's problem, it would be good to know why. Someone should ask whoever does this for Canson how they make their profiles. I don't know who that would be otherwise I would do so myself.
I think the nub of this problem of differing results stems from two places:
(1) Windows - if I understand correctly - does still allow the user to disable ICM so that the OS does not tinker with file values on their way through the computer to the printer, but Apple eliminated the option to turn Colorsync off in OSX, as Ernst rightly pointed out. This means that printing correct targets on a Mac requires a workaround not needed with ICM. It led to the development of ACPU after the uproar that happened when Adobe turned off the ability to disable color management in the Photoshop print function as a result of Apple's action.
(2) Canon appears to have designed their drivers for the Pro series printers in a manner that interferes with the proper functioning of ACPU on those printers, but Epson has not.
Both of these situations give rise to the observation I derived from advice and experience that it is best to use ACPU for Epson printers and Print Studio Pro for producing targets from Canon Pro printers. These two paths for those two printer brands have served me well in the many profiles I have generated for the printer and paper reviews I produced for this website and for my personal photography.
Possibly underlying the issue Abdo raised is the point Doug raised that there may be some differences of settings that is affecting whether colour management is actually being turned off to the same effect in both operating systems with whatever he is doing to produce the targets using each. Let us recall that a profile is characterizing how the printer renders file values, so if there is REALLY no colour management happening in both operating systems, the same printer printing the same target on the same paper should produce targets that look the same. If they don't, "No Color Management" doesn't mean the same thing between the two OS types, and the reason for that could be a user-controllable setting, or something deeper under the hood we haven't gotten to the bottom of. I realize this post isn't settling the question, but I hope it contributes to further thought on the etiology of the issue and where to look for conclusive answers.
-
Thanks Mark !
Putting a bit of trouble found on MAC.
When printing a target on the Mac, made with i1profiler and Print Studio Pro, there are also differences between them.
I would not recommend the generic profile used by Canson or HFA, they are weak and inconsistent, and with a low patch number.
Apparently it's like Mark says, it's hard to close this question ..... 8)
-
Thanks Mark !
Putting a bit of trouble found on MAC.
When printing a target on the Mac, made with i1profiler and Print Studio Pro, there are also differences between them.
I would not recommend the generic profile used by Canson or HFA, they are weak and inconsistent, and with a low patch number.
Apparently it's like Mark says, it's hard to close this question ..... 8)
I can't replicate your results because I no longer have a Canon printer at home and it would be a large inconvenience for me to access one. Though it may be interesting.
I am not surprised, however, that there could be differences between the targets printed from i1Profiler and Print Studio Pro - I too have noticed in the past when I was doing this work that the profiles made from targets printed with these two applications don't perform identically. For the Canon printers, the profiles made from targets printed with Print Studio Pro delivered more accurate results from my test suite.
As for the canned profiles from Canson and HFA (what is this - Hahnemuhle?) I'm curious to understand two things: (1) how do you know they used a low patch count (also what do you consider as "low")? (2) What do you mean exactly by a profile being "weak" and "inconsistent"?
-
I agree with you that it isn't adding up. The question is why. And I agree with you that if Canson doesn't have Abdo's problem, it would be good to know why. Someone should ask whoever does this for Canson how they make their profiles. I don't know who that would be otherwise I would do so myself.
I think the nub of this problem of differing results stems from two places:
(1) Windows - if I understand correctly - does still allow the user to disable ICM so that the OS does not tinker with file values on their way through the computer to the printer, but Apple eliminated the option to turn Colorsync off in OSX, as Ernst rightly pointed out. This means that printing correct targets on a Mac requires a workaround not needed with ICM. It led to the development of ACPU after the uproar that happened when Adobe turned off the ability to disable color management in the Photoshop print function as a result of Apple's action.
(2) Canon appears to have designed their drivers for the Pro series printers in a manner that interferes with the proper functioning of ACPU on those printers, but Epson has not.
Both of these situations give rise to the observation I derived from advice and experience that it is best to use ACPU for Epson printers and Print Studio Pro for producing targets from Canon Pro printers. These two paths for those two printer brands have served me well in the many profiles I have generated for the printer and paper reviews I produced for this website and for my personal photography.
Possibly underlying the issue Abdo raised is the point Doug raised that there may be some differences of settings that is affecting whether colour management is actually being turned off to the same effect in both operating systems with whatever he is doing to produce the targets using each. Let us recall that a profile is characterizing how the printer renders file values, so if there is REALLY no colour management happening in both operating systems, the same printer printing the same target on the same paper should produce targets that look the same. If they don't, "No Color Management" doesn't mean the same thing between the two OS types, and the reason for that could be a user-controllable setting, or something deeper under the hood we haven't gotten to the bottom of. I realize this post isn't settling the question, but I hope it contributes to further thought on the etiology of the issue and where to look for conclusive answers.
Mark, I think you summarize the conundrum quite well.
For Canson's profiles, which are identical for Windows and Mac, to work the process to create them, as well as use them, simply has to result in the same down to the driver level. Yet, your testing shows some differences on the Mac with ACPU v Canon's plugin. I don't have a Mac and you don't have a Windows but each of us have the tools and background to clarify this. Abdo has both, but is new to this. I can appreciate his confusion.
From my pov, this is quite amazing. I have never encountered an issue with Windows producing any differences with ACPU, I1Profiler's direct printing, or the null-transform Photoshop trick. They all produce the same results properly done. However, each approach has its issues.
ACPU, for unknown reasons, shortens the targets on Windows about 3%. In my testing this creates targets that are just acceptable to ISIS. While it works, if the targets are only 1% smaller than ACPU prints, ISIS fails to read them. I'm uncomfortable operating on the edge.
The Photoshop null-transform trick, which has always worked on my printers with all the various flavors of Photoshop and Windows, has been deprecated by Adobe to the point they raise a stiff warning when doing it. Most likely to keep a common code base with the Mac and deal with the fact it hasn't worked in some time on the Mac side. However, for me it's indispensable when printing targets on large roll paper where positioning multiple target pages across a wide roll and having them printed and sized correctly, just makes that process much simpler.
I1Profiler prints targets directly that are sized correctly though it's limited to 8 bits and is somewhat difficult to use on wide roll paper without wasting paper. Also, when printing targets with fractional values scaled to 0-255, it truncates the fractional values. Yet, when creating profiles it uses those fractional values. This is only a problem when generating and using targets that contain fractional values. Unfortunately, I1Profiler produces profiles using fractional values, but saves the truncated ones inside the generated profile. The workaround is to save the generated targets which also truncates, then reload prior to printing the targets. Then the target prints and profiles are created from the same data. This is fine for profiling smaller sheets but wastes paper on large rolls.
As for the other printer settings such as resolution, paper thickness, type, vacuum, and whatnot, I simply optimize inking (another process that can sometimes be useful but separate from profiling) then save and name the configuration. Then, when printing either targets or using Photoshop to manage color, I load the appropriate named configuration. This approach works great on everything I have with both my Epson 9800 and Canon 9500 Mark II.
-
As for the canned profiles from Canson and HFA (what is this - Hahnemuhle?) I'm curious to understand two things: (1) how do you know they used a low patch count (also what do you consider as "low")? (2) What do you mean exactly by a profile being "weak" and "inconsistent"?
Yes HFA - Hahnemuhle.
Mark, I do not remember now but the 1 year issue, when I bought ISIS, I started doing my profiles with it. Somewhere there was information from Canson talking about 1728 patches for his profile.
Particularly I never liked the canned profiles, the tests I produced with both Ipf 6400 8400 and now with two Pro 4000 .. I always ended up using mine that I did with 6000 patches.
I'm going to have to follow your advice, what my eyes can see better.
I have four options: (it sure will not be 2)
1. Windows with 6000 patches using Iprofiler - which is the current use and taste.
2. Canned ICC - which I will not use
3. Mac 6000 Patchs Using Print Studio Pro and Test and Compare
4. Mac 6000 patchs using Iprofiler and test and compare ...
-
Hi Abdo, 1728 patches is actually OK. One can make good profiles with even less. Ethan Hansen published a very interesting post some time back dealing with appropriate patch numbers - more is not necessarily better - and identified the various patch configurations he has tested that make very good profiles. Worthwhile having a look at that. With an iSis it doesn't matter much because it's so automated, but anyhow, just saying the patch numbers probably does not explain issues you had with the canned profiles. That said, with good equipment and if you are doing it correctly a custom profile should anyhow be preferable. The comparison between routes 1, 3 and 4 should be interesting.
-
Hi Abdo, 1728 patches is actually OK. One can make good profiles with even less. Ethan Hansen published a very interesting post some time back dealing with appropriate patch numbers - more is not necessarily better - and identified the various patch configurations he has tested that make very good profiles. Worthwhile having a look at that. With an iSis it doesn't matter much because it's so automated, but anyhow, just saying the patch numbers probably does not explain issues you had with the canned profiles. That said, with good equipment and if you are doing it correctly a custom profile should anyhow be preferable. The comparison between routes 1, 3 and 4 should be interesting.
I would suggest trying all three with the default-Isis target. It has 957 patches and fits on a single US letter size page. Make 2 prints with each of the three which will allow you to compare print to print variation. Then use I1Profilers chart comparison tool to get metrics on how much variation occurs between them.
-
Good Morning !
Here's a file, 2 charts
Canson Rag 310g Paper
Chart: 809 patches
2 Charts - I1 profiler and Print Studio Pro
2 Archives XMF
1 TXF Chart
Who can say thank you.
I'll see if I can still do the same on Windows today.
Thanks
-
attach Win - generate I1profiler + color management off.
-
Good Morning !
Here's a file, 2 charts
Canson Rag 310g Paper
Chart: 809 patches
2 Charts - I1 profiler and Print Studio Pro
2 Archives XMF
1 TXF Chart
Who can say thank you.
I'll see if I can still do the same on Windows today.
Thanks
What am I supposed to do with this and the attachment in the last post above?
-
Mark,
I did 3 profiles.
Win - Made with I1Profiler with management off
Mac - made with i1profiler and other with Canon Print Studio Pro (color management off)
Unfortunately I can not put 1 zip on account of size.
-
You sent one MXF file, which is not a profile, it's a set of i1Profiler measurements and you sent one ICM which is a profile and only takes 2 MB, so with another post and another attachment you could send the other profile whether ICM or ICC, doesn't matter. But none of this is properly labelled to know what is what, so it's essentially unusable. Anyhow, what are we supposed to do with these files? What have you done with them to verify what differences they are revealing? If you are going to let us help make progress in this thread, the messaging will need a lot more clarity and precision.
-
Attached file of the configuration used.
Is that what you need to be able to evaluate?
Thanks
-
Abdo - sorry, but totally useless and I don't have time to do all your work for you. You need to print the targets, construct the profiles and test them comparatively, then let us see what you come up with.
-
Abdo - sorry, but totally useless and I don't have time to do all your work for you. You need to print the targets, construct the profiles and test them comparatively, then let us see what you come up with.
Sorry, Mark, I did not mean to waste your time on this.
I just put the files step by step how I'm running, if that does not have to analyze, I apologize.
I'll still print with these new profiles to see the differences in impressions.
Thanks for your help.
-
OK Abdo fair enough. Don't get me wrong - another participant in this discussion may find those useful, I don't know, I'm just responding on my own behalf. My basic suggestion to you is just to take the options you've identified and run through the whole cycle of printing the targets, making the profiles, printing known printer evaluation images with those profiles and then it will be useful and minimally time-consuming to see what works better than what. Whether we'll know why is another question, but one thing at a time.
-
Abdo,
Here's a quick view of the gamut boundaries of the 3 profiles and sRGB at L*=50.
The one from print studio is quite stunted so there are some issues with the settings running it. No idea what. I don't have Macs or run Print Studio.
Note that the Rag 809 I1 and Rag 809 Win are very close and overlap. I'll run some more tests on this to see how close and will update this post in a bit but wanted to give a quick view now. As an aside, the two matching profiles are reasonably close, but slightly larger in shape to the profile generated for my Canon 9500 II (not shown) using the same paper.
Edited: Additional Info:
I've compared the mxf files and the Mac one "Rag Sec Cor I1 Profiler" and Windows one "Rag 809 Windos (Color Man. OFF)" match exactly like I would expect two target prints printed consecutively on the same system and setup. Further the gamut's have the appropriate shape and are reasonably similar to that on my Canon 9500 II using the same paper. I've added the results of the comparison to this post. You can do this yourself by using an "A-B" comparison available in I1Profiler under the "Analysis" tab on the left that is available when you use "advanced mode."
So a profile made from either of the two matching processes can be used with both Mac and Windows. What I find particularly interesting is that the files match so closely that I can safely say the Mac and Windows, and the device level, (color unmanaged, max gamut) printing algorithms match.
Added:
I added a comparison with the Mac Print Studio mxf file. Delta E 1976's are shown as dE2000 becomes quite unreliable for large errors.
-
ACPU has a known (to Adobe) problem of incorrectly resizing some outputs, which prevents scanning by iSIS. Lower in priority to them than working on Photoshop print pipeline, even though it disables the functionality it was created to have to work around the removal of the option to turn off color management.
Turning off color management can cause Windows (or Photoshop, not sure) to apply a conversion to sRGB to data going to the printer driver. An example of how this could occur is setting Photoshop (and maybe other apps) to "Printer Manages Color" and then in the printer driver setting "Color Management Off", in an attempt to work around the inability to apply "No Color Management" in Photoshop.
Latest version of iProfiler won't print. XRite says it is a known problem to be fixed in next release. Have to print TIFF to file and use ACPU. Interesting that XRite produces a product for which actually printing the test chart is a central feature doesn't place top priority on a bug that prevents it from doing so. the TIFF/ACPU workaround works but you still have to beware of the sRGB problem in Windows.
https://www.xrite.com/service-support/rgbprintertestchartwontprintini1profiler171onwindows
"RGB Printer Test Chart Won't Print in i1Profiler 1.7.1 on Windows
The RGB Printer test chart will not print in i1Profiler 1.7.1...this is a known bug reported to engineering,.The RGB Printer profiling “Print” button does not work in the Test Chart workflow step. This has been verified and logged as a software bug to fix in the next update of i1Profiler. In the meantime, you have a few options:
1.Some users have reported that if they uninstall one of their printers (preferably one that you no longer use) and then reboot the PC, the “Print” button worked.
2.You can save the test chart out as a TIFF and then print it with all color management turned off.
3.You can uninstall i1Profiler 1.7.1 and X-Rite Device Services Manager in Control Panel > Programs & Features, reboot the PC, and then reinstall i1Profiler 1.6.7 using the following link
http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?ID=1397&Action=Support&SoftwareID=1672 "
So with the ACPU resizing problem and the sRGB conversion issue and the nonprinting defect in iProfiler, and none of these things afforded much publicity, it is no wonder that people are having problems.
Says Dave Polaschek of the Adobe Photoshop printing team (2015):
"Picking "Printer Manages Colors" on Windows guarantees that your color data will be converted to sRGB. We could adopt XPS printing to get around that, but there are many new and exciting bugs waiting to be found by the first application to head down that path.
On Mac, Picking "Vendor Color Management" and "Adobe RGB" does not mean the color data will automatically be converted to Adobe RGB. It means that untagged color data will be treated as Adobe RGB. When I last discussed this with the Apple printing engineers, I got a long explanation of when color conversions will happen, and the printer driver gets a chance to say to the OS "Yes, I can use color data in that color space" or "No, please convert that color data to XXXXX profile for me" (where XXXXX is the default profile for the printer, which you can set in ColorSync Utility.app).
When using "Printer Manages Colors" on Mac OS X, with a printer driver that says "Yes, send the color data as-is" when asked about what the application is offering to print, that data will be passed to the driver without conversion. I've done this with CIELAB data. I don't believe Epson's drivers will accept CIELAB, but when last I investigated (when the x900 printers shipped), they would accept ProPhoto RGB when using "Printer Manages Colors." There was only one conversion of the color data to the printer's final profile, and that was done by the driver.
All else being equal, fewer conversions between color spaces is preferable."
Dave Polaschek said (2015): "This always happens. When using "Printer Manages Colors" on Windows, Windows ICM 2.0 assumes that any color data passed to it is in sRGB, so Photoshop converts the colors to sRGB (so users don't get wrong colors when printing). We can't know whether the user has picked ABW or not (the driver-specific print settings are a black box to us at this point), and we must provide sRGB to the OS in this case."
Dave's comments from: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=122927.40
This thread also mentions some printing differences between PS and LR.
Adobe instructions for ACPU: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/no-color-management-option-missing.html
John Nack of Adobe re ACPU resizing:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/12/a-no-color-management-print-utility-for-photoshop.html
[Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Apparently it’s a known issue, and we’d like to issue an update, but I don’t have an ETA for that happening (as enhancing Photoshop’s print engine needs to take priority). –J.]
ACPU does no color conversions at all."
Dave Polaschek — 10:24 AM on December 03, 2010 (Same link as John Nack above):
"On Windows, the main difference between using the mode that Michael describes and this application is that with Printer Manages Colors, the image data is converted to sRGB before sending it to the Windows print system (because that’s a requirement of the print system). So if your target is tagged with a color profile (it really shouldn’t be, but some are), there will be a color conversion done by Photoshop.
-------
Stan
-
ACPU has a known (to Adobe) problem of incorrectly resizing some outputs, which prevents scanning by iSIS. Lower in priority to them than working on Photoshop print pipeline, even though it disables the functionality it was created to have to work around the removal of the option to turn off color management.
Yes, ACPU shrinks the print about 3% putting it right on the edge where ISIS may, or may not, be able to scan it
Turning off color management can cause Windows (or Photoshop, not sure) to apply a conversion to sRGB to data going to the printer driver. An example of how this could occur is setting Photoshop (and maybe other apps) to "Printer Manages Color" and then in the printer driver setting "Color Management Off", in an attempt to work around the inability to apply "No Color Management" in Photoshop.
It depends on the settings. Windows does not always convert to sRGB when selecting printer manages color.
Latest version of iProfiler won't print. XRite says it is a known problem to be fixed in next release. Have to print TIFF to file and use ACPU. Interesting that XRite produces a product for which actually printing the test chart is a central feature doesn't place top priority on a bug that prevents it from doing so. the TIFF/ACPU workaround works but you still have to beware of the sRGB problem in Windows.
https://www.xrite.com/service-support/rgbprintertestchartwontprintini1profiler171onwindows
"RGB Printer Test Chart Won't Print in i1Profiler 1.7.1 on Windows
The RGB Printer test chart will not print in i1Profiler 1.7.1...this is a known bug reported to engineering,.The RGB Printer profiling “Print” button does not work in the Test Chart workflow step. This has been verified and logged as a software bug to fix in the next update of i1Profiler. In the meantime, you have a few options:
1.Some users have reported that if they uninstall one of their printers (preferably one that you no longer use) and then reboot the PC, the “Print” button worked.
2.You can save the test chart out as a TIFF and then print it with all color management turned off.
3.You can uninstall i1Profiler 1.7.1 and X-Rite Device Services Manager in Control Panel > Programs & Features, reboot the PC, and then reinstall i1Profiler 1.6.7 using the following link
http://www.xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?ID=1397&Action=Support&SoftwareID=1672 "
The latest version of I1Profiler fixes this problem. However, simply installing the latest version may not work. I had this problem on Windows 10 x64. It resolved after completely uninstalling it then re-installing.
So with the ACPU resizing problem and the sRGB conversion issue and the nonprinting defect in iProfiler, and none of these things afforded much publicity, it is no wonder that people are having problems.
Says Dave Polaschek of the Adobe Photoshop printing team (2015):
"Picking "Printer Manages Colors" on Windows guarantees that your color data will be converted to sRGB. We could adopt XPS printing to get around that, but there are many new and exciting bugs waiting to be found by the first application to head down that path.
This is quite simply an incorrect statement. I and others here have noted that it is totally possible to print using "Printer Manages" an image in ProPhoto RGB and have it rendered selecting the appropriate profile in any of the 4 standard Intents using Windows. It has been brought to Dave's attention but he seems to have higher priorities. Understandable. Photoshop is a complex beast.
On Mac, Picking "Vendor Color Management" and "Adobe RGB" does not mean the color data will automatically be converted to Adobe RGB. It means that untagged color data will be treated as Adobe RGB. When I last discussed this with the Apple printing engineers, I got a long explanation of when color conversions will happen, and the printer driver gets a chance to say to the OS "Yes, I can use color data in that color space" or "No, please convert that color data to XXXXX profile for me" (where XXXXX is the default profile for the printer, which you can set in ColorSync Utility.app).
When using "Printer Manages Colors" on Mac OS X, with a printer driver that says "Yes, send the color data as-is" when asked about what the application is offering to print, that data will be passed to the driver without conversion. I've done this with CIELAB data. I don't believe Epson's drivers will accept CIELAB, but when last I investigated (when the x900 printers shipped), they would accept ProPhoto RGB when using "Printer Manages Colors." There was only one conversion of the color data to the printer's final profile, and that was done by the driver.
All else being equal, fewer conversions between color spaces is preferable."
Dave Polaschek said (2015): "This always happens. When using "Printer Manages Colors" on Windows, Windows ICM 2.0 assumes that any color data passed to it is in sRGB, so Photoshop converts the colors to sRGB (so users don't get wrong colors when printing).
The problem with a known expert is that false beliefs are more easily propagated. Quite unfortunate.
We can't know whether the user has picked ABW or not (the driver-specific print settings are a black box to us at this point), and we must provide sRGB to the OS in this case."
Dave's comments from: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=122927.40
This thread also mentions some printing differences between PS and LR.
Adobe instructions for ACPU: https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/no-color-management-option-missing.html
John Nack of Adobe re ACPU resizing:
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/12/a-no-color-management-print-utility-for-photoshop.html
[Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Apparently it’s a known issue, and we’d like to issue an update, but I don’t have an ETA for that happening (as enhancing Photoshop’s print engine needs to take priority). –J.]
ACPU does no color conversions at all."
Dave Polaschek — 10:24 AM on December 03, 2010 (Same link as John Nack above):
"On Windows, the main difference between using the mode that Michael describes and this application is that with Printer Manages Colors, the image data is converted to sRGB before sending it to the Windows print system (because that’s a requirement of the print system). So if your target is tagged with a color profile (it really shouldn’t be, but some are), there will be a color conversion done by Photoshop.
-------
Stan
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120585.0
Sheesh
-
Abdo,
Here's a quick view of the gamut boundaries of the 3 profiles and sRGB at L*=50.
The one from print studio is quite stunted so there are some issues with the settings running it. No idea what. I don't have Macs or run Print Studio.
Note that the Rag 809 I1 and Rag 809 Win are very close and overlap. I'll run some more tests on this to see how close and will update this post in a bit but wanted to give a quick view now. As an aside, the two matching profiles are reasonably close, but slightly larger in shape to the profile generated for my Canon 9500 II (not shown) using the same paper.
Edited: Additional Info:
I've compared the mxf files and the Mac one "Rag Sec Cor I1 Profiler" and Windows one "Rag 809 Windos (Color Man. OFF)" match exactly like I would expect two target prints printed consecutively on the same system and setup. Further the gamut's have the appropriate shape and are reasonably similar to that on my Canon 9500 II using the same paper. I've added the results of the comparison to this post. You can do this yourself by using an "A-B" comparison available in I1Profiler under the "Analysis" tab on the left that is available when you use "advanced mode."
So a profile made from either of the two matching processes can be used with both Mac and Windows. What I find particularly interesting is that the files match so closely that I can safely say the Mac and Windows, and the device level, (color unmanaged, max gamut) printing algorithms match.
Added:
I added a comparison with the Mac Print Studio mxf file. Delta E 1976's are shown as dE2000 becomes quite unreliable for large errors.
Doug,
Thank you very much for the analysis, I'm glad that the path I chose is the best one.
I already followed the standard printed in Windows, but I had problems in the past with the MAC, it seems that now they fit.
Actually Canon's Print Studio, I already tried several targets and the result is always the same, just looking at the printout to notice something erased and dead in the colors.
I just did not test Print Studio on Windows to see if it repeats the same as on the Mac.
When I play the ICC to analyze the graphic, it is very clear that it loses its result with Print Studio Pro.
Thanks for the study, one more time.
-
ACPU has a known (to Adobe) problem of incorrectly resizing some outputs, which prevents scanning by iSIS. Lower in priority to them than working on Photoshop print pipeline, even though it disables the functionality it was created to have to work around the removal of the option to turn off color management.
snipped because of length
"On Windows, the main difference between using the mode that Michael describes and this application is that with Printer Manages Colors, the image data is converted to sRGB before sending it to the Windows print system (because that’s a requirement of the print system). So if your target is tagged with a color profile (it really shouldn’t be, but some are), there will be a color conversion done by Photoshop.
-------
Stan
Windows running Qimage Ultimate, I wrote the following in 2010 and I do not think anything has changed since of before:
>>Qimage has 3 main choices on color management:
1/ CM-Off = Qimage doesn't convert the file, sends the plain RGB data to
the driver so with the color space profile stripped from the file.
In that mode it will also not assign a colorspace to an untagged file,
for example a target file for profile creation. And Windows will not
assign a profile either, it leaves that task to applications.
2/ Let printer manage color = Qimage does the above but the color space
profile isn't stripped from the file so the printer driver CM can do
something sensible with the file.
3/ Qimage CM on, Qimage does the conversion and sends the converted data
to the printer driver, expecting that the last's CM is set to Let
application do CM, so in fact with the driver's CM off..
In both 2 and 3 Qimage could assign a colorspace to an untagged file
based on EXIF data, camera model as an educated guess or without any
hint available it will assign a color space, the default sRGB or a
preferred choice of the user, say AdobeRGB or nothing if the user
doesn't like guesswork.
The printer driver has usually two choices: let driver do CM and the
other one let application do CM. With application CM set the driver will
do no conversion at all and expects that the application does the work.
That is also the setting you will use to transfer targets through with
Qimage on CM off. When the driver does CM it will expect files with
certain colorspaces, my Z3200 can be set on AdobeRGB or sRGB, the PS
driver has more spaces including CMYK versions.<<
So the paths I can take for target printing are through HP's Print Utility for the Z3200 or Qimage Ultimate settings + the Z3200 driver. I do not think that QU is the only application in Windows that can act like that. For more printer brands.
That Adobe with 15000 employees still creates confusion for its customers on profile target printing is a shame. 10 years? The scaling of the target -3% with ACPU not solved either in time .......... Where both Apple and Adobe are to blame for the Mac confusion it is Adobe that should have taken responsibility for the Windows issues.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
The latest version of I1Profiler fixes this problem. However, simply installing the latest version may not work. I had this problem on Windows 10 x64. It resolved after completely uninstalling it then re-installing.
The current version of i1Profiler is 1.7.1. Note that the XRite cut-and-paste quote in my post references the problem as pertaining to 1.7.1. I had just downloaded and installed 1.7.1 prior to a profiling session, and the product UI showed the installed version as 1.7.1. When I experienced the no-print problem, I began searching for applicable information and found the XRite post, and since the product developer/vendor described my exact problem as existing in the exact version I was using, I did not proceed with troubleshooting. I just started working on a workaround, like ACPU (in which you still have to set up the printer driver correctly). After reading your post, I have uninstalled, redownloaded, reinstalled and restarted, and it seems to work fine. Thanks. It is also possible that I did not restart my computer after the previous install, I just made sure the product UI screen showed the correct new version. Obviously insufficient.
Stan
-
The current version of i1Profiler is 1.7.1. Note that the XRite cut-and-paste quote in my post references the problem as pertaining to 1.7.1. I had just downloaded and installed 1.7.1 prior to a profiling session, and the product UI showed the installed version as 1.7.1. When I experienced the no-print problem, I began searching for applicable information and found the XRite post, and since the product developer/vendor described my exact problem as existing in the exact version I was using, I did not proceed with troubleshooting. I just started working on a workaround, like ACPU (in which you still have to set up the printer driver correctly). After reading your post, I have uninstalled, redownloaded, reinstalled and restarted, and it seems to work fine. Thanks. It is also possible that I did not restart my computer after the previous install, I just made sure the product UI screen showed the correct new version. Obviously insufficient.
Stan
Xrite still seems confused: In your link they state the problem and possible workarounds but in the download link for the windows version 1.7.1 they state it fixes this problem. It didn't, until after I did the I1Profiler uninstall then reinstall.
https://www.xrite.com/service-support/downloads/i/i1profiler-i1publish_v1_7_1
Notes: This update to i1Profiler is a bug-fix release to fix the following issues:
•The print button was not working when trying to make RGB printer profiles.