Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: rabanito on February 09, 2019, 06:11:30 pm
-
For what is worth
After giving it some thought I decided to order a custom profile for my system.
Just to see if there would be any noticeable difference with the canned profiles I'd been using.
In this case my Epson R2880 and Hahnemühle Fine Art Baryta Glossy.
Well yesterday I got the profile.
The improvement has been enormous
Just to share my experience
-
I'm glad to hear that.
-
Same experience… Every custom profile was a worthwhile investment.
-
Who made the profile for you?
-
...Just to share my experience.
Well, share it then.
-
Who made the profile for you?
https://www.druckerprofile.de/
A German company
In my case 2'000 patches following their instructions (the "Pro" option)
They have another "Fine Art" w/ 4'000 patches
I downloaded 5 charts in format A4 and printed them as they instructed.
Sent them on Monday with normal post and got the ICC Profile via email on next Friday
I chose the middle option (2'000 patches) "just in case", I didn't know the company then but am now VERY happy w /the results
I tried first some pics with which I had difficulties in the past (some saturated red flowers and the like)
One or two little tweaks to the soft proof (w/tone curves) and the pic in the screen was almost the same as the print. Before that I had almost always to do this and that correction and print again.
Other images are easier still.
It cost 42 Euros plus the paper and ink and postage
-
Well, share it then.
First I printed those two.
The castle in Normandy was a piece of cake.
Now I'm printing "everything" My wife is terrified. ;)
-
First I printed those two.
The castle in Normandy was a piece of cake.
Now I'm printing "everything" My wife is terrified. ;)
What are these images supposed to tell us as the example?
-
What are these images supposed to tell us as the example?
I was hoping to see before/after comparison, alas...
-
+1
Kinda meaningless w/o before/after.
-
I was hoping to see before/after comparison, alas...
I would not know how
Should I send you the prints?
That's the only way.
Screen is screen Print is print.
-
What are these images supposed to tell us as the example?
The images tell you that those are the images I used. Nothing else.
I worked on them in ProPhoto 16 Bit before printing and converted them to sRGB 8 Bit for publishing to LuLa.
The first Amaryllis gave in my combo Monitor/Paper/Ink/Printer w/ HFA_Eps2880_PK_FABaryta from Hahnemühle a magenta colouring which I corrected after a lot of tweaking and frustration and waste of paper and ink.
The second flower is the same one after some time. She's just pregnant
Both printed to my satisfaction w / the custom profile at once. Just a little tweak with the RGB channel in the Tone Curve at LR. Imagine!
The third one has never been a problem.
A warning.
Nobody's going to learn anything from me, I'm just a humble newbie trying to learn.
Somebody asked about my personal experience and i gladly tell.
If your monitor is calibrated etc and you open the images with a program that manages color, then yo see the pictures as they are and very nearly how they printed
-
I would not know how
Should I send you the prints?
That's the only way.
Screen is screen Print is print.
It is much simpler. Print before/after and take a snap with an iPhone. Easy.
-
I don't know what the point is hassling the OP. He got a custom profile and prefers the output vs. the original method. Does anyone else here believe that's not a possible and a likely outcome? What's the point of snapshots of prints before and after and do you think we'd really see the same improvements he see's when actually looking at the prints? He's simply reporting he's happy with a custom profile.
If you're happy with what you have, be happy that you're happy with what you have! - Bruce Fraser
-
It is much simpler. Print before/after and take a snap with an iPhone. Easy.
Just believe me, Slobodan
I'd send you the prints but you should pay for the postage.
And, if you want them signed they cost a lot more. ;D ;D
-
He's simply reporting he's happy with a custom profile.
How true. Thank you :)
-
... What's the point of snapshots of prints before and after and do you think we'd really see the same improvements he see's when actually looking at the prints? He's simply reporting he's happy with a custom profile...
The OP reported enormous difference. It would surely be visible in an iPhone snap.
In related story, I got today a new shipment of wine. I am simply reporting how happy I am with it. Maybe I should post it in a separate thread. Too bad we do not have here a Wine Corner, just The Coffee Corner.
I am also preparing chili for lunch. Again, simply reporting how happy I am with it.
I'll let you know about the dessert. In a separate thread.
-
The OP reported enourmous difference. It would surely be visible in an iPhone snap.
Not true. I reported "enormous".
Check your spelling.
And, Slobodan, I'm not trying to prove anything.
What's the fuss?
It worked with my system. Printing is not a nightmare anymore.
Maybe some other newbie would find it useful.
-
The OP reported enourmous difference. It would surely be visible in an iPhone snap.
He did, it would, what's the point? He's not lying as far as I can tell.
In related story, I got today a new shipment of wine. I am simply reporting how happy I am with it. Maybe I should post it in a separate thread. Too bad we do not have here a Wine Corner, just The Coffee Corner.
Sure. Clog up that forum with posts that have absolutely nothing to do with photography. Now that politics is banned, you might find such a post useful to a posting agenda.
I'll let you know about the desert. In a separate thread.
You're going to tell us about photography taken in a desert? That's fine.
The post about wine, on a forum about photography, I'll ignore it. I suspect others will too. Is posting off topic remarks necessary to gain attention to oneself? It reminds me of a film I like:
What is your major malfunction, numbnuts? Didn't Mommy and Daddy show you enough attention when you were a child?
Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, Full Metal Jacket (1987)
At least unlike wine and dessert (or did you really mean desert?), there's an aspect of photography (cinematography) that could be discussed in a forum about photography.
-
... Clog up that forum with posts that have absolutely nothing to do with photography...
As opposed to clogging the forum with posts related to photography, but actually meaningless? As in "I got a new lens/camera/printer and I am happy with it"?
-
As opposed to clogging the forum with posts related to photography, but actually meaningless? As in "I got a new lens/camera/printer and I am happy with it"?
Why are you here and reading let alone posting if by your own admission, it's meaningless? What's your posting agenda?
Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".
There isn't anything extraordinary about what the OP reports for experienced users who've actually used custom ICC printer profiles and actually compared them to others. Something I suspect you have no experience with or you wouldn't need visual evidence from (of all items) an iPhone.
In fact, I've produced a video that discusses that not all ICC profiles are created equally. If you can force yourself to:
1. Stay on topic and learn.
2. Wait on desert or dessert.
3. Cease posting about wine and going off topic.
YOU may actually learn something and SEE exactly what a good profile can bring to the party. I don't expect this as your agenda appears to be sh*ting on the OP's post and observation. But none the less, if you're in a rare mode to learn before posting (on or off topic):
Not all ICC profiles are created equally
In this 23 minute video, I'll cover:
The basic anatomy of ICC Profiles
Why there are differences in profile quality and color rendering
How to evaluate an ICC output profile
Examples of good and not so good canned profiles and custom profiles on actual printed output.
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4)
Low resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdR_tIFMME&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdR_tIFMME&feature=youtu.be)
As in "I got a new lens/camera/printer and I am happy with it"?
If you're happy with what you have, be happy that you're happy with what you have!
-
Why are you here and reading let alone posting if by your own admission, it's meaningless?...
It is meaningless without a visual comparison. And I am here reading it as I am interested in the visible difference. After all, this is a photography site, not a poetry site, where words would suffice.
-
It is meaningless without a visual comparison.
No, it's not. And you can get a visual comparison once you decide to stop typing and start learning.
A visual comparison of a print, taken with an iPhone, posted in JPEG sRGB compared to looking at the prints is simply silly. It shows you don't understand much about profiles and viewing actual prints either. I suggest you pay the OP to send you prints. Then you'll see what he's actually reporting about. Or actually try making a print with a custom profile and one that's not. I know, that's work and takes from posting nonsense that's also off topic here. I'm sorry that doing your homework takes you from your actual task posting here.
-
As opposed to clogging the forum with posts related to photography, but actually meaningless? As in "I got a new lens/camera/printer and I am happy with it"?
Excuse me Slobodan but I put the first posting at least 5 days ago and not a word more until today
Today somebody asked a related question and I answered.
You call that "clogging" ?
Well...
IMHO you are exaggerating a little 8)
-
Excuse me Slobodan but I put the first posting at least 5 days ago and not a word more until today
Today somebody asked a related question and I answered.
You call that "clogging" ?
Well...
IMHO you are exaggerating a little 8)
As the ORIGINAL Poster, I believe you can end his nonsense and lock the thread.
-
As the ORIGINAL Poster, I believe you can end his nonsense and lock the thread.
+1!!!
-
As the ORIGINAL Poster, I believe you can end his nonsense and lock the thread.
But not before I post a photography-related dessert:
-
But not before I post a photography-related dessert:
Glad to see you finally discovered the difference between desert and dessert. Now if you could learn about profiles (custom or otherwise), all your misunderstandings posted today could be ignored!
-
Hoping to add to the topic, I just compared the digital outback photo printer evaluation image (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html) produced with my Canon Pro-10 on Canon Pro Luster using the Canon print profile and one produced using the colormunki with i1 studio profiling software. Carefully evaluating the images I noticed a clearly deeper red patch on the colormunki derived print compared to an orangey cast with the Canon profile. This was very slightly noticeable in the strawberries photo. The soft proofs showed the same effect on my '99% sRGB’ capable monitor. I’d say sticking to Canon’s printer/profiles/papers isn’t a bad option if you don’t want to use the custom route. (at least in the case here). Eventually I’ll try a larger patch size in ArgyllCMS, but I’m pretty happy with my current prints.
-
Hoping to add to the topic, I just compared the digital outback photo printer evaluation image (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html) produced with my Canon Pro-10 on Canon Pro Luster using the Canon print profile and one produced using the colormunki with i1 studio profiling software. Carefully evaluating the images I noticed a clearly deeper red patch on the colormunki derived print compared to an orangey cast with the Canon profile. This was very slightly noticeable in the strawberries photo. The soft proofs showed the same effect on my '99% sRGB’ capable monitor. I’d say sticking to Canon’s printer/profiles/papers isn’t a bad option if you don’t want to use the custom route. (at least in the case here). Eventually I’ll try a larger patch size in ArgyllCMS, but I’m pretty happy with my current prints.
Can Slobodan come over to your place after desert or dessert to takes iPhone pics of your prints? ;D
-
No, I don't like strange men coming to my home......
;D
-
But here's some screen grabs of the soft proofs- Hopefully they're be mildly informative:
-
... with my Canon Pro-10 on Canon Pro Luster using the Canon print profile...
A combination I used to print hundreds of images. Never had a problem with print not matching the screen.
...very slightly noticeable...
Of course, when one uses a different profile, there must be some change visible somewhere. The question is, does it matter? If "very slight," probably not, but if "enormous"... well, that one I would like to see.
It is equally possible that you and I were lucky because we used a manufacturer's paper with their own profile. The OP was using a mismatch, so a custom profile might have indeed resulted in a significant improvement.
-
A combination I used to print hundreds of images. Never had a problem with print not matching the screen.
Well, share it then. Do before/after and take a snap with an iPhone. Easy.
-
I’d say sticking to Canon’s printer/profiles/papers isn’t a bad option if you don’t want to use the custom route.
I'd agree that quite a lot of manufacturer's profiles for their own paper and ink will be good enough that a custom profile isn't really necessary. This is especially so for the professional level printers that have greater quality control.
Where custom printer profiling really comes into play now is when people use non-OEM papers or ink in their printers. Then, as the OP has reported, a custom profile can significantly improve results.
It's also important to be working with a good, well set up monitor and have an understanding of how that displays the image with respect to the limitations of monitor gamut in relation to print gamut.
-
I have produced my own custom profiles for close to 15-years -- long before paper manufacturers started supplying them. (I have regularly been a beta paper tester and have to produce my own profiles since none usually exist.) Even though the canned profiles are sometimes quite good, almost without exception I find my own are better simply because it takes into account my printer, my inks, my papers.
You may find your next step is not to pay someone else, but to produce your own so you don't have to wait for someone else to produce it. The freedom it gives you will be equal to what you experienced going from canned to custom.
-
The freedom it gives you will be equal to what you experienced going from canned to custom.
That's a big claim.
Results ?I think you'd rarely see any significant quality jump in results by DIY custom profiling.
Convenience ? yes, a bit, but you'll still need to leave test sheets to dry for a while before measuring.
Interest ? if you're just the type that's interested in the colour science and want to experiment with the technicalities, yes it can be a rabbit hole to fall into.
Economics ? For the price of a i1Profiler kit you could buy 100 custom profiles, just how many different papers will you ever use. Let's not mention the time and materials used when starting out.
For photographers that just want great prints and don't want colour management as a separate hobby, just leave it to the pros.
-
Results ?I think you'd rarely see any significant quality jump in results by DIY custom profiling.
I agree. At least because - all other things being equal - I expect that a professional will do a better profiling job than a beginner (me)
In the case of custom vs canned, there are IMO other variables.
Nobody tested with MY printer at Hahnemühle's or the like
The results can be either the same or better. Never worse (assuming pro work)
-
...
It worked with my system. Printing is not a nightmare anymore.
Maybe some other newbie would find it useful.
I did find it useful. Thank you.
-
That's a big claim.
Results ?I think you'd rarely see any significant quality jump in results by DIY custom profiling.
Convenience ? yes, a bit, but you'll still need to leave test sheets to dry for a while before measuring.
Interest ? if you're just the type that's interested in the colour science and want to experiment with the technicalities, yes it can be a rabbit hole to fall into.
Economics ? For the price of a i1Profiler kit you could buy 100 custom profiles, just how many different papers will you ever use. Let's not mention the time and materials used when starting out.
For photographers that just want great prints and don't want colour management as a separate hobby, just leave it to the pros.
Only a big claim if you haven't experienced it. 95% of the canned profiles I have are significantly improved by me creating new ones. Does that mean I don 't use canned? Sure I can and will. But if I don't get the results I want, I do it myself. If you are able and willing to wait for the post office to deliver your print to a profiler, have at it. I never like to wait for anything. And I like immediate results.
I couldn't figure out why a printer (back when I had my old Canon iPF6100) seemed "off" just a tad. I was using a canned profile. I decided to do my own. i1 couldn't complete the chart. I tried numerous times including reprinting. I finally realized BECAUSE I couldn't create a profile that I had an issue going on with one of my print heads and ink. Because it was a 12-ink printer, the deficiencies were being partially masked by some of the other inks. Can you imagine if I'd sent off the profile wedge to someone, had to wait for them to make it, only to be told, we can't use this. Try again?
Again, this is MY personal experience. You obviously view if differently. Oh, and if you just want great prints, why not send the images off to a reputable lab rather than print yourself?
-
That's a big claim.
Results ?I think you'd rarely see any significant quality jump in results by DIY custom profiling.
All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain
IF you simply view the video referenced earlier, you'll see that canned ICC profiles (even custom one's) vary in quality. Some of the canned Epson profiles are very good, some are not so good. That isn't a generalization, it's simply a fact based on the engine and process used to build those two sets of supplied, canned profiles.
Claim no, colorimetric proof, yes.
-
I couldn't figure out why a printer (back when I had my old Canon iPF6100) seemed "off" just a tad. I was using a canned profile. I decided to do my own. i1 couldn't complete the chart. I tried numerous times including reprinting. I finally realized BECAUSE I couldn't create a profile that I had an issue going on with one of my print heads and ink. Because it was a 12-ink printer, the deficiencies were being partially masked by some of the other inks. Can you imagine if I'd sent off the profile wedge to someone, had to wait for them to make it, only to be told, we can't use this. Try again?
On the other hand, if I'd had your problem and sent the charts to the pro, they'd have told me - as you rightly say - "we can't use this"
Instead of breaking my head doing tests that brought me nowhere for months I'd changed my printer (or serviced) after realizing that the problem wasn't the profile.
That's a lot of time saving.
And BTW I think that doing one's own profile is no piece of cake. Some of us are beginners :)
-
Only a big claim if you haven't experienced it.
I was talking about the difference between a custom printer profile from a remote service and a DIY custom profile.
Yes, I have experienced it, I do have clue about this issue, I've been running a remote profiling business for 15 years now.
-
I was talking about the difference between a custom printer profile from a remote service and a DIY custom profile.
But nemophoto was not:
The freedom it gives you will be equal to what you experienced going from canned to custom.
-
But nemophoto was not:
Actually he was. This is the full paragraph to which I replied;
"You may find your next step is not to pay someone else, but to produce your own so you don't have to wait for someone else to produce it. The freedom it gives you will be equal to what you experienced going from canned to custom."
The implication is that DIY profiling gives as big an improvement as going from 'canned' to (remote) custom. It won't, it might be a little better or it could conceivably be worse.
-
Actually he was. This is the full paragraph to which I replied;
"You may find your next step is not to pay someone else, but to produce your own so you don't have to wait for someone else to produce it. The freedom it gives you will be equal to what you experienced going from canned to custom."
The implication is that DIY profiling gives as big an improvement as going from 'canned' to (remote) custom. It won't, it might be a little better or it could conceivably be worse.
There's no implication, he stated clearly The freedom it gives you will be equal to what you experienced going from canned to custom.
I see no indication he's comparing anything but a canned to a custom profile.
But even if he's comparing custom to DIY profile, AGAIN, not all ICC profiles are created equally! JUST the color engines used by various products, let alone how they produce a perceptual mapping (no rules), number of patches (and where in color space), the Spectrophotometer used, the options set in the software for the creation of the profiles. post optimization IF possible, all play a role. It's simply untrue to make generalizations about ICC profiles; custom, or canned (or custom DYI). They can greatly differ.
-
It's simply untrue to make generalizations about ICC profiles; custom, or canned (or custom DYI). They can greatly differ.
Which was the exact point I was making.
-
Which was the exact point I was making.
OK but you did state:
Results ?I think you'd rarely see any significant quality jump in results by DIY custom profiling.
Not all ICC profiles are created equally.
-
OK but you did state:
Results ?I think you'd rarely see any significant quality jump in results by DIY custom profiling.
Not all ICC profiles are created equally.
Do you think that a DIYer is suddenly going to start building profiles that are significantly better than remote custom profiles ?
-
Do you think that a DIYer is suddenly going to start building profiles that are significantly better than remote custom profiles ?
Absolutely possible.
-
Absolutely possible.
But very unlikely.
-
But very unlikely.
Not at all. Depending on all the facts I've outlined.
-
Not at all.
You're really not being very helpful by suggesting that someone can just go and buy some profiling kit and suddenly be building profiles that are significantly better than those from professional services.
Your opinion, OK, but my experience says that's exceptionally unlikely.
-
You're really not being very helpful by suggesting that someone can just go and buy some profiling kit and suddenly be building profiles that are significantly better than those from professional services.
Maybe not helpful to you. Someone can buy a profile package and build excellent profiles. Far better than other people or manufacturers profiles as I've illustrated. Many have and done so. I'm sorry if that fact upsets your business model.
Your opinion, OK, but my experience says that's exceptionally unlikely.
My experience dates to probably the very first profile & hardware package on the market, the ColorTron I dating back to the very early 90's. And many, many packages since then. Some of us have more experience than others. :o
Some of us have more professional services than others too.
-
Do you think that a DIYer is suddenly going to start building profiles that are significantly better than remote custom profiles ?
If one has done the requisite reading and has an understanding of the software it is absolutely possible. I've done my own profiling for the past seven years and the results are better than the manufacturers every time. I see no need to pay someone else to do something that I can do myself. There are others on LuLa who do the same thing.
-
Maybe not helpful to you. Someone can buy a profile package and build excellent profiles. Far better than other people or manufacturers profiles as I've illustrated.
Any chance of actually commenting on what I've written ?
Let's repeat it again.
Do you think that a DIYer is suddenly going to start building profiles that are significantly better than remote custom profiles ?
Not OEM profiles, but better than remote custom profiles.
-
I've done my own profiling for the past seven years and the results are better than the manufacturers every time.
Not my point at all. See my last post to Andrew.
I see no need to pay someone else to do something that I can do myself.
Not in any disagreement over the ability to being able to build great profiles at home. My point was at what cost.
Economics ? For the price of a i1Profiler kit you could buy 100 custom profiles, just how many different papers will you ever use. Let's not mention the time and materials used when starting out.
For photographers that just want great prints and don't want colour management as a separate hobby, just leave it to the pros.
-
Not my point at all. See my last post to Andrew.Not in any disagreement over the ability to being able to build great profiles at home. My point was at what cost.
For pro photographers trying to sell prints I can imagine some use of having so many profiles.
For the wannabe artists, usually amateurs like myself, I don't see the point.
I need at least two or three good profiles. For ONE printer (mine) and some papers. Maybe I'd like to try other papers just to play, like others feed their images to AI gadgets and look what comes out but that's not serious photography IMHO
But after getting profiles for all the papers the amateur will use, there is no point in having a profiling kit, learn the procedure through trial and error (and frustration), repeating it for each new case instead of just printing the test charts as instructed, sending them per post and wait for at most a week till it arrives per email attachment. And then doing some photography with it ;)
How often does a hobby photographer need new profiles?
And the pros? And why then?
Please correct me, I presume that my opinion is biased through inexperience.
Thanks
-
Please correct me, I presume that my opinion is biased through inexperience.
No, that's a sensible and pragmatic approach.
-
Any chance of actually commenting on what I've written ?
Let's repeat it again.Not OEM profiles, but better than remote custom profiles.
I did comment. You refuse to accept comments that fall outside your confirmation bias.
-
I have produced my own custom profiles for close to 15-years -- long before paper manufacturers started supplying them. (I have regularly been a beta paper tester and have to produce my own profiles since none usually exist.) Even though the canned profiles are sometimes quite good, almost without exception I find my own are better simply because it takes into account my printer, my inks, my papers.
You may find your next step is not to pay someone else, but to produce your own so you don't have to wait for someone else to produce it. The freedom it gives you will be equal to what you experienced going from canned to custom.
How can a custom profile made by one person be any 'better' than a custom profile made by anyone else? After all, isnt the process of making a profile supposed to be objective and designed for accurate reproduction of colors? You scan a bunch of color patches and the software makes a table of numbers. Why does the ability of making your own profiles yourself give you more 'freedom'?
Could you share your process about making custom profiles? What tech do you use? How can you 'quantify' how much 'better' the new profile is? After a few hours of looking at a screen, my critical viewing (which relies on my brain) is fatigued and almost useless.
But then I guess quantifying anything that is aimed at triggering our emotional state is near impossible. How do you quantify good taste? or a good recipe? or good clothing?In each of these cases the example is somewhat abstracted from the sensory input. Our tools of mass production are geared towards measurements of physical properties and optimizing these measurements for some property or other (linearity, tonal distribution,etc). Quantitative measure has been excluded from our subjective experience (thankfully) so we can still say that 'humans can still do somethings machines cannot'. Of course with the advent of AI (where we can train machines to generate 'good' output) as well as the pervasive nature of the net with its ability to create a unique information stream for each person ('individual filter bubble'), we may soon lose our souls to the machines.
The corollary to the above digression is - will an AI generated ICC profile (optimized for the most 'attractive' change of an image printed on a particular paper) be 'better' than an ICC profile designed to reproduce colors faithfully. Is that what you mean when you say that making your own profile gives you more 'freedom'?
-
Advantages of DIY with I1Profiler.
1. You can create a myriad of different, perceptual intent, profiles from the same target measurements. This lets you select profiles that print most to your liking with different tone cures and color mapping.
2. You can easily adjust to your printer/paper with fewer patches by running an optimizer pass. Because this is printer specific, you get better results than a fixed set of patches from a purchased profile.
3. You can use the same spectrophotometer to cross check your printer workflow. This simplifies things like watching for changes as ink and printer age.
-
How can a custom profile made by one person be any 'better' than a custom profile made by anyone else?
Replace the word 'person' and replace it by 'system' as a starter.
Andrew earlier on outlined the variables here.
the color engines used by various products, let alone how they produce a perceptual mapping (no rules), number of patches (and where in color space), the Spectrophotometer used, the options set in the software for the creation of the profiles. post optimization IF possible, all play a role.
All correct.
Where it gets a little trickier is that many of these variables don't make dramatic differences once you're on the plateau of high quality kit.
Whilst Andrew will never commit himself to any sort of helpful generalisation, it actually takes some ham-fistedness to deliver significantly bad results once you're on that level. Hence why I think that you won't see a massive step above a remote service to a DIY profile.
The vast majority of remote services supplying our market (RGB inkjets) use similar kit, almost all from X-Rite so quality of results is pretty consistent from supplier to supplier.
-
Whilst Andrew will never commit himself to any sort of helpful generalisation, it actually takes some ham-fistedness to deliver significantly bad results once you're on that level. Hence why I think that you won't see a massive step
You don't read or comprehend text outside your bias too well:
All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain
The vast majority of remote services supplying our market (RGB inkjets) use similar kit, almost all from X-Rite so quality of results is pretty consistent from supplier to supplier.
As Doug now, and I have attempted to explain to most everyone here, that's rubbish and yet another silly generalization for others reading here to hopefully ignore. :o
-
Advantages of DIY with I1Profiler.
2. You can easily adjust to your printer/paper with fewer patches by running an optimizer pass. Because this is printer specific, you get better results than a fixed set of patches from a purchased profile.
Sorry I didn't understand that.
If I print the patches with MY paper and MY printer before sending them to the "professional profile maker" then I regard this as "printer specific".
Isn't it?
Thanks
-
Thank you Rodney. That is precisely the point I was making -- the difference between canned and custom. And custom can mean doing it yourself of sending out. My preference has always been to do things myself, otherwise why do I go to the trouble of even printing my photos myself. My desire to produce my own quality prints goes back into the 90's but really was fueled in 2000 by the desire to find a way to produce better B&W. Up to that point, any time you printed B&W you had a magenta cast. I ended up going with Cone's Piezography B&W system for many years.
So whether one has a service do the profiles or DIY, the results are usually better than canned.
-
Sorry I didn't understand that.
If I print the patches with MY paper and MY printer before sending them to the "professional profile maker" then I regard this as "printer specific".
Isn't it?
Thanks
Yes, your result is "printer specific".
-
Sorry I didn't understand that.
If I print the patches with MY paper and MY printer before sending them to the "professional profile maker" then I regard this as "printer specific".
Isn't it?
Thanks
Some, absolutely not all products (hence the reason generalizations are worthless) provide pre and post optimization.
In a prefect world, we'd actually produce nearly all visible colors as patches to measure. We can't produce, measure or build profiles with millions of patches. Even if we had super fast Spectrophotometers and people were willing to make that many prints, the resulting profile would have a document size that was likely larger than many images we wish to print. So all profile making software has to extrapolate based on the number of patches it is feed. More isn't necessarily better either! Those products that allow the creation of custom targets, pre and post optimization targets and who's users are good at producing such targets allow for (in theory and often in action), superior quality profiles. I routinely make optimization targets with a custom patch set for all the profiles I create. Sometimes the added work shows no difference, sometimes it does! And it's quite easy to compare the original profile and the optimized profile visually with good test images and colorimetrically by running tests with the correct software products. Because I never know if the optimization will show no or slight improvements, I just make the optimization steps as a basis for all profile creation. It only takes 3 8x11 sheets of additional paper and with an auto Spectrophotometer, about 10 minutes of work.
So here is yet ANOTHER area where DYI or custom profile services WILL differ. Do they provide the ability to optimize the original profile with additional measurements? Will they provide colorimetric reporting IF the customer desires to see additional non ambiguously data about the profiles? Will they build profiles with differing white point assumptions (instead of the usual default of D50)? Do they offer OBA compensation? The answer is yes and no. So much for silly generalizations about all DYI users and all outside profile making services. THEY DIFFER.
In addition to all the above, there are tools like ColorAnt (https://colorlogic.de/en/colorant/) that allow us to 'massage' the measured data. Again, in some cases, this can produce a superior profile.
-
... generalizations are worthless...
THAT one surely is.
-
THAT one surely is.
You're finally getting it bud. I'll state this for the third time. For someone who's posts here illustrate he isn't interested or too knowledgeable about the subject of creating profiles:
All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain
I think maybe you're understanding the point: ... generalizations are worthless...
-
Some, absolutely not all products (hence the reason generalizations are worthless) provide pre and post optimization.
...
...
I think I get the idea . Thanks
-
... All generalizations are false, including this one.-Mark Twain
I think maybe you're understanding the point: ... generalizations are worthless...
It is, as usual, a matter of degree, bud. But subtlety has never been your strong suit. In spite of being an expert in millions of colors, your logic seems limited to just two: black and white*.
* Spare me the debate whether black and/or white are actually colors... it is irrelevant for the turn of phrase above
-
It is, as usual, a matter of degree, bud. But subtlety has never been your strong suit. In spite of being an expert in millions of colors, your logic seems limited to just two: black and white*.
* Spare me the debate whether black and/or white are actually colors... it is irrelevant for the turn of phrase above
No generalizations, a fact of your posting history below that you have no idea what this topic is about nor have experience or anything to add here other than a posting agenda to go off topic and be a cesspool of disingenuous nonsense. The paper trail below is clear to me and I'd suspect everyone reading these two pages.
Are you so lonely and devoid of forum attention you have to go to such lengths? Seems you do:
Well, share it then.
I was hoping to see before/after comparison, alas...
It is much simpler. Print before/after and take a snap with an iPhone. Easy.
The OP reported enormous difference. It would surely be visible in an iPhone snap.
In related story, I got today a new shipment of wine. I am simply reporting how happy I am with it. Maybe I should post it in a separate thread. Too bad we do not have here a Wine Corner, just The Coffee Corner.
I am also preparing chili for lunch. Again, simply reporting how happy I am with it.
I'll let you know about the dessert. In a separate thread.
As opposed to clogging the forum with posts related to photography, but actually meaningless? As in "I got a new lens/camera/printer and I am happy with it"?
It is meaningless without a visual comparison. And I am here reading it as I am interested in the visible difference. After all, this is a photography site, not a poetry site, where words would suffice.
But not before I post a photography-related dessert:
A combination I used to print hundreds of images. Never had a problem with print not matching the screen.
Of course, when one uses a different profile, there must be some change visible somewhere. The question is, does it matter? If "very slight," probably not, but if "enormous"... well, that one I would like to see.
It is equally possible that you and I were lucky because we used a manufacturer's paper with their own profile. The OP was using a mismatch, so a custom profile might have indeed resulted in a significant improvement.
THAT one surely is.
At least you now understand (?) the vast differences between desert and dessert.
-
The answer is yes and no. So much for silly generalizations about all DYI users and all outside profile making services. THEY DIFFER.
I'm not suggesting there aren't differences. The issue is how significant or dramatic they are.
I can't be bothered to back reference the many times you've commented on the sliders that make hardly any difference in i1Profiler, or discussion back when i1Profiler first replaced PMP5 which was more evolution rather than revolution in the results it gave. An awful lot of these 'differences' are pretty subtle and even experienced photographers can be pressed to see them.
Sure the people that want ultimate control and are happy and well enough resourced to pay for it or whose interest extends to measuring the effect of drive wheels on printing paper will always buy the kit and DIY.
For photographers just wanting to make good prints who don't have unlimited funds, DIY profiling may not be a good use of their time and money.
-
* Spare me the debate whether black and/or white are actually colors... it is irrelevant for the turn of phrase above
There is NO debate. Since you appear to be utterly uninformed about how profiles are created, or what colors are, I'll simply provide you more facts to ignore. As you can see from an actual profile target, indeed black and white, as defined numerically below with the two sample points ARE used to build a profile.
These facts are your just desserts. If if you desire, your just deserts:
-
I'm not suggesting there aren't differences. The issue is how significant or dramatic they are.
Once you actually run colorimetric tests, instead of assuming, you'll know. By a metric known as deltaE.
The differences are visible JUST between making a profile with fixed attributes in i1P versus making one using a carefully constructed optimization target. So yeah, well over a dE of 1.
It's why some of us actually use the tools that were actually developed by color scientists and color engineers. They can work.
I can't be bothered to back reference the many times you've commented on the sliders that make hardly any difference in i1Profiler,
You can't because you misunderstood, again, the comments. They can make a difference; depends on which sliders and what kind of profile is being built. You of course misunderstood the specific comments you can't be bothered to find and assume that means ALL the sliders and controls. That's absolutely not true.
For photographers just wanting to make good prints who don't have unlimited funds, DIY profiling may not be a good use of their time and money.
Yet ANOTHER false generalization where you speak for all photographers. Again, I'm sorry the DIY possibilities for some people upset your business model. :-X
Are you even a photographer? Or ever paid to make a photograph?
-
Once you actually run colorimetric tests, instead of assuming, you'll know. By a metric known as deltaE.
The differences are visible JUST between making a profile with fixed attributes in i1P versus making one using a carefully constructed optimization target. So yeah, well over a dE of 1.
When you start to be patronising you loose a lot of credibility.
We've crossed paths on measurements before.
Are you even a photographer? Or ever paid to make a photograph?
Wow, I've had this id for 13 years and another before that, made over 500 posts in this sub-forum alone, but you can't bothered to click on my profile.
I can remember when you had a lot of credibility here, made sensible, helpful and constructive posts. Now you just stomp around arguing with everyone. Disappointing.
-
When you start to be patronising you loose a lot of credibility.
Speak only for yourself.
When you are patronizing and speaking in generalizations to support your business model, you might lose creditably to your readers.
We've crossed paths on measurements before.
Terrific.
Wow, I've had this id for 13 years and another before that, made over 500 posts in this sub-forum alone, but you can't bothered to click on my profile.
Doesn't answer the question.
I can remember when you had a lot of credibility here, made sensible, helpful and constructive posts
San's generalizations. ::)
Now you just stomp around arguing with everyone. Disappointing.
Use the ignore button/option. That's absolutely fine with me.
-
Andrew, a friendly advice: stick to color theory. Your excursions into logic are typically disastrous. Not to mention verbose.
-
Andrew, a friendly advice: stick to color theory. Your excursions into logic are typically disastrous. Not to mention verbose.
Slobodan, a friendly (piece of) advice: stick to topics you understand and hijacking posts in "The coffee corner" where anything goes. :P
-
ok, i get it. there is variability in profile construction. i also appreciate the benefit of reprofiling a new batch of paper (even one you've profiled before) or perhaps a new batch of inks. But perhaps an issue no one has talked about is the number of samples used to construct a profile.
That german provider has 3 'levels' of profiles ? If one made a print from the same printer three times, each with a 'fancier profile' , how much difference could there be? Obviously enough otherwise they wouldn't offer three levels of complexity. (But then again Chrysler made vehicles with the option of Corinthian leather)
It seems 'more is better' so how about actually using the colors in the image you want to print. I know it sounds crazy ( you'd have to construct a profile for each image) but then again, when you consider the actual colors of an image ( the gamut of an image?) the best profile to use would be the one optimized for it. Of course the tech for this does not exist. But it is conceivable. Patches 1 mm square could be printed and you could get 50000 patches on a single letter sized page, and the patches could be generated from the colors of an image. of course you'd need a special spectro for this. or maybe not. Maybe DSLRs in the future will have a spectro mode where a usb cable can directly transfer the measurements from the sensor to the profiler app.
But before that extreme, one might be able to generate profiles for landscapes (lots of blues and greens), profiles for people and portraits (lots of yellows, reds, and oranges.) It would seem a lot of the variability in profiles from one service provider to another might depend on patch selection.
-
Not crazy per se; some products extract colors from images for a patch set. My custom post-optimization target has some. What colors in what color space along with what other patches and where in color space is part of the Sausage Making. Not everyones sausage is created equally.
-
ok, i get it. there is variability in profile construction. i also appreciate the benefit of reprofiling a new batch of paper (even one you've profiled before) or perhaps a new batch of inks. But perhaps an issue no one has talked about is the number of samples used to construct a profile.
That german provider has 3 'levels' of profiles ? If one made a print from the same printer three times, each with a 'fancier profile' , how much difference could there be? Obviously enough otherwise they wouldn't offer three levels of complexity. (But then again Chrysler made vehicles with the option of Corinthian leather)
Obviously, more patches, the better a profile's Colorimetric tables. But the big variable is the printer. For instance my 9800 has significant "lumps" along the neutral axis and a standard, iSiS 957 single page profile works pretty good for most colors but there are some areas where it's not so good and the neutral axis is a big one. This is important because perception is more sensitive to small changes on the neutral axis. So I've made a special patch set with 4k patches that has a concentrated set of additional, near neutral, patches as well as having I1Profiler add additional patches where it sees areas in the mapping that need improvement.
OTOH, my Pro 1000 has much smoother mapping and the 957 default patch set does a good job on the neutral axis with a limited set of neutral patches.
So how many you need really is a complex function of the printer and there is no way to really tell how much improvement you get with purchased profiles but it's likely the older the printer the more patches would help. But at best it's subtle and I wouldn't be surprised to see no visual print difference at all.
-
THAT one surely is.
Why do you always jump into a thread to troll someone? It's getting pretty tiresome. Stick to sending in image for the home page, you will have more success.
-
i also appreciate the benefit of reprofiling a new batch of paper (even one you've profiled before) or perhaps a new batch of inks.
For OEM inks and high quality papers, probably not worth doing every time you get new batches. QC is pretty damn good for most major manufacturers.
But perhaps an issue no one has talked about is the number of samples used to construct a profile.
Over the years this has been discussed at very great length, many times.
It's not quite as simple as more=better. An appropriate set for the software is more important for overall results. If you back read through here you'll see mention of certain 'sweet spot' patch sets giving better results in i1Profiler, rather than just 'more is good'. Hit the right numbers and you may see slight improvements in certain tonal areas, but improvements can be subtle and most easily seen when using synthetic test images. (You'll read lots of comments about Bill's balls)
It seems 'more is better' so how about actually using the colors in the image you want to print.
Yes, all possible. You can add extra patches for specific colour ranges, but unless you are actually having issues with particular colours it's probably not worth the expense and effort.
The two specialities that I've come across that benefit from this approach are building profiles for monochrome work and non-Caucasian skin tones.
-
Why do you always jump into a thread to troll someone?...
Only to correct an obvious stupidity, like Andrew’s failed attempt at logic.
-
Only to correct an obvious stupidity, like Andrew’s failed attempt at logic.
The absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument
Or a pundit who hasn't a clue about the topic he's posting in. As the paper trail shows.
-
... who hasn't a clue about the topic he's posting in....
Then we are even. You don’t have a clue about the logic you are attempting to use.
-
Only to correct an obvious stupidity, like Andrew’s failed attempt at logic.
Why don't you go back to Page One of this thread and re-read your posts where you clearly were going overboard by pestering the OP regarding his experience with a Custom Profile. That's not "...corecting an obvious stupidity..." rather it's an crude attempt to rile things up when they did not need to be. You've done the same thing on numerous other threads. If you don't have anything to contribute on the technical threads just don't post.
-
Why don't you go back to Page One of this thread and re-read your posts where you clearly were going overboard by pestering the OP regarding his experience with a Custom Profile. That's not "...corecting an obvious stupidity..." rather it's an crude attempt to rile things up when they did not need to be. You've done the same thing on numerous other threads. If you don't have anything to contribute on the technical threads just don't post.
Yeah ask him about his experience building custom profiles what kind of spectrophotometer he has what software he is using. What supreme logic he has for building a perceptual table. ;D
-
...
The two specialities that I've come across that benefit from this approach are building profiles for monochrome work and non-Caucasian skin tones.
ICC profile for monochrome?! help me understand why that is even a thing. It would seem the gamut for a B&W image is much smaller than that for color. The tone shifting from computer to printing would only be shades of gray. And unless you have cyborg spectrophotometer eyes, how would you even know. It's not like skin tones, where our brain is hardwired to analyze faces and the slightest abnormality in color is identifiable.
Also, I keep trying to get back on topic but it seems there are some old wounds here. Can the moderator please step in.
-
ICC profile for monochrome?! help me understand why that is even a thing. It would seem the gamut for a B&W image is much smaller than that for color. The tone shifting from computer to printing would only be shades of gray. And unless you have cyborg spectrophotometer eyes, how would you even know. It's not like skin tones, where our brain is hardwired to analyze faces and the slightest abnormality in color is identifiable.
Also, I keep trying to get back on topic but it seems there are some old wounds here. Can the moderator please step in.
He told us he's using i1Profiler in the same post you reference about monochrome profiles. That product doesn't produce such profiles. The idea of a profile for skin tones (Caucasian or otherwise) doesn't make any sense at all. Not when you consider what profiles do. Profiles know nothing about color in context! They only know about individual pixel values. Like what you see if you were to open a shot of skin tone in Photoshop and zoom in to 1600%. Not until profile engines work on color appearance modeling and i1P nor any product I know of does.
Colorimetry and the dE testing and the current profile technology is based on color perception. It is not about color appearance. The reason why viewing a print is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Solid colors have no idea what a skin tone is or should appear like. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices can't provide. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. Colorimetry was never designed as a color appearance model. It's not designed for imagery at all. Colorimetry based on solid colors in very specific ambient and surround conditions. And today, that's how our profiles are created.
-
Why do you always jump into a thread to troll someone? It's getting pretty tiresome. Stick to sending in image for the home page, you will have more success.
+1
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
But before that extreme, one might be able to generate profiles for landscapes (lots of blues and greens), profiles for people and portraits (lots of yellows, reds, and oranges.) It would seem a lot of the variability in profiles from one service provider to another might depend on patch selection.
ColorMunki Photo (now called i1Studio) can already do that. I have successfully used its tweaking capability to make a special profile to more accurately print the shades on my monochromes (warm-toned B&W.) The original default profile created for the regular color gamut had a distinct greenish cast in the shadows that disappeared with the tweaked profile. For that alone I would say the cost and effort was worth it. I don't know if any of the custom services offer this capability or not. I have not done any tweaked profile for a color image yet. But I don't see why it would not work. Presumably one can create a profile for each image to print. It only takes one more 8x10 print to achieve that.
:Niranjan.
-
Colorimetry and the dE testing and the current profile technology is based on color perception. It is not about color appearance.
Perhaps the best demonstration of this can be done in a typical home environment with regular, not proofing, (2700K-4000K) lighting if one has a colorimeter or spectrophotometer that can read out CIE XYZ values.
Place a piece of matte paper on your desk. Measure the XYZ of reflected light off the paper being careful to avoid shadowing the room light so the paper is illuminated evenly.
Now create a large size white area roughly the size of the sheet of paper in Photoshop. Then use Curves and adjust the RG and B until the image measures the same XYZ values you got from measuring the paper on your desk. Go by the numbers, don't even look at the image. This takes a bit of time because XYZ are each effected by each of the R, G and B levels. But after you have made the image color XYZ match the paper readings now look at the paper on the desk then your screen.
They won't even be close. The image on the display will look a dingy, darkish yellow in comparison to the paper on your desk. Colorimetrically, they are the same. That's the Perception part. The difference in how they appear is the Appearance part. The difference is partly context, the different surround, and partly cognitive. That is simply knowing that the white paper is white.
If the room is evenly lit and you can pick the paper up and bring it near the image on the display. when you get within a few inches or so the paper and monitor will, almost magically, shift and suddenly match quite closely.
The effect is so strong it is absolutely mind boggling.
-
ICC profile for monochrome?! help me understand why that is even a thing.
Lot's of people reasonably expect monochrome images to look, well monochrome, without any tints or hints. An icc (colour)profile should get you to that standard, but a lot of canned profiles never quite hit the spot well enough. A custom profile should get that correct.
Remember that there's a whole fashion of making monochrome images with just a single element in colour, a red bus, yellow taxi etc, cliche maybe, but some like that sort of thing.
It's just a variation of optimising for what you print again.
-
In terms of a "monochrome" profile, I can only speak for Argyll which is the software I use for profiling. It allows me to add B/W step patches to the profile set which will then be incorporated into the resulting ICC profile. This will help smooth out the B/W gradient if the printer is non-linear. Of course this uses the existing color printer and not a special B/W driver if the printer has that feature.
-
It allows me to add B/W step patches to the profile set which will then be incorporated into the resulting ICC profile.
Yup, the same process can be done with X-Rite software. Only you get a nice GUI to make life easier ;-)
-
Lot's of people reasonably expect monochrome images to look, well monochrome, without any tints or hints. An icc (colour)profile should get you to that standard, but a lot of canned profiles never quite hit the spot well enough. A custom profile should get that correct.
Remember that there's a whole fashion of making monochrome images with just a single element in colour, a red bus, yellow taxi etc, cliche maybe, but some like that sort of thing.
It's just a variation of optimising for what you print again.
That's not a monochrome profile, such profiles exist (Eric Chan created such profiles for Epson ABW).
You are referring to a profile with excellent gray balance and it's not a special use profile; all good ICC printer profiles should exhibit very good gray balance with fully colored images or partial colored images also containing neutrals:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
-
In terms of a "monochrome" profile, I can only speak for Argyll which is the software I use for profiling. It allows me to add B/W step patches to the profile set which will then be incorporated into the resulting ICC profile. This will help smooth out the B/W gradient if the printer is non-linear. Of course this uses the existing color printer and not a special B/W driver if the printer has that feature.
Not a unique feature. Many products allow including more neutral patches initially or post optimization to "target" gray balance. And then there are actually CMYK profiles generation (far more complex options) for affecting GCR and UCR.
-
there are sorta 'magic' values of # of patches for i1Profiler that yields an increased # of grey-ish patches. I believe they are
all perfect cube numbers (12^3 = 1728).
I then may optimize w/ several hundred near-greys (+/-2 a* or b*) for every L* slice (so something like 9 colors of near-grey for every L* slice)
The difference is small but definitely there, particularly in the clarity of the lower quarter tones.
-
there are sorta 'magic' values of # of patches for i1Profiler that yields an increased # of grey-ish patches. I believe they are
all perfect cube numbers (12^3 = 1728).
I then may optimize w/ several hundred near-greys (+/-2 a* or b*) for every L* slice (so something like 9 colors of near-grey for every L* slice)
The difference is small but definitely there, particularly in the clarity of the lower quarter tones.
I use a target in i1P with a 5x5 grid (-2,-1,0,1,2 - a* and b*) at each L*, for a total of 2500 patches. Not a burden to measure on an Isis XL.
-
there are sorta 'magic' values of # of patches for i1Profiler that yields an increased # of grey-ish patches. I believe they are
all perfect cube numbers (12^3 = 1728).
I then may optimize w/ several hundred near-greys (+/-2 a* or b*) for every L* slice (so something like 9 colors of near-grey for every L* slice)
The difference is small but definitely there, particularly in the clarity of the lower quarter tones.
Ok I get it. Printers use color inks to make grey tones so a profiled printer for moonochrome allows you to eliminate all casts.
@howardm have you documented your process anywhere? As I am a novice, I understand that you are talking with Lab values, but do not know the specific steps to create such a patch set w iprofiler.
-
Ok I get it. Printers use color inks to make grey tones so a profiled printer for moonochrome allows you to eliminate all casts.
It isn't a monochrome profile. It's a color profile that has good gray balance. A monochrome ICC profile converts color to monochrome. As outlined here by the ICC:
http://www.color.org/faqs.xalter (http://www.color.org/faqs.xalter)
Q. Can I make a profile for converting colour to grey scale?
A. ICC defines a monochrome profile format though that doesn?t mean that all profile making software supports it. Since profiles produce colour transformations by combining an input profile that goes to a standard colour space (PCS), and an output profile that goes from this space, an output profile that converts colour to greyscale would simply define the relationship between the L* channel and the device levels.
The creation of gray profiles is not a feature that many profiling applications have, but you can make one quite easily by custom settings in Photoshop's Color Settings dialog. When you save the settings an ICC profile is generated.
-
Bwana,
I cheat :D
short answer/process: I got a used iSis and created a 1728 patchset on a 8x19 piece of paper, then I went here and generated a large .cxf file that
would fit on 5x19 paper (I forget offhand).
http://www.russellcottrell.com/photo/optimization/cxfGeneratorLab.htm
Then I merged the 2 patchsets in PS so it all fits neatly on a 13x19. Print the 13x19 and you now have 2 charts (requires cutting). Generate the
profile w/ the 1728 and then optimize w/ the other (used as i1Profiler spot colors).
I also generated a somewhat smaller set so I can get everything on 3 USLetter sheets if need be.
I was somewhat surprised at the printed difference between the optimization chart from the PRO-100 (dye) and my 3880.
The 3880 was quite neutral whereas the -100 has this significant overall magenta tone (haven't noted the actual Lab #s for it though)
but once the profile is made and applied, the magenta pretty much is eliminated (as it should be).
All this is MUCH easier w/ an iSis unit (I'd never sit around long enough to scan all that manually).