Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jjlphoto on January 04, 2008, 09:48:40 am
-
Whatever happened to the review of the Canon 6100? Did I miss it or has that unit been delayed?
-
There can be many excuses made for the review sites but reviewers just aren't reviewing anymore. The must have found more lucritive things to do with there time.
Whatever happened to the review of the Canon 6100? Did I miss it or has that unit been delayed?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164989\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I was going to review the 6100 last month but ran out of time. I now expect to get one at the studio in a couple of weeks and to have a review online some time in February.
Michael
-
What review are you talking about? Was there supposed to be one here?
I've had my iPF6100 since the end of October and I must say that I absolutely positively love it. But like any love, it hasn't been without the occasional lover's quarrel.
This is my first larger-format printer and my first one with roll paper. My last printer was an Epson 2200, for which I had purchased a custom profile for the matte paper I used. I never used glossy with it because it just didn't do glossy well.
At a Canon presentation the reps I spoke with convinced me that this was the printer to get. They said that if I stuck with Canon media, I would NOT need to invest in custom profiles as the color accuracy would be that good. And they gave me the names of two recommended dealers to buy from. I bought from one, and was told mine was the first one in the Province (I'm in Montreal, Canada). The rep was very good and set the machine up for me. But then the lover's quarrels started...
The printer included a sample (short) roll of Canon Premium Matte paper and the first prints were horrible! The colors were so off that it was disgusting and I was rather unhappy. The dealer has also brought me some free rolls of other paper (non-Canon) to try and since he had never seen a 6100 (or 5100) before, he really didn't have much experience and there was nothing we were able to do to get acceptable results (in terms of color). When he left I was pretty discouraged.
The next few weeks were spent trying to locate the Canon media that I'd been convinced by the reps would give me good results. Neither of the two recommended dealers would sell me Canon media. Each had exclusive deals with other paper suppliers and while I've got nothing against other brands of paper, the dealers didn't have icc profiles for the paper and didn't know what settings to make on the printer to get the best results. I ended up ordering some Canon media from a company somewhere in Ontario (about 400 miles away) that had been recommended by the top guy at Canon in charge of these printers. That dealer didn't have the paper in stock either, and said they'd just started with the line (but had a lot of experience with drafting/plotting supplies).
When I finally got the first Canon paper I found that I couldn't get profiles for it. (The frustration was really mounting as the promises made by the Canon reps were FAR from being met.) Canon had had SOME profiles for download on their Digital Learning Site but had removed them all because of some kind of problem and it took them several weeks to re-release them.
But when they did, I finally started to get good (more than just acceptable) results. I may still end up getting custom profiles but really, I'm quite happy with the quality and accuracy of the prints I'm now getting. This is all still in the initial stages with me (sourcing the paper, getting the profiles, dealing with the holidays, etc.) so I can't yet say with certainty that the results are good enough. But they're certainly so good that I don't regret my purchase in the slightest.
I have the printer set up using a WiFi gateway device (so it's not physically connected to my network) and that works really well as I can move the printer to wherever it's least in the way. But I found that a physical connection was required for initial setup and also for firmware updates and adding media types. But for regular use the wireless connection works just fine.
Glossy prints are beautiful. No "bronzing" at all that I can see. Crisp, vibrant. Photos printed on the Hahnemuhle Photo Rag (188) are spectacular. I've printed SO MUCH stuff it's amazing. I've printed more than a dozen full-color window banners (24" x 60"), 40+ 24" x 36" photos, countless smaller prints. The most amazing thing to me is the ink useage... I was told that these smaller (90ml) starter ink cartridges would not last for much more than filling the supply lines and making a few test prints, but so far I've only had to change two inks. The other 10 are still the starter ones! The printer is much easier on ink than I expected.
Another lover's quarrel was with single sheets... Roll paper is great, but trying sheets was a real PITA. It's not well-documented IMHO and it's also not very flexible. I had a bunch of Epson Enhanced Matte paper sheets I wanted to use up, and with the Canon Premium Matte profile and settings the results were very good. But single sheets were frustrating! Not only was there a HUGE non-printable margin but figuring out the orientation settings with the paper wasn't easy. For almost everything other than letter-size paper there are TWO listings for every paper size, with the second listing having a "(L)" in the name. I found that's NOT for whether or not your image is in portrait or landscape orientation, but is about how you place the paper into the printer. With the "(L)" choice, there was nothing I could do to get my image to print correctly, whether I selected portrait or landscape in the driver. I didn't realize (at first) that with this selection I should have loaded the paper as a landscape rather than normal portrait paper.
Anyway, for single sheets I'm now ONLY loading the paper I use in portrait mode and all (other than the larger than I'd like non-printable margins) is well.
Again, I love the printer. It's FAST and the results are terrific. As long as you can either get the Canon media for which they have profiles (check the Canon Digital Learning Center for profiles BEFORE you order any paper!!!) or are prepared to buy or make your own custom profiles.
Hope this is of help...
Eldor - Montreal
-
Whatever happened to the review of the Canon 6100? Did I miss it or has that unit been delayed?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=164989\")
I have one posted here if you're interested:
[a href=\"http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0710/canon-imageprograf-ipf6100-printer.html]http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0710/can...00-printer.html[/url]
-
Is this still in the mix?
I was going to review the 6100 last month but ran out of time. I now expect to get one at the studio in a couple of weeks and to have a review online some time in February.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=165164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
It's being delivered today. Obviously I'll need some weeks to get familiar and to start using it.
Patience.
Michael
-
The February 2008 edition of Shutterbug magazine has review of the Canon iPF6100.
http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews...ters/0208canon/ (http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/scanners_printers/0208canon/)
-
Jerry. The guy who posted up above wrote that review on Shutterbug. Jon Canfield.
Anyway Excellent! Thanks everyone for all your efforts and reviews. Looking forward to it Michael.
Now the real burning issue is how does the gamut and print quality compare to Epsons flagship (soon to be the norm on all their printers) 11880 on different media types.
I've now had the ipf9100 for a few weeks and it's just like the last series (which means I like it) except that it prints black and white much better and has nearly no grain in photo quality images as the older 5000/8000/9000 series had.
Everyone else can spend all the cash on the exotic papers which no doubt are worth it but for my photos I like the Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin at $60-70 for a 24 inch x 100ft roll. It's thick, has an excellent texture and I was getting over 2.6 for Dmax. Color gamut is larger than Museo Silver Rag when both are equally custom profiled. Havent tried the new batch of papers yet.
-Jonathan
The February 2008 edition of Shutterbug magazine has review of the Canon iPF6100.
http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews...ters/0208canon/ (http://www.shutterbug.net/equipmentreviews/scanners_printers/0208canon/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Now the real burning issue is how does the gamut and print quality compare to Epsons flagship (soon to be the norm on all their printers) 11880 on different media types.
-Jonathan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have been using a 6100 and an 11880 for a while now. While I'm no expert in Color management, I do have good tools and am pretty careful when making profiles. I have made profiles for both printers using identical practices, that being Bill Atkinsons targets, for photo papers using 4096 or 5202 patch targets, for matte art papers or canvas I usually only use the 1728 patch targets.
Targets are read using Measure Tool and and EyeOne i0 table. Profiles are created using Profile Maker 5.0.8, using the same settings for all ... Large, Perceptual intent paper color Grey, Logo Colorful, and D50.
While both printers achieve outstanding prints and the 6100 is definitely a big step up from the 5000 I tried, the 11880 is creating much larger profiles and exceeds the gamut of the 6100 on photo papers. I have yet to profile my 11880 for matte papers so I can't say if the same will happen.
I have attached a couple of images just to give an idea of the difference. I want to caution all reading this that I am not expert enough to claim that the large difference in gamut means the output is vastly superior ... in fact while I believe the 11880 output is slightly better, I am very pleased with quality of the 6100. I'm just passing along some information, since I'm one of the few that have worked with both printers for a few months now.
The first one is comparing Epson Premium Lustre ... I suppose it could give the Epson an advantage but I'm personally not interested in any Canon Papers. Details in Color Think pro
Gamut volume 613k vs 822k, black (L) values of 4 vs. 3
Kodak paper details, gamut volume 612k vs 735k, both read L values at 3.
The Canon profiles were producing using the Special 5 setting, which is borderline "overspraying" some color. I'm not sure if some of the other paper settings would produce a much larger gamut, because I do know some have produced gamut volumes far larger than what I'm seeing. I'm not sure if that's because of the software they are using, or if they are using other paper settings and increasing ink load substantially.
One thing I do believe, on photo papers the 11880 can push very high ink loads onto the paper because of its head technology and precise dot placement. So far I haven't tried to increase the ink load such as Joseph Holmes has, I've just used the standard values for Premium Lustre paper on the Epson.
Again ... don't flame me here, just passing on some info that I've seen so far. Both printers are terrific.
So the second one is comparing Kodak Prof. Lustre.
-
Wayne,
My guess is that you are doing something incorrectly that limits the gamut for the Canon. While I haven't made a profile with the new inks of the iPFX100 generation, I did make a profile using Special 5 and Epson Premium Luster for the iPF5000. I used profilemaker 5.08, 1728 patch target, logo chroma plus (better than Logo Colorful, in my opinion, as Logo Colorful squishes the saturated tones together and you lose detail), paper gray, large. Gamut size is 732,000 in Colorthink Pro. This is for Epson Premium Luster (260), which has a white point with L* a little less than the Premium Luster (250). The dmax has L* of 3.3.
I have a profile Joe Holmes sent me, which is for the Premium Luster (260), and is his best effort with +15 for the ink density. That profile shows a gamut volume of 784,000 in Colorthink Pro. Dmax has L* of 3.0.
I will have to make a profile for the Premium Luster (260) to compare.
--John
-
Wayne,
My guess is that you are doing something incorrectly that limits the gamut for the Canon. While I haven't made a profile with the new inks of the iPFX100 generation, I did make a profile using Special 5 and Epson Premium Luster for the iPF5000. I used profilemaker 5.08, 1728 patch target, logo chroma plus (better than Logo Colorful, in my opinion, as Logo Colorful squishes the saturated tones together and you lose detail), paper gray, large. Gamut size is 732,000 in Colorthink Pro. This is for Epson Premium Luster (260), which has a white point with L* a little less than the Premium Luster (250). The dmax has L* of 3.3.
I have a profile Joe Holmes sent me, which is for the Premium Luster (260), and is his best effort with +15 for the ink density. That profile shows a gamut volume of 784,000 in Colorthink Pro. Dmax has L* of 3.0.
I will have to make a profile for the Premium Luster (260) to compare.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would love suggestions on what I may be doing wrong. It's pretty straight forward stuff, pretty automated, and I actually did it twice for the Canon's with the same result.
As far as Logo Colorful vs Chroma Plus, I've never taken the time to try Chroma Plus. I started using Colorful because that's what I saw people like Bill Atkinson using. I noticed Andrew used it as well when making his profiles for the new Epson Exhibition Fiber paper. If I understand it correctly, this choice only affects how the profile is used if you choose the perceptual rendering intent, and I find myself using relative colorimetric more often than perceptual. Of course, this choice doesn't affect the overall size of the profile - I used the same data last night to generate a profile with Chroma plus, and the gamut size was identical.
So at this point in time, what would be the differences? The only thing that comes to mind is when profiling the Canon I was using a Rev. b UV-cut EyeOne on the table, and found it challenging to use with art papers and canvas, so I have reverted back to my Rev. A standard EyeOne. Guessing I was using it by the time the Epson arrived. I'm not sure how to find out if an EyeOne has a problem. Perhaps I'll try the Canon's again using the older device.
Any other thoughts? Oddly enough, despite the gamut differences, prints from either printer are remarkably similar, including the Lab Test Page I downloaded from Bill Atkinson's site. There are some very subtle gradations and some very intense saturated images on that test page, and both printers do a great job printing it.
-
I would love suggestions on what I may be doing wrong. It's pretty straight forward stuff, pretty automated, and I actually did it twice for the Canon's with the same result.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168810\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My first guess (unless the new inkset has a markedly decreased gamut) is that somehow color management wasn't turned off in the driver. You can look on the Wiki for how to do this properly, under the "Custom Profiles" section in the left hand navigation column. A number of people have gotten screwed up on this, that is why it would be my best guess. Let us know if that isn't the problem. I don't expect any problem in measuring/making the profile, that I am sure is pretty foolproof.
--John
-
My first guess (unless the new inkset has a markedly decreased gamut) is that somehow color management wasn't turned off in the driver. You can look on the Wiki for how to do this properly, under the "Custom Profiles" section in the left hand navigation column. A number of people have gotten screwed up on this, that is why it would be my best guess. Let us know if that isn't the problem. I don't expect any problem in measuring/making the profile, that I am sure is pretty foolproof.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the tip ... I'll do some research. I must admit that after using Epson printers for years now, the Canon workflow is awkward to me.
As you know, I've been frustrated trying to get the best profiles with my Canon ... I've mentioned on the wiki how my profiles seem to be smaller than most others are getting. My results are nice, but the gamut size seems to be smaller than everyone else is getting. The "match" settings are pretty buried in the Mac OS ... 3 dialog boxes to get it. Definitely not something you would stumble across. I thought I had set that up right when making the profiles ... maybe I stumbled across it later.
I'll re-profile and see if this has been my problem.
-
I would love suggestions on what I may be doing wrong. As far as Logo Colorful vs Chroma Plus, I've never taken the time to try Chroma Plus. ....I find myself using relative colorimetric more often than perceptual.
It can be educational to take the same measurement file and render out profiles with every possible combination of options in PMP. Paper Grey, Lightbox GTI and either Chroma Plus or Colorful are the popular favorites typically chosen after testing. Then render profiles in ColorKit, PrintFIXPro, Pulse Color Elite, EyeOneMatch, Monaco Profiler, PerfX etc, etc. Then make a boat load of prints with RelCol. Then make another boat load of prints with Perceptual. While the RelCol prints will be nearly all the same the Perceptual prints demonstrate the developers various approaches and philosophies for color space morphing. Then go repeat the same kind of exhaustive testing on different kinds of papers, printers, silver halide, color laser, solvent, etc.
At the risk of beating a dead horse (as I have mentioned it a few times), all of those that I know that have done this kind of testing find Monaco Profiler's (MP) perceptual rendering to be a crown jewel. The industry's best kept secret. Skin tones are more like the original and less pink than PMP's, edge gamut colors are nicely saturated like LOGO Colorful's yet mid gamut colors and saturation are unaffected. IMO, for fine art printing it's the cat's meow. Now sure, some are going to say they subjectively prefer Colorful's mid-gamut contrast and saturation boast or PrintFIX's somewhat wacky and aggressive saturation and density boast, but as for faithfully reproducing the colors captured and seen on screen, I find MP perceptual profiles hard to beat. For press proofing, I have found MP profiles provide the lowest Delta E variance for spot color matching.
Over the years I've watched labs and fine art inkjet reproduction shops initially fall in love with LOGO Colorful and PrintFiX Pro profiles but after a few days or weeks of usage begin to fall back on older, more conservative profiles. From my own observation, it's the Monaco Profiler profiles with perceptual that shops fall in love with and stick to for the long haul. At the same time, these profiles are under the radar and a huge percentage of people have little to no experience with them.
Wayne, it's sounds like you are doing everything right. I'd encourage you to do this test so you can see the results for yourself. Your observations are thoughtful and well considered. I'd love to hear your thoughts and feedback.
Of course, this choice doesn't affect the overall size of the profile - I used the same data last night to generate a profile with Chroma plus, and the gamut size was identical.
Yet final prints can look so much different! The gamut plots don't tell the full story, IMO. Or to be more specific, they indicate the results one might see from using RelCol but don't indicate what one might see with Perceptual. If someone prefers the results from Colorful or Chroma Plus, for example, that has meaning that isn't reflected in the gamut plots of those profiles. And it *really* get's interesting when the visual results directly contradict what you might deduct from the gamut plots. For example: a gamut plot might show printer A as having significantly more saturated greens than printer B, but prints made with perceptual y show printer B as clearly having (and I mean clearly) superior greens. This is something I wish more people would see for themselves and comment on. Wayne, you are in a great position to do this.
My results are nice, but the gamut size seems to be smaller than everyone else is getting. The "match" settings are pretty buried in the Mac OS
Buried in the Canon driver.... Unless you are printing solely from other apps I would encourage you to make your iPF profiles from the PS plug-in using the 16 bit option and a true 16 bit profiling target for optimal results. As for workflow, I find the iPF PS plug-in to be delightful and fast.
-
Wayne
I really appreciate you continuing to post what you find. Everything I've seen shows the 11880 to have a considerably larger color gamut than the Canon (which I just purchased.) I don't regret my purchase for price considerations and recently I read of a person having some clogs in his 11880 (though less than previous generations) which I don't miss since switching to Canon, but after looking at a number of comparisons of gamut between these two printers Epson seems to get the nod and I'm afraid when we look into matte papers the difference will be even greater.
Now obviously when you're dealing with two printers with excellent gamuts to begin with images from both are going to be excellent. It's only when pushing colors to an extreeme that this will come into play and even then probably won't be noticed in most photos. What really will give the Epson an advantage is the deep dark bold colors IMO. Here is where I have been in want with the Canon especially on matte papers. Looking at your plots from the top don't tell that story. I would love to see the underbelly from the side of those plots (but especially on canvas or matte paper.)
All of that said Wayne could you please give us the total gamut volume to go along with your graphs? In the 6100 please just make sure you have advanced settings (not easy settings) selected from the drop down on the "main" tab. And select "Color Settings" and the second tab over is "Matching." Just make sure you have that set to off. If you've done that then you most likely did everything correctly.
Now I would have only suggested that you use the paper type "Heavyweight SimiGlos Photo Paper 2" as you media type with Epson Luster however I don't really think if you've done everything correctly that will help much.
Thanks again! Sorry to write a book.
-Jonathan
-
Thanks for the comments. I confirmed that when using my "spec5" setting in my printer setup dialog, it was setting the matching type to off. This is buried (why?) and I'm unclear why both Epson and Canon do not disable printer color options when I choose to not let the printer manage color. Odd. In the case of the Canon, this is buried way to deep in dialog boxes ... and should be fixed. At least Epson has it on the same page as all the other important settings now, so it's staring you in the face. (Of course if they really wanted to do it right, it would be turned OFF when you are using photoshop to manage color.)
Anyway, I reprinted my targets. After looking at them I'm pretty sure that I "discovered" and set this setting some time later, because the targets are more saturated. Another victim of the Canon learning curve here, but pretty sure I now have the answer to my smaller gamut profiles.
Regarding the 16bit plugin. I initially didn't use it because I didn't like running PS in rosetta. Now that the intel version is out, I remember my other problem. I can't figure out how to customize the paper sizes. I print a lot of panorama work, and haven't been able to figure out how to do this with the plugin. I've been searching the web and the wiki and will keep searching, but guessing I might get a quicker response from some Canon experts here. (UPDATE : FOUND IT. surprisingly enough when I selected the manual media source option a size options button showed up ... when I went back to roll it was still there. A little weird I know).
It appears now however, that at least on Kodak Glossy, Special 5 is laying down a little too much ink ... still seems damp and very delicate. Will try spec 4 and some of the recommended Canon paper types as options.
-
I don't use the plugin. I only use the garo driver. I print out of programs other than Photoshop like Qimage and don't want to base my workflow off of something I can only use with PS. That said I also can't see any real advantage in my prints.
Now regarding the settings for your paper type. Use the tab "Favorites" to save things under names. When you're profiling for a given paper make all your settings and then just save a favorite. When you use that paper type just go under the favorites tab and select it and you don't have to visit any other tabs (except to make sure you have the right paper size selected.) Remember to not just select the favorite but to click "apply" at the bottom.
Next under the Page Setup tab click "Size Options." Save the sizes you use most like your panos. Give it a name.
Now you only have to visit two tabs and quickly select the favorite (sets all driver settings except paper size) and the paper size and your done. This has ended my complints about canons driver. It also prevents you from making mistakes.
Any chance you can check those total gamut volumes for the two profiles you have? It could be a number like 834,000 or 790,000 etc.
-Jonathan
Thanks for the comments. I confirmed that when using my "spec5" setting in my printer setup dialog, it was setting the matching type to off. This is buried (why?) and I'm unclear why both Epson and Canon do not disable printer color options when I choose to not let the printer manage color. Odd. In the case of the Canon, this is buried way to deep in dialog boxes ... and should be fixed. At least Epson has it on the same page as all the other important settings now, so it's staring you in the face. (Of course if they really wanted to do it right, it would be turned OFF when you are using photoshop to manage color.)
Anyway, I reprinted my targets. After looking at them I'm pretty sure that I "discovered" and set this setting some time later, because the targets are more saturated. Another victim of the Canon learning curve here, but pretty sure I now have the answer to my smaller gamut profiles.
Regarding the 16bit plugin. I initially didn't use it because I didn't like running PS in rosetta. Now that the intel version is out, I remember my other problem. I can't figure out how to customize the paper sizes. I print a lot of panorama work, and haven't been able to figure out how to do this with the plugin. I've been searching the web and the wiki and will keep searching, but guessing I might get a quicker response from some Canon experts here. (UPDATE : FOUND IT. surprisingly enough when I selected the manual media source option a size options button showed up ... when I went back to roll it was still there. A little weird I know).
It appears now however, that at least on Kodak Glossy, Special 5 is laying down a little too much ink ... still seems damp and very delicate. Will try spec 4 and some of the recommended Canon paper types as options.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169061\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Thanks to all for helping me understand my Canon printer. While my results have been outstanding so far, catching this problem in my profiles has ended a frustration I have had.
I am currently re-profiling both printers using the rev. A device, and in the case of the Canon, will most likely profile it with both the standard mac OS driver as well as the 16bit driver. I assume the challenge of relative colorimetric and black point compensation still exists, and I'm still unsure that the 16 bit driver will offer any visual improvement, but I need to learn.
Anyway, I have profiled the Kodak Professional Glossy (it is brand neutral to both companies) on both printers, and have attached a couple of views from ColorThink. This is more what I expected to see ... both very close, with the primaries of the Canon pushing out the gamut when they have the most impact.
The Canon was using Spec 5, and gamut volume this time is 720,882, much higher than previous. This confirms I made the match adjustment in my settings sometime after I did the original profiles. I assume prints looked good simply because most of the colors are well inside the gamut, and using the wrong match setting "clipped" the outside of the gamut.
The 11880 still has a larger gamut, it seems the extra primaries of the Canon push out the profile in somewhat narrow ranges, such as the blues and the reds, but the overall inkset of the Epson expands the entire gamut range. The 11880 gamut volume is 771,306.
If I could pick some brains a little more, however, I have a couple of questions.
Is this a typical "shape" for Canon profiles? Do those you have made "push" out the gamut in similar fashion, especially at the deep blue end?
Second, I think the Canon profile has a problem .. .(will be doing it again). If you look at both views, there is a section of the profile that seems dramatically pushed in (triangle shape). .. .it is especially noticeable in the bottom view. As I spin this around in ColorThink, its as if one single point is dramatically less than it should be.
I've never seen this in a profile, but am unclear if this is most likely a problem in reading the test patches, or in the patches themselves. Obviously if this point where pushed out to where the profile would be smooth, it would increase the gamut volume. I would also expect this is enough of a problem that some colors in some prints might even be affected. It's pretty obvious that this profile is unacceptable, I'm just curious as to the most likely cause.
Any insight would be appreciated. I feel some additional knowledge in verifying the quality of a profile is something I would like to have.
-
Is this a typical "shape" for Canon profiles? Do those you have made "push" out the gamut in similar fashion, especially at the deep blue end?
Yes.
Second, I think the Canon profile has a problem .. .(will be doing it again). If you look at both views, there is a section of the profile that seems dramatically pushed in (triangle shape). .. .it is especially noticeable in the bottom view. As I spin this around in ColorThink, its as if one single point is dramatically less than it should be.
Can't really tell from the 2D views. Feel free to contact me through PM here or on the Wiki so I can give you an email address. If I can look at the profile in Colorthink in 3D I can give a much more informed opinion.
--John
-
That bump looks like a patch was mis-read. I have no bumps on any of my profiles that stick inward. I do have slightly bumpy spots that stick outward a bit.
Also yes it norma for that big dark blue hump to stick outwhere the primary is. I have that showing on my profils also.
Your results are close and I like that as a Canon user. That bump will not make a huge difference in total gamut volume but it will add some.
As a comparison to your results I am getting 834,634 as the gamut volume for the 9100 on Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin. Curious if anyone else is using this paper and what they are getting...
Please continue to post those results, they are greatly appreciated.
-Jonathan
-
As a comparison to your results I am getting 834,634 as the gamut volume for the 9100 on Canon Heavyweight Photo Satin. Curious if anyone else is using this paper and what they are getting...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169393\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Using what program? It is important to specify, as results will certainly be different. I think the reference standard is probably Colorthink Pro, but could be persuaded otherwise with sufficient data.
HW Photo Satin profile on Canon iPF5000 made with Profilemaker 5.08 and 1728 patch Atkinson target has gamut volume of 714,000 in Colorthink Pro. By way of comparison (also on iPF5000), Epson Premium Luster (260) with Special 5 Media Type weighs in at 732,000 and Harman Gloss FB Al using Media Type Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss is 775,000.
--John
-
John
I use Gamutvision. I can forward my profile to you for comparison in Colorthink.
-Jonathan
Using what program? It is important to specify, as results will certainly be different. I think the reference standard is probably Colorthink Pro, but could be persuaded otherwise with sufficient data.
HW Photo Satin profile on Canon iPF5000 made with Profilemaker 5.08 and 1728 patch Atkinson target has gamut volume of 714,000 in Colorthink Pro. By way of comparison (also on iPF5000), Epson Premium Luster (260) with Special 5 Media Type weighs in at 732,000 and Harman Gloss FB Al using Media Type Photo Paper Plus Semi-gloss is 775,000.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169400\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
John
I use Gamutvision. I can forward my profile to you for comparison in Colorthink.
-Jonathan
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=169493\")
Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but why would gamut volume be calculated "differently" by different software? Isn't it pretty straight forward math ... plot the points and see how much "volume" is contained within the points?
If this isn't the case, then gamut volume begins to lose meaning as a comparative measuring tool with profiles. Requiring everyone to standardize on a software package to obtain meaningful measuring data doesn't seem logical. A profile is a profile and profile evaluation software should apply the standard - it sounds logical to this non-engineer's brain anyway.
(sorry to get of topic ... but I've sort of dragged this thread off topic anyway )
Anyway, after printing a new test chart and remeasuring I now feel I have a very good profile for Kodak Prof. Glossy paper on the 6100, and soon my other papers as well. Fixing the problem mentioned yesterday shows a gamut volume of 729,592, slightly larger than the previous one. The sharp inverted spot is gone and that area is now included in the gamut of the profile. I guess I'll measure the original test chart again to see if is a problem in reading the data or a problem in the chart (just curious).
The profiles are identical except for the one problem area (as they should be), so as far as comparing gamut vs the 11880, nothing has changed. The 11880 has an overall larger gamu - slight in some areas, a little more in others (notably the yellows). The 6100 extends outside the 11880 in the dark blue/magentas, a little bit in the saturated red, and a very slight amount in the green- pretty much in those areas the primary inks can make a difference.
Meaning? Probably nothing ... both are great printers, have great gamuts and deliver amazing results - rich saturated colors, delicate and beautiful gradations.
If anyone is interested, I did a little movie in ColorThink that gives you an idea of what differences there are. find it at
[a href=\"http://homepage.mac.com/waynefox/]http://homepage.mac.com/waynefox/[/url]
Again,I appreciate what I've learned here.
-
Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but why would gamut volume be calculated "differently" by different software? Isn't it pretty straight forward math ... plot the points and see how much "volume" is contained within the points?
Actually, I don't know a lot about it either. However, I recall some post or discussion on some list by color guru Steve Upton (who wrote Colorthink) saying that there were different ways of determining the boundary of what is in and out of gamut--or something of that nature. I could be completely wrong in my recollection, and would be happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than I. If in fact there is only one way to make the calculation correctly, one of the programs must be wrong
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get Steve Upton and Norman Koren (who wrote Gamutvision) to weigh in here.
--John
-
I thought the same thing, that the gamut volume should be the same on both colorthink and gamutvision.
When you profiled Canon Heavy Weight Photo Satin, what media setting did you use? Again I got 834,634 on the ipf9100 using the "Heavyweight SimiGloss Photo Paper 2" setting.
Wayne, I would love to see what you get on a matte paper like Hahnemuhle Photo Rag or something like that. I'm sure you have limited free time.
Actually, I don't know a lot about it either. However, I recall some post or discussion on some list by color guru Steve Upton (who wrote Colorthink) saying that there were different ways of determining the boundary of what is in and out of gamut--or something of that nature. I could be completely wrong in my recollection, and would be happy to be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than I. If in fact there is only one way to make the calculation correctly, one of the programs must be wrong
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get Steve Upton and Norman Koren (who wrote Gamutvision) to weigh in here.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169567\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
When you profiled Canon Heavy Weight Photo Satin, what media setting did you use? Again I got 834,634 on the ipf9100 using the "Heavyweight SimiGloss Photo Paper 2" setting.
I believe I used HW Satin Photo Paper.
--John
-
I have a profile Joe Holmes sent me, which is for the Premium Luster (260), and is his best effort with +15 for the ink density. That profile shows a gamut volume of 784,000 in Colorthink Pro. Dmax has L* of 3.0.
I will have to make a profile for the Premium Luster (260) to compare.
--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168685\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I re-profiled Epson Premium Luster, with very similar results to my first profile. I'm even surprised at how much larger the gamut volume is compared to other papers. I saw your mention of Joe's results, I've been following his testing of increasing ink with the driver, but haven't tried it yet myself.
My second profile showed a gamut volume even slightly higher ... 829,000. This compares to epson premium glossy of only 758,000.
Naturally at first I suspected I was still doing something wrong, so I downloaded Bill Atkinson's 11880 profiles, made with ColorSavvy. I feel a little better now ... his premium luster profile gamut volume is 823,000, and when I graph mine with his, they are almost identical.
Seems illogical to me that this one particular paper has results so different. Of course, the proof is in the pudding as they say, and I now have several prints of Bills Lab Test Page done, on Kodak Glossy, and Epson Premium Luster from both the 11880 and the ipf6100. If I look very hard for a long time, I begin to see some extremely subtle differences. This applies equally to the 11880 prints on the two different papers. Despite a 10% larger gamut volume, there really isn't any difference in the two prints.
Two great printers, no doubt.
-
Really, really glad to hear these results. Also glad to hear your results on Epson Luster are about what I'm getting on the Canon Satin paper. I really like the Canon paper better than the Epson (by a long shot.) It's much thicker and feels better in the hand.
So as far as dithering would you consider these two printers a wash or is the Epson showing slightly better detail under close examination?
Were you using the #5 setting on the Canon?
I re-profiled Epson Premium Luster, with very similar results to my first profile. I'm even surprised at how much larger the gamut volume is compared to other papers. I saw your mention of Joe's results, I've been following his testing of increasing ink with the driver, but haven't tried it yet myself.
My second profile showed a gamut volume even slightly higher ... 829,000. This compares to epson premium glossy of only 758,000.
Naturally at first I suspected I was still doing something wrong, so I downloaded Bill Atkinson's 11880 profiles, made with ColorSavvy. I feel a little better now ... his premium luster profile gamut volume is 823,000, and when I graph mine with his, they are almost identical.
Seems illogical to me that this one particular paper has results so different. Of course, the proof is in the pudding as they say, and I now have several prints of Bills Lab Test Page done, on Kodak Glossy, and Epson Premium Luster from both the 11880 and the ipf6100. If I look very hard for a long time, I begin to see some extremely subtle differences. This applies equally to the 11880 prints on the two different papers. Despite a 10% larger gamut volume, there really isn't any difference in the two prints.
Two great printers, no doubt.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=169839\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Excuse my lack of knowledge here, but why would gamut volume be calculated "differently" by different software? Isn't it pretty straight forward math ... plot the points and see how much "volume" is contained within the points?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=169561\")
I ran across this Color Wiki FAQ that might help explain the differences. A little hard for me to get my head around it, though:
[a href=\"http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_26:_Graphing_profiles_to_see_their_gamut_gives_pretty_much_the_same_results_in_the_different_tools_that_are_available]http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Manage...t_are_available[/url].
--John
-
I ran across this Color Wiki FAQ that might help explain the differences. A little hard for me to get my head around it, though:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Manage...t_are_available (http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_26:_Graphing_profiles_to_see_their_gamut_gives_pretty_much_the_same_results_in_the_different_tools_that_are_available).
--John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=170573\")
Thanks John ... for those wanting to read it somehow his link ended up with an extra space ... I found it here
[a href=\"http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28]http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28[/url]
Like you, a little tough to get one's head around, but I think I get the concept.
Anyway, it appears that gamut volume itself only has relevance if the same software is used to calculate it, and even then once you get over +700,000 I"m not sure there will be much in the way of visual differences when viewing prints.
-
I didnt' read the article but I assume what is being said in the thread is that it doesn't matter gamut viewer you use, but the profiling solution used will make a difference. That does make total sense.
Thanks John ... for those wanting to read it somehow his link ended up with an extra space ... I found it here
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28 (http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28)
Like you, a little tough to get one's head around, but I think I get the concept.
Anyway, it appears that gamut volume itself only has relevance if the same software is used to calculate it, and even then once you get over +700,000 I"m not sure there will be much in the way of visual differences when viewing prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=170713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]