Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: bill t. on April 29, 2012, 06:46:28 pm
-
Having trouble reading the patches on Epson Exhibition Gloss Canvas using the old version of i1Pro puck.
I am wondering if the specular highlights on the bumpy, gloss canvas are faking out the data.
I am using the new i1Profiler software version 1.3.1 software.
While doing the row scan I always get messages like "Expected 20 patches but got 33." In dozens of tries, reboots, calibrations, etc I have yet to get a single successful row scan. I'm no Tai Chi master, but I swear I am being uncannily smooth during the scan. Have tried different speeds, triple checked all the menu settings, etc. I have no trouble scanning matte media.
I will certainly address this to Xrite support on Monday, but am wondering if anyone else has experienced this, and possibly found a solution.
Also, are there any known issues between the new i1Profiler software version 1.3.1 (which includes support for the new version 2 puck) and the original i1Pro puck?
Did manage to get a nice iPF8300 profile for BC Crystalline which is also very glossy, but smoother. Wasn't easy, but it worked and BTW wow that's some awesome canvas!
ps the puck passes the diagnostics. And since then have run some successful profiles on matte and smooth gloss media. Windows Vista 64bit.
-
Update...
Went back and printed a large block version of the patches then lined up and measured each patch individually. Oh the pain.
And got the error message "there is too much variation between identical patches."
Measured the patch set again, this time with extra care and extra dwell time between patches. Still too much variation.
So, it looks like the i1Pro is not so good for measuring bumpy, high gloss media. I assume the problem is that the sensor is seeing specular highlights on the rounded canvas peaks, in a random way dependent on aperture position. The aperture diameter is about 3 canvas bumps. Bummer.
Anybody else seeing this?
Is there any way of averaging sets, or is that stupid?
Anybody have good iPF8300 profiles for Epson Exhibition Canvas Gloss?
Oh well, I don't like bumpy canvas anyway, and I gave it my best shot. Ordered 5, 44" rolls of Crystalline instead, sweet stuff. But the history of scarcity is worrisome which is why I want to have the Epson stuff as a ready alternative. Just looking at patch densities I suspect they are quite similar in appearance.
Also ran some a smooth surface profile this morning, worked out fine.
-
Check "Low Resolution Test Chart" under Measurement Instrument in Measurement mode, then scan.
Richard Southworth
-
Thanks, have already tried the low resolution option, still no joy.
Have also tried different "smoothing" values and other parameters for the profile generation, it apparently doesn't apply to input data.
I think there is just too much texture on the Exhibition Gloss, it's the most extreme texture of any media I have ever used. On the iPF8300 the Crystalline profile works pretty good for Exhibition Gloss, if anybody wants to know.
-
Try spraying the test patch print with a matte spray!
-
Try spraying the test patch print with a matte spray!
Too late, I already tossed it out the window! Besides, that would automatically give all my glossy prints a matte finish. :)
-
Too late, I already tossed it out the window! Besides, that would automatically give all my glossy prints a matte finish. :)
You should have tried to measure using the profilemaker measuretool v5.0.10 (free to measure without a license). I always measure with measuretool not i1profiler, and have zero problems since doing so.
-
Hello,
If I need to measure canvas, I use a Barbieri Spectro LFP. This spectrophotometer has the option to measure with 2, 6 or 8 mm apertures. The rougher the substrate or printing process, the larger you'll want to have your measuring aperture. Maybe you can hire a Barbieri, or have the target measured by someone who has access to such device.
Regards,
Yann
-
Hello,
If I need to measure canvas, I use a Barbieri Spectro LFP. This spectrophotometer has the option to measure with 2, 6 or 8 mm apertures. The rougher the substrate or printing process, the larger you'll want to have your measuring aperture. Maybe you can hire a Barbieri, or have the target measured by someone who has access to such device.
Regards,
Yann
Barbieri Spectro LFP is nice, but damn expensive 2x more than isis. I wonder why i1Pro2 doesn't have polarizing filter like spectrolino had? Polarizing filter would help.
-
FWIW I sprayed the bumpy patches with two thick coats of glossy Glamour II varnish. That evened out the surface quite a bit and now I can get successful single row scans in about 1 out of 3 tries. That would tend to dissuade me from trying anything but the 400 patch minimum.
Unfortunately no Barbieri around here, but I imagine Epson must have something like that. I wonder if they want to make a profile for me that starts with "iPF8300..."? Will have to take a look at the Profilemaker thing also.
Those new gloss canvases are pretty nice. Both Expson Exhibition Canvas Gloss and Crystalline are right up there with the glossy baryta papers. The speckly Epson surface puts it a little over the top for landscapes but it would be the cat's meow for weddings & portraits. Crystalline is much smoother but still high gloss and with a lot of the depth of a good facemount print. According to iccview.de, my first-approximation Crystalline profile has a gamut volume of around 771,000 units, versus around 900,000 or so for some the canned baryta profiles I have. Compare that to about 432,000 units for matte canvas. Most of the extra gamut is off in the blue, violet, magenta region, which is most welcome. Not exactly five-sigma science there, but interesting.
Here's Crystalline vs. a nice matte canvas...
-
I had no issues measuring a ton of patches with all of the Epson Canvas materials using an iSis.
-
Thanks for that, Andrew. I've been thinking about that iSis.
In looking through stockpiles of prints made in advance of shows I have often noted slight differences in density and color for the same image, which seem most closely tied to different batches of the same canvas. Biggest difference is usually density. Never quite enough difference to reject a print, but enough to suggest that a quick and easy profiling system would be desirable. Consumables do seem to have some variation. The i1Pro can certainly give me the profiles, but it's just a little too much work to want to use routinely, especially during a production crunch. Maybe if the holiday sales go well this year.
And I just ordered a copy of your "Color Management for Photographers" book. Actually understanding some this stuff could only be helpful.
-
Barbieri Spectro LFP is nice, but damn expensive 2x more than isis. I wonder why i1Pro2 doesn't have polarizing filter like spectrolino had? Polarizing filter would help.
The light bulb of i1pro2 has not enough power to operate with polarizing filter.
-
There are polarizing filters that are clear, like your LCD monitor filters that are clear. So the i1Pro could work as far as light output is concerned. You could also strip a polarizer from simple microscope http://www.dino-lite.com/products_list_minute.php?product_number=AM7013MZT4%20Dino-Lite%20Premier
-
Putting a polarizer over the sample would skew the results unless it is built into the probe and compensated for. The easiest solution with glossy canvas' is simply to lightly spray them with a clear matte product. This would eliminate the spectra highlites that are throwing the sensor off.
-
Putting a polarizer over the sample would skew the results unless it is built into the probe and compensated for. The easiest solution with glossy canvas' is simply to lightly spray them with a clear matte product. This would eliminate the spectra highlites that are throwing the sensor off.
Sure the probe would need calibration on white tile done with the polarizer, if the polarizer is translucent (like LCD screen polarizer) this would work.