Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Kevin Sholder on November 13, 2013, 11:59:54 am
-
All,
I've profiled my printer and various papers that I use. My question relates to the option to optimize those profiles by providing an additional image for it to use in updating the profile. When using an image to update the photo does it update the existing information with more accurate information? And if it does, then if you use additional images to optimize that profile, does it become better overall or will you quality degrade?
Something like the point of diminishing return, how much optimization of the profile is worth while? I'm not going crazy, I just don't have the budget for the higher iPro series yet and I'm trying to get the maximum benefit out of what I have.
I have used the following evaluation image to create the color profiles: http://outbackprint.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi049/essay.html
Then printed it as well as Datacolor test image found at: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/matrixlarge_2.zip
Along with the Granger and Gamut charts found at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml
And then 3 of my images to evaluate the paper and printer reproduction.
I'm happy with each profile per the paper type I'm using, just curious if I can improve it at all.
Thanks,
Kevin
-
I'm happy with each profile per the paper type I'm using, just curious if I can improve it at all.
Probably not unless you started with a very small patch sample to build the initial profile.
-
OK, thank you for your help!!
Kevin
-
+1
-
IMO, if you're starting with ~800 patches there's not much to be gained by optimizing afterwards...
-
Scott,
The ColorMunki Photo only does 5 rows of 10 patches in each row. It is no where near the 800 that the i1 series of products produce and read from. Hence the question about using additional images or charts to read from for optimization.
Thanks,
Kevin
-
Hey you asked right? When I was beta testing that product 6 years ago I printed a bunch of sheets on my 60" inkjet printer and read them. Naturally I have a pro oriented approach and found 800 of these patches a little easier to read than 800 patches on the i1Pro at the time.
When I was testing it on a few Noritsu mini lab systems and some particularly poorly behaved, non-linear small dye-sublimation printers I was forced to take a more consumer oriented route and find a different sweet with far less patches. I was shocked at how it did with just 25-50 patches relative to the PMP and MP engines at the time. I don't know what the minimum is today but at one point we could start with a 23 patch target and these particularly non-linear devices lead us to the importance of including more grayscale patches.
You'll have to decide for yourself where that sweet spot it is - the point of diminishing returns. in the end it's pretty subjective. I personally like to take the approach of starting with a good number of patches to begin with and not optimizing later.
-
About the only time I've seen the optimization useful is when using Marc Levine's 2500 patch gray patch target with some Epson printers and even then the improvements while visisble are quite small. I've never seen using an image work for extraction of patches work properly and in fact, for fun, load a 24 patch Matcbeh Color Checker into the module and see what it extracts. At least in the uber expensive and high end i1Profiler, the product is a joke in terms of what colors it 'sucks out' for optimization. Could be a useful feature but X-rite hasn't really invested the engineering time and energy to make it work as it could.
-
About the only time I've seen the optimization useful is when using Marc Levine's 2500 patch gray patch target with some Epson printers and even then the improvements while visisble are quite small.
But that's with i1Profiler not the ColorMunki he's asking about right? He's trying to get help wight he Munki, and both of our suggestions about starting with as many patches as you can stand and not optimize is a good one, IMO.
-
But that's with i1Profiler not the ColorMunki he's asking about right?
Same engine. IOW, he's not going to see anything useful without going through the effort of measuring 2500 specially designed patches and even then, the differences are small. For Munki, not worth the bother.
-
Same engine. IOW, he's not going to see anything useful without going through the effort of measuring 2500 specially designed patches and even then, the differences are small. For Munki, not worth the bother.
But you were starting with a target with a ton more patches right? And your i1P starting target probably had lots of gray patches - so it's not really comparable to him starting with maybe 30 patches. I think the constructive approach would be to find the "sweet spot" number of patches to start with so that optimization isn't useful. The patch generators are different but finding a combination that has maximizes the number of grey patches would be smart.
-
But you were starting with a target with a ton more patches right? And your i1P starting target probably had lots of gray patches - so it's not really comparable to him starting with maybe 30 patches. I think the constructive approach would be to find the "sweet spot" number of patches to start with so that optimization isn't useful. The patch generators are different but finding a combination that has maximizes the number of grey patches would be smart.
Again, even with the Munki, which you well know I worked on as well, there isn't anything useful in the optimization unless you build the initial profile with a tiny number of patches (minimum). Use the max number and move on. Forget about adding images, that part of the software is retarded.
Even with 1700 well designed patches, in i1P, 2500 gray patches can produce slight improvements in some instances if one is willing to print and measure.
-
Well I think the maximum allowed in the final release is 100 patches now so yes Kevin, I'd imagine you'd see a slight improvement if you optimized with a bunch of gray patches. Try it out for yourself and see if you what you think (and let us know what you think!). I haven't found optimizing from color images to be worthwhile. Reading 3 pages of 50 patches really isn't that bad...
-
Guys, I don't want to start a battle here, however the banter is fun to watch as well as educational. ;D (No disrespect meant)
Scott, yes you are correct the ColorMunki, it only produces 50 patches for the first run. Dry the print for 24 hours, read it, the software generates another 50 patches based on the first 50. Print that one and let it dry, read it and generate the profile. It then allows you to optimize that profile based on an image that you select. Which is where my original question comes from.
This shows what the layout looks like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agMO1MbZl2o
So that may put a different spin on it since there is no way to produce greater than a total of 150 patches in 3 sets of 50. Which is why this only costs about $300 versus the $1500+ for the i1 products. So I'm just trying to do the next I can with what I can work with.
I've done an optimize with both a color image for a color profile and a b/w image for a b/w profile. I have not printed a color image with the b/w profile, will try that tonight to see if there is a difference. As for the color, it has already been done, and as you say minor improvement, so further optimization with this setup may not be worthwhile unless I print out and send the other chart out to generate a profile via an outside service, like the ones that both of you provide.
Thanks again for your input, I'm reading both your websites with great interest at this point, nice images as well!!
Kevin
-
Right, well thanks for bringing us out of our i1Profiler-centric mindset and back to the ColorMunki release version that your using! :-]
I'd recommend going with a 3 target workflow, optimizing with a B&W (not color) image for color profiles. How's that?
-
You could use the Argyll CMS software to generate & read a different patch set while using the Munki hardware.
-
Scott, so would you use a b/w target like the ones found at:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/black_and_white_test.html or
http://www.on-sight.com/download/Onsight_BW_Evaluation.zip or
http://www.on-sight.com/download/Onsight_Gray_v8psd.zip
Or is their something else you would look for in a sample image?
Thanks,
Kevin
-
Scott, so would you use a b/w target like the ones found at:
Well I would experiment and make my own, but yes, I think these are all great places to start. Consider cropping and using a portion of one of these images. You'll want the full tonal range with an emphasis on extreme shadow and highlight detail.
-
Right, well thanks for bringing us out of our i1Profiler-centric mindset and back to the ColorMunki release version that your using! :-]
Doens't matter. Same engine and same results (different options) but the bottom line is this:
1. Start with a very small patch sample from each, optimization might very well help. Minimum patches to most (many) devices is pretty good considering. Depending on the customer, 50+50 is all they would ever want or need.
2. Use a decent number of patches, 50+50 in Munki (which IS optimization at the secondary stage and isn't offered or forced in i1P) and optimization ranges from doing absolutely nothing (less than Avg 1dE using a few thousand patches to test) or makes a very slight improvement that I submit some wouldn't even see! Im sure we both have customers that would want the 2500 patch optimization and those that don't.
YMMY with Munki or i1P. If someone wants to spend the time and media to test it, go for it. We could even take the two profiles and build a dE report for him using ColorAnt or Colorthink.
-
Scott,
Are we using the b/w image to help with the luminosity values overall then? Or something else?
Kevin
-
To tweak the gray axis for perfect neutrality.
-
Thanks, that works. In running my test tonight at the bottom of the step when it asks you to load an image it states: HINT - To maximize profile accuracy, you may repeat the Optimization process using different images.
So it sounds like:
A. It does provide a better sampling since it can create the chart from more images with varying colors / tonalities. So it would be interesting to see how those profiles update internally from one to the next.
B. X-Rite wants you to use the ColorMunki a lot and it tops out quickly, but without being able to see inside the profile one would not know what is going on. So in a rhetorical fashion, how many do you do... :-)
Kevin
-
So in a rhetorical fashion, how many do you do... :-)
Not very many. One at most, if you're picky.
-
If I'm asking too much, say so, but for experiment sake, could someone look at the two attached profiles and see if there how much of a difference there is between them? It would be of interest to know how much of a change is taking place when optimizing a profile using the ColorMunki. Or tell me what I can use (without spending a ton of money) to view these myself? I work in a Microsoft Windows environment.
The v1 is just that and the v2 is optimized using the black & white image from: www.on-sight.com/download/Onsight_BW_Evaluation.zip, but the file had to be converted to a TIF as the ColorMunki software only uses JPG or TIF files for input.
If it would be of interest the paper used for this profile is Moab Somerset Museum Rag on an Epson R3000.
Thank you for taking the time to run the experiment and let other users as well as myself know how much of a change we would expect.
Kevin
-
Before we start, your internal names of these profiles are the same so you won't be able to tell them apart from profile menu's in Photoshop and the like. I used the ColorSync utility to rename them with the "v1" and "v2" that you've entered in the file name.
Well without writing a short book, here are two quick ways that anyone with Photoshop can see if there are differences between these profiles:
1) Print with each profile (and potentially each intent) and compare the print results under high quality lighting. This is always the most important results that should be valued above others.
2) Open an evaluation image Photoshop and convert it to one of these profiles. Then Assign the other profile to it. If you see a visual change when assigning the second profile, these changes represent the differences between the two profiles. It will look worse when assigning the second profile but don't get caught up in this or conclude that one is better than the other here. This is not the test to determine which profile is superior - only if they are different and by how much.
There are other more geeky ways of comparing profiles with a variety of color geek applications, but the above two are simple that anyone can do. With this, you can see that your two profiles are actually quite different! I'm guessing that if you perform test 1 with Perceptual and look at the prints in daylight that the v2 profile is better and worth the extra effort.
-
Scott,
Yes, they are the same as I simply over wrote the previous one, but always save backup copies of my profiles to go back to if needed. I think I'll change my methodology at this point for naming so I can get multiple versions around.
Based on #1, I should see the same results then when printing from Lightroom correct? Lightroom is my primary printing source in my workflow.
Glad to see that there was a big difference, that actually makes me feel good about the extra time and effort, as I'm looking to get the most out of the equipment that I have currently. Then when I'm ready for a larger printer, I should have a good handle on it.
So what are some of the more geeky ways to look at these? Being an IT Pro, geek is of interest to me as it will help me to get the next level for my presentation.
Thanks,
Kevin
-
Based on #1, I should see the same results then when printing from Lightroom correct?
You should get different results from these two profiles. You haven't printed with these yet?
-
I've printed with v1 last weekend and the prints look very nice. Created v2 last night following our discussion and will print tonight after work using the same images so I should see the difference.
Kevin
-
If I'm asking too much, say so, but for experiment sake, could someone look at the two attached profiles and see if there how much of a difference there is between them?
Here you go. Using a 988 patch (iStar) target in Adobe RGB (1998) for these results:
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 988
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (988 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.31
Max dE: 3.03
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.35
Best 90% - (888 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.22
Max dE: 0.61
Min dE: 0.00
StdDev dE: 0.13
Worst 10% - (100 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 1.14
Max dE: 3.03
Min dE: 0.61
StdDev dE: 0.55
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
Worst dE patches sorted in order, you can see you improved mostly grays:
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Munki.jpg)
Worst (RGB 127) shows a difference (note, not necessarily improvement) in aStar and bStar.
-
Well without writing a short book, here are two quick ways that anyone with Photoshop can see if there are differences between these profiles:
Here is a 3rd that can use Photoshop and shows where in the image the differences appear in a different way:
http://digitaldog.net/files/Apply_Image.pdf
-
Andrew,
THANK YOU so much for sharing this!! The improvement in the gray areas makes sense since that was the resource file type I used. Is there a resource I can obtain to learn more about how to understand what is happening here then? And have the basics of color management changed in the last 8+ years or is the foundation pretty solid?
Kevin
-
Is it an improvement? It is different. Some patches are shown twice, keep that in mind as this target is used for detecting positional color differences on a sheet thus they fall in different places when measured. I see a small range of colors in source RGB areas that are highly affected in both a and bStar and wonder why other colors in the range remain unaffected! RGB 127-133 and 37-45 are high in color difference. How do they compare with the 'before' print in those areas? Part of that is of course subjective and subject to viewing conditions.
-
And have the basics of color management changed in the last 8+ years or is the foundation pretty solid?
No and no.
-
Got it, once a make another set of prints tonight or tomorrow I'll should be able to see the difference and follow up on it then.
Thanks again!!
-
I would like to thank both "The Digital Dog" and Scott Martin for their guidance on this forum in helping me improve my printing abilities.
Well, after creating multiple profiles using the optimization feature within the software provided with the ColorMunki, I've come to the following conclusion.
Optimization is beneficial to a point. That point for me was after two phases of optimization. I actually made five optimization updates from my base profile, so there were a total of six versions of my printer / paper profile that I printed and reviewed.
The first optimization was built using the image found at: http://outbackprint.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi049/essay.html. I liked this image the best because of the bottom patch ramp which was most helpful in determining how much detail there was in both highlight and showdown areas.
The second round (v3 of the profile) of optimization built, used the image found at: http://www.on-sight.com/download/ being the Onsight B&W Evaluation Image. With this image however, you will need to convert to either TIF or JPG as the ColorMunki software does not read PSD files. I converted mine to TIF.
Further optimizations were performed using the Granger (v4) and Gamut Charts (v5) found at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/test-charts.shtml
Then for v6 of the profile I added an additional B/W image found at: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/black_and_white_test.html the direct link to the image is: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/downloadable_2/bwtest_2.zip
Changes from v4 and v6 showed minor improvements, but I did find that the blacks on the bottom patch ramp started to block up sooner by v6 of my testing.
So in my opinion and with the testing I was able to do over the past week, the next time I create a printer / paper profile using the ColorMunki I will do the following:
1. Run the software to create its first color patches, print, dry and measure to obtain the second color patch set.
2. Print the second patch set, let it dry, measure it and build the profile.
3. Then I’ll run the optimize routine using the image found at: http://www.jirvana.com/printer_tests/PrinterEvaluationImage_V002.zip. Print the resulting patch set, let it dry, measure it and build v2 of that profile.
4. Then I’ll run the optimize routine a second time this time using image found at: http://www.on-sight.com/download/Onsight_BW_Evaluation.zip. Print the resulting patch set, let it dry, measure it and build v3 of that profile.
5. Ready to make some beautiful images!!
Please note that I let each patch set dry for 8 to 12 hours before I reading it using the ColorMunki, not the 10 minutes that x-rite recommends. This is what I have found will work for my equipment and am extremely happy with the profiles and the resulting images from my Epson R3000 printer.
Thanks again!! And happy PROFILING.
-
Well, after creating multiple profiles using the optimization feature within the software provided with the ColorMunki, I've come to the following conclusion. Optimization is beneficial to a point.
Perfect - I agree! Tip of the hat to you for doing these tests and coming to this conclusion - good work.
-
Interesting and helpful discussions. Have just upgraded from 3800 to ipf6400 ( awaiting delivery ) and am now considering making my own profiles of the paper stock I use, mostly Ilford Galerie Pearl, Gold Fibre Silk and Canson Photographique. The manufacturer's profiles have always seemed pretty good - is there any noticeable advantage in spending £300 on ColorMunki? Prints are for exhibition purposes.
Thanks
Geoff
-
gbillett,
I did not start with a manufacturers profile, so I do not know. I may try that in the future. I bought the ColorMunki as my color management system, so it works for me. If you are happy with your current profile I would continue to use it, I was just trying to see what I could get out of my system.
Kevin
-
Hi Kevin
Some papers ( eg fine art cotton papers ) are reputedly difficult to profile, depending on variables such as climate etc, and manufacturers profiles are conservatively produced. I live 20 miles away from St Cuthberts Mill, makers of Somerset Enhanced paper, and would like to explore their and similar products eventually. Just wondering aloud though with the baryta type just how much of an advantage profiling papers would be. Only way to find out is to progress along the ( expensive ) learning curve of colour management, purchase ColorMunki and see :-).
Cheers
Geoff
-
Have just upgraded from 3800 to ipf6400 ( awaiting delivery ) and am now considering making my own profiles of the paper stock I use, mostly Ilford Galerie Pearl, Gold Fibre Silk and Canson Photographique. The manufacturer's profiles have always seemed pretty good - is there any noticeable advantage in spending £300 on ColorMunki? Prints are for exhibition purposes.
Some manufacturer's profiles are quite good and it may be difficult to improve upon them. Remember that the profiles are also based on the consistency of the manufactured printer so that each unit is within specification. they are profiling for the 'average' printer and not yours. The original Ilford Gold Fibre Sile profiles for the Epson 3880 were really quite dreadful and it was very easy to improve upon those doing your own profiling. In the end it all amounts to a cost trade off - does one invest in the hardware and software to do profiling and invest the time to optimize results. I started doing my own profiling four years ago first with the ColorMunki and then moving up to an i1Pro using ArgyllCMS software (which is free but has a significant learning curve). My profiles are better than the manufacturers for the papers I print on but not by very much. One option to consider is to have someone expert in the field do the profiling work if you have settled on a small number of papers to print on.
My two cents worth on the topic.
Alan
-
Thanks for your views Alan. It is also my view that having spent £££ on topflight camera and printing equipment, to stint at a further £300 is ridiculous to guarantee best possible results. I will purchase but in due course. My experience of manufacturers profiles may change if profiles available for the ipf6400 are inferior than those for the 3800. Printer has arrived - certainly more substantial than the the 3800 - and will put together and test next week.
Geoff
-
Geoff,
I think at some point then I may try a manufacturer's profile and then optimize that one to see the difference. It will be an interesting test.
Thanks,
Kevin
-
Hi Kevin ( Alan? - senior moment :-) )
Yes - but after Christmas. I have a lot of printing to do early next year so will optimize then. Thanks again.
Geoff
-
gbillett,
I had some time to try and work on optimizing a factory profile, and found that the ColorMunki will not allow you to open a profile that it did not create.
When I tried to create a new one or optimize one that I had already created from the ColorMunki it was fine, but it would not open any profiles that were otherwise installed on my system. Prints are drying from my custom profiles and the factory one now so I'll let you know what I see tomorrow. I am testing Museo Silver Rag for this round.
Kevin