Recent Posts

Thanks for the feedback! This very helpful, much appreciated

Neil

I forgot to add that Canon's Professional Print & Layout is a free download from the Canon website.

Last of the Supras, as far as I can tell. BMW engine derivative, and Japanese construction bringing the fight to Italy.

Such shining love and dedication, when all the rest of the visible cars are covered in Sahara dust.

The best I can muster these days is a wash of the windows in order to see where I'm going and, perhaps, a little history of where I think I've just been.

With the Canon PRO1100 the best option is to use Canon’s Professional Print & Layout to print the targets. This bypasses the OS printing pipeline and sends the data direct to the printer. There is an option to print without colour management in the app. You can find it under ‘Color Mode’ as ‘No Color correction’. I have tested it and can confirm that it works satisfactorily.

I suggest you get the client to print a test chart using Adobe Colour Print Utility which can then be sent to you by snail mail.

Jonathan

FWIW, the last few versions of macOS, most certainly Tahoe, have broken ACPU. The likelihood that Adobe will fix it seems slim.

I suggest you get the client to print a test chart using Adobe Colour Print Utility which can then be sent to you by snail mail.

Jonathan

No LR cannot print without color management.

Hello!
I have a client who has asked me as a favour to profile a paper for their new Canon Pro-1100. He is using macOS and printing out of Lightroom.

Generally I don't create profiles for other people, but I do make all of my own. I have only ever used Epson. I use i1Profiler to make targets, print from Mirage which allows for 'no colour management/profile printing', then scan with my i1Pro2 and i1Profiler. I have a good handle on my own workflow, but have never made a profile on another set-up?

Can Lightroom print the target with "no colour management"?
Is there anything different about making a profile for Canon?
Theoretically I can just send him a target and give instructions to print untagged with no colour management and he sends printed target back to me and I scan it? Right?

With thanks
Neil
 

I was having a chat this morning with an ex-photographer, and he raised the point about how durable tiny sensors are or are not.

His observation was that, over time, photographs from these devices begin to look less sharp. It wasn’t about comparisons of cellphones with traditional cameras, but simply a comparison of early photos using a particular cellphone, and those from the very same cellphone a few years later on.

I'm no expert on smartphone light sensors, or smartphone electronics in general, but my experience is that after microprocessing devices survive an "infant mortality" period of a few months, they rarely degrade functionally until they fail completely—if they ever do fail completely.

My guess is that if this phenomenon can be proved empirically, it's the software (firmware) that's to blame.  Smartphone image-processing software tends to involve very aggressive noise reduction, regardless of the ambient light, to compensate for the small sensor size—and, as everybody on this forum undoubtedly is aware, the penalty for noise reduction is typically a loss of edge acuity.  And when the smartphone's post-processing software employs generative AI, it replaces visual elements in the raw image with supposedly improved data generated by a neural network, either for purposes of noise reduction or to eliminate other deficiencies in the image capture; these techniques get more powerful as the software is updated and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them sacrifice edges within the image in order to provide other improvements (or, should I say, "improvements").

There's a special wrinkle for generic smartphones—basically all of them except Apple iPhones (Apple manufactures the hardware and provides all the software)—because the manufacturer (Samsung, etc.) needs to code an "abstraction layer" to provide a connection between its hardware and the interface offered by the Android operating system, which is a specialized version of a more general open-source operating system (Linux).  The creation of this layer may be split between the manufacturer of the chipset that powers the smartphone (e.g., Qualcomm) and the manufacturer of the smartphone proper, which makes the software design challenge even more complex.  (I'm under the impression Samsung is the only manufacturer of both a generic phone and its chipset.  But Samsung still has to write code to make its hardware work with the Android operating system.)

So as software is upgraded over time, there may be regressions in some of its features, either because of deliberate design trade-offs or inadvertence.  I've definitely seen that happen in other contexts.

Elegant and very beautiful.

Thank You.