It was suggested I try this forum instead of the Printing one on my
other thread, so I apologize for posting this twice. Here's my issue: I have been trying to make watercolor reproductions on traditional cold press watercolor paper, unfortunately with very mixed results using existing profiles. Luckily I got my hands on a Colormunki to help fix this, and using the Colormunki software with only 3 targets (130 patches total) I was able to make the best matched print I've ever made.
Enter ArgyllCMS. I've read great things about it. I thought I'd take it to the next level and produce a great profile, so I generated a target with 1,050 patches, printed it out using the ColorSync app with the setting "Print as color target" (this turns off color management based on what I have read), and read it in with the ColorMunki with the following commands:
targen -v -d2 -f1050 -R -G 1050_Arches
printtarg -v2 -iCM -h -t360 -a.6 -m0.0 -M0.0 -P -p190x320 1050_Arches
chartread -v -H -B -T0.4 1050_Arches
After getting all the rows, I grabbed my local AdobeRGB1998.icc from my ColorSync folder (as I've read you're supposed to do), copied it to my working directory and used this command to generate the profile:
colprof -v -qh -S AdobeRGB1998.icc -dpp -D "Arches 300gsm Canon Pro 100" 1050_Arches
And here are the results (I apologize for picture quality) with the original on top, the Colormunki software profile on the bottom left, and Argyll's profile on the bottom right. This was printed in Photoshop with relative colormetric selected on my Canon Pro 100:
Notice the blacks are completely missing in the face and the clipping on the blue wash on the side. It is difficult to tell from this picture, but there is a green cast as well. Also, here's a 3D view from the ColorSync app comparing the Colormunki generated profile and ArgyllCMS, with the smaller ArgyllCMS profile in color and the Colormunki shown in a white outline. It's obvious that there's quite a bit less coverage in Argyll's profile. To be honest, I'm baffled that the gamut is so much smaller considering I used more than 8x the patches with Argyll:
Perhaps I've missed a valuable step in generating my target or profile - I sure hope so. I'm a complete novice at profiling (I'm just a guy trying to help his wife), but I was really hoping that 1,050 patches would produce a superior profile to the 130 patch Colormunki profile. If anyone has any ideas as to what might have gone wrong here, or what else I need to do to improve this, I would greatly appreciate any help. I'm comfortable on a command line, but I will admit I simply used parameters/settings that I found from others on forums.
