Using the HP Z3200 spectrophotometer to generate profiles for other printers

[samueljohnchia]

The hexagons measure 15mm side to side, with deviations of 0.2mm though. Anyway 10 patches give 150mm in the three symmetry axis. There is a square patches pattern possible too with again 15mm from side to side.

You asked about the size of the hexagons: 15mm would be the maximum diameter of a circle contained inside of the hexagon.

Thanks Ernst and Geraldo. 15mm, very good. Hexagons would be a better option then as squares would be 30% more wasteful in printed area.

Observing the movement I assume the positioning is numerical, so physical and not based on throwing out odd numbers when it hits a patch boundary. Based on that and possible paper warping or small deviations in the patch's density I think it could be possible that there are differences between measurements, despite the wider area it measures.

I don't know how it handles it internally, but I can tell you what I see: The spectrophotometer does not move in a continuous motion, it moves and stops over each patch to read it. There are also "code bars" at the beginning of each line of hexagons and I believe it helps the system to align properly.

Excellent information, thanks Geraldo for that tidbit about the spectrometer stopping over a patch. So the Z3200 does "spot mode" measurements. My re-assessment would be that it's not as good as I would have hoped for spot mode reading. If it were scan mode style reading it would be excellent (because of the speed vs accuracy trade-off). Not being more familiar with the Z3200 spectro operation, I will refrain from making further judgement. Perhaps Ernst is correct that physical positioning variations and paper distances form the majority of the inconsistent measurements.

Which begs the question whether it measures 600 PPI or 300 PPI printed patches. I assume the last or HP thought 450 PPI would be a nice value in between.  I do not expect it ever measures over a patch boundary.

Checking the TIFF file color center generates for us to print, it has 300 PPI on the final print size, so I guess 300 PPI is what the system uses.

My preference has always been to print the target using the same quality mode that I print actual prints, which for my iPF8400 is Highest (max no. of passes), which requires 600ppi. I use nearest neighbour resampling and change it to 600ppi before printing, so the Canon Plug-in does not have to mess about with resampling it. It should not matter what ppi is being used at the end of the day, but I just prefer my patch edges to be sharp, not some blurry mess from bilinear or bicubic resampling - that has zero effect on measuring targets in the spot mode style the Z3200 uses. Ensuring the quality setting is the right one is way more important.

Of course! Or should I say "yes, unfortunately."? I mean, I would love to improve even more the Delta E but the chart dried for two days before reading, so I don't think the wait between the readings made any difference.
Actually there is no need of "hacking" to use different charts, the color center gives the option to "add" the data needed to create a new test chart, I just never tried and forgot to mention it.

Thanks for the confirmation! Two days, very good. I'm puzzled that it would not be more consistent. I wonder if the paper stops jiggling about from the rapid movements of the carriage before the measurements are taken. Slight angle differences in the light source striking the surface can make a big difference to the measurement, but I assumed the vacuum would hold the paper down tightly enough for this not to matter. In experiments using the i1 Pro 2 in spot mode, I played with measuring at different distances and it takes a relatively large change to give a 0.5 dE2k difference. I'm not remembering the specifics to qualify the exact distance change but I would hope the Z3200 paper handling is well within these tolerances, otherwise it would wreck havoc even on day-to-day regular printing.

The iSis is really on another league in terms of repeatability! That is truly impressive and made me consider it (once again) as an alternative for the day my Z3200 gets beyond repair. As you use it regularly please tell me how it behaves with thick media, like rough aquarelle paper of 310~350gsm? I heard some conflicting opinions about it in the past.

Part of the reason why I had to get mine was that I needed to have extremely consistent measurements to perform profiling experiments. Hand scanning was too variable with the i1 Pro and later the i1 Pro 2, I needed to know the differences was purely in the target design and not measurement error. In larger patch count targets, patches can have less than 0.5 dE2k difference to one another, so a max error of 0.5 is significant to me (hand measurements usually caused max errors of 0.6-0.7 dE2k in scan mode). However, to scan a 1728 target for normal profiling, that level of accuracy is not needed.

I have not had any issues with scanning thick media. If you can squeeze the sheet under the rollers, it will feed. The measurement carriage is positioned high enough not to smash into anything that fits under the rollers. The trick is to push the sheet a little under and past the rollers first, before starting the scan, so the rollers have already grabbed onto it. I don't rely on them to grab and pull the sheet in, even on thinner papers after I discovered this. You will find as a bonus skew errors would be massively reduced too. I've scanned Canson Aquarelle with no problems, and even better - Lyve Canvas (450gsm) which was coated heavily with Glamour II varnish, making it probably 10% or more thicker still. The iSis is massively convenient. I went with the XL to make scanning larger charts more convenient, but on a cost per inch, the smaller A4 machine is significantly more value for money. I'm massively miffed with X-rite for not supporting M1 measurement on the iSis, which has the separate, necessary UV and white LED lamps. They had to launch a V2 product and screw all of us that own the now previous generation machine. But my iSis works so well I often take it for granted, like any beautiful tool. After learning a few tricks about its operation, I have never had it fail. It should be handled carefully. Setting it down hard on the table won't do it any good. Don't shock it with any kind of vibrations. I've seen evidence of weird things happen to mis-treated iSis-es.

That is something I am anxious to see working properly. Will give it a try just to see what happens.

Have fun! Unfortunately the mapping is not 100% luminance preserving which was what it was designed to do, and I still don't understand why. Hopefully it can be implemented properly in time. (Sent you a PM.)

[Mark Lindquist]

Hi again Geraldo,

Just another thanks for this.  I wanted to try this to see if it could be used to make a chart for the printer itself, without creating a Tiff file, and it works.

You basically do everything you suggest, but check "print a color chart for later measurement":



Then choose the same as you indicated:



I loaded 17 x 25 Pura Smooth paper and the first sheet loaded fine.  The printer printed the target perfectly.
When it came to the second sheet I tried 4 times to load it and kept getting an error message that it wasn't the same size - fix it or cancel.

After a while it occurred to me that the sheets could be just a little wider, etc., so I measured and sure enough, it was wider.
I went back to the box and got out another sheet and it took, then continued and finished scanning.

After that I let the sheets set overnight.

Today, this morning, I loaded the sheet FIRST, as you suggested and followed the rest of the procedure that you outlined in your tutorial.

So, not only can you make 1768 patch profiles for other printers, but also, for the printer itself.

Undoubtedly you know this, but perhaps others may not.

I thought it could and have tried unsuccessfully in the past, but didn't have the conversion software or understanding to change the file suffix to .TXT.

Now I'm good to go when I need a super duty profile.

Thank you again for your great work in sharing your process and information.

Happy New Year brother!

-Mark

[Mark Lindquist]

So Geraldo, or Ernst (if you're still out there),

OK.  I printed the 1728 patch target.  Got the .TXT file and have a converted .ICC profile.

All good so far. It would be easy to just put the ICC file in the Library, but the printer will not see it unless it is imported.

In order to import an ICC profile into a Z3200ps printer, the file has to be a .oms file to be imported.

How do I get from either .TXT or .ICC to .OMS? so I can import the profile to additional papers?

There must be a way.

Could use your help Geraldo.

Thanks -

Mark

[Geraldo Garcia]

How do I get from either .TXT or .ICC to .OMS? so I can import the profile to additional papers?
There must be a way. Could use your help Geraldo.

Hello Mark, here comes the rescue! 

I believe I know how to do it, never did it actually.
Color center => Paper Preset  management => Profile Options => Install Profile
Select the paper preset to which you want to add the new profile, select the ICC profile from your computer and click next.

That will add the selected profile to the preset. If you export the OMS file it will carry the selected profile embedded o it.

Just out of curiosity, what software are you using to create the ICC profile from the TXT file? Have you decided to give Argyll a try?

[Mark Lindquist]

Hello Mark, here comes the rescue! 

I believe I know how to do it, never did it actually.
Color center => Paper Preset  management => Profile Options => Install Profile
Select the paper preset to which you want to add the new profile, select the ICC profile from your computer and click next.

That will add the selected profile to the preset. If you export the OMS file it will carry the selected profile embedded o it.

Just out of curiosity, what software are you using to create the ICC profile from the TXT file? Have you decided to give Argyll a try?

Geraldo, you're right - to the rescue is right!
Piece of Cake!

Just made sure the printer was awake, clicked on the paper in Paper preset manager and did as you suggested,  and voila, it just installed it.
No problems whatsoever, and it put it right into the library too.  Amazing.
Thank you very much Geraldo.  You're a smart guy.  Excellent.

I couldn't use  Argyll - just a little too geeky for me, a mac user.  Terminal is not my thing.

Dragged and dropped the .TXT in RGB Drop and bang - no fuss, no muss, no bother, out the other end, the icc profile.

Thanks again, Carlos, now we know how to do both things - make a 1728 profile for other printers and for the Z3200 itself!

Fantastic!  Just ultra super fantastic. Muchas Gracias amigo.

Mark

[MHMG]

Dragged and dropped the .TXT in RGB Drop and bang - no fuss, no muss, no bother, out the other end, the icc profile.

Thanks again, Carlos, now we know how to do both things - make a 1728 profile for other printers and for the Z3200 itself!

Fantastic!  Just ultra super fantastic. Muchas Gracias amigo.

Mark

I'm still in the steep learning curve phase of my new Z, and have been building ICC profiles for it with external ICC profiling equipment and software to compare to what the Z produces for itself and also how the Z stacks up against my other printer in color and tonal rendering. Many hours chatting with Mark L. on the phone, and learning from all of you here on LULA as well. The Z's calibration/profiling technology seems to have some very novel features that may hold some good news/bad news for anyone trying to up the Z's profiling game with greater choice in patch counts and perceptual rendering sauce. First, when you calibrate the Z but don't go to the next step and print or measure the 464 patch profile target, I see that the Z still makes ICC profiles available to the enduser. They are placeholder ICC profiles, i.e., installed as "starter profiles" for that media preset and available for use in image editing software like PS. What I haven't figured out so far is if the calibration routine alters the ink channel ramps thus bringing the Z back to a known device state for that media and puts it in a proprietary hidden file associated with that media preset, or whether it's trying to bake in error corrections to the ICC profiles it associates with that media preset. Hopefully it's doing the former, because messing with the ICC profiles, i.e. reediting them to account for device color drift would have potentially undesirable consequences.  Also, for glossy/luster photo media presets, there is one ICC placeholder profile for no gloss enhancer (GE) and one for GE. When I picked GE on, and went to the next step of actually creating the first printed and measured 464 patch profile target, then my custom preset showed that the placeholder profile labeled with "GE on" had been replaced with a new one dated with the current date, but the GE-off profile had remained untouched and showed a date that it had been made in 2008. Testing a theory, I chose a media preset for photo paper with OBAs, then calibrated and profiled a photo paper with no OBAs. The profiled GE-on profile softproofed media white point correctly. The placeholder GE-off profile still dutifully softproofed a cool blue whitepoint with media. Clearly, the Z isn't exchanging any measuement data between the two GE-on-GE-off profiles associated with that media.    Next, I looked for generic ICC profile or at the very least a recommended media setting for some Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Pearl from the HN website for my Z3200. To my delight, Hahnemuhle provided a .oms file which I was easily able to install as an "additional media" on my Z. Looking at the "view property details", I was able to learn that Hahnemuhle profiling team had used HP Premium Semigloss photo paper as the starting media properties choice (go figure, it was a really lousy choice for reasons I will save for a later discussion).  Looking at the ICC profiles that also got installed, it was clear that the placeholder files normally associated with the HP Premium Semigloss preset had been replaced by ones made on Hahemuhle's Z not my Z. My HP utility software then showed a warning triangle for HN's media preset imported as the .oms file. It recommended calibration should be done. That's as far as I've gotten so far, but it suggests (along with some comments made by Mark L about his imported ICC profile output color quality) that if one imports a profile not made by a Z as Mark L did when creating a .oms file, that the imported profile may not have some private embedded tags telling the Z the incoming profile was indeed made on a Z machine. If that's the case, it's a mystery meat profile as far as the Z is concerned, and the Z is likely to default (rightfully so) to it's placeholder profile associated with the original calibration's media properties choice.The problem is that it alters the filename to correspond to the imported profilename, thus making it seem like that profile was accepted when it may not have been. I think this possibility is worth some confirming tests, but I haven't had a chance to run them yet.

Anyway, the good news is if I want to build a custom ICC profile for use with my Z using external profiling software, I have to treat the Z just like I would any other desktop printer. Choose a media setting and calibrate the printer to create your custom preset. Send the Z an untagged profiling target in a no color adjust pipeline (i.e. use Adobe color utility or Apple Colorsync utility to enforce the no color adjustment requirement) and have the Z  print it out. Measure and build your custom ICC profile with the software/hardware of your choice (you can indeed use the Z spectrophotometer to measure and produce a text file of measurements made on it's own profiling target design if the patch count is adequate for your needs, and if your custom profiling software can accept that file (both my BasicColor and i1profiler software can indeed read the Z's exported text file, I gather Argyll can, too). Then install the custom profile in your routine OS profile library folder to make it available in PS or other editing/printing software. Choose application manages color, so the Z will receive the custom profile-converted data stream and leave it alone. Choose the media setting in the paper/quality dialogue box you used to make the Z's custom preset. Print the image. Voila, a Z that now very closely matches my other printers' color rendering on output because I used the same profiling software for all my devices. To be continued...

best,
Mark McC-G

[Mark Lindquist]

That's as far as I've gotten so far, but it suggests (along with some comments made by Mark L about his imported ICC profile output color quality) that if one imports a profile not made by a Z as Mark L did when creating a .oms file, that the imported profile may not have some private embedded tags telling the Z the incoming profile was indeed made on a Z machine. If that's the case, it's a mystery meat profile as far as the Z is concerned, and the Z is likely to default (rightfully so) to it's placeholder profile associated with the original calibration's media properties choice.The problem is that it alters the filename to correspond to the imported profilename, thus making it seem like that profile was accepted when it may not have been. I think this possibility is worth some confirming tests, but I haven't had a chance to run them yet.

best,
Mark McC-G

To be clear, Mark, I first named the paper and created a paper calibration based on the preset (Fin Art Paper More Ink):



Then I made a target consisting of 1728 patches using my Z's "create a target for later measurement":



I selected the color chart option RGB 1728 Patches (12x12x12):



Then I printed the target on two sheets of BC Pura Smooth Paper 17 x 25.

I let that dry overnight. Then I put the pre-printed targets back in and the Z read them and outputted a .cvs file that I changed to .TXT file prior to generation of the .TXT file.

Then I ran the  .TXT file through RGB Drop and created an ICC file.

Then I installed the newly generated ICC file in my system Library, where it resides as BCPURAFAMoreink-1728.icc:



So then I made a print using the icc profile BCPURAFAMoreink-1728.icc that resides in the library using the paper in paper preset management custom papers:



Choosing the paper name for the paper (PRIOR to INSTALLING the RGB DROP icc profile) in paper preset management:



Then I installed the RGB DROP .icc profile in the PAPER PRESET MANAGEMENT (as shown above) via the "Install ICC Profile":



Note the time date (2017-01-04 15:9:47)

Then I made a print with the RGB Drop ICC file made from the original .TXT file newly installed under the paper name and calibration in PPM
(paper preset management).

I never made a .oms file.  I used the virgin RGB DROP .TXT file installed over the original preset.

An oms file is used ONLY for importing and exporting and only can go in additional papers.

Notice that the newly installed icc profile (per Geraldo's suggestion) is in custom papers where it belongs.

This gets rather complicated, and I have made the observation that the print made with the 1728 ICC profile is much different and more colorful and open than both the regular 496 target standard Z icc profile OR the print made from the RGB DROP ICC profile residing in the library alone.

Notice the RGB Drop PPM installed ICC file made from the original .TXT file is now in the library as it should be with the correct prefix:



So the question is, does the Z add secret sauce to the "Installed" RGB DROP file or is it the only way the Z properly uses the original printed target .TXT file run through RGB DROP?

The answer is I don't know at this point.  But it means there are two alternative methods to print the same ICC profile now.

The oms file has nothing to do with any of it at this point because nothing has been imported or exported.  I could export the file resident in the PPM and make an oms file to send to you and you could import that file and it would place it in your additional papers folder.

All of this is complex, and I admire how quickly you have come up to speed.  I'm still learning and Geraldo solved a long mysterious puzzle for me, and for that I'm grateful.  Good luck on your quest to get to the bottom of things. Perhaps after a few months of working with it something will click that you hadn't thought of and then we will all know the truth.

Best -

Mark L

[MHMG]

...Then I made a print with the RGB Drop ICC file made from the original .TXT file newly installed under the paper name and calibration in PPM
(paper preset management).

I never made a .oms file.  I used the virgin RGB DROP .TXT file installed over the original preset.

An oms file is used ONLY for importing and exporting and only can go in additional papers.

Notice that the newly installed icc profile (per Geraldo's suggestion) is in custom papers where it belongs.

This gets rather complicated, and I have made the observation that the print made with the 1728 ICC profile is much different and more colorful and open than both the regular 496 target standard Z icc profile OR the print made from the RGB DROP ICC profile residing in the library alone.

Notice the RGB Drop PPM installed ICC file made from the original .TXT file is now in the library as it should be with the correct prefix:



So the question is, does the Z add secret sauce to the "Installed" RGB DROP file or is it the only way the Z properly uses the original printed target .TXT file run through RGB DROP?

The answer is I don't know at this point.  But it means there are two alternative methods to print the same ICC profile now.

Mark L

OK, I see from your explanation (thank you, the edited screenshots must have been a notable amount of work that there is an "install ICC profile" command not to be confused with importing an .oms file. That said, if the "installed" profile has now been renamed (the filename clearly got modified on import and now shows up in your profile library as another ICC profile, not the original profile built by the RGB drop application) then it may also not even be the same profile internally anymore. That would explain why your result where printing with PS manages color using the two differently named profiles, although supposedly one just being an HP installation copy of the other, produced different print colors.

That the two profiles are not true copies of each other can easiily be verified with utilities like Colorthink, perhaps the Apple Colorsync utility, perhaps even by just softproofing in PS. Why would HP allow one to "install" an existing profile but then alter it?  I suspect that my have resulted from software programmer's well intentioned but not well thought out logic. It could be argued that an ICC profile not made by a Z printer for a Z printer, say one made for a Canon or Epson printer, should not be "installed" on the Z. The Z software has to have a way of identifying those incoming profiles which it would logically do by looking for some HP embedded private tags in the profile.  Using a profile built for other printers would more often than not lead to garbage results, hence substituting that mystery meat profile with the original HP placeholder ICC profile associated with the chosen media preset, would be a safer bet.  A still safer bet and an even clearer explanation for the enduser, however, would be for the HP utility simply not to produce a copy at all (i.e, don't even rename it), but merely inspect any ICC profile you want to "install" on the Z for the private HP tags, and if it doesn't find them, alert you with a warning that this profile should be remade or inconsistent color may happen.

Mark L. - I did warn you in our first phone call that I somehow manage to stumble upon all the quirky hardware/software oddities very quickly with all the new equipment I use, didn't I?

That said, I am getting on well with my new Z. It's a really cool printer.

best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Mark Lindquist]

Mark (MHMG),

OK, I'm afraid this is somewhat of a rabbit hole that we're chasing ghost rabbits around.

This morning, after the last print has dried down, I'm seeing less difference between the print made from the stand alone icc profile and the print made from the "install icc profile" now residing in the printer and library.

That "installed profile" was not renamed, it was installed from the original folder containing the icc profile from RGB Drop.

So, conceivably, I made a hasty judgement mentioning the differences between the stand alone profile printed image and the installed profile printed image.  This morning, I'm hard pressed to see much difference.  My eye and mind WANT to see a difference, but actually, there doesn't seem to be as much as I originally thought.

So I may have led you on a wild goose chase here and you may be making false assumptions about what the printer does or does not do when installing the profile.  This is what happens when a non-scientific approach or aesthetic judgement  is applied to an unfinished print (meaning not dried down) and not corroborated by measurement.  No doubt you could measure both prints and might likely say they are the same.

I do remember your saying that you could easily find the querks or bugs etc., however, I want to be sure you have the correct information before you come to conclusion based on incorrect evidence that I have contributed prematurely.

I think your original thesis that we discussed over the phone was right.  An unmanaged profile may be printed strictly from the icc profile in the library.  Yet I now believe that when using the "install profile" feature of paper preset management, the program does NOT mess with the file in installing it, and it indeed does just bring it in untouched.

The advantage to this is that it resides where it is intended to reside, in the list, and it is available to export, which in my case is a plus, having 3 Z3200 printers.  That means I need not make all new profiles for each printer, and can just import the one.

OK Mark, I'm having to saying "uncle".

This has been an interesting exercise.  I'm off to choose a different image, soft proof it with the RGB DROP profile and try again to make a print that I know well and have examples of, and will look for significant differences in color quality.

Take care, glad you are enjoying the printer -

Mark L

(Edit for spelling and word check "in-corrections"

[MHMG]

Mark (MHMG),

OK, I'm afraid this is somewhat of a rabbit hole that we're chasing ghost rabbits around.


(Edit for spelling and word check "in-corrections"

OK, an inviting rabbit hole indeed,  Although "installing" a profile so that it is listed in the Custom Presets probably appears to have merit, I'm totally OK just using an externally built profile in PS manages color because I have that external profiling capability, and one can still call the appropriate Custom media Preset to establish what media, ink density, and gloss optimizer settings should be used in conjunction with said externally built profile. In this respect, as I noted before the Z3200 can behave like any other printer with a standard driver.

That said, I truly think the Z3200ps model should be able to routinely print and measure bigger targets, then create an ICC profile automatically, but it's still not clear to me that the Z3200ps can do that with ease.  Call it the "advance profiling solution" if you like (the Z3200 literature actually still advertises that APS comes standard on the Z3200ps model), but one shouldn't have to go through so much of a work-around to use the 1728 patch target. Seems out of character for any machine with such a nice spectro and profiling capability  already built into it.

best,
Mark McC-G

[Mark Lindquist]

In one of our phone conversations, you mentioned that the embedded spectrophotometer is a great "entry level"  system for photographers who don't have the equipment to build their own profiles.  The optimized profiles that come out of the machine with the standard target it uses are entirely dependent upon the preset choices made.  When the right preset is chosen, and right amount of "tweaking" is done (somewhat of an art), the printer is capable of creating fairly good profiles for the average user who is not interested in much more involved profiles.  I agree with this.

To go past the standard means of profile making involves a lot of testing and understanding to accomplish significant profiles that are workable on the level you are discussing as a color scientist.  Making these advanced profiles is not easy, correct.

I'm not sure what the deal actually is regarding the APS inclusion in the Z3200.  It certainly is not the same as the actual APS software.
Over the 10 years that the printer has been available, the software has been evolving and devolving in some cases.

Unfortunately, the achilles heel of the printer is now the software and documentation.  In many respects this is where HP has dropped the ball.
Look for information such as what Geraldo has posted on how to make profiles for other printers, and it's just not there.  Nothing to be found that I can see.  Yet indeed, there is that capability. 

The printer remains somewhat mysterious without the documentation of more advanced features being accessible.  Yet there are people who make an effort to share their knowledge, and it becomes somewhat of a cult following.

Certainly this is true in regard to the Z3100 which is no longer supported, yet much information remains available and many people still continue to use their printers.

I agree that it is not easy to make an advanced profile at 1728 patches, yet it is doable, and with more practice, it might become easier.

What you bring to the table here, Mark, is a critical eye and voice, based on a great deal of history and experience, all underpinned with an incredible knowledge base.  I hope you will be able to see the potential for  advanced work with this printer (which I know you are experimenting with), but also temper you criticisms based on how the printer performs for a less advanced segment who are far ahead using standard in-house created Z profiles for any paper they choose.

At any rate, having your insights and reports is invaluable and welcome indeed to all who are considering buying the printer.  Not all of us can afford profiling systems, or the time to create profiles with such exacting standards. Not to mention the time or money to experiment on many levels to understand fully the outcomes of those experiments.

From that standpoint, your work becomes critical.  The experimentation you do deserves funding, and I urge folks to visit your website and consider making donations ( Aardenburg Imaging Website ).  In order to do a thorough job evaluating, reporting, and innovating with this printer and all others you work with, it requires simply put, time and money.

At any rate, you have my thanks for the work you do and the time you contribute on so many levels investigating the capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of these systems.

Best wishes,

Mark L
 

[MHMG]

In one of our phone conversations, you mentioned that the embedded spectrophotometer is a great "entry level"  system for photographers who don't have the equipment to build their own profiles.  The

And I still stand by that comment! The 464 patch basic calibration and profiling feature is way cool and makes a lot of sense because it gets the printer up and running fast with only a 20 minute time to measure the patches and create a custom ICC profile plus it saves on paper. And the photographer or novice printmaker doesn't have to get bogged down on calibration and advanced profiling subtleties.  However, with all that instrumentation and calibration sophistication already built into the Z, it just seems regrettable HP chose not to make the 1728 patch target option just as easy to invoke by novice users as the 464 patch, i.e., use 464 patches when you need to get a new paper into the job queue quickly or want to make a few print samples to evaluate a new paper before making a big production out of it; use the 1728 option when you have the time to create a smoother and presumably more accurate profile.

best,
Mark McC-G

[Geraldo Garcia]

Between Reply #11 and #14 Samuel and I were discussing the repeatability of the chart reading procedure using the Z3200 built-in spectrophotometer. He suggested a Delta-E 2000 report comparing 3 data files generated by reading the same chart 3 times. I performed the test and was quite satisfied with the results that pointed a good repeatability, not on the same league of the iSis but better than the most careful hand scanning using the i1 Pro.
Later on I had second thoughts about the test because my busy day prevented me from reading the chart 3 times in sequence, there was a gap of a few hours between each reading and the printed chart was laying around. We handle printed charts very carefully before using them, but after the profile generation they are little more than trash, so I was not absolutely sure the difference between readings was entirely due to the level of repeatability of the system.
Today I had to profile a new paper and was not in a rush, so I took the chance to repeat the test properly, taking proper care of the charts between the readings. This is the result of 3 subsequent readings of a chart that dried overnight:

--------------------------------------------------
dE Report

Number of Samples: 1728

Delta-E Formula dE2000

Overall - (1728 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0,05
    Max dE:   0,40
    Min dE:   0,00
 StdDev dE:   0,04

Best 90% - (1554 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0,03
    Max dE:   0,08
    Min dE:   0,00
 StdDev dE:   0,02

Worst 10% - (174 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0,14
    Max dE:   0,40
    Min dE:   0,08
 StdDev dE:   0,07
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

An average DeltaE of 0,05 is great news. This level of repeatability is, obviously, not as good as the iSis but is very good and it is way better than the most careful hand scanning.
I will repeat the test every time I have the chance and average the results.

Regards.

[aaronchan]

Just a quick tip based on my previous exp.
What I've done was instead of using 1728 patches, I have created myself a new chart with more patches, and you can use the Z printer to measure it only and export it for i1profiler to generate the icc profile.

spot measure is more accurate than row measure based on what i see as well.

But like the original poster said, the patch is quite big which will waste so much paper on something like 2000+ target.

aaron

[kers]

I still have a question about printing with    no colormanagement on a Z3100.

Since i print from photoshop i cannot choose it (anymore).

I know this item has come up before in the recent years of LULA, but cannot seem to find it.

Can somebody here help me out?

[Geraldo Garcia]

I still have a question about printing with    no colormanagement on a Z3100.
Since i print from photoshop i cannot choose it (anymore).
I know this item has come up before in the recent years of LULA, but cannot seem to find it.
Can somebody here help me out?

Looks like the best option is to follow the instructions from this thread. Check replies from #14 to #19.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114907.msg950764#msg950764

Regards.

[kers]

Looks like the best option is to follow the instructions from this thread. Check replies from #14 to #19.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114907.msg950764#msg950764
Regards.

Thank you Geraldo, Doug Gray, Mark McCormick and also Ernst Dinkla for helping me out - i have now 3 different solutions that work!
Viva l'internet!

[Mark Lindquist]

I use Adobe Color Printer Utility to print targets with no color management.

Mac or PC.

HERE

[kers]

I use Adobe Color Printer Utility to print targets with no color management.
Mac or PC.
HERE

Mark, thanks,

that is one of the three solutions i got...

the other- attach a profile to the document and the same profile to the destination- so Photoshop alters nothing ( no blackpoint compensation+ rel colorimetric)
a special ICC profile is made for this use called 'ISO 22028-2 ROMM RGB profile" The profile is actually an altered profphoto ICC but now turned into a printer profile, but it is not necessary.

the third possibility is just plain print from the colorsync utlility itself.
open the target and print as target...

[Brad P]

Good posts never die.  As doesn't my Z3200. 

This seems excellent news to Z3200 owners if they want to create very good profiles using the Z3200's internal spectrophotometer -- whether for other printers or apparently the Z3200 itself.  For me, I'm in the midst of following Mark Lindquist's notes on how to create a better profile for the Z3200 than its canned programming seems capable of (print just started to dry).  A few questions:

1. I am unsure I understand Geraldo's quote further below (I am certain it's my ignorance).  Does this mean the Argyll profile is useful only in printing/converting using relative colorimetric?  Should I create both ICC sets and use one for strictly relative colorimetric work and another for conversions to perceptual?  As background, I soft proof ProPhoto RGB TIFFs using relative colorimetric in Photoshop, but render them usually out of PS or LR in perceptual, and sometimes using HP's 16 bit web-based RIP.

2. I've never understood why only RGB (and not CMYK profiles) are used to profile printers that have both sets of inks.  If someone could lift this burden, I'd be grateful.

Thanks

Before we create the profile I must explain something: Argyll profiles can be excellent if you use them properly. They work perfectly with Relative Colorimetric but if you want perceptual there is a catch: You must specify the source colorspace when creating the profile. That means you will have a profile that is usable for conversions from any colorspace using relative colorimetric, but only from one colorspace when using perceptual. If you use perceptual converting from a different colorspace the result will not be as precise as it could be.

That is not a big problem if you standardize your printing workflow, always exporting files using, let's say, ProPhotoRGB before printing. You may also create different profiles to convert from different workspaces (and please name them in a way that makes sense).

So, before the final step you may want to copy the source colorspace file to the "bin" folder. Let's assume we copied the "ProPhoto.icm" to the "bin" folder.

Now it is time to create the profile. On the command prompt type:
colprof.exe -v -qh -S ProPhoto.icm -cmt -dpp FILENAME

It may take a few minutes to process depending on the processing power of your computer. In the end you will have the FILENAME.icm file ready to install and use.