Hi Everyone. I recently got an Epson 9000 and I was working of making a series of custom profiles for it. I had an image of a plant taken on a black background. It was mostly pure black, but with a few tones at 1-5 or so on a 0-255 scale. When making the print on the 9000 on matte paper with Hahnemühle photo rag, I found that the black point of my profile was quite elevated...quite gray in comparison to Hahnemühle's profile. The best results of all were made by converting the file to Adobe RGB and printing via the "printer manages color" with the Adobe RGB setting. In that setting, the tones at 1 and 2 or so were differentiated and very slightly visible in the print, where they were not visible in the HFA profile or my custom profile. Can anyone offer any advice for this? It is strange that the order of quality is running from no paper profile, to manufacturer profile to custom profile, rather than the other way. I am using an i1 pro 2 for the profiling and am not really a neophyte in these matters, though I am not a color scientist either. I can see in the profile visualizations themselves that the custom profile has a black point that is not 0...is there a way to correct for this somehow to achieve a true dmax from the printer?
For reference, the top right is Adobe RGB, top left HFA, and the one to the far right is my custom profile. The two on the bottom row are the HFA profile at +20% and +50% density in the driver. The best result is the adobe RGB version
Normally, matte papers would not reproduce maximum Black at values below L*14 or so. Please have a look at some of my paper reviews of the various matte papers I've tested where you will find such data. The first caution is that what we measure does not always correspond well with what we see. I'v e shown cases where Black shading appearance looks much richer than the numbers would suggest. That is a vast subject in and of itself. Skipping all the discussion one could have about this subject, the upshot is that one needs to evaluate print quality both by the numbers and subjectively (visually). For example, when I look at your five samples, the one I like best is the one to the far right which looks as if it is buttoned to a tree. Why? It appears to have the clearest tonal separation between the subject and the background, and the subject has a tonal vibrancy that is satisfying, and less pronounced in the other four. Differences of Maximum Black in the background don't look very meaningful in these samples from that JPEG rendition.
Normally, if we are talking about the L*a*b* scale, Black values below L* 3 or 4 are very difficult to distinguish, such that most people would not see them. Beyond L* 4 they become more obvious without straining the imagination. However, if the paper/printer combination itself is not rendering anything below L*14, if printed with Absolute Rendering Intent you won't see a difference of Blacks rendition below that level. With Black Point Compensation (BPC) and Relative Rendering Intent, as I have demonstrated in one of my articles some time back, the Black point of the photo becomes aligned with the black point of the printer/paper combination and from there, as L* increases in the image file, the perception of tonal separation in print behaves accordingly, so all deep gray tones look well separated, but this is happening - on the print - starting from say L*14 or so, not L* 1 or 2, which won't occur on a matte paper (save perhaps for some M3 profiling, which you can't do with an 11Pro2).
Based on this set of considerations, I'm wondering how you are doing your measurements of what gets printed and from where you know the blackness of the background in the image file - in other words - I'm looking for more clarity on how you are evaluating Blacks and deep grays between the image file and the corresponding printed values. Also what Rendering Intent you are printing with and whether you are using BPC. It would also be worthwhile knowing whether you implemented any case-specific image adjustments in Ps or Lr, whichever you are using. I assume perhaps not, but do confirm one way or another.
As for ARGB(98) + "Printer Manages Color", I suspect (but I'm not sure) what's going on here is that you are seeing what could be the effects of a more contrasted rendition (by default) than what happens with your ICC profile-managed options and whatever Rendering Intent you are using. That may be good for some photos, less good for others - it depends.
Regarding your custom profile for this paper, could you specify the target you used for creating it, whether you let it dry over night before measuring it and what software and settings you used for making the profile? That information may assist contributors to say something about the profiling that could be helpful.
