A Visual Examination of Printer Manages Color - Oh My!

[Mark D Segal]

I don't see any reason to lock it either. It's gotten a bit testy at times,  but there have been much worse. The subject matter, if we can revert to it, actually is quite interesting. We *may* have hit the end of the road, however, in terms of additional useful information to enlighten the subject because there is a whole lot about how and to what end these algorithms were designed that the manufacturers aren't about to share with us, notwithstanding one thing I do know about one of them - high-end scientific talent went into it. But this isn't a reason to lock the thread either. For all we know it could still attract some knowledgeable contributors and contributions, so I suggest just leaving it open.

[Doug Gray]

Mark,

This is why I find it an intriguing topic. I've pretty much gone as far as possible with icc profiles and color management as have many others here.  But there remains the somewhat little discussed issue that the prints we make, unadjusted for viewing differently than in a hard proof setup that closely matches out monitors, is perhaps not the ideal for some prints that will not be viewed in such a manner. It's clear that CIECAM02 is an attempt, though less than ideal, to accommodate this.

I really like the repeatability across similar media and different printers that ICC profiles provide, but would also like to see what can be done using a controlled CIECAM02 model to produce prints optimal for other lighting conditions. I suspect some of this has been done by OEMs when creating their "printer manages" mapping. And OEMs have considerable resources and smart color scientists at their disposal.

Having such a thing would bring the repeatability of ICC profiles together with the presumed "enhancement" that OEMs appear to think is better in some sense.  This would provide techniques/tools that professionals could use to decouple the OEM secret sauce and allow them to more easily tailor their own works while achieving the consistency needed when switching or upgrading printers.

BTW, much of this line of thought is an outgrowth of things like Ctien's comments as well as from reading a text I discovered from one of Andrew's posts I read somewhere I've forgotten. Fairchild's "Color Appearance Models, 33rd edition - Wiley"

It's a most fascinating text and I've found it elucidates many of the observations made such as the fact that a white piece of paper on one's desk does not look at all like exactly that same "piece of paper" colorimetrically identical on a monitor.  It's an experiment worth doing just to demonstrate how huge a change in appearance occurs when one "knows" a piece of paper is white. I had previously commented about this phenomena and Fairchild spells it out See pages 172-174 in the text.

[digitaldog]

It's clear that CIECAM02 is an attempt, though less than ideal, to accommodate this.

Yes, absolutely as current ICC color management isn't based on such complex color appearance. But what is? That's kind of the $64K question isn't it. I doubt the printer manufactures will tell us if truthfully. Just examine the post today about LR 7.3 and some marketing nonsense (IMHO) about their new profiles and what we are told they can produce:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=124095.msg1036824#msg1036824
What we can do is what you've started here; make some tests and show the results. They don't appear so great to me! I haven't seen anything PMC on three Epson printers provided when ink hits the paper that compares to using an ICC profile workflow. Old fashion technology indeed. But the proof's are in the prints.

[Mark D Segal]

I haven't seen anything PMC on three Epson printers provided when ink hits the paper that compares to using an ICC profile workflow. Old fashion technology indeed. But the proof's are in the prints.

Generally I agree, but the gap is narrowing as the drivers improve, viz what I got out of the Epson SC-P5000 using the Atkinson test page. It was surprisingly similar, though still not quite as good as the AMC-ICC result, where saturation, colour balance and tonal gradations remain somewhat better.

[digitaldog]

Generally I agree, but the gap is narrowing as the drivers improve, viz what I got out of the Epson SC-P5000 using the Atkinson test page. It was surprisingly similar, though still not quite as good as the AMC-ICC result, where saturation, colour balance and tonal gradations remain somewhat better.

I think we're saying the same thing, even though we're looking at quite different printers: PMC ain't there yet when compared to an ICC profile.
Then there's the inability to control rendering intent, soft proof etc. PMC will never be there compared to an ICC profile workflow.
Better would be ICC profiles that take advantage of the color appearance modeling Doug speaks of.
It's good to hear the newer Epson is better than my P800/3880/All-in-one but I'm not trading them in for a newer printer because PMC there is better.

[Mark D Segal]

I think so.

[GWGill]

There seems to be agreement that Printer manages generally changes these, possibly because it produces more pleasing prints, but it seems to me this is exactly what Perceptual Intent is supposed to do but it's changes are much smaller in my experience.

I'm not sure the sort of changes some people might apply to an image to make it attractive ("make it pop") fall into the typical expectation of "perceptual" or even "saturation". "Artistic" might be closer to the mark.
But I tend to see it as a clash of traditions - the ICC tradition is founded on measurements and color accuracy, with perceptual/saturation mappings based on cLUTs and the idea of gamut mapping, while the other tradition is based on hand tuned curves and other algorithmic or manual tweaks made on the basis of visual assessment or per channel type measurements such as density, with the explicit goal of making images "look good".

[Doug Gray]

I'm not sure the sort of changes some people might apply to an image to make it attractive ("make it pop") fall into the typical expectation of "perceptual" or even "saturation". "Artistic" might be closer to the mark.
But I tend to see it as a clash of traditions - the ICC tradition is founded on measurements and color accuracy, with perceptual/saturation mappings based on cLUTs and the idea of gamut mapping, while the other tradition is based on hand tuned curves and other algorithmic or manual tweaks made on the basis of visual assessment or per channel type measurements such as density, with the explicit goal of making images "look good".

I quite agree! There is a difference between IECCAM02 and tweaking colors to make them "look good."  The former's purpose is to make the image appearance look as close as possible to that on the monitor. The latter goes a step beyond.

My guess is that "looking good" wins in the marketing contest but it is subjective as can be and, frankly, I don't find printer manages colors to be all that good looking. OTOH, the devices I have are getting long in the tooth.

[smthopr]

I quite agree! There is a difference between IECCAM02 and tweaking colors to make them "look good."  The former's purpose is to make the image appearance look as close as possible to that on the monitor. The latter goes a step beyond.

My guess is that "looking good" wins in the marketing contest but it is subjective as can be and, frankly, I don't find printer manages colors to be all that good looking. OTOH, the devices I have are getting long in the tooth.

Whatever "secret sauce" is being discussed here could be made into a series of .icc profiles or maybe LUTs that could be applied to an image just before printing to get a similar result, or variety of results.

The goal here would be an "accurate" print, but maybe the "appearance" of accuracy   or maybe something else entirely...

[digitaldog]

Whatever "secret sauce" is being discussed here could be made into a series of .icc profiles or maybe LUTs that could be applied to an image just before printing to get a similar result, or variety of results.

Or any of the massive numbers of sliders or editing tools in products used to edit images. Output specific edits!

[Stephen Ray]

I was hoping to get some informed comments about why manufacturers are doing this and, specifically, if it can be ascribed to Color Appearance Models, which suggest increased saturation and a brightening of the tone curve will produce a printer image that appears, after a time to adapt, to be closest to what was on the computer monitor.

In this instance, my informed comment is coming from past experience. Sometimes a product can be touted as “better, new, improved” on the trade show floor by trickery. Years ago certain machines were sold as “sharper than the competition” only because the default sharpening setting was always ON at it’s setting of zero and to turn it off one would need to make the setting of negative 3. Another trick was to mislead a prospect by using “lpi” as a specification of resolution when really the specification was “lines per image” and not the usual “lines per inch.” Too many tricks to count.

So, if a printer engineer / manufacture can create some way to impress a buyer, investor, accountant, a superior; that could explain a lot and it may not actually be better, new, or improved!

My contacts at Kodak, Fuji, and Epson have long retired and would not necessarily have any more technical information than we already have at this point. However, I’m walking distance to the Canon Experience Center showroom in Costa Mesa, CA., so if anyone can provide the name of contact, I would be happy to take the time to see them and ask questions. I know Canon has at least more than a couple of very savvy reps at trade shows whom I’ve met and could have insight , I just don’t have any of their names.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Do your moderator's duty and lock this thread.  OP question has be asked and answered.  Everything is now spiraling out of control!!!!!

Clearly our perceptions of the scope and extent of a "moderator's duty" differ. Even if it were so in this case (and the continuation of the thread would suggest that it is not), a thread will not be locked merely because I consider it to be complete, still less because anyone instructs me to do so.

The thread's originator has the ability to lock it if he considers that further contributions are not useful.

Jeremy

[GWGill]

I really like the repeatability across similar media and different printers that ICC profiles provide, but would also like to see what can be done using a controlled CIECAM02 model to produce prints optimal for other lighting conditions.

ArgyllCMS gamut mapping (perceptual/saturation) uses CIECAM02 by default. Plenty of parameters to play with of you want :-)

[Alan Goldhammer]

Clearly our perceptions of the scope and extent of a "moderator's duty" differ. Even if it were so in this case (and the continuation of the thread would suggest that it is not), a thread will not be locked merely because I consider it to be complete, still less because anyone instructs me to do so.

The thread's originator has the ability to lock it if he considers that further contributions are not useful.

Jeremy

Yes, the perceptions are certainly different.  I was a moderator on the Coffee Corner for a period of time when we were discussing climate change.  I tried my best to keep things on track and several times sent private messages or even public ones to those who were veering off track.  You might do well to use the same tools when you see personal attacks of any nature on threads as has happened on this thread.  Civility is key to any on line discussion and it is the moderator's job to insure that takes place.  Posting of cartoons in jest is no way to accomplish this goal. 

Now a response might be to just ignore posts that one finds offensive but then one has to spend time separating the wheat from the chaff.  Do you expect that it is the job of those who read the forum to calll out 'snarky' posts?  There are individuals who often contribute valuable information but then have marked lapses in judgement.  I'm just tired of seeing this type of behavior tolerated as it verges on bullying.

[digitaldog]

Yes, the perceptions are certainly different.  I was a moderator on the Coffee Corner for a period of time ....

How long?

[Jeremy Roussak]

Yes, the perceptions are certainly different.  I was a moderator on the Coffee Corner for a period of time when we were discussing climate change.  I tried my best to keep things on track and several times sent private messages or even public ones to those who were veering off track.  You might do well to use the same tools when you see personal attacks of any nature on threads as has happened on this thread.  Civility is key to any on line discussion and it is the moderator's job to insure that takes place.  Posting of cartoons in jest is no way to accomplish this goal. 

Now a response might be to just ignore posts that one finds offensive but then one has to spend time separating the wheat from the chaff.  Do you expect that it is the job of those who read the forum to calll out 'snarky' posts?  There are individuals who often contribute valuable information but then have marked lapses in judgement.  I'm just tired of seeing this type of behavior tolerated as it verges on bullying.

I am most grateful for your comments and your advice, which I shall treat with due respect.

Jeremy

[Tim Lookingbill]

In this instance, my informed comment is coming from past experience. Sometimes a product can be touted as “better, new, improved” on the trade show floor by trickery. Years ago certain machines were sold as “sharper than the competition” only because the default sharpening setting was always ON at it’s setting of zero and to turn it off one would need to make the setting of negative 3. Another trick was to mislead a prospect by using “lpi” as a specification of resolution when really the specification was “lines per image” and not the usual “lines per inch.” Too many tricks to count.

So, if a printer engineer / manufacture can create some way to impress a buyer, investor, accountant, a superior; that could explain a lot and it may not actually be better, new, or improved!

My contacts at Kodak, Fuji, and Epson have long retired and would not necessarily have any more technical information than we already have at this point. However, I’m walking distance to the Canon Experience Center showroom in Costa Mesa, CA., so if anyone can provide the name of contact, I would be happy to take the time to see them and ask questions. I know Canon has at least more than a couple of very savvy reps at trade shows whom I’ve met and could have insight , I just don’t have any of their names.

Hopefully those savvy Canon reps don't talk about the trickery part.

I would think the only valuable info as Doug asks concerning "looking good" printer algorithms would have to come from Canon engineers and scientists. From your experience have you found printer reps can understand and convey this level of complexity to make it understandable even to them self?

In my experience what I've found to be the most unforgiving stress tester of a printer is the photographer's taste in color. That's why we provide Soft Proofing so the technology can remind them they need to find another hobby.

[digitaldog]

In my experience what I've found to be the most unforgiving stress tester of a printer is the photographer's taste in color. That's why we provide Soft Proofing so the technology can remind them they need to find another hobby.

How do you soft proof with your undefined/unnamed all-in-one Epson (hobbyist) printer that you tell us cannot support AMC? That's Application Manages Color to help you along.

[Stephen Ray]

Hopefully those savvy Canon reps don't talk about the trickery part.

Some reps just have not yet learned as much poor practice.

From your experience have you found printer reps can understand and convey this level of complexity to make it understandable even to them self?

The reps I've spoken with, yes. Well qualified they are.

In my experience what I've found to be the most unforgiving stress tester of a printer is the photographer's taste in color. That's why we provide Soft Proofing so the technology can remind them they need to find another hobby.

Then again there are "artists."

[Mark D Segal]

In my experience what I've found to be the most unforgiving stress tester of a printer is the photographer's taste in color. That's why we provide Soft Proofing so the technology can remind them they need to find another hobby.

I would be interested to hear more about you technical experience with stress-testing printers. What methodologies have you used to do this work? Have you deployed objective testing procedures or have you witnessed how photographers' taste in colour defies their printers, and if the latter, which photographers may I ask? Or are you speaking for yourself stress testing your All-in-One with prints from Costco? I'd just like to get a handle on what kind of experience we're discussing here.

As for Canon product reps, scientists and engineers, I don't know what line of work you are in, but I'd hazard a guess that I have talked with more of them more often than you will probably encounter in many years and have found them to be highly professional; and as they should, they know more about this business than probably most of put together here.