P900 Blue-Green Muddied

[Lessbones]

if you can post the icc profile you made it may help to get a better understanding

[Simon J.A. Simpson]

if you can post the icc profile you made it may help to get a better understanding

If the results are the same with the printer managing the colour (as stated by the OP) then it's unlikely to be the profile; more likely to be something to do with the printer itself.

[Lessbones]

i'm not asking because i think the profile is the problem necessarily, but it will help visualize what's happening since it can be opened and analyzed in colorthink or the like

[fike]

Here's the profile.

I am coming to the conclusion that I need to ship the darn thing back to B&H. That is a big pain in the ass, and I will need to pay shipping, but I really can't find anything wrong with my workflow.

[digitaldog]

i'm not asking because i think the profile is the problem necessarily, but it will help visualize what's happening since it can be opened and analyzed in colorthink or the like

We need the profile and we need an image (low rez; 300x300 pixels is fine) to plot both in CTP.

[fike]

These are the ones I posted up further in the thread.

https://trailpixie.net/ll_samples/white_mountains.tif
https://trailpixie.net/ll_samples/llanberis_waterfall.tif

[fike]

...and while using that custom profile was a useful diagnostic for me, I really think I should be able to get adequate quality out of a standard epson profile.

[digitaldog]

These are the ones I posted up further in the thread.

https://trailpixie.net/ll_samples/white_mountains.tif
https://trailpixie.net/ll_samples/llanberis_waterfall.tif

In sRGB; that's a deal breaker right there.

[fike]

One of them is in sRGB, the other is in aRGB.

but....I thought you could still print-match sRGB albeit with am smaller gamut.

[digitaldog]

One of them is in sRGB, the other is in aRGB.

but....I thought you could still print-match sRGB albeit with am smaller gamut.

You're clipping data in both which is pointless and isn't fair to compare to the profile gamut.
Render the raw into ProPhoto RGB, post a 300x300 pixel version, then I can  plot that image gamut to the profile; we can see what doesn't 'fit'.

[fike]

It's a panoramic stitch so I had to remake it. I haven't printed it here yet. I am going to do that now.

[fike]

Here's the other one in ProPhoto.

[digitaldog]

The solid plot is your profiles gamut.
The 'dots' are the gamut of the image.
As you can see, a lot of greens fall outside printer gamut.
Is that normal or ideal? Don't know as the profile doesn't tell me much about the actual profile process. I can see in the tags, it was created with: 4CreatorAppi1Profiler. Copyright tag X-rite.

[digitaldog]

Not sure this is useful but I'll point out that the Gamut Volume of my Luster profile (3880) is 759,745, the gamut volume of you P900 is 665,481. I'd kind of expect the P900 would have a larger color gamut than the 3880.

[fike]

...and that's the rub. My custom profile shows a smaller gamut than the default epson profile. I think we have come full circle and I have to send this P900 sample back to the manufacturer.

Can you plot what that image gamut would be on the epson-made premium luster profile. You may recall, the profile I made appeared to have a much smaller gamut because the gamut warning showed far more gray on the image than the standard epson profile when I soft proofed.

Thanks for plotting that. This is helping me a lot!

[digitaldog]

Can you plot what that image gamut would be on the epson-made premium luster profile.

What profile would that be?

[fike]

This is the one that is installed with Epson's driver.

[digitaldog]

This is the one that is installed with Epson's driver.

Gamut volume is 784,522
This is the plot (not 100% identical rotation but you get the idea):

[fike]

Can I conclude that because the custom profile I made with the X-rite colormunki and software had a smaller gamut than the out of the box one, then my printer isn't achieving the expected performance of the manufacturer specifications.

--or--

Am I pushing it too hard in the green channels and it is giving the image a brownish-yellow hues because it can't replicate that range?

[Lessbones]

From the comparison with the Epson profile and your profile, obviously SOMETHING is wrong... I would be very hesitant to say it would be a hardware problem unless you're completely missing a channel, as the process of mixing cyan and yellow to make green isn't all that complicated in itself.  If it were a problem of hardware, it would most likely manifest itself in some other way (such as banding, or posterization when a channel is completely gone).  Either there's a serious problem with the inks, or there's something in the color management workflow that's still not quite right...

Comparing your profile with Epson's, it seems like you're likely at a lower TIL, which shouldn't be happening, but there's no evidence of any individual channel actually missing.  I would try profiling again using "Epson Glossy" as your media type, and at least 720x1440 or even 1440x2880 for resolution (i'm not sure what kind of head the P900 uses, maybe it's in multiples of 300 now?).  That should give you the highest ink load possible without needing a RIP, and allow you to get more saturation out of those mixtures.