i1 Profiler and Lighting options

[bgphoto]

Just curious about modifying the lighting option in i1 Profiler. The default setting is for d50 lighting so when you change that setting to d65 the graph shifts to a predominately cooler side. If you were to create a profile for d65 illumination and then display the print in an environment with d50 illumination, would the print display cooler than if it were shown in d65 lighting?

By the way, Xrites help screens and documentation are really lacking.

Hope this makes sense?

Ben

[digitaldog]

Just curious about modifying the lighting option in i1 Profiler. The default setting is for d50 lighting so when you change that setting to d65 the graph shifts to a predominately cooler side. If you were to create a profile for d65 illumination and then display the print in an environment with d50 illumination, would the print display cooler than if it were shown in d65 lighting?

That's the general idea. How close that comes to the reality of those two different aim points I can't say. It's been a long time since I measured a custom illuminant and used it in the product but visually, there was a subtle difference. I recall doing this for a Fluorescent booth which was supposed to be "D50" so I didn't expect to see a lot of color difference anyway.

[JRSmit]

Is'nt it the other way around? If made for d65 then diplay in d50 livht sould give a warmer impression?

[bgphoto]

Jan:

Please correct me if I am wrong but:

d65 lighting is warmer than d50 so the profile should inject a slight amount of blue to compensate for the warmer lighting. Then if the print is placed in d50 lighting the print should appear cooler because of that compensation.

Ben

[digitaldog]

The soft proof from the D65 profile appears warmer than the soft proof from the same data used to build a D50 profile.

[bgphoto]

The soft proof from the D65 profile appears warmer than the soft proof from the same data used to build a D50 profile.

Andrew,

I realize that if you soft proof, it would appear warmer but I was specifically speaking of a print?

Again, if I am wrong please correct me.

Ben

[digitaldog]

I realize that if you soft proof, it would appear warmer but I was specifically speaking of a print?

I was being lazy (not making a print). Let me crank out one of each on the 3880 and I'll let you know. That said, IF the output is the opposite of the soft proof, something is wrong.

[digitaldog]

The soft proof from the D65 profile appears warmer than the soft proof from the same data used to build a D50 profile.

So does the print as I'd hope (a soft proof mismatch would be bad). It's VERY subtle.

[bgphoto]

Thanks, for checking.

Let me get to the point....

Since I am using i1 Profiler, there is no method to edit the profile. So, what I am attempting to do is compensate for the warmth of the media I am printing to.  does my theory hold water or am I wishing for a resolution that cannot be solved with i1 profiler?

Ben

[digitaldog]

Since I am using i1 Profiler, there is no method to edit the profile. So, what I am attempting to do is compensate for the warmth of the media I am printing to.  does my theory hold water or am I wishing for a resolution that cannot be solved with i1 profiler?

The warmth is seen based on the viewing conditions alone? That be the only reason you'd build a profile with a differing illuminant aim, to account for that. So say you are doing a gallery show and you want the prints to look their best. You'd go to that location and measure that illuminant and build the profile that way.

[bgphoto]

Can you explain what i1 profiler is actually modifying in the profile when you make the illuminant adjustment?

The graph shows a shift in the illuminant conditions but I guess I am confused as to what is being modified to adjust for those conditions.


Ben

[digitaldog]

Can you explain what i1 profiler is actually modifying in the profile when you make the illuminant adjustment?

It is defining the white based on the illuminant. How I have zero idea. Nearly all profiles assume white is set for D50 and this product allows you to alter that assumption of the viewing conditions.

[bgphoto]

Thanks for helping.

God, I wish there docs were better!

Ben

[digitaldog]

]God, I wish there docs were better!

What docs? Seriously. I'm looking for them now, all I see are scattered 'articles' on the X-rite site. If there's a real i1P manual, I don't know where it lives.

[bgphoto]

I am sorry, I meant the miniscule help information that barely tells you what each function does.

The documentation that comes with it, just barely discusses how to install the application.

[JRSmit]

Jan:

Please correct me if I am wrong but:

d65 lighting is warmer than d50 so the profile should inject a slight amount of blue to compensate for the warmer lighting. Then if the print is placed in d50 lighting the print should appear cooler because of that compensation.

Ben

D65 is  cooler than D50. So if profiled for D65 lighting and then illuminated in D50 it should look warmer i would think.

[digitaldog]

Think of it as a compensation for the color of the light. You have a neutral gray on a print built from a D50 profile which appears neutral. But if you placed that into D65 which IS cooler, what would the effect be? The gray would look cooler, not neutral gray. So the new profile compensates for that. If you build a profile for that cooler illuminant, such that the gray would not look cool the profile has to adjust warmer. And that's what I see when I view the two side by side. The higher standard illuminant value compensation looks warmer to adjust for it being the cooler appearing illuminant.

We see the same behavior with Lightroom's Tint/Temp sliders. Move Temp higher, the image gets warmer.

[bgphoto]

Thank you for setting me straight. I was confused with which was cooler.

Ben