[argyllcms] Re: AW: Re: Create RGB printer .ICM to use in Photoshop CS5
- From: Wim Hertog <nertog@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:55:07 +0200
Hi Vladimir,
I'm a bit confused now. Alan just wrote that he only profiles his Epson 3880
and after that his prints match his calibrated monitor. My experience is
that the profile just characterizes the printer but does not change the way
it prints, in other words, it can not match print to monitor. Am I wrong in
this?
The process you described is what I did and I have the same results. After
the extra step of applying the correction curves (either in the profile or
as a PS curve) the whole image changes but prints quite ok.
In every other profiling package however, I can match my print to monitor
using just 1 step: converting to the printer profile. This profile includes
the correction curves and applies them without making the softproof in PS
unuseable. In other words: 1 confusing step less when printing.
Could you clarify this a bit for me?
Thanks,
Wim
2011/10/20 Vladimir Gajic <vgajic67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hi Wim,
>
> the Idea of calibrating the printer before building a profile is simply to
> keep your device in a constant printing condition. The process could also
> look like this:
>
> 1. You create a printer calibration witch results in a .cal-file. During
> the calibration process you also can create a Photoshop curve, witch can
> illustrate the whole procedure IMHO mutch better
>
> 2. You generate a RGB-target for your profile, applying the .cal you
> created in the previous step. You also can skip adding the .cal using
> printarg, simply open the file in PS and apply the generated PS-curve BEFORE
> printing the file.
>
> 3. Generate the profile
>
> 4. The printing process could look like this:
> - open your image and convert to the device profile. You will notice that
> the image looks correct. This is also your softproof.
> -now apply your curve. The image changes in a strange way, but will be
> printed correctly.
>
> The Idea behind: profile once, calibrate many.
>
> Your printer may change in time. Any cartrige replacement, even if you are
> using original inks, can produce colour shifts. The same applies to the
> substrates you are using. In that case it's enough to recalibrate your
> printer generating a new .cal and PS-curve.
>
> There are also different ways to work with an calibrated workflow (e.g.
> applying .cal using cctiff, or linking the .cal directly to the profile).
> Anyway, the described procedure was for me a good starting point for
> understanding the whole stuff.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Cheers
> Vladimir
>
>
> -- Gesendet von meinem Palm Pre
>
> ------------------------------
> Wim Hertog <nertog@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 20.10.2011 10:02:
>
> Hmm, so the profiling step alone should do the trick then? I thought
> profiling only characterized the printer and you needed the calibration step
> in order to actually change the printing behaviour. If the profiling step by
> itself is enough to create prints matching my (with argyll) calibrated
> monitor, I must be doing something wrong somewhere...
>
> After following the tutorial and profiling the printer the gamut shape and
> softproof look perfect. Very similar to what I get from PM5. The printout
> using this profile results in a horrible yellow-brown cast though. I follow
> my usual workflow while printing: windows CM is turned off in the canon
> driver and photoshop manages colours using the generated profile. I'm pretty
> sure it's not double profiling anywhere.
>
> I must be doing something wrong somewhere but I literally read the tutorial
> a 100 times and tried everything and always get the same result: a strong
> yellow brown cast together with totally blocked shadows.
>
> Anyone has any idea what's happening or....a link to another tutorial to
> double check?
>
> Wim
>
>
> 2011/10/20 Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> Wim Hertog wrote:
>> > Now, the above workflow results in some strange outcomes: the colours of
>> > the softproof in photoshop are completely off (the same happens when I
>> > convert to above generated icc file). The image prints ok (ok doesn't
>> > mean as good as I want though), nothing like the softproof shows.
>> > However, when I don't add the .cal file to the icm (last step), the
>> > softproof is perfect but the actual printed image is horribly wrong
>> As suggested in the tutorial, get just profiling working first. There
>> are too many variable otherwise, and the first thing you do in diagnosing
>> a problem is break things down into individual steps anyway.
>>
>> Graeme Gill.
>>
>>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
