[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 11:59:47 +0200
Oki, I'll post 2 profile versions of an earlier calibrated IP8500 once I get
home. I'm practising on these canon printers because I just bought an Epson
R3000 and don't want to waste precious ink on useless attempts to profile
this beast ;)
2011/10/20 Vladimir Gajic <vgajic67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Hmmm. In that case it´s quite possible that you have a problem with
> your printer driver and/or the colour management setup in Windows (as
> Phil sugested). Do the folowing:
>
> 1. Create a simple RGB stepwedge using CMY and gray. Use 5% steps.
> 2. Print the stepwedge turning any colour management options off. Dont
> profile in PS or similar
> 3. Evaluate the stepwedge and, if possible give us some feedback
> 4. The colors on your printed wedge should be quite good distributed
> and all tonal values should be visible. If that is not the case,
> calibrating and profiling can´t produce a good result.
> 5. The next step would be changing the Win7 colour-settings (Phil).
> Another way of getting a even distributed stepwedge without colour
> management is to apply sRGB (not convert!) to the stepwedge before
> printing. Telling this because I had a similar problem on a Mac
> running OS 10.5 and a canon printer driver.
>
> Could you post a version of your profile?
>
> Regards
> Vladimir
>
>
> 2011/10/20 Wim Hertog <nertog@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Vladimir,
> >
> > Thanks for that info. It does seem easier to just recalibrate.
> >
> > What i don't understand is why my RGB profile by itself, without the
> > calibration gives such awful results. I'm not talking about subtle shifts
> in
> > colour...I mean a horrible yellow-brown image with totally wrong shadows
> and
> > highlights.
> >
> > Commercial packages that can only do profiling and no calibration do
> manage
> > to make my prints look like on my calibrated monitor. Of course greyscale
> > linearity is not good, but at least the colours match and shadows are
> > correct.
> >
> > Wim
> >
> > 2011/10/20 Vladimir Gajic <vgajic67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Hi Wim,
> >>
> >> this is correct but you have to realise that commercial profile
> >> packages don´t offer a calibration procedure at all. That is because
> >> the vendors in most cases asume that their products will be used in a
> >> professional production environment. That means that output devices
> >> are driven by software that offers a calibration utility. This is IMHO
> >> also the reason why for home-printers this solutions are worthless.
> >>
> >> When you create a profile as I described, apply the profile using
> >> Photoshops Convert to profile utility, Photoshop simply converts your
> >> RGB image to your RGB-profile compensating the visual shift, or
> >> keeping the images original look. At this step you could apply
> >> softproofing by creating an apropriate setup. This ist basicaly the
> >> way profiling in PS works. Applying the calibration curve changes the
> >> image because PS can´t compensate the curve-behavior. This what you
> >> get is the image "how your calibrated printer need´s it" in order to
> >> produce the correct result.
> >>
> >> A workarround for softproofing (or checking the quality) could be:
> >>
> >> 1. Open your original RGB-image
> >> 2. Create a softproof-setup with your argyll-profile and apply it to
> >> the image. Create a copy and open it in PS
> >> 3. Convert to your output profile, apply the calibration curve and print
> >> 4. Compare the print to the softproof-image. The results should be
> >> very close to each other. if not -you may have a problem with your
> >> monitor profile.
> >>
> >> OK. The whole process may be confusing in the begining. But, the first
> >> serious colour-shift will convince you very fast of it´s advantage.
> >> It´s faster, easiser and cheaper to create a new printer calibration,
> >> than creating a new profile from scratch.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> Vladimir
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2011/10/20 Wim Hertog <nertog@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > 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:
