[argyllcms] Re: Argyll vs. manufacturer's profile
- From: adam k <aak1946@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:21:59 -0400
According to to this link you cannot truly download any images, but" save
as" only. Trueimage 2009 has broken link.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:11 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> http://www.pixl.dk/download/
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:46 AM, adam k <aak1946@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Where do u get Pixi test image?
> >
> > Sent from iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 20, 2010, at 8:40 PM, edmund ronald <edmundronald@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >
> >> OP means original poster.
> >>
> >> I use the Pixl test image to evaluate my profiles.
> >>
> >> I have used Monaco Profiler, Profile Maker Pro, and Argyll with
> >> various spectros, and indeed there is always a perceptible variation
> >> in the sky hues, from blue to purple. I was never able to figure out
> >> why. There is a well-known "dense blue turns into violet" problem in
> >> printing, due to a hook in the hue when density goes up, and this may
> >> be the cause of this blue issue. A good test would be to run some
> >> profiles with a huge number patches through each profiler and see
> >> whether the resulting closer measurements result in more similar
> >> results.
> >>
> >> Anyway, if you want a Monaco Profiler profile, just download
> >> colorport, print the target and measure it for the big 1728 scrambled
> >> patch target, and send me the measure results.
> >>
> >> Edmund
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:01 PM, Uli Oertel <uli.oertel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>> Am 20.10.2010 17:33, schrieb edmund ronald:
> >>>>
> >>>> I would be willing to run a profile for the OP using Monaco Profiler
> >>>> to see if he likes it better.
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure what you mean? What is OP?
> >>>>
> >>>> I used an Argyll profile for all *my own* printed work for a year and
> >>>> liked it, but that was an old Argyll.
> >>>> Gamut mappings will only improve if people actually provide feedback
> >>>> about their likes and dislikes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Edmund
> >>>
> >>> I came to ArgyllCMS since both the profiles created with EFI and EyeOne
> SW
> >>> as well as the Epson profiles were not really satisfying.
> >>> I used Argyll for all of my color prints with the R2400 for more then 2
> >>> years and was always satisfied. Profiles were created with version
> 1.2.1 or
> >>> below.
> >>>
> >>> For me, most important are predictable prints rather than maintaining
> "true"
> >>> colors from sensor to display or print. And this I got both for
> profiles
> >>> created with the actual (R3880) and older Argyll versions (R2400) as
> well as
> >>> for the original R3880 Epson profile. So, in my eyes, they are all very
> good
> >>> profiles.
> >>>
> >>> The different blue interpretation in the argyll and the epson profiles
> for
> >>> the R3880 I recognized from a test image. This contains 2 BW images and
> 2
> >>> color images with mainly skin tones as well as some color ramps. For
> the BW
> >>> and color images no significant differences for the prints done with
> both
> >>> the Epson and Argyll profiles were detectable. The different blues I
> >>> recognized from the color ramps. So I just compared (on screen) a real
> world
> >>> photo with dominating sky blue - and I was very surpized: The proof
> with the
> >>> Argyll CMS did change the color impression only marginal while the
> proof
> >>> with the Epson profile more significantly changed the appearance. With
> this
> >>> in mind, I see the Argyll profile on the top.
> >>>
> >>> So it seems to be that Epson applied some adjustments to improve the
> >>> reproduction of blues accordingly to a common "taste"?
> >>>
> >>> Best regards
> >>>
> >>> Uli
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Adam Kielcz
Other related posts:
