[argyllcms] Re: Wow.

On 2006 May 4, at 6:51 PM, Milton Taylor wrote:

> That's a good news story!
>
> [Musing]  I would  be  curious  to know  how  this result  would
> compare  with the  profile that  would be  produced by  GM's own
> software.

Well,  I've  only got  the  Eye-One  Design, which  only  includes
the  ``Easy''  45-patch charts. But  I  /can/  compare it  to  the
Canon  profiles. The  Canon  grays  are  noticeably  warm  in  the
midtones, though they tend to  be more neutral in the shadows. The
Argyll profile  is neutral throughout. The shadows  and highlights
definitely block  with the Canon  profiles, but you get  plenty of
detail with the Argyll profile.

This is  with Canon  ink and  Canon paper,  so there's  no excuse,
really. Holds true for both their Pro Glossy and the Matte.

> Also, do  you think there  would be much difference  between the
> -qh and -qu settings?

I  don't think  there is. Fine  by me--I'd  just as  soon get  the
profile done in a matter of minutes rather than hours!

> What -r did you end up using?

Um...the default. That's  what I'll play  with next, as  I suspect
that it  could stand  to be increased  just a  tad. (There're some
artifacts in a Grainger Rainbow.)

> And finally, what average and peak dE's did you get?

I  don't remember  exactly, but  I  think the  peak was  somewhere
around two  or three  or so,  and the  average something  under 1.
I'll have to pay more attention next time....

Cheers,

b&

Other related posts: