[argyllcms] Re: AW: Re: Create RGB printer .ICM to use in Photoshop CS5
- From: Vladimir Gajic <vgajic67@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:53:58 +0200
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:
