No worries Phil, I'll check all this tonight and post the measurement files and profiles. Thanks for all the advice! 2011/10/20 Phil Cruse <pcruse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Hi Wim, > Sorry I got your name mixed up with someone else I was emailing on my last > reply! > > To add to Vladimir's excellent advice: > > In X-Rite's free ColorPort utility you can make grey scales/colour charts, > of any flavour. I do this before profiling to evaluate new paper types for > density range and saturation, etc. This will show what your printer is > capable of. Apply sRGB but Print with CM OFF. > > Printing another version with PS CM with your profile would test if > something is wrong. > > Cheers > > Phil > Phil Cruse > > http://www.colourphil.co.uk > > > > On 20 Oct 2011, at 10:53, Vladimir Gajic wrote: > > > 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. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > >