Roger,
On 12/16/2019 8:28 AM, graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
No (deeper blacks). You can see this graph plots the input L* values (1-30) on the X axis and the output or print values in L* as well on the Y axis. On graph shown in figure 79 on the right (M3 Profile) there is more change vertically then on the left for the same change on the horizontal scale. Delta Y / Delta X or (y2-y1) / x2-x1) = the slope of the curve.
Yves,
By “higher slope in the deep shadows”, do you mean “deeper blacks”?
The question in my mind is “how much actual ink quantity” can you really transfer onto the paper through the Canon driver? If you disable all color management in the driver, at the time of printing, what can you get for decreasing value of RGB values? Up to what you point can you actually go down, for a given substrate? And still get “increasing levels” in L* (from 15 down to 14 down to 13 down to 10 and so on)? You have to keep in mind that the Canon engineers do not want to let the user output levels of inks that will not dry (will actually “drip” onto the substrate and result in an ocean of ink that will wreak havoc – I’ve seen that, personally). The only way I found to get some kind of control over the driver, over and above color management turned off, is to “lie” to the driver by selecting a type of paper that does not correspond to the actual paper you’re printing on. Suppose you tell the driver the paper is a nice, glossy coated paper but you’re actually putting “rag” or “canvas” paper in the printer?I'm not at all trying to get "darker" blacks from whatever paper I use, each paper as its own black point and there is nothing I can do about that but from this darkest possible value a certain paper can print I'd like to be able to control the slope just as it seems possible using a profile made with an instrument with a M3 filter. Figure 79 and 80 on the right side. No flat slope from L* 1 to whatever like we see on the left side of those figure. I already have this for all Red River matte paper as they are all made using this M3 filter.
Have you tested the Canon driver response to different paper types?
I wish I better understood what you’re after, Yves, to better help you.
Please, do send me your ti3 measurement file so that I can take a look at your data.
/ Roger
*From:* argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Yves Gauvreau
*Sent:* December 16, 2019 6:31 AM
*To:* argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [argyllcms] Re: Can we control the shadows (was black point compensation)
Roger and Alan,
@Roger effectively, my instrument doesn't have a polarizing filter (M3)
@Alan see below
Is there a way, using our non M3 instrument and Argyll tools to create profiles that would result in a response curve with a higher slope in the deep shadows like OEM M3 profiles shown in figure 79 and 80? If someone knows, please let me know, thanks.
Regards,
Yves
On 12/15/2019 7:34 PM, Alan Goldhammer (Redacted sender agoldhammer for DMARC) wrote:
I believe only the newer professional spectros from X-Rite have
polarizing filters and are able to read M3. There was an
exceptionally long thread on the use of this approach to profiling
matte papers on the Luminous Landscape forum. I posted this link
a while back on this thread but will repeat it here:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=118349.0
There are profile results from a number of people on this thread.
I also believe that Graeme commented on this at one point but
don’t remember which thread it was on. Chromix did the profiling
for this paper using M3 measurements but I don’t know what
software was used to create the profile. The gamut of that
profile is huge, the highest for a matte paper I’ve ever seen and
I have no idea what that means since my own profile using Argyll
was much smaller. In looking at test prints using the Red River
profile and my own Argyll profile I see little difference.
All this is true or should I say, according to the article, using a non M3 instrument you'll never get the same numbers. A site wide search on www.argyllcms.com <http://www.argyllcms.com> doesn't return any results for M3.
Using Argyll I generate very nice profiles with low reading error
rates. Profiles look smooth when viewed using appropriate tools
and test prints as well as prints for show or sale are all very
good. This thread on printing with matte papers is very useful:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63380831 See especially the
posts from Mark McCormick who in addition to be a fine printer
does the best research on print permanence over at the
Aardenburg. The key to getting good results especial in the mid
range where things are critical is doing good soft proofing.
Because matte papers do not have the same gamut of gloss paper,
the range can be compressed and you need to solve that issue. I
have been soft proofing in PS and LR ever since the feature was
added and careful work here saves a lot of paper in the end.
For me this is as obvious as the nose in the middle of our faces, in the article I referred to below, if you look at figure 79 and or 80 in both cases, the OEM M3 profile present a stronger if not a much stronger slope left part of the graph then what can be achieve with non M3 instrument profiles. Higher slope, higher contrast or higher tonal separation, that's what is needed to bring the max tonal separation in the deep shadow, at least, I would think so.
Is there a way, using our non M3 instrument and Argyll tools to create profiles that would result in a response curve with a higher slope like shown in figure 79 and 80? If someone knows, please let me know.
Test prints can only go so far. You really need to work with
images that you have photographed to see how you can bring out the
best in shadow details. It takes some work but good soft proofing
is key to solving things.
"Test prints can only go so far", yes this is also true. Unfortunately, we can't do most of this for others prints, I print for others. I would say that trying to improve deep shadow details using a profile that as a fairly flat response in the deep shadow, is like rowing against the current, wouldn't you agree?
Alan
*From:* argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On Behalf Of
*graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Sunday, December 15, 2019 6:33 PM
*To:* argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [argyllcms] Re: Can we control the shadows (was black
point compensation)
Yves,
M3 refers to the use of a polarizing filter during measurements.
Your ColorMunki does not have a selectable polarizing filter, does it?
/ Roger
*From:* argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> *On Behalf Of *Yves Gauvreau
*Sent:* December 15, 2019 5:40 PM
*To:* argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [argyllcms] Re: Can we control the shadows (was black
point compensation)
Roger,
I found something interesting here
(https://luminous-landscape.com/red-river-palo-duro-softgloss-palo-duro-etching-san-gabriel-baryta-paper-review/).
The M3 filter is both the culprit and the savior here as it is
explained in the article.
From this article whatever I get without using this M3 filter
won't be satisfactory. Because it's very likely neither of us will
have one these spectro with an M3 anytime soon, we need to trust
that the M3 profile will give us better prints for normal real
world images then we could get from a regular non M3 profile.
It answer indirectly my question as well, the target patches we
use, the measurement we make of them, the degree of smoothness we
use, etc. all of this contribute to the final results. In the
article the author speaks of deep shadow detail
"We still need to look at the question of deep shadow detail using
the 30 Neutrals test. Recall, this test is looking for the extent
of tonal separation in the deep quarter-tones from L*1 to L*30,
which is graphically indicated by the closeness of fit between the
red line for the measured values relative to the linear black
line, which is a 45 degree trajectory with a slope of 1.0 meaning
a 1L* rise of output [from the printer] relative to a 1L* rise of
input [from the so-constructed test image file])."
It's good to know, we may have a test to evaluate deep shadows,
but what do we do the results? I think the terminology I was
looking for is "tonal separation" , I thought using black point
compensation would improve this tonal separation.
Yves
On 12/15/2019 4:30 PM, graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yves,
I took a look at your profile " RR_PaloDuroSGR_PRO1000.icm" in
Photoshop.
I created a new RGB document with Black background, and assigned your
profile to the document. In Color Settings, under Conversion Options, I
selected Absolute Colorimetric.
Then I placed the ColorPicker on the background and got Lab = 0,0,0.
That does not make sense? No device in the world can give you that
measurement value, it's impossible.
That is why I strongly suggest that you obtain the CIE Lab value for
"Black".
Know what you are dealing with before you conclude anything about the
relationship between the monitor appearance and the print appearance.
Can you send me the ti3 file?
/ Roger
-----Original Message-----
From:argyllcms-bounce@freelistsorg <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Yves Gauvreau
Sent: December 15, 2019 3:32 PM
To:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Can we control the shadows (was black point
compensation)
Roger,
I can of course print and measure whatever patches out there but how
will
this help in creating a better profile especially to exploit as much as
possible the finest of details in the deep shadows?
Maybe it's written there in plain site but I just don't understand the
meaning, it wouldn't be the first time.
Thanks,
Yves
On 12/15/2019 10:39 AM,graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yves,
Do yourself a favor to "analyze" the paper measurements.
Look at the ti3 file "numbers".
Or, at least, print a grayscale that goes from 255,255,255 to 0,0,0
in
10 increments, let's say, on your paper and measure each printed
patch, to see what kind of Lightness value (L*) you get? A good,
coated paper will give you L* < 15. Newsprint paper is usually no
lower
than 28 to 30.
What value are you getting on your print for the darkest black?
Yes I can do all of this but can I use the measure to improve the
profile so
these deep shadows look much more like what I see on screen?
/ Roger
-----Original Message-----
From:argyllcms-bounce@freelistsorg <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Yves Gauvreau
Sent: December 15, 2019 7:38 AM
To:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [argyllcms] Can we control the shadows (was black point
compensation)
Roger,
I'm sure the way I said this is likely not the best way.
I understand there is a physical limit to how "black" we can get
from
this or that paper, inks and printer combination. The same goes for
the whitest value we can get, these are physicals limitations.
If you compare the 2 region on the bottom of this image as seen on
screen with a print of this same image on most paper, at least all
the
ones I used with very few exception.
(http://www.jirvana.com/printer_tests/PrinterEvaluationImage_V002.zip)
The highlights squares of value 254 to 243 on a white (255)
background
always print such that they appear very similar to what's on screen.
With my old eyes, except for the patch 254 I can always see from 253
to
243 easily just as on screen.
On the other side, the black patches on a black (0) background what
I
can see on the print is very dependent on the paper I used. On a
photo
rag satin paper by Hahnemuehle which uses my printer matte black
ink,
I get basically what I see on my screen, again with my old eyes I
can
see down to patch number 6. With some other paper I can see a
difference only from patch number 18.
My question, is there a way to create a profile that would better
"render"
the deep shadows of this image so most if not all papers look more
like what's on my screen. Just in case it helps this especially for
non glossy paper for which I don't care much even if they are in
general better at this deep shadow stuff.
Is it a question of increasing the number of patches in the deep
shadows?
Is it a question of the quality of the measures?
Any suggestion?
Thanks,
Yves
On 12/13/2019 6:20 PM,graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Doesn't it "depend" on the paper, Yves?
Some papers "absorb" more than others?
And even though the printer adds more ink, it is only
"absorbed"?
And you don't extra "Extra L*" for it? (L* does not go down?)
/ Roger
-----Original Message-----
From:argyllcms-bounce@freelistsorg <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of Yves Gauvreau
Sent: December 13, 2019 6:17 PM
To:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [argyllcms] black point compensation
Hi,
I'm trying to choose some fine art papers. I always print de
same
image I got from here
(http://www.jirvana.com/printer_tests/PrinterEvaluationImage_V002.zip
) so I can compare apple with apple hopefully.
Many fine art papers have a black point of around L* 16 but
with some
I can see many squares in the bottom left, with one I have, I
can see
down to square 6 while other with a similar black point value
if not
identical, I can only see down to square 16-18.
It's all over the place basically, so my question is, can we
can do
something about that? On most if not all my prints with this
image I
can see up to square 253 almost all the time. Would be nice to
have
similar on the dark side.
Thanks,
Yves
