If you read the Luminous Landscape thread I posted earlier today, there is a
discussion of manipulating data using Excel. The Chromix folks said that you
cannot do this otherwise that would have been the approach they would be doing.
If you want to replicate what they do, you need to have a Spectro that can
generate M3 data. You need to carefully read through all the posts in that
thread to understand what they are doing. They are reading data that is quite
different from what I can generate with an i1 Pro. That they generate an L* =
4 for the Red River paper when those of us with traditional instruments get L*
= 15-17 shows how this effects things. Paper white will be the same regardless
of what instrument one uses. If you are stretching things out in the dark
range as the polarized readings do you will obviously get a larger profile
gamut and intuitively better shadow separation. Assuming no change in the
print driver, you can only get the black the printer delivers. It matters not
whether the reading is L* = 5 with a polarized reading or L* = 15-18 with a
normal unpolarized source. To the observer the black is what it is.
If you want Chromix results you need to get a spectro that supports M3
meaurements. I don’t believe that Argyll supports this at present and you
would need to buy an instrument for Graeme as well or use some other software.
Alan
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Yves Gauvreau
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2019 3:53 PM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Can we control the shadows (was black point
compensation)
On 12/16/2019 12:26 PM, Alan Goldhammer (Redacted sender agoldhammer for DMARC)
wrote:
I you read further in Mark’s review he notes that the major difference is in
the shadow details on the monochrome test image. He does not see much of an
effect in the color test print. There are also two other papers that Chromix
did a profile for Mark so he could compare them with his own profiles. For
Moab Somerset and Hahnemuhle Bamboo there was not as big a difference. I print
on both of those papers and their surfaces are much smoother than Palo Duro
Etching. M3 measurements seem to be able to correct for light scattering from
textured papers. As Mark notes, equipment to do those types of measurements is
quite costly and certainly beyond my means.
Seem to be a good thing, the shadows are most affected and the colors much
less, isn't it?
I come back to my original point, if the Chromix profile does what you need it
to do, why try to figure out a work around with Argyll when one probably does
not exist.
If its not possible to get a profile from Argyll that does the same or pretty
close to what the Chromix does, I'm out of luck.
The reason why I want to explore this is because there are many other paper out
there that don't have a Chromix profile so if we could do similar in Argyll it
would be good news, don't you think?
Yves
Alan
