If we forget this M3 filter stuff for a moment.
I give you the whole quote from Graeme on the Luminous Landscape forum.
"It's possible you might get "better shadow detail" due to poor workflow
:- i.e. if you are not properly linking the source and destination
profiles using gamut mapping, but instead using a colorimetric (or
poorly implemented perceptual) type intent, then yes the mismatch
between the source black point (typically 0 for idealized source spaces
like sRGB , AdobeRGB etc.) with the actual print black point will cause
loss of shadows. So fudging the measurements to give the print an
artificially good black point using polarized measurements will improve
the situation, without actually tackling the underlying problem. The
alternative is to not fool yourself - take measurements that actually
correspond to the visual color, and use a good workflow that maps the
luminances ranges of source and destination appropriately."
An d concentrate on this part here.
"take measurements that actually correspond to the visual color, and use
a good workflow that maps the luminances ranges of source and
destination appropriately."
I would think for "take measurements that actually correspond to the
visual color" would mean this is the normal process of generating a good
set of targets, printing them without color management and reading the
results (targen, printtarg and chartread)
All the paper I care about having an excellent profile for (excellent
print and softproof), don't have OBA's, so hope I can get good enough
measures with my I1 Studio?
For this part: "and use a good workflow that maps the luminances ranges
of source and destination appropriately." I'm not sure I understand
exactly what you mean. In other post on LL you (Graeme) seem to favor
gamut mapping of the perceptual intent over using relative colorimetric
and black point compensation. This "good" workflow you mention, what
would it look like?
What's the "appropriate" mapping you speak about here?
I have in front of me a sheet of Canson Edition Etching Rag from a
sample pack on which I printed a printer evaluation image using the OEM
profile for my printer, unfortunately I don't recall the rendering
intent I used. All seem fine except for the shadow details, there are
basically none to speak of.
I suppose a better workflow and a better mapping could improve both the
print and the softproof, right? Because as it is now I wouldn't choose
this paper and many others that have a flat response like shown in
figure 79 on the left. For me, if a paper, ink and printer combination
can print a L* of Y from an input L* of x I see no reason why increasing
the input wouldn't produce an increase on the output side as well.
Unless of course, it messes everything else, that I don't know.
The answer maybe already there in plain view but I find out the other
day that some of colprof options are describe in a way that I didn't
understand at all, maybe it's the case again, I don't know.
[ And please edit replies! We don't need to see all the previous
messages in each post. Thanks. ]
