[argyllcms] Re: Create RGB printer .ICM to use in Photoshop CS5
- From: Wim Hertog <nertog@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 10:35:48 +0200
Hi Marcus,
Could you please start your own discussion on this topic? I think it's
better not to mix different topics within one discussion.
Thank you!
2011/10/20 Marcus Andersson <lucaf3rr@xxxxxxxxx>
> Hi,
>
> I have a question regarding calibration. Is it really meaningful to
> produce a .cal for an RGB printer with 8 colors? I don't know that much
> about these things but theoretically a CMY linearization on such printers
> would involve all eight colors, right? I am asking as a novice, thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Marcus
>
> On October 20, 2011, at 10:01, Wim Hertog wrote:
>
> 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:
