Unfortunately, the whole ICC model as it is formulated today creates a
hopeless workflow which "leaks" color at every interface. The user is
supposed to choose the right software and the right settings etc, and he
can't - it's too confusing.
An easy way to get around this would be to "tag" the files in some way, so
that software authors themselves can special-case the processing. This
could be done in-file in the same way as Unix files contain a #!xxxx or
other special set of chars at the beginning of the file to tell the system
what this "random" file is and who should process it.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 2:50 PM, mattia tiberi <tiberimattia@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks a lot for your quick and valuable responses :)
I didn't print the test charts with the Adobe Color Printer Utility, so
probably that's why the colors are darker, etc..
I will follow (all) your suggestions and repeat the printer profiling.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Dark colors and very poor gray scale after
From: edmund ronald
Before looking for hardware issues, one should first check whether one is
applying the profile correctly, and then whether the profiling target was
A way to check whether the profile is being applied correctly is to take
an image file "convert to profile" in Photoshop, save the new file, and
print it using ACPU.
On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Alan Goldhammer <
The error values that you posted are good and generally what I observe
when profiling my Epson 3880 printer. You say there is “little variation
among the profiles” but don’t define what that means.
Two quick things occur to me. Perhaps the i1 is out of specification.
You can download the i1 Diagnostics software from X-Rite and do a quick
check to address that. The second is whether you printed out the patch set
WITHOUT color management. I always use the Adobe Color Print Utility to do
this since Photoshop generally does not allow one to print without color
management (there is a null transform way of doing this but the ACPU is
easier to use). Do let us know how you printed out the patch set. As
Graeme noted in his response, it’s more likely a workflow issue.
One other observation, using –g128 is overkill IMO. I routinely use –g51
in the final patch set (I do a precondition profile first to establish a
*From:* argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@freel
ists.org] *On Behalf Of *mattia tiberi
*Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2018 5:24 PM
*Subject:* [argyllcms] Dark colors and very poor gray scale after
I've recently bought a used eye one pro, I' ve used it to calibrate my pc
monitor and to read 1764 patches.
I've printed with my own created icc profile, with the icc of the paper
manufacter, as well with the standard icc profiles of my epson printer but
none of them seem to work.
Except from little variations among the profiles, the printed colors are
much more darker and the gray scale is very poor from the soft proofing on
Photoshop. Some image parts with gray shades are printed black!!
The Argyllcms commands that I used to generate the profile are:
1) targen -v -d2 -G -g128 -f1764 eye_one_result
2) printtarg -v -ii1 -R1 -T300 -p A4 eye_one_result
3) chartread -v -H -T0.4 eye_one_target_result
4) colprof -v -qH -r1.0 -D"Polyester MatteBlack FineArtMattePaper"
5) profcheck -k eye_one_result.ti3 eye_one_result.icm
Profile check complete, errors(CIEDE2000): max. = 1.617668, avg. =
0.349918, RMS = 0.398709
Do you have any ideas why is this happening?
Thanks in advance.
Greetings from Munich,