[argyllcms] Re: Different approach to profiling?

  • From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:38:57 -0700

On 2007 Sep 2, at 5:48 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:

> Of course  if I  was that  keen on  optimizing for  a particular
> print, I'd  first make sure I  was using a device  link workflow
> (much  smoother  and more  accurate),  and  customize the  gamut
> mapping to each image (see the src.gam option to icclink -g) :-)

Oh. So *THAT'S* how it's done!

Just when  I think  things can't  get any  better, you  come along
with  an  off-the-cuff  remark  that not  only  throws  everything
into  question, but  leads  me  to a  far  superior  way of  doing
things. Curse you!

Anyway, the  approach I've  been taking  up till  now has  been to
first get the  image the way I like it  in Photoshop. Then, I turn
on  soft  proofing  and  create  whatever  adjustment  layers  are
necessary to bring the image back to something close to what I had
in mind. The printed  results are generally an  excellent match to
the  soft  proof...but the  transformation  to  the output  space,
combined with  my adjustments to bring  it back to what  I wanted,
has  always done  less-than-ideal things  to the  end result. It's
been  acceptable,  and  I've  gotten  plenty  of  really  positive
comments from family and friends...but  I can't say that I've ever
really been satisfied. Oh -- and  it's a somewhat tedious process,
too.

After reading  lots of Google  results about device  link profiles
and the like to get some clue  as to exactly what you were telling
me to do, it only took a couple minutes to:

    1) tiffgamut -v -c md ProPhoto.icm Flattened.tif

       (Small catch: save the TIFF without transparency!)

2) icclink -v -G Flattened.gam -i p -c md -d pp ProPhoto.icm Printer.icc Linked.icm

    3) cctiff -v Linked.icm Flattened.tif Print.tif

When I opened Print.tif in Photoshop, it looked horrid. But when I
printed it with no color management...well, it's so much closer to
what I see on the screen than anything else I've ever printed it's
not even funny. It's  not a perfect match, but  it's actually more
than ``close  enough,'' at least for  now. And I can do  this in a
small fraction of the time and  effort it takes with the Photoshop
soft proof method.

It's not fair....

Cheers,

b&

Other related posts: