I tried another profile with D50_2.0.sp. On screen in Photoshop's on- screen proof preview it looked more blue. The closest one was D50_0.0.sp.
However the prints all looked very similar and it was hard to see any significant difference. The print made with the D50_0.0.sp profile was possibly more blue. I understand more how the -f option changes the on- screen preview of the profile now. But the print doesn't change much. Is that the way it works or is my profile too far off to notice a difference?
I'm using the same technique and script to make profiles as before but there might be something else I missed somewhere.
Here is a link to a scan of the prints to show the relative difference. They were printed with the Relative Colorimetric setting from Photoshop, which is what I normally use. Perceptual didn't change the problem areas because they're mostly in gamut.
http://www.23degrees.net/colour/Colour%20Trouble_0001.jpg Tomas
Graeme Gill wrote Tomas Svab wrote:I tried fluorescent compensation off and on without a noticeable of a difference in the printed page. fluocomp="-iD50 -o1931_2 -f" -> the proof preview in Photoshop looked blue (as expected) fluocomp="- iArgyll_V1.0.4/ref/D50_0.0.sp -o1931_2 -f" -> proof preview looked more natural It depends somewhat on the intent you are using, the viewing conditionsand what you are attempting to do.Often people use a white relative (relative colorimetric, perceptual etc.)intent, so the paper is assumed to be the white point and should always look white. If the paper doesn't look white, then either it'svery heavily tinted, or your viewing conditions are providing some otherstrong cue to set your (the observers) white adaptation.If you're doing side by side proofing, then typically absolute colorimetric is being used to try and match the paper colors. This will only be successful though if the proofing paper is the same color or whiter than the target(ie. that it can be tinted to match the target).If the paper looks white but other colors are off, then it might be thatthe colorant/paper/whitener interaction is causing it. Without being able to measure your viewing illuminant UV levels it's hard to be scientific about it, but if I were you I would try FWA compensationwith D50_2.0.sp to see if it moves things in the right direction (hopefully too far in the right direction), or whether D50_0.0.sp is the right direction.The other thing to think about if you are attempting side by side proofingis whether there are FWA effects in your target. These will have theopposite effect. So if D50_0.0.sp improves your proof (output profile) but not far enough, try FWA compensation on your target (input profile) with D50_1.2.spor greater. Graeme Gill.
