[argyllcms] Re: Need help figuring out just why my profile isn't working
- From: Leonard Evens <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:01:15 -0600
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 22:31 +0000, Alastair M. Robinson wrote:
> Hi :)
>
> Leonard Evens wrote:
>
> > There is no discernible change between
> > dispwin -l
> > and
> > dispwin xxxx.cal
> > where xxxx.cal is the calibration file with which the profile was
> > created.
>
> OK, that's good.
>
> > In this case I used the targen, dispread, colprof sequence to produce
> > the profile, and I definitely used the -k option.
>
> OK also good :)
>
> > Perhaps I should remark that I am now up to W in my lettering having
> > started on this occasion with D. Last year I got to C and stopped
> > there with what seemed an acceptable calibration/profile at the time. So
> > there has been no want of trying.)
>
> LOL - fair enough, and I know my suggestions have been somewhat on the
> obvious side, but I find the obvious things are sometimes the most
> easily missed. Without asking the obvious questions it's also hard to
> know exactly what you have or haven't tried :)
>
> >> Now display a greyscale ramp in a Colour-managed application. Do you
> >> still see a colour cast?
> >
> > It is actually worse that way.
>
> OK, well that's good - but it suggests that the calibration and profile
> were correctly made. This, and the fact that you're getting consistent
> results between instruments and programs, suggest that the problem is
> elsewhere.
>
> > I seemed to be specially sensitive to very small color shifts, as small
> > a .025 in color filter units (if I remember the scale correctly).
>
> Well, I guess no two people have identical vision, and the colour
> matching functions used for colour management are based on a "Standard
> Observer" - a representative "average" human visual response - but there
> are bound to be outliers. For instance, I seem to remember reading a
> while ago about how there are some people for whom the traditional
> colour-blindness test doesn't work properly. There are two types of
> test - figures you can't see if you're colourblind, and figures you can
> supposedly *only* see if you're colourblind - and these people can quite
> clearly see both types. So yes, it's entirely possible that, as you
> say, your sensitivity to errors in grey balance is considerably higher
> than most people's.
>
> Can you maybe show a grey test image to someone else, and get a second
> opinion?
Inkscape lets me show the gray scale image both with the profile and
without it (but with the calibration loaded in the LUT in either case).
I showed my wife the profiled image and she said it was gray. I then
showed her the unprofiled image, and she said that was also gray, but
she did notice that there was a difference. She said she would describe
them both as different shades of gray.
>
> > It could also have something to do with ambient light.
>
> Also possible. So what happens if you turn out the lights, and look at
> a grey sweep on the monitor with the room in darkness?
>
> All the best,
> --
> Alastair M. Robinson
Other related posts:
