There were some typos in my previous message. This is the rectified version. Nikolay Pokhilchenko wrote:
Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:45:08 +0100 Klaus Karcher wrote:You can calculate chromaticity coordinates for other adaptation colors using Bruce Lindbloom's Color Calculator <http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?ColorCalculator.html> if required. But as Gerhard mentioned and Graeme confirmed, changing the CIECAM adaptation chromaticity does not affect the gray balance of the perceptual intent essentially, so it might be better to replace it by -taa (Absolute appearance intent) as Graeme suggested. There's no gamut mapping in the absolute appearance intent however.I've just get the response from one photographer, my client: I've send him new profile with customised viewing conditions. He sad, that the BW prints isn't bluish now. The adaptation -dpp -ds:n -dw:.345669:.358496 -da:100 - df:.345669:.358496 is critical. It's not distinctive at a glance of simple user, but is critical for pro photographers... The ti3 from printer is attached in archieve.
I've made some profiles with your ti3 file: # "normal" colprof -cmt -dpp -s sRGB.icc -D test_pap -O test_pap.icc 1931_FWA # whitepoint D50 colprof -cmt -dpp -dw:.345669:.358496 -s sRGB.icc -D test_D50 -O test_D50.icc 1931_FWA # whitepoint + flare D50 colprof -cmt -dpp -dw:.345669:.358496 -df:.345669:.358496 -s sRGB.icc -D test_D50f -O test_D50f.icc 1931_FWA # whitepoint a = -3, b = +11 colprof -cmt -dpp -dw:.367395:.393341 -s sRGB.icc -D test_-3+11 -O test_-3+11.icc 1931_FWA # whitepoint + flare a = -3, b = +11 colprof -cmt -dpp -dw:.367395:.393341 -df:.367395:.393341 -s sRGB.icc -D test_-3+11f -O test_-3+11f.icc 1931_FWA icclu -fb -ip -s100 test_pap.icc 50.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [Lab] -> Lut -> 67.468898 65.014740 73.137592 [RGB] icclu -fb -ip -s100 test_D50.icc 50.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [Lab] -> Lut -> 67.222671 64.879958 70.825114 [RGB] icclu -fb -ip -s100 test_D50f.icc 50.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [Lab] -> Lut -> 67.145810 64.781647 70.946942 [RGB] icclu -fb -ip -s100 test_-3+11.icc 50.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [Lab] -> Lut -> 67.957707 65.946592 67.968296 [RGB] icclu -fb -ip -s100 test_-3+11f.icc 50.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [Lab] -> Lut -> 67.682075 65.584257 68.362904 [RGB] icclu -ff -ia -s100 test_pap.icc 100.00000 100.00000 100.00000 [RGB] -> Lut -> 92.484190 3.264611 -11.250770 [Lab] 67.468898 65.014740 73.137592 [RGB] -> Lut -> 48.406617 2.075828 -7.193194 [Lab] 67.222671 64.879958 70.825114 [RGB] -> Lut -> 47.933146 1.290619 -4.797495 [Lab] 67.145810 64.781647 70.946942 [RGB] -> Lut -> 47.855776 1.367588 -5.066549 [Lab] 67.957707 65.946592 67.968296 [RGB] -> Lut -> 48.554256 0.018126 -0.290320 [Lab] 67.682075 65.584257 68.362904 [RGB] -> Lut -> 48.263415 0.242249 -1.194694 [Lab] ∆E00 flat white -- paper white: 9.6 ∆E00 flat gray -- test_pap: 6.7 ∆E00 flat gray -- test_D50: 4.6 ∆E00 flat gray -- test_D50f: 4.9 ∆E00 flat gray -- test_-3+11: 0.3 ∆E00 flat gray -- test_-3+11f: 1.2icclu and xicclu -g confirm that the mid-tones in the D50 profiles are slightly less blue, but it needs further tweaking to make them completely neutral.
Tweaking not only -dw but also -df makes little difference and has rather the opposite effect.
In softproofs with test_-3+11, I perceive the transition from neutral midtones to bluish highlights as annoying (more annoying than the overall blue cast in test_pap), but this might be a matter of taste.
Klaus
