[argyllcms] Re: Number of patches - well behaved printer?

  • From: Iliah Borg <ib@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:16:39 -0500


I like you both. You both are hard workers, intelligent, and have my utmost 
respect. That being said, on the issues that are touched upon here I'm more in 
line with Graeme.

Here are my comments.

24 hours to let the target dry is pretty necessary if the printer is stable. I 
let them dry in a dust-free dark place printed side up.

I do separate profiles for 10-minutes dry time when I need to evaluate test 

In my experience well-behaved printers can be profiled with one A4 page of 
patches, however a really good profile needs 3 to 5 thousand patches optimized 
to the printer's gamut.

I do not know if Graeme is being a specialist doing proofing, or not - but RPP 
uses Argyll as an external profiling solution, at Argyll's 1/10 power and 
resulting profiles make studio and landscape folks with MFDBs switch to using 
RPP. For print profiles I can make Argyll out of the box behave at least same 
good as top of the line expensive softwares. With a little effort it usually 
beats any other software except when the other profiler operates spectral 
non-disclosed data and is highly optimized for a particular image reproduction 
process (Kodak profiler for RA4 Kodak papers being prime example) - but even 
compared to such dedicated solutions Argyll is close enough. Argyll makes 
excellent profiles for colour negative films, something no other profiler can 
do (export DNG from vuescan and bring it to RPP - and you will see). Kodachrome 
profiles I created using Argyll are nice and clear. All the above is just for a 
simple reason, that is, to say I would put good weight to the advice Graeme has 
to offer.

On Feb 23, 2011, at 4:31 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:

> edmund ronald wrote:
>>  I wasn't asking you, who are a specialist doing proofing; I was
>> asking the OP who appears to be a photographer doing fine art work.
> Thanks (once again) Edmund, for making all sorts of assumptions
> about what I'm good at, and what I'm not. I guess all the
> effort that went into creating several gamut mapping algorithms
> specifically for photographic reproduction and incorporating them
> into Argyll, has been a complete waste of time since I'm only a
> "specialist doing proofing".
> Graeme Gill.

Iliah Borg

Other related posts: