[argyllcms] Re: Number of patches - well behaved printer?
- From: Rishi Sanyal <rishi.j.sanyal@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:43:29 -0800
Iliah,
You mention: "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)"
Do you have color targets shot on negative film (I think Fuji used to
once offer a negative film target) or do you shoot targets yourself on
film? If the latter, ideally you'd want the blackest black & the
whitest white on the grayscale gradient to map to the lowest exposure
(clear film for a developed negative) & highest exposure (Dmax for
developed negative) possible on the film, correct? How does one do
that?
Thanks,
Rishi
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Iliah Borg <ib@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gentlemen,
>
> 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
> prints.
>
> 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
> ib@xxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
