Hello Robert, The proofing workflow Graeme is describing adresses normally a source gamut which is smaller than the target gamut and an absolut colorimetric match from source to target. You are using AdobeRGB as a source, which has several colors, which are out of gamut of the target colorspace (printer) you also using the relative colorimetric intent. ... If you want to test, how good matches a printer the printer profile: create a a print wedge in the printer colorspace (same colorspace you have the printer profile with) create a text file with the same colors as the print wedge convert the text file with fakeread to L*a*b* print the print wedge in device mode mode (colormanagement off) measure the print wedge compare the measurement results with the fakeread output Regards Jan-Peter Am 17.10.14 18:39, schrieb robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > Hi Graeme, > > I've tried the workflow you've suggested (below) to check my print accuracy > and my results are well off. Here are the first few (worst values): > > No of test patches = 100 > File 0 Chose patch 1 as white, xyz 0.964203 1.000000 0.824905 > File 1 Chose patch 1 as white, xyz 0.837679 0.872949 0.741557 > L*a*b* white reference = XYZ 0.964200 1.000000 0.824900 > 21: 18.038560 25.951478 22.489887 <=> 39.803954 11.831945 -35.079664 de > 37.269236 > 28: 34.185591 -67.085881 -6.455341 <=> 62.944388 -90.026713 44.587042 de > 34.884374 > 41: 40.524868 -33.803806 -52.438105 <=> 65.223756 -60.678084 -21.994298 de > 29.777970 > 26: 52.908776 -78.403017 -17.947748 <=> 71.957265 -79.305174 41.137194 de > 29.656735 > 12: 57.830887 -42.597937 -57.500006 <=> 76.080635 -62.957608 -8.243975 de > 27.776304 > > So I'm clearly doing something drastically wrong! > > I would really appreciate it if you would have a look at these commands to > see where the mistakes: > > > targen -v -d2 -G -f100 iPFTest > copy iPFTest.ti1 iPFRef.ti1 > > fakeread -v -Ir iPF6400_HP_ID_Satin.icm iPFRef > > printtarg -v -r -ii1 -a1.0 -T300 -M6 -pA4 iPFTest > cctiff -v -e AdobeRGB1998.icc iPFTest.tif iPFTestO.tif > move /Y iPFTestO.tif iPFTest.tif > > > Pause Print iPFRef.tif using iPF6400_HP_ID_Satin.icm profile and Rel. Col. > chartread iPFTest > > Pause The test results will be in iPFValidate.txt > colverify -v2 -N -k -s -w -x iPFRef.ti3 iPFTest.ti3 >iPFValidate.txt > > I'm printing iPFTest.tif using Photoshop, RelCol to iPF6400_HP_ID_Satin.icm. > > > Many thanks! > > Robert > > > -----Original Message----- > From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > On Behalf Of Graeme Gill > Sent: 15 October 2014 14:26 > To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Print Validation > > robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> I've tried your first method and it's just fine. I'll try the variation: > is >> that effectively equivalent to using profcheck? > > Yes, it's going to be similar. > >> I don't really understand your last suggestion. > > In a proofing type workflow, the aim is to get a printer (or other > display device) to emulate some particular target colorspace. You do > this by transforming the colors you want to reproduce through a source > profile (which defines the target you are trying to emulate) and the > device profile. > > If you want to check how accurate your proofing system is, > then the type of thing you might do is generate a test > set in the target device colorspace, and run it through the > source profile with fakeread to create the reference .ti3 file. > > Then you run the same colors through your proofing workflow > (e.g. create a .tif using printtarg, then apply the source > to printer device link to the .tiff using cctiff and print it, > or run the .tif through whatever ICC based workflow you have > setup for proofing), measure the result and compare > the .ti3 to the reference using colverify. > > Graeme Gill. > > > > > -- homann colormanagement ----------- fon +49 30 611 075 18 Jan-Peter Homann -------------- mobile +49 171 54 70 358 Herzbergstr. 55 FG 3.01 -- http://www.colormanagement.de 10365 Berlin ---------- mailto:homann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx