I did a little checking in the archives and this may have been covered in a
round about way, but didn't really answer my question.
Standard illuminants I understand, A- roughly tungsten, D50 roughly
daylight, F series for florescents. In the past all the profiles that I've
made were always set to D50 and I'm happy with the way that Argyll is
making print profiles under D50. I'm also measuring with a UV cut filtered
i1pro revA so I'm not using the -f.
I made one profile with -i A thinking that it would be closer to the warm
white indoor lights. It is different from the D50 profile when comparing
both prints, but doesn't really look right under the warm white LED lights
(supposed to have a CRI of around 90 and around 2800K). Am I using the -i
correctly or misunderstanding something?
The print came out too blue/cyan and darker than the D50 print. With
typical indoor lighting being less illumination I was expecting a lighter
print and of course a closer color match. I know the answer is probably
going to consist of measuring the illumination and plugging that into the
profile generation, but I'll need to read up on that before trying it, and
will need to measure it with the non-UV cut spectro (which I also have).
Just trying to make sure I understand the process before I invest a bunch
of time learning it the wrong way.
Profiles were made by creating a small single sheet target or around 450
patches, print/measure/profile created. Made a print to make sure it looked
OK. Fed that profile back into the creation of a larger patch count target
(2 sheets) of around 900 patches. Thinking the first target would define
the out of gamut space, and define the linearity of the printer, the second
900+ patches should produce a good optimized spread and make a good
profile, comparable to a "raw" 1400-1500 patch target. And as I said, the
perceptual rendered print in D50 looked really good so I think my profile
creation workflow is working.
Greg
