Thanks for your answer Florian. I can easly understand now why that patches look all dark: my profile starts from L* 4 as darkest point... I will write a mail to Keith asking him about his print test imge. The reason for the -no -ni -np parameters is that, according to an expert that I have asked for some suggestions using colprof, this gives better gradients. Withoud this 3 options he got steps in many gradients. So I just followed his suggestion. If you have never tried with that parameters try them and let me know what do you think about it. Regards, Vittorio > Just out of curiosity, what's the reason for the -no -np -ni (I do not > have much experience with using those parameters)? > The main gripe I have with this test picture is that it has a "Gray > Gamma 2.2" profile embedded. Honoring this profile, it means the two > darkest steps are only L=1 apart, while the distance of the other steps > are between L=4 and L=7. So, it seems to me that it should be normal for > the two darkest patches to be hard to discern, even more so if you take > the surrounding paper white and the resulting flare when viewed into > account. > The way I see it the problem is in the image itself, ie. its embedded > Gamma 2.2 profile. One way to improve the differentiation of the dark > tones could be to change the way the values are to be interpreted, by > assigning a different profile (e.g. sGray, which puts the two darkest > steps 4 L levels apart and also lights the other darker grays a bit, > while keeping most of the remaining tonal characteristics).