[argyllcms] Re: Profiling a Minilab

  • From: Gerhard Fuernkranz <nospam456@xxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2010 23:48:12 +0200

Am 08.07.2010 19:58, schrieb Pascal de Bruijn:
> Anyway, the results can be found here
>   http://files.pcode.nl/icc/fotocom/
> All fotocom* files are licensed CreativeCommons Attribution-ShareAlike
> (for as far it's possible to license this data anyway).
> The resulting profiles "look" pretty legit.

Softproofing how sRGB images would look when sent to the print service
"as is", e.g.

    cctiff -ir fotocom_pro_gloss.icc -ir monitor.icc sRGB-test-image.tif

gives quite pleasing results. So this seems to confirm my suspicion that
we're dealing with a perceptual sRGB print pipeline (you'll see whether
embedding a profile in the image makes a difference).

A couple of years ago I had also sent a target to a photo service here
in Germany. For comparison I've digged out the my old .ti3 files again.
The native prints from your photo service seem to have a pretty warm
personality. While the prints from my photo service have a nerly
perfectly neutral gray axis (wrt paper white), your gray axis is a bit
warmer too, and your yellow tones are even more red-ish than mine. Both
give reasonably pleasing softproof results, though different. Hard to
say which one is "better" - that's rather a matter of taste. However,
the prints from my photo service seem to have a larger gamut than yours
[466000 vs. 532000 cubic colorspace units, in relcol CIELAB space,
iccgamut -ir -pl; sorry, could not resist to mention that ;-) ].


> I still have to submit
> some test images though... I want to submit a test set of 5 or 10 test
> images, all processed in these ways:
> 1. Plain sRGB
> 2. Some BGR profile (tagged) (to unambiguously check if tagged
> profiles are read and honored)
> 3. My FOTO.com profile applied (untagged)
> 4. My FOTO.com profile applied (tagged)
> And check the difference between the results.
> Regards,
> Pascal de Bruijn

Other related posts: