Yves,
You don’t need to go overboard with lots of patches to create a very good
profile using Argyll. I’ve been using the software for eight years now and
find that 1848 patches are more than sufficient (4 letter pages). Over the
past two years, I do a preliminary profile using 924 patches and then use that
one to create the final one. This approach seems to give better color
gradients observable in test prints. I am printing on a Canon Pro-1000 on
Windows 10 so it is an 8 bit pipeline. The large prints that I make look nice.
I don’t print on any paper with OBAs and 50% of my printing is on matte with
the other on smooth gloss (Museo Silver Rag or Moab Juniper Baryta Rag).
All my printing is done through Lightroom at either 300 dpi or 600 dpi
depending on the enlargement’s final resolution. I’ve lately been looking at
Gigapixel AI for doing up resolution but have not printed much using images
treated with it. Out of gamut warnings in PS or LR are often useless. Soft
proofing is valuable in getting final edits correct so one does not waste a lot
of paper.
Alan
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Yves Gauvreau
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 3:11 PM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Rendering intent?
Samuel,
I'm printing on a Canon PRO-1000 with Lucia pigment inks, I always use the 16
bit driver and more and more I prefer using relatively wide gamut smooth and
textured museum grade matte papers but of course I also print on more glossy
paper sometimes but I try to stay away from papers with OBA. I call them my
blue papers.
Below you mention this "Is the profile for output properly constructed?" I
don't know since I haven't build one myself yet. Argylllcms does recommend a
fairly large number of patches to make a profile and the I1 Studio software is
doing this with a fraction of this, max 2 sheet of 8.5" x 11". Obviously the
results must differ but until I try I wont know.
I made a print (Red River Palo Duro Etching) the other day of a very colorful
image and I'm pretty satisfied of the result but the contrast could still be
improved a little I guess, PS gamut warning showed very little out of gamut
colors but this morning I use ColorThink to show off the same image and paper
combination and the result greatly differ, much more out of gamut colors. I
don't know which to trust now. It could explain why my prints don't look much
like the PS softproof version. This image protrude mainly above and below the
paper gamut, changing saturation would be useless, no out of gamut color in the
a or b direction , the only change that would work is a change in L*.
This is one off me biggest concern, who and which software can I trust to do
the work properly. I already know PS does many thing in our backs that are
questionable, others that are inaccurate, etc. So I would be surprised if I
shouldn't trust some or all their color handling stuff as well.
