I have an I1 Studio and 1848 patches would require 20 letter size print.
I've made my mind to go up to 10 letter size print, something close to a
1000 patches.
Canon provide a 16 bit driver for the PRO-1000, it's called XPS, I use
it mostly in abundance of caution to never get banding and other
artifacts, rare but not impossible. It cost nothing to use it.
"in getting final edits correct so one does not waste a lot of paper."
this is idea I would believe, but as it is I don't trust and probably
shouldn't either, the soft proofing image I get from PS or LR. I have to
find another tools to do this, still looking.
Thanks,
Yves
On 11/26/2019 3:51 PM, Alan Goldhammer (Redacted sender agoldhammer for
DMARC) wrote:
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.
>
