[argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction to my last post!
- From: "Alan Goldhammer" <agoldhammer@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 14:57:28 -0400
Robert,
I hesitate to weigh in here but will do so anyway. Your schema outlined
below seems awfully convoluted. With the caveat that I print on an Epson
3880, I do the following:
I generate my own paper profile from scratch using Argyll and do not rely on
the Canson profile (or any other manufacturer's profile for that matter). I
have used Canson Platine quite a bit but my preferable paper is Museo Silver
Rag which has a darker Dmax. I also include a 51 step B/W patch set when
I'm profiling as I often use the profile for B/W printing in addition to
color. I try as much as possible to avoid papers with FWAs or use only
those that have minimal ones (such as the now gone lford Gold Fiber Silk).
It's been my experience that the Argyll profiles that I generate are always
a little better than the manufacturers. In addition to looking at gamut
size, I always print out the test print from this website:
http://outbackprint.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html
What is not clear to me is why you are generating all these profiles using
Argyll and what they are for. The goal of soft proofing is to match what
you see on the screen to the output as closely as possible. I soft proof
from Lightroom now that it has that feature and pretty much don't use
Photoshop much at all these days. I pretty much follow Jeff Schewe's work
flow as outlined on pages 147-157 in his excellent book, "The Digital
Print". I have a NEC monitor that is profiled with their Spectraview
software and view my prints under a Solux lamp. I get a good match.
I don't have any images hanging in museums where the lighting is carefully
controlled. They are mostly in homes and offices where I have no control
over the viewing conditions so the Solux view is just to get my perspective
on what the best print looks like.
Also, why do you use AdobeRGB for your Photoshop workspace? Why not use
ProPhoto? Your printer has a greater gamut than AdobeRGB.
I hope this is helpful.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:56 AM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!
Hello Graeme,
Here are the commands I'm using for the Canson Platine profile:
targen -v -d2 -G -e8 -B8 -c " HP_Z3100_Canson Platine 310_Canson
Profile.icc" -f866 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine (note: the reference profile is
supplied by Canson)
printtarg -v -ii1 -a1.0 -T300 -M6 -pA4 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine
chartread HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine
illumread -S -c1 -H "HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine".sp
colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine
colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"
-f"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine
rem colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"
-D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated.icc"
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine
The monitor is hardware calibrated and profiled using the Eizo
ColorNavigator with the i1Pro2: Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc
The HPZ3100 printer is calibrated using its built-in spectrometer. The
Z3100 is a 12-ink printer, so I guess using the built-in calibration is a
better option rather than trying to calibrate it with the i1Pro2.
Obviously, the printer is profiled using Argyll :).
I check the generated profiles using iccgamut and viewgam (and also using
GamutVision as this shows extra things like Black & White density response).
I use Lightroom to print and Photoshop CS6 to soft-proof. Both use the
Adobe ACE CMM engine.
My document's profile is Adobe RGB.
The monitor profile is Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc
Photoshop's working space is Adobe RGB.
I print the document from Lightroom using Relative Colorimetric with the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc profile (produced by colprof without -i & -f).
I softproof in Photoshop.
I set the soft-proof "Device to Simulate" to either
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or to
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated (makes no difference
as per my previous post).
I set the soft-proof "Rendering Intent" to Relative Colorimetric, "Black
Point Compensation" on, "Simulate Paper Color" on.
BTW, I don't know what Photoshop CS6 (or Lightroom) is doing, but all
rendering intents simulate the paper color: so using the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp in all cases does not give the simulated paper
white with Solux lighting (it gives the D50 simulated paper white), whereas
using HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated does, again in all
cases. I've also created D50 and D65 profiles (-iD50 -fD50 and -iD65
-fD65): when soft-proofed with the D50 profile changing from the print to
the softproof profile makes no difference, as expected; selecting the D65
profile with simulated paper color ON gives a much bluer color than with
simulated paper color OFF, which seems wrong as the monitor was profiled to
6500K and currently has a CCT of 6600K).
The only other thing I do is to view the image on the monitor in a darkened
room at full screen mode, so no other whites to fool the eyes, and I
illuminate the paper using the Solux lamp. The paper and monitor are side by
side and the images are the same size. I have a rig that prevents light from
the lamp shining on the monitor or other surface, so that just the paper is
illuminated).
I can't think of anything else to add :). Is this workflow essentially
correct, or is there a fatal flaw in it?
Many thanks!
Robert
p.s Once I get this sorted out correctly (with your help, needless to say)
I'll write a tutorial on how to do it, including batch files (this would
have been VERY helpful to me, although I have to say that doing it the hard
way is a great learning exercise, if one has the time).
-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Graeme Gill
Sent: 04 June 2014 07:07
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!
robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I
would
> really appreciate a bit of help!
> What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour
> management and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as
follows:
> This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very
closely.
> HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be
> relied on, or if it's technically correct.
Hi,
There are a lot of details missing in regard to your soft proofing.
For instance, you don't say how you are actually doing it, ie. what profiles
form the rendering chain for your soft proof, what intents are used, or what
CMM is being used. You are at the mercy of all of those elements, + the way
the profiles are set up.
> Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the profile used to
> print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
> blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?
This depends on the rendering intent - anything but absolute should give the
same white for both profiles, since the white will be the paper color.
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
