Yves,
I never seen anything like this.
The first thing I would do, in your place, it to inspect characterization
measurements one at a time. I would not be surprised that the measurements
reflect exactly what you see in GamutVision. Its possible the paper soaks
or absorbs ink in non-smooth or very non-linear fashion, have you considered
that? You have to accept that the 3D gamut reflects the target measurements
taken with your instrument. Take a close look at the measurements, they are
bound to reveal the story of what is going on? Like, when the color green
is created (RGB = 0,255,0), if you inspect the measurements as they progress
towards cyan (RGB = 0,255,255), you should see the spikes, jumps in Lab,
in the measurements that GamutVision shows? Those spikes are not created
by Argyll, they are real.
What kind of paper is that?
You have an Epson printer?
I print through Photoshop ColorManagement turned off in the Epson driver.
Thats the best you can hope for. Otherwise, a CMYK RIP would give some
extra levels of control but its going to be at the detriment of gamut
One last comment, if I may
Regarding this particular gamut view, in 3D.
First of all, you are lucky (glücklish) to have access to GamutVision, an
excellent utility. Second of all, think about what the graph is showing you,
for example, take the case of Green, look at it in the sRGB gamut, it is
right at the top, left corner, way higher than the paper green. It think
this does not make sense? Like, almost artificial. Not that this color
does not exist but it is weird by nature: can you think of real life
objects that could have this appearance? One thing is made quite clear,
however, by the paper profile, is the fact that sRGB cannot produce darker
and saturated greens like the printer can.
Thanks for the gamut plots.
Best / Roger
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On
Behalf Of Yves Gauvreau
Sent: December 8, 2019 10:40 AM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Something is wrong
Alan, Roger,
This is the resulting gamut for both papers
This one is the Palo Duro Etching and it seems normal
https://adobe.ly/2DYdHdq
This one is the Palo Duro Softgloss Rag
https://adobe.ly/2OZNUYk
An image speaks a thousand words they say, this one is unusual as most look
like the first one.
As I said I measured twice, tried various parameters and I always pretty
much get the same non smooth gamut shape.
I even tried to prune the .it3 file to reduce errors to no avail, same
result basically. I'm at the end of my ink thank, so I've tested the
nozzles, every thing seems fine but the result are not very good I would
think.
As you can see also maybe, the I1 Studio can't replicate the low L* values
we see in Red Rivers Palo Duro Etching profile. But the physical print seem
to agree more with the I1 Studio values then with the RR profile.
What bugs me the most after doing all this work, is that my prints are still
flat looking and darker then what I see on my screen (Wide Gamut SW240). I
can understand the tool for creating a profile may not be of much help for
this.
I don't like to use Adobe color print utility, the layout is most of the
time wrong. I'm curious if you folks would have an alternative to just print
the dam image in the center of the paper with no color management.
I'm on windows 10 but if it's possible I also have Ubuntu 16 running
(command line only) in a Linux subsystem if it's of any help.
Thanks,
Yves
On 12/8/2019 9:24 AM, Alan Goldhammer (Redacted sender agoldhammer for
DMARC) wrote:
I have had the exact same printer since February when my old Epson finally
went to the printer graveyard. I have profiled papers from Canson, Museo,
Moab, and Hahnemuhle that I regularly use. I have an i1 Pro spectro and had
error reports that were all in the acceptable range. I have a box of Red
River Palo Duro Etching that I bought to see what the profiling difference
was using Argyll versus the manufacturer's profile that was done by Chromix
using M3 measurements. There was considerable discussion about the use of
M3 measurements and the very weird black point that results from such
readings: https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=118349.0 I
did a quick Argyll profile for my new Canon printer and it was OK (I don't
print on this paper as I don't care for the surface).
I don't know why you are seeing such problems unless your i1 Studio is
behaving badly. Only thing to suggest is to just print a one page patch set
and read that to see if you get readings within a comfortable error range.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yves Gauvreau
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 9:04 AM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Something is wrong
Printer is a Canon Pro-1000
The Paper is from Red River Palo Duro Softgloss Rag (no oba, acid-free) (I
try not to use any paper with OBA as much as possible)
The instrument is a I1 Studio (ColorMunki)
I did a profile for the same printer and instrument but another Red River
Paper, Palo Duro Etching and I don't remember the error level but at least
the gamut is smooth, no wrinkles or similar the SGR profile give me.
Hope this help, if needed I can provide links to image of the gamut.
Thanks,
Yves
On 12/8/2019 8:19 AM, Alan Goldhammer (Redacted sender agoldhammer for
DMARC) wrote:
The errors you report are at least ten fold greater than I have ever seen
using Argyll. It would be useful to know what printer and paper(s) you are
profiling. I do know that some textured matte papers can give higher errors
because of light scattering but in my experience it's usually less than 5%
compared to smoother surface papers. I don't know if OBA containing papers
would cause such errors as I do not print on those.
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Yves Gauvreau
Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019 4:15 AM
To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [argyllcms] Something is wrong
I use a couple of programs to view the gamut of a profile and I made my
first one using Argyll tools and it showed a smooth surface, very nice.
I tried to make another one and now the profile is most likely useless, the
gamut is not smooth as most I've seen, I have remeasured the patch just in
case but same results.
I guess the problem is with the target print themselves but is there a way
to verify before wasting a few sheets?
Also I see what seems to be relatively large errors is this normal? What
should I expect?
These are the values I get from my last attempt.
"Profile check complete, peak err = 24.124852, avg err = 4.267474, RMS =
5.726972"
Thanks,
Yves
