Roger,
I unfortunately did see at minimum 1 other such gamut volume, it was
even worst in a sense because it had holes in it.
I have no idea why I got this and it's the reason I'm here asking your help.
On 12/8/2019 10:57 AM, graxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
"
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. It’s 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?
Canon ImagePrograph Pro-1000
You have an Epson printer?
Yes I do the same whenever possible but for some cases you need to turn off color management completely and PS can't do that it seems. Take the case of creating via Argyl tools a device link profile that you apply using cctiff. The Adobe Color Print Utility can print this without color management but I don't like it, we need to go through the printer driver any way, I haven't figure out yet who is in charge for the layout, paper size and a few more things.
I print through Photoshop ColorManagement turned off in the Epson driver. That’s the best you can hope for. Otherwise, a CMYK RIP would give some extra levels of control but it’s going to be at the detriment of gamut…
If you have windows, https://github.com/imatest/gamutvision, it's free now.
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
