Roger,
I don't know if you're right or not. Here is a small sample of the
profcheck -v2 results.
R G B L A B L A B
[0.105379] 1 AH11: 1 1 1 97.603182 -0.078035 1.816531 97.482079
-0.075978 1.900994
[0.280393] 2 AU4: 1 0.4977646 0.7846647 74.019163 42.230474
6.502411 73.993605 42.644209 6.115481
[1.377149] 3 J17: 0.2632181 1 0.2994736 71.0849 -54.414441
44.750239 71.922178 -51.420189 45.92176
[0.947968] 4 AE13: 0.09102007 0.5804837 0.05662623 30.724482
-44.660346 23.326946 29.739155 -45.602892 22.581458
[1.207547] 5 O10: 0.9255818 0.6538338 0.6851759 75.557747
26.563303 12.127988 75.059302 27.781384 10.93789
[0.439101] 6 AX4: 0.5992828 0.896025 1 75.673811 -15.76584
-26.771548 75.452174 -15.36617 -27.42641
[0.182154] 7 AY14: 0.3556115 0.905745 0.9058976 68.574867
-32.976101 -27.029831 68.67926 -32.687127 -27.174943
[0.410003] 8 AD15: 0.2516518 0.3585412 0.5727779 34.677035
6.505956 -29.641943 34.444487 6.946779 -29.613343
[2.194267] 9 I18: 0.2877394 0.7060807 1 65.417934 -13.247708
-41.785216 67.345943 -14.476683 -37.263253
[0.082282] 10 U3: 0 0 1 20.505486 63.19466 -72.987865 20.599185
63.112489 -72.800194
[0.280118] 11 AX11: 1 0 0 49.936583 80.537661 78.032291
49.899823 80.527943 78.8127
[1.222626] 12 A10: 0 1 1 74.999764 -38.015115 -13.655812
75.358364 -37.250461 -11.563077
[0.437473] 13 M4: 0 1 0 67.82756 -56.615022 52.943879 68.117289
-55.640051 53.282454
[0.295102] 14 AG8: 1 0 1 50.400689 83.597109 -3.704415
50.307339 83.783194 -2.96017
[1.581753] 15 N18: 0 0.4991073 1 48.057322 4.834767 -58.297191
49.579134 3.480888 -55.179687
[0.252191] 17 AC13: 0 0 0.5240406 9.06489 30.459373 -40.146653
9.150095 29.937551 -39.52158
[0.437293] 18 AU10: 1 0 0.502739 48.605917 80.405953 39.974873
48.557878 80.357033 40.977512
[0.191875] 19 AY6: 1 0.5358053 1 75.704571 44.78499 -14.595991
75.606308 44.692294 -14.943365
[0.311610] 20 O7: 1 0.5034562 0 66.84464 49.87765 80.177154
66.804719 50.054315 79.425999
[0.188197] 21 AJ12: 0.4677501 0 0 22.764125 41.396527 31.357421
22.779975 41.50398 31.756246
[0.069808] 22 AG1: 1 1 0.5217365 95.06031 -7.999042 54.565012
95.080021 -8.011384 54.342744
[0.129860] 24 BB13: 0.498497 1 1 77.563469 -29.975724 -27.131791
77.569253 -29.830805 -27.329718
[0.425518] 25 AG14: 0.4945602 1 0 68.341988 -46.058714 76.248962
68.195992 -45.724854 77.481889
[0.177545] 26 AR14: 0.4902571 0 1 34.031833 67.369192 -39.202135
34.016122 67.325609 -39.667733
[2.931166] 28 AO14: 1 0.5154192 0.4966201 73.743689 38.805565
36.385955 74.627074 35.510918 39.297895
[0.592777] 29 AK16: 0.5207752 0.4831617 0 47.176294 1.891652
58.743183 46.894686 2.656284 58.277172
[0.942285] 31 AR18: 0.5190204 0.4580148 1 53.411256 25.512906
-48.115792 53.938383 25.527564 -46.597708
[0.808264] 32 M11: 0.494789 1 0.5068284 76.167248 -43.001832
35.198016 76.380104 -42.060707 36.628892
[0.155931] 33 BA3: 0 0.2504158 0 14.259708 -23.610812 10.258609
14.397684 -23.805538 10.429379
[2.264493] 34 K8: 0 0 0.2623026 4.440566 4.278172 -12.632349
4.314902 2.424526 -11.636307
[0.943384] 35 H1: 1 0.2740063 1 58.645809 54.960359 -29.911085
58.405362 53.309916 -31.237423
[0.112678] 36 C10: 0.7273671 0 0 38.598944 62.968708 55.459341
38.653213 62.946852 55.68743
[0.275334] 37 AL14: 0 0.7488823 1 41.650296 -20.089752
-68.831545 41.8856 -19.856493 -68.167477
[0.101717] 38 O3: 1 1 0.2580148 93.755672 -8.904531 88.346215
93.731271 -8.800979 87.874742
[0.752226] 39 A7: 1 0.7580835 0 81.237753 16.850695 94.113833
81.09373 17.279163 91.197671
[0.687296] 40 AI1: 1 0 0.2551919 49.199684 79.939354 62.48475
49.119515 79.957085 64.253795
I've pruned out all patches with more then 7.5 DE00 and it left me with
a count of 1002 / 1083. I don't think it explain the gamut I get but
maybe I'm wrong.
The table show the RGB values, the Lab measured and the "should be" Lab
values.
Yves
On 12/8/2019 2:10 PM, Yves Gauvreau wrote:
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?
I've use profcheck utility to check all of this. The docs say "Depending on the type of device, and the consistency of the readings, average errors of 5 or less, and maximum errors of 15 or less would normally be expected"
I pruned out the worst patches and rebuild the profile with the same result gamut wise with lower errors now.
I still don't know what is wrong, the instrument, the paper, the target prints, the software, I don't know? Just think this profile is most likely useless.
*Palo Duro SoftGloss Rag*®
Made from 100% cotton rag and featuring a lightly textured soft gloss surface,*Palo Duro SoftGloss Rag*gives you the classic look of a darkroom photographic print with the performance of modern inkjet technology*.*
* *Surface*: Medium textured elegant glossy similar to Platine prints
* *Made From*: 100% Cotton rag
* *Paper Tone*: Neutral white
* *Paper Weight*: 310gsm / 80lb.
* *Thickness*: 16.5 mil
* *Optical Brighteners:*None present
"
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.
Yes, the wireframe part of this image is the sRGB gamut. GamutVision allows us to use no rendering intent and thus see the "raw" or native gamut of the profile.
I can rotate this 3D view in all direction and there is much more then just the green the printer can print and are out of gamut for sRGB. Of course there are also a large section of the sRFGB profile the printer can't print.
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
