[argyllcms] Re: Spyder4: Difference in using argyllcms and original software

  • From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:45:45 -0700

On Nov 11, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Werzi2001@xxxxxx wrote:

The result did change a bit but not in the way the original software
does.

It's worth questioning what your goals are. Do you have an objective means of
determining the quality of the results? "Looks different" covers a lot of
stuff, and it could well be that the change the original software made wasn't
necessarily for the better.

For most people, the end goal is to match a certain white point, either a
particular absolute standard (usually 6500K for Internet and broadcast and
5000K for print) or the ambient lighting conditions -- and similar concerns for
absolute brightness. Once that's achieved, the next goal is colorimetric
accuracy such that the displayed colors are as close as possible to the
(white-point-adapted) absolute colors referenced by digital files. And,
finally, you're typically looking to maximize detail and minimize artifacts,
which is, again, achieved by accurate color reproduction.

So, you can use the instrument to measure the final white point if you trust
the instrument. If you've used the instrument to match ambient conditions, you
should be able to hold a piece of PTFE (Teflon) thread seal tape up to the
monitor with a white background, and the two should be the same color and
perhaps the same brightness. If you've done that, you should be able to do a
similar comparison with a reference chart such as a ColorChecker. If that
checks, you can examine various reference files; see, for example, how well
fine details in a photo of un-hewn granite are discernible, and look for a lack
of smoothness in a Grainger Rainbow.

There're lots of ways to evaluate a display profile; I'm just hinting at how to
scratch the surface here. But "looks different" isn't necessarily the most
sophisticated method....

b&

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Other related posts: