[argyllcms] Re: Targen options
- From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 20:12:31 -0700
On 2007 Sep 3, at 4:52 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote:
>
>> The print has some ever-so-slight metamerism; it's a hint
>> greenish in sunlight (similar to my Kodak grey card, but not
>> as bad), and almost magentaish under some daylight-balanced
>> fluorescent tubes I've got in the kitchen. I've never really
>> noticed the metamerism before; I think the (very subtle) shifts
>> in hue with previous profiles swamped it.
>
> [ Nomenclature police: Metamerism is when colors with different
> spectral responses match. Metamerism failure is when colors that
> should match, fail to match. ]
If you taught classes / seminars / etc. on color management, and
if you were on the same side of the planet, I'd sign up in an
instant.
Anyway, I made a 3696-patch target this afternoon, with 220 of
those patches being near-neutral colors; I did the same to
generate them as last time, except incremented the L counter by
four instead of one.
The test print I made I did using a device link profile as in the
other thread. I used gamut mapping from the file...but my test
print file includes a Grainger rainbow, so that bit was probably
pointless.
Nevertheless, the print is simply amazing.
The most previous test print I did I had used Photoshop's
color engine. Tonight's test print is fractionally even more
neutral...maybe.
But there's so much more detail -- and yet it's so much
smoother...and skin tones just look ``right''....
It's actually almost as if the Photoshop version were behind a
piece of plastic wrap. At first glance the Argyll version almost
looks brighter -- but, at the same time, the deepest shadows look
darker...all sorts of fine detail is right there, plain as day in
the Argyll print that's little more than smudges in the Photoshop
one...the brightness is really pretty close; the Photoshop version
just looks muddy in comparison.
Is Photoshop's color engine really that bad, or is Argyll that
good?
> To have any significant impact on this you need to be able to
> play with the black in the print. Generally raising black
> levels improves neutral robustness under different lighting
> conditions. Often this is at the cost of a more visible
> screening and banding artefacts. light black and light light
> black inks help make this more palatable. You need a direct
> driver (RIP) and other tools to play this game though.
I've wished for such on a couple occasions. I don't suppose you
have any suggestions for one that works with a Canon i9900 on OS X
(or a free Unix (preferably OpenBSD))? I sure haven't found any
that cost less than four times as much as the printer that looked
like they were any good....
Anyway...again, thank you!
Cheers,
b&
Other related posts:
