[argyllcms] Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.
- From: Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2014 11:56:48 -0600
Hi everyone. I have been trying to make watercolor reproductions on
traditional cold press watercolor paper, unfortunately with very mixed
results using existing profiles. Luckily I got my hands on a Colormunki to
fix this, and using the Colormunki software with only 3 targets (130
patches total) I was able to make the best matched print I've ever made.
It's definitely not quite there though.
So, I thought I'd take it to the next level and produce an even greater
profile, so with ArgyllCMS I generated a target with 1,050 patches, printed
it out using the ColorSync app with the setting "Print as color target"
(this turns off color management based on what I have read), and read it in
with the ColorMunki with the following commands:
targen -v -d2 -f1050 -R -G 1050patch_Arches
printtarg -v2 -iCM -h -t360 -a.6 -m0.0 -M0.0 -P -p190x320 1050patch_Arches
chartread -v -H -B -T0.4 1050patch_Arches
After reading in all the patches, I grabbed my local AdobeRGB1998.icc from
my ColorSync folder (as I've read you're supposed to do), copied it to my
working directory and used this command to generate the profile:
colprof -v -qh -S AdobeRGB1998.icc -dpp -D "Arches 300gsm Canon Pro 100"
1050patch_Arches
And here are the results (I apologize for picture quality) with the
original on top, the Colormunki software profile on the bottom left, and
Argyll's profile on the bottom right. This was printed on my Canon Pro 100
in Photoshop with relative colormetric selected:
http://imgur.com/CnbDset
Notice the blacks are completely missing in the face and the clipping on
the blue wash on the side. It is difficult to tell from this picture, but
there is a green cast as well. Also, here's a 3D view from the ColorSync
app comparing the Colormunki generated profile and ArgyllCMS, with the
smaller ArgyllCMS profile in color and the Colormunki shown in a white
outline. It's obvious that there's quite a bit less coverage in Argyll's
profile. To be honest, I'm baffled that the gamut is so much smaller
considering I used more than 8x the patches with Argyll:
http://imgur.com/DkJwdy5
Perhaps I've missed a valuable step in generating my profile - based on
what I can see, I did not specify any additional grays with the -g command,
hence the complete lack of gray details. I'm a complete novice at
profiling, but I was really hoping that 1,050 patches would produce a
superior profile to the 130 patch Colormunki profile. If anyone has any
ideas as to what might have gone wrong here, or what else I need to do to
improve this profile, I would greatly appreciate any help.
Thank you,
Mike
Other related posts:
