Michael Gallagher wrote: > 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 One of the things emphasized in the documentation is to check the profile self fit before proceeding onwards. What were the values returned in your case ? > In case anyone wants to look at both ICC profiles on their computer, here's > a link to a zip file with both new and old scans included: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c51et2luunvuap/1050_Arches.zip?dl=0 What's of more interest is the .ti3 file, rather than the resulting ICC profile, but by default it is included in the profile, so if I extract it from the v2 file and run a simple sanity check: colprof -v datafile.ti3 I get Profile check complete, peak err = 37.499292, avg err = 0.889221, RMS = 2.756460 That's a pretty obvious sign that the chart hasn't been read in properly. You can identify the patches that are very wrong by looking at the output of profcheck profcheck -v2 datafile.ti3 datafile.icm It appears that a number of patches in strip AD were not read accurately. Deleting the worst 26 patches and re-running the profile yeilds: colprof -v datafile_P5.00.ti3 Profile check complete, peak err = 2.177640, avg err = 0.342337, RMS = 0.401542 which would be a good result. Correcting the bad reads may not end up quite as tight a fit as this, but a peak of 5 dE or less would be quite reasonable. I'm not sure why you are getting such consistent measurement errors, although given the types of problems you are seeing, I would re-print the target without the 60% scaling before trying again. A last resort is to read problematic strips patch by patch. You can do this by quitting chartread part way through in one mode, and then resuming in a different mode (ie. chartread -p and -r flags). Graeme Gill.