[argyllcms] Re: What is the best way to make print targets?
- From: Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 23:47:33 +1000
David Lewis wrote:
Hi,
As a follow up to this email - here is a scan comparison of the two prints
where you can
pretty clearly see that the print on the left is substantially worse than the
print on the
right. I am trying to document - How Much Worse!
There was a question before about seeing the ti3 file - here it is....
CTI3
unfortunately you have included only one of the two .ti3 files,
so I can't compare the two prints.
From the chart you did include, the profile fit is poor, with a maximum
error of 24 delta E. Its gamut surface is rough as a result.
Visualizing the fit errors using profcheck hints
that something isn't right. Typically this means that there are some
sort of errors in the reading of the chart, i.e. patches mis-identified
or misread. I would suggest carefully re-measuring a chart using the chartread
-B
option and comparing the resulting .ti3 file to your current
one using colverify.
Another check is to make a profile and then check the worst fit
patch with a spot verify. i.e. the worst patch in the .ti3 file
you included is G1. It was measured as Lab 63.398162 -6.087415 -11.796298
but the profile fit expects it to be closer to 58.866491 16.802243 -11.473088.
The black patch (G20) is also quite strange, and many others.
Cheers,
Graeme Gill.
Other related posts:
