[argyllcms] Re: Wow.
- From: Ben Goren <ben@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:31:17 -0700
On 2006 May 4, at 6:51 PM, Milton Taylor wrote:
> That's a good news story!
>
> [Musing] I would be curious to know how this result would
> compare with the profile that would be produced by GM's own
> software.
Well, I've only got the Eye-One Design, which only includes
the ``Easy'' 45-patch charts. But I /can/ compare it to the
Canon profiles. The Canon grays are noticeably warm in the
midtones, though they tend to be more neutral in the shadows. The
Argyll profile is neutral throughout. The shadows and highlights
definitely block with the Canon profiles, but you get plenty of
detail with the Argyll profile.
This is with Canon ink and Canon paper, so there's no excuse,
really. Holds true for both their Pro Glossy and the Matte.
> Also, do you think there would be much difference between the
> -qh and -qu settings?
I don't think there is. Fine by me--I'd just as soon get the
profile done in a matter of minutes rather than hours!
> What -r did you end up using?
Um...the default. That's what I'll play with next, as I suspect
that it could stand to be increased just a tad. (There're some
artifacts in a Grainger Rainbow.)
> And finally, what average and peak dE's did you get?
I don't remember exactly, but I think the peak was somewhere
around two or three or so, and the average something under 1.
I'll have to pay more attention next time....
Cheers,
b&
Other related posts:
