[argyllcms] Re: colormouse vs. digital camera

  • From: Stephan Bourgeois <strangelv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:44:13 +0100

Alastair M. Robinson wrote:

3. the profile generated with the Colormouse has a slight red/magenta cast that can be compensated by the following gamma correction [R=0.95 G=1.05 B=1.0]

One possible cause for this is the inks you're using.

I get a *very* slight yellowy cast on my R300, using 7DayShop's dirt-cheap inks. A few weeks ago I had a mixture of cartridges, including a Spectrum black, which exhibited the most *horrendous* metamerism, giving a terrible yellow cast. I was actually using D65 measurements from the colourmouse to compensate!

On the other hand, I generated profiles for a C84 and C86 (using Epson DuraBrite ink) and got *perfect* grey balance. (Judged by eye, anyway)

I have just had exactly the same experience. The colormouse had trouble with JetTech inks I use in the StylusProXL. These are wide-gamut dye based inks. Very hard to get a neutral grey axis. As Gerhard pointed out, 200 paches is not enough. If I re-measure a 10% steps gray-scale, the colormouse will pick the fact that it's not neutral.

On the other hand I did a profile for a D88 using pigment based inks (Epson DuraBrite) with 350 patches. In that case, the colormouse got it right, and the digital camera method was off, especially in the shadows.

These were all using a target with a mere 126 patches - 99 chosen by argyll, 20 near-greys and a few skin tones.

How do you do that? Do you manually add data into the .ti1 and .ti2 files, and obviously more readings into the .ti3?

Can I also ask if you are using the C84 or C86 with Linux?

Other related posts: