[argyllcms] Re: colprof and proofing purposes

  • From: Michael Schulz <ms.typografik@xxxxxx>
  • To: <argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:15:11 +0200

Am 28.09.2009 15:37 Uhr schrieb "Nikolay Pokhilchenko" unter
<nikolay_po@xxxxxxx>:

> Hello, Michael!
> 
> I'm preferring the -qh or even -qu profile quality for inkjet printers. But
> You should use a high number of different test patches for high precision
> mode. For example, I print about 2700-3600 patches for -qu. There may be a
> difference: the higher quality mode have more freedom to curve the channels,
> that's why there may be some strange effects. It may be noticeable when test
> patch quantity is insufficient for the device characterization at certain
> region.

Hello Nikolay,

I would like to ask you and other people who have already experiences using
targen to create test target values for proofing purposes in practice, which
targen options you normally use.
After I've read the threads about the targen option in Argyll's archive, I
still don't know really which of the option might be the best to use if one
wants to create an inkjet printer profile.
I'm talking about the default option (OFPS) - with the result of mostly dark
patches, the -R option which gives patches with a perceptual space
distribution and the -c option using a previous profile.
Before I'm spending not little time measuring about 3,000 patches it would
be a great help to get some practical advice.

Regards
Michael



Other related posts: