Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Spyder3 Studio  (Read 6686 times)
StevenSzabo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


WWW
« on: April 12, 2010, 10:31:40 PM »
ReplyReply

So I decided to bite the bullet and purchase my own profiling solution, reviewed some options and decided on Spyder3 Studio SR, ordered it from B&H and anxiously awaited the arrival of my friendly neighborhood UPS man. It arrived today and I basically tore in to the package and started reading the easy start guides. Started by profiling the monitor, then progressed and started profiling with Epson luster (I figure it gives me some leeway if I mess it up being a cheap paper and all).

I printed out the 729 target profile, and carefully worked my way through the scanning until I had a end result that I THOUGHT looked consistant. The reader is definitely reading more muted than the "pure" results, but even from the online manual I read on their own site it says that is basically to be expected.

Saved my profile, and opened up my desired image in CS4. Printed it off 11 X 17 and was immediately aware that something was horribly wrong. the image is of a wheel with a brake caliper underneath that is VERY much blue. Only issue with that being that in the print, the brake caliper was very much purple. I'm not talking a few shades off from the monitor either, I'm talking PURPLE.

I'm printing using the following:
-Macbook Pro
-OSX Snow Leopard
-Epson 9900
-Epson Luster
-CS4

For experimentation's sake I tried printing out of lightroom too, same results. In CS4 I used saturation rendering intent. In lightroom I used perceptual, since saturation was not available.

has anyone had similar issues when profiling using spyder3 or any other method? I'm quite frustrated here, I'm doing nothing but waste paper and get mad here. I mean, honestly, I only got this because I feel that the canned profiles I've been using are to high contrast and I lose a lot of the shadow tones to black, which is of course no good.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2010, 10:47:59 PM by StevenSzabo » Logged
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2010, 11:17:45 PM »
ReplyReply

You have to make sure color management is turned off in the printer driver when you print the targets and your image. The rendering intent should remain the same for both target and image.
It looks as if you are double profiling somewhere in your workflow.
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2010, 11:40:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

There are some issues with profiling on Leopard/Snow Leopard.

Check this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/solving.shtml

I'm in a fight with Snow Leopard, Color Munki, LR and CS3 right now. To me it seem that my prints are to dark. I used Babel Color to generate a synthetic Color Checker printed it and fed the measured values back to
Babelcolor. The screen dump shows my print using my own color profile on the left 'original' in the centre and "Epson Manages Color" on the right.

The bottom row are comparisons. It seem that color is quite OK but the L values differ a lot. Could it be a "gamma related issue"?

It seems that I get similar results in Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 2.6. I also feel I have lived with the problem a long time on different OS-es and using both ColorVision Print Fix Pro and the Color Munki.

Sorry, not any of this solves your problem, but at least can add some fuel to the discussion.

[attachment=21467:Screen_s...27.11_AM.png]


Best regards
Erik



Quote from: StevenSzabo
So I decided to bite the bullet and purchase my own profiling solution, reviewed some options and decided on Spyder3 Studio SR, ordered it from B&H and anxiously awaited the arrival of my friendly neighborhood UPS man. It arrived today and I basically tore in to the package and started reading the easy start guides. Started by profiling the monitor, then progressed and started profiling with Epson luster (I figure it gives me some leeway if I mess it up being a cheap paper and all).

I printed out the 729 target profile, and carefully worked my way through the scanning until I had a end result that I THOUGHT looked consistant. The reader is definitely reading more muted than the "pure" results, but even from the online manual I read on their own site it says that is basically to be expected.

Saved my profile, and opened up my desired image in CS4. Printed it off 11 X 17 and was immediately aware that something was horribly wrong. the image is of a wheel with a brake caliper underneath that is VERY much blue. Only issue with that being that in the print, the brake caliper was very much purple. I'm not talking a few shades off from the monitor either, I'm talking PURPLE.

I'm printing using the following:
-Macbook Pro
-OSX Snow Leopard
-Epson 9900
-Epson Luster
-CS4

For experimentation's sake I tried printing out of lightroom too, same results. In CS4 I used saturation rendering intent. In lightroom I used perceptual, since saturation was not available.

has anyone had similar issues when profiling using spyder3 or any other method? I'm quite frustrated here, I'm doing nothing but waste paper and get mad here. I mean, honestly, I only got this because I feel that the canned profiles I've been using are to high contrast and I lose a lot of the shadow tones to black, which is of course no good.
Logged

StevenSzabo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 12, 2010, 11:53:17 PM »
ReplyReply

is that not a CS3 specific issue? I'm printing directly out of the Spyder3 utility, which I would assume is dealing with the color management on its own.

But it did appear that the color management MAY have been on in the driver in the original print...I will take a look and see what I end up with this time around.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 12, 2010, 11:54:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,


I'm much confused about Color Sync. Found this:

[attachment=21468:Screen_s...48.49_AM.png]

This seems to be assigned to color sync, although I never used that profile (AFAIK). Does the Bruce Frazer book (Real world Color Management) still apply to todays ColorSync?

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

There are some issues with profiling on Leopard/Snow Leopard.

Check this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/solving.shtml

I'm in a fight with Snow Leopard, Color Munki, LR and CS3 right now. To me it seem that my prints are to dark. I used Babel Color to generate a synthetic Color Checker printed it and fed the measured values back to
Babelcolor. The screen dump shows my print using my own color profile on the left 'original' in the centre and "Epson Manages Color" on the right.

The bottom row are comparisons. It seem that color is quite OK but the L values differ a lot. Could it be a "gamma related issue"?

It seems that I get similar results in Photoshop CS3 and Lightroom 2.6. I also feel I have lived with the problem a long time on different OS-es and using both ColorVision Print Fix Pro and the Color Munki.

Sorry, not any of this solves your problem, but at least can add some fuel to the discussion.

[attachment=21467:Screen_s...27.11_AM.png]


Best regards
Erik
Logged

shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2010, 12:22:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: StevenSzabo
I mean, honestly, I only got this because I feel that the canned profiles I've been using are to high contrast and I lose a lot of the shadow tones to black, which is of course no good.

Hi Steven,

I think Jerry is probably on to your problem, the targets need to be printed without a profile. Also, make sure you've updated Snow Leopard to the latest version (10.6.3). Previous versions had issues with printing an untagged document in Photoshop.

Aside from that I have a feeling that you probably won't get a better profile by using a Spyder 3 system. Building profiles is not an instant gratification sort of deal. My experience has been that the profiles that the manufacturers build are usually quite decent. If you're after something better, sometimes there is room for improvement but getting those results requires lots of experimentation and specific tools. I have an i1 Xtreme (which uses the i1 Pro with Eye One Match) and I very quickly discovered that the Eye One Match software leaves a bit to be desired. It's a very basic software that is designed to be easy to use and as such it provides very little in the way of user input. It just wants you to select a target, print it, scan it, and be done. There are no real options to setup. That brought me to using Bill Atkinson's profiles and using the measure tool from the Profile Maker demo (it's a bit of a hack workaround but it gives you more options). I tried his 5202 patch profile figuring it would yield a more accurate result with the paper I was using but found out it created more problems (I suspect the i1 Pro might not be the most consistent spectro on the planet). I then moved down to about 900 patches and got BETTER results so... sometimes less is more. Then I got into the hack to change the gamut mapping with Eye One Match by editing the config file. This is getting me closer to the results I'm after but..... I'm still not satisfied so now I'm looking at Profile Maker or Monaco Profiler software. Also, sometimes one profile might be more appropriate than another depending upon the subject matter. I would highly recommend using Bill Atkinson's profile test images. You can download them from here (they're free).

http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html

If you really want to build your own profiles I recommend.... patience and persistence. LOTS of it. You're going to go through a lot of sheets of paper experimenting. Use a decent test image for profile evaluation (I think the Atkinson file is a great resource) and also use a Granger Chart. Tools like ColorThink can also be useful as well for comparing profiles.

If you just want to get on with it and start printing I highly recommend the profiles that Booksmart Studio makes. I've bought a few of them in the past and they're very nice. Definitely better than the manufacturer's profiles in a lot of situations (although sometimes a certain profile might favor a certain image better than another) and much better than anything you're going to get out of the Datacolor system as the tools they're using are more sophisticated but also (and this plays a bigger role) they have a lot more experience in building profiles and that counts for A LOT.

http://www.booksmartstudio.com/

Quote
I mean, honestly, I only got this because I feel that the canned profiles I've been using are to high contrast and I lose a lot of the shadow tones to black, which is of course no good.

I don't know where you're at with monitor profiling, viewing, etc. but what are you editing with and soft proofing on and what are you using to profile that screen? You mentioned you have a MacBook Pro but you didn't say anything about your monitor. The MacBook Pro is not really an appropriate screen to be doing critical editing with (I'm typing on a 17" MBP with the matte screen right now). For a laptop it's decent but it's just not a good tool for editing or soft proofing when you're making critical adjustments (and if you're a picky person and particular about the results you get, which it sounds like you may be, the problem gets compounded). I use an NEC 2690 for soft proofing. If you're seeing a mismatch between shadow detail and contrast I'd be looking hard at the MacBook (if that is what you're using) as the source of your problems. Also what light source are you using to proof your prints with? Most artificial light has spikes and gaps in the spectrum. If you're using an artificial light source there's going to be certain things that you're not seeing in your print. If you don't already have some SoLux bulbs I'd check 'em out. http://www.solux.net  The monitor you use and the light source you use are SO SO SO critical in this process. If they're not absolutely accurate (or as accurate as possible) then you can spend all the time in the world trying to build printer profiles but if the adjustments you're making to your files are flawed because your monitor isn't telling you the whole story then you'll be going in circles.    

Good luck!

Cheers, Joe
« Last Edit: April 13, 2010, 12:26:41 AM by shewhorn » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9170



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2010, 05:56:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I'm in a fight with Snow Leopard, Color Munki, LR and CS3 right now. To me it seem that my prints are to dark.

You probably need to adjust the display unless the prints are really, really too dark no matter where you view them (and that has not been my experience with the Munki making profiles, which are usually excellent). It isn't a CS3 print issue (since you print the targets out of the host app).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
StevenSzabo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2010, 09:03:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I understand that there's probably better profiles available out there. I'm looking for something I can show that basically says that I'm pretty damn close. I do not use the macbook display for critical adjustments, and the contrast related issues that I'm experiencing are not a minor issue that can be related to monitor brightness. It's a HUGE difference from what I'm seeing on my displays to what I'm seeing in print, and that's unacceptable to me. I'm talking a total loss of detail in shadows, just clippinng to black, which I know for a fact the 9900 should not be doing.

And as said, this isn't a minor color shift with my profile, I'm going from a royal blue, to a royal purple, not even close. If I tried to deliver it to a customer they would laugh at me. Are you saying that the money I spent on the Spyder3 was a waste, because from what I've seen it should get me a decent profile. I'm not expecting it to be perfect...but something I can work from seems to be a reasonable expectation.
Logged
StevenSzabo
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 34


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2010, 10:10:29 AM »
ReplyReply

as an update I reran the targets, rescanned them, and ended up with a profile that I feel is significantly better than the canned luster profile using the 256 target scan. the blue channel is now DEAD on, and the shadow definition is much better. excellent, as said, I'm sure there's better options out there, but I'm much happier.
Logged
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564



WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 13, 2010, 10:49:35 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm happy with the Spyder3 Print system, It works well for me also. As mentioned earlier, with any print profiling system there is a learning curve. Turning off color management in the printer driver is a critical step in printing the targets.

With Datacolor Spyder3 Print you can further adjust paper profiles previously created to compensate for different lighting situations, depending on where you display the finished print.

Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 13, 2010, 10:54:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: StevenSzabo
And as said, this isn't a minor color shift with my profile, I'm going from a royal blue, to a royal purple, not even close.

Good point there... definitely wouldn't be a monitor issue in terms of the color. Issues with the exposure and shadow detail very easily could cause problems with the other issues you're having so I wouldn't rule that out completely. To get on the same page I'd be curious to know how bad the shadows are... if you could run a print of the lab test page from the Bill Atkinson link I'm familiar with those images as are a few others here. It might be useful for us to have a standard frame of reference.

Quote
If I tried to deliver it to a customer they would laugh at me. Are you saying that the money I spent on the Spyder3 was a waste, because from what I've seen it should get me a decent profile. I'm not expecting it to be perfect...but something I can work from seems to be a reasonable expectation.

I'd hesitate to say it was a waste but at that price point I'd be skeptical that it could deliver the same quality as one of Booksmart's profiles (last time I bought one of their profiles was 2 years ago, unless anything has changed I suspect they're still quite good). It doesn't cost much to try... they're about $4 (again that was 2 years ago) for their semi-custom profiles. For a bit more you can print the targets and send them in and they'll build one specific to your printer BUT... the 9900 is a really fantastic machine and it should be pretty consistent from unit to unit so I'd be surprised if you'd benefit from that. Used to be that the tolerances from printer to printer were rather sloppy but inkjets are so much more consistent now. Also... until you figure out that blue to purple problem you're not looking at a good profile.

I had a few more thoughts... you mentioned you were printing the profiles through the DataColor app. I'd maybe try printing through Photoshop. The profile as mentioned should be untagged and in the driver where it asks for the ICC profile you should set it to none. Everything else should be set up exactly how you'd set up your driver settings as if you were going to make a print. Same quality, same print method (bi-directional vs. uni-directional if you have the option), same media type, etc. Also, once printed give the targets time to dry. That still wouldn't explain the radical color shift you saw but the properties of the print will change over time. Usually 24 hours is the recommended amount of time. Another thought... make sure there's no strong source of light in the room when you're scanning the targets. It's unlikely this caused you any problem but if another source of light mixed in with the illuminant from your puck or if perhaps your hand accidentally lifted just a smidge while scanning over a certain patch allowing external light to leak in then that could potentially have an impact on your profile.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 13, 2010, 11:03:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: StevenSzabo
as an update I reran the targets, rescanned them, and ended up with a profile that I feel is significantly better than the canned luster profile using the 256 target scan. the blue channel is now DEAD on, and the shadow definition is much better. excellent, as said, I'm sure there's better options out there, but I'm much happier.

Didn't see this post before I responded. Excellent! Congrats. As for better options I think that this price point the next step would be significantly more expensive. I've never done a comparison between the Spyder 3 Print and the i1 Xtreme system. The Datacolor software seems to be quite a bit more functional than the Eye One Match software which is REALLY basic (fortunately there are a few undocumented tweaks and tricks you can use that allow you to use different targets and different gamut mappings). I think the next step in terms of "better" would be a full spectrophotometer and a more powerful software package. At this point though you're talking about $2850ish bucks for the software and a spectrophotometer.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7503


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 13, 2010, 02:42:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Thanks for good advice, just a few comments:


My prints are not horribly dark, it's just that they are significantly darker than than a real CC. This picture illustrates pretty much what I see:

[attachment=21493:Screen_s...27.11_AM.png]

Top row: Left: printed with CM-profile  ------------------mid: "synthetic CC"                  right: Printed "with printer manages color"
Bottom row: CM-profile compared with synthetic checker.  --------------------------------Right "printer manages color" compared with ColorChecker

All the above images were produced from CGATS files or spectrum data measured by the Color Munki.

Most of the deviation seems to be in the L-channel.

I also tried to convert the synthetic CC to the "Color Munki" profile but saw very little change from the original. My expectation would be that if I print a synthetic Color Checker the print would be very close to a color checker card.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: digitaldog
You probably need to adjust the display unless the prints are really, really too dark no matter where you view them (and that has not been my experience with the Munki making profiles, which are usually excellent). It isn't a CS3 print issue (since you print the targets out of the host app).
Logged

julianv
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2010, 05:07:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shewhorn
I think Jerry is probably on to your problem, the targets need to be printed without a profile. Also, make sure you've updated Snow Leopard to the latest version (10.6.3). Previous versions had issues with printing an untagged document in Photoshop.

Is this issue finally fixed in 10.6.3?  Has the fix been documented by Apple?  I have not seen this reported anywhere else.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2010, 02:58:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: julianv
Is this issue finally fixed in 10.6.3?  Has the fix been documented by Apple?  I have not seen this reported anywhere else.
Apple only lists printing reliability in the release notes.  However several have tested this and for Epson printers as well as i1 match it appears to be resolved. As far as other drivers I can't say.   See this thread.
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=41940&st=0

Logged

hsmeets
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2010, 03:32:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Probably I'm now trying to kick in an open door:

when measuring the printed target: put some unprinted, white paper underneath to avoid that the spectro picks up the color of the desktop.
Logged

probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #16 on: April 16, 2010, 03:24:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: shewhorn
I've never done a comparison between the Spyder 3 Print and the i1 Xtreme system. The Datacolor software seems to be quite a bit more functional than the Eye One Match software which is REALLY basic (fortunately there are a few undocumented tweaks and tricks you can use that allow you to use different targets and different gamut mappings).
David Miller from Datacolor say: "if I measure a ColorChecker (or any other target print, with an arbitrary set of color patches) with an EyeOne and one of our devices, and compare the results, the average delta-e is less than one."
I've compared a Spyder3Print SR vs an i1Pro (and an i1Pro UVcut) for X-Rite ColorChecker and got the following result:
avr. dE00=3.72, max dE00=5.63

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9170



WWW
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2010, 05:16:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: probep
David Miller from Datacolor say: "if I measure a ColorChecker (or any other target print, with an arbitrary set of color patches) with an EyeOne and one of our devices, and compare the results, the average delta-e is less than one."
I've compared a Spyder3Print SR vs an i1Pro (and an i1Pro UVcut) for X-Rite ColorChecker and got the following result:
avr. dE00=3.72, max dE00=5.63


With something like ColorThink, you can line up the deltaE report and see if the high delta's are only in the Lstar which I kind of suspect based on the above screen capture. It would be interesting to sort by highest to lowest detlaE and then see where those high delta's lay. The values can be telling. For example, a 1 deltaE in aStar going the opposite direction of a 1 deltaE in the bStar can look a lot worse than you'd expect from just a report because they are going in an opposite direction. IOW, a 2 deltaE in one area can often appear to be "worse" than a 1 deltaE in differing directions in a and bstar because you compound the visual errors.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2010, 08:56:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
With something like ColorThink, you can line up the deltaE report and see if the high delta's are only in the Lstar which I kind of suspect based on the above screen capture. It would be interesting to sort by highest to lowest detlaE and then see where those high delta's lay. The values can be telling. For example, a 1 deltaE in aStar going the opposite direction of a 1 deltaE in the bStar can look a lot worse than you'd expect from just a report because they are going in an opposite direction. IOW, a 2 deltaE in one area can often appear to be "worse" than a 1 deltaE in differing directions in a and bstar because you compound the visual errors.
No, I didn't use the Lstar mode in Spyder3Print software.
The result sorted from highest to lowest detlaE is shown below (from top to bottom, from left to right). Patches with red border have color difference dE00>3; with yellow border - de00>1.5
The stats are shown on another figure.

P.S. I measured the ColorChecker three times with each instrument and averaged the results.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2010, 09:04:26 PM by probep » Logged
probep
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 149


« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2010, 09:45:22 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW half a year ago I compared a ColorMunki spectro with my i1Pro. For ColorChecker target the color difference was: avr. dE00=0.57, max dE00=0.96
« Last Edit: April 16, 2010, 09:47:10 PM by probep » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad