Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Version 4 print profiles and Snow Leopard (is the issue Adobe?)  (Read 14163 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« on: November 18, 2010, 12:22:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Background. A number of users have reported issues with non printable areas printing a gray or gray blue when using version 4 ICC printer profiles. X-Rite has a posting on their support page about this and it suggests you only build V2 profiles (http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?ID=1115&Action=support&SupportID=5083). Its been discussed in the Adobe forums (http://forums.adobe.com/message/3269849?tstart=0) and on this blog (http://www.dtgweb.com/blog/?p=93). Sure enough, I can duplicate this issue printing out of Lightroom and Photoshop CS5. But here’s the rub, I can’t duplicate this issue printing out of Preview nor Aperture. Using a V4 profile works correctly! I’m still on 10.6.4. I’m using an Epson 3880 for these tests. One must make an actual print (soft proofing or converting to the V4 profile doesn’t show the “scum dot” problem). Could this be an Adobe bug? Can others on Snow Leopard with V4 profiles confirm or deny that at the very least, Apple products print correctly or do you have any other non-Adobe product you can print a test with a V4 profile. IF indeed this is an Apple bug, I know who to present this data to but now I’m wondering if the issue isn’t Apples.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6976


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 18, 2010, 12:33:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Andrew,

I'm using a V4 printer profile with Snow Leopard and either LR3 or PSCS5 for printing. It's a profile I made with the Pulse Elite kit when I up-dated my 3800 firmware and driver to the latest versions. I'm using Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper. There is absolutely no change in the color of the image surround on that paper in any of the prints I've made this way since I bought the Mac and started printing with it. Now, you're talking about a 3880 printer, whereas I'm on the 3800. I know these are very similar machines, but if we are both using the same OS and the same profile format and the same applications from which we print, is it possible that the version of the Epson driver for the 3880 could be the source of the problem?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2010, 12:48:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I know these are very similar machines, but if we are both using the same OS and the same profile format and the same applications from which we print, is it possible that the version of the Epson driver for the 3880 could be the source of the problem?

Nope because I get the same results with a 2880 and others have reported this on other printers. Plus the Adobe and Apple products are using the same driver in both cases. It would be interesting to see if its how PULSE built the V4 profile however. Or if using the same measured data you used for PULSE, if generating a V4 profile from ProfileMaker Pro or another product produces the scum dot.

I’ll also build a V4 profile and try this on my Canon using the Export module. Under CS5, it can’t use the Adobe CMM in 64-bit, might be an interesting test.
Logged

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

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2010, 01:31:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I printed using the Canon Export module (5.0) out of CS5 without Adobe CMM and using 4.0 out of CS4 with Adobe CMM and a V4 profile. Printer was the iPF6300. NO sum dot!

I then printed using the Canon Printer driver using a V4 profile in CS4. No Scum dot.

I lastly printed using the Canon Printer driver using the Epson V4 profile that produced a sum dot earlier today on the 3880. Naturally, color was not so great, but NO scum dot.

So this appears to be some combo of Adobe/Epson driver issue once again. Can’t get a sum dot using a V4 profile on the 3880 printing from two Apple app’s or out of the Canon driver so I’m not sure what’s going on here in terms of the bug, but we’ve seen this before so I’m not really surprised.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
na goodman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


« Reply #4 on: November 18, 2010, 01:41:59 PM »
ReplyReply

My version 4 profiles print with the "scum dot" on both an Epson 3800 and 9800. They were profiles made with a Pulse but, I don't think that mattered. I finally gave up with all of the problems and connected a pc to drive the 9800 thru Qimage and can print with any profile V4 or V2 without any problems. I never thought I would be printing from a pc but it was just becoming too cumbersome and frustrating on my beloved Macs.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2010, 01:51:24 PM »
ReplyReply

My version 4 profiles print with the "scum dot" on both an Epson 3800 and 9800. They were profiles made with a Pulse...

So why are your V4 Pulse profiles and Mark’s V4 Pulse profiles not behaving the same?

Mark, you build them on the Mac or Windows?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
na goodman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2010, 01:56:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't know, but I went thru every possible situation and also involved xrite because it seems their i1match software had conflicts with Snow Leopard.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6976


WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2010, 03:39:51 PM »
ReplyReply

So why are your V4 Pulse profiles and Mark’s V4 Pulse profiles not behaving the same?

Mark, you build them on the Mac or Windows?

On PC of course. Colour management is partially fubar'd on Snow Leopard - remember the "<no color management> can't be turned off" issue?

Now on that score, I was told the other day that IF one prints the targets through the profiling application itself (in my case Pulse) it bypasses Colorsync completely and as long as I have color management OFF in the Epson driver it should be fine. Haven't re-tested yet, as it was only two days ago I learned of this and I've been real busy with other stuff. Pulse Elite is the only profiling kit I own so I can't test anything on any other profiling application, unfortunately.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2010, 03:43:36 PM »
ReplyReply

On PC of course. Colour management is partially fubar'd on Snow Leopard - remember the "<no color management> can't be turned off" issue?

Now on that score, I was told the other day that IF one prints the targets through the profiling application itself (in my case Pulse) it bypasses Colorsync completely and as long as I have color management OFF in the Epson driver it should be fine.

But this is all target building stuff. Its possible that V4 profiles generated on the PC are different from V4 profiles generated on the Mac. But what I’m starting to see is that depending on the application and driver, the V4 profiles don’t produce a sum dot. We could trade profile (actually you and Na Goodman should).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6976


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2010, 06:22:28 PM »
ReplyReply

But this is all target building stuff. Its possible that V4 profiles generated on the PC are different from V4 profiles generated on the Mac. But what I’m starting to see is that depending on the application and driver, the V4 profiles don’t produce a sum dot. We could trade profile (actually you and Na Goodman should).

Much as I would be willing to help out in this way, unfortunately I'm not in a position to do so over the next ten days. If I get a PM from nagoodman by EARLY in the morning I can manage to send him the profile I'm using, but that's all I can offer for now.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2010, 06:54:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Much as I would be willing to help out in this way, unfortunately I'm not in a position to do so over the next ten days. If I get a PM from nagoodman by EARLY in the morning I can manage to send him the profile I'm using, but that's all I can offer for now.

Its just a small data point really (why would your profile work and his not). The real issue is V4 profiles. From the testing today and communication with Chris Murphy about this, it appears that the issue isn’t system wide. But its dangerous enough that its probably not worth messing with V4 profiles, certainly on OS X with Lightroom and Photoshop. Indesign CS5? Prints just fine. Aperture and Preview, no issue.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
na goodman
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 356


« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2010, 07:06:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Like I said, I have let it go and have resorted to a work around that works for me. But, you are correct - better to stay away from V4 profiles for now.
Logged
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2010, 07:18:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Its just a small data point really (why would your profile work and his not). The real issue is V4 profiles. From the testing today and communication with Chris Murphy about this, it appears that the issue isn’t system wide. But its dangerous enough that its probably not worth messing with V4 profiles, certainly on OS X with Lightroom and Photoshop. Indesign CS5? Prints just fine. Aperture and Preview, no issue.

I just did a test with a version 2 profile created from ProfileMaker and it did the same thing. The post 10.6.4 bug is not version specific. Pre 10.6.4 it was and was a much darker gray.

You are confusing this problem (post 10.6.4) by claiming it is a Ver 4 only problem
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6976


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2010, 07:21:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I recall Jeff Schewe advising a poster on another thread to use V2 profiles.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2010, 07:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

I recall Jeff Schewe advising a poster on another thread to use V2 profiles.

It depends which bug he was talking about.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 07:54:34 PM by Doyle Yoder » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 18, 2010, 07:45:15 PM »
ReplyReply

I just did a test with a version 2 profile created from ProfileMaker and it did the same thing.

Did what?

V2 profiles from PMP absolutely do not produce the scum dot I’m referring to. I built a V2 and V4 today from that product (and a product soon to be released). The V2 profiles from those packages within Photoshop print fine.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #16 on: November 18, 2010, 08:02:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Did what?

V2 profiles from PMP absolutely do not produce the scum dot I’m referring to. I built a V2 and V4 today from that product (and a product soon to be released). The V2 profiles from those packages within Photoshop print fine.

I just ran the version 2 test from CS5 and it produced the scum dot.  And resizing made no difference.

I think I am back to my original conclusions from a couple of mouths ago, that it has something to do with how these profiles are being produced that triggers this bug. What settings did you use in PMP?

Here is a link to that version 2 profile I just created.

http://www.dypinc.com/V2.icc.zip

Also for others, this is with a Canon iPF9000, OS 10.6.5 Latest driver version.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 18, 2010, 08:06:42 PM »
ReplyReply

I just ran the version 2 test from CS5 and it produced the scum dot.  And resizing made no difference.

OK, I’m not seeing the same thing. Not sure what the sizing has to do with this.
Double check the PMP Prefs.

Quote
I think I am back to my original conclusions from a couple of mouths ago, that it has something to do with how these profiles are being produced that triggers this bug. What settings did you use in PMP?

Large, Logo Chroma Plus. But the issue is seen with a yet to be released profile building product too.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 08:27:01 PM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #18 on: November 18, 2010, 08:10:20 PM »
ReplyReply

But the issue is seen with a yet to be released profile building product too.


That is not good! This problem is defiantly not there with MonacoProfiler created version 4 profiles.

You forgot the link.

PMP settings here. Large Paper-colored Gray. Logo Chroma Plus.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2010, 08:12:03 PM by Doyle Yoder » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9191



WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 18, 2010, 08:31:52 PM »
ReplyReply

That is not good! This problem is defiantly not there with MonacoProfiler created version 4 profiles.

Damn! Another wrench in this. You are correct! I just built a V4 profile from PROFILER and no scum dot. I’ll inform the party with the new product. But now its even more complicated as to what the hell is going on here.

And why did PMP work OK for me, not you.

I think we should trade not the final profiles but the data files. All the work I’ve done has been on an iSis, gathering spectral data. Our ProfileMaker Pro settings are the same but from looking into the profile you linked to, different hardware (I’m also using the latest version, 5.1.0).
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad