Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Gamut volume of IPF 8300 VS 11880 on Breathing Color live canvas  (Read 5253 times)
44Wide
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« on: June 23, 2011, 12:59:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello, I'm having some issue's with hitting good shadow detail with my Canon ipf 8300 when printing on Breathing Color lyve canvas. It was not terrible and for the longest time I thought it was the nature of the beast. For the record I'm printing out of lightroom using BC's supplied profile. I recently took delivery of an Epson 11880 and even thou it will not be my main canvas production machine, I downloaded the profile for it from Breathing Color and decided to give it a shake.

The results were quite shocking as the 11880 showed much better shadow detail and I'm not talking about a difference at pixel peeping distance but at viewing distance when compared to the 8300. I then loaded both profiles into Color think Pro 3.0 and the results where quite shocking (see attacked images). As you can see the Epson is eating the Canon's lunch when it comes to shadow detail. At that point I thought to myself, no need to panic its just a weak profile from BC and all I have to do is fire up i1 profiler and print of a 6000 patch target and the Canon will be right there along with the 11880 in terms of shadow detail. So after a day of printing and letting the prints off gas I scanned all 400 lines and ended up with a profile that is almost exactly like the the one from Breathing Color.... Hmmm....

My question are as follows.

1. Am I doing something wrong with i1 profiler that I might not be aware of that is limiting the measurement?
2. Is the 11880 really that much better in which case anyone want to buy a couple of used 8300's?


Any help would be much appreciated.

Thomas
Logged
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2011, 01:23:09 PM »
ReplyReply

What media type have they specified? Media type can make a BIG difference and 3rd party manufacturers don't always get it right.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2011, 01:56:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't sound right. What media settings have you used? Check out this thread where people discuss finding better media settings than what Breathing Color recommended: http://canonipf.wikispaces.com/message/view/FAQ/36152118  Like Joe said, 3rd party media manufactures don't always get it right. Your question is probably better addressed on the Canon iPF wiki forums than here...

And, BTW, 6000 patches is overkill for i1Profiler. The old rule of thumb about more patches being better doesn't apply equally to i1P. I doubt you'd see any differences with an 800 patch target.

And I assume you're coating your profiling targets the same way as your final prints, prior to measurement?
Logged

shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2011, 03:51:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Ditto re: number of patches with i1Profiler. I've personally been finding the sweet spot (with the IPF8300) to be in the vicinity of 1000 to 1700 patches.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
bill t.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2711


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2011, 06:28:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I tried a roll of Lyve on my 8300 and with the BC download profile and got very heavy looking prints, noticeably closed up in the  darker midtones on down as you describe.  I would estimate detail below about RGB 40 or 50 was essentially lost in the gloom.  Their media profile uses the second from the heaviest ink load, IMHO it should be almost the lightest inkload.  I had issues with the substrate so I didn't bother to profile it myself, but I think that would be a good idea.  The Lyve coating is pretty nice, it might be worth the effort to make a profile, but ahem...those chronic weave errors, ugh.

On my last three printers, 2 Epsons and now the Canon, I generally felt most manufacturers' profiles had a similar heavy bias.  Are they trying for a killer DMax at any price?  Dunno, but I have always greatly preferred my own profiles which also give me a much better screen->print match.  With my homebrew profiles I can easily see the difference in density between  RGB 16 and 24 wedge steps on coated canvas, and DMax is just fine.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2011, 06:29:41 PM by bill t. » Logged
shewhorn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2011, 10:17:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Bill,

I'm not sure if it's dMax or gamut volume they're after. While they make for great bragging rights, in my experience striving to optimize a profile for such metrics more often than not renders a print that isn't nearly as good as it could be. Print a Granger Chart and you'll find TONS of ink pooling. Hahnemühle seems to be especially guilty of this. Their profile for Sugar Cane on the x300 series absolutely uses the wrong media type and they lay down WAY too much ink which results in hideously blotchy prints.

Cheers, Joe
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2011, 12:28:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I think that results like what you're seeing on this canvas are a results of a prevalent way of thinking that "more ink is better". Finding that sweet spot that maximizes Dmax and gamut is darn hard to find without the right colorimetry tools and understanding. I've been urging developers to make a nice graphing tool just for this purpose but so far there's no takers.
Logged

44Wide
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2011, 11:55:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Everyone. First I would like to thank you all for your advice and tips on how to improve the shadow detail. Here is where I'm at...

I took the advice of backing off the ink level in the paper preset to its lowest value. I then did a 1600 patch target and as you can see from the first attached image the shadow detail remains virtually the same as the canned profile from Breathing Color. In the second attached image you can see my new 8300 light ink load profile compared to the supplied BC 11880 profile. Yikes!

At this point I'm wondering about a few things, namely is there a setting or something that I'm completely missing in i1P that is throwing me off? (I suspect not however in the black magic world of Color management I won't put anything past myself...)

In my own tests of the 8300 vs. 9900 when it comes to shadow detail on photo papers that use the Photoblack ink they go toe to toe if not even a little bit better. I'm now wondering if canon's matte ink is just not up to the comparable task? Thoughts? I'm more than willing to try some more suggestions but at this point hope is fading for that killer shadow detail on canvas for the 8300.

Thomas

PS

The media type that I'm using on the Canon is "Fine art watercolor" on the recommendation of breathing color. If anyone has any other suggestion I'm all ears!
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2011, 01:17:23 PM »
ReplyReply

"And I assume you're coating your profiling targets the same way as your final prints, prior to measurement?"
Logged

44Wide
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2011, 01:30:21 PM »
ReplyReply

"And I assume you're coating your profiling targets the same way as your final prints, prior to measurement?"

Correct. I printed waited a day to coat and then scanned last night.
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2011, 01:39:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you run the printer's on-board calibration routine? If so, on what media?

Also, have you not tried the "Canvas Matte2" setting?
Logged

44Wide
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2011, 01:59:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Have you run the printer's on-board calibration routine? If so, on what media?

Also, have you not tried the "Canvas Matte2" setting?

Scott, are you talking about the calibration routine that you run on the roll of supplied paper that comes with the printer when you first set it up or replace the printhead?

Will gladly try Canvas Matte2. Can you tell me what the difference is between that and Watercolor? Just curious. I will print a new target tonight and coat in the morning. Will post back with results. Thanks again for all the help!

Thomas
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2011, 02:58:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Scott, are you talking about the calibration routine that you run on the roll of supplied paper that comes with the printer when you first set it up or replace the printhead?

Yes, how long has it been? 6+ months? it's possible that it's time for you to recalibrate.
Logged

44Wide
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2011, 03:12:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup! its been about 10 months and about 6000 or so 16x20 Canvas'... Will do that before I print the next set of targets. Question thou, what are your thoughts of the gamut plots coming out virtually the same between my profiles and what Breathing Color live have come up with? I will profile both Watercolor and Canasmatte2 media types and report back on both.

Thomas

 
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2011, 03:48:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup! its been about 10 months and about 6000 or so 16x20 Canvas'...

Definitely time to re-calibrate. Calibrate on the same paper that you used before for consistency. The calibration scales and effects all media types.

Question thou, what are your thoughts of the gamut plots coming out virtually the same between my profiles and what Breathing Color live have come up with?

Means you are probably using the same settings and profiling software.

I don't have direct experience with Lyve so I can only comment so much. I suppose it's possible that their coating is particularly well optimized for one inkset than another but that's generally pretty rare.

Hard to troubleshoot this from a distance. Let's change a variable. If you try profiling both printers on a photo black paper (like Epson Premium Luster) what are your results?
Logged

Light Seeker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255


« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2011, 01:37:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Thomas, how did you testing go? I'm a Lyve / 8300 user and I'm very interested in getting the most from this combination.

Thanks.

Terry.
Logged
archivalcanvas
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2011, 09:12:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Why not build you own custom media type.  Then print your target and then build a profile for the target.  This will insure proper ink loads and should give you the most accurate print.  I just purchased a sample roll of Lyve Canvas and they sent me the custom AM1 media type file for Lyve Canvas.  Did you not try that?  I have had superb results with my IPF8300 with Epson Canvas.  Just blows away the prints I used to do on my old Epson 9800 not even in the same ball park.  I will be trying the Lyve Canvas this weekend and will see how it compares to the epson canvas.

Thanks,

David
Logged
Malcolm Payne
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #17 on: July 05, 2011, 02:29:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Edit Quote added: "And I assume you're coating your profiling targets the same way as your final prints, prior to measurement?"

I had a discussion with Paul Morales (Breathing Color's profiling expert) on this subject a few months ago and, perhaps counter-intuitively, he advocated the opposite approach:

"To answer your question about varnishing: Do not coat the targets. When the targets are scanned with the spectrophotometer, the values registered are compared to a data file of the correct values (in referring to each individual swatch and their correct color value). If the targets are coated, these values will have significant differences when registered and the profile may over-compensate the value shifts. This could result in overblown colors, or washed out colors. While I have heard of a few cases where targets were coated and the profile created was acceptable, I personal prefer the consistent results uncoated targets provide. Remember, the coating brings out the color even more (higher density and saturation), so starting with strong accurate color is the best way to achieve the optimal end results."

I've just run a couple of profiles on Lyve canvas on my iPF8300 with the new i1 Profiler, one as initially printed and the second on the same targets coated with Glamour II. Predictably, the gamut volume and extension of the coated profile are significantly larger throughout, and very substantially so below about L:50.

I haven't yet had time to run any comparative tests between the two other than a very quick test strip with the latter on a difficult and thoroughly unrepresentative image but, with both prints varnished, the shadows and midtones do seem to be more open and detailed than with the 'uncoated' profile, though there may be some reduction in saturation. Unfortunately, until I get chance to run a controlled comparison with a more useful test image, I can't say which is the more accurate.

I'd be very interested if anyone has run a full comparison between the two alternatives, or has any further comments on Paul's recommendations.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2011, 02:31:25 PM by Malcolm Payne » Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2888


« Reply #18 on: July 05, 2011, 04:11:05 PM »
ReplyReply


"To answer your question about varnishing: Do not coat the targets. When the targets are scanned with the spectrophotometer, the values registered are compared to a data file of the correct values (in referring to each individual swatch and their correct color value). If the targets are coated, these values will have significant differences when registered and the profile may over-compensate the value shifts. This could result in overblown colors, or washed out colors. While I have heard of a few cases where targets were coated and the profile created was acceptable, I personal prefer the consistent results uncoated targets provide. Remember, the coating brings out the color even more (higher density and saturation), so starting with strong accurate color is the best way to achieve the optimal end results."


A profile describes the gamut of the end result and when that end result is a varnished canvas you should start with a varnished target. With his logic you can not make gloss and matte targets with the same target data. That has never been a problem and a good gloss print probably exceeds the gamut of varnished canvas print.

Measuring colors on the canvas texture can be problematic and could become even more difficult when the canvas is varnished, light scattering etc and the surface no longer delivering the optimal 45 degrees reflection. But that is another issue and can be compensated with more averaging of measurements etc.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst

New: Spectral plots of +250 inkjet papers:

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1312


WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2011, 12:03:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I've seen this a hundred times. If you coat your final prints then coat your targets the exact same way. It's the only way to go. Lots of experience here.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad