Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: My made ICC Paper Profiles have less gamut volume than the Paper company's  (Read 5555 times)
cengell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2013, 11:00:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Great info, and thank you very much Scott!

Christopher
Logged
cengell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2013, 11:01:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Understood Andrew, Thank you!

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

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2013, 09:32:23 AM »
ReplyReply

OK, so now that you've made prints and made a visual comparison what did you discover?
Logged

cengell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2013, 03:41:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Scott, not yet I sent you a PM to confirm the process as I understand it. I ran of of ink and on Monday have more and then I will bw back up printing.

When you can let me know what you think?

Thank you very much!

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

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2013, 04:54:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Hello Scott, not yet I sent you a PM to confirm the process as I understand it. When you can let me know what you think?

I responded immediately after you sent it two days ago. Here's my response:

_______

I understand that I use the Canon plugin in PS with no color management off, but not sure what you mean "with different media selections? I think you mean choose different media types like...

Yes! Media Types...

...and print say 6 of that image and pick the one that has delivers optimal results, but aren't these really profiles. I know these are being used for ink limit right as there is no management being used but don't the paper medias have color for each media type? so I don't understand why?

No these aren't profiles. With these six prints printed with different Media Types you're seeing the *base calibration* included in each of these media type settings.

Calibration and profiling are two different things. Calibration (in this case) includes ink limits and linearization curves. It's important to pick the optimal calibration prior to profiling. Build a profile on top of that calibration and you'll get the best results that you can on that media. Make sense?

____

Will look forward to hearing from you when you get the ink!
Logged

Joseph Yeung
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #25 on: September 25, 2013, 12:36:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Yep, I've seen this over and over again where the gamut volume numbers suggest the opposite conclusion from what you would conclude from visual analysis. Gotta make prints!

My understanding is that for an RGB color profile working through a standard printer driver (not RIP), the actual gamut volume is determined by the capabilities of the printer and the particular driver settings (which type of inks to use, density, etc.) and should be independent of any profiling efforts. The gamut volumes of different profiles using the same settings are just different *estimations* of the same actual gamut volume. For the same paper and same driver settings there should just be one correct number for the gamut volume regardless of profiles. In terms of gamut volume, a profile that arrives at this exact figure should be the best. A profile with an inflated gamut volune figure overestimates the gamut and would cause prints to be desaturated while a profile with too small an estimayed profile volume would make colors too saturated anf clip colors too early.

Now a CMYK profile (or a 12 vector  profile for a 12-ink printer?  Huh) working through an RIP that can actually futz with how individual ink droplets are laid would bea diff erent kettle of fish...  Tongue
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 25, 2013, 11:02:31 AM »
ReplyReply

My understanding is that for an RGB color profile working through a standard printer driver (not RIP), the actual gamut volume is determined by the capabilities of the printer and the particular driver settings (which type of inks to use, density, etc.) and should be independent of any profiling efforts.

While the media setting is the primary determining factor, the profile and rendering intent still has an influence.

The gamut volumes of different profiles using the same settings are just different *estimations* of the same actual gamut volume.

Yes, or you might say "ways of defining the color gamut." Problem is, different profiling packages calculate the gamut differently and come up with different results.

For the same paper and same driver settings there should just be one correct number for the gamut volume regardless of profiles.


That may be but if you profile with different solutions and make prints they can visually be very different in terms of their apparent real-world gamut. These real-world differences that we see when making prints are paramount.

In terms of gamut volume, a profile that arrives at this exact figure should be the best.

And how do you determine that? If they are all different, which one is "correct"?

A profile with an inflated gamut volune figure overestimates the gamut and would cause prints to be desaturated while a profile with too small an estimayed profile volume would make colors too saturated anf clip colors too early.

YES!! And that's why you've got to compare profiles by comparing prints made with them - and not gamut renderings. If you only look at the gamut renderings one can falsely conclude that an bad profile is the best.

Now a CMYK profile (or a 12 vector  profile for a 12-ink printer?  Huh) working through an RIP that can actually futz with how individual ink droplets are laid would bea diff erent kettle of fish...  Tongue

Right, and a decade ago color geeks always got better results by calibrating and profiling through a RIP. These days, Epson and Canon have done an AMAZING job optimizing the calibration (ink densities, linearization, etc) that's included in the driver and you just can't beat it through a RIP.

To really geek out, CMYK profiling in a RIP really isn't much different from RGB driver profiling since the printer is doing an on-board CMYK to 12 color separation. That 4-13 color separation is highly protected intellectual property that they hold close to their chest but allow certain RIP manufactures to tap into. Because of this, very few RIPs even give you the option to perform a true 12 color calibration and profile. It's just too complicated and the printer OEM's have done such a  good job at it already, there really isn't any need to.

If you want to get into complicated CMYK+ color calibration and profiling, check out Epson's new Surecolor S70 printer with metallic silver and white ink - that's fun stuff that's work the extra effort. On an aqueous printer, take it from me and stick with the driver and feel great about how fantastic the results are with RGB profiles. 13 years ago I used to spend all day calibrating and profiling aqueous printers through various RIPs to get better results than one could with the driver - I'm glad those days are gone.
Logged

smilem
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #27 on: September 29, 2013, 09:15:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
13 years ago I used to spend all day calibrating and profiling aqueous printers through various RIPs to get better results than one could with the driver - I'm glad those days are gone.

If using original OEM inks that's true, however if there is no paper choice for the paper you are using even if it's canon paper on canon printer then the calibrating effort has not gone anywhere. You still have to do it.

I'm talking about small/medium format here:
Either by using Gutenprint, (on linux /windows) or by using PrintFab that's available to every platform.

The limitation of Gutenprint is that it does not work with canon at all, because it does not support the wavelet to actually get resolution other than 600x600dpi but works with EPSON !. The PrintFab has it's limitations that it does not offer outside linearization but unlike Gutenprint does support wavelet not worse than canon driver does. I'm talking to the ZedoNET company that makes PrintFab that external linearization would be very useful. After all they are competing with printer manufacturer OEM drivers, so their software should provide an edge over the original driver.

Given the fact that most use Third party ink, an external linearization is essential.
« Last Edit: September 29, 2013, 09:17:58 AM by smilem » Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 29, 2013, 01:05:16 PM »
ReplyReply

If using original OEM inks that's true, however....given the fact that most use Third party ink, an external linearization is essential.

Sure. If you're going to use 3rd party inks to save a few cents you're going to have to go through a huge amount of work to get as good quality as you can get with the OEM inks and the driver that they've supplied. Having done this professionally on aqueous inkjets for over two decades, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, except maybe to 'tinkerers' who enjoy the process of things like this more than the process of actually making prints and artwork.
Logged

smilem
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« Reply #29 on: September 29, 2013, 04:07:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
to save a few cents

More like 80% of the cost of the original. If you buy toner or ink in bottles. And usual 30-40% if you are a retail user.

I always say that if longevity is a must use genuine OEM ink (would not say so about paper), but if not then use what works.

Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad