problem using scanin

[Bernard]

Hi to Everyone,

I have just installed the latest version or Argyll available on my
Ubuntu 13.04 repository, in an attempt to generate an icc profile for my
camera. I shot my newly bought 'CMP Digital Target 4' and treated the
RAW image in accordance to Pascal Debruijn's howto, using Darktable, so
as to export a convenient 16-bit tiff file. Then I issued the following
command:

sudo scanin -v -p -a -dipn img_0001.tiff
/usr/share/color/argyll/ref/CMP_Digital_Target-3.cht CMP_DT3.txt

This lead to this:

scanin: Error - CGATS file 'CMP_DT3.txt' read error : Unable to open
file 'CMP_DT3.txt' for reading

Prior to be opened for reading, the said output file should have been
first generated. But it is nowhere to be found. I have no *.ti3 either.
I got a diag.tif file, but I cannot do anything with it since it won't
open either with Darktable or with Ufraw or the GIMP.

Next trial: after reading 'man scanin', I tried adding the '-g' option.
This time I got no error, and I did get a CMP_DT3.txt file. Still I
can't open the diag.tif file. And, if processing to the next step
according to Pascal's manual, (colprof -q l -a m img_0001), I am being
told that img_0001.ti3 is missing !

Thanks in advance for your help finding a proper uptodate howto for such
work

Bernard

[Graeme Gill]

Post by Bernard
sudo scanin -v -p -a -dipn img_0001.tiff
/usr/share/color/argyll/ref/CMP_Digital_Target-3.cht CMP_DT3.txt
scanin: Error - CGATS file 'CMP_DT3.txt' read error : Unable to open file 'CMP_DT3.txt'
for reading

Hi,
you need to provide CMP_DT3.txt - it is the CIE reference values that should
accompany the target (i.e. the "individually measured numbered reference
file in LAB and spectral" that you should have got with your purchase).

With that file provided, scanin will be able to create the .ti3 file.

[ I notice that the CMP website has changed URL, and that the CMP_Digital_Target-3
seems to have been renamed CMP_Digital_Target-4, probably a good thing to avoid
the utter confusion caused by the existence of a different "Digital Target 3" ]

Graeme Gill.

[Bernard]

Post by Graeme Gill

Post by Bernard
sudo scanin -v -p -a -dipn img_0001.tiff
/usr/share/color/argyll/ref/CMP_Digital_Target-3.cht CMP_DT3.txt
scanin: Error - CGATS file 'CMP_DT3.txt' read error : Unable to open file 'CMP_DT3.txt'
for reading

Hi,
you need to provide CMP_DT3.txt - it is the CIE reference values that should
accompany the target (i.e. the "individually measured numbered reference
file in LAB and spectral" that you should have got with your purchase).
With that file provided, scanin will be able to create the .ti3 file.
[ I notice that the CMP website has changed URL, and that the CMP_Digital_Target-3
seems to have been renamed CMP_Digital_Target-4, probably a good thing to avoid
the utter confusion caused by the existence of a different "Digital Target 3" ]
Graeme Gill.

Thanks for this reply. Indeed, I missed the fact that I had to provide a
CMP_DT3.txt file ; I thought that this was the name of an output file
that was to be generated. Ever since I put such file in the path,
everything worked fine.

I have another question. Since we don't really know whether
CMP_Digital_Target-4 is another name for CMP_Digital_Target-3, or if
these two have different characteristics, is the call for
'CMP_Digital_Target-3.cht' in the above command line still OK ? It
seemed to operate all right, but I don't know if the icc file that I
obtained in the end, has the best parameters in it. Seems to do a decent
job when used to open CR2 images in Darktable... but I don't really have
other results to compair...

Bernard DEBREIL

[Graeme Gill]

I have another question. Since we don't really know whether CMP_Digital_Target-4 is
another name for CMP_Digital_Target-3, or if these two have different characteristics, is
the call for 'CMP_Digital_Target-3.cht' in the above command line still OK ?

Hi,

They certainly seem to be the same layout, and the CMP_Digital_Target-3.cht recognition
file should work fine. In fact, I'll rename it all to CMP_Digital_Target-4 in the next
release, and update the URL's in the documentation (it's hard keeping track of
link rot..).

B.T.W. it would be nice if customers of CMP using ArgyllCMS suggested to them that
they mention on their web page that Argyll supports this target :-)

Graeme Gill.

[R***@public.gmane.org]

Hello Graeme,

I wonder if you would confirm if UV illumination reading is available in
ArgyllCMS (in which case, how is this used?). If not, do you intend to
include it?

Thanks

Robert

[Graeme Gill]

Robert-/***@public.gmane.org wrote:

Hi,

Post by R***@public.gmane.org
I wonder if you would confirm if UV illumination reading is available in
ArgyllCMS (in which case, how is this used?).

Not at the moment. You can measure M0, M1 & M2 conditions without this
using the i1pro or i1pro2 using ArgyllCMS's FWA capability.

See <http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/spotread.html#I>

Post by R***@public.gmane.org
If not, do you intend to include it?

At some stage I'd like to add it into the FWA capability, yes.

Graeme Gill.

[Michael Darling]

FYI I use i1Profiler to read patches, exporting M0/M1/M2 CGATS files to
feed into argyll, as a workaround, when needed. I think there's a slight
"dialect" difference in CGATS between i1Profiler & argyll. Believe they
number the patches differently. Perhaps they order differently, too. I do
some re-arranging in Excel to convert the "dialects".

Post by R***@public.gmane.org
Hello Graeme,
I wonder if you would confirm if UV illumination reading is available in
ArgyllCMS (in which case, how is this used?). If not, do you intend to
include it?
Thanks
Robert

[Graeme Gill]

Post by Michael Darling
I think there's a slight
"dialect" difference in CGATS between i1Profiler & argyll. Believe they
number the patches differently. Perhaps they order differently, too. I do
some re-arranging in Excel to convert the "dialects".

Hi,

That isn't normally needed when importing standard charts into Argyll.

Was this using a standard chart, or something else, such as an Argyll generated
chart ?

Graeme Gill.

[Michael Darling]

For creating printer profiles.

I use targen and printtarg, and print the TIFFs.

Then, I run a program I wrote to convert print printtarg's TI2 to
i1Profiler import-ready CGATS. It re-scales RGB and XYZ values from a
[0,100] scale that i1Profiler can't handle to a [0,255] scale. It also
re-names and re-orders all the rows. I'd have to take a look again at what
it's doing - it's been a while. I randomize using printtarg (but
*always*with -R0.) I can't remember if the re-naming/re-ordering is
necessary
without randomizing. I think printtarg leaves the rows in non-randomized
order, just changes the cell names, and I think i1Profiler can't handle
that. I also think printtarg labels rows with letters and columns with
numbers, where i1Profiler labels rows with numbers and columns with
letters. I can't swear to all that. Again, if it helps, I can take a
better look at what my program does, or share the source.

Then, I use i1Profiler's printer profiling functionality, and after making
the readings save separate M0/M1/M2 CGATS files.

Then, I restore argyll's original cell labels, replacing i1Profiler's cell
labels.

Post by Graeme Gill

Post by Michael Darling
I think there's a slight
"dialect" difference in CGATS between i1Profiler & argyll. Believe they
number the patches differently. Perhaps they order differently, too. I

do

Post by Michael Darling
some re-arranging in Excel to convert the "dialects".

Hi,
That isn't normally needed when importing standard charts into Argyll.
Was this using a standard chart, or something else, such as an Argyll generated
chart ?
Graeme Gill.

[Graeme Gill]

Post by Michael Darling
For creating printer profiles.
I use targen and printtarg, and print the TIFFs.
Then, I run a program I wrote to convert print printtarg's TI2 to
i1Profiler import-ready CGATS.

Hi,
OK, yes, that workflow isn't directly supported by Argyll.

Graeme Gill.

[János, Tóth F.]

Is there an undocumented chartread command line parameter or an
enviroment variable which forces the i1Pro2 to use it's white LED
alone to act like a device with an U.V. filter? (Is this even
possible?)

I understand it's not the best way to handle the FWA problem but I
want to compare the results of a ColorMunki Photo and an i1 Pro2. And
the CM is LED-only U.V. cut...

I tried -fM2 but chartread said it's not supported with the i1Pro2.
What am I missing?

[János, Tóth F.]

I found the workaround for the -fM2 in a freelist thread: manually
fixing the instrument name in the ti3 file.

Post by János, Tóth F.
Is there an undocumented chartread command line parameter or an
enviroment variable which forces the i1Pro2 to use it's white LED
alone to act like a device with an U.V. filter? (Is this even
possible?)
I understand it's not the best way to handle the FWA problem but I
want to compare the results of a ColorMunki Photo and an i1 Pro2. And
the CM is LED-only U.V. cut...
I tried -fM2 but chartread said it's not supported with the i1Pro2.
What am I missing?

[Graeme Gill]

Post by János, Tóth F.
Is there an undocumented chartread command line parameter or an
enviroment variable which forces the i1Pro2 to use it's white LED
alone to act like a device with an U.V. filter? (Is this even
possible?)

Hi,

The i1pro2 doesn't use a white LED - it intentionally uses an incandescent lamp,
just as the i1pro does, so unless it is fitted with a UV filter, you will
get UV included measurements. The pro2 has a separate UV LED, which allows
better characterization of FWA/OBE. Currently I'm not making use of that
in Argyll.

Post by János, Tóth F.
I tried -fM2 but chartread said it's not supported with the i1Pro2.
What am I missing?

You capture the spectral readings by default in chartread, and then use -fM2 in colprof.

Post by János, Tóth F.
I found the workaround for the -fM2 in a freelist thread: manually
fixing the instrument name in the ti3 file.

I don't think so.

Graeme Gill.

[János, Tóth F.]

Oh, so it's an UV LED, not an UV free white LED. Good to know. :)

Post by Graeme Gill
You capture the spectral readings by default in chartread, and then use -fM2 in colprof.

I had to change "X-Rite i1 Pro 2" to "Xrite i1 Pro 2" for chartread
(from ArgyllCMS v1.6.3) to recognise the instrument. I got this error

Post by Graeme Gill
colprof: Error - Unrecognised target instrument 'X-Rite i1 Pro 2'

[Graeme Gill]

Post by János, Tóth F.
I had to change "X-Rite i1 Pro 2" to "Xrite i1 Pro 2" for chartread
(from ArgyllCMS v1.6.3) to recognise the instrument. I got this error

Post by Graeme Gill
colprof: Error - Unrecognised target instrument 'X-Rite i1 Pro 2'

Yep - that's bug that is fixed for the next release.

Graeme Gill.

[R***@public.gmane.org]

I would appreciate it if someone could tell me how to use spotread to read a
spot colour on paper using an i1Pro2. I've tried the various options but
the i1 light does not come on, so the only way that I can measure the spot
colour is using reflected light. I want to be able to do this to compare
colours.

Thanks!

[Graeme Gill]

Post by R***@public.gmane.org
I would appreciate it if someone could tell me how to use spotread to read a
spot colour on paper using an i1Pro2.

Hi,
spotread with no arguments will do this - ie. it's the default
for a reflective capable instrument.

Graeme Gill.

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Hi,



I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!



To start off with, my work area is set up as follows:

- Monitor: good quality wide gamut (Eizo CG277), calibrated and
profiled to Native, 6500K, 80cd/m2, Gamma 2.2 (default values for the
CG277).

- Profiling: i1Pro2 / i1D3 / CG277-built-in-colorimeter. Eizo
ColorNavigator is used for the monitor (hardware) calibration and profiling
(i1Pro2 as reference).

- A 4700K SoLux lamp (which actually has a temperature of around 4200K
according to Argyll/i1Pro2) for viewing the image. I adjust the luminance by
moving the lamp forward or backward. The lamps have a good SPD with low UV.



What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour management
and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as follows:



- I run illumread -S -c1 -H PROFILENAME.sp

- I create two profiles as follows:

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -iPROFILENAME.sp -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME.icc i1Chart

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME_NoSP.icc i1Chart

- I print using the PROFILENAME.icc profile

- I soft-proof using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc with Simulate Paper
White on.



This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be relied
on, or if it's technically correct. Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc gives
the right paper white and the colors seem to match very well (on two test
prints, one with paper which has no FWA: Canson Platine; and one that does:
Canson Photo HiGloss). Using the PROFILENAME.icc to soft-proof (the profile
used to print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too blue) .
perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?



My reasoning is that PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc has the correct illuminant / paper
information so it will soft-proof correctly, but it should not be used to
print (doing a Convert to Profile in Photoshop gives a bluer image for the
Canson Photo HiGloss image (presumably because of the FWA compensation?)).



Many thanks, once again!



Robert



(BTW - the profiles generated using Argyll are really excellent, better than
the Canson-supplied profiles and better than the Z3100-generated profiles).

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Hi,



I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!



To start off with, my work area is set up as follows:

- Monitor: good quality wide gamut (Eizo CG277), calibrated and
profiled to Native, 6500K, 80cd/m2, Gamma 2.2 (default values for the
CG277).

- Profiling: i1Pro2 / i1D3 / CG277-built-in-colorimeter. Eizo
ColorNavigator is used for the monitor (hardware) calibration and profiling
(i1Pro2 as reference).

- A 4700K SoLux lamp (which actually has a temperature of around 4200K
according to Argyll/i1Pro2) for viewing the image. I adjust the luminance by
moving the lamp forward or backward. The lamps have a good SPD with low UV.



What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour management
and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as follows:



- I run illumread -S -c1 -H PROFILENAME.sp

- I create two profiles as follows:

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -iPROFILENAME.sp -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME.icc i1Chart

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME_NoSP.icc i1Chart

- I print using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc profile

- I soft-proof using the PROFILENAME.icc with Simulate Paper White on.



This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be relied
on, or if it's technically correct. Softproofing with PROFILENAME.icc gives
the right paper white and the colors seem to match very well (on two test
prints, one with paper which has no FWA: Canson Platine; and one that does:
Canson Photo HiGloss). Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the
profile used to print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?



My reasoning is that PROFILENAME.icc has the correct illuminant / paper
information so it will soft-proof correctly, but it should not be used to
print (doing a Convert to Profile in Photoshop gives a bluer image for the
Canson Photo HiGloss image (presumably because of the FWA compensation?)).



Many thanks, once again!



Robert



(BTW - the profiles generated using Argyll are really excellent, better than
the Canson-supplied profiles and better than the Z3100-generated profiles).

[Roger Breton]

Hi Robert,



One quick question, about your success with the Solux lamp.

I have been a faithful user of the 4700K lamp for years.

But I have never achieve a uniform beam?

In my humble experience, the lamp has to be placed quite a distance from the
viewing area to form a reasonably wide uniform lighting area, something like
one meter is not far-fetched. As you know, the fall-off is very rapid,
quickly shift down to 3000K in a span for a few inches from the center beam.
And the new generation of "coated" inside bulb has not alleviate the problem
of beam uniformity for me.

BTW, thank you for the detailed account of your information. Makes tracing
your logic a breeze.



Best / Roger Breton



From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Sent: 1 juin 2014 18:55
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction to
my last post!



Hi,



I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!



To start off with, my work area is set up as follows:

- Monitor: good quality wide gamut (Eizo CG277), calibrated and profiled
to Native, 6500K, 80cd/m2, Gamma 2.2 (default values for the CG277).

- Profiling: i1Pro2 / i1D3 / CG277-built-in-colorimeter. Eizo
ColorNavigator is used for the monitor (hardware) calibration and profiling
(i1Pro2 as reference).

- A 4700K SoLux lamp (which actually has a temperature of around 4200K
according to Argyll/i1Pro2) for viewing the image. I adjust the luminance by
moving the lamp forward or backward. The lamps have a good SPD with low UV.



What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour management
and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as follows:



- I run illumread -S -c1 -H PROFILENAME.sp

- I create two profiles as follows:

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -iPROFILENAME.sp -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME.icc i1Chart

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -DPROFILENAME -qh -SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc
-cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME_NoSP.icc i1Chart

- I print using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc profile

- I soft-proof using the PROFILENAME.icc with Simulate Paper White on.



This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be relied
on, or if it's technically correct. Softproofing with PROFILENAME.icc gives
the right paper white and the colors seem to match very well (on two test
prints, one with paper which has no FWA: Canson Platine; and one that does:
Canson Photo HiGloss). Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the
profile used to print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?



My reasoning is that PROFILENAME.icc has the correct illuminant / paper
information so it will soft-proof correctly, but it should not be used to
print (doing a Convert to Profile in Photoshop gives a bluer image for the
Canson Photo HiGloss image (presumably because of the FWA compensation?)).



Many thanks, once again!



Robert



(BTW - the profiles generated using Argyll are really excellent, better than
the Canson-supplied profiles and better than the Z3100-generated profiles).

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Hi Roger,



I'm not sure about the success! I'm still trying to get this right, and the
reason for my post was to ask whether or not I'm doing the soft-proofing
correctly. At the moment I have an issue with the FWA compensation which
doesn't seem to work (I have another post about this).



But at any rate, the soft-proofing certainly looks pretty good (especially
on papers with no FWA), whether or not I have the technical side right
(hopefully you or Graeme or someone can set my mind at ease :-)).



Regarding the SoLux lamp. I don't have your issue because I'm only viewing
an area of around 16"x12" (because I want the print to be the same size as
the soft-proof . as I think that if it is larger or smaller it will affect
how it looks). So I have the lamp about 1m away, directed downwards, with
'blinkers' on it to focus the beam onto the print. You can see my (very
experimental!) setup here:
http:www.irelandupclose.com/customer/softproofing.



To view large prints I think you would need to use multiple lights arranged
in a square, perhaps, with a diffuser in front to get as constant an
illumination as possible. Of course there's bound to be some variation
between the lamps. On the positive side, you wouldn't be viewing the print
side-by-side with the monitor in this case, so containing the light wouldn't
be a problem.



I'm really trying hard to get this right (and it isn't easy as there's the
paper, the light, the ink, the monitor, the profiles, Photoshop, Argyll,
ColorNavigator .. enough to give anyone a headache :-)), so any and all
advice would be highly welcome!!



Robert



_____

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Roger Breton
Sent: 03 June 2014 17:15
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Cc: robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!



Hi Robert,



One quick question, about your success with the Solux lamp.

I have been a faithful user of the 4700K lamp for years.

But I have never achieve a uniform beam?

In my humble experience, the lamp has to be placed quite a distance from the
viewing area to form a reasonably wide uniform lighting area, something like
one meter is not far-fetched. As you know, the fall-off is very rapid,
quickly shift down to 3000K in a span for a few inches from the center beam.
And the new generation of "coated" inside bulb has not alleviate the problem
of beam uniformity for me.

BTW, thank you for the detailed account of your information. Makes tracing
your logic a breeze.



Best / Roger Breton



From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Sent: 1 juin 2014 18:55
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction to
my last post!



Hi,



I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!



To start off with, my work area is set up as follows:

- Monitor: good quality wide gamut (Eizo CG277), calibrated and
profiled to Native, 6500K, 80cd/m2, Gamma 2.2 (default values for the
CG277).

- Profiling: i1Pro2 / i1D3 / CG277-built-in-colorimeter. Eizo
ColorNavigator is used for the monitor (hardware) calibration and profiling
(i1Pro2 as reference).

- A 4700K SoLux lamp (which actually has a temperature of around 4200K
according to Argyll/i1Pro2) for viewing the image. I adjust the luminance by
moving the lamp forward or backward. The lamps have a good SPD with low UV.



What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour management
and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as follows:



- I run illumread -S -c1 -H PROFILENAME.sp

- I create two profiles as follows:

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -iPROFILENAME.sp -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME.icc i1Chart

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME_NoSP.icc i1Chart

- I print using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc profile

- I soft-proof using the PROFILENAME.icc with Simulate Paper White on.



This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be relied
on, or if it's technically correct. Softproofing with PROFILENAME.icc gives
the right paper white and the colors seem to match very well (on two test
prints, one with paper which has no FWA: Canson Platine; and one that does:
Canson Photo HiGloss). Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the
profile used to print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?



My reasoning is that PROFILENAME.icc has the correct illuminant / paper
information so it will soft-proof correctly, but it should not be used to
print (doing a Convert to Profile in Photoshop gives a bluer image for the
Canson Photo HiGloss image (presumably because of the FWA compensation?)).



Many thanks, once again!



Robert



(BTW - the profiles generated using Argyll are really excellent, better than
the Canson-supplied profiles and better than the Z3100-generated profiles).

[Roger Breton]

Wow! Your setup seems to work quite well.

I wish you would use more descriptive "profile name".



I gather that you are converting in Photoshop, from whatever RGB to your
Custom Printer profile, created with Argyll.



I'm curious to "see" what you are seeing. (I would be interested in
obtaining some of your files, to test them out here).



But, if you are getting a good visual match to your monitor using Canson
Platine, that is no guarantee that the same recipe will yield the same
quality using the Canson Photo HiGloss. That's just the nature of FWA.



One approach that would be worth trying is to calibrated and profiled your
Eizo to the Canson Photo HiGloss visual appearance, as illuminated by the
Solux lamp instead of calibrating and profiling to native. Using your eye
might help take into account some of the fluorescence into consideration.



One thing to ponder, though. Solux is an incandescent light source. As such,
it does not excite much fluorescence from any paper.



Now, the fact that your paper simulation with Canson Photo HiGloss appears
"bluish" is a good indication that the i1pro is getting an impression from
the substrate that it is VERY blue. Is that the case? Are you getting a
relatively high negative b* value, like -5 or -6 or -7? If that is the case
then it explains why the output profile is fooled into thinking that it
needs to sprinkle so much yellow on the print, to neutralize the bluish
appearance of the substrate.



With FWA, the devil is in the measurement. Always. And measuring with a UV
filter is not the solution.



Best / Roger





From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Sent: 3 juin 2014 15:23
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!



Hi Roger,



I'm not sure about the success! I'm still trying to get this right, and the
reason for my post was to ask whether or not I'm doing the soft-proofing
correctly. At the moment I have an issue with the FWA compensation which
doesn't seem to work (I have another post about this).



But at any rate, the soft-proofing certainly looks pretty good (especially
on papers with no FWA), whether or not I have the technical side right
(hopefully you or Graeme or someone can set my mind at ease :)).



Regarding the SoLux lamp. I don't have your issue because I'm only viewing
an area of around 16"x12" (because I want the print to be the same size as
the soft-proof . as I think that if it is larger or smaller it will affect
how it looks). So I have the lamp about 1m away, directed downwards, with
'blinkers' on it to focus the beam onto the print. You can see my (very
experimental!) setup here:
http:www.irelandupclose.com/customer/softproofing.



To view large prints I think you would need to use multiple lights arranged
in a square, perhaps, with a diffuser in front to get as constant an
illumination as possible. Of course there's bound to be some variation
between the lamps. On the positive side, you wouldn't be viewing the print
side-by-side with the monitor in this case, so containing the light wouldn't
be a problem.



I'm really trying hard to get this right (and it isn't easy as there's the
paper, the light, the ink, the monitor, the profiles, Photoshop, Argyll,
ColorNavigator .. enough to give anyone a headache :)), so any and all
advice would be highly welcome!!



Robert



_____

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org <mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org>
[mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Roger Breton
Sent: 03 June 2014 17:15
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org <mailto:argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org>
Cc: robert-/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:robert-/***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!



Hi Robert,



One quick question, about your success with the Solux lamp.

I have been a faithful user of the 4700K lamp for years.

But I have never achieve a uniform beam?

In my humble experience, the lamp has to be placed quite a distance from the
viewing area to form a reasonably wide uniform lighting area, something like
one meter is not far-fetched. As you know, the fall-off is very rapid,
quickly shift down to 3000K in a span for a few inches from the center beam.
And the new generation of "coated" inside bulb has not alleviate the problem
of beam uniformity for me.

BTW, thank you for the detailed account of your information. Makes tracing
your logic a breeze.



Best / Roger Breton



From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org <mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org>
[mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of
robert-/***@public.gmane.org <mailto:robert-/***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: 1 juin 2014 18:55
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org <mailto:argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: [argyllcms] Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction to
my last post!



Hi,



I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!



To start off with, my work area is set up as follows:

- Monitor: good quality wide gamut (Eizo CG277), calibrated and profiled
to Native, 6500K, 80cd/m2, Gamma 2.2 (default values for the CG277).

- Profiling: i1Pro2 / i1D3 / CG277-built-in-colorimeter. Eizo
ColorNavigator is used for the monitor (hardware) calibration and profiling
(i1Pro2 as reference).

- A 4700K SoLux lamp (which actually has a temperature of around 4200K
according to Argyll/i1Pro2) for viewing the image. I adjust the luminance by
moving the lamp forward or backward. The lamps have a good SPD with low UV.



What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour management
and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as follows:



- I run illumread -S -c1 -H PROFILENAME.sp

- I create two profiles as follows:

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -iPROFILENAME.sp -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME.icc i1Chart

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -DPROFILENAME -qh -SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc
-cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME_NoSP.icc i1Chart

- I print using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc profile

- I soft-proof using the PROFILENAME.icc with Simulate Paper White on.



This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be relied
on, or if it's technically correct. Softproofing with PROFILENAME.icc gives
the right paper white and the colors seem to match very well (on two test
prints, one with paper which has no FWA: Canson Platine; and one that does:
Canson Photo HiGloss). Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the
profile used to print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?



My reasoning is that PROFILENAME.icc has the correct illuminant / paper
information so it will soft-proof correctly, but it should not be used to
print (doing a Convert to Profile in Photoshop gives a bluer image for the
Canson Photo HiGloss image (presumably because of the FWA compensation?)).



Many thanks, once again!



Robert



(BTW - the profiles generated using Argyll are really excellent, better than
the Canson-supplied profiles and better than the Z3100-generated profiles).

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Hi Bill,



<<I gather that you are converting in Photoshop, from whatever RGB to your
Custom Printer profile, created with Argyll.>>

No, I'm not doing any conversions; I'm just using Photoshop's soft-proofing.
Actually, I've just posted a reply to Graeme giving a (hopefully) clearer
and fuller breakdown of my workflow.



You can download the batch files I'm currently using here: http://
<http://www.irelandupclose.com/customer/softproofing/batch-files.zip>
www.irelandupclose.com/customer/softproofing/batch-files.zip (assuming
you're using Windows).



If you want to try them out you'll have to do a bit of editing otherwise
you'll have things like HPZ3100 as the printer description (not that this
will do much harm). Also, if you look at p4-make-profile.bat you will see
that I'm generating a whole bunch of profiles, which you most likely won't
want to do!



You can run p-make-full-profile and this will guide you through the whole
process.



I can send you the profiles I'm using, but even though you're using a Solux
lamp this won't be at the same color temperature as mine (there seems to be
quite a variation between the bulbs . have you found that?); also, do you
use Canson Platine? If not, it's a great paper!



For the Photo Hi Gloss . the Argyll FWA compensation is not working (for me,
at least), so before doing anything further I would like to see if Graeme
can help me out there. Have you tried it out, and does it work for you? If
it does, could you check my commands to see if I'm doing anything wrong?



I'm getting a reading of a:12 b:27 off the Hi Gloss with a CCT of 4250K.
With the Platine I'm getting a reading of a: 12, b:31 with a CCT of 4080K,
so there isn't much difference between them. The Solux lamp is giving a CCT
of 4070K, which confirms (to me :-)) that the Platine has no FWA whereas the
Hi Gloss does. The Canson spec says that the Platine has no optical
brightening agents, but it says nothing about this for the PhotoHighGloss
Premium RC, so clearly it does have some.



As you say, with Solux lamps there won't be much fluorescence - however
there will be some. When I say that the Hi Gloss soft-proof is a bit bluer
than the Platine soft-proof, I do mean just a little bit. But that little
bit should presumably be cancelled out by the FWA compensation, which it
isn't.



I've thought about modifying the monitor to make it fit the soft-proof
better (the Eizo ColorNavigator has a lovely feature to allow one to do
that, by moving the white point manually), but that would be the last option
for me, only if I can't get the color management to do it for me. Part of
the reason is that ColorNavigator modifies the calibration/profile when you
move the white point, so the soft-proofing would now be using this new
profile, presumably cancelling out the change! What I could do is to
abandon soft-proofing altogether and calibrate/profile the monitor to my
Solux lamp and paper - but then I would be using the display way out of its
comfort zone, which doesn't seem a good idea.



Cheers,



Robert











_____

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Roger Breton
Sent: 03 June 2014 21:02
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!



Wow! Your setup seems to work quite well.

I wish you would use more descriptive "profile name".



I gather that you are converting in Photoshop, from whatever RGB to your
Custom Printer profile, created with Argyll.



I'm curious to "see" what you are seeing. (I would be interested in
obtaining some of your files, to test them out here).



But, if you are getting a good visual match to your monitor using Canson
Platine, that is no guarantee that the same recipe will yield the same
quality using the Canson Photo HiGloss. That's just the nature of FWA.



One approach that would be worth trying is to calibrated and profiled your
Eizo to the Canson Photo HiGloss visual appearance, as illuminated by the
Solux lamp instead of calibrating and profiling to native. Using your eye
might help take into account some of the fluorescence into consideration.



One thing to ponder, though. Solux is an incandescent light source. As such,
it does not excite much fluorescence from any paper.



Now, the fact that your paper simulation with Canson Photo HiGloss appears
"bluish" is a good indication that the i1pro is getting an impression from
the substrate that it is VERY blue. Is that the case? Are you getting a
relatively high negative b* value, like -5 or -6 or -7? If that is the case
then it explains why the output profile is fooled into thinking that it
needs to sprinkle so much yellow on the print, to neutralize the bluish
appearance of the substrate.



With FWA, the devil is in the measurement. Always. And measuring with a UV
filter is not the solution.



Best / Roger





From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Sent: 3 juin 2014 15:23
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!



Hi Roger,



I'm not sure about the success! I'm still trying to get this right, and the
reason for my post was to ask whether or not I'm doing the soft-proofing
correctly. At the moment I have an issue with the FWA compensation which
doesn't seem to work (I have another post about this).



But at any rate, the soft-proofing certainly looks pretty good (especially
on papers with no FWA), whether or not I have the technical side right
(hopefully you or Graeme or someone can set my mind at ease :-)).



Regarding the SoLux lamp. I don't have your issue because I'm only viewing
an area of around 16"x12" (because I want the print to be the same size as
the soft-proof . as I think that if it is larger or smaller it will affect
how it looks). So I have the lamp about 1m away, directed downwards, with
'blinkers' on it to focus the beam onto the print. You can see my (very
experimental!) setup here:
http:www.irelandupclose.com/customer/softproofing.



To view large prints I think you would need to use multiple lights arranged
in a square, perhaps, with a diffuser in front to get as constant an
illumination as possible. Of course there's bound to be some variation
between the lamps. On the positive side, you wouldn't be viewing the print
side-by-side with the monitor in this case, so containing the light wouldn't
be a problem.



I'm really trying hard to get this right (and it isn't easy as there's the
paper, the light, the ink, the monitor, the profiles, Photoshop, Argyll,
ColorNavigator .. enough to give anyone a headache :-)), so any and all
advice would be highly welcome!!



Robert



_____

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Roger Breton
Sent: 03 June 2014 17:15
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Cc: robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!



Hi Robert,



One quick question, about your success with the Solux lamp.

I have been a faithful user of the 4700K lamp for years.

But I have never achieve a uniform beam?

In my humble experience, the lamp has to be placed quite a distance from the
viewing area to form a reasonably wide uniform lighting area, something like
one meter is not far-fetched. As you know, the fall-off is very rapid,
quickly shift down to 3000K in a span for a few inches from the center beam.
And the new generation of "coated" inside bulb has not alleviate the problem
of beam uniformity for me.

BTW, thank you for the detailed account of your information. Makes tracing
your logic a breeze.



Best / Roger Breton



From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Sent: 1 juin 2014 18:55
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction to
my last post!



Hi,



I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!



To start off with, my work area is set up as follows:

- Monitor: good quality wide gamut (Eizo CG277), calibrated and
profiled to Native, 6500K, 80cd/m2, Gamma 2.2 (default values for the
CG277).

- Profiling: i1Pro2 / i1D3 / CG277-built-in-colorimeter. Eizo
ColorNavigator is used for the monitor (hardware) calibration and profiling
(i1Pro2 as reference).

- A 4700K SoLux lamp (which actually has a temperature of around 4200K
according to Argyll/i1Pro2) for viewing the image. I adjust the luminance by
moving the lamp forward or backward. The lamps have a good SPD with low UV.



What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour management
and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as follows:



- I run illumread -S -c1 -H PROFILENAME.sp

- I create two profiles as follows:

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -iPROFILENAME.sp -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME.icc i1Chart

o colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -DPROFILENAME -qh
-SMONITORPROFILENAME.icc -cmd -dpe -OPROFILENAME_NoSP.icc i1Chart

- I print using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc profile

- I soft-proof using the PROFILENAME.icc with Simulate Paper White on.



This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be relied
on, or if it's technically correct. Softproofing with PROFILENAME.icc gives
the right paper white and the colors seem to match very well (on two test
prints, one with paper which has no FWA: Canson Platine; and one that does:
Canson Photo HiGloss). Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the
profile used to print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?



My reasoning is that PROFILENAME.icc has the correct illuminant / paper
information so it will soft-proof correctly, but it should not be used to
print (doing a Convert to Profile in Photoshop gives a bluer image for the
Canson Photo HiGloss image (presumably because of the FWA compensation?)).



Many thanks, once again!



Robert



(BTW - the profiles generated using Argyll are really excellent, better than
the Canson-supplied profiles and better than the Z3100-generated profiles).

[Graeme Gill]

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!
What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour management
This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be relied
on, or if it's technically correct.

Hi,

There are a lot of details missing in regard to your soft proofing.

For instance, you don't say how you are actually doing it,
ie. what profiles form the rendering chain for your soft proof,
what intents are used, or what CMM is being used. You are at
the mercy of all of those elements, + the way the profiles are set up.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the
profile used to print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?

This depends on the rendering intent - anything but absolute should give
the same white for both profiles, since the white will be the paper color.

Graeme Gill.

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Hello Graeme,

Here are the commands I'm using for the Canson Platine profile:

targen -v -d2 -G -e8 -B8 -c " HP_Z3100_Canson Platine 310_Canson
Profile.icc" -f866 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine (note: the reference profile is
supplied by Canson)

printtarg -v -ii1 -a1.0 -T300 -M6 -pA4 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

chartread HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

illumread -S -c1 -H "HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine".sp

colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"
-f"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

rem colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"
-D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated.icc"
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

The monitor is hardware calibrated and profiled using the Eizo
ColorNavigator with the i1Pro2: Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc

The HPZ3100 printer is calibrated using its built-in spectrometer. The
Z3100 is a 12-ink printer, so I guess using the built-in calibration is a
better option rather than trying to calibrate it with the i1Pro2.

Obviously, the printer is profiled using Argyll :).

I check the generated profiles using iccgamut and viewgam (and also using
GamutVision as this shows extra things like Black & White density response).

I use Lightroom to print and Photoshop CS6 to soft-proof. Both use the
Adobe ACE CMM engine.

My document's profile is Adobe RGB.

The monitor profile is Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc

Photoshop's working space is Adobe RGB.

I print the document from Lightroom using Relative Colorimetric with the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc profile (produced by colprof without -i & -f).

I softproof in Photoshop.

I set the soft-proof "Device to Simulate" to either
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or to
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated (makes no difference
as per my previous post).

I set the soft-proof "Rendering Intent" to Relative Colorimetric, "Black
Point Compensation" on, "Simulate Paper Color" on.

BTW, I don't know what Photoshop CS6 (or Lightroom) is doing, but all
rendering intents simulate the paper color: so using the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp in all cases does not give the simulated paper
white with Solux lighting (it gives the D50 simulated paper white), whereas
using HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated does, again in all
cases. I've also created D50 and D65 profiles (-iD50 -fD50 and -iD65
-fD65): when soft-proofed with the D50 profile changing from the print to
the softproof profile makes no difference, as expected; selecting the D65
profile with simulated paper color ON gives a much bluer color than with
simulated paper color OFF, which seems wrong as the monitor was profiled to
6500K and currently has a CCT of 6600K).

The only other thing I do is to view the image on the monitor in a darkened
room at full screen mode, so no other whites to fool the eyes, and I
illuminate the paper using the Solux lamp. The paper and monitor are side by
side and the images are the same size. I have a rig that prevents light from
the lamp shining on the monitor or other surface, so that just the paper is
illuminated).

I can't think of anything else to add :). Is this workflow essentially
correct, or is there a fatal flaw in it?

Many thanks!

Robert

p.s Once I get this sorted out correctly (with your help, needless to say)
I'll write a tutorial on how to do it, including batch files (this would
have been VERY helpful to me, although I have to say that doing it the hard
way is a great learning exercise, if one has the time).


-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Graeme Gill
Sent: 04 June 2014 07:07
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!
What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour management
This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be relied
on, or if it's technically correct.

Hi,

There are a lot of details missing in regard to your soft proofing.

For instance, you don't say how you are actually doing it,
ie. what profiles form the rendering chain for your soft proof,
what intents are used, or what CMM is being used. You are at
the mercy of all of those elements, + the way the profiles are set up.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the
profile used to print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?

This depends on the rendering intent - anything but absolute should give
the same white for both profiles, since the white will be the paper color.

Graeme Gill.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Robert,

I hesitate to weigh in here but will do so anyway. Your schema outlined
below seems awfully convoluted. With the caveat that I print on an Epson
3880, I do the following:

I generate my own paper profile from scratch using Argyll and do not rely on
the Canson profile (or any other manufacturer's profile for that matter). I
have used Canson Platine quite a bit but my preferable paper is Museo Silver
Rag which has a darker Dmax. I also include a 51 step B/W patch set when
I'm profiling as I often use the profile for B/W printing in addition to
color. I try as much as possible to avoid papers with FWAs or use only
those that have minimal ones (such as the now gone lford Gold Fiber Silk).
It's been my experience that the Argyll profiles that I generate are always
a little better than the manufacturers. In addition to looking at gamut
size, I always print out the test print from this website:
http://outbackprint.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html

What is not clear to me is why you are generating all these profiles using
Argyll and what they are for. The goal of soft proofing is to match what
you see on the screen to the output as closely as possible. I soft proof
from Lightroom now that it has that feature and pretty much don't use
Photoshop much at all these days. I pretty much follow Jeff Schewe's work
flow as outlined on pages 147-157 in his excellent book, "The Digital
Print". I have a NEC monitor that is profiled with their Spectraview
software and view my prints under a Solux lamp. I get a good match.

I don't have any images hanging in museums where the lighting is carefully
controlled. They are mostly in homes and offices where I have no control
over the viewing conditions so the Solux view is just to get my perspective
on what the best print looks like.

Also, why do you use AdobeRGB for your Photoshop workspace? Why not use
ProPhoto? Your printer has a greater gamut than AdobeRGB.

I hope this is helpful.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:56 AM
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!

Hello Graeme,

Here are the commands I'm using for the Canson Platine profile:

targen -v -d2 -G -e8 -B8 -c " HP_Z3100_Canson Platine 310_Canson
Profile.icc" -f866 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine (note: the reference profile is
supplied by Canson)

printtarg -v -ii1 -a1.0 -T300 -M6 -pA4 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

chartread HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

illumread -S -c1 -H "HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine".sp

colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"
-f"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

rem colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"
-D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated.icc"
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

The monitor is hardware calibrated and profiled using the Eizo
ColorNavigator with the i1Pro2: Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc

The HPZ3100 printer is calibrated using its built-in spectrometer. The
Z3100 is a 12-ink printer, so I guess using the built-in calibration is a
better option rather than trying to calibrate it with the i1Pro2.

Obviously, the printer is profiled using Argyll :).

I check the generated profiles using iccgamut and viewgam (and also using
GamutVision as this shows extra things like Black & White density response).

I use Lightroom to print and Photoshop CS6 to soft-proof. Both use the
Adobe ACE CMM engine.

My document's profile is Adobe RGB.

The monitor profile is Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc

Photoshop's working space is Adobe RGB.

I print the document from Lightroom using Relative Colorimetric with the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc profile (produced by colprof without -i & -f).

I softproof in Photoshop.

I set the soft-proof "Device to Simulate" to either
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or to
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated (makes no difference
as per my previous post).

I set the soft-proof "Rendering Intent" to Relative Colorimetric, "Black
Point Compensation" on, "Simulate Paper Color" on.

BTW, I don't know what Photoshop CS6 (or Lightroom) is doing, but all
rendering intents simulate the paper color: so using the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp in all cases does not give the simulated paper
white with Solux lighting (it gives the D50 simulated paper white), whereas
using HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated does, again in all
cases. I've also created D50 and D65 profiles (-iD50 -fD50 and -iD65
-fD65): when soft-proofed with the D50 profile changing from the print to
the softproof profile makes no difference, as expected; selecting the D65
profile with simulated paper color ON gives a much bluer color than with
simulated paper color OFF, which seems wrong as the monitor was profiled to
6500K and currently has a CCT of 6600K).

The only other thing I do is to view the image on the monitor in a darkened
room at full screen mode, so no other whites to fool the eyes, and I
illuminate the paper using the Solux lamp. The paper and monitor are side by
side and the images are the same size. I have a rig that prevents light from
the lamp shining on the monitor or other surface, so that just the paper is
illuminated).

I can't think of anything else to add :). Is this workflow essentially
correct, or is there a fatal flaw in it?

Many thanks!

Robert

p.s Once I get this sorted out correctly (with your help, needless to say)
I'll write a tutorial on how to do it, including batch files (this would
have been VERY helpful to me, although I have to say that doing it the hard
way is a great learning exercise, if one has the time).


-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Graeme Gill
Sent: 04 June 2014 07:07
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!
What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour
management and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as
This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be
relied on, or if it's technically correct.

Hi,

There are a lot of details missing in regard to your soft proofing.

For instance, you don't say how you are actually doing it, ie. what profiles
form the rendering chain for your soft proof, what intents are used, or what
CMM is being used. You are at the mercy of all of those elements, + the way
the profiles are set up.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the profile used to
print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?

This depends on the rendering intent - anything but absolute should give the
same white for both profiles, since the white will be the paper color.

Graeme Gill.

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Hi Alan

Thank you for your help ... at this stage I'm just trying to figure out how
best to do the soft-proofing and I don't at all pretend that my workflow is
anywhere near optimal or correct, so your suggestions are certainly much
appreciated!

Here are some answers to your comments:

<<I generate my own paper profile from scratch using Argyll and do not rely
on the Canson profile (or any other manufacturer's profile for that matter).
Yes, as do I. The Canson profile is only used as a reference profile to
help Argyll (targen) with the selection of patches. It isn't used after
this. I don't know if using this particular reference profile improves the
patch selection or not, but as it comes from Canson it's the best that I can
think of.

<< I have used Canson Platine quite a bit but my preferable paper is Museo
Silver Rag which has a darker Dmax. I also include a 51 step B/W patch set
when I'm profiling as I often use the profile for B/W printing in addition
to color.>>

Well, of course what paper one uses is a question of personal preference and
subject matter. I haven't use the Museo Silver Rag, so I can't comment, but
I'm getting a DMax of 2.22 on the Platine using Argyll, which I think is
pretty OK. I don't print much black and white but when I do I usually use
the Canson Baryta.

<< I try as much as possible to avoid papers with FWAs.>>

Yes, same here. I use the Canson Photo HighGloss for prints that are
laminated under acrylic. For that I need a high gloss, very, very smooth
surface, and the Canson HighGloss is perfect. It's also a brilliant paper
with a DMax of 2.47 (Argyll again).

<< What is not clear to me is why you are generating all these profiles
using Argyll and what they are for. The goal of soft proofing is to match
what you see on the screen to the output as closely as possible. I soft
proof from Lightroom now that it has that feature and pretty much don't use
Photoshop much at all these days.>>

Well I'm not generating so many profiles! Just 2. One for the print and
one for the soft-proof. As I mentioned in my post, I'm not sure if I'm
doing the right thing here. Clearly I would prefer only to generate one
profile - and perhaps the one I call Soft_Proof would do both the print and
the soft-proof. The problem I have is that I don't understand how icc
profiles work, so I'm trying to play it safe and not confuse the CMM by what
may be changing the temperature from D50 to my Solux bulb temperature.

My goal is absolutely to match the print to the monitor image. And my reason
for doing this is to avoid having to do multiple prints to get the print
right. If I can rely on the monitor to be 95% close to the printed image
then I can print full-size, hopefully only once, without having to do 2 or 3
test prints first.

I would also use Lightroom to soft-proof, but unfortunately when you put
Lightroom into full-screen mode it turns off the soft-proofing (or at least
it turns off the simulate paper white). That means that there is no way not
to have monitor white on the screen with the proof, and this messes up the
eye. So I use Photoshop in full-screen mode, with nothing but the image on
the screen.

I find that using Lightroom's Paper White background just doesn't work for
me because the simulated white just looks yellow. My eyes do not adjust to
the 'white' on the display as it would to the 'white' on the paper. Here is
a very interesting article that explains why:
http://www.color-image.com/2012/02/monitor-calibration-d65-white-point-soft-
proofing/. To be honest, this puts the whole question of soft-proofing in
doubt for me, because it implies that one should only soft-proof when the
print is viewed alongside the monitor image, otherwise the eye will always
see the image as too yellow (unless the soft-proof is at D65). In fact I
was caught by this today when I printed an image that seemed fine on the
monitor, but was really too blue on print. When I compared the two
side-by-side they were almost identical. Perhaps the solution is to have a
piece of white paper beside the monitor, illuminated by the Solux bulb,
while the soft-proofed image is being adjusted, and to keep referring back
to this white while adjusting the image.

<< I don't have any images hanging in museums where the lighting is
carefully controlled. They are mostly in homes and offices where I have no
control over the viewing conditions so the Solux view is just to get my
perspective on what the best print looks like.>>

The same is true for me. However, my reason for using a fixed light like the
Solux is that it gives me a reference that I can get used to so that I can
print in a consistent manner. Then I have to rely on the eyes' chromatic
adaptation mechanism to make the print look right under different lighting
conditions: and this does seem to work pretty well on the whole. Of course
some lighting/ink/paper/image combinations will mess up the colours, and in
that case I think it's a question of changing the lighting or profiling for
that particular light.

<< Also, why do you use AdobeRGB for your Photoshop workspace? Why not use
ProPhoto?>>

I don't use ProPhoto because its gamut is way bigger than both my monitor's
and printer's gamut, and so I think it's more likely to cause me problems
than help me produce a good print. Lightroom uses something like it, which
is fine at the RAW stage when you don't want to be throwing away any
information, but I always finish my prints in Photoshop (although I print
using Lightroom) and for that I prefer to work in a colour space that's
close to both my monitor and printer.

Thanks for your suggestions!

Robert


-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Alan Goldhammer
Sent: 04 June 2014 19:57
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!

Robert,

I hesitate to weigh in here but will do so anyway. Your schema outlined
below seems awfully convoluted. With the caveat that I print on an Epson
3880, I do the following:

I generate my own paper profile from scratch using Argyll and do not rely on
the Canson profile (or any other manufacturer's profile for that matter). I
have used Canson Platine quite a bit but my preferable paper is Museo Silver
Rag which has a darker Dmax. I also include a 51 step B/W patch set when
I'm profiling as I often use the profile for B/W printing in addition to
color. I try as much as possible to avoid papers with FWAs or use only
those that have minimal ones (such as the now gone lford Gold Fiber Silk).
It's been my experience that the Argyll profiles that I generate are always
a little better than the manufacturers. In addition to looking at gamut
size, I always print out the test print from this website:
http://outbackprint.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html

What is not clear to me is why you are generating all these profiles using
Argyll and what they are for. The goal of soft proofing is to match what
you see on the screen to the output as closely as possible. I soft proof
from Lightroom now that it has that feature and pretty much don't use
Photoshop much at all these days. I pretty much follow Jeff Schewe's work
flow as outlined on pages 147-157 in his excellent book, "The Digital
Print". I have a NEC monitor that is profiled with their Spectraview
software and view my prints under a Solux lamp. I get a good match.

I don't have any images hanging in museums where the lighting is carefully
controlled. They are mostly in homes and offices where I have no control
over the viewing conditions so the Solux view is just to get my perspective
on what the best print looks like.

Also, why do you use AdobeRGB for your Photoshop workspace? Why not use
ProPhoto? Your printer has a greater gamut than AdobeRGB.

I hope this is helpful.

Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of robert-/***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:56 AM
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!

Hello Graeme,

Here are the commands I'm using for the Canson Platine profile:

targen -v -d2 -G -e8 -B8 -c " HP_Z3100_Canson Platine 310_Canson
Profile.icc" -f866 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine (note: the reference profile is
supplied by Canson)

printtarg -v -ii1 -a1.0 -T300 -M6 -pA4 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

chartread HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

illumread -S -c1 -H "HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine".sp

colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"
-f"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

rem colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"
-D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated" -qh
-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe
-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated.icc"
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine

The monitor is hardware calibrated and profiled using the Eizo
ColorNavigator with the i1Pro2: Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc

The HPZ3100 printer is calibrated using its built-in spectrometer. The
Z3100 is a 12-ink printer, so I guess using the built-in calibration is a
better option rather than trying to calibrate it with the i1Pro2.

Obviously, the printer is profiled using Argyll :).

I check the generated profiles using iccgamut and viewgam (and also using
GamutVision as this shows extra things like Black & White density response).

I use Lightroom to print and Photoshop CS6 to soft-proof. Both use the
Adobe ACE CMM engine.

My document's profile is Adobe RGB.

The monitor profile is Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc

Photoshop's working space is Adobe RGB.

I print the document from Lightroom using Relative Colorimetric with the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc profile (produced by colprof without -i & -f).

I softproof in Photoshop.

I set the soft-proof "Device to Simulate" to either
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or to
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated (makes no difference
as per my previous post).

I set the soft-proof "Rendering Intent" to Relative Colorimetric, "Black
Point Compensation" on, "Simulate Paper Color" on.

BTW, I don't know what Photoshop CS6 (or Lightroom) is doing, but all
rendering intents simulate the paper color: so using the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp in all cases does not give the simulated paper
white with Solux lighting (it gives the D50 simulated paper white), whereas
using HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated does, again in all
cases. I've also created D50 and D65 profiles (-iD50 -fD50 and -iD65
-fD65): when soft-proofed with the D50 profile changing from the print to
the softproof profile makes no difference, as expected; selecting the D65
profile with simulated paper color ON gives a much bluer color than with
simulated paper color OFF, which seems wrong as the monitor was profiled to
6500K and currently has a CCT of 6600K).

The only other thing I do is to view the image on the monitor in a darkened
room at full screen mode, so no other whites to fool the eyes, and I
illuminate the paper using the Solux lamp. The paper and monitor are side by
side and the images are the same size. I have a rig that prevents light from
the lamp shining on the monitor or other surface, so that just the paper is
illuminated).

I can't think of anything else to add :). Is this workflow essentially
correct, or is there a fatal flaw in it?

Many thanks!

Robert

p.s Once I get this sorted out correctly (with your help, needless to say)
I'll write a tutorial on how to do it, including batch files (this would
have been VERY helpful to me, although I have to say that doing it the hard
way is a great learning exercise, if one has the time).


-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Graeme Gill
Sent: 04 June 2014 07:07
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction
to my last post!

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would
really appreciate a bit of help!
What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour
management and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as
This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely.
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be
relied on, or if it's technically correct.

Hi,

There are a lot of details missing in regard to your soft proofing.

For instance, you don't say how you are actually doing it, ie. what profiles
form the rendering chain for your soft proof, what intents are used, or what
CMM is being used. You are at the mercy of all of those elements, + the way
the profiles are set up.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the profile used to
print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?

This depends on the rendering intent - anything but absolute should give the
same white for both profiles, since the white will be the paper color.

Graeme Gill.

[r***@public.gmane.org]

Hi Graeme,



I know I'm being a pest, but I would really appreciate an answer as to
whether my softproofing workflow is a legitimate way of softproofing or not.
As I said, the results are good and the workflow makes sense to me - but I
really don't understand the technicalities so I could well be doing
something wrong.



So:

* Is the basic technique OK?

* Why does FWA compensation seem to make virtually no difference when
I'm using a paper which I know to have FWA? I'm comparing an image and its
copy visually in Photoshop softproofing (with and without FWA compensation),
and also by:

o Converting the image and its copy from Adobe RGB to the printer
Profile (with and without FWA respectively)

o Assigning Adobe RGB to the converted images

o Comparing the resultant files by putting them in layers (one above
the other) in Photoshop and setting the top layer mode to Difference (and
using a Levels command to enhance the difference . essentially no
difference)



Also, is there some way of manually adjusting the white point in the sp
file? I'm finding that my softproof is a little on the warm side compared
to my monitor: I can adjust the monitor white point using the Eizo
ColorNavigator (and I then get an almost perfect match), but I would much
prefer to make the softproof a little cooler as I would then not to have to
change the monitor profile when I softproof different papers (that might
need slightly different tweaking of the white point). Also not all monitors
have software that can do white point adjustment like ColorNavigator.



Many thanks,



Robert







-----Original Message-----

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]

On Behalf Of robert-/***@public.gmane.org

Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:56 AM

To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org

Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction

to my last post!



Hello Graeme,



Here are the commands I'm using for the Canson Platine profile:



targen -v -d2 -G -e8 -B8 -c " HP_Z3100_Canson Platine 310_Canson

Profile.icc" -f866 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine (note: the reference profile is

supplied by Canson)



printtarg -v -ii1 -a1.0 -T300 -M6 -pA4 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine



chartread HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine



illumread -S -c1 -H "HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine".sp



colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine" -qh

-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe

-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine



colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"

-f"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof" -qh

-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe

-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine



rem colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp"

-D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated" -qh

-S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe

-O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated.icc"

HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine



The monitor is hardware calibrated and profiled using the Eizo

ColorNavigator with the i1Pro2: Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc



The HPZ3100 printer is calibrated using its built-in spectrometer. The

Z3100 is a 12-ink printer, so I guess using the built-in calibration is a

better option rather than trying to calibrate it with the i1Pro2.



Obviously, the printer is profiled using Argyll :).



I check the generated profiles using iccgamut and viewgam (and also using

GamutVision as this shows extra things like Black & White density response).



I use Lightroom to print and Photoshop CS6 to soft-proof. Both use the

Adobe ACE CMM engine.



My document's profile is Adobe RGB.



The monitor profile is Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc



Photoshop's working space is Adobe RGB.



I print the document from Lightroom using Relative Colorimetric with the

HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc profile (produced by colprof without -i & -f).



I softproof in Photoshop.



I set the soft-proof "Device to Simulate" to either

HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or to

HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated (makes no difference

as per my previous post).



I set the soft-proof "Rendering Intent" to Relative Colorimetric, "Black

Point Compensation" on, "Simulate Paper Color" on.



BTW, I don't know what Photoshop CS6 (or Lightroom) is doing, but all

rendering intents simulate the paper color: so using the

HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp in all cases does not give the simulated paper

white with Solux lighting (it gives the D50 simulated paper white), whereas

using HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or

HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated does, again in all

cases. I've also created D50 and D65 profiles (-iD50 -fD50 and -iD65

-fD65): when soft-proofed with the D50 profile changing from the print to

the softproof profile makes no difference, as expected; selecting the D65

profile with simulated paper color ON gives a much bluer color than with

simulated paper color OFF, which seems wrong as the monitor was profiled to

6500K and currently has a CCT of 6600K).



The only other thing I do is to view the image on the monitor in a darkened

room at full screen mode, so no other whites to fool the eyes, and I

illuminate the paper using the Solux lamp. The paper and monitor are side by

side and the images are the same size. I have a rig that prevents light from

the lamp shining on the monitor or other surface, so that just the paper is

illuminated).



I can't think of anything else to add :). Is this workflow essentially

correct, or is there a fatal flaw in it?



Many thanks!



Robert



p.s Once I get this sorted out correctly (with your help, needless to say)

I'll write a tutorial on how to do it, including batch files (this would

have been VERY helpful to me, although I have to say that doing it the hard

way is a great learning exercise, if one has the time).





-----Original Message-----

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]

On Behalf Of Graeme Gill

Sent: 04 June 2014 07:07

To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org

Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction

to my last post!

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I

would

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
really appreciate a bit of help!
What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour
management and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as
This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very

closely.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be
relied on, or if it's technically correct.

Hi,



There are a lot of details missing in regard to your soft proofing.



For instance, you don't say how you are actually doing it, ie. what profiles

form the rendering chain for your soft proof, what intents are used, or what

CMM is being used. You are at the mercy of all of those elements, + the way

the profiles are set up.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the profile used to
print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too
blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50?

This depends on the rendering intent - anything but absolute should give the

same white for both profiles, since the white will be the paper color.



Graeme Gill.

[Graeme Gill]

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I find that using Lightroom's Paper White background just doesn't work for
me because the simulated white just looks yellow. My eyes do not adjust to
the 'white' on the display as it would to the 'white' on the paper. Here is
http://www.color-image.com/2012/02/monitor-calibration-d65-white-point-soft-
proofing/.

I've come across various explanations as to why softproofed images look
too yellow on a display, but the explanations were all different, and I
found none of them completely convincing. And in developing a softproofing
product, we didn't notice such an effect. When we got the XYZ numbers to match,
the display was an extremely close match to the print.

Trying to softproof on a display showing other elements that have
a white that is not the same as the softproof paper color will certainly
not work - you're eye will be in a mixed state of adaptation at best.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I don't use ProPhoto because its gamut is way bigger than both my monitor's
and printer's gamut, and so I think it's more likely to cause me problems
than help me produce a good print.

Any super-large gamut space has to be treated with caution. If you
convert from it and take the full colorspace as the source gamut,
you will end up with a terrible result.

Graeme Gill.

[Graeme Gill]

robert-/***@public.gmane.org wrote:

Hi,

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I use Lightroom to print and Photoshop CS6 to soft-proof. Both use the
Adobe ACE CMM engine.
My document's profile is Adobe RGB.
The monitor profile is Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc
Photoshop's working space is Adobe RGB.
I print the document from Lightroom using Relative Colorimetric with the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc profile (produced by colprof without -i & -f).
I softproof in Photoshop.
I set the soft-proof "Device to Simulate" to either

.
.
.

Well, unfortunately I'm not familiar with any of the details of all those programs,
and certainly am not in a position to investigate or duplicate such a workflow,
so I can't really help with such detail.

I can explain in general how color profiles work and how CMM's typically
work with them, but it's up to you or others familiar with the details
of particular systems to figure out how it is really working.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
I set the soft-proof "Rendering Intent" to Relative Colorimetric, "Black
Point Compensation" on, "Simulate Paper Color" on.

That sounds rather contradictory. "Simulate Paper Color" == absolute colorimetric
in my books, yet you've selected Relative Colorimetric. So it's hard to guess
what what Photoshop is actually doing.

It may well be doing a mixed intent transform which is making the input
print profile be absolute colorimetric and the output display profile
relative colorimetric. This is not true soft proofing, since there will
be a white point shift (unless the display is set to the same white point
as the print viewing conditions). Also, Black Point Compensation will
probably wreck any true soft proofing, since it will stretch the actual
paper black down to the display black.

But I gather many people like this sort of "print simulation" since
it makes for a memory match, and avoids the adaptation issues that arise
when other UI elements are on the screen, but it's unlikely to pass scrutiny
in a side by side proof comparison with a print.

Post by r***@public.gmane.org
BTW, I don't know what Photoshop CS6 (or Lightroom) is doing, but all
rendering intents simulate the paper color: so using the
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp in all cases does not give the simulated paper
white with Solux lighting (it gives the D50 simulated paper white), whereas
using HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or
HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated does, again in all
cases. I've also created D50 and D65 profiles (-iD50 -fD50 and -iD65
-fD65): when soft-proofed with the D50 profile changing from the print to
the softproof profile makes no difference, as expected; selecting the D65
profile with simulated paper color ON gives a much bluer color than with
simulated paper color OFF, which seems wrong as the monitor was profiled to
6500K and currently has a CCT of 6600K).

Doing a true soft proof with a typical 65K white point display filled
with UI elements is not easy. You either have to be able to switch
the white point of all the elements on the display including the UI
(something that can only be done by a VideoLUT/vcgt change),
or do a full screen soft proof to remove all the UI elements, or
calibrate the screen to have the same white point as the paper you
are trying to proof. In any case, a true soft proof will use
absolute colorimetric rendering throughout (something ICC V4
profiles are incapable of by the way, although calibrating the screen
white point is a workaround).

In an ideal soft proof setup you should be able to point a tele-spectrometer
at the print in the lighting booth and the display and get the same XYZ values
for each picture element.

Graeme Gill.