Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.

[Michael Gallagher]

Hi everyone. I have been trying to make watercolor reproductions on
traditional cold press watercolor paper, unfortunately with very mixed
results using existing profiles. Luckily I got my hands on a Colormunki to
fix this, and using the Colormunki software with only 3 targets (130
patches total) I was able to make the best matched print I've ever made.
It's definitely not quite there though.

So, I thought I'd take it to the next level and produce an even greater
profile, so with ArgyllCMS I generated a target with 1,050 patches, printed
it out using the ColorSync app with the setting "Print as color target"
(this turns off color management based on what I have read), and read it in
with the ColorMunki with the following commands:

targen -v -d2 -f1050 -R -G 1050patch_Arches

printtarg -v2 -iCM -h -t360 -a.6 -m0.0 -M0.0 -P -p190x320 1050patch_Arches

chartread -v -H -B -T0.4 1050patch_Arches

After reading in all the patches, I grabbed my local AdobeRGB1998.icc from
my ColorSync folder (as I've read you're supposed to do), copied it to my
working directory and used this command to generate the profile:

colprof -v -qh -S AdobeRGB1998.icc -dpp -D "Arches 300gsm Canon Pro 100"
1050patch_Arches

And here are the results (I apologize for picture quality) with the
original on top, the Colormunki software profile on the bottom left, and
Argyll's profile on the bottom right. This was printed on my Canon Pro 100
in Photoshop with relative colormetric selected:

http://imgur.com/CnbDset

Notice the blacks are completely missing in the face and the clipping on
the blue wash on the side. It is difficult to tell from this picture, but
there is a green cast as well. Also, here's a 3D view from the ColorSync
app comparing the Colormunki generated profile and ArgyllCMS, with the
smaller ArgyllCMS profile in color and the Colormunki shown in a white
outline. It's obvious that there's quite a bit less coverage in Argyll's
profile. To be honest, I'm baffled that the gamut is so much smaller
considering I used more than 8x the patches with Argyll:

http://imgur.com/DkJwdy5

Perhaps I've missed a valuable step in generating my profile - based on
what I can see, I did not specify any additional grays with the -g command,
hence the complete lack of gray details. I'm a complete novice at
profiling, but I was really hoping that 1,050 patches would produce a
superior profile to the 130 patch Colormunki profile. If anyone has any
ideas as to what might have gone wrong here, or what else I need to do to
improve this profile, I would greatly appreciate any help.

Thank you,

Mike

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

Hi Michael,



In general you seem to be doing the right thing. However you shouldn't have
the -H (high res) argument in chartread, or the -T argument (read
tolerance). Only use the -T if you are getting misreads, and then you
should make it >1, not <1.

The Argyll-generated gamut seems quite wrong, but then again so does the
Colormunki-generated one. There are some weird nobs and dips that really
shouldn't be there.

My guess is either that the print is wrong, or the scanning was wrong. Try
rescanning your targets without the -H and -T arguments in chartread. If
that still gives a very poor profile then the most likely problem is with
the prints.

I've never used the Colormunki (I use an i1Pro2) so there could be issues
there that I'm not aware of (could be that with that instrument you would be
better using fewer spot colors).



At any rate you are in the right place to get help.



Robert



_____

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Gallagher
Sent: 04 October 2014 18:57
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.



Hi everyone. I have been trying to make watercolor reproductions on
traditional cold press watercolor paper, unfortunately with very mixed
results using existing profiles. Luckily I got my hands on a Colormunki to
fix this, and using the Colormunki software with only 3 targets (130 patches
total) I was able to make the best matched print I've ever made. It's
definitely not quite there though.



So, I thought I'd take it to the next level and produce an even greater
profile, so with ArgyllCMS I generated a target with 1,050 patches, printed
it out using the ColorSync app with the setting "Print as color target"
(this turns off color management based on what I have read), and read it in
with the ColorMunki with the following commands:



targen -v -d2 -f1050 -R -G 1050patch_Arches



printtarg -v2 -iCM -h -t360 -a.6 -m0.0 -M0.0 -P -p190x320 1050patch_Arches



chartread -v -H -B -T0.4 1050patch_Arches



After reading in all the patches, I grabbed my local AdobeRGB1998.icc from
my ColorSync folder (as I've read you're supposed to do), copied it to my
working directory and used this command to generate the profile:



colprof -v -qh -S AdobeRGB1998.icc -dpp -D "Arches 300gsm Canon Pro 100"
1050patch_Arches



And here are the results (I apologize for picture quality) with the original
on top, the Colormunki software profile on the bottom left, and Argyll's
profile on the bottom right. This was printed on my Canon Pro 100 in
Photoshop with relative colormetric selected:



http://imgur.com/CnbDset



Notice the blacks are completely missing in the face and the clipping on the
blue wash on the side. It is difficult to tell from this picture, but there
is a green cast as well. Also, here's a 3D view from the ColorSync app
comparing the Colormunki generated profile and ArgyllCMS, with the smaller
ArgyllCMS profile in color and the Colormunki shown in a white outline. It's
obvious that there's quite a bit less coverage in Argyll's profile. To be
honest, I'm baffled that the gamut is so much smaller considering I used
more than 8x the patches with Argyll:



http://imgur.com/DkJwdy5



Perhaps I've missed a valuable step in generating my profile - based on what
I can see, I did not specify any additional grays with the -g command, hence
the complete lack of gray details. I'm a complete novice at profiling, but I
was really hoping that 1,050 patches would produce a superior profile to the
130 patch Colormunki profile. If anyone has any ideas as to what might have
gone wrong here, or what else I need to do to improve this profile, I would
greatly appreciate any help.



Thank you,



Mike

[Ben Goren]

On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Robert-/***@public.gmane.org wrote:

> In general you seem to be doing the right thing.

Yes, but another thing I'd suggest: before comparing output with a photograph of original artwork, compare output with a synthetic file of a color chart. For example, use your ColorMunki to measure the patches of a ColorChecker and create a Photoshop file that has square patches in the same arrangement with the same Lab values as the ColorMunki read, and compare the original ColorChecker with a print of your synthetic one. And if you don't have SoLux or comparable artificial lights to view the prints with, compare them in actual outdoors (or through-the-window) sunlight.

The problem could just as easily be your initial capture of the watercolor -- and, more likely, a combination of a mixture of variables.

What you're aiming to do is most emphatically possible; I myself make prints of watercolors that the original artist has to pore over side-by-side with the original to spot the differences.

One other suggestion: watercolor papers lack inkjet-receptive coatings and thus don't offer very good gamuts. High quality watercolor papers (such as Arches) generally produce not-miserable inkjet prints, but you're unlikely to get the saturation and shadow density of the original. You have two options: you can apply a coating to the paper (doable, but much easier said than done) or you can use a quality fine art inkjet paper instead. If you can get your hands on Canon's Fine Art Watercolor paper, that's an excellent choice; a superlative choice is Museo Portfolio Rag.

Cheers,

b&

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

Regarding watercolour papers I would also add Canson Arches Aquarelle Rag: a
really beautiful paper.

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Ben Goren
Sent: 04 October 2014 19:46
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.

On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Robert-/***@public.gmane.org wrote:

> In general you seem to be doing the right thing.

Yes, but another thing I'd suggest: before comparing output with a
photograph of original artwork, compare output with a synthetic file of a
color chart. For example, use your ColorMunki to measure the patches of a
ColorChecker and create a Photoshop file that has square patches in the same
arrangement with the same Lab values as the ColorMunki read, and compare the
original ColorChecker with a print of your synthetic one. And if you don't
have SoLux or comparable artificial lights to view the prints with, compare
them in actual outdoors (or through-the-window) sunlight.

The problem could just as easily be your initial capture of the watercolor
-- and, more likely, a combination of a mixture of variables.

What you're aiming to do is most emphatically possible; I myself make prints
of watercolors that the original artist has to pore over side-by-side with
the original to spot the differences.

One other suggestion: watercolor papers lack inkjet-receptive coatings and
thus don't offer very good gamuts. High quality watercolor papers (such as
Arches) generally produce not-miserable inkjet prints, but you're unlikely
to get the saturation and shadow density of the original. You have two
options: you can apply a coating to the paper (doable, but much easier said
than done) or you can use a quality fine art inkjet paper instead. If you
can get your hands on Canon's Fine Art Watercolor paper, that's an excellent
choice; a superlative choice is Museo Portfolio Rag.

Cheers,

b&

[Michael Gallagher]

Alright, so I tried rescanning, and it seems to be better in some areas and
worse in others. Here's a comparison between the new scan profile (without
-H and -T in chartread) shown in color, and the old profile shown in white:

http://imgur.com/Cgm1JIX

In case anyone wants to look at both ICC profiles on their computer, here's
a link to a zip file with both new and old scans included:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c51et2luunvuap/1050_Arches.zip?dl=0

Ben, that's an excellent point of comparing the print to the original. My
wife and I have compared the original to the scan on my calibrated Dell
monitor, and we both agree that the scan is extremely accurate. Even so,
we'll start comparing future prints to the image on the computer moving
forward.

At this point, is there anything either of you would recommend I could try
to get a better profile e.g. generate a target with -c to optimize the
current profile? I'm fairly certain my printer is not forcing any color
management on the target when using ColorSync with the "Print as color
target" option specified, so we can probably rule that out. Also, is there
any way to generate targets/patches from a JPEG? For example, generating a
set of patches from the scan of this watercolor. Colormunki's software
allows you to do this I believe.

Other papers and coatings are something I'm open to, but I'd at least like
to see if there's anything else I can do to print decently onto Arches.
Also Ben, I'm using Arches cold press 300 gsm. Have you ever used the hot
press version? I believe this would be less textured, and I'm wondering how
that would affect the colors.

Thanks again,

Mike

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:21 PM, <robert-bwQay9wdFlLEb97390d+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Regarding watercolour papers I would also add Canson Arches Aquarelle Rag:
> a
> really beautiful paper.
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:
> argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
> On Behalf Of Ben Goren
> Sent: 04 October 2014 19:46
> To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
> Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.
>
> On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Robert-/***@public.gmane.org wrote:
>
> > In general you seem to be doing the right thing.
>
> Yes, but another thing I'd suggest: before comparing output with a
> photograph of original artwork, compare output with a synthetic file of a
> color chart. For example, use your ColorMunki to measure the patches of a
> ColorChecker and create a Photoshop file that has square patches in the
> same
> arrangement with the same Lab values as the ColorMunki read, and compare
> the
> original ColorChecker with a print of your synthetic one. And if you don't
> have SoLux or comparable artificial lights to view the prints with, compare
> them in actual outdoors (or through-the-window) sunlight.
>
> The problem could just as easily be your initial capture of the watercolor
> -- and, more likely, a combination of a mixture of variables.
>
> What you're aiming to do is most emphatically possible; I myself make
> prints
> of watercolors that the original artist has to pore over side-by-side with
> the original to spot the differences.
>
> One other suggestion: watercolor papers lack inkjet-receptive coatings and
> thus don't offer very good gamuts. High quality watercolor papers (such as
> Arches) generally produce not-miserable inkjet prints, but you're unlikely
> to get the saturation and shadow density of the original. You have two
> options: you can apply a coating to the paper (doable, but much easier said
> than done) or you can use a quality fine art inkjet paper instead. If you
> can get your hands on Canon's Fine Art Watercolor paper, that's an
> excellent
> choice; a superlative choice is Museo Portfolio Rag.
>
> Cheers,
>
> b&
>
>
>

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

Hi Mike,



I had a look at your v2 profile and there's some seriously bad stuff there.
There are a couple of holes in the gamut that seem to go pretty well through
the gamut space, one right down the gray line, more or less (which would
account for your not getting too much black in your prints!). Also the
gamut is very small - MUCH smaller than sRGB.



If your charts look OK then it has to be either your instrument, or the
scanning. Were you getting many misreads?



If I were you I would try again with fewer, larger spots just to get the
basic profile right, then optimise by going back to more spots.



Robert



_____

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Gallagher
Sent: 04 October 2014 22:53
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.



Alright, so I tried rescanning, and it seems to be better in some areas and
worse in others. Here's a comparison between the new scan profile (without
-H and -T in chartread) shown in color, and the old profile shown in white:



http://imgur.com/Cgm1JIX



In case anyone wants to look at both ICC profiles on their computer, here's
a link to a zip file with both new and old scans included:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c51et2luunvuap/1050_Arches.zip?dl=0



Ben, that's an excellent point of comparing the print to the original. My
wife and I have compared the original to the scan on my calibrated Dell
monitor, and we both agree that the scan is extremely accurate. Even so,
we'll start comparing future prints to the image on the computer moving
forward.



At this point, is there anything either of you would recommend I could try
to get a better profile e.g. generate a target with -c to optimize the
current profile? I'm fairly certain my printer is not forcing any color
management on the target when using ColorSync with the "Print as color
target" option specified, so we can probably rule that out. Also, is there
any way to generate targets/patches from a JPEG? For example, generating a
set of patches from the scan of this watercolor. Colormunki's software
allows you to do this I believe.



Other papers and coatings are something I'm open to, but I'd at least like
to see if there's anything else I can do to print decently onto Arches. Also
Ben, I'm using Arches cold press 300 gsm. Have you ever used the hot press
version? I believe this would be less textured, and I'm wondering how that
would affect the colors.



Thanks again,



Mike



On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 2:21 PM, <robert-bwQay9wdFlLEb97390d+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Regarding watercolour papers I would also add Canson Arches Aquarelle Rag: a
really beautiful paper.

Robert

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

On Behalf Of Ben Goren
Sent: 04 October 2014 19:46
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.

On Oct 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Robert-/***@public.gmane.org wrote:

> In general you seem to be doing the right thing.

Yes, but another thing I'd suggest: before comparing output with a
photograph of original artwork, compare output with a synthetic file of a
color chart. For example, use your ColorMunki to measure the patches of a
ColorChecker and create a Photoshop file that has square patches in the same
arrangement with the same Lab values as the ColorMunki read, and compare the
original ColorChecker with a print of your synthetic one. And if you don't
have SoLux or comparable artificial lights to view the prints with, compare
them in actual outdoors (or through-the-window) sunlight.

The problem could just as easily be your initial capture of the watercolor
-- and, more likely, a combination of a mixture of variables.

What you're aiming to do is most emphatically possible; I myself make prints
of watercolors that the original artist has to pore over side-by-side with
the original to spot the differences.

One other suggestion: watercolor papers lack inkjet-receptive coatings and
thus don't offer very good gamuts. High quality watercolor papers (such as
Arches) generally produce not-miserable inkjet prints, but you're unlikely
to get the saturation and shadow density of the original. You have two
options: you can apply a coating to the paper (doable, but much easier said
than done) or you can use a quality fine art inkjet paper instead. If you
can get your hands on Canon's Fine Art Watercolor paper, that's an excellent
choice; a superlative choice is Museo Portfolio Rag.

Cheers,

b&

[Ben Goren]

On Oct 4, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Even so, we'll start comparing future prints to the image on the computer moving forward.

Comparing reflective media with luminous displays is fraught with peril. It will not end well. Again: get a ColorChecker, even one past its "best by" date, make a copy in Photoshop based on specotrophotometric readings of the chart, and compare the actual physical chart with the printed copy.

> At this point, is there anything either of you would recommend I could try to get a better profile

Start with Argyll's default options. Don't tweak the knobs until you know what knobs you're tweaking and why. "targen -d2 basename && printtarg -T basename" is literally all you need, at least until you've got the other kinks worked out.

> Also Ben, I'm using Arches cold press 300 gsm. Have you ever used the hot press version? I believe this would be less textured, and I'm wondering how that would affect the colors.

I pretty much gave up printing on papers not explicitly coated for inkjet use. It's just not worth it, except in the most special of cases.

The papers already mentioned in this thread are as excellent quality as anything Arches has ever made, and they've got superlative inkjet-receptive coatings. The only significant remaining reason to go with the original paper the artist used is to attempt forgery-quality reproduction (assuming no magnifying glasses allowed), and few artists are interested in that degree of perfection. If your paper has a basically similar color, texture, and possibly heft, that's almost always all that's necessary. Anything more is only going to be apparent to somebody physically handling the two in a side-by-side comparison, which is highly uncommon for giclee prints for anybody other than you and the artist and _maybe_ the framer.

One note: if the artist is going to re-create by hand special elements, especially calligraphic ones, on the print you're making, your choices may be limited...but the Canon paper at least, and I'm pretty sure the Museo, are both suitable for such manual work. Give some samples or scraps to the artist to experiment with if in doubt...and, if none are suitable, you might actually find yourself in the unenviable position of having to learn how to manually apply inkjet coatings to uncoated paper....

Cheers,

b&

[Florian Höch]

Hi,

have both profiles been created with the same chart layout (i.e. same
targen commandline)? If so, there are misreads in the measurements. Not
sure if one is correct and the other not, but comparing the two
measurement sets the majority of patches have a low delta E (average
around 1.72), but I counted 41 outliers with a delta E over 10 ( in most
cases around 30, some over 60).

Am 04.10.2014 um 23:52 schrieb Michael Gallagher:
> In case anyone wants to look at both ICC profiles on their computer,
> here's a link to a zip file with both new and old scans
> included: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c51et2luunvuap/1050_Arches.zip?dl=0

--
Florian Höch

[Michael Gallagher]

Hi Florian, yes they have. I'm lacking in my understanding of misreads, but
as I scanned the rows in, I was assuming that if the row was accepted
during chartread it was fine. I only had to rescan a few rows out of the
30+ on the chart, so again, I assumed there weren't any misreads. Is this
where -T would come in, and might it prevent those misreads? I have a guess
as to why these errors might be happening though: each square is 8.3 x
8.4mm, which may be too small. These were scanned in with a ruler as a
guide through a piece of plain white paper with an 8mm slit cut into it, as
seen here:

http://www.printerknowledge.com/threads/quick-tutorial-guide-with-argyll-cms-and-colormunki.7941/

This just reaffirms Ben's point that one shouldn't stray from the defaults
too much on their first tries. I'm going to do as Robert has suggested and
reprint a more basic target with larger patches and go from there. Perhaps
I'll try scanning slower too!

Thanks your help everyone!

Mike

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Florian Höch <lists+argyllcms-***@public.gmane.orgg>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> have both profiles been created with the same chart layout (i.e. same
> targen commandline)? If so, there are misreads in the measurements. Not
> sure if one is correct and the other not, but comparing the two
> measurement sets the majority of patches have a low delta E (average
> around 1.72), but I counted 41 outliers with a delta E over 10 ( in most
> cases around 30, some over 60).
>
> Am 04.10.2014 um 23:52 schrieb Michael Gallagher:
> > In case anyone wants to look at both ICC profiles on their computer,
> > here's a link to a zip file with both new and old scans
> > included: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c51et2luunvuap/1050_Arches.zip?dl=0
>
> --
> Florian Höch
>
>
>

[Michael Gallagher]

Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way to
generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile? For example,
generating a set of patches from the scan of this watercolor. Colormunki's
software allows you to do this, and I'm assuming this would be beneficial
for this specific print I'm working on. But then again, I could be totally
wrong about that.

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

> Hi Florian, yes they have. I'm lacking in my understanding of misreads,
> but as I scanned the rows in, I was assuming that if the row was accepted
> during chartread it was fine. I only had to rescan a few rows out of the
> 30+ on the chart, so again, I assumed there weren't any misreads. Is this
> where -T would come in, and might it prevent those misreads? I have a guess
> as to why these errors might be happening though: each square is 8.3 x
> 8.4mm, which may be too small. These were scanned in with a ruler as a
> guide through a piece of plain white paper with an 8mm slit cut into it, as
> seen here:
>
>
> http://www.printerknowledge.com/threads/quick-tutorial-guide-with-argyll-cms-and-colormunki.7941/
>
> This just reaffirms Ben's point that one shouldn't stray from the
> defaults too much on their first tries. I'm going to do as Robert has
> suggested and reprint a more basic target with larger patches and go from
> there. Perhaps I'll try scanning slower too!
>
> Thanks your help everyone!
>
> Mike
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Florian Höch <lists+***@hoech.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> have both profiles been created with the same chart layout (i.e. same
>> targen commandline)? If so, there are misreads in the measurements. Not
>> sure if one is correct and the other not, but comparing the two
>> measurement sets the majority of patches have a low delta E (average
>> around 1.72), but I counted 41 outliers with a delta E over 10 ( in most
>> cases around 30, some over 60).
>>
>> Am 04.10.2014 um 23:52 schrieb Michael Gallagher:
>> > In case anyone wants to look at both ICC profiles on their computer,
>> > here's a link to a zip file with both new and old scans
>> > included:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c51et2luunvuap/1050_Arches.zip?dl=0
>>
>> --
>> Florian Höch
>>
>>
>>
>

[Ben Goren]

On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way to generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?

That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner) profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic" profile you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation algorithm in targen; see the "-c" option.

b&

[Michael Gallagher]

Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select "Print
as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up changing
drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the bottom of
the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:

Original Argyll generated TIF target:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0

ColorSync Target saved as PDF:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0

I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same thing
happens during the print.

On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way to
> generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?
>
> That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner)
> profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic" profile
> you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation algorithm in
> targen; see the "-c" option.
>
> b&
>

[Alan Goldhammer]

I’m on a PC and have to use the Adobe CPU to print out profiles since this option has been dropped since Photshop CS5 came out. I suspect that your problems relate to the MacOS print utility as you did get reasonable results with the ColorMunki printed charts. The CM software uses its own printing process for the targets. The fact that you had such high Delta Es leads me to think that it was the ColorSync software. I’ve done lots of profiles over the last several years using the Adobe CPU and have never had the type of problems you have shown. As others have already noted, keep the command line arguments to a minimum unless there is a very good reason to change them.



Regarding papers I echo what others have already noted. I routinely use Museo Portfolio Rag and Hahnemuhle William Turner for textured paper. Depending on how concerned you are about print longevity you may want to visit: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html where there is lots of test results with various papers and ink sets regarding fade resistance.



Do let us know if it was the MacOS printing of the target that was the issue.



Cheers,



Alan



From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gallagher
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 10:01 PM
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.



Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select "Print as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up changing drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the bottom of the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:



Original Argyll generated TIF target: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0



ColorSync Target saved as PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0



I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same thing happens during the print.



On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org <mailto:ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org> > wrote:

On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org <mailto:gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> > wrote:

> Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way to generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?

That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner) profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic" profile you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation algorithm in targen; see the "-c" option.

b&

[Florian Höch]

Looking at the targets, the actual values in the files seem to be the
same, so I guess what you are seeing on screen is just an effect of the
preview.

Am 05.10.2014 um 04:01 schrieb Michael Gallagher:
> Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select
> "Print as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up
> changing drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on
> the bottom of the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:
>
> Original Argyll generated TIF
> target: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0
>
> ColorSync Target saved as
> PDF: https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0
>
> I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same
> thing happens during the print.

--
Florian Höch

[Kamil Tresnak]

Hello Michael,

maybe, the problem is in the printed charts, maybe there is a
difference between printed chart and ColorSync PDF export. Your
printed chart - seems like OK? Maybe you can find some colors which
are exactly same (CMYK source valueas) on both charts (maybe full
c/m/y) and make spot color measuring to ensure that you dont have
problem with printing output.

Regards,

Kamil Tresnak


On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Michael Gallagher
<gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select "Print
> as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up changing
> drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the bottom of
> the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:
>
> Original Argyll generated TIF target:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0
>
> ColorSync Target saved as PDF:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0
>
> I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same thing
> happens during the print.
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way to
>> > generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?
>>
>> That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner)
>> profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic" profile
>> you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation algorithm in
>> targen; see the "-c" option.
>>
>> b&
>
>

[Michael Gallagher]

Success! I made a 524 patch sheet, and using the ruler and slit I was able
to get this on running colprof:

Peak err = 1.633284, avg err = 0.377664, RMS = 0.441556

Here's the IT3 for anyone interested:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjdn3a8lxyls2h8/Arches_524_i1.ti3?dl=0

I'm assuming this is pretty good, right? Either way, the resulting test
print was, by far, the best that we've seen. My wife and I are very happy
with it. Thank you all for the help. The next step will be to figure out
the scanner's accuracy, since that does seem to be off slightly.

Kamil and Alan: It turns out the ColorSync app DOES correctly print out
targets (of course, when "Print as color target" is selected). To test this
I cropped a strip of patches from a target, and printed two of them side by
side. One with ColorSync and the other with Adobe CPU. When comparing the
two rows, there is no difference between them at all.

Matthew: we're in northern Utah. The processes you mentioned sound very
interesting, and I would love to see that PDF. My understanding of color
matching is quite limited (my wife is the artist, but I'm a CS student and
I'm comfortable on a command line so figuring out ArgyllCMS became my
thing), but I am interested in seeing how others do manage to do stuff like
this. Do you coat your papers, or use inkjet watercolor paper, or anything
of the sort? One thing I'm noticing is that the thin lines don't seem to be
quite as sharp when printed. It's not that bad though. I'm assuming this is
just because I'm printing on a paper not meant for printing.

Graeme: Thank you very much for your suggestions. A couple questions: is
there much to be gained from optimizing the profile I have? e.g. running
targen -c with my new ICC profile. Also, after running colprof -v, the ICC
file shrinks in size. It went from 1.2 MB to 279 KB. Is that profile still
usable?

Thanks again,

Mike

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

> Hello Michael,
>
> maybe, the problem is in the printed charts, maybe there is a
> difference between printed chart and ColorSync PDF export. Your
> printed chart - seems like OK? Maybe you can find some colors which
> are exactly same (CMYK source valueas) on both charts (maybe full
> c/m/y) and make spot color measuring to ensure that you dont have
> problem with printing output.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kamil Tresnak
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Michael Gallagher
> <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select
> "Print
> > as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up changing
> > drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the bottom
> of
> > the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:
> >
> > Original Argyll generated TIF target:
> >
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0
> >
> > ColorSync Target saved as PDF:
> >
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0
> >
> > I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same
> thing
> > happens during the print.
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way to
> >> > generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?
> >>
> >> That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner)
> >> profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic"
> profile
> >> you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation
> algorithm in
> >> targen; see the "-c" option.
> >>
> >> b&
> >
> >
>
>

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

HI Michael,



Just throwing in a couple things. If you can afford it I would personally
recommend the i1Pro2 over the ColorMunki if you want the best results. You
could get the i1Pro2Basic that's much cheaper but doesn't do print profiling
from the XRite i1Profiler, but will with Argyll. If I were you I would be
thinking of selling my ColorMunki and getting an i1Pro.



The second thing is that I did a lot of printing years ago on non-inkjet
card stock - it was card stock for the large commercial digital CMYK
printers (papers like the Fedrigoni Veltique). I was able, with a fair
amount of trouble, to print well using an Epson 4000 .. but the results were
very poor on an Epson 4800, with less sharpness and more murky colors. So
the printer you use and the inks it uses seems to make a big difference.
You really would be far better off using a watercolour paper that has been
treated by the manufacturer (as I mentioned, Canson for example produce the
Canson Arches in 240gsm and 310gsm and these are essentially the Arches
watercolour papers - Arches is a sister company to Canson). It's a really
beautiful paper used by the top watercolour artists and costs no more than
the watercolour paper itself. You will get stunning results with it. Or
use one of the other papers that has been recommended, also excellent
papers.



At any rate, good to hear things are going in the right direction!



Robert



_____

From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org]
On Behalf Of Michael Gallagher
Sent: 08 October 2014 05:18
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.



Success! I made a 524 patch sheet, and using the ruler and slit I was able
to get this on running colprof:

Peak err = 1.633284, avg err = 0.377664, RMS = 0.441556

Here's the IT3 for anyone interested:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjdn3a8lxyls2h8/Arches_524_i1.ti3?dl=0

I'm assuming this is pretty good, right? Either way, the resulting test
print was, by far, the best that we've seen. My wife and I are very happy
with it. Thank you all for the help. The next step will be to figure out the
scanner's accuracy, since that does seem to be off slightly.

Kamil and Alan: It turns out the ColorSync app DOES correctly print out
targets (of course, when "Print as color target" is selected). To test this
I cropped a strip of patches from a target, and printed two of them side by
side. One with ColorSync and the other with Adobe CPU. When comparing the
two rows, there is no difference between them at all.

Matthew: we're in northern Utah. The processes you mentioned sound very
interesting, and I would love to see that PDF. My understanding of color
matching is quite limited (my wife is the artist, but I'm a CS student and
I'm comfortable on a command line so figuring out ArgyllCMS became my
thing), but I am interested in seeing how others do manage to do stuff like
this. Do you coat your papers, or use inkjet watercolor paper, or anything
of the sort? One thing I'm noticing is that the thin lines don't seem to be
quite as sharp when printed. It's not that bad though. I'm assuming this is
just because I'm printing on a paper not meant for printing.

Graeme: Thank you very much for your suggestions. A couple questions: is
there much to be gained from optimizing the profile I have? e.g. running
targen -c with my new ICC profile. Also, after running colprof -v, the ICC
file shrinks in size. It went from 1.2 MB to 279 KB. Is that profile still
usable?

Thanks again,

Mike



On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

Hello Michael,

maybe, the problem is in the printed charts, maybe there is a
difference between printed chart and ColorSync PDF export. Your
printed chart - seems like OK? Maybe you can find some colors which
are exactly same (CMYK source valueas) on both charts (maybe full
c/m/y) and make spot color measuring to ensure that you dont have
problem with printing output.

Regards,

Kamil Tresnak



On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Michael Gallagher
<gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select "Print
> as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up changing
> drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the bottom of
> the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:
>
> Original Argyll generated TIF target:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0
>
> ColorSync Target saved as PDF:
>
https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl
=0
>
> I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same
thing
> happens during the print.
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way to
>> > generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?
>>
>> That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner)
>> profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic" profile
>> you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation algorithm
in
>> targen; see the "-c" option.
>>
>> b&
>
>

[Kamil Tresnak]

Hello Michael,
congrats!
So problem was in measuring procedure?
As a next step, if you wish experimenting a make some progress, i would
recommend chart with little bit more patches, you probably do not need
thousands of patches, but somewhere around 1500 can give you more satisfied
results (see Argyll doc, you can experiment with power parameter and cover
colors which are important for you).
Regards,

Kamil


On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

> Success! I made a 524 patch sheet, and using the ruler and slit I was able
> to get this on running colprof:
>
> Peak err = 1.633284, avg err = 0.377664, RMS = 0.441556
>
> Here's the IT3 for anyone interested:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjdn3a8lxyls2h8/Arches_524_i1.ti3?dl=0
>
> I'm assuming this is pretty good, right? Either way, the resulting test
> print was, by far, the best that we've seen. My wife and I are very happy
> with it. Thank you all for the help. The next step will be to figure out
> the scanner's accuracy, since that does seem to be off slightly.
>
> Kamil and Alan: It turns out the ColorSync app DOES correctly print out
> targets (of course, when "Print as color target" is selected). To test this
> I cropped a strip of patches from a target, and printed two of them side by
> side. One with ColorSync and the other with Adobe CPU. When comparing the
> two rows, there is no difference between them at all.
>
> Matthew: we're in northern Utah. The processes you mentioned sound very
> interesting, and I would love to see that PDF. My understanding of color
> matching is quite limited (my wife is the artist, but I'm a CS student and
> I'm comfortable on a command line so figuring out ArgyllCMS became my
> thing), but I am interested in seeing how others do manage to do stuff like
> this. Do you coat your papers, or use inkjet watercolor paper, or anything
> of the sort? One thing I'm noticing is that the thin lines don't seem to be
> quite as sharp when printed. It's not that bad though. I'm assuming this is
> just because I'm printing on a paper not meant for printing.
>
> Graeme: Thank you very much for your suggestions. A couple questions: is
> there much to be gained from optimizing the profile I have? e.g. running
> targen -c with my new ICC profile. Also, after running colprof -v, the ICC
> file shrinks in size. It went from 1.2 MB to 279 KB. Is that profile still
> usable?
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Mike
>
> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Michael,
>>
>> maybe, the problem is in the printed charts, maybe there is a
>> difference between printed chart and ColorSync PDF export. Your
>> printed chart - seems like OK? Maybe you can find some colors which
>> are exactly same (CMYK source valueas) on both charts (maybe full
>> c/m/y) and make spot color measuring to ensure that you dont have
>> problem with printing output.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kamil Tresnak
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Michael Gallagher
>> <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> > Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select
>> "Print
>> > as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up
>> changing
>> > drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the bottom
>> of
>> > the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:
>> >
>> > Original Argyll generated TIF target:
>> >
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0
>> >
>> > ColorSync Target saved as PDF:
>> >
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0
>> >
>> > I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same
>> thing
>> > happens during the print.
>> >
>> > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <
>> gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way
>> to
>> >> > generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?
>> >>
>> >> That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner)
>> >> profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic"
>> profile
>> >> you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation
>> algorithm in
>> >> targen; see the "-c" option.
>> >>
>> >> b&
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Brad Funkhouser]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Ben Goren]

On Oct 8, 2014, at 8:51 AM, Brad Funkhouser <brad.funkhouser-H+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> More patches...
>
> My most notable Argyll epiphany was figuring out how to use Argyll's multi-sheet targets for profiling my camera by simply concatenating the data blocks from multiple scanin ti3 files into a combined ti3 file before running colprof.

Yes, since building my last chart, I've come to realize that it's a much better idea to make many small charts for camera profiling rather than a single big one.

Care is needed in choice of illuminant, as well as maintaining consistence across both exposure and development. Unless you're photographing the charts in immediate sequence, you're setting yourself up for an extra helping of fail.

b&

[Brad Funkhouser]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Michael Gallagher]

Thanks for the continued help everyone! Kamil, one of the colors that seemed to be lacking after creating this profile were the yellows. Could you elaborate on what I would need to do in order to optimize the profile for yellows, specifically? I'm a bit lost on how to use this power parameter you referred to that allows me to improve the colors that are important to me. I did read the documentation on targen but the -p flag is still a bit confusing to me. 


Thanks again.




Mike 


—
Sent from Mailbox

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> congrats!
> So problem was in measuring procedure?
> As a next step, if you wish experimenting a make some progress, i would
> recommend chart with little bit more patches, you probably do not need
> thousands of patches, but somewhere around 1500 can give you more satisfied
> results (see Argyll doc, you can experiment with power parameter and cover
> colors which are important for you).
> Regards,
> Kamil
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Michael Gallagher <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Success! I made a 524 patch sheet, and using the ruler and slit I was able
>> to get this on running colprof:
>>
>> Peak err = 1.633284, avg err = 0.377664, RMS = 0.441556
>>
>> Here's the IT3 for anyone interested:
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjdn3a8lxyls2h8/Arches_524_i1.ti3?dl=0
>>
>> I'm assuming this is pretty good, right? Either way, the resulting test
>> print was, by far, the best that we've seen. My wife and I are very happy
>> with it. Thank you all for the help. The next step will be to figure out
>> the scanner's accuracy, since that does seem to be off slightly.
>>
>> Kamil and Alan: It turns out the ColorSync app DOES correctly print out
>> targets (of course, when "Print as color target" is selected). To test this
>> I cropped a strip of patches from a target, and printed two of them side by
>> side. One with ColorSync and the other with Adobe CPU. When comparing the
>> two rows, there is no difference between them at all.
>>
>> Matthew: we're in northern Utah. The processes you mentioned sound very
>> interesting, and I would love to see that PDF. My understanding of color
>> matching is quite limited (my wife is the artist, but I'm a CS student and
>> I'm comfortable on a command line so figuring out ArgyllCMS became my
>> thing), but I am interested in seeing how others do manage to do stuff like
>> this. Do you coat your papers, or use inkjet watercolor paper, or anything
>> of the sort? One thing I'm noticing is that the thin lines don't seem to be
>> quite as sharp when printed. It's not that bad though. I'm assuming this is
>> just because I'm printing on a paper not meant for printing.
>>
>> Graeme: Thank you very much for your suggestions. A couple questions: is
>> there much to be gained from optimizing the profile I have? e.g. running
>> targen -c with my new ICC profile. Also, after running colprof -v, the ICC
>> file shrinks in size. It went from 1.2 MB to 279 KB. Is that profile still
>> usable?
>>
>> Thanks again,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Michael,
>>>
>>> maybe, the problem is in the printed charts, maybe there is a
>>> difference between printed chart and ColorSync PDF export. Your
>>> printed chart - seems like OK? Maybe you can find some colors which
>>> are exactly same (CMYK source valueas) on both charts (maybe full
>>> c/m/y) and make spot color measuring to ensure that you dont have
>>> problem with printing output.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Kamil Tresnak
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Michael Gallagher
>>> <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> > Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select
>>> "Print
>>> > as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up
>>> changing
>>> > drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the bottom
>>> of
>>> > the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:
>>> >
>>> > Original Argyll generated TIF target:
>>> >
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0
>>> >
>>> > ColorSync Target saved as PDF:
>>> >
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0
>>> >
>>> > I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same
>>> thing
>>> > happens during the print.
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <
>>> gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way
>>> to
>>> >> > generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?
>>> >>
>>> >> That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner)
>>> >> profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic"
>>> profile
>>> >> you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation
>>> algorithm in
>>> >> targen; see the "-c" option.
>>> >>
>>> >> b&
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>

[Brad Funkhouser]

Mike,

I started getting better results specifically in yellows when I went to a 2 stage profiling process.


Stage one is a 646 patch target using targen's default patch spread.

targen -v -G -d2 -g7 -e2 -B2 -f646 646_Target


I read that target and create a profile.


Stage two uses that 646 patch profile as a guide so targen knows how to create a perceptually uniform 2584 patch spread (-I does the perceptually uniform part). This spread makes sure the yellows get equal patch coverage.

targen -I -v -G -d2 -g17 -e2 -B2 -f2584 -c646_Target.icm 2584_Target


I then concatenate the 646 data with the 2584 data to build a final 3230 patch profile. That final step is probably overkill, but I just can't handle leaving good data behind.

Hope this helps.

- Brad




From: argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:argyllcms-bounce-***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Michael Gallagher
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2014 2:43 AM
To: argyllcms-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Very poor results with 1000+ patch target.

Thanks for the continued help everyone! Kamil, one of the colors that seemed to be lacking after creating this profile were the yellows. Could you elaborate on what I would need to do in order to optimize the profile for yellows, specifically? I'm a bit lost on how to use this power parameter you referred to that allows me to improve the colors that are important to me. I did read the documentation on targen but the -p flag is still a bit confusing to me.

Thanks again.

Mike

—
Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox>

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Hello Michael,
congrats!
So problem was in measuring procedure?
As a next step, if you wish experimenting a make some progress, i would recommend chart with little bit more patches, you probably do not need thousands of patches, but somewhere around 1500 can give you more satisfied results (see Argyll doc, you can experiment with power parameter and cover colors which are important for you).
Regards,

Kamil

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Success! I made a 524 patch sheet, and using the ruler and slit I was able to get this on running colprof:
Peak err = 1.633284, avg err = 0.377664, RMS = 0.441556
Here's the IT3 for anyone interested: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjdn3a8lxyls2h8/Arches_524_i1.ti3?dl=0
I'm assuming this is pretty good, right? Either way, the resulting test print was, by far, the best that we've seen. My wife and I are very happy with it. Thank you all for the help. The next step will be to figure out the scanner's accuracy, since that does seem to be off slightly.
Kamil and Alan: It turns out the ColorSync app DOES correctly print out targets (of course, when "Print as color target" is selected). To test this I cropped a strip of patches from a target, and printed two of them side by side. One with ColorSync and the other with Adobe CPU. When comparing the two rows, there is no difference between them at all.
Matthew: we're in northern Utah. The processes you mentioned sound very interesting, and I would love to see that PDF. My understanding of color matching is quite limited (my wife is the artist, but I'm a CS student and I'm comfortable on a command line so figuring out ArgyllCMS became my thing), but I am interested in seeing how others do manage to do stuff like this. Do you coat your papers, or use inkjet watercolor paper, or anything of the sort? One thing I'm noticing is that the thin lines don't seem to be quite as sharp when printed. It's not that bad though. I'm assuming this is just because I'm printing on a paper not meant for printing.
Graeme: Thank you very much for your suggestions. A couple questions: is there much to be gained from optimizing the profile I have? e.g. running targen -c with my new ICC profile. Also, after running colprof -v, the ICC file shrinks in size. It went from 1.2 MB to 279 KB. Is that profile still usable?
Thanks again,
Mike

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Hello Michael,

maybe, the problem is in the printed charts, maybe there is a
difference between printed chart and ColorSync PDF export. Your
printed chart - seems like OK? Maybe you can find some colors which
are exactly same (CMYK source valueas) on both charts (maybe full
c/m/y) and make spot color measuring to ensure that you dont have
problem with printing output.

Regards,

Kamil Tresnak


On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Michael Gallagher
<gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select "Print
> as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up changing
> drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the bottom of
> the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:
>
> Original Argyll generated TIF target:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0
>
> ColorSync Target saved as PDF:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0
>
> I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same thing
> happens during the print.
>
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any way to
>> > generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?
>>
>> That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner)
>> profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic" profile
>> you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation algorithm in
>> targen; see the "-c" option.
>>
>> b&
>
>

[Kamil Tresnak]

Hello Michael,
what Brad suggested is good way, it is discussed in Argyll doc in more
detail. Also, you can try -s parameter, which give you some single channel
steps, including yellow. Last, but not least, you can try something
uncommon, but as you are IT guy, this will be pretty easy for you - you can
add some patches to TI1 file manually. Of course, you have to edit all
others parameters, like number of data sets etc, but i think, you can do it.
Acc to -p: this parameter is good to tell to targen if you want more
patches in shadows or in lights.

Good luck!

Kamil

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Michael Gallagher <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.orgm
> wrote:

> Thanks for the continued help everyone! Kamil, one of the colors that
> seemed to be lacking after creating this profile were the yellows. Could
> you elaborate on what I would need to do in order to optimize the profile
> for yellows, specifically? I'm a bit lost on how to use this power
> parameter you referred to that allows me to improve the colors that are
> important to me. I did read the documentation on targen but the -p flag is
> still a bit confusing to me.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Mike
>
> —
> Sent from Mailbox <https://www.dropbox.com/mailbox>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 4:04 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello Michael,
>> congrats!
>> So problem was in measuring procedure?
>> As a next step, if you wish experimenting a make some progress, i would
>> recommend chart with little bit more patches, you probably do not need
>> thousands of patches, but somewhere around 1500 can give you more satisfied
>> results (see Argyll doc, you can experiment with power parameter and cover
>> colors which are important for you).
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kamil
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Michael Gallagher <
>> gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Success! I made a 524 patch sheet, and using the ruler and slit I was
>>> able to get this on running colprof:
>>>
>>> Peak err = 1.633284, avg err = 0.377664, RMS = 0.441556
>>>
>>> Here's the IT3 for anyone interested:
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/yjdn3a8lxyls2h8/Arches_524_i1.ti3?dl=0
>>>
>>> I'm assuming this is pretty good, right? Either way, the resulting test
>>> print was, by far, the best that we've seen. My wife and I are very happy
>>> with it. Thank you all for the help. The next step will be to figure out
>>> the scanner's accuracy, since that does seem to be off slightly.
>>>
>>> Kamil and Alan: It turns out the ColorSync app DOES correctly print out
>>> targets (of course, when "Print as color target" is selected). To test this
>>> I cropped a strip of patches from a target, and printed two of them side by
>>> side. One with ColorSync and the other with Adobe CPU. When comparing the
>>> two rows, there is no difference between them at all.
>>>
>>> Matthew: we're in northern Utah. The processes you mentioned sound very
>>> interesting, and I would love to see that PDF. My understanding of color
>>> matching is quite limited (my wife is the artist, but I'm a CS student and
>>> I'm comfortable on a command line so figuring out ArgyllCMS became my
>>> thing), but I am interested in seeing how others do manage to do stuff like
>>> this. Do you coat your papers, or use inkjet watercolor paper, or anything
>>> of the sort? One thing I'm noticing is that the thin lines don't seem to be
>>> quite as sharp when printed. It's not that bad though. I'm assuming this is
>>> just because I'm printing on a paper not meant for printing.
>>>
>>> Graeme: Thank you very much for your suggestions. A couple questions: is
>>> there much to be gained from optimizing the profile I have? e.g. running
>>> targen -c with my new ICC profile. Also, after running colprof -v, the ICC
>>> file shrinks in size. It went from 1.2 MB to 279 KB. Is that profile still
>>> usable?
>>>
>>> Thanks again,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 1:11 AM, Kamil Tresnak <kamil.tresnak-***@public.gmane.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Michael,
>>>>
>>>> maybe, the problem is in the printed charts, maybe there is a
>>>> difference between printed chart and ColorSync PDF export. Your
>>>> printed chart - seems like OK? Maybe you can find some colors which
>>>> are exactly same (CMYK source valueas) on both charts (maybe full
>>>> c/m/y) and make spot color measuring to ensure that you dont have
>>>> problem with printing output.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Kamil Tresnak
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Michael Gallagher
>>>> <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> > Hmm... here's something I just noticed. In ColorSync, when I select
>>>> "Print
>>>> > as color target", the colors in the little preview window end up
>>>> changing
>>>> > drastically. Is this normal? I saved the preview as a PDF on the
>>>> bottom of
>>>> > the Print window to show you guys. Here they are:
>>>> >
>>>> > Original Argyll generated TIF target:
>>>> >
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/kfp78d7oytepynh/1050_Arches%20Original.tif?dl=0
>>>> >
>>>> > ColorSync Target saved as PDF:
>>>> >
>>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/b6pvvsgniw9misz/Arches%20ColorSync%20Target.pdf?dl=0
>>>> >
>>>> > I'm going to try using Adobe's Color Print Utility to see if the same
>>>> thing
>>>> > happens during the print.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Ben Goren <ben-1mufkuWgcO2x+LwX+***@public.gmane.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Oct 4, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Michael Gallagher <
>>>> gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > Forgot to ask again: After I make this new target, is there any
>>>> way to
>>>> >> > generate targets/patches from a JPEG to optimize the profile?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That sort of thing is much more useful for input (camera or scanner)
>>>> >> profiles. In your case, what you'll want to do is use the "basic"
>>>> profile
>>>> >> you're about to create to "pre-condition" the patch generation
>>>> algorithm in
>>>> >> targen; see the "-c" option.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> b&
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Graeme Gill]

Michael Gallagher wrote:

> After reading in all the patches, I grabbed my local AdobeRGB1998.icc from
> my ColorSync folder (as I've read you're supposed to do), copied it to my
> working directory and used this command to generate the profile:
>
> colprof -v -qh -S AdobeRGB1998.icc -dpp -D "Arches 300gsm Canon Pro 100"
> 1050patch_Arches

One of the things emphasized in the documentation is to check
the profile self fit before proceeding onwards. What were the values
returned in your case ?

> In case anyone wants to look at both ICC profiles on their computer, here's
> a link to a zip file with both new and old scans included:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c51et2luunvuap/1050_Arches.zip?dl=0

What's of more interest is the .ti3 file, rather than the resulting ICC
profile, but by default it is included in the profile, so if I extract it
from the v2 file and run a simple sanity check:

colprof -v datafile.ti3

I get

Profile check complete, peak err = 37.499292, avg err = 0.889221, RMS = 2.756460

That's a pretty obvious sign that the chart hasn't been read in properly.
You can identify the patches that are very wrong by looking at the output
of profcheck

profcheck -v2 datafile.ti3 datafile.icm

It appears that a number of patches in strip AD were not read accurately.
Deleting the worst 26 patches and re-running the profile yeilds:

colprof -v datafile_P5.00.ti3
Profile check complete, peak err = 2.177640, avg err = 0.342337, RMS = 0.401542

which would be a good result. Correcting the bad reads may not end up quite as tight
a fit as this, but a peak of 5 dE or less would be quite reasonable.

I'm not sure why you are getting such consistent measurement errors, although
given the types of problems you are seeing, I would re-print the target
without the 60% scaling before trying again.

A last resort is to read problematic strips patch by patch. You can
do this by quitting chartread part way through in one mode, and then
resuming in a different mode (ie. chartread -p and -r flags).

Graeme Gill.

[Ben Goren]

On Oct 4, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Robert-/***@public.gmane.org wrote:

> Regarding watercolour papers I would also add Canson Arches Aquarelle Rag: a
> really beautiful paper.

Agreed. Most lovely.

Almost anything by Canson, Museo, and Moab is going to be worthy of consideration -- and Hahnemuhle as well if you need something with optical brighteners.

The two examples I gave -- the Canon Fine Art Watercolor and the Museo Portfolio Rag -- happen to have a traditional watercolor paper finish as well as the largest gamut (on my iPF8100) of any matte papers I've ever sampled. Both belong on the short list of consideration for anybody making giclee prints of watercolor paintings.

b&

[Matthew H. Owens]

Michael, what part of the world are you in? We can do quite
reliable reproduction of watercolors on cold press paper. I use the
Advanced color profiling system that was developed with argyll for Cruse
Digital by a fellow list member Klaus Karcher. It uses a custom built
1800 patch target made of real world pms inks and traditional art pigments
found in museums. The output print profiles are made in house by me
using Ergosoft V14 and Color GPS, using a eye one pro
spectrophotometer. Klaus evaluated our workflow using the color target
itself and found it quite accurate from end to end. Stanley Smith and Dr
Roy Burns from RIT imaging lab also evaluated this scanner against a wide
sampling of camera systems used in Museum capture settings. If you like
I can send you the PDF docs on how they did it, as well as the RIT
report.

Matthew H Owens
Founder
Druidian Archival Service
Druidian.org

Treasurer
Flyingovertime.org
An educational 501c3 organization.
On Oct 4, 2014 10:57 AM, "Michael Gallagher" <gallaghermikey-***@public.gmane.org>
wrote:

> Hi everyone. I have been trying to make watercolor reproductions on
> traditional cold press watercolor paper, unfortunately with very mixed
> results using existing profiles. Luckily I got my hands on a Colormunki to
> fix this, and using the Colormunki software with only 3 targets (130
> patches total) I was able to make the best matched print I've ever made.
> It's definitely not quite there though.
>
> So, I thought I'd take it to the next level and produce an even greater
> profile, so with ArgyllCMS I generated a target with 1,050 patches, printed
> it out using the ColorSync app with the setting "Print as color target"
> (this turns off color management based on what I have read), and read it in
> with the ColorMunki with the following commands:
>
> targen -v -d2 -f1050 -R -G 1050patch_Arches
>
> printtarg -v2 -iCM -h -t360 -a.6 -m0.0 -M0.0 -P -p190x320 1050patch_Arches
>
> chartread -v -H -B -T0.4 1050patch_Arches
>
> After reading in all the patches, I grabbed my local AdobeRGB1998.icc from
> my ColorSync folder (as I've read you're supposed to do), copied it to my
> working directory and used this command to generate the profile:
>
> colprof -v -qh -S AdobeRGB1998.icc -dpp -D "Arches 300gsm Canon Pro 100"
> 1050patch_Arches
>
> And here are the results (I apologize for picture quality) with the
> original on top, the Colormunki software profile on the bottom left, and
> Argyll's profile on the bottom right. This was printed on my Canon Pro 100
> in Photoshop with relative colormetric selected:
>
> http://imgur.com/CnbDset
>
> Notice the blacks are completely missing in the face and the clipping on
> the blue wash on the side. It is difficult to tell from this picture, but
> there is a green cast as well. Also, here's a 3D view from the ColorSync
> app comparing the Colormunki generated profile and ArgyllCMS, with the
> smaller ArgyllCMS profile in color and the Colormunki shown in a white
> outline. It's obvious that there's quite a bit less coverage in Argyll's
> profile. To be honest, I'm baffled that the gamut is so much smaller
> considering I used more than 8x the patches with Argyll:
>
> http://imgur.com/DkJwdy5
>
> Perhaps I've missed a valuable step in generating my profile - based on
> what I can see, I did not specify any additional grays with the -g command,
> hence the complete lack of gray details. I'm a complete novice at
> profiling, but I was really hoping that 1,050 patches would produce a
> superior profile to the 130 patch Colormunki profile. If anyone has any
> ideas as to what might have gone wrong here, or what else I need to do to
> improve this profile, I would greatly appreciate any help.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Mike
>