Re: ArgyllCMS quick start
Re: ArgyllCMS quick start
- Subject: Re: ArgyllCMS quick start
- From: Klaus Karcher <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:06:54 +0100
Lorenzo Ridolfi wrote:
Klaus,
Could you post please in which situations you are using ArgyllCMS and
the results obtained with it?
Most frequently I used it to create profiles for an Océ CS6060 solvent
LFP and a wide variety of media (papers, films, fabrics, ...). It's a
difficult task for several reasons: the printer is highly
temperature-sensitive and even though it has 3 independently adjustable
internal heatings and operates in an air-conditioned environment, there
are sometimes slight differences between the right and the left side
which is closer to the stream of the air condition. The inks are very
susceptible to metamerism failures and many media contain optical
brighteners and have textured surfaces. Therefore it's important to
measure several charts, to control the drying times and temperatures and
to compare and average over multiple series of measurement. I use
ProfileMakers MeasureTool to compare and average the measurements and to
estimate the standard deviation and ArgyllCMS to create the profiles.
ArgyllCMS gives me essentially better profiles than PM, even if PM gets
twice as much patches. I guess that particularly argyll's way to deal
with FWAs and/or metamerism issues seems to effect this excellent
result. I normally use a chart with only 840 pre-conditioned patches,
but a weighted average over 6 through 8 series of spectral measurement
for the Océ.
I successfuly created several profiles for laser printers (Xerox DC12
and DC240) in a similar way.
I have no experience how Graeme's targen/profile/refine tools would cope
with a proofing system, but I am confident: I head of a German proofing
RIP manufacturer who is very comfortable with Graeme's profile and
refine tool. I'd follow Graeme's advices to use about 2000-3000 patches
for a high quality proofer profile.
The feature I appreciate the most is argyll's excellent, configurable
gamut mapping: You can compensate different viewing conditions, and
determine a source profile or even the gamut of an image to optimize the
gamut mapping -- the results are awesome IMO.
There are only two things to complain about:
- it's hard to fiddle about the right separation parameters
- the separation (black channel) looks bumpy if you don't use device
link profiles. Therefore I'd be careful to use argyll device profiles
for offset presses (it's a guess, I'm not really experienced with argyll
separations on presses)
Just my two cents,
Klaus
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden