Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
email@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Shadow detail - printer profiles (Derek Cooper)
2. Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles (Derek Cooper)
3. Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles (Terry Wyse)
4. Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles (Douglas Rhiner)
5. CN=Greg Staler/OU=US/O=DataCard is out of the office.
(email@hidden)
6. Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles (Derek Cooper)
7. Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles (Steve Upton)
8. Re: Backlightfilm (Igor Perchuk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 15:26:26 -0400
From: Derek Cooper <email@hidden>
Subject: Shadow detail - printer profiles
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Hi Gang,
I've been struggling with my GMB iO with PMP to get a decent profile
of a particular canvas - it just doesn't want to dig into the blacks,
for whatever reason. I'm thinking the spectro is struggling to see
past the sheen of the canvas to pickup the true density of the blacks
and shadows. Have people had experience with that? I've talked to
GMB, and they think the solution might be to go with a SpectroLino
and use a polarizing filter to remove the sheen.
Appreciate it,
Derek Cooper Photography
www.derekcooper.com
www.reproducingart.ca
V 613-767-9106
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 15:52:18 -0400
From: Derek Cooper <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Hey,
Isn't it great when you answer some of your own questions - just
talked to someone at GMB with more knowledge (aren't they great?) and
they don't think the pol cut will make any difference given the
characteristics of the substrate. Their sphere product might do it,
but I don't want to go down that laborious path.
Derek
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:19:32 -0400
From: Terry Wyse <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles
To: ColorSync User List List <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Took the words right out of my mouth in regards to using a
polarization filter. I don't know about canvas, but a pol filter can
do wonders when measuring very "low-gamut" substrates such as
uncoated/matte fine art type papers.
An alternate approach would be to create a custom testchart with
larger than normal patches so perhaps the iO would grab a better
"average" across each patch. The texture would still be there of
course but perhaps you'd get more of the "right" readings across a
larger patch. Just a thought.
Terry Wyse
On May 9, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Derek Cooper wrote:
I've talked to GMB, and they think the solution might be to go with
a SpectroLino and use a polarizing filter to remove the sheen.
_____________________________
WyseConsul
Color Management Consulting
G7 Certified Expert
email@hidden
704.843.0858
http://www.wyseconsul.com
http://www.colormanagementgroup.com
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:07:10 -0700
From: Douglas Rhiner <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
I had/have the same issue with iO and PMP with gloss canvases.
All the profiles I created for gloss canvas with PMP resulted in a
profile with a really shallow black end where the black end was
"double peaked". Tried averaging various quantities of readings to no
avail.
Tried Monaco Profiler and got an awesome profile.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 17:35:23 -0500
From: email@hidden
Subject: CN=Greg Staler/OU=US/O=DataCard is out of the office.
To: email@hidden
Message-ID:
<OFA19DE371.0F109D78-
email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
I will be out of the office starting 05/09/2007 and will not
return until
05/15/2007.
I will respond to your message when I return.
NOTICE – This message and any attachment(s) are for authorized use
by the intended recipient(s) only and may contain privileged or
confidential information. Unless you are an intended recipient,
you may not use, copy, retain, or disclose to anyone any
information contained in this message and any attachment(s). If
you are not an intended recipient of this message, please
immediately contact the sender and delete this message and any
attachment(s).
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 09:29:19 -0400
From: Derek Cooper <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
On May 9, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Terry Wyse wrote:
Took the words right out of my mouth in regards to using a
polarization filter. I don't know about canvas, but a pol filter
can do wonders when measuring very "low-gamut" substrates such as
uncoated/matte fine art type papers.
Ah, but this substrate is a very high gamut canvas, so in discussions
with a more knowledgeable tech at GMB, they confirmed that the
spectrolino with pol won't do the trick.
An alternate approach would be to create a custom testchart with
larger than normal patches so perhaps the iO would grab a better
"average" across each patch. The texture would still be there of
course but perhaps you'd get more of the "right" readings across a
larger patch. Just a thought.
Doesn't do the trick either, in this case. A similar approach is to
patch read, 1 read, the entire target twice, then compare the two
readings in Measure. My findings - both readings are incredibly
close. So, the spectro is consistently reading the darks and having
the same problems.
Derek
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 10:43:07 -0700
From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Shadow detail - printer profiles
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <p0624080bc269091e918e@[216.254.28.122]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 9:29 AM -0400 5/10/07, Derek Cooper wrote:
On May 9, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Terry Wyse wrote:
Took the words right out of my mouth in regards to using a
polarization filter. I don't know about canvas, but a pol filter
can do wonders when measuring very "low-gamut" substrates such as
uncoated/matte fine art type papers.
Ah, but this substrate is a very high gamut canvas, so in
discussions with a more knowledgeable tech at GMB, they confirmed
that the spectrolino with pol won't do the trick.
I'm going to have to disagree with the GMB rep. We use the 'Lino
for just such media with great success and have been doing so for
years now. Each time they come out with a new device that
'replaces' the Lino I give them (forceful) feedback about the loss
of a polarizing filter but it hasn't motivated them to add a Pol
filter to any new instruments. It's one of a number of reasons why
our bank of 'Lino/scans stays busy.
If you don't have one we can do the measurements for you as part of
our measurement services. Contact our measurement jockey Pat Herold
at herold (at) chromix (dot) com for more information if you need.
Regards,
Steve
______________________________________________________________________
__
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
______________________________________________________________________
__
--
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:16:34 -0400
From: Igor Perchuk <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Backlightfilm
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Thank you for the advice I will check this film out..
On May 3, 2007, at 3:03 PM, email@hidden
wrote:
Send Colorsync-users mailing list submissions to
email@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
email@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Colorsync-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Backlight Film Epson 9800 (Walt)
2. RE: U.S. Sheetfed vs. U.S. SWOP (Steve Upton)
3. Re: U.S. Sheetfed vs. U.S. SWOP (Graeme Gill)
4. Re: U.S. Sheetfed vs. U.S. SWOP (Steve Upton)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 15:14:59 -0400
From: Walt <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Backlight Film Epson 9800
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed;
x-avg-checked=avg-ok-15AD2268
We use the Parrot Color backlit film with the 9800/k3
and are very pleased with the results, but it's possible
that our requirements aren't as demanding as yours.
I think we're using the premium 10 mil.
http://parrotcolor.com/store/home.php?cat=459
Email Carolyn Cope <email@hidden> for
more information.
Good luck!
Walt
From: Igor Perchuk <email@hidden>
Subject: Backlight Film Epson 9800
Hi everyone,
I was wondering if anyone has any experience printing on backlight
film on epson 9800 with K3 inks. I have tried everything and am
getting nowhere. I use to use the epson backlight film before that
worked great, but that was discontinued. Now I have tried the kodak
universal and there reverse backlight film. I am not getting the
contrast I need. The black density is too light and the colors are
washed-out. Is there an alternative media out there that would work
better.
Thanks for any help,
Igor Perchuk
-~
Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty and so bear
ourselves that if the British Commonwealth and Empire
lasts for a thousand years men will still say, "This
was their finest hour".
Winston Spencer Churchill
June 18, 1940
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 16:10:31 -0700
From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
Subject: RE: U.S. Sheetfed vs. U.S. SWOP
To: "ColorSync Users Mailing List" <email@hidden>
Message-ID: <p062408dcc25ec5df873f@[216.254.28.122]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 8:21 AM -0400 5/2/07, Mike Eddington wrote:
Thought I goofed so I looked at the profiles again and confirmed
that
I
was looking at US Sheetfed Coated rather than the UnCoated. Yes,
the
profile appears smaller in gamut volume than US SWOP in the
ColorSync
utility using the Yuv view. Any suggestions on how to empirically
evaluate
the gamut of a profile when comparing to another profile?
I was using ColorThink Pro, and also Monaco Gamut Works which both
show
the US sheetfed Coated profile as larger than the US SWOP
profile...but
yeah, I can confirm what you're saying. The Colorsync utility
shows it
as a smaller gamut. After viewing some other profiles of mine, I
must
say I'm clueless as to what's going on with how the colorsync
utility
displays gamut volume as there's some very strange plots compared to
what ColorThink and GamutWorks come up with. In short, I don't
trust
it.
Can anyone offer any insight the differences between the Colorsync
Utility's gamut plots compared with say ColorThink Pro?
yup, I can :-)
The primary difference you are seeing between ColorThink Pro
(CTPro) and the ColorSync Utility (CSU) is that CTPro plots using
absolute colorimetry and the CSU plots using the 'perceptual' intent.
This is when you are looking at the list of profiles and select one
profile to view. If you have opened a single profile into CSU and
select any of the A2Bx intents, then they will be graphed with that
intent...
What this really means:
There are 4 different ways of graphing the device->Lab transform of
a profile:
1. Perceptual - CSU(A2B0 table or select profile in list), CTPro
(option) - you are seeing the gamut of device-values as they are
converted to Lab using the perceptual intent.
2. Relative Colorimetric - CSU(A2B1 table), CTPro(option) - you are
seeing the gamut of device-values as they are converted to Lab
using the rel con intent.
3. Saturation - CSU(A2B2 table), CTPro(option) - you are seeing the
gamut of device-values as they are converted to Lab using the
saturation intent.
4. Absolute Colorimetric - CSU( not available ), CTPro(default) -
you are seeing the gamut of the device as described by the profile.
The white point is lowered to actual paper white and the black
point raised to ink black..
The graphs of 1-3 are of limited use (if any) to the average user
as they describe the 'proofing' behavior of a specific part of the
profile. They do NOT describe the gamut of the device OR the
behavior of the profile when used to OUTPUT an image. It is
interesting to see how rel col raises the black level vs perceptual
and saturation though.
#4 describes the gamut of the device and is a far more useful graph
- and is typically what people expect when graphing a profile.
A good way to confirm this device gamut is to also plot (in
ColorThink) the measurement data that created the profile and
you'll find that the profile conforms to the measurement data
closely - at least on good profiles. This is a good sanity check
for profiles.
The use of the perceptual intent for the default graph in the CSU
is not a good idea - it probably grabs the default intent recorded
in the profile's header, but I'm not sure. The gamut shown (without
explanation) is again, NOT for the device and NOT the gamut
produced when printing. Strictly speaking, it is the gamut that
you'll receive from the profile when using it to convert a CMYK
file to Lab (and on to another profile) using the perceptual
intent; something that is rarely performed in a workflow. Even in
CMYK to CMYK conversions, rel col with BPC is recommended...
Regards,
Steve
_____________________________________________________________________
_
__
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
_____________________________________________________________________
_
__
--
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 13:25:23 +1000
From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: U.S. Sheetfed vs. U.S. SWOP
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Steve Upton wrote:
4. Absolute Colorimetric - CSU( not available ), CTPro(default) -
you are seeing the gamut of the
device as described by the profile. The white point is lowered to
actual paper white and the
black point raised to ink black..
When you say "raised to ink black..", this worries me. ICC relative
colorimetric
only shifts the devices absolute black point very slightly as a
side effect
of the white point shift when it is encoded into the table. The
relative
colorimetric intent tables should not have had the black point
changed
in any other way, unlike the perceptual table, which should have
had its
black point expanded to that of the reference medium black
(0.30911% reflectance).
The use of the perceptual intent for the default graph in the CSU
is not a good idea - it
probably grabs the default intent recorded in the profile's
header, but I'm not sure. The gamut
shown (without explanation) is again, NOT for the device and NOT
the gamut produced when
printing. Strictly speaking, it is the gamut that you'll receive
from the profile when using it
to convert a CMYK file to Lab (and on to another profile) using
the perceptual intent; something
that is rarely performed in a workflow. Even in CMYK to CMYK
conversions, rel col with BPC is
recommended...
The gamut portrayed by the non-colorimetric A2B tables can vary
quite widely. On some
V2 profiles it may be identical to the colormetric table. On
others, it will represent
vendors "secret sauce", and on ICC V4 profiles it is meant to be a
transformation
from the device gamut to the Reference Medium Color Gamut, and
hence should
look pretty the same as the Reference Medium Color Gamut :- so in
my book, noone
should be looking at anything other than the absolute or relative
A2B table
when it comes to examining the gamut of the device. The contents of
all the other tables only give an indication of how the profile
creation software
is manipulating the color.
Graeme Gill.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:50:24 -0700
From: Steve Upton <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: U.S. Sheetfed vs. U.S. SWOP
To: email@hidden
Message-ID: <p062408e2c25fc235ac57@[216.254.28.122]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 1:25 PM +1000 5/3/07, Graeme Gill wrote:
Steve Upton wrote:
4. Absolute Colorimetric - CSU( not available ), CTPro(default) -
you are seeing the gamut of the
device as described by the profile. The white point is lowered to
actual paper white and the
black point raised to ink black..
When you say "raised to ink black..", this worries me. ICC
relative colorimetric
only shifts the devices absolute black point very slightly as a
side effect
of the white point shift when it is encoded into the table. The
relative
colorimetric intent tables should not have had the black point
changed
in any other way, unlike the perceptual table, which should have
had its
black point expanded to that of the reference medium black
(0.30911% reflectance).
right. indeed. I meant it raised it in relation to the perceptual
and saturation intents which pull it down to 0,0,0.
<snip>
in my book, noone
should be looking at anything other than the absolute or relative
A2B table
when it comes to examining the gamut of the device. The contents of
all the other tables only give an indication of how the profile
creation software
is manipulating the color.
exactly! The fact that the CSU displays the perceptual table's
color - with blacks pulled down to 0,0,0 and whites pulled up to
100,0,0 - as a default with no explanation to the inexperienced
user about what it is they are seeing is very misleading. (sorry,
huge sentence). It's not technically incorrect but it certainly
implies colors on output that simple won't be there.
Regards,
Steve
_____________________________________________________________________
_
__
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o email@hidden 206.985.6837
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
_____________________________________________________________________
_
__
--
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Colorsync-users mailing list
email@hidden
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 165
***********************************************
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Colorsync-users mailing list
email@hidden
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
End of Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 4, Issue 172
***********************************************