Re: Epson canned profiles
Re: Epson canned profiles
- Subject: Re: Epson canned profiles
- From: ben <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 12:02:51 -0700
Let me try to make this introductory-textbook simple.
An ICC profile creates a mapping between the RGB values sent down the wire to
the printer and the absolute (XYZ, L*a*b*, whatever) values the printer creates
when asked to print those RGB values.
A printer will lay down as much ink as possible (with a long side discussion on
how "possible" is determined by the engineers) when you send it an RGB value of
0,0,0. Ideally, this is also the darkest color the printer will generate;
further ideally, it will also be a neutral color. In reality, it often isn't
either, and knowing its exact location in an absolute color space is critical
in getting good shadow detail from prints.
Every printer I've ever worked with has options in the print dialog box that
let you, essentially, choose tradeoffs between print quality, speed, and ink
usage. And, in turn, the printer will lay down more or less ink depending on
what options you set.
If the printer lays down more ink, that R=G=B=0 patch will be darker for
reasons that should not need explaining. If it lays down less ink, the patch
will be lighter. It might change hue, too, depending on the various tradeoffs
the engineers make.
As I noted above, if you don't know the actual color produced by the printer
when you print "black," the profile will not produce optimal results.
You are making the claim that changing the settings in the print dialog do not
make a visible difference in prints, which is equivalent to a claim that the
blackest blacks produced by the various settings is the same, which is
equivalent to a claim that they're laying down the exact same amount of ink --
which contradicts the claim of the dialog box that you can save ink by printing
at a lower quality. It's a claim that doesn't even pass the sniff test: why
offer the user the chance to waste time and ink if it's not going to make any
difference in the final result?
By asking you to provide us with measurements from the R=G=B=0 patches made
from two different settings, I am directly challenging you to provide a "check
your math" validation of your own claim.
That you repeatedly refuse to even pretend to do so speaks very, very, very
poorly of your intellectual integrity.
Note: I'm perfectly willing to consider that you can craft a single profile
that provides "close enough" results for a given paper regardless of driver
settings for the typical consumer. After all, the typical consumer is quite
happy with today's cell phone cameras -- which, I must admit, are very
impressive devices. Printers tend to be well behaved, such that I wouldn't be
surprised if a decent matrix or even shaper profile would work well. (I'll note
that I don't recall you indicating if you're creating LUT profiles or not.)
I'm just not going to buy your bullshit that there's no difference in output no
matter what you do in the print dialog.
A final note: I've already wasted far more of my time on your bullshit than you
deserve. If you want to continue the discussion, give us those hard numbers
that define the lower limit of the printer's gamut volume with different
settings. But this is the last you'll hear from me if you continue to pretend
the printer's gamut doesn't change with print settings, or if you try to
pretend that gamut changes are irrelevant to device characterization.
b&
_______________________________________________
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