Re: colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 47
Re: colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 47
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 47
- From: MARK NELSON via colorsync-users <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:50:58 -0500
Sort of off topic and I apologize.
The large format printers Epson 7890 and 9890 have a very light film of
lubricant on the chrome rod/rail/guide that the print head slides back and
forth on. Does anyone know what this lubricant is and where to buy some?
Thanks and sorry for being off topic.
Best Wishes,
Mark Nelson
www.PrecisionDigitalNegatives.com
PDNPRint Forum @ Yahoo Groups
www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
Curve Calculator III for the Mac is Now Available
sent from my iPhonetypeDeviceThingy
> On Jun 24, 2019, at 1:49 PM, email@hidden wrote:
>
> Send colorsync-users mailing list submissions to
> email@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://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: Printer Profile Issues (email@hidden)
> 2. Re: Fogra 51 and 52 (Graeme Gill)
> 3. Re: Epson Doubleweight Matte (Ernst Dinkla)
> 4. RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte (email@hidden)
> 5. Re: Printer profile issue (Don Hutcheson)
> 6. Re: Exposure Value (Ben Goren)
> 7. RE: Exposure Value (email@hidden)
> 8. RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte (email@hidden)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 15:57:54 -0400
> From: email@hidden
> To: email@hidden
> Cc: "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'"
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: RE: Printer Profile Issues
> Message-ID: <071701d529fd$f2eb28a0$d8c179e0$@videotron.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
> 46L, 57a and -9b is way too restricted for solid Magenta?
> GRACoL2006 Magenta is 46 74 -2.
> The a* value needs to be pushed a whole lot more.
>
> / Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: colorsync-users
> <colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=email@hidden> On Behalf Of
> zbet66--- via colorsync-users
> Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 2:32 PM
> To: email@hidden
> Subject: Printer Profile Issues
>
> The printer is a ten color Epson Surecolor 80600 so I am sure it has enough
> gamut. I run a custom 24 patch color check with Colorthink spreadsheet and I
> have matched these colors on printers with smaller gamuts like color
> copiers. The Magenta is 46L, 57a and -9b.
> The ink restrictions were done by measuring the Onyx target so you are
> correct, I should look there. Also, I will plot the problem colors in
> Chromix to see if they indeed do fall within the gamut of the resulting
> profile. The problem could well be in the ink restrictions!Thanks, I will
> report back.
> Randy Zaucha
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:46:16 +1000
> From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
> To: ColorSync <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Fogra 51 and 52
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
> Refik Telhan wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>>>> Sorry, this makes no sense. The "structural changes" are a result of the
>>>> color
>>>> data. The color data tells you in an objective way how it will look. Just
>>>> because
>>>> the ink and printing conditions are the same doesn't imply that the
>>>> separation will
>>>> be similar if the paper is significantly different. And it is different -
>>>> it has
>>>> FWA in it.
>>
>> In the real-life scenario, the paper is "not" significantly different, it is
>> "identical" in both FOGRA39 and FOGRA51-based print runs. This also true for
>> FOGRA47
>> and FOGRA52 print tests.
>
> Not according to Fogra:
> <https://www.fogra.org/index.php?menuid=48&downloadid=1100&reporeid=0>
>
> "(FOGRA39:) This is mostly due to the paper white point (CIELAB (M0, wb)=95 1
> -2),
> which does not reflect typical paper shades having higher amounts of optical
> brightener agents (OBA)."
>
>> I have used the following papers:
>>
>> COATED Sappi Magno Satin
>> M0 - Lab: 95.05, 0.93, -4.24
>> M1 - Lab: 95.17, 1.28, -5.99
>> M2 - Lab: 94.87, -0.42, 0.48
>>
>> UNCOATED Sappi Magno Natural
>> M0 - Lab: 94.10, 2.14, -6.96
>> M1 - Lab: 94.27, 2.57, -9.32
>> M2 - Lab: 93.84, 0.28, -0.35
>
> Looking at the Fogra profile data:
>
> Fogra39:
>
> xicclu -ff -ia Fogra39L.icm
> 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [CMYK] -> Lut -> 95.021551 0.001909
> -1.997379 [Lab]
>
> Fogra51:
>
> xicclu -ff -ia Fogra51.icm
> 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 [CMYK] -> Lut -> 95.037647 1.505190
> -6.102197 [Lab]
>
> Under the different measurement conditions, the Fogra51 is noticeably more
> blue
> (delta b* -4.1), indicating greater FWA activity.
>
>> Hence, when the printing conditions are almost the same (FOGRA39 ->
>> FOGRA51), I expect
>> to have similar separations that would end up with a visually related prints
>> in both
>> worlds. Knocking down the yellow channel on "colorimetric" grounds produces
>> an
>> unpleasantly cold appearance from the standpoint of the print buyer.
>
> "colormetric" should be exactly the same as visual appearance.
> If it's not, then the profile is not appropriate.
>
>> Then I must ask the question:- which measurement mode should we use, M0, M1
>> or M2? When
>> M1 (or even M0) is used on moderate or high OBA papers, yellow ink appears
>> to be more
>> yellow than what it really is, and black ink appears to contain a strong
>> yellowing
>> power in comparison to the excessive blueness of the paper. Hence, when
>> color values
>> are captured in M1 mode, the correspondence to appearance is different from
>> that of M0
>> or M2.
>
> Use a measurement mode that corresponds to your evaluation conditions. Ideally
> you would measure you evaluation conditions and use that.
>
>> For building the perceptual and relative colorimetric B-to-A tables of an
>> ICC profile,
>> what we really need is the paper-agnostic color data. M1 data (or even M0
>> data)
>> contains the color of the paper as well as the blue radiation of the OBAs.
>> This
>> secondary radiation can be seen through the full tonal range under magenta
>> and cyan
>> inks, but as yellow and black inks progressively block the UV component of
>> the
>> spectrometer, this blueness quickly diminishes towards end of the tonal
>> range. And for
>> this very reason, yellow and black ink become "more yellow" than what they
>> really are.
>
> Conceptually this is possible, but the maths is not simple when FWA is part
> of the mix, nor when you want accuracy, since the print process needs
> to be modeled in some detail. i.e. you can't simply subtract one paper white
> and add in another.
>
> But I strongly suspect that viewing conditions are also an issue. Placing
> a paper with FWA in an M1 viewing booth with spectrally flat surround
> is asking for problems due to the different white points of the surround
> and the paper.
>
>> This is why I have been proposing M2 as the measurement mode to grab data
>> for building
>> the ICC profiles for color conversion. In M2 mode, as the OBAs in the paper
>> are not
>> even triggered, the data can be stripped off the paper color quite cleanly
>> and the
>> color separations made by the profiles created from this data have a full
>> body yellow
>> that we see in the profiles of the ISO 12647-2:2004(AMD 2007) era. The
>> reference papers
>> had low OBA levels and the relatively low power of the UV content of
>> spectrometers in
>> M0 mode, gave us a better CMY balance in the separations.
>
> You may well be right that such a profile is more portable (i.e. less
> sensitive to the paper type) than one that takes the paper effect
> into account. i.e. use of relative colorimetric intent effectively
> strips out the paper background in a simple way, and the printing
> process itself adds it in again. If the physical recombining
> is sufficiently close in effect to a simple addition, or if any
> errors tend to be in a direction that is visually acceptable,
> then the overall result may be acceptable.
>
>>>> What sort of surround ? If the surround doesn't have matching FWA response
>>>> to the
>>>> M1, then the observer will be in a compromised state of white adaptation.
>>
>> Surrond? It is the same light booth with side panels. The FOGRA39 and
>> FOGRA51 prints
>> are made on the "same" paper (see above) in their respective printing
>> conditions and
>> they have been viewed side by side in this light booth confined with side
>> panels.
>
> Right, but does the light booth have spectrally flat grey side panels ?
> Because this is a source of white point reference for the observer that is
> going to be noticeably warmer than the paper substrate under M1, and
> so is at risk of giving a misleading impression of the color compared
> to real world viewing conditions.
>
>> When colorimetrically verifying a proof or a print, the numbers should
>> definitely
>> correspond to the appearance. And by measuring as-you-see, M1 measurement
>> mode does
>> that. But profiles based on M1 data have a strong tendency to suppress the
>> yellow
>> channel. I have recently tested three commercial profiling packages with
>> M0-M1-M2 data.
>> They are quite different from each other in terms of overall behaviour, but
>> one thing
>> is common: they all produce weaker yellow separations when they are using
>> the M1 data.
>> And this is why I have been proposing M2 for profiles to do the color
>> conversions and
>> M1 for profiles to do the proofing/verifying.
>
> You simply can't have it both ways. Suppressing the yellow is what the
> data says has to happen.
>
>> The balance of CMY, on whatever paper it is being used, should always be
>> maintained.
>
> The CMY should be whatever is needed to produce the correct
> color. That's what the profile does for you. If you want to set CMY
> by hand, then you aren't color managing.
>
>> The success of FOGRA39 (or FOGRA47) lies in the fact that it was created
>> from a dataset
>> grabbed from a low OBA paper in legacy M0 mode. The CMY ink-film is quite
>> neutral
>> itself and thus can be be used on papers with different levels of OBA. And
>> all "appear"
>> neutral, relative to whatever paper it is printed on. K channel is approx.
>> (16,0,0) in
>> "all" measurement modes. Solid Black and Yellow patches return almost the
>> same values
>> in M0-M1-M2 modes. When building the gray axis, the neturality of the CMY
>> ink-film
>> should always be observed. You should not be relying on the neutralizing
>> power of
>> black. Black is the first ink that goes on the paper, when you print a CMY
>> gray -with a
>> weak yellow- on top (and yellow is the topmost layer), the result is
>> visually cold on
>> whatever paper you are using. The balance of the CMY gray should even be
>> maintained
>> when you are targeting higher GCR settings for ink saving or for other
>> purposes. In
>> summary, a netural ink-film works on "all" papers. Knocking down yellow
>> destroys the
>> neutrality of the CMY ink-film and black barely compensates this shift to
>> blue.
>
> You have an obvious contradiction that you keep talking about, but do not
> seem to be trying to resolve.
>
>> You are looking at profile data and the print buyers are looking at the
>> prints. They do
>> see the shift to blue in the rich blacks and they don't like it.
>
> Then fix the profiles!!!! You can't keep using profiles that don't correspond
> to appearance and then complain that the profiles produce separations that
> don't give the correct appearance. Of course this is so, by definition.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Graeme Gill.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:32:21 +0200
> From: Ernst Dinkla <email@hidden>
> To: email@hidden
> Cc: "'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List"
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Epson Doubleweight Matte
> Message-ID:
> <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Roger,
>
> However you will see that effect in the Hahnemühle Baryta FB 350, a magenta
> cast, that is the result of OBA blue emission + red reflection and little
> green+yellow contributing to the paper white. Chromatic adaption can not
> cope with it. Epson Double Weight Matte paper has a similar spectral plot
> but less pronounced.
>
> Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
>
> Dinkla Grafische Techniek
> Quad, piëzografie, giclée
> www.pigment-print.com
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 6:48 PM Roger Breton via colorsync-users <
> email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Finally got hold of a fresh sample of Epson Doubleweight Matte paper.
>>
>> Here is a link to its measurements, in Excel.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://1drv.ms/x/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkLVN8r7LgHiGqxRYZg
>>
>>
>>
>> In M1 mode, I believe it's going to be sufficient to carry my humble color
>> separations experiments :
>>
>>
>>
>> CIE Lab D50/2 (KonicaMinolta FD-7)
>>
>>
>> 93.86
>>
>> 2.53
>>
>> -8.01
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you all for your kind and patient help / Roger
>>
>>
>>
>> P.S. "Funny", this paper appears to have a slightly "reddish" tint. Of
>> course, it does not appear "reddish" to me, because of chromatic
>> adaptation,
>> no matter what lighting I observe it under.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:32:52 -0400
> From: email@hidden
> To: 'Ernst Dinkla' <email@hidden>
> Cc: "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'"
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte
> Message-ID: <079901d52a80$90502690$b0f073b0$@videotron.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Ernst,
>
>
>
> This “phenomenon” of some optically brightened paper having a higher a*
> component is a mystery to me. To your knowledge, is it simply a function of
> having added a lot of FWA to the substrate, during the manufacturing process?
> Such that, as more and more FWA is added, a* simply becomes progressively
> more positive? Turning into “redder” appearance, visually, at some point?
>
>
>
> I confess don’t know enough of the behavior of stilbene and other FWA added
> to inkjet medias, personally, but my hypothesis is that all substrates –
> inkjets or not – are made up of the SAME FWA, I can’t say whether different
> FWAs are used, industrially, in the fabrication process? The thought would
> have never crossed my mind that different FWAs are used for different papers.
>
>
>
> I seem to recall that papers with a lower b* value like those used in coated
> offset papers, like -3.00 or -4.00, rarely get positive a* values? They’re
> always around 0.50 or 0.60, usually quite low, and hence never appear
> “reddish”.
>
>
>
> I’ll have to check on the Fogra 52 data… (The plot thickens…)
>
>
>
> Best / Roger
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Ernst Dinkla <email@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 3:32 AM
> To: email@hidden
> Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Epson Doubleweight Matte
>
>
>
> Roger,
>
>
>
> However you will see that effect in the Hahnemühle Baryta FB 350, a magenta
> cast, that is the result of OBA blue emission + red reflection and little
> green+yellow contributing to the paper white. Chromatic adaption can not cope
> with it. Epson Double Weight Matte paper has a similar spectral plot but less
> pronounced.
>
>
>
>
> Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
>
> Dinkla Grafische Techniek
> Quad, piëzografie, giclée
> www.pigment-print.com <http://www.pigment-print.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 6:48 PM Roger Breton via colorsync-users
> <email@hidden <mailto:email@hidden> >
> wrote:
>
> Finally got hold of a fresh sample of Epson Doubleweight Matte paper.
>
> Here is a link to its measurements, in Excel.
>
>
>
> https://1drv.ms/x/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkLVN8r7LgHiGqxRYZg
>
>
>
> In M1 mode, I believe it's going to be sufficient to carry my humble color
> separations experiments :
>
>
>
> CIE Lab D50/2 (KonicaMinolta FD-7)
>
>
> 93.86
>
> 2.53
>
> -8.01
>
>
>
> Thank you all for your kind and patient help / Roger
>
>
>
> P.S. "Funny", this paper appears to have a slightly "reddish" tint. Of
> course, it does not appear "reddish" to me, because of chromatic adaptation,
> no matter what lighting I observe it under.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
> colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden
> <mailto:email@hidden> )
> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
>
> This email sent to email@hidden <mailto:email@hidden>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:35:24 -0400
> From: Don Hutcheson <email@hidden>
> To: "email@hidden email@hidden"
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Printer profile issue
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
> Randy,
>
> Can you be more specific?
> How are you determining the dE?
> What target did you use?
> What pre-linearization did you use, G7 or something else?
> How did you set your ink limits?
>
> Profile editing is a desperate last resort these days, that just sweeps the
> dirt under the rug. Much better to solve the source problem.
>
> Don
>
> **************************
> Don Hutcheson
> President
> HutchColor, LLC
> 908-500-0341
> email@hidden
> **************************
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:35:36 +0000 (UTC)
>> From: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>
>> To: email@hidden
>> Subject: Printer Profile Issue
>> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>>
>> I've tried both Onyx and Xrite i1 Profiler to profile an Epson solvent
>> printer. The profile comes out fine as far as tone and gray. The Delta E's
>> for Reds and Magentas are over six.
>> I also tried more sampling with the Isis spectro. The results are still the
>> same with either profiling application.
>> The only solution I can come up with is to purchase a profile editor. The
>> EFI editor is a bit expensive and comes with a profile maker which I do not
>> need.
>> Does anyone have another possible solution to this?
>> Randy ZauchaManaged Color
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 10:15:48 -0700
> From: Ben Goren <email@hidden>
> To: Robin Myers <email@hidden>
> Cc: Roger Breton <email@hidden>,
> "'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List"
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Exposure Value
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>> On Jun 22, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Robin Myers via colorsync-users
>> <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Perfect reflecting diffuser 100
>> Fluorilon FWS-99 2009 99.9
>> Spectralon SCS-99 99.7
>> Kodak Gray Card 1977 (3 specimen average) 95.0
>> ColorChecker Passport 2013-12 Neutral 9.5 52.2
>> ColorChecker Passport 2013-12 Neutral 5.0 95.2
>
> Spectralon is great stuff, but damned expensive. Expect to pay as much for a
> Spectralon target as a Canon L series lens.
>
> There’re two homebrew-style options that are typically plenty “good enough”
> in photographic settings.
>
> The first, if you want 99%+ reflectance, as close to “pure white” as you’re
> going to get without spending lots of money: PFTE (Teflon) thread seal tape.
> Not very durable, and it’s got basically an eggshell surface that’s a bit
> more specular than ideal (Spectralon is close to ideally Lambertian)...but
> it’s dirt cheap and you can get it anywhere. Use a bit of creativity and you
> can figure out how to wrap several layers around a card to make a target. If
> it gets dirty or damaged or lost...no biggie; all you’ve invested is your
> time, so just make another.
>
> The second is a styrofoam coffee cup (or packing material, etc.) Its total
> reflectance is a lot less...in the 80% range. But it’s much more spectrally
> flat than the photographic tools (ColorChecker, gray card, etc.). Outdoors or
> in mixed lighting, its near-cylindrical shape lets you sample the illuminant
> from all angles, which can be creatively useful. And, with the right
> combination of lens and cup, you can fit the cup over the lens and get a
> near-ideal uniform sampling of all the light in the scene — much like those
> hundreds-of-dollars custom white balance tools that fit over the lenses do,
> but, again, with near-perfect spectral uniformity. (Put the cup over the
> lens, take a picture, and use it for your in-camera custom white balance.
> It’s probably pretty close to where you want to meter, too; experiment some
> and you could get that dialed in perfectly and consistently.) Coffee cups are
> pretty reliable spectrally; the more creative shapes you might find in a
> craft store (spheres, cubes, etc.) are more hit-or-miss. Visually compare
> with some thread seal tape (if you don’t have a spectrometer) if you’re
> unsure.
>
> Last note: read everything Iliah has on the Raw Photo Processor / RawDigger
> Web site and accompanying blog. You couldn’t ask for a better crash course on
> camera exposure, metering, development, etc., etc., etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> b&
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:39:57 -0400
> From: email@hidden
> To: 'Ben Goren' <email@hidden>, 'Robin Myers'
> <email@hidden>
> Cc: "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'"
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: RE: Exposure Value
> Message-ID: <081c01d52abc$39c24970$ad46dc50$@videotron.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> "Styrofoam cup", Ben?
>
> Would you have a link to some kind of image, anywhere?
> To help "visualize" what you mean by that?
>
> Ilah's web site is fascinating 😊
>
> / Roger
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Goren <email@hidden>
> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 1:16 PM
> To: Robin Myers <email@hidden>
> Cc: Roger Breton <email@hidden>; 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: Exposure Value
>
>> On Jun 22, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Robin Myers via colorsync-users
>> <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> Perfect reflecting diffuser 100
>> Fluorilon FWS-99 2009 99.9
>> Spectralon SCS-99 99.7
>> Kodak Gray Card 1977 (3 specimen average) 95.0
>> ColorChecker Passport 2013-12 Neutral 9.5 52.2
>> ColorChecker Passport 2013-12 Neutral 5.0 95.2
>
> Spectralon is great stuff, but damned expensive. Expect to pay as much for a
> Spectralon target as a Canon L series lens.
>
> There’re two homebrew-style options that are typically plenty “good enough”
> in photographic settings.
>
> The first, if you want 99%+ reflectance, as close to “pure white” as you’re
> going to get without spending lots of money: PFTE (Teflon) thread seal tape.
> Not very durable, and it’s got basically an eggshell surface that’s a bit
> more specular than ideal (Spectralon is close to ideally Lambertian)...but
> it’s dirt cheap and you can get it anywhere. Use a bit of creativity and you
> can figure out how to wrap several layers around a card to make a target. If
> it gets dirty or damaged or lost...no biggie; all you’ve invested is your
> time, so just make another.
>
> The second is a styrofoam coffee cup (or packing material, etc.) Its total
> reflectance is a lot less...in the 80% range. But it’s much more spectrally
> flat than the photographic tools (ColorChecker, gray card, etc.). Outdoors or
> in mixed lighting, its near-cylindrical shape lets you sample the illuminant
> from all angles, which can be creatively useful. And, with the right
> combination of lens and cup, you can fit the cup over the lens and get a
> near-ideal uniform sampling of all the light in the scene — much like those
> hundreds-of-dollars custom white balance tools that fit over the lenses do,
> but, again, with near-perfect spectral uniformity. (Put the cup over the
> lens, take a picture, and use it for your in-camera custom white balance.
> It’s probably pretty close to where you want to meter, too; experiment some
> and you could get that dialed in perfectly and consistently.) Coffee cups are
> pretty reliable spectrally; the more creative shapes you might find in a
> craft store (spheres, cubes, etc.) are more hit-or-miss. Visually compare
> with some thread seal tape (if you don’t have a spectrometer) if you’re
> unsure.
>
> Last note: read everything Iliah has on the Raw Photo Processor / RawDigger
> Web site and accompanying blog. You couldn’t ask for a better crash course on
> camera exposure, metering, development, etc., etc., etc.
>
> Cheers,
>
> b&
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 14:49:29 -0400
> From: email@hidden
> To: "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'"
> <email@hidden>
> Subject: RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte
> Message-ID: <081e01d52abd$8eed0060$acc70120$@videotron.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII
>
> Quick comment.
> I suspected there could be a difference between the IT8.7/4 target printed on
> a heavily optically brightened paper, such Canon Matte Photo paper, on an
> Epson printer, measured "fresh" compared with measured "24 hours later"? I
> measured the print "fresh" yesterday afternoon and again today.
>
> The difference? What difference?
>
> https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkLVP0GvK2YbCDLaOXw
>
> Can't believe the difference is so small.
>
> Best / Roger
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> colorsync-users mailing list
> email@hidden
> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 47
> ***********************************************
_______________________________________________
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