June 2019 - colorsync-users

RE: Epson Enhanced Matte
by graxx＠videotron.ca 03 Jul '19

03 Jul '19

Ernst, I was quite pleased to find your database. I’m glad I now know that the Enhanced Matte Paper was originally called Archival Matte Paper and that Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte is the cut sheet version of Enhanced Matte Paper. That’s a tough act to follow. Since most of my applications are intended for proofing, I don’t really care that the OB in the paper decays over time, due to the factors you mentioned, but it is a “problem”. I, personally, would never print images on a substrate containing FWA to put on the walls of my living room – who does that? Your last comments about “Viewing conditions” are well taken. The majority of clients I’ve worked with, in the past, don’t view their jobs under any kind of controlled lighting, and would never care to take the time to even step outside their building to use “sunlight” or “daylight” which, in my opinion, would be better than “Cool white” or “Warm white” or whatever else “office lighting”. Thank you so much for taking the time to respond 😊 / Roger From: Ernst Dinkla <info(a)pigment-print.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 5:02 AM To: graxx(a)videotron.ca Cc: Martin Orpen <martin(a)idea-digital.com>; 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> Subject: Re: Epson Enhanced Matte Roger, M0. Tungsten light source that does not go deep into UV. i1Share spectral measurements and the Lab data taken from that app too. 380 to 730 NM readings. With an archive manager you can open SpectrumViz and get to the Data files. The goal of SpectrumViz was identifying whether there were OBAs used in the papers and where in the paper structure. On the web page is an explanation which conclusions can be made of the results. I think the app contributed to the reduced use of OBAs in inkjet art papers and to the use of better normal whitening agents (high L with a smooth continuous spectral plot) and in some cases to better fluorescent brightening agents (on longevity) in said papers. Meanwhile with improved pigment inkjet inks the main fading/color constancy issues are in the substrates printed on. Aardenburg-Imaging.com has excellent longevity testing done for the same purpose. On inkjet inks and the paper whites where Wilhelm-Research has not contributed much on the last aspect. AFAIK you will find paper white measurements there done more according your methodology. Look in the test result PDFs. Interesting observation on OBA/TiO2 containing paper and paper white color shifts due to dark storage there too. That next to articles on gas fading and light induced fading. Sometimes manufacturers react in another way on bad fade test reports: Your Enhanced Matte Paper was originally called Archival Matte Paper. But yellowed terribly over time. The name changed several years ago. Ultra Premium Presentation Paper Matte, is the cut sheet version of Enhanced Matte Paper. it is not my territory in the graphic arts but this (new) emphasis on matching proofing papers with OBA containing production stock is ignoring the fact that the consumer viewing conditions are as uncertain as they used to be in the past. This type of profiling becomes almost an academic effort and probably stimulates the use of OBAs which will only result in less color constancy in the real world. i thought it had a purpose for outdoor applications but even there I see some practical issues. I know as long as it satisfies the customer, ISO standards etc ............ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst Dinkla Dinkla Grafische Techniek Quad, piëzografie, giclée www.pigment-print.com <http://www.pigment-print.com> On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 1:28 AM Roger Breton via colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> > wrote: Found the Lab data for the Enhanced Matte 190! Had to leave the mouse over the media name, for the yellow "tab" information to appear. But... only CIE Lab 96.03 0.6 -2.1? I guess the instrument used to make the measurement, an X-Rite Eye One Basic, means that this is an "M0" or "Unfiltered UV" or "Legacy" measurement. So, using an M1 instrument, the b* value would a little more "negative". But by how much? The Doubleweight Matte 160 is CIE Lab 93.3 1.9 -4.4, a little "better" for my purpose, despite the lower ISO Brightness number? If I'm to stick with Epson, my "best" bet is with Presentation Matte 172, at CIE Lab 94.6 2.2 -5.8. Best / Roger -----Original Message----- From: Martin Orpen <martin(a)idea-digital.com <mailto:martin@idea-digital.com> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2019 5:50 PM To: graxx(a)videotron.ca <mailto:graxx@videotron.ca> Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com <http://lists.apple.com> ' List <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Epson Enhanced Matte > On 18 Jun 2019, at 21:57, Roger Breton via colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> > wrote: > > Hate to ask but would anyone have “real” CIE Lab measurements (farbmessung) for this paper? Thanks for your patience and help. Roger Ernst Dinkla’s SpectrumViz has measurements for loads of inkjet papers: <http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm> Requires JRE to run. Cheers -- Martin Orpen Idea Digital Imaging Ltd _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> ) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/ernst.dinkla%40gmai… This email sent to ernst.dinkla(a)gmail.com <mailto:ernst.dinkla@gmail.com>

2 1

Printer Profile
by zbet66＠yahoo.com 26 Jun '19

26 Jun '19

In answer to the other question, we are reproducing artwork and paintings so I want to get maximum gamut from the printers. We are not simulating presses or anything like that. I need "full rainbow." Randy Zaucha

3 2

Printer Profiling Issue
by zbet66＠yahoo.com 26 Jun '19

26 Jun '19

My 24 patch profile tester has CMYRGB values from rows K and F of a properly scanned Kodak IT8 chart so they should be in gamut of most printers. There are 100L, 88L, 75L, 50L, 25, and 10L grays with zero ab value. The 100L is to read the cast of the media and the 10L for a Dmax. This target was designed as a quick way to test the printer profile accuracy and compare multiple printers in the same office quickly. They usually had Fiery Rips so I could tweak the tone & grays so they all printed similar light to dark with minimal casts. (sometimes adjusted for lighting too) All it took was printing the Adobe RGB target file, two swipes of the spectro on the color patch part, load the text file into Colorhink spreadsheet. with the reference file of the target file and get a spreadsheet that was color coded for pass/fail and also displayed Delta E's. If there was a problem, the Lab numbers told me how to edit. Quick and simple. I could also use it to compare one printer to another instead of a reference file. I use it for all printers I profile. There are blends and other things on the target for visual inspection of print quality. If you display the patch values with the printer profile in 3D, you can see that the patch colors are in gamut. I will have time today to adjust the ink restrictions on the Epson 80600 but I am not very sure which numbers in the Onyx to adjust how much as there are 8 of them. Thanks for all the comments everyone! Randy Zaucha

1 0

Printer Profiling Issues
by zbet66＠yahoo.com 25 Jun '19

25 Jun '19

Thanks for the reply Don. I'm using an Isis spectro with Onyx Thrive. My goal is to get the maximum printer gamut on canvas.Ink restrictions were set by reading the Onyx target into the Onyx Thrive. Pre-linearization is done on the printer, the Epson 80600. Ink limits were set by visually inspecting the Onyx target.Delta E is determined by measuring a custom 24 patch target I made and comparing it to the reference values in Colorthink. I agree that I would not want to use an editor. I displayed the ICC profile in Color think and put the 24 patch target up. All the patch points fit into the gamut except the violet patch. The Magenta has the highest Delta E which is 7.35. I'm going to try and increase the ink limits and see if the Delta E's go down. Randy Zaucha

3 3

Re: colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 47
by MARK NELSON 25 Jun '19

25 Jun '19

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, colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com wrote: > > Send colorsync-users mailing list submissions to > colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > > 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 > colorsync-users-request(a)lists.apple.com > > You can reach the person managing the list at > colorsync-users-owner(a)lists.apple.com > > 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 (graxx(a)videotron.ca) > 2. Re: Fogra 51 and 52 (Graeme Gill) > 3. Re: Epson Doubleweight Matte (Ernst Dinkla) > 4. RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte (graxx(a)videotron.ca) > 5. Re: Printer profile issue (Don Hutcheson) > 6. Re: Exposure Value (Ben Goren) > 7. RE: Exposure Value (graxx(a)videotron.ca) > 8. RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte (graxx(a)videotron.ca) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 15:57:54 -0400 > From: graxx(a)videotron.ca > To: zbet66(a)yahoo.com > Cc: "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: RE: Printer Profile Issues > Message-ID: <071701d529fd$f2eb28a0$d8c179e0$(a)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=videotron.ca(a)lists.apple.com> On Behalf Of > zbet66--- via colorsync-users > Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2019 2:32 PM > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > 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 (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/graxx%40videotron.ca > > This email sent to graxx(a)videotron.ca > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:46:16 +1000 > From: Graeme Gill <graeme2(a)argyllcms.com> > To: ColorSync <ColorSync-Users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Fogra 51 and 52 > Message-ID: <c8b635a2-ffa9-27aa-1801-aa2db473883b(a)argyllcms.com> > 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 <info(a)pigment-print.com> > To: graxx(a)videotron.ca > Cc: "'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Epson Doubleweight Matte > Message-ID: > <CAMzUcR2AC-7biY1GuoCEj3dVyQ8LuWFJPURpmKHd96a2JpQ0YA(a)mail.gmail.com> > 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 < > colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> 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 (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) >> Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >> >> https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/ernst.dinkla%40gmai… >> >> This email sent to ernst.dinkla(a)gmail.com >> > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 07:32:52 -0400 > From: graxx(a)videotron.ca > To: 'Ernst Dinkla' <info(a)pigment-print.com> > Cc: "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte > Message-ID: <079901d52a80$90502690$b0f073b0$(a)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 <info(a)pigment-print.com> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 3:32 AM > To: graxx(a)videotron.ca > Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > 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 <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> > 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 (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> ) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/ernst.dinkla%40gmai… > > This email sent to ernst.dinkla(a)gmail.com <mailto:ernst.dinkla@gmail.com> > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2019 09:35:24 -0400 > From: Don Hutcheson <don(a)hutchcolor.com> > To: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Printer profile issue > Message-ID: <FBF67671-F2FF-4DC5-A704-0D645B6CE7CC(a)hutchcolor.com> > 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 > don(a)hutchcolor.com > ************************** > > >> Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2019 18:35:36 +0000 (UTC) >> From: "zbet66(a)yahoo.com" <zbet66(a)yahoo.com> >> To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com >> Subject: Printer Profile Issue >> Message-ID: <852842756.464303.1561228536392(a)mail.yahoo.com> >> 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 <ben(a)trumpetpower.com> > To: Robin Myers <robin(a)rmimaging.com> > Cc: Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca>, > "'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Exposure Value > Message-ID: <A159ADB4-C912-444C-908E-6AA4A4840D0D(a)trumpetpower.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > >> On Jun 22, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Robin Myers via colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> 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: graxx(a)videotron.ca > To: 'Ben Goren' <ben(a)trumpetpower.com>, 'Robin Myers' > <robin(a)rmimaging.com> > Cc: "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: RE: Exposure Value > Message-ID: <081c01d52abc$39c24970$ad46dc50$(a)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 <ben(a)trumpetpower.com> > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 1:16 PM > To: Robin Myers <robin(a)rmimaging.com> > Cc: Roger Breton <graxx(a)videotron.ca>; 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Exposure Value > >> On Jun 22, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Robin Myers via colorsync-users <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> 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: graxx(a)videotron.ca > To: "''colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List'" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte > Message-ID: <081e01d52abd$8eed0060$acc70120$(a)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 > colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users > > > ------------------------------ > > End of colorsync-users Digest, Vol 16, Issue 47 > ***********************************************

2 1

RE: Exposure Value
by graxx＠videotron.ca 25 Jun '19

25 Jun '19

Dear Ilah, Thank you so much for applying your vast technical expertise to my humble problem. I realize, again, that there is so much to learn in digital photography, I feel ashamed to have neglected digging into this fascinating part of image processing for so long (It took me more than a few CPU cycles of my brain to figure Exposure Value, today)... For sure, I need to invest in a "new" gray card, I confess that this one has seen its share of "tales from the trenches". Having said that, I'm relieved to read in your analysis that my camera "light meter" isn't playing tricks on me or need to go back to the manufacturer under warranty. I *will* reshoot, for sure, as you suggested. It's an exercise worth every effort and probably investigate using one of your suggested software.. For now, I am not sure what to conclude from my experience? Tomorrow, I will probably experiment with shooting A) RAW alone and shooting B) RAW + JPEG. In "theory", there should not be any difference between the two modes of shooting but if there should be one, then this is going to prove interesting. Have you had a chance to take a look at my Excel sheet at all? To see whether I correctly applied the metering equations from measured Luminance and Illuminance? I think the calculations are sound. One last thing I have not tried and I *will* try is, to shoot with my antique D100, in RAW, to compare with shooting the same scene with the D810, in RAW, to test any potential differences between the two systems, in terms of exposure. One thing I wonder, as I was thinking about the experimental setup, something completely absurd (?), was, what that, could there be any difference in the underlying capture of the pixels between the two cameras? Suppose, on the D810, at 1/200s, F/5.6, ISO400, the histogram looks skewed to the left, suggesting some degree of under-exposure (see my earlier links)? Suppose further, on the D100, at the same 1/200s, F/5.6, ISO400 settings, the histogram looks "normal", with pixels distributed throughout the tonal range, from 0 to 255, then what? Until I'm convinced that there is nothing wrong with this camera, I figure I need to further test it, until I'm fully satisfied that there is nothing "wrong" with it. Best regards / Roger -----Original Message----- From: Iliah Borg <iliah.i.borg(a)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 6:33 PM To: graxx(a)videotron.ca Cc: Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com Subject: Re: Exposure Value Dear Roger, Based on your gray card NEF: You are in 14-bit mode, maximum is 2^14-1-black level (600) = 15873; average on the card (and the card seems to have some rather strong imperfections) is 1181 (you can check with RawDigger, trial version is enough). That puts the exposure at log2(1181 / 15871) = 3.75 EV below clipping; the camera is calibrated to produce midtone 3.35 EV below clipping, that means the exposure is 0.4 EV below the midtone. Nothing dramatic so far, provided that the card has a lot of wear and tear on it, it isn't shot out of focus, and not at an angle as it should be (see http://www.zonephoto.it/images/pdf/kodak-grey-card1903061.pdf ). The result is mathematically inconclusive - but from my experience I would be expecting something like the numbers above, given how the shot was taken, and would say that metering is calibrated OK. Of course, if you could re-shoot we will be able to come to a more definite conclusion. On Jun 21, 2019, at 6:03 PM, Roger Breton via colorsync-users wrote: > I will get to the Gray Card NEF in a few minutes, Ilah, but I thought I would try turning on Image quality = NEF + JPEG in the camera shooting menu? > > And I got very different results? > See this link: > https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkLVK68wxOJ6dhvv2nQ > > On the left hand side is the JPEG opened in Photoshop as usual, and on the right hand side is the RAW, opened in CameraRAW. The only thing that I could say is the Histograms are very different, this time, extending well into the highlights... > > Thanks for you guys patience and help. > I'm trying to contact Nikon tech support... > > Best / Roger > > > -----Original Message----- > From: colorsync-users <colorsync-users-bounces+graxx=videotron.ca(a)lists.apple.com> On Behalf Of Roger Breton via colorsync-users > Sent: Friday, June 21, 2019 5:44 PM > To: 'Wayne Bretl' <waynebretl(a)cox.net>; Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: RE: Exposure Value > > I just tried with ViewNX2 and it is still too "dark"? > So it is not coming from CameraRAW -- good news 😊 > > ViewNX2 link is here: > https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkLVIL-cOCJBYIX0LuA > > CameraRAW link is here: > https://1drv.ms/u/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkLVJgBzv-yK7ygFD7g > > The histograms are not lying, this is under-exposed. > > Best / Roger > > > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/graxx%40videotron.ca > > This email sent to graxx(a)videotron.ca > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > colorsync-users mailing list (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/iliah.i.borg%40gmai… > > This email sent to iliah.i.borg(a)gmail.com -- Best regards, Iliah Borg LibRaw, LLC www.libraw.org www.rawdigger.com www.fastrawviewer.com

7 6

RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte
by graxx＠videotron.ca 25 Jun '19

25 Jun '19

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 <info(a)pigment-print.com> Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 3:32 AM To: graxx(a)videotron.ca Cc: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> 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 <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> > 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 (colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com <mailto:colorsync-users@lists.apple.com> ) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/ernst.dinkla%40gmai… This email sent to ernst.dinkla(a)gmail.com <mailto:ernst.dinkla@gmail.com>

3 2

RE: Canon Matte M1 - Gray Balance -> Visual
by graxx＠videotron.ca 25 Jun '19

25 Jun '19

I got to run a proof of i1Profiler's calculated gray balance on my printer, on this incredibly, brutally and obnoxiously optically brightened Canon Matte paper, and the results were not bad at all. The profile, to me, has done a good job of converting the source neutral CIE Lab values to the destination color space of the paper. Only the L 90 patch appears visually yellower than the rest. But, to me, overall, the patches appear to "belong" to the Paper White "family", chromatically. Nothing really sticks out like a sore thumb. Of course, the appearance of the print changes according to the lighting under which I view it. Under the GTI lamps, it looks acceptably well-balanced to these eyeballs. This is an RGB scan of the print: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkLVRYtXX1ak2b9pahQ I measured each patch with an FD-7 and recorded the M1 CIE Lab values on the print itself. I think the values speak for themselves. Next, I plan to try some "grayscale"-type images, and, ultimately, I'll get to Fogra52... Thank you so much for your kind help and patience. / Roger

1 0

Canon Matte M1 - Gray Balance
by graxx＠videotron.ca 24 Jun '19

24 Jun '19

I have not tested this visually but I thought I would share the results of creating an ICC profile for this brutally optically brightened paper, to show you what the gray balance looks like, as calculated by i1Profiler: https://1drv.ms/b/s!AkD78CVR1NBqkLVQBL8jEF3g7ZS8bw It is "weird" to see Yellow systematically "over cyan"? It goes against what Don Hutchison always called the "Traditional Cyan bias" in color separations. I intend to print this gray balance through the profile on this paper. When I measure each printed patches, what ought to be my criteria: that the a* and b* values gradually transition from White Paper to the Total Ink Limit (e.g. 341%)? / Roger Breton www.graxx.ca

1 0

RE: Epson Doubleweight Matte
by graxx＠videotron.ca 24 Jun '19

24 Jun '19

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

1 0