Perhaps, but ...
Uncle ... mostly ... and thanks for another patient reply to this CM semi-newbie who is one of those seeking the "holy grail" of "by the numbers"
A little learning (knowledge?) is a dangerous thing ... A. Pope ... So is a lot. ... A. Einstein :-)
This semi-dangerous, semi-newbie wrt CM will study 28 balls (if possible ... where?), and Romans 16. Also take a look at one or more ColorThink you-tubes. I've attempted to read several of the better CM books, but much was over my head. I'll once again put a "library hold" on one or more of those books. (done ...)
Some of the analysis just ends up being subjective. Unless all you want to do with the profiles is solid color patches.
Or synthetic pictures of Balls? or Romans? (no pun/innuendo intended ... sorry) But .... suppose the two best profiles you (DigitalDog) made and then proceeded to evaluate using "28 balls" were noticeably different to a printing expert such as yourself, but good-to-excellent in their own way. Would a metric such as AdjSyntheticDe2k + AdjGamutVolume + AdjFleshToneDe2k + AdjBanding + Adj??? (a.k.a. half-baked-cm-metric) be of interest? Suppose one of the two profile you made for a specific printer+paper+ink was noticeably better for flesh tones to a well-trained eye, and the other was noticeably better for landscapes/synthetics? Would you advise keeping two well-labeled profiles? Could the half-baked-cm-metric serve as a "quick&dirty filter" to remove obviously unacceptable profiles? Suppose a non-expert, non-professional printer had less time to pick a profile than the exhaustive SOP you mentioned? Or less budget for paper + ink? Suppose a really thorough printing professional typically made 10+ profiles for a new combination of printer + ink + paper. Would a "more-baked-cm-metric" be likely to be among the top three or five? -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Rodney Sent: Friday, May 03, 2013 8:47 AM To: 'colorsync-users?lists.apple.com' List Subject: Re: HowTo? Objectively measure quality of print profiles? On May 2, 2013, at 6:28 PM, LdaSignup <ldasignup@gmail.com> wrote:
Hypothetically, suppose someone claimed that profiles from ArgyllCms are typically as good or better than those from ProfileMaker-5, and almost as good as i1Profiler 1.4.2. Is that something that could be objectively measured by an automated spectro, rather than an informed, but still subjective, opinion?
Perhaps, but there are a slew of potential 'issues' with color engines that are seen faster, easier and more totally by looking at images than dE reports and the like. Output Bill Atkinson's 28 ball's image with two profiles and examine the blue ball and other balls for smoothness, reverse banding (bad) or blues shifting magenta as just one example. Profiles don't know squat about color in context. They treat a white dog on snow the same as a black cat on coal. They treat individual color pixels without having a clue about the color image in context making both visual and number based reporting necessary. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/ _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/ldasignup%40gmail.co... This email sent to ldasignup@gmail.com