Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
Andrew - When I wrote "you have used dE as both a sword and a shield," I figured that readers would understand the inference was that dE is a method for determining a colorimetric match - that dE is pretty much colorimetry itself. As an expert in profiling and color management you've insisted that colorimetric matches aren't the purpose of profiling or a color managed workflow. Yet you, and others, offer dE as a measure of the quality of a profile or workflow. Thus, colorimetric matches play an important part in evaluating your work - no? It's a good thing when it promotes the case for profiling and its shortcomings are also a good thing as that promotes the need for skilled professionals at the helm - sword and shield. You understand the confusion this must cause - I believe that's what you mean by the "rabbit hole". But I don't believe I've heard you give a satisfactory answer in this thread as to why colorimetric matching is and isn't important - all at the same time. You've only offered that it's not important to a majority of photographers. It must be too difficult for people to understand so we have to settle for it as the rabbit hole instead. That saves time and possibly even more confusion. It protects the colorimetric grail searchers from themselves? You've asked, in a challenging way, for a definition of "colorimetric" from participants in this thread so I figure you're quite ready to spring on any definition with answers that would belittle the pursuit of colorimetric matching. Do you have a definition that's better than the deficient ones in use? I think that might clear up some of the confusion. May I say that this topic might be interesting to more people than you think, and with your professional experience I bet you can lay it all out in a clear way so that this rabbit hole isn't so dark and mysterious. This topic has appeared in the colorsync-users list a number of times and this time it seems that the subject of RPP along with some ideas from members has brought it back with a little more enthusiasm. Henry
On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Henry Davis <davishr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Andrew - When I wrote "you have used dE as both a sword and a shield," I figured that readers would understand the inference was that dE is a method for determining a colorimetric match - that dE is pretty much colorimetry itself.
dE is simply a measure of difference. It's quite useful. I use the metric nearly daily. I found it useful to understand how a press output differs due to any number of reasons from a reference. It allows one to see if process control is in effect and if not, how far out it is, and where. It can tell us if two (or more) samples mtatch or don't within limits we define. But how one measures the samples is somewhat important. And without two such samples, the metric is worthless! The discussion has been about accuracy and dE is part of that discussion but you can't discuss accuracy without those two samples. Someone who says their process is colorimetrically accurate and dosn't measure one of the two sets of samples is blowing smoke up someone's orifice. And measuring two samples of say output of a printer with a Spectrophotometer is a quite different from measuring a sample at the scene (which isn't what one proponent of colorimetrically accurate raw processing has done), since the illuminant in the measuring device is often quite different from the illuminate of the scene! You think that plays a role?
As an expert in profiling and color management you've insisted that colorimetric matches aren't the purpose of profiling or a color managed workflow.
I've never said that. Or you completely misunderstood what I've said.
Yet you, and others, offer dE as a measure of the quality of a profile or workflow.
Indeed. Example: One produces a good press profile. One then takes a series of colors, ideally those that fall within that output devices gamut, and sends that data to the printer. One then measures that set of samples and compares it to the reference. Both measurements are made using the same device, same illuminant. A dE value can be used to tell us an average, max, min, Std Dev the two differ. It allows us to know what and where within that color space there is a mismatch. ColorThink and Maxwell are two products that allow us to use this colorimetry to gauge process control and if you know what you're doing, what is going wrong with the press and by how much.
Thus, colorimetric matches play an important part in evaluating your work - no?
In the example above indeed! This is vastly different from saying a process is colorimetrically accurate without a 2nd set of measurements. Or by dismissing the illuminant that one has to encounter to capure an image. Measuring press sheets, or two different paper samples, or two actual illuminates is quite different.
You understand the confusion this must cause - I believe that's what you mean by the "rabbit hole".
Measuring two samples with a Spectrophotometer and conjuring up a dE value is simple. Suggesting a colorimetric match without measuring two samples and in this case, dismissing an illuminate a camera is subject to is a deep rabbit hole. And yet, when I suggest the work of Bruce Fraser who produced output from a raw processor that matches the values of a target constitute a colorimetric match, I'm told no, because only 24 colors sync up. Three inches deeper into the rabbit hole. If I measure 24 individual color patches that came off an Epson, compare that to 24 reference values and they are within (you pick the dE), that isn't a valid example of a colorimetric match? Using the same instrument and software to generate the dE report?
But I don't believe I've heard you give a satisfactory answer in this thread as to why colorimetric matching is and isn't important
Colorimetric matching IS important! Especially once we know the dE limits that constitute an acceptable match and those that don't. Are you familiar with CHROMIX's Maxwell? Very easy to set up what one believes is a match and what isn't. Just enter the max value you will not accept. Send it a sample you measured and it will compare that to a reference, what it calls a Color Aim. In this discussion of accurate color in the field we've not had this value defined. Worse, the process of defining what and how to measure in the field hasn't been defined. That's one part of the rabbit hole. Take Spectrophotometer A and measure two press sheets, hand the Lab (or spectral) values to ColorThink, the answers it provides in dE is simple and non ambiguous. Take a capture in the field. Don't measure even 24 samples in the scene or the scene illuminate, but tell us we have a colorimetric match: That's a very deep rabbit hole.
You've only offered that it's not important to a majority of photographers.
I don't believe it is. Can you point out where a majority of photogarphers are specially asking for this? Outside the half dozen if that many on THIS list? I hear a lot say their prints don't match their displays. Or over the years, blue's shifting magenta. But demands that their captures be colorimetrically accuate, I'm not hearing this from my peers. They didn't ask for it when using film. Most photographers understood that film had it's own unique color rendering and we picked the film based on our bias.
You've asked, in a challenging way, for a definition of "colorimetric" from participants in this thread so I figure you're quite ready to spring on any definition with answers that would belittle the pursuit of colorimetric matching. Do you have a definition that's better than the deficient ones in use? I think that might clear up some of the confusion.
I gave you an example above. And yes, I am challenging because the answers are vague and dismiss what appears to be kind of important, namely the effect of the scene illuminate on this process I'm told is Colorimetrically accurate. Or the role of viewer metamerism. Or how silly it is to accept when someone tells you "it matches what I remember I saw". A few others have also asked about portions of what appears to be this rabbit hole. Measuring two printed samples to come up with a colorimetric value is really easy. Some of us have been doing it for 20 years. Bring a cameras to a scene which changes radially, ignore the scene illuminate, or the role a raw processor plays, mix in profiles (DNG or ICC), and the process is quite different and vastly more complex. I never said this matching isn't possible, I've only asked for empirical results that don't dismiss what I think are important considerations in how images are captured with digital cameras.
May I say that this topic might be interesting to more people than you think, and with your professional experience I bet you can lay it all out in a clear way so that this rabbit hole isn't so dark and mysterious.
It isn't at all complex if you simply accept what some people say without asking the right and sometimes wrong questions. I've tried to do this. But I'm not about to accept that measuring two paper samples with a device is even remotely the same as capturing images and processing them and then pinning the colorimetric match award as being equal. One's a simple process, the other really complex. Hence, that rabbit hole. Andrew Rodney http://www.digitaldog.net/
As someone who uses photography for both "artistic" reasons and art reproduction, I've been watching with interest this whole discussion and Andrew hit's on something that should've been laid down from the beginning.......colorimetric matching has EVERYTHING to do with art reproduction but I think "perceptual" matching is what we're looking for in general photography...or artistic photography if you will. Unless I can put a spectro on a leaf or a bird or the sky or a flower, colorimetric matching for this kind of photography has virtually no meaning to me.....there's simply no WAY I can know if I'm getting a match to the original scene....and if you think you can process your image some hours/days after you pressed the shutter and reflect on what you originally saw and attempt to match it, I think you're kidding yourself. The "mind's eye" or whatever the hell you want to call it is not an instrument for measurement....the mind's eye is as much an emotional response to what you think you saw as it is a physical response. With art repro on the other hand, you CAN put a spectro on the "scene" and pretty much know if you're reproducing the art....even if you don't have a spectro, you generally still have the scene (art) available to you from which to compare. The eye is an excellent comparator, just not very good at storing reference measurements. :-) To keep this conversation productive, I think the various parties should first define their application of "colorimetric matching" or "accuracy" in the context of art repro or general photography. I, for one, am about to jump down the rabbit hole of art repro matching and would definitely like to hear what those in that field have to say relative to raw processing and DNG profiling. Regards, Terry Wyse On Jun 5, 2013, at 9:57 PM, Andrew Rodney <andrew@digitaldog.net> wrote:
On Jun 5, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Henry Davis <davishr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Andrew - When I wrote "you have used dE as both a sword and a shield," I figured that readers would understand the inference was that dE is a method for determining a colorimetric match - that dE is pretty much colorimetry itself.
dE is simply a measure of difference. It's quite useful. I use the metric nearly daily. I found it useful to understand how a press output differs due to any number of reasons from a reference. It allows one to see if process control is in effect and if not, how far out it is, and where. It can tell us if two (or more) samples mtatch or don't within limits we define. But how one measures the samples is somewhat important. And without two such samples, the metric is worthless!
The discussion has been about accuracy and dE is part of that discussion but you can't discuss accuracy without those two samples. Someone who says their process is colorimetrically accurate and dosn't measure one of the two sets of samples is blowing smoke up someone's orifice. And measuring two samples of say output of a printer with a Spectrophotometer is a quite different from measuring a sample at the scene (which isn't what one proponent of colorimetrically accurate raw processing has done), since the illuminant in the measuring device is often quite different from the illuminate of the scene! You think that plays a role?
As an expert in profiling and color management you've insisted that colorimetric matches aren't the purpose of profiling or a color managed workflow.
I've never said that. Or you completely misunderstood what I've said.
Yet you, and others, offer dE as a measure of the quality of a profile or workflow.
Indeed. Example: One produces a good press profile. One then takes a series of colors, ideally those that fall within that output devices gamut, and sends that data to the printer. One then measures that set of samples and compares it to the reference. Both measurements are made using the same device, same illuminant. A dE value can be used to tell us an average, max, min, Std Dev the two differ. It allows us to know what and where within that color space there is a mismatch. ColorThink and Maxwell are two products that allow us to use this colorimetry to gauge process control and if you know what you're doing, what is going wrong with the press and by how much.
Thus, colorimetric matches play an important part in evaluating your work - no?
In the example above indeed! This is vastly different from saying a process is colorimetrically accurate without a 2nd set of measurements. Or by dismissing the illuminant that one has to encounter to capure an image. Measuring press sheets, or two different paper samples, or two actual illuminates is quite different.
You understand the confusion this must cause - I believe that's what you mean by the "rabbit hole".
Measuring two samples with a Spectrophotometer and conjuring up a dE value is simple. Suggesting a colorimetric match without measuring two samples and in this case, dismissing an illuminate a camera is subject to is a deep rabbit hole. And yet, when I suggest the work of Bruce Fraser who produced output from a raw processor that matches the values of a target constitute a colorimetric match, I'm told no, because only 24 colors sync up. Three inches deeper into the rabbit hole. If I measure 24 individual color patches that came off an Epson, compare that to 24 reference values and they are within (you pick the dE), that isn't a valid example of a colorimetric match? Using the same instrument and software to generate the dE report?
But I don't believe I've heard you give a satisfactory answer in this thread as to why colorimetric matching is and isn't important
Colorimetric matching IS important! Especially once we know the dE limits that constitute an acceptable match and those that don't. Are you familiar with CHROMIX's Maxwell? Very easy to set up what one believes is a match and what isn't. Just enter the max value you will not accept. Send it a sample you measured and it will compare that to a reference, what it calls a Color Aim. In this discussion of accurate color in the field we've not had this value defined. Worse, the process of defining what and how to measure in the field hasn't been defined. That's one part of the rabbit hole. Take Spectrophotometer A and measure two press sheets, hand the Lab (or spectral) values to ColorThink, the answers it provides in dE is simple and non ambiguous. Take a capture in the field. Don't measure even 24 samples in the scene or the scene illuminate, but tell us we have a colorimetric match: That's a very deep rabbit hole.
You've only offered that it's not important to a majority of photographers.
I don't believe it is. Can you point out where a majority of photogarphers are specially asking for this? Outside the half dozen if that many on THIS list? I hear a lot say their prints don't match their displays. Or over the years, blue's shifting magenta. But demands that their captures be colorimetrically accuate, I'm not hearing this from my peers. They didn't ask for it when using film. Most photographers understood that film had it's own unique color rendering and we picked the film based on our bias.
You've asked, in a challenging way, for a definition of "colorimetric" from participants in this thread so I figure you're quite ready to spring on any definition with answers that would belittle the pursuit of colorimetric matching. Do you have a definition that's better than the deficient ones in use? I think that might clear up some of the confusion.
I gave you an example above. And yes, I am challenging because the answers are vague and dismiss what appears to be kind of important, namely the effect of the scene illuminate on this process I'm told is Colorimetrically accurate. Or the role of viewer metamerism. Or how silly it is to accept when someone tells you "it matches what I remember I saw". A few others have also asked about portions of what appears to be this rabbit hole. Measuring two printed samples to come up with a colorimetric value is really easy. Some of us have been doing it for 20 years. Bring a cameras to a scene which changes radially, ignore the scene illuminate, or the role a raw processor plays, mix in profiles (DNG or ICC), and the process is quite different and vastly more complex. I never said this matching isn't possible, I've only asked for empirical results that don't dismiss what I think are important considerations in how images are captured with digital cameras.
May I say that this topic might be interesting to more people than you think, and with your professional experience I bet you can lay it all out in a clear way so that this rabbit hole isn't so dark and mysterious.
It isn't at all complex if you simply accept what some people say without asking the right and sometimes wrong questions. I've tried to do this. But I'm not about to accept that measuring two paper samples with a device is even remotely the same as capturing images and processing them and then pinning the colorimetric match award as being equal. One's a simple process, the other really complex. Hence, that rabbit hole.
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/wyseconsul%40mac.com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
On Jun 5, 2013, at 7:46 PM, Terence Wyse <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
To keep this conversation productive, I think the various parties should first define their application of "colorimetric matching" or "accuracy" in the context of art repro or general photography.
My point has been and continues to be that I do the whole empirical bit in the studio with great results, and that, when I use the exact same process out in the field but without dragging along my i1 Pro and laptop to close the verification loop, I have every appearance of everything working exactly the same way. That may not be precise enough for peer-reviewed academia, but it's more than precise enough for me. I'm still not entirely sure why there are those who seem to expect that a process that creates an acceptably accurate reproduction of arbitrary works of art in the studio would go completely wonky outside of the studio photographing the same things the artists paint, but that's not my personal problem. Cheers, b&
Terence Wyse wrote:
As someone who uses photography for both "artistic" reasons and art reproduction, I've been watching with interest this whole discussion and Andrew hit's on something that should've been laid down from the beginning.......colorimetric matching has EVERYTHING to do with art reproduction but I think "perceptual" matching is what we're looking for in general photography...or artistic photography if you will.
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is how you get to a perceptual pleasing result. Just because the end result isn't colorimetric, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to skip colorimetric as a first step.
Unless I can put a spectro on a leaf or a bird or the sky or a flower, colorimetric matching for this kind of photography has virtually no meaning to me.....there's simply no WAY I can know if I'm getting a match to the original scene....
You can if you have confidence that the capture process is essentially colorimetric, with no imposed artistic "look" in it. You create such a process by calibrating/profiling it under controlled conditions. Doing so in a way that you can apply in general situations has it's challenges if the camera spectral sensitivities don't match the human observer very well. Graeme Gill.
I should probably clarify that I'm of the school of thought that I want "colorimetric" accuracy first and THEN I'll start making "artistic" decisions about my photography.....I don't want or need the raw capture workflow to make certain assumptions about what should be pleasing to me or "perceptually" accurate. Give me the cold/hard truth about my capture and let me take it from there. tw On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
Terence Wyse wrote:
As someone who uses photography for both "artistic" reasons and art reproduction, I've been watching with interest this whole discussion and Andrew hit's on something that should've been laid down from the beginning.......colorimetric matching has EVERYTHING to do with art reproduction but I think "perceptual" matching is what we're looking for in general photography...or artistic photography if you will.
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is how you get to a perceptual pleasing result. Just because the end result isn't colorimetric, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to skip colorimetric as a first step.
Unless I can put a spectro on a leaf or a bird or the sky or a flower, colorimetric matching for this kind of photography has virtually no meaning to me.....there's simply no WAY I can know if I'm getting a match to the original scene....
You can if you have confidence that the capture process is essentially colorimetric, with no imposed artistic "look" in it. You create such a process by calibrating/profiling it under controlled conditions.
Doing so in a way that you can apply in general situations has it's challenges if the camera spectral sensitivities don't match the human observer very well.
Graeme Gill. _______________________________________________ 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/wyseconsul%40mac.com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
On Jun 6, 2013, at 9:18 AM, Terence Wyse wrote:
I should probably clarify that I'm of the school of thought that I want "colorimetric" accuracy first and THEN I'll start making "artistic" decisions about my photography.....I don't want or need the raw capture workflow to make certain assumptions about what should be pleasing to me or "perceptually" accurate. Give me the cold/hard truth about my capture and let me take it from there.
Again, the important thing is that we can't improve our skills without seeing that hard truth. We can't even make an intelligent purchasing decisions, be it a camera or a lens, without seeing that hard truth. -- Best regards, Iliah Borg
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is how you get to a perceptual pleasing result. Just because the end result isn't colorimetric, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to skip colorimetric as a first step.
That's not what I'm saying.....and I agree with you. My point was that there's maybe two factions, the "reproductionists" and the "artists" that are maybe talking past each other. I personally want accuracy (colorimetric) first....and at least with art reproduction, I pretty much know exactly how to determine that....but as soon as I stick my camera out a window, I've no clue how to determine accuracy in any meaningful or practical way. Terry
Here's what I have... Curve2 version 2.3 session with 3 One run targets measured and imported into Curve2. In VPR I have selected "Run-1 Calibration" for Run (curves to be applied). Target data to be curved: I have one of the OneRun targets selected here. Curving method: "Curve Lab values (retains CMYK values and target type) Then clicked the "Curve & Export" button and save the curved data. How can I use this data in i1Profiler? When I try to load the data I get an error stating "Invalid CGATS measurement file". Anyone have any ideas how to get the data into i1Profiler to create a profile? -- Steve Miller Color Management Specialist "Quality Begins Here" BIC Advertising & Promotional Products 1000 3rd Ave. SW Sleepy Eye, MN 56085 Tel.: (1) 507 794 8203 E-mail: slmiller@norwood.com www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic message is confidential and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or company named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communications is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the address below. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the IRS Code or (2) promotion, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein: Norwood & BIC Graphic, 14421 Myerlake Circle, Clearwater, FL 33760. www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com On 06/06/2013 8:32, "Terence Wyse" <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is how you get to a perceptual pleasing result. Just because the end result isn't colorimetric, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to skip colorimetric as a first step.
That's not what I'm saying.....and I agree with you.
My point was that there's maybe two factions, the "reproductionists" and the "artists" that are maybe talking past each other. I personally want accuracy (colorimetric) first....and at least with art reproduction, I pretty much know exactly how to determine that....but as soon as I stick my camera out a window, I've no clue how to determine accuracy in any meaningful or practical way.
Terry
_______________________________________________ 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/slmiller%40norwood .com
This email sent to slmiller@norwood.com
Hi Steve, all you have to do is open the exported data in PM5 Measure Tool, re-save it from Measure Tool with a new name and then bring that into i1Profiler....it'll work. When you import that file into i1Profiler, you'll likely be asked for the calibration standard (XRGA or whatever) and maybe the measurement condition (M0, M2). Good luck! Terry On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Steve Miller <SLMiller@norwood.com> wrote:
Here's what I have... Curve2 version 2.3 session with 3 One run targets measured and imported into Curve2. In VPR I have selected "Run-1 Calibration" for Run (curves to be applied).
Target data to be curved: I have one of the OneRun targets selected here.
Curving method: "Curve Lab values (retains CMYK values and target type)
Then clicked the "Curve & Export" button and save the curved data.
How can I use this data in i1Profiler? When I try to load the data I get an error stating "Invalid CGATS measurement file".
Anyone have any ideas how to get the data into i1Profiler to create a profile?
--
Steve Miller Color Management Specialist
"Quality Begins Here"
BIC Advertising & Promotional Products 1000 3rd Ave. SW Sleepy Eye, MN 56085
Tel.: (1) 507 794 8203 E-mail: slmiller@norwood.com www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic message is confidential and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or company named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communications is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the address below. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the IRS Code or (2) promotion, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein: Norwood & BIC Graphic, 14421 Myerlake Circle, Clearwater, FL 33760. www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com
On 06/06/2013 8:32, "Terence Wyse" <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is how you get to a perceptual pleasing result. Just because the end result isn't colorimetric, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to skip colorimetric as a first step.
That's not what I'm saying.....and I agree with you.
My point was that there's maybe two factions, the "reproductionists" and the "artists" that are maybe talking past each other. I personally want accuracy (colorimetric) first....and at least with art reproduction, I pretty much know exactly how to determine that....but as soon as I stick my camera out a window, I've no clue how to determine accuracy in any meaningful or practical way.
Terry
_______________________________________________ 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/slmiller%40norwood .com
This email sent to slmiller@norwood.com
_______________________________________________ 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/wyseconsul%40mac.com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
Terry, That worked! Thanks! Something to maybe add to Curve software? Be able to import VPR curved data directly into i1Profiler? Or, is this available in Curve3? -- Steve Miller Color Management Specialist "Quality Begins Here" BIC Advertising & Promotional Products 1000 3rd Ave. SW Sleepy Eye, MN 56085 Tel.: (1) 507 794 8203 E-mail: slmiller@norwood.com www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic message is confidential and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or company named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communications is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the address below. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the IRS Code or (2) promotion, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein: Norwood & BIC Graphic, 14421 Myerlake Circle, Clearwater, FL 33760. www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com On 14/06/2013 8:07, "Terence Wyse" <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
Hi Steve, all you have to do is open the exported data in PM5 Measure Tool, re-save it from Measure Tool with a new name and then bring that into i1Profiler....it'll work.
When you import that file into i1Profiler, you'll likely be asked for the calibration standard (XRGA or whatever) and maybe the measurement condition (M0, M2).
Good luck!
Terry
On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Steve Miller <SLMiller@norwood.com> wrote:
Here's what I have... Curve2 version 2.3 session with 3 One run targets measured and imported into Curve2. In VPR I have selected "Run-1 Calibration" for Run (curves to be applied).
Target data to be curved: I have one of the OneRun targets selected here.
Curving method: "Curve Lab values (retains CMYK values and target type)
Then clicked the "Curve & Export" button and save the curved data.
How can I use this data in i1Profiler? When I try to load the data I get an error stating "Invalid CGATS measurement file".
Anyone have any ideas how to get the data into i1Profiler to create a profile?
--
Steve Miller Color Management Specialist
"Quality Begins Here"
BIC Advertising & Promotional Products 1000 3rd Ave. SW Sleepy Eye, MN 56085
Tel.: (1) 507 794 8203 E-mail: slmiller@norwood.com www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic message is confidential and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or company named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communications is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the address below. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the IRS Code or (2) promotion, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein: Norwood & BIC Graphic, 14421 Myerlake Circle, Clearwater, FL 33760. www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com
On 06/06/2013 8:32, "Terence Wyse" <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is how you get to a perceptual pleasing result. Just because the end result isn't colorimetric, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to skip colorimetric as a first step.
That's not what I'm saying.....and I agree with you.
My point was that there's maybe two factions, the "reproductionists" and the "artists" that are maybe talking past each other. I personally want accuracy (colorimetric) first....and at least with art reproduction, I pretty much know exactly how to determine that....but as soon as I stick my camera out a window, I've no clue how to determine accuracy in any meaningful or practical way.
Terry
_______________________________________________ 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/slmiller%40norwo od .com
This email sent to slmiller@norwood.com
_______________________________________________ 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/wyseconsul%40mac. com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
I don't believe this has been fixed in Curve3 yet...I have Curve3 but I don't believe I've tried bringing in Curve3 VPR data into i1Profiler. If you like, send me your P2P data and I'll try it. If you have a copy of ColorThink Pro, I have a method of using Curve2/3 for getting better G7 curves. Email me off-list and I'll give you the scoop....it eliminates the need for the P2P targets. Terry _____________________________________ Terence Wyse, WyseConsul Color Management Consulting G7 Certified Expert FIRST Level II Implementation Specialist http://www.wyseconsul.com/ On Jun 17, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Steve Miller <SLMiller@norwood.com> wrote:
Terry, That worked! Thanks!
Something to maybe add to Curve software? Be able to import VPR curved data directly into i1Profiler? Or, is this available in Curve3?
--
Steve Miller Color Management Specialist
"Quality Begins Here"
BIC Advertising & Promotional Products 1000 3rd Ave. SW Sleepy Eye, MN 56085
Tel.: (1) 507 794 8203 E-mail: slmiller@norwood.com www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic message is confidential and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or company named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communications is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the address below. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the IRS Code or (2) promotion, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein: Norwood & BIC Graphic, 14421 Myerlake Circle, Clearwater, FL 33760. www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com
On 14/06/2013 8:07, "Terence Wyse" <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
Hi Steve, all you have to do is open the exported data in PM5 Measure Tool, re-save it from Measure Tool with a new name and then bring that into i1Profiler....it'll work.
When you import that file into i1Profiler, you'll likely be asked for the calibration standard (XRGA or whatever) and maybe the measurement condition (M0, M2).
Good luck!
Terry
On Jun 14, 2013, at 5:32 PM, Steve Miller <SLMiller@norwood.com> wrote:
Here's what I have... Curve2 version 2.3 session with 3 One run targets measured and imported into Curve2. In VPR I have selected "Run-1 Calibration" for Run (curves to be applied).
Target data to be curved: I have one of the OneRun targets selected here.
Curving method: "Curve Lab values (retains CMYK values and target type)
Then clicked the "Curve & Export" button and save the curved data.
How can I use this data in i1Profiler? When I try to load the data I get an error stating "Invalid CGATS measurement file".
Anyone have any ideas how to get the data into i1Profiler to create a profile?
--
Steve Miller Color Management Specialist
"Quality Begins Here"
BIC Advertising & Promotional Products 1000 3rd Ave. SW Sleepy Eye, MN 56085
Tel.: (1) 507 794 8203 E-mail: slmiller@norwood.com www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This electronic message is confidential and may contain legally privileged information intended only for the use of the individual or company named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communications is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please immediately notify us by telephone, and return the original message to us at the address below. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: As provided for in Treasury regulations, advice (if any) relating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the IRS Code or (2) promotion, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein: Norwood & BIC Graphic, 14421 Myerlake Circle, Clearwater, FL 33760. www.norwood.com / www.bicgraphic.com
On 06/06/2013 8:32, "Terence Wyse" <wyseconsul@mac.com> wrote:
On Jun 6, 2013, at 2:22 AM, Graeme Gill <graeme2@argyllcms.com> wrote:
Yes, but that's not the point. The point is how you get to a perceptual pleasing result. Just because the end result isn't colorimetric, doesn't mean that it's a good idea to skip colorimetric as a first step.
That's not what I'm saying.....and I agree with you.
My point was that there's maybe two factions, the "reproductionists" and the "artists" that are maybe talking past each other. I personally want accuracy (colorimetric) first....and at least with art reproduction, I pretty much know exactly how to determine that....but as soon as I stick my camera out a window, I've no clue how to determine accuracy in any meaningful or practical way.
Terry
_______________________________________________ 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/slmiller%40norwo od .com
This email sent to slmiller@norwood.com
_______________________________________________ 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/wyseconsul%40mac. com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
_______________________________________________ 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/wyseconsul%40mac.com
This email sent to wyseconsul@mac.com
participants (7)
-
Andrew Rodney
-
Ben Goren
-
Graeme Gill
-
Henry Davis
-
Iliah Borg
-
Steve Miller
-
Terence Wyse