Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Hi Dave,
I'm looking at my patch readings and the split view shows quite a 
difference. Should i be concerned? For example, the first patch is like 
dark brown when the pure patch is black. And come the lighter colors my 
read patch is then darker than the pure patches.

Should one be using the split view and comparing the read patches 
versus the pure patches? Or simply go to the measured patches view and 
try to spot any wrongly placed colors?

Ed.

The split colors are only used as a reference.  In practice when
profiling they are almost always different.  Like you said it is used
as a guide to help you determine when you have missed or misread a
patch in the sequence.  

Best of luck

Tom


--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "ed_limmy" <ed_limmy@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Dave,
> I'm looking at my patch readings and the split view shows quite a 
> difference. Should i be concerned? For example, the first patch is like 
> dark brown when the pure patch is black. And come the lighter colors my 
> read patch is then darker than the pure patches.
> 
> Should one be using the split view and comparing the read patches 
> versus the pure patches? Or simply go to the measured patches view and 
> try to spot any wrongly placed colors?
> 
> Ed.
>

>Hi Dave,
>I'm looking at my patch readings and the split view shows quite a
>difference. Should i be concerned? For example, the first patch is like
>dark brown when the pure patch is black. And come the lighter colors my
>read patch is then darker than the pure patches.

No, they're expected to be different. I was asking you to compare the overall
look of the target window (when display was switched to Measured mode) vs.
the actual target print that you'd measured.

The "pure" colors are theoretically "perfect" RGB values for the patches,
but they'll never print that way...:-)

Anyway: Looking at your 729 patch readings, overall, they look very good
and "smooth". There is -one- small set of measurements that I think could
be a bit "off", and I have small (new) trick to share with everyone on the
list that shows me this, using the latest 1.1.1 software.

Ed's 729 patch measurements were done using the 3-page 729 patch target.
It's harder to tell, with this arrangement of patches, if things are totally
"in place" because they rows of color transitions are "staggered" a certain
way to make them fit. In the past, there would have been no way to "see" these
any other way.

However, the new "Info" feature in 1.1.1 has a little trick that you can use
to convert a 3 page 729-patch target to a 1 page 729-patch target...!

(Ed, you can do this with your copy of the measurements, assuming you've
installed 1.1.1, to see what I mean).

>>>> Start of new "Information" command pseudo-documentation:

Run PFP 1.1.1 and use the new Tools:Information command. You'll get a window
that has the profiles popup at the top. (Yes, I know, there's no Help on
this command yet, we'll eventually get it in the next time we do a major
update to the Help files). Everyone should give his a try in 1.1.1 to see
what it does.

There are 4 "tabs" that show different collections of information about what's
in the currently selected measurement file in the popup. Most of the useful
info is in the first, Printer, tab, which displays the text info that was
typed in at the time you create the file (Printer, Media, Colorant, etc).
More on that in a moment. the Sliders tab shows you the values of the sliders
when you built it; User shows the user name and platform (typed in when
you serialized the PFP app); Color shows the ref white/black values.

Some of these are editable ("enabled"); others are display-only for your
information, and so, are dimmed.

You can cycle through the measurement files in the popup by using the arrow
keys (very convenient!) or by clicking in the popup and selecting a
different file.

There's no color-preview of the patches available in the Info window, but:
here's another trick for you. If you have PFP switched to the Read Patches
screen while the Info window is open, and "in front", the two windows will
"sync" with each other. Changing the meausurement file in the Info window
popup will also automatically change it in the Read Patches popup, and the
color patches preview in that window will change and auto-refresh for you.
There will be some window drawing flicker if the two windows overlap; BUT:
if you move them around on the screen so that they don't overlap, you can
use the "main dialog" as a way to quickly preview the colors for the file
you're getting info on.

Anyway: back to the point. There's a way you can use the Info dialog
to make a new copy of your 3-page measurement target in the 1-page format.
To do so: in Info: switch to your 3-page file. Then, in the Printer tab,
go to the popup at the bottom and change the format from "729 patches on
3 sheets, for smaller-sized paper" to "729 patches on 1 sheet, for
larger roll or cut-sheet paper". Then click "Save As...", type in a NEW
name for the measurement file (so that you don't overwrite your original),
and you're done. Now you have the same set of measurements, in a new file,
but tagged to be displayed as a single page.

<<<<<<< End of "Info" command pseudo-documentation

Ed: with your measurements, you can now go to Read Patches, select the
single-page display (new) file that you just created, and then click
View/Measure. In the single-page display of your measurements, with display
set to Measured, you can see that row 2, measurements C-I, look lighter, and
more purple, than rows above and below; they seem out of place. I would
go back and remeasure these.

The trick, then, is to figure out which these correspond to in your 3-page
target print. Here's how to do it: the 1 page target consists of groups of
9 measurements. Sequentially, they go like this: 1 A-I; 1 J-R; 1 S-[;
then 2 A-I, 2 J-R, 2 S-[; etc. etc. The order of reading the patches in a 729
patch target is always the same: "this"; whether it's the 3 page target,
or the single page target.

If you open your original 3-page meausurement set, you'll see that the rows
(like the single page version) go in sequences of 9 patch groups. In this
case, there are only 2 groups of 9, per row, instead of 3, which is why they
don't "line up" the same way they do, visually, on the big, 1 page target.

In your original set, it's the 4th sequential series of 9  patches (2 J-R,
and in, it's 2 L-R that I'm concerned with) that don't look right. These
correspond to 2 A-I on the single page version, which I observed, visually,
to look incorrect.

Interestingly enough! When I look at these patches in your original 3 page
format, I see this: 2 L-R correspond exactly (or almost close enough to be
exact) to the patches directly underneath: 3 L-R.

So what this tells me is this: when you were measuring, patches 2 L-R on
the first sheet of your 3 page target; you somehow slipped the spectro's nose
down to the row -underneath- it and measured those patches instead...!

(You can tell this by opening your original measurements; switching to Measured
mode; and using the arrow keys to look at the Lab values for those patches;
those Lab values are the same, for the patches above and below each other,
the values are only a few hundredths different in the Lab components).

****

The short answer here is: there is one thing wrong with your measurements;
you slipped on 2 J-R in your 3 page target. You should go back in and
remeasure these, by: going to the Read Patches screen; select the file;
click on View/Measure; use the arrow keys to move the cursor there; remeasure
those patches; and close the window. (As you're remeasuring, to make it easier
to see that the measurements are changing as we'd like: switch to Measured
mode, so you're not distracted by the split display; just look at the colors
as they come up in the window; they shouldn't look as light and purple as they
are now.

If you like, to be safe, you can also use the new Information command to make
a copy of the original measurement file, first. Go into Information; select
your 3 page target measurements (as described above); use Save As....; and
save a copy to a slightly different name.

To finish what I've started: I went and built a profile from your measurements,
and look at it in ColorThink Pro. (An excellent 3rd party profile viewer).

Sure enough: Everything I see about the profile is great, EXCEPT for the big
chunk that's cut out of it in the blue portion of the shadows. All from that
one series of 9 measurements that were, as it turns out, pretty far off from
what they should have been.

I think that if you remeasure 2 J-R on your 3 page target, and rebuild the
profile, this will fix the shadows for you.

****

As far as the time it takes to make these measurements and experiment with the
file: I would also suggest using the 225 patch format while you're becoming
familiar with how the software works. The patches for the "main" part of that
target line up nicely and visually (as they do in the 1 page version of the
729 patch target) and it's visually easy to see if something you've meausured
is "out-of-line". You'll be able to measure the complete target much more
quickly and do your printing/proofing tests. Once you've come up with a media
setting and profile you like with 225 patches, -then- you can see what happens
if you print 729 patches that way; build a profile, make some test prints and
compare to what 225 patches gave you. (I really think the differences will
be slight, if visible at all; the 225 patch target is a very special design
that should give you a lot of what's in the 729 patch target, without having
to take all of the extra measurements).



>Should one be using the split view and comparing the read patches
>versus the pure patches? Or simply go to the measured patches view and
>try to spot any wrongly placed colors?

(see the above very, very, VERY wordy description)! :-)


David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision

>Hi Dave,
>I'm looking at my patch readings and the split view shows quite a
>difference. Should i be concerned? For example, the first patch is like
>dark brown when the pure patch is black. And come the lighter colors my
>read patch is then darker than the pure patches.

*** (This is try #2 at posting this, the first one didn't go through):

No, they're expected to be different. I was asking you to compare the overall
look of the target window (when display was switched to Measured mode) vs.
the actual target print that you'd measured.

The "pure" colors are theoretically "perfect" RGB values for the patches,
but they'll never print that way...:-)

Anyway: Looking at your 729 patch readings, overall, they look very good
and "smooth". There is -one- small set of measurements that I think could
be a bit "off", and I have small (new) trick to share with everyone on the
list that shows me this, using the latest 1.1.1 software.

Ed's 729 patch measurements were done using the 3-page 729 patch target.
It's harder to tell, with this arrangement of patches, if things are totally
"in place" because they rows of color transitions are "staggered" a certain
way to make them fit. In the past, there would have been no way to "see" these
any other way.

However, the new "Info" feature in 1.1.1 has a little trick that you can use
to convert a 3 page 729-patch target to a 1 page 729-patch target...!

(Ed, you can do this with your copy of the measurements, assuming you've
installed 1.1.1, to see what I mean).

>>>> Start of new "Information" command pseudo-documentation:

Run PFP 1.1.1 and use the new Tools:Information command. You'll get a window
that has the profiles popup at the top. (Yes, I know, there's no Help on
this command yet, we'll eventually get it in the next time we do a major
update to the Help files). Everyone should give his a try in 1.1.1 to see
what it does.

There are 4 "tabs" that show different collections of information about what's
in the currently selected measurement file in the popup. Most of the useful
info is in the first, Printer, tab, which displays the text info that was
typed in at the time you create the file (Printer, Media, Colorant, etc).
More on that in a moment. the Sliders tab shows you the values of the sliders
when you built it; User shows the user name and platform (typed in when
you serialized the PFP app); Color shows the ref white/black values.

Some of these are editable ("enabled"); others are display-only for your
information, and so, are dimmed.

You can cycle through the measurement files in the popup by using the arrow
keys (very convenient!) or by clicking in the popup and selecting a
different file.

There's no color-preview of the patches available in the Info window, but:
here's another trick for you. If you have PFP switched to the Read Patches
screen while the Info window is open, and "in front", the two windows will
"sync" with each other. Changing the meausurement file in the Info window
popup will also automatically change it in the Read Patches popup, and the
color patches preview in that window will change and auto-refresh for you.
There will be some window drawing flicker if the two windows overlap; BUT:
if you move them around on the screen so that they don't overlap, you can
use the "main dialog" as a way to quickly preview the colors for the file
you're getting info on.

Anyway: back to the point. There's a way you can use the Info dialog
to make a new copy of your 3-page measurement target in the 1-page format.
To do so: in Info: switch to your 3-page file. Then, in the Printer tab,
go to the popup at the bottom and change the format from "729 patches on
3 sheets, for smaller-sized paper" to "729 patches on 1 sheet, for
larger roll or cut-sheet paper". Then click "Save As...", type in a NEW
name for the measurement file (so that you don't overwrite your original),
and you're done. Now you have the same set of measurements, in a new file,
but tagged to be displayed as a single page.

<<<<<<< End of "Info" command pseudo-documentation

Ed: with your measurements, you can now go to Read Patches, select the
single-page display (new) file that you just created, and then click
View/Measure. In the single-page display of your measurements, with display
set to Measured, you can see that row 2, measurements C-I, look lighter, and
more purple, than rows above and below; they seem out of place. I would
go back and remeasure these.

The trick, then, is to figure out which these correspond to in your 3-page
target print. Here's how to do it: the 1 page target consists of groups of
9 measurements. Sequentially, they go like this: 1 A-I; 1 J-R; 1 S-[;
then 2 A-I, 2 J-R, 2 S-[; etc. etc. The order of reading the patches in a 729
patch target is always the same: "this"; whether it's the 3 page target,
or the single page target.

If you open your original 3-page meausurement set, you'll see that the rows
(like the single page version) go in sequences of 9 patch groups. In this
case, there are only 2 groups of 9, per row, instead of 3, which is why they
don't "line up" the same way they do, visually, on the big, 1 page target.

In your original set, it's the 4th sequential series of 9  patches (2 J-R,
and in, it's 2 L-R that I'm concerned with) that don't look right. These
correspond to 2 A-I on the single page version, which I observed, visually,
to look incorrect.

Interestingly enough! When I look at these patches in your original 3 page
format, I see this: 2 L-R correspond exactly (or almost close enough to be
exact) to the patches directly underneath: 3 L-R.

So what this tells me is this: when you were measuring, patches 2 L-R on
the first sheet of your 3 page target; you somehow slipped the spectro's nose
down to the row -underneath- it and measured those patches instead...!

(You can tell this by opening your original measurements; switching to Measured
mode; and using the arrow keys to look at the Lab values for those patches;
those Lab values are the same, for the patches above and below each other,
the values are only a few hundredths different in the Lab components).

****

The short answer here is: there is one thing wrong with your measurements;
you slipped on 2 J-R in your 3 page target. You should go back in and
remeasure these, by: going to the Read Patches screen; select the file;
click on View/Measure; use the arrow keys to move the cursor there; remeasure
those patches; and close the window. (As you're remeasuring, to make it easier
to see that the measurements are changing as we'd like: switch to Measured
mode, so you're not distracted by the split display; just look at the colors
as they come up in the window; they shouldn't look as light and purple as they
are now.

If you like, to be safe, you can also use the new Information command to make
a copy of the original measurement file, first. Go into Information; select
your 3 page target measurements (as described above); use Save As....; and
save a copy to a slightly different name.

To finish what I've started: I went and built a profile from your measurements,
and look at it in ColorThink Pro. (An excellent 3rd party profile viewer).

Sure enough: Everything I see about the profile is great, EXCEPT for the big
chunk that's cut out of it in the blue portion of the shadows. All from that
one series of 9 measurements that were, as it turns out, pretty far off from
what they should have been.

I think that if you remeasure 2 J-R on your 3 page target, and rebuild the
profile, this will fix the shadows for you.

****

As far as the time it takes to make these measurements and experiment with the
file: I would also suggest using the 225 patch format while you're becoming
familiar with how the software works. The patches for the "main" part of that
target line up nicely and visually (as they do in the 1 page version of the
729 patch target) and it's visually easy to see if something you've meausured
is "out-of-line". You'll be able to measure the complete target much more
quickly and do your printing/proofing tests. Once you've come up with a media
setting and profile you like with 225 patches, -then- you can see what happens
if you print 729 patches that way; build a profile, make some test prints and
compare to what 225 patches gave you. (I really think the differences will
be slight, if visible at all; the 225 patch target is a very special design
that should give you a lot of what's in the 729 patch target, without having
to take all of the extra measurements).



>Should one be using the split view and comparing the read patches
>versus the pure patches? Or simply go to the measured patches view and
>try to spot any wrongly placed colors?

(see the above very, very, VERY wordy description)! :-)


David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision

Thank-you very much for the reply. And a quick and much needed one 
too. I stayed up until 3am and woke up 8.30 (this is early - it's a 
saturday!) to continue the saga - building profiles and softproofing 
the profiles to see what happens. 

I'll have to reread your mail again but i'm hopeful again that it can 
be solved. 

So say i correct the errors you saw and it still needs further 
adjustments to match the soft proof - and I'm to use the adjustment 
sliders to do this........the adjustment sliders not only change the 
print profile but also adds the changes to the soft proof profile on 
top of the current profile so woudln't that make it impossible to 
create a match with the soft proof as the soft proof also moves 
accordingly except with now the added changes on top?

I'm moving my PC next to a more neutral window as these damn BCI-6 
inks in the IP8500 sure is fickle - lots of metamerism.

Thanks a million.

Ed.

Dear Dave,

Many many many thanks for your effort in sorting me out. The 
softproof shadowed blue (it went shiny black in the shadows) is now 
GONE!!!! My softproof looks incredible now.

And guess what !!!!

I'll print some more prints with the profile and wait for it to dry 
to then determine the monitor-print matching. Initial results is that 
the print is very close to the monitor soft proof now. And I mean 
very very close. I'm so excited. This is incredible.

I have to be careful with metamerism. Noticed that as i swing around 
the print actually changes from cold to warm back to cold depending 
on the quality of light. And as the sun ducks behind clouds or comes 
out - the prints changes from being cold to warm too!

Oh Yeah, one more tip or maybe something you can reinforce. I used 
another packet of Photo Paper Pro bought from another country and the 
prints was yucky. So will you advise that we buy the papers in bulk 
so that it'll be the same batch and it'll print all right with the 
profile done on the same batch of paper. Just because its the same 
paper type does not gurrantee it'll perform 100% identical if its 
from another batch. I remember 1 year ago when i printed the A4 
picture to the 4R size prints, the results were like it was from a 
different paper type although it was still the Photo Paper Pro 
(canon).

When I first read that you'll get 1st time success, i was quite 
skeptical but I'm a believer now.

The adjustment sliders will also affect the soft proof right?
If the answer is yes, then if i need to add 'warm up' by adding 
yellow to match the softproof - how do i do that?

Thank-you Dave.

>Dear Dave,
>
>Many many many thanks for your effort in sorting me out. The
>softproof shadowed blue (it went shiny black in the shadows) is now
>GONE!!!! My softproof looks incredible now.

Glad to hear it!

(I knew that remeasuring those 9 patches was going to make a difference,
as soon as I saw the big "dent" in the bottom of the profile shape from your
original measurement set).

Just goes to show how MUCH effect that a small number of patches can have
on a profile. (And that, in this case, some of the patches were off, but
in subtle ways that weren't obvious). I probably wouldn't have noticed if
I was just looking at the patches in the 3-page format; going through that
little procedure in the 1.1.1 software to make them displayable in the
single page format was what made the problem stand out.

I'd still like to encourage you, now, to print the 225 patch target;
measure it; and build a profile. (This will go nice, fast, and easy compared
to doing the big one). Do another print through that, and compare to what
you've gotten from the 729 patch profile, and see if you can find any
differences. If not: profiling this way can save you a lot of time, paper,
and ink.

>And guess what !!!!
>
>I'll print some more prints with the profile and wait for it to dry
>to then determine the monitor-print matching. Initial results is that
>the print is very close to the monitor soft proof now. And I mean
>very very close. I'm so excited. This is incredible.

That's more like it...:-)

>I have to be careful with metamerism. Noticed that as i swing around
>the print actually changes from cold to warm back to cold depending
>on the quality of light. And as the sun ducks behind clouds or comes
>out - the prints changes from being cold to warm too!

There's nothing much you can do about that, unfortunately. That's a function
of the printer/paper/ink that you're using.

>Oh Yeah, one more tip or maybe something you can reinforce. I used
>another packet of Photo Paper Pro bought from another country and the
>prints was yucky. So will you advise that we buy the papers in bulk
>so that it'll be the same batch and it'll print all right with the
>profile done on the same batch of paper. Just because its the same
>paper type does not gurrantee it'll perform 100% identical if its
>from another batch. I remember 1 year ago when i printed the A4
>picture to the 4R size prints, the results were like it was from a
>different paper type although it was still the Photo Paper Pro
>(canon).

That's right; although some manufacturers' paper may be more consistent
across batches than others.

>
>When I first read that you'll get 1st time success, i was quite
>skeptical but I'm a believer now.

We're very pleased that you're pleased...:-)

I think we'll have to consider adding a feature that will make it easier
to "eyeball" the results after measuring, for cases like the 3 page 729
patch target, in which the measured colors don't "line up" nicely for a quick
visual check. The trick I wrote about here today will work, but it requires
a little bit of time and effort, and a few steps to create a reformatted
copy of the measurement file.

>The adjustment sliders will also affect the soft proof right?

Yes, that's what the "Show Edits in Preview" check box is about; by default,
it's "on", so that if you make a slider adjustment, you'll see it in both
the prints through the profile, and the soft-proof as well.

>If the answer is yes, then if i need to add 'warm up' by adding
>yellow to match the softproof - how do i do that?

Turn off the "Show Edits in Preview" check box before you make slider
adjustment(s) and then build a new profile from your measurements. This way,
your slider adjustments will go into PRINTS that are made through the profile,
but not into the softproof. As an example: saturation. Lets say your
softproof is just a bit more saturated, to your eye, than the prints. Turn
off that checkbox, bump the saturation slider slightly (maybe 2 or 3 points);
build another profile from your base set of measurements, and maybe append
S+2 to the name, so you'll know how you built it. This should give you a
slightly more saturated print, but softproofing through the S+2 profile should
look the same as the base profile.

(Doing this only takes a few seconds, since you always have your original
measurement set available. Just select it, go to the Build screen, make
your adjustments, pick a new profile name, and build: a few seconds later,
you're done. Then you can test-print from PFP if you like, or just run
Photoshop and test print any of your own images through it).

>
>Thank-you Dave.

You're welcome!


Best regards,

-- 
David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision

On 28-Jul-06, at 9:32 PM, David Miller wrote:
>
>
>  (I knew that remeasuring those 9 patches was going to make a 
> difference,
>  as soon as I saw the big "dent" in the bottom of the profile shape 
> from your
>  original measurement set).
>
>

Dave

hi, i am new to this group. i just found out about it on the Epson Wide 
Format group and decided to check you out.

i'm a new owner of the PrintFIX Pro Suite and have been working with it 
so far with no real issues yet. i am pleased to say that it is proving 
to be an amazing experience, how after many years i have never had any 
color management until now. my soft proofing is beyond what i could 
have imagined. it's the getting use to my monitor profile that is 
taking some time. the profile is generating rather 'mushy' and 
undefined tonal gradations in any sort of flesh tones and there is a 
lack of general contrast in most images. that being said, it is proving 
to be generating accurate representations regarding my printer output.

there is one thing i am wondering about and it involves a 'dent' in my 
profile. yes, when i read your profile description i knew exactly what 
you meant! i just did a 729 patch reading of a paper and when i checked 
out the generated icc profile, in the Colorsync profile utility in OsX, 
  it looked like it had collided with a concrete wall. there is a major 
dent in the greens. the 224 patch reading created a more smoothed out 
profile (though less gamut) and the soft proof looks great compared 
with it's output. am i to assume that at some point during my reading 
on the 729 patches i did something wrong? i printed out the scanning 
patches on separate (8.5 x 11) sheets on my Epson 7600. i'm planning to 
make another attempt at the 'Expert Mode' reading again but this time 
i'll print it all on one sheet.

one thing i have to say is that it's pretty enlightening to find out 
how limited an inkset really is as far as it's ability to recreate 
color. i use MIS inks in my machine, soon i will get some new inks and 
i'm curious as to how well they have improved (MIS Pro is the new ink 
they sell).

since i create directly in Painter and Photoshop it is necessary that i 
paint within the gamut of the printers output. by working within the 
profile i know i can only use the colors that will print and by doing 
so i have less output problems and color surprises. the wonderfully 
bright RGB palette is like another universe, bearing little resemblance 
to the real world.

Ghi

Hi David,

That's the thing - my 'Show Edits in Preview' doesn't work like how 
you explained it. THat's why i was confused.

I have unchecked it and done used the adjustment sliders and the the 
effect shows up in soft proof. I also notice that even when I uncheck 
the preview function and press 'next' it rebuilds with the print 
preview dialog box occuring.

So its ignoring the uncheck box and going ahead to rebuild with the 
preview thereby affecting my softproofs.

I'm using the latest v1.1.1 downloaded about a week ago. should 
reinstall? 

ONce this is solved I should be on my way. 

After drying down the prints are colder (cyanish tinge) compared to 
the warmer/more yellow soft proof. OTher than that contrast/general 
colors are spot on. I'm very near to nirvana........

And yes, I'll try the smaller 256 patches next time. The 700+ patches 
seems to be quite error prone. I was lucky you were there to catch 
me. I swore i worked hard at hitting the right patches but i guess 
(sheepishly) that's what makes us humans....our mistakes.

ONce again - many thank-yous David. 

Looking forward to your feedback on the 'Show Edits in Preview' 
button. I think that'll complete me - it was a mental block i could 
not get around.

Regards,
Ed.

If I'm not wrong - I'm sure there's a bug in the 'show edits in 
preview' function which continues to also change the previews or 
softproof whether it is disable or enabled.

I've installed Version 1.0 and it also does the same thing. 

Ed.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "ed_limmy" <ed_limmy@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi David,
> 
> That's the thing - my 'Show Edits in Preview' doesn't work like how 
> you explained it. THat's why i was confused.
> 
> I have unchecked it and done used the adjustment sliders and the 
the 
> effect shows up in soft proof. I also notice that even when I 
uncheck 
> the preview function and press 'next' it rebuilds with the print 
> preview dialog box occuring.
> 
> So its ignoring the uncheck box and going ahead to rebuild with the 
> preview thereby affecting my softproofs.
> 
> I'm using the latest v1.1.1 downloaded about a week ago. should 
> reinstall? 
> 
> ONce this is solved I should be on my way. 
> 
> After drying down the prints are colder (cyanish tinge) compared to 
> the warmer/more yellow soft proof. OTher than that contrast/general 
> colors are spot on. I'm very near to nirvana........
> 
> And yes, I'll try the smaller 256 patches next time. The 700+ 
patches 

> seems to be quite error prone. I was lucky you were there to catch 
> me. I swore i worked hard at hitting the right patches but i guess 
> (sheepishly) that's what makes us humans....our mistakes.
> 
> ONce again - many thank-yous David. 
> 
> Looking forward to your feedback on the 'Show Edits in Preview' 
> button. I think that'll complete me - it was a mental block i could 
> not get around.
> 
> Regards,
> Ed.
>

>Hi David,
>
>That's the thing - my 'Show Edits in Preview' doesn't work like how
>you explained it. THat's why i was confused.
>
>I have unchecked it and done used the adjustment sliders and the the
>effect shows up in soft proof.

That's correct. And if you compare prints made with profiles "A" and "B",
you'll see that they'll be different as well (same difference as in the
softproof between A and B)

>I also notice that even when I uncheck
>the preview function and press 'next' it rebuilds with the print
>preview dialog box occuring.

That's also correct. Every time you click "Next" from the "Build Profile"
screen, PFP will build another profile, using the settings on from that
screen.

>So its ignoring the uncheck box and going ahead to rebuild with the
>preview thereby affecting my softproofs.

No, you've got the concept wrong. First, see above: clicking Next will ALWAYS
build another profile. The checked/unchecked state of the checkbox (along
with the slider values; and, of course, the inherent set of measurements
that are underneath everything) influence what goes into the profile.

>I'm using the latest v1.1.1 downloaded about a week ago. should
>reinstall?

No, it's behaving correctly.

Also: you have to understand that, after you've built the profile, PFP
shows you the test image, and lets you print it (to check to see the how
the profile works, without having to go into Photoshop to do so); BUT
it does not "soft-proof" the image for you. What you see in the PFP window,
after you've built a profile, is just a preview that shows you the scaling
and position of the test image on the sheet of paper. And when you change
the rendering intent in that window, yes, PFP gives you a progress dialog
and tells you that it's rebuilding the print preview (it needs to recalculate
what needs to get sent to the printer, based on your choice of rendering
intent)...

But this doesn't have anything to do, directly, with whether you checked or
unchecked "Show Edits in Preview" before you built the profile. I think
what's throwing you off here is that "Show Edits" doesn't mean "Show Edits in
Preview; while you're in PFP"; it means "Show Edits in Preview", when you're
soft-proofing an image; through the profile that you've created; in
-Photoshop-.

Or to state this another way: PFP does NOT currently show you a soft-proof
of the profiles that you build, and so, you won't see any difference in PFP's
test image, after building the profile, no matter what you set the sliders
to. It will NOT change. You need to switch into Photoshop to soft-proof
your images through any profile that you create with PFP. The test-print
functionality, after building a profile, is print-only, but NOT a soft-proof.

>ONce this is solved I should be on my way.

(nothing to solve, see above...:-)

>After drying down the prints are colder (cyanish tinge) compared to
>the warmer/more yellow soft proof. OTher than that contrast/general
>colors are spot on. I'm very near to nirvana........

That means you should also let the target prints dry down, similarly, before
you measure them, so keep that in mind.

>And yes, I'll try the smaller 256 patches next time. The 700+ patches
>seems to be quite error prone. I was lucky you were there to catch
>me. I swore i worked hard at hitting the right patches but i guess
>(sheepishly) that's what makes us humans....our mistakes.

It's possible; lots of rows, you look up at the screen, your hand moves a little
bit off, and you're measuring in the wrong place, one row too low. And then,
when you got to the end of the row and moved back to the left column, you
probably looked at the row number; repositioned the spectro (to the -correct-
row, now...!) without even giving it a 2nd thought; which is why all of the
measurements which followed are correct.

>ONce again - many thank-yous David.

You're welcome...:-)

>Looking forward to your feedback on the 'Show Edits in Preview'
>button. I think that'll complete me - it was a mental block i could
>not get around.

I think my description should get you past that last hurdle...:-)

David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision

>If I'm not wrong - I'm sure there's a bug in the 'show edits in
>preview' function which continues to also change the previews or
>softproof whether it is disable or enabled.

(See previous message: it's behaving correctly).

>I've installed Version 1.0 and it also does the same thing.

Make sure that you Uninstall (I'm assuming you're running Windows, Mac
users don't need to do this) the 1.0 version before you put 1.1 back in.
Windows users can't have both 1.0 and 1.1.1 on their computer at the same
time, because the driver for the spectro is different. (Mac/OSX users, who
don't have to install drivers for USB devices, don't have to worry about this,
either)...


-- 
David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision

>If I'm not wrong - I'm sure there's a bug in the 'show edits in
>preview' function which continues to also change the previews or
>softproof whether it is disable or enabled.

Keep in mind that unchecking the "show edits in preview" box will not 
entirely eliminate edits showing in the preview, though it will reduce 
their effect on the preview. This is correct, and to be expected, since 
there are two directions involved: out to print, and back to preview. 
If you decide not to adjust the heading for a ship traveling back to 
Europe from America, but still edit the outbound voyage from Europe, 
the result is that it is still changed, just not changed as much as if 
it was changed in both directions... if that makes sense.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email 
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> 
wrote:
>
> >If I'm not wrong - I'm sure there's a bug in the 'show edits in
> >preview' function which continues to also change the previews or
> >softproof whether it is disable or enabled.
> 
> (See previous message: it's behaving correctly).
> 
> >I've installed Version 1.0 and it also does the same thing.
> 
> Make sure that you Uninstall (I'm assuming you're running Windows, 
Mac
> users don't need to do this) the 1.0 version before you put 1.1 
back in.
> Windows users can't have both 1.0 and 1.1.1 on their computer at 
the same
> time, because the driver for the spectro is different. (Mac/OSX 
users, who
> don't have to install drivers for USB devices, don't have to worry 
about this,
> either)...
> 
> 
> -- 
> David Miller
> Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> ColorVision
>

OK, I'm a bit confused here. I installed the softwear that came with 
my PFP(1.0), then downloaded and installed 1.1.1. Under "All 
Programes"(Win XP Pro-SP2)and under Colorvision, I have both proFix 
Pro 1.0 and 1.1.1. listed. You say to uninstall 1.0, but if you click 
uninstall it only asks if you want to uninstall Printfix Pro. There 
is no version to pick from. When I pick either of them, They both 
launch 1.1.1 library 1.42. Whats up with that?

KeithR

Hi David,


>"Keep in mind that unchecking the "show edits in preview" box will 
>not entirely eliminate edits showing in the preview, though it will 
>reduce their effect on the preview."

So "preview" means soft proofing in PS right?

So going by what you say above, in my situation where I really want 
to match the prints to the monitor softproof - i will then have to 
use 2 profiles. 

Profile 'A' will be the profile used in the PS soft proof and is not 
to be used for printing. Profile 'B'(originally from profile 'A') 
will then contain the slider adjustments (to make the match to the 
soft proof) and will be used not for soft proofing but for printing 
only. The aim is Profile 'B' then will make the prints match to the 
PS Soft Proof (Profile A).

Another way of explaining is: after the necessary adjustment slider 
changes are applied and the new profile rebuild - the new profile 
cannot be used on the soft proof in PS. It will only be used in 
printing.

Why can't the disabled 'Show Edits in Preview' totally disregard the 
adjustment slider setting effect in the soft proof? Its current 
function (if you say there's nothing wrong with it) does not serve 
any purpose. You say the disabled 'show edits...' will continue to 
partially display the adjustment slider settings in PS Soft Proof - 
what good will that do me? 

I can also reason out why you would say the profile should always 
change the soft proof - because the soft proof is meant to show the 
printer profile effects to the screen. And this would also include 
all subsequent adjustment effect.

So if there's nothing wrong with the 'Show Edits in Preview' then 
i'll have to use the 2 profiles method. 

Here's an example of the naming of the 2 profiles method used: 

IP8500_V1_SOFT_PROOF (Profile A)
IP8500_V1_Print_CY+10 (Profile B for printing only and had Cyan +10 
adjustment made to it)


What's your opinion about that?

Hi David,
It doesn't make sense to me that the "show edits in preview" cannot 
be totally disabled. What's the point of having a 'reduce' effect?

The universal aim is to have the print match the soft proof. Now if 
the edits to the profile continue to show in the soft proof then 
wouldn't that be an infinity loop because the edits will never match 
the soft proof because the soft proof will always change accordingly.

Ed.






> Keep in mind that unchecking the "show edits in preview" box will 
not 
> entirely eliminate edits showing in the preview, though it will 
reduce 
> their effect on the preview. This is correct, and to be expected, 
since 
> there are two directions involved: out to print, and back to 
preview. 
> If you decide not to adjust the heading for a ship traveling back 
to 
> Europe from America, but still edit the outbound voyage from 
Europe, 
> the result is that it is still changed, just not changed as much as 
if 
> it was changed in both directions... if that makes sense.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Division
> DataColor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
______________________________________________________________________
__
> Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, 
email 
> and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
>

>Hi David,
>
>>"Keep in mind that unchecking the "show edits in preview" box will
>>not entirely eliminate edits showing in the preview, though it will
>>reduce their effect on the preview."
>
>So "preview" means soft proofing in PS right?

(Yes, that's what he means)

>So going by what you say above, in my situation where I really want
>to match the prints to the monitor softproof - i will then have to
>use 2 profiles.

No.

>Profile 'A' will be the profile used in the PS soft proof and is not
>to be used for printing. Profile 'B'(originally from profile 'A')
>will then contain the slider adjustments (to make the match to the
>soft proof) and will be used not for soft proofing but for printing
>only. The aim is Profile 'B' then will make the prints match to the
>PS Soft Proof (Profile A).
>
>Another way of explaining is: after the necessary adjustment slider
>changes are applied and the new profile rebuild - the new profile
>cannot be used on the soft proof in PS. It will only be used in
>printing.

(No.)

>Why can't the disabled 'Show Edits in Preview' totally disregard the
>adjustment slider setting effect in the soft proof?

That's what it does...:-)

>Its current
>function (if you say there's nothing wrong with it) does not serve
>any purpose. You say the disabled 'show edits...' will continue to
>partially display the adjustment slider settings in PS Soft Proof -
>what good will that do me?

It's not partially.

As I said earlier: when you have the box checked, your slider adjustments
show up in the soft proof as well as the prints. (-All- of your slider
adjustments). When the box isn't checked, your slider adjustments are prevented
from showing up in the soft proof, but (as you would expect) they still
show up in prints through the profile.

The word "Edits", in "Show Edits", corresponds to the complete set of slider
adjustments that you see on that screen.


Best regards,

-- 
David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision

>Hi David,
>It doesn't make sense to me that the "show edits in preview" cannot
>be totally disabled. What's the point of having a 'reduce' effect?

(See my previous answer)

It already behaves the way that you think it should...:-)


Best regards,

-- 
David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision

Hi DAvid,
Errr.....this is why I say the it's not working as it should. Say for 
testing sake i jack up the brightness slider, uncheck the 'show edits 
in preview' function, build the profile and load it into photoshop, 
use soft proof with the jacked up brightness setting profile....lo and 
behold - I see the soft proof being brighter.

So I don't know why you say it disregards the edits when I can see the 
effects kicking in. I've played with this many times and the 
disabled 'show edits in preview' is definitely NOT disabled.

If the disabled 'show edits in preview' will not show the edits in the 
softproof (according to you) then the soft proof will be identical to 
the original profile - correct? Unfortunately, i AM seeing the soft 
proof changing according to the edits. How can you explain that?

Ed.

Hi Davids,

Ok lets conclude on the 'Show Edits in Preview' function:

1) 'Show Edits in Preview' is for soft proofing in Photoshop

2) using 2 profiles is one with the new edits for printing only, is 
not the recommended or normal way to go about it.

3)when the 'show edits in Preview' is disabled, the new edits will 
not show up in the Photoshop soft proofing.

Point no.3 is of greatest debate here. one of you say the disabled 
function will still partly show the edits in soft proofing. David 
Miller just said it totally won't (but I'm saying and seeing that it 
does).

To david Miller - I don't see why you say the disabled edits will 
not show up in PS soft proofing. I must have done the test runs many 
times with the disabled 'show edits in preview'with the adjustment 
sliders ramped up and the effects still come through in the soft 
proofing.

Ed.

>>3)when the 'show edits in Preview' is disabled, the new edits will
not show up in the Photoshop soft proofing.

Point no.3 is of greatest debate here. one of you say the disabled
function will still partly show the edits in soft proofing. David
Miller just said it totally won't (but I'm saying and seeing that it
does).

We're both correct, we're just saying it differently. I could say that 
your monitor profile does not effect images you prints out of 
Photoshop, and that would be true, assuming you never adjust the images 
based on that monitor profile. There is a similar level of 
connect/disconnect in the Show Edits function. It effects one side, 
which indirectly effects the other, while not directly affecting the 
other. After all, we aren't offering to ONLY edit the preview (so that 
there is no effect on the print) we're just offering to include reverse 
adjustments to the other side of the profile or not, so there will be a 
difference either way, it will just be more, or less, pronounced. I'm 
sure thats not very helpful as an explanation, but I suspect it will 
line up with your actual test results.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision, Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

-----Original Message-----
From: ed_limmy@...
To: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:30 AM
Subject: [colorvision_group] Mighty confused....

   Hi Davids,

Ok lets conclude on the 'Show Edits in Preview' function:

1) 'Show Edits in Preview' is for soft proofing in Photoshop

2) using 2 profiles is one with the new edits for printing only, is
not the recommended or normal way to go about it.

3)when the 'show edits in Preview' is disabled, the new edits will
not show up in the Photoshop soft proofing.

Point no.3 is of greatest debate here. one of you say the disabled
function will still partly show the edits in soft proofing. David
Miller just said it totally won't (but I'm saying and seeing that it
does).

To david Miller - I don't see why you say the disabled edits will
not show up in PS soft proofing. I must have done the test runs many
times with the disabled 'show edits in preview'with the adjustment
sliders ramped up and the effects still come through in the soft
proofing.

Ed.







Yahoo! Groups Links








________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email 
and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

Hi David,

Wow - that's some read.

Anyway I'm sticking to my version that the disabled preview should 
not show 100% any adjustment slider effects. this will then enable us 
to use the adjustment sliders to match the soft proof. Otherwise it 
is like trying to catch up with someone who is running the same speed 
as you - you increase your speed by 5mph, he increases his speed by 
the same amount too ie. you'll never catch (match) him.

So for now I'll have to use the 2 profile method - one for the 
softproof with the original measurements and another profile just for 
printing with adjustment sliders settings to match the print to the 
soft proof.

Looking forward intensively for any new development to the PRintfix 
pro application. Particularly if you can find a better way for us to 
check our patch readings.

I have just printed a picture that is the best that I have produced 
because of the printfix pro profiles. And even under daylight 
outdoors the picture hold up with little metamerism. And I've noticed 
there is a red glow in the skin tone that was missing in my earlier 
works before printfix pro.

No, i've still got some matching to do with my soft proof but I think 
that was an indication of the potential of customised profiling.

Got to rest my really beat eyes - it was an intensive weekend.

Thank-you david. I'm a printfix pro big time fan now.

I hope one day you will allow us to have a truly disabled 'show edits 
in preview' function ie. one that will only show in show proof the 
original measurements and ignore the adjustment slider effects. Then 
i can rely on 1 profile for softproofing and printing.

Adios. I sleep with a smile.

Ed.

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
>
> >>3)when the 'show edits in Preview' is disabled, the new edits will
> not show up in the Photoshop soft proofing.
> 
> Point no.3 is of greatest debate here. one of you say the disabled
> function will still partly show the edits in soft proofing. David
> Miller just said it totally won't (but I'm saying and seeing that it
> does).
> 
> We're both correct, we're just saying it differently. I could say 
that 
> your monitor profile does not effect images you prints out of 
> Photoshop, and that would be true, assuming you never adjust the 
images 
> based on that monitor profile. There is a similar level of 
> connect/disconnect in the Show Edits function. It effects one side, 
> which indirectly effects the other, while not directly affecting 
the 
> other. After all, we aren't offering to ONLY edit the preview (so 
that 
> there is no effect on the print) we're just offering to include 
reverse 
> adjustments to the other side of the profile or not, so there will 
be a 
> difference either way, it will just be more, or less, pronounced. 
I'm 
> sure thats not very helpful as an explanation, but I suspect it 
will 
> line up with your actual test results.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision, Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ed_limmy@...
> To: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 12:30 AM
> Subject: [colorvision_group] Mighty confused....
> 
>    Hi Davids,
> 
> Ok lets conclude on the 'Show Edits in Preview' function:
> 
> 1) 'Show Edits in Preview' is for soft proofing in Photoshop
> 
> 2) using 2 profiles is one with the new edits for printing only, is
> not the recommended or normal way to go about it.
> 
> 3)when the 'show edits in Preview' is disabled, the new edits will
> not show up in the Photoshop soft proofing.
> 
> Point no.3 is of greatest debate here. one of you say the disabled
> function will still partly show the edits in soft proofing. David
> Miller just said it totally won't (but I'm saying and seeing that it
> does).
> 
> To david Miller - I don't see why you say the disabled edits will
> not show up in PS soft proofing. I must have done the test runs many
> times with the disabled 'show edits in preview'with the adjustment
> sliders ramped up and the effects still come through in the soft
> proofing.
> 
> Ed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
______________________________________________________________________
__
> Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, 
email 
> and IM. All on demand. Always Free.
>

>On 28-Jul-06, at 9:32 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>  (I knew that remeasuring those 9 patches was going to make a difference,
>>  as soon as I saw the big "dent" in the bottom of the profile shape from your
>>  original measurement set).
>>
>>
>
>Dave
>
>hi, i am new to this group. i just found out about it on the Epson 
>Wide Format group and decided to check you out.

Hi Ghi! Sorry it took a week to answer your post...:-)

>i'm a new owner of the PrintFIX Pro Suite and have been working with 
>it so far with no real issues yet. i am pleased to say that it is 
>proving to be an amazing experience, how after many years i have 
>never had any color management until now. my soft proofing is beyond 
>what i could have imagined.

Glad to hear it!

>it's the getting use to my monitor profile that is taking some time. 
>the profile is generating rather 'mushy' and undefined tonal 
>gradations in any sort of flesh tones and there is a lack of general 
>contrast in most images. that being said, it is proving to be 
>generating accurate representations regarding my printer output.

What kind of display are you using? And how old is it?

>there is one thing i am wondering about and it involves a 'dent' in 
>my profile. yes, when i read your profile description i knew exactly 
>what you meant! i just did a 729 patch reading of a paper and when i 
>checked out the generated icc profile, in the Colorsync profile 
>utility in OsX,  it looked like it had collided with a concrete 
>wall. there is a major dent in the greens.

That -probably- means something went wrong with some of the measurements there.
As we saw with Ed Limmy's measurements last week, all it took was
a slip and a "wrong" set of a only a few measurements (and in this 
case, "wrong"
was in a subtle way, and it took some tricky analysis for me to catch it) to
"dent" his profile, too.

Not to knock the 729 patch targets, but my personal preference is to measure
the 225 patch target and to save myself the extra time and effort it takes
to print and measure 3 sheets.

Taking the "faster" approach would also save time, paper, and ink when someone
first starts using PFP and has problems, such as what Paul Nieuwenhuize is
experiencing with his profiled test prints coming out too dark.


>the 224 patch reading created a more smoothed out profile (though less gamut)

Hmmm.... really should be pretty much the same in terms of overall shape
and volume, but if you compared the boundaries, there would be some slight
differences. It's hard to see and compare gamut shapes in the ColorSync
Utility; something like Steve Upton's ColorThink application lets you
overlay the 3D gamut plots of profiles and compare them directly (visually).

>and the soft proof looks great compared with it's output. am i to 
>assume that at some point during my reading on the 729 patches i did 
>something wrong?

Probably... Try that trick I described last week (very long response here
on the group, to Ed) in which I used the new "Information" feature in
PFP 1.1.1 to create a copy of the 3 page measurement file and convert it
to the 1 page format; then I viewed -this- in PFP and was able to visually
pick out where one subsection of a row of his measurements had gone wrong.

>i printed out the scanning patches on separate (8.5 x 11) sheets on 
>my Epson 7600. i'm planning to make another attempt at the 'Expert 
>Mode' reading again but this time i'll print it all on one sheet.

Yes, if you can do it that way, it will be easy to tell, visually, if any
of them are wrong, because all of the colors "line up" nicely and smoothly
and anything that is wrong will stand out.

>one thing i have to say is that it's pretty enlightening to find out 
>how limited an inkset really is as far as it's ability to recreate 
>color.

Yes, it is. Those PFP targets, when printed with no color management through
the printer driver, are showing you -everything- that the printer/paper/ink/
printer driver/media setting combination can give you. Effectively: this
is the gamut of the printer, and you're looking at it (spread out into 729
printed patches, or 225 patches on the smaller target). You can't get a blacker
black, or more saturated primaries, than what you're seeing here.

>i use MIS inks in my machine, soon i will get some new inks and i'm 
>curious as to how well they have improved (MIS Pro is the new ink 
>they sell).

I'm curious about that, too.

>since i create directly in Painter and Photoshop it is necessary 
>that i paint within the gamut of the printers output. by working 
>within the profile i know i can only use the colors that will print 
>and by doing so i have less output problems and color surprises.

Right: that's how color management is supposed to work, in this case: use
the profile to soft-proof while you're creating, so that you can feel confident
that your prints will look as you intended the image to look, as you were
working on it.

>the wonderfully bright RGB palette is like another universe, bearing 
>little resemblance to the real world.
>

You can get closer to that "pure" RGB palette, depending on what you're
printing with. I think that the most brilliant, saturated print target I've
made was on the Epson R800, on Olympus Pictorico Pro High Gloss White film.
(Or it may have been a 1280 on that media, it was months ago). It was
-so- intense and saturated that it almost hurt the eyes to look at it. Totally
unlike what you get when printing on matte paper with pigmented inks.


Best regards,


-- 
David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision