Yahoo Groups archive

Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:18 UTC

Thread

How much is a scratch?

How much is a scratch?

2006-12-08 by lund_sorensen

Well.. How much _is_ a scratch then?   :=)

Celebrating the new 2.0 version I thought Id take a couple of 225 and 
238 patch prints and reread them. After dusting them off with a soft 
brush (yeah I know: paranoid), I found several marks/scruffs on the 
patches. The marks can be devided in two types: the more superficial 
that dont "go through" the ink, but of course none the less breaks 
light: otherwise you wouldnt see them. And then there is the small 
penetrating ones, clearly showing paper. The latter I only found one 
or two of, and it beats me how they came (paper is Epson Prem 
Semigloss). The first ones, superficials, are more plentyfull, and 
came from the Spectrometer when reading first time over, I suppose.

So finally, the question!

Will the superficial scratches have any bearings on my result, 
rereading them?

No matter the answer Im printing new ones at this moment  :=)

Kind Regards

Niels Lund-Sørensen

Re: [colorvision_group] How much is a scratch?

2006-12-08 by CDTobie@aol.com


In a message dated 12/8/06 11:37:04 AM, nlun@... writes:


Well.. How much _is_ a scratch then? :=)

Anything that the customer can see.

Celebrating the new 2.0 version I thought Id take a couple of 225 and
238 patch prints and reread them. After dusting them off with a soft
brush (yeah I know: paranoid), I found several marks/scruffs on the
patches. The marks can be devided in two types: the more superficial
that dont "go through" the ink, but of course none the less breaks
light: otherwise you wouldnt see them. And then there is the small
penetrating ones, clearly showing paper. The latter I only found one
or two of, and it beats me how they came (paper is Epson Prem
Semigloss). The first ones, superficials, are more plentyfull, and
came from the Spectrometer when reading first time over, I suppose.

So finally, the question!

Will the superficial scratches have any bearings on my result,
rereading them?

No matter the answer Im printing new ones at this moment :=)

I tend to 'read around' questionable areas, rather then reprint, when I can manage it. I suspect that the degree of damage you describe won't effect measurements, which average an area, but you can play the game and find out. Read a patch (from a target you no longer need). Scuff it, reread, see what the difference is. Now slice it, reread, compare again. I bet you'd have to get downright abusive before it would have a significant effect...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...

www.colorvision.com

Re: [colorvision_group] How much is a scratch?

2006-12-08 by Doug Lenos

Please post back your findings... of course the target prints may have changed due to light, length of time since printing, etc... I would be interested to know if the 2.0 version produces a noticible difference over the 1.1 version for standard color profiles. I plan on doing the same this weekend - re-reading print targets that are about 2-3 months old - been stored in the dark, and sealed...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2006 11:27 AM
Subject: [colorvision_group] How much is a scratch?


Well.. How much _is_ a scratch then? :=)

Celebrating the new 2.0 version I thought Id take a couple of 225 and
238 patch prints and reread them. After dusting them off with a soft
brush (yeah I know: paranoid), I found several marks/scruffs on the
patches. The marks can be devided in two types: the more superficial
that dont "go through" the ink, but of course none the less breaks
light: otherwise you wouldnt see them. And then there is the small
penetrating ones, clearly showing paper. The latter I only found one
or two of, and it beats me how they came (paper is Epson Prem
Semigloss). The first ones, superficials, are more plentyfull, and
came from the Spectrometer when reading first time over, I suppose.

So finally, the question!

Will the superficial scratches have any bearings on my result,
rereading them?

No matter the answer Im printing new ones at this moment :=)

Kind Regards

Niels Lund-Sørensen

Re: [colorvision_group] How much is a scratch?

2006-12-08 by CDTobie@aol.com


In a message dated 12/8/06 12:18:25 PM, dlenos@... writes:


Please post back your findings... of course the target prints may have changed due to light, length of time since printing, etc... I would be interested to know if the 2.0 version produces a noticible difference over the 1.1 version for standard color profiles. I plan on doing the same this weekend - re-reading print targets that are about 2-3 months old - been stored in the dark, and sealed...


No reason to go to that level of effort, you can reuse your v1.1.1 measurement sets, and save the remeasuring. But since the big thing v2 adds is B&W, and you'll need an Extended Grays target for that, its best to print a new 225 patch color target at the same time, and read both, rather than using an old color target, and a new B&W target...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...

www.colorvision.com

A small informal investigation of scratches and there effect on Lab values

2006-12-08 by lund_sorensen

While waiting for my newly printet patches to dry I have done a few 
tests, mind you nothing you can do statistics on. Furthermore Im not 
quite sure how to interpret the numbers :)

Done with 2 older 225 patch papers, Epson Premium Semigloss, UC PK 
ink (K2). Identitical paper underneath. Measured targets K6, L6, M6 
on both papers in Lab values, before and after 3 defined scratches 
was applied, one on each target. That way I got 2 readings before and 
2 readings after each scratch. Mean values were calculated and 
subtractet, difference presentet below as positive Lab numbers 
representing the effect of the defined scratch.

Scratches are defined as follows:

1) Superficial scratch applied with nail. Compared to allmost all the 
older scratches from the 1005 Spectrocolorimeter these were generelly 
more visible and broader - but you will still have to look for them 
to find them.

2) Long thin deep scratch allmost - but not quite - penetrating the 
ink. Length ca 1cm, width ca 0.5mm, done with point of knife. Quite 
severe, that you will spot instantly.

3) Point penetration of ink and partly paper, in effect showing the 
underlying paper. Diameter ca 0.5mm, done with point of knife. 

**********

The Lab values in positive numbers representing the difference 
between a patch before and after a defined scratch:

1)  0.28   0.35   0.93
2)  4.71   0.18   1.28
3)  3.76   0.74   1.12

**********

Interpretation and conclusion: 

The light nail scratch value (1) should not give any visible effects 
when comparing with an non-scratched. However for some reason the b 
value is on the way to becomming unacceptable - I have a vague idea 
that a number around 2 is generelly acceptet as "too much". All in 
all fully acceptable, but if you want to know its the *best* profile 
you can get, you´ll have to make a new print. Bear in mind though 
that the nail scratch is more visible than the tracks after the 1005 
spectro.

Both the long thin deep scratch (2) and the point penetration (3) 
shows clearly unacceptable changes in L values - whereas the ab 
(color) changes are modest and acceptable (? see remark above). That 
the L value suffers the most is logically as the underlying white 
paper gets measured as well. As notet earlier the nr 2) scratch will 
be seen clearly even though its not penetrating - only allmost. And 
you will know its time to print a new target. The point penetration 
(3) could mimick one of those small white dust bodys floating around. 
You will see it, but will you avoid it? Brush your papers gentlemen!

Aint we having a ball this friday night?  8)

Kind Regards

Niels

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.