Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Hi,

Please could someone help to answer a question.

My setup is:

Screen: Dell LCD 1703FP
OS: Windows XP
Screen Calibration: Spyder3 Elite - 2.2/6500k
Printer: Epson 3800
Printer Profiling Device: Spyder3 Print
Paper: Epson Archival Matte Paper
Inkset: Epson Ultrachrome (standard with this printer)

I have built a printer profile for this printer/paper/ink combination.
In fact I built 3 profiles:

1) From the Expert + Grays target (4 sheets altogether) - Take
measurements after 1 day drying time
2) From the Expert + Grays target (4 sheets altogether) - Take
measurements after 2 days drying time
3) Average the two profiles above

On all 3 profiles when I soft proof the image in Photoshop CS3 there
are a lot of areas showing as gray (Out of Gamut) which do not appear
as such when I soft proof using the Epson canned profile (Pro38 ARMP).

Noticeably these are in the darker areas: Dark blues, greens,
blacks/greys, purples, browns. The colours which seem ok (in Gamut)
are yellows, cyans and generally the lighter shades.

If I print a test image (Using the Photodisc colour test image) using
the profiles, the colours are definitely better with the Spyder3
profiles but I am concerned about why there are so many grey/Gamut
warning areas on the soft-proof... 

Please could someone advise ?

Thanks in advance,
Rick

Thanks for the reply.

My only concern is that if more areas are showing out of gamut with
the new Spyder profile does that mean these areas cannot completely
correctly be put onto the paper using the current printer and ink ? 

My understanding was that for the areas that are showing as out of
gamut then there is some 'black box' calculation occurring which means
that the colours you eventually get in these areas are close
'approximations' to the desired colours but the result will be not
entirely predictable.... Am I right in thinking this ?

Maybe you could expand on your answer please ?

Thanks,
Rick

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 9/10/08 9:32:56 AM, rickbehl@... writes:
> 
> 
> > 
> > If I print a test image (Using the Photodisc colour test image) using
> > the profiles, the colours are definitely better with the Spyder3
> > profiles but I am concerned about why there are so many grey/Gamut
> > warning areas on the soft-proof...
> > 
> 
> We tend to offer a wider gamut, so why would you be concerned that a
gamut 
> limit tool shows that we consider more of your colors out of gamut?
Put another 
> way: this is all about getting better colors, not who you are going
to believe 
> with analysis tools...
> 
> C. David Tobie
> WW Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> Datacolor
> CDTobie@...
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
> 
> 
> **************
> Psssst...Have you heard the news? 
> There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair
styles at 

> StyleList.com.
>       (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
>

In a message dated 9/10/08 12:06:18 PM, rickbehl@... writes:


> My only concern is that if more areas are showing out of gamut with
> the new Spyder profile does that mean these areas cannot completely
> correctly be put onto the paper using the current printer and ink ?
> 
You are correct in understanding that color truely out of the printer's range 
need to be brought "in gamut' one way or another to be printed, and won't be 
literal representations of the color in question. This is more clear for 
saturated colors beyond the range of your inks on your paper. For dark colors, its 
a matter of blends that can be dark enough, while still being saturated 
enough, to avoid dark areas being weak or dull.
> 
> My understanding was that for the areas that are showing as out of
> gamut then there is some 'black box' calculation occurring which means
> that the colours you eventually get in these areas are close
> 'approximations' to the desired colours but the result will be not
> entirely predictable.... Am I right in thinking this ?
> 
The problem is that Photoshop's   "black box" for determining what is an out 
of gamut color does not necessarily mesh with the profile's method of doing 
things. For the deep colors in particular, Adobe may be using perceptual 
stretching or black point compensation assumptions. This means that a non-Datacolor 
printer profile "prestretched" for black point compensation may appear to have 
a larger gamut in the dark areas, when it fact it's gamut is no larger, or 
perhaps even smaller, than that of the Datacolor profile, even though the gamut 
warning says differently. One of several reasons to take the gamut warning with 
a grain of salt...

C. David Tobie
WW Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor
CDTobie@...
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3



**************
Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, 
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.
      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)

On Sep 10, 2008, at 6:08 AM, rickbehl wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Please could someone help to answer a question.
>
> My setup is:
>
> Screen: Dell LCD 1703FP
> OS: Windows XP
> Screen Calibration: Spyder3 Elite - 2.2/6500k
> Printer: Epson 3800
> Printer Profiling Device: Spyder3 Print
> Paper: Epson Archival Matte Paper
> Inkset: Epson Ultrachrome (standard with this printer)
>
> I have built a printer profile for this printer/paper/ink combination.
> In fact I built 3 profiles:
>
> 1) From the Expert + Grays target (4 sheets altogether) - Take
> measurements after 1 day drying time
> 2) From the Expert + Grays target (4 sheets altogether) - Take
> measurements after 2 days drying time
> 3) Average the two profiles above
>
> On all 3 profiles when I soft proof the image in Photoshop CS3 there
> are a lot of areas showing as gray (Out of Gamut) which do not appear
> as such when I soft proof using the Epson canned profile (Pro38 ARMP).
>
> Noticeably these are in the darker areas: Dark blues, greens,
> blacks/greys, purples, browns. The colours which seem ok (in Gamut)
> are yellows, cyans and generally the lighter shades.
>
> If I print a test image (Using the Photodisc colour test image) using
> the profiles, the colours are definitely better with the Spyder3
> profiles but I am concerned about why there are so many grey/Gamut
> warning areas on the soft-proof...
>
> Please could someone advise ?
>
>

The real issue here is this: the out-of-gamut warning you're getting
with our profile is actually, -technically correct-. Here's why:

You're profiling matte paper. The L values (lightness) for all of the
shadows on matte paper measure lighter than on glossy/luster. On matte
paper, measured L for black will be in the 15-22 range, usually in the
upper teens. On glossy/luster, measured L for black will be in the 3-7
range (but usually not more than 5).

The out-of-gamut warning is telling you that shadow values, with their
darker L's, fall below the measured values for the printer gamut.
(And, in fact: they do!) If you were doing this with a profile built
from glossy/luster with much darker blacks, the gamut warning
would cover a much shallower area of the darkest shadows.

There's nothing "wrong" with this. On matte paper, you simply cannot
prints black, and shadows, that cover the same range as glossy/luster
papers. The gamut warning is telling you this, and there is nothing
you can do... because it's physically impossible for you to print
darker on that printer, on matte paper.

The fact that you're getting gamut warnings in the shadows doesn't
mean that there will be a problem with the print. You will be getting
the darkest blacks and shadows that the printer/paper/inkset can
give you, when you print; the gamut warning is just doing what
it's supposed to do: tell you that you're trying to print darker
blacks and shadows than the printer/paper/inkset can physically
produce.

So: why don't you get a similar gamut warning with Epson profiles...?

You should, but the Epson profiles are doing something different
with an internal table in the profiles (which has to do with how
the gamut warning is calculated) to "hide" the fact that these
shadows are actually outside the printer gamut for matte papers.
The gamut shape in the Epson profiles isn't any larger than
in a profile we've created for the same paper; in fact, our gamut
shape is likely to be a bit larger. If you use a utility like
Chromix ColorThink to compare the gamut shapes for a Spyder3Print
profile on Epson Enhanced Matte, vs. the Epson profile for the same
paper, you'll see that the gamut shapes are similar and that the
bottom tails both "float" above the L = 0 plane at pretty much the
same level.

***

The shorter answer is: don't worry about this. We're actually
giving you a more accurate gamut warning than the Epson profiles;
the fact that those shadows are technically out of gamut doesn't
mean that there's anything wrong with the print. Your direct experience
is that the print is great... and in fact, better than what you
get from the Epson profiles.


David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

Thanks CDTobie and David Miller for the extensive replies.

So to summarise I guess I should not worry too much about the out of
gamut warnings ? Would you recommend I take some action if I see this
out of gamut warning or should I just let Photoshop and the Printer
Driver figure out the best thing to do with these colours ?

Thanks again ! I think I am slowly 'getting it' :-)

Rgds
Rick

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...> wrote:

>
> 
> On Sep 10, 2008, at 6:08 AM, rickbehl wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please could someone help to answer a question.
> >
> > My setup is:
> >
> > Screen: Dell LCD 1703FP
> > OS: Windows XP
> > Screen Calibration: Spyder3 Elite - 2.2/6500k
> > Printer: Epson 3800
> > Printer Profiling Device: Spyder3 Print
> > Paper: Epson Archival Matte Paper
> > Inkset: Epson Ultrachrome (standard with this printer)
> >
> > I have built a printer profile for this printer/paper/ink combination.
> > In fact I built 3 profiles:
> >
> > 1) From the Expert + Grays target (4 sheets altogether) - Take
> > measurements after 1 day drying time
> > 2) From the Expert + Grays target (4 sheets altogether) - Take
> > measurements after 2 days drying time
> > 3) Average the two profiles above
> >
> > On all 3 profiles when I soft proof the image in Photoshop CS3 there
> > are a lot of areas showing as gray (Out of Gamut) which do not appear
> > as such when I soft proof using the Epson canned profile (Pro38 ARMP).
> >
> > Noticeably these are in the darker areas: Dark blues, greens,
> > blacks/greys, purples, browns. The colours which seem ok (in Gamut)
> > are yellows, cyans and generally the lighter shades.
> >
> > If I print a test image (Using the Photodisc colour test image) using
> > the profiles, the colours are definitely better with the Spyder3
> > profiles but I am concerned about why there are so many grey/Gamut
> > warning areas on the soft-proof...
> >
> > Please could someone advise ?
> >
> >
> 
> The real issue here is this: the out-of-gamut warning you're getting
> with our profile is actually, -technically correct-. Here's why:
> 
> You're profiling matte paper. The L values (lightness) for all of the
> shadows on matte paper measure lighter than on glossy/luster. On matte
> paper, measured L for black will be in the 15-22 range, usually in the
> upper teens. On glossy/luster, measured L for black will be in the 3-7
> range (but usually not more than 5).
> 
> The out-of-gamut warning is telling you that shadow values, with their
> darker L's, fall below the measured values for the printer gamut.
> (And, in fact: they do!) If you were doing this with a profile built
> from glossy/luster with much darker blacks, the gamut warning
> would cover a much shallower area of the darkest shadows.
> 
> There's nothing "wrong" with this. On matte paper, you simply cannot
> prints black, and shadows, that cover the same range as glossy/luster
> papers. The gamut warning is telling you this, and there is nothing
> you can do... because it's physically impossible for you to print
> darker on that printer, on matte paper.
> 
> The fact that you're getting gamut warnings in the shadows doesn't
> mean that there will be a problem with the print. You will be getting
> the darkest blacks and shadows that the printer/paper/inkset can
> give you, when you print; the gamut warning is just doing what
> it's supposed to do: tell you that you're trying to print darker
> blacks and shadows than the printer/paper/inkset can physically
> produce.
> 
> So: why don't you get a similar gamut warning with Epson profiles...?
> 
> You should, but the Epson profiles are doing something different
> with an internal table in the profiles (which has to do with how
> the gamut warning is calculated) to "hide" the fact that these
> shadows are actually outside the printer gamut for matte papers.
> The gamut shape in the Epson profiles isn't any larger than
> in a profile we've created for the same paper; in fact, our gamut
> shape is likely to be a bit larger. If you use a utility like
> Chromix ColorThink to compare the gamut shapes for a Spyder3Print
> profile on Epson Enhanced Matte, vs. the Epson profile for the same
> paper, you'll see that the gamut shapes are similar and that the
> bottom tails both "float" above the L = 0 plane at pretty much the
> same level.
> 
> ***
> 
> The shorter answer is: don't worry about this. We're actually
> giving you a more accurate gamut warning than the Epson profiles;
> the fact that those shadows are technically out of gamut doesn't
> mean that there's anything wrong with the print. Your direct experience
> is that the print is great... and in fact, better than what you
> get from the Epson profiles.
> 
> 
> David Miller
> Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
> Datacolor
>

No, don't ignore the gamut warning and expect the profile to do all  
the work, and do it exactly as you would like it done;  
instead(especially for saturated colors, as opposed to dark ones) use  
the gamut warning to tell you, at least roughly, which colors to  
adjust, and bring these colors mostly into gamut yourself, to in-gamut  
versions that suit you. That's much of the value of a good profile; to  
allow this work. That type of adjustment is part of what makes an art  
print an art print; not just a print.

C. D. Tobie
WW Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
DataColor.com
CDTobie@...

On Sep 10, 2008, at 10:50 PM, "rickbehl" <rickbehl@...> wrote:

>
> Thanks CDTobie and David Miller for the extensive replies.
>
> So to summarise I guess I should not worry too much about the out of
> gamut warnings ? Would you recommend I take some action if I see this
> out of gamut warning or should I just let Photoshop and the Printer
> Driver figure out the best thing to do with these colours ?
>
> Thanks again ! I think I am slowly 'getting it' :-)
>
> Rgds
> Rick
>
> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, David Miller <dm2363@...>  
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sep 10, 2008, at 6:08 AM, rickbehl wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Please could someone help to answer a question.
>>>
>>> My setup is:
>>>
>>> Screen: Dell LCD 1703FP
>>> OS: Windows XP
>>> Screen Calibration: Spyder3 Elite - 2.2/6500k
>>> Printer: Epson 3800
>>> Printer Profiling Device: Spyder3 Print
>>> Paper: Epson Archival Matte Paper
>>> Inkset: Epson Ultrachrome (standard with this printer)
>>>
>>> I have built a printer profile for this printer/paper/ink  
>>> combination.
>>> In fact I built 3 profiles:
>>>
>>> 1) From the Expert + Grays target (4 sheets altogether) - Take
>>> measurements after 1 day drying time
>>> 2) From the Expert + Grays target (4 sheets altogether) - Take
>>> measurements after 2 days drying time
>>> 3) Average the two profiles above
>>>
>>> On all 3 profiles when I soft proof the image in Photoshop CS3 there
>>> are a lot of areas showing as gray (Out of Gamut) which do not  
>>> appear
>>> as such when I soft proof using the Epson canned profile (Pro38  
>>> ARMP).
>>>
>>> Noticeably these are in the darker areas: Dark blues, greens,
>>> blacks/greys, purples, browns. The colours which seem ok (in Gamut)
>>> are yellows, cyans and generally the lighter shades.
>>>
>>> If I print a test image (Using the Photodisc colour test image)  
>>> using
>>> the profiles, the colours are definitely better with the Spyder3
>>> profiles but I am concerned about why there are so many grey/Gamut
>>> warning areas on the soft-proof...
>>>
>>> Please could someone advise ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The real issue here is this: the out-of-gamut warning you're getting
>> with our profile is actually, -technically correct-. Here's why:
>>
>> You're profiling matte paper. The L values (lightness) for all of the
>> shadows on matte paper measure lighter than on glossy/luster. On  
>> matte
>> paper, measured L for black will be in the 15-22 range, usually in  
>> the
>> upper teens. On glossy/luster, measured L for black will be in the  
>> 3-7
>> range (but usually not more than 5).
>>
>> The out-of-gamut warning is telling you that shadow values, with  
>> their
>> darker L's, fall below the measured values for the printer gamut.
>> (And, in fact: they do!) If you were doing this with a profile built
>> from glossy/luster with much darker blacks, the gamut warning
>> would cover a much shallower area of the darkest shadows.
>>
>> There's nothing "wrong" with this. On matte paper, you simply cannot
>> prints black, and shadows, that cover the same range as glossy/luster
>> papers. The gamut warning is telling you this, and there is nothing
>> you can do... because it's physically impossible for you to print
>> darker on that printer, on matte paper.
>>
>> The fact that you're getting gamut warnings in the shadows doesn't
>> mean that there will be a problem with the print. You will be getting
>> the darkest blacks and shadows that the printer/paper/inkset can
>> give you, when you print; the gamut warning is just doing what
>> it's supposed to do: tell you that you're trying to print darker
>> blacks and shadows than the printer/paper/inkset can physically
>> produce.
>>
>> So: why don't you get a similar gamut warning with Epson profiles...?
>>
>> You should, but the Epson profiles are doing something different
>> with an internal table in the profiles (which has to do with how
>> the gamut warning is calculated) to "hide" the fact that these
>> shadows are actually outside the printer gamut for matte papers.
>> The gamut shape in the Epson profiles isn't any larger than
>> in a profile we've created for the same paper; in fact, our gamut
>> shape is likely to be a bit larger. If you use a utility like
>> Chromix ColorThink to compare the gamut shapes for a Spyder3Print
>> profile on Epson Enhanced Matte, vs. the Epson profile for the same
>> paper, you'll see that the gamut shapes are similar and that the
>> bottom tails both "float" above the L = 0 plane at pretty much the
>> same level.
>>
>> ***
>>
>> The shorter answer is: don't worry about this. We're actually
>> giving you a more accurate gamut warning than the Epson profiles;
>> the fact that those shadows are technically out of gamut doesn't
>> mean that there's anything wrong with the print. Your direct  
>> experience
>> is that the print is great... and in fact, better than what you
>> get from the Epson profiles.
>>
>>
>> David Miller
>> Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
>> Datacolor
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>