Datacolor User to User Support Group.

[Attachment(s) from C D Tobie included below]


On Aug 27, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> The other day I just turn off the Spyder profiles, turned on the
> Canon standard printer driver, checked auto, and WOW the printed skin
> tones matched my monitor image perfectly! All printed colors were a
> significantly closer match to the monitor than the Spyder3Print
> profiles.
>
> What is wrong here? I would think that the Sypder would generate
> profiles as good or better than the Canon standard printer driver in
> auto mode! Does Canon perform some magic tweaking of their profiles
> to produce great color matching that can't be accomplished by Spyder
> profiling?

Well, I must own a dozen models of Canon printers, and I've certainly
never found the canned profiles, or default output, to be as good as
custom profiles with any of them, even on Canon's own media. So I
suspect that your process may have a flaw in it. Such as how you turn
off color management in the driver, or how you are softproofing images
to compare them on screen, to the printed output, or perhaps some
other factor.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3

>>Bob Petruska
My guess is that you were using Canon paper? If so, I don't find it remarkable that you got a good print since one would hope that Canon has created reasonable profiles for their own paper and I think it's prefectly reasonable and practical to use Canon's profile(s) with Canon paper(s)...

I'm a bit confused when you say If you are talking about the paper profiles created with the Spyder3Print, there is no need to "turn off" the paper profile and I'm wondering if perhaps you have been double profiling when printing.

What OS are you running--mac? pc?

If pc, which flavor--W2k? XP? Vista?

For XP (and perhaps Vista), via the Control Panel > Printers >YourCanonPrinter > Properties > Color Management, do you by any chance have "Automatic" chosen? If so, choose "Manual" instead because with "Automatic" chosen, you could be applying more than one paper profile when you print and it could very well be that when you printed your Spyder3Print targets, a paper profile was applied which is not what you want to do...

Terrie
http://tlbtlb.com/
tlbtlb@...

[Attachment(s) from C D Tobie included below]


On Aug 27, 2009, at 7:37 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> With the standard Canon driver the colors, the contrast, etc. of the
> printout match my non-proof image perfectly.

Then you aren't looking for ICC color management, you are looking for
something that is perhaps better described as "Kodak colors". Matching
your non-proof image is not the goal of a printer profile. I'm happy
for you that you have found a solution that suits your needs, but the
goal of printer profiling is more complicated than that: its to
produce a print that matches the softproof (and offer the controls to
tune that match as desired), not to produce a print that matches the
sRGB or AdogeRGB image in the raw, with no consideration of paper
tone, ink black, or ink gamut in the on-screen display.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3

>>Bob Petruska : First, I'm using Vista Home Premium on a PC. I use Kodak Ultra paper.

OK...

>>"I just turned off the Spyder profiles". poor choice of words that I
used, I changed from letting the particular application manage color
to let printer manage color.

Ahhh...gotcha...

I just wanted to make sure we weren't missing a basic bits of info on your system and to make sure that what can sometimes be hidden glitches were accounted for and it appears that they are...

I read David's suggestion about adjusting the Softproof black and white values...keep us posted on how experimenting with that works out...

Terrie
http://tlbtlb.com/
tlbtlb@mail.com

>>Bob Petruska : I will be running the tests over the weekend and report back to the forum my findings.

I will be most interested in your report...

>>I'm sitting here thinking that even though I have a calibrated NEC
monitor how do I know that the printer and the monitor think alike
with the same file data? What I'm getting at is that if I have two
calibrated mid range quality monitors like a NEC and Samsung sitting
next to each other I would bet that the same image file would look
slightly different between them.

If you are looking at the same image on different monitors using a color management aware software (let's say Photoshop with the same Working Space on all the monitors), then the images should display identically because that's the whole point of HARDWARE monitor calibration.

Many years ago, Bruce Fraser (sadly missed) discussed color management, monitor calibration and printer profiles (on Epson printers but it should apply to Canon printers also) in various posts on the old Compuserve Publishing Production forum and I saved those posts.

I hope you will find Bruce's explanations useful:

"At the heart of all color management there's a thing called the
profile connection space, or PCS. In current implementations it's
always either CIE Lab or CIE XYZ, and the math for getting from one
to the other is fairly trivial.

The unique property of these spaces, as opposed to RGB or CMYK, is
that they unambiguously represent a perceived color.

Profiles are essentially lookup tables that say what device values
(RGB or CMYK) will produce specific perceived colors.

Color-managed applications like Photoshop use working spaces so that
they can make the image look right on different monitors.

The Epson profile doesn't try to match your monitor, it tries to
match the working space, via Lab. Photoshop also does an on-the-fly
transform from the working space to your monitor's space, so that the
image appears correct on your monitor, whatever it is. It'll do a
different transform for someone else's monitor, but as long as the
monitor profile is accurate, the image will appear identical.

You profile your printer so that, when it gets fed known color
values, it produces those colors. You profile your monitor so that
when it gets fed known color values, it produces those colors.

Working spaces contain known color values, because they're referenced
to Lab. So when you feed a file in a working space to
correctly-profiled devices, the color comes out right. The printer
and the monitor are entirely separate from each other. They only talk
to each other through the color management system.

So it really doesn't matter what standard you choose to calibrate
your monitor to. All that matters is that you have an accurate
description of that standard (a good monitor profile), and the color
management system will ensure that the signals that get sent to your
monitor will make it display the image correctly. It'll do the same
thing on my monitor, even if it's calibrated to completely different
settings from yours."

AND:

"What color management can do, and do well, is to translate the monitor image into the color gamut and dynamic range of your printer, as faithfully as possible, and at the same time show you how the print will appear, allowing you to make any necessary optimizations before you print.

In applications like Photoshop, images live in an abstract RGB working space that isn't tied to the quirks of a specific device, such as Adobe RGB (1998).

To display the file accurately on your monitor, Photoshop looks at your monitor profile, and adjusts the values being sent to the video card so that the color displays correctly on your monitor. It will do the same when the same image is displayed on my monitor, or on Tom's or Dick's or Harry's. Other than that, the monitor is out of the loop.

When you print using color management, the CMS looks at the source color space (e.g. Adobe RGB) and at the output space (e.g. your printer profile). It derives the Lab values that are represented by Adobe RGB values and by printer RGB values, then builds a big lookup table to go from the one to the other. Your monitor is out of this loop.

To see how the print will appear before you make it, you need to use the CMS to simulate the output, which it does by converting the data on the fly from Adobe RGB to printer RGB, then to your monitor RGB. That's what Photoshop's Proof Setup features are for. In this case, the monitor is in the loop, but your printer profile doesn't need any knowledge of it.

Profiles are like dual-language dictionaries. They're essentially lookup tables that have device signal values (RGB or CMYK) on one side, and device-independent CIE values (LAB or XYZ) on the other. No profile needs any knowledge of any other device's behavior: all the profiles use CIE LAB or CIE XYZ as the interchange medium (they're called the Profile Connection Space, because that's their role)."

AND:

"If you calibrate the monitor, save the profile, load the profile, and
let Photoshop update the profile, you'll get an accurate display of
your image at that calibration. If you fail to take any of these
steps, Photoshop won't be displaying the image properly. When it does
display the image properly, it doesn't matter how your monitor is
calibrated. Right now I'm looking at the same image on a 5000K gamma
1.8 monitor, a 6500K gamma 1.8 monitor, and a 6500K gamma 2.2
monitor. The image looks identical on all three.

Once more, the file-to-print transform is entirely separate from the
file-to-monitor transform. You can whack your monitor out into all
weird states under the sun, and it will still have zero influence on
the print. Forget about the idea of calibrating the monitor to the
print. That isn't how it works. You calibrate the monitor to some
known CIE values, and you profile the printer to some known CIE
values.

Lets say you have two pieces of wood, each of which is some length.
You could say, 'piece o' wood #2 is 1.8 times the length of piece 'o
wood one.' That's like trying to calibrate your monitor to your
printer, and it isn't all that useful.

But if you measure them, you can say 'piece o' wood 1 is 10 inches
long. Piece o' wood 2 is 18 inches long.'

That's how color management works, only the inches are CIE units instead."

Terrie
http://tlbtlb.com/
tlbtlb@...

[Attachment(s) from C D Tobie included below]


On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> 1. Windows Vista Home Premium.
> 2. NEC P221 LCD monitor calibrated using NEC's SpectraView II with
> a NEC supplied I1 Display 2 calibrator that is special calibrated
> for their wide gamut monitors. This calibration is performed in the
> monitor's hardware and stored in the LUTs.

Not a Datacolor product, but it certainly should produce a reasonably
calibrated display... just be sure its not too bright or too dim for
your viewing environment.

> 3. Canon 6 ink I950 printer. Using Canon Photo Paper Pro paper for
> this test.

Not the latest and greatest printer, and not anything I'd use for long
life prints, or for black and white, but it should produce reasonable
color photo prints...
>
> Test....
>
> 1. I set up a simple test target of objects with various colors,
> bright whites, deep blacks, shades, etc. in a totally dark room
> illuminated by tungsten lights.

Then you are not testing display to print, you are interjecting all
sorts of complex scene and space conversion issue up front...

> Using my Nikon D700 I manually measured/adjusted white balance and
> shot in the SRGB space.

There is no sRGB in RAW, RAW is RAW, at gamma 1.0 (not sRGB's 2.2) and
without gamut clipping at the edges of the sRGB gamut.

> The Nikon RAW file displayed on my NEC monitor in Nikon Capture
> NX2 looks identical to what I see in real life.

Can't comment on propietary RAW import software, except to reccommend
against it, in favor of industry standard methods, like Camera RAW and
Lightroom...

> I saved the file in NX2 as a TFF and viewed it Photoshop CS4 and
> it matches identically to what I see in NX2. So we can say that the
> monitor is well calibrated and both applications display the proper
> image.

Not sure that process guarantee's your display is appropriately
calibrated, but you seem to come through a whole set of front end
stuff and be happy with the result. So lets view it as a mountain,
where all the source stuff is on the "up" side of the hill, and the
corrected image in a Photoshop working space is at the summit, and
what we really want to focus on is the "down" side, where we take a
precorrected, tagged RGB image, and print it.

But of course there are still papers and inks and gamut limits in the
file and gamut limits on the screen, and display black versus file
black versus ink black, and display white, versus paper white, versus
file white, and viewing light color, quality and brightness, and
universal file view versus softproof view etc... so we aren't without
complications, they are just complications on the appropriate side of
the hill now...
>
> 2. I ran the Spyder3Print calibration again using the Canon I950 I
> turned off all color management in the Canon I950 driver, color
> adjustment is set to manual, not much else to change there. Printed
> the Spyder3 test patterns, colors plus grays, scanned them in.
> Printed the Spyder3 test photo and it had slightly more saturated
> colors, slight red hue than what I see on the monitor, the B/W
> sections were leaning more to a very dark gray tint than black.

Okay, this is in terms we can work with now. You are viewing the image
on screen, in Spyder3Print, so its softproofed for you. You are
printing it on some type of paper (would be handy to know what type),
and seeing some visual differences between screen and print. Here are
factors, causes, and reccommendations on that:

Display black is weak enough that softproofed black on screen looks
weak, can be described as "lack of punch" (a matte paper issue,
mostly). This can be improved by running your LCD at a higher
brightness level, since choking it down to prepress levels drops the
dynamic range a lot. Or it could be improved, inversely, but dimming
your display, as running it lower produces a darker black. Sorry for
the two inverse suggestions. Its not our display calibration product,
so I can't say much more than that.

Next, most users are THRILLED with more color saturation in prints.
They can always reduce it, but if its not there, there's no way to
increase it. This is mostly on gloss and luster media, since matte has
a smaller color gamut. No mention of your proofing light, but using an
incandescent Solux bulb is the most common cause of "popped" prints.
Other recommendations would be to change your intent from Saturation
to Perceptual, and if its stll too punchy, to Relative Colorimeteric.
Thats part of what the intents are there for.

On to your blacks. I can't interpret "leaning towards dark gray not
black" but there is always going to be a color of black in any ink/
paper combination, and we can't really change that. So either you are
speaking of the near blacks having a tint (tint means color), or you
mean blacks aren't black enough to suit you, which isn't typically a
profile issue, its a paper/ink/media setting issue. But the match of
the softproof to the print is a printer profile issue, best adjusted
at SooftProof black, by reducing the L* value.

> I looked at the soft-proof . The Spyder3 soft-proof colors
> matched the monitor test photo but were slightly washed out, so I
> lowered the black level in the soft-proof down to 1 as suggested by
> David T. and the soft-proof matched the non-soft-proof test image
> identically for color and contrast.

Matching softproof to nonsoftproof isn't the goal here. By zeroing out
the L* value you have entirely removed the function that emulates
paper black on screen. If your printed blacks are as dark as your
display, that would be appropriate (likely with a dimmed LCD, and
gloss/luster paper), but if you are printing on matte, removing this
correction entirely will lie about your prints, and promise darker
blacks than the paper and ink can manage. So adjust appropriately for
your display and your media...

> Now this is nice that I have the test image and soft-proof image
> matching, but neither match the printed photo. If I edit the
> profile to reduce the saturation I can get the printed photo to
> match closer to the original test photo, but then the soft-proof
> image doesn't match since any slider edits to the profile is also
> going to change the soft-proof image in a negative way. I did a lot
> of profile editing and the printout still does not match the
> original image as well as printing using the Canon Standard Driver.

No one, even a Canon fan like myself, has ever suggested that the
"Canon standard driver" is a highly accurate color solution... good,
but certainly not excellent.

First, you are adjusting in the wrong order. If you wish to edit the
print output, do that first ( you may be the first person I even knew
to edit in the direction of reducing the printers color gamut, but if
thats what you want, then do it, but do it carefully). Then, after
that is done, make your softproof adjustments. But that may not solve
the issue you are describing, which is sounding more and more like
"metamerism" (AKA: color constancy)
>
> 3. Now I went one extreme step further and found a new in factory
> sealed box Canon Pro9000 MKII for $250 and bought that to compare in
> this test. That is an 8 ink printer (additional red and green inks
> with the 6 of the I950).

I've never been impressed with that printer, though I love the pigment
ink version, the Pro 9500. But I'm beginning to suspect that your
issues lie in the dye ink/gloss paper end of things. That would be
about the only way I could conceive of exceeding the desired gamut...

> Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly
> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver
> matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this
> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
> detail differences against the I950.

As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
what lighting is involved. I would certainly expect any profile (since
they are targeted for 5000k) to look off color under incandescent
light, and in fact my biggest complaint about the Canon Pro 9000, is
that is a "pro" printer with all the metamerism issues that "amateur"
dye printers have, the most obvious being ugly color tones and non-
neutral grays under incandescent light. So perhaps the first thing to
do here is to get a high CRI fluorescent light with about a 5000k
color temperature (an Ott-Lite would do), and view your prints under
that. If the neutrality, perceived color cast, saturation etc... are
different under that light, then we've found the source of the
problem: Canon dye inks "metamerising" (technically "showing color
inconstancy") under non-5000k, low CRI light sources. No real color
management solution for that one, other than trading your Pro 9000 in
for a Pro 9500 with pigment inks.
>
> 4. Now believing that something is not set correctly in Windows
> Vista or my system that I just couldn't finger. I pulled out my old
> Windows XP system, ran the monitor calibration, attached both
> printers, printed out the test sheets, scanned, adjusted the soft-
>; proof, and the printouts still show slight over saturation, red
> tint, etc. Again the Canon Standard Drivers match the monitor image
> almost exactly.
>
> 5. Put a very good SONY CRT monitor on the system, calibrated it
> and the same results as 4 above.

You have certainly done your homework...
>
> I realize that there are many sliders to edit the profile but after
> a few boxes of paper and many ink cartridges it is difficult to get
> close to matching the printout to the display. I do realize gamut
> limitations but the Canon Standard Driver does a great job.

I refer to such results as "Eden"; lovely if you are there, but you
can't go back again. If your color only matches by accident, there is
no tool to make it match again later, when something changes...
Thinking back to the days of Canon dye printers, I do seem to recall
that the canned results tended to lean towards an incandescent match...
>
> I was expecting that the Spyder3Pint was going to make it painless
> for me to generate profiles with different papers, I assumed you
> just printed the charts, scanned, and bingo the as perfect as
> possible ICC profile would be generated that would beat the Canon
> Standard Driver every time.

Many users would describe their experience as being roughly what you
expected. But lets see what a 5000k High CRI fluorescent proofing
light does for the results. If it magically makes the prints look
right, then I'd say you may simply not be happy until you get a
pigment printer (or may simply give up an use canned profiles, if you
can't afford a less problematic printer).
>
> I really don't know where to go from here. I must be missing
> something somewhere.
>
> I can use all the help and suggestions that anyone can give me!

Many comments, but only a couple suggestions, above... let us know how
things turn out!

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@datacolor.com



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3

From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver? [1 Attachment]


On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results;  printout is slightly  
> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out  
> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level.  Canon Standard Driver  
> matches the original image very well.  I would like to say that this  
> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout  
> detail differences against the I950.

As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing  
what lighting is involved. 


Hi CD,

Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very informative.

As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey patch
with the Spyder Spectro and report the results?  This would remove any
lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct.  Or, am I
off base here?

Thanks,

Bob Schoner

-----Original Message-----
From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
[ mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver? [1 Attachment]

On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly
> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver
> matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this
> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
> detail differences against the I950.

As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
what lighting is involved.

Hi CD,

Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very informative.

As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey patch
with the Spyder Spectro and report the results? This would remove any
lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct. Or, am I
off base here?

Thanks,

Bob Schoner

From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Bob Petruska
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:59 PM
To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver?

 



Bob S.

What grey color would you like me to measure and how do I do that?

Should I go into Photoshop and make a grey square with designated RGB
values?

Then print the square using my Spyder generated profile, then measure using
the Spectro?


Thanks,


Bob P.




At 03:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:



  



-----Original Message-----
From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:datacolor_group%40yahoogroups.com> 
[ mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:datacolor_group%40yahoogroups.com> 
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver? [1 Attachment]

On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly 
> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out 
> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver 
> matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this 
> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout 
> detail differences against the I950.

As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing 
what lighting is involved. 

Hi CD,

Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very informative.

As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey patch
with the Spyder Spectro and report the results? This would remove any
lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct. Or, am I
off base here?

Thanks,

Bob Schoner

>
>
> Bob S.
>
> What grey color would you like me to measure and how do I do that?
>
> Should I go into Photoshop and make a grey square with designated  
> RGB values?
>
> Then print the square using my Spyder generated profile, then  
> measure using the Spectro?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Bob P.
>
>
>
>
> At 03:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
>> [ mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
>> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
>> To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than  
>> standard
>> Canon driver? [1 Attachment]
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:
>>
>> > Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly
>> > color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
>> > and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver
>> > matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this
>> > printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
>> > detail differences against the I950.
>>
>> As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
>> what lighting is involved.
>>
>> Hi CD,
>>
>> Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very  
>> informative.
>>
>> As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey  
>> patch
>> with the Spyder Spectro and report the results? This would remove any
>> lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct.  
>> Or, am I
>> off base here?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Bob Schoner
>>
>
>
> 
>

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
> To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than  
> standard
> Canon driver? [1 Attachment]
>
>
> On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:
>
>> Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results;  printout is slightly
>> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
>> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level.  Canon Standard Driver
>> matches the original image very well.  I would like to say that this
>> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
>> detail differences against the I950.
>
> As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
> what lighting is involved.
>
>
> Hi CD,
>
> Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very  
> informative.
>
> As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey  
> patch
> with the Spyder Spectro and report the results?  This would remove any
> lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct.   
> Or, am I
> off base here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob Schoner
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

>
>
> David,
>
> Thanks for the reply!
>
> Some answers.....
>
> 1.  I feel that the monitor is not too bright or too dim in a  dim  
> lit room with light blocking window blinds closed all the time.
>
> 2.  Nikon Capture NX2 converts the RAW to SRGB space.  It does a  
> much better RAW conversion than Adobe Camera Raw and this is a known  
> fact.  Most users convert the RAW with NX2 to TIF and then import to  
> Photoshop.
>
> 3.  I should clarify that the monitor calibration test photo that I  
> shot was not used to perform the Spyder printer profiling.  I used  
> the Spyder3Print supplied test photo, the one with 16 smaller photos  
> embedded (4 B/W prints in lower right quadrant).
>
> 4.  I used Canon Photo Paper Pro Gloss for this test.  I also have  
> Kodak Ultima Gloss/Luster, Kodak Ultra Gloss/Luster, Kodak  
> Professional Luster, Illford Gallerie Gloss, Epson Premium Gloss  
> Photo.  Any recommendations on a good gloss paper type?
>
> 5.  I will try different intents to see what happens.
>
> 6.  To clarify on the print out B/Ws "leaning towards dark gray and  
> not black" .  Those 4 B/W prints in the test photo look more overall  
> mid gray than darker gray.  There are definitely ink black areas  
> printed ink black.  It just sort of looks like the gray scale if  
> off.  In the city skyline photo the sky is a very pitch black, ink  
> black.  I think we are ok when printing ink black.
>
> 7.  Setting my L* value to 1 make my softproof blacks match my  
> printed blacks.  My NEC  produces a very deep black.  I normally use  
> gloss papers so I think we are ok here with that L* value.
>
> 8.  I will buy an OTT-LITE for viewing prints and see how it affects  
> the printed results.
>
> I would like to further discuss the softproof image. The softproof  
> image is dependent on my Spyder profile edit adjustments or any  
> adjustments made with my photo editing software.  In other words, it  
> "tracks" any color adjustments.  Right now the softproof image does  
> no match my printout color wise.  I understand that I can change the  
> hazy softproof look by changing the black L* value and did so.  If I  
> reduce color saturation or tint with profile  editing adjustments or  
> photo editing software, to make the printout match my non-softproof  
> image, the softproof image changes accordingly and will never match  
> the printout.  I always thought that the main purpose of profiling  
> is to have your softproof image match your non-softproof image and  
> also the printout.  Am I wrong in stating this?
>
> I only purchased the Canon Pro 9000 to make sure that my I950 was  
> not at fault.  I paid $250 for it and will sell it shortly for $250  
> with no problem as they are going for $300 or more.  I really don't  
> see any differences in printout colors even though it has the  
> additional red and green inks.  Canon should have added a gray and  
> vivid magenta instead.
>
> I plan on getting the Canon Pro 9500 MK II shortly but wanted to  
> resolve this color management issue before doing so.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Bob P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:04 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> [Attachment(s) from C D Tobie included below]
>>
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:
>>
>> > 1. Windows Vista Home Premium.
>> > 2. NEC P221 LCD monitor calibrated using NEC's SpectraView II with
>> > a NEC supplied I1 Display 2 calibrator that is special calibrated
>> > for their wide gamut monitors. This calibration is performed in the
>> > monitor's hardware and stored in the LUTs.
>>
>> Not a Datacolor product, but it certainly should produce a reasonably
>> calibrated display... just be sure its not too bright or too dim for
>> your viewing environment.
>>
>> > 3. Canon 6 ink I950 printer. Using Canon Photo Paper Pro paper for
>> > this test.
>>
>> Not the latest and greatest printer, and not anything I'd use for  
>> long
>> life prints, or for black and white, but it should produce reasonable
>> color photo prints...
>> >
>> > Test....
>> >
>> > 1. I set up a simple test target of objects with various colors,
>> > bright whites, deep blacks, shades, etc. in a totally dark room
>> > illuminated by tungsten lights.
>>
>> Then you are not testing display to print, you are interjecting all
>> sorts of complex scene and space conversion issue up front...
>>
>> > Using my Nikon D700 I manually measured/adjusted white balance and
>> > shot in the SRGB space.
>>
>> There is no sRGB in RAW, RAW is RAW, at gamma 1.0 (not sRGB's 2.2)  
>> and
>> without gamut clipping at the edges of the sRGB gamut.
>>
>> > The Nikon RAW file displayed on my NEC monitor in Nikon Capture
>> > NX2 looks identical to what I see in real life.
>>
>> Can't comment on propietary RAW import software, except to reccommend
>> against it, in favor of industry standard methods, like Camera RAW  
>> and
>> Lightroom...
>>
>> > I saved the file in NX2 as a TFF and viewed it Photoshop CS4 and
>> > it matches identically to what I see in NX2. So we can say that the
>> > monitor is well calibrated and both applications display the proper
>> > image.
>>
>> Not sure that process guarantee's your display is appropriately
>> calibrated, but you seem to come through a whole set of front end
>> stuff and be happy with the result. So lets view it as a mountain,
>> where all the source stuff is on the "up" side of the hill, and the
>> corrected image in a Photoshop working space is at the summit, and
>> what we really want to focus on is the "down" side, where we take a
>> precorrected, tagged RGB image, and print it.
>>
>> But of course there are still papers and inks and gamut limits in the
>> file and gamut limits on the screen, and display black versus file
>> black versus ink black, and display white, versus paper white, versus
>> file white, and viewing light color, quality and brightness, and
>> universal file view versus softproof view etc... so we aren't without
>> complications, they are just complications on the appropriate side of
>> the hill now...
>> >
>> > 2. I ran the Spyder3Print calibration again using the Canon I950 I
>> > turned off all color management in the Canon I950 driver, color
>> > adjustment is set to manual, not much else to change there. Printed
>> > the Spyder3 test patterns, colors plus grays, scanned them in.
>> > Printed the Spyder3 test photo and it had slightly more saturated
>> > colors, slight red hue than what I see on the monitor, the B/W
>> > sections were leaning more to a very dark gray tint than black.
>>
>> Okay, this is in terms we can work with now. You are viewing the  
>> image
>> on screen, in Spyder3Print, so its softproofed for you. You are
>> printing it on some type of paper (would be handy to know what type),
>> and seeing some visual differences between screen and print. Here are
>> factors, causes, and reccommendations on that:
>>
>> Display black is weak enough that softproofed black on screen looks
>> weak, can be described as "lack of punch" (a matte paper issue,
>> mostly). This can be improved by running your LCD at a higher
>> brightness level, since choking it down to prepress levels drops the
>> dynamic range a lot. Or it could be improved, inversely, but dimming
>> your display, as running it lower produces a darker black. Sorry for
>> the two inverse suggestions. Its not our display calibration product,
>> so I can't say much more than that.
>>
>> Next, most users are THRILLED with more color saturation in prints.
>> They can always reduce it, but if its not there, there's no way to
>> increase it. This is mostly on gloss and luster media, since matte  
>> has
>> a smaller color gamut. No mention of your proofing light, but using  
>> an
>> incandescent Solux bulb is the most common cause of "popped" prints.
>> Other recommendations would be to change your intent from Saturation
>> to Perceptual, and if its stll too punchy, to Relative Colorimeteric.
>> Thats part of what the intents are there for.
>>
>> On to your blacks. I can't interpret "leaning towards dark gray not
>> black" but there is always going to be a color of black in any ink/
>> paper combination, and we can't really change that. So either you are
>> speaking of the near blacks having a tint (tint means color), or you
>> mean blacks aren't black enough to suit you, which isn't typically a
>> profile issue, its a paper/ink/media setting issue. But the match of
>> the softproof to the print is a printer profile issue, best adjusted
>> at SooftProof black, by reducing the L* value.
>>
>> > I looked at the soft-proof . The Spyder3 soft-proof colors
>> > matched the monitor test photo but were slightly washed out, so I
>> > lowered the black level in the soft-proof down to 1 as suggested by
>> > David T. and the soft-proof matched the non-soft-proof test image
>> > identically for color and contrast.
>>
>> Matching softproof to nonsoftproof isn't the goal here. By zeroing  
>> out
>> the L* value you have entirely removed the function that emulates
>> paper black on screen. If your printed blacks are as dark as your
>> display, that would be appropriate (likely with a dimmed LCD, and
>> gloss/luster paper), but if you are printing on matte, removing this
>> correction entirely will lie about your prints, and promise darker
>> blacks than the paper and ink can manage. So adjust appropriately for
>> your display and your media...
>>
>> > Now this is nice that I have the test image and soft-proof image
>> > matching, but neither match the printed photo. If I edit the
>> > profile to reduce the saturation I can get the printed photo to
>> > match closer to the original test photo, but then the soft-proof
>> > image doesn't match since any slider edits to the profile is also
>> > going to change the soft-proof image in a negative way. I did a lot
>> > of profile editing and the printout still does not match the
>> > original image as well as printing using the Canon Standard Driver.
>>
>> No one, even a Canon fan like myself, has ever suggested that the
>> "Canon standard driver" is a highly accurate color solution... good,
>> but certainly not excellent.
>>
>> First, you are adjusting in the wrong order. If you wish to edit the
>> print output, do that first ( you may be the first person I even knew
>> to edit in the direction of reducing the printers color gamut, but if
>> thats what you want, then do it, but do it carefully). Then, after
>> that is done, make your softproof adjustments. But that may not solve
>> the issue you are describing, which is sounding more and more like
>> "metamerism" (AKA: color constancy)
>> >
>> > 3. Now I went one extreme step further and found a new in factory
>> > sealed box Canon Pro9000 MKII for $250 and bought that to compare  
>> in
>> > this test. That is an 8 ink printer (additional red and green inks
>> > with the 6 of the I950).
>>
>> I've never been impressed with that printer, though I love the  
>> pigment
>> ink version, the Pro 9500. But I'm beginning to suspect that your
>> issues lie in the dye ink/gloss paper end of things. That would be
>> about the only way I could conceive of exceeding the desired gamut...
>>
>> > Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly
>> > color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
>> > and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver
>> > matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this
>> > printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
>> > detail differences against the I950.
>>
>> As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
>> what lighting is involved. I would certainly expect any profile  
>> (since
>> they are targeted for 5000k) to look off color under incandescent
>> light, and in fact my biggest complaint about the Canon Pro 9000, is
>> that is a "pro" printer with all the metamerism issues that "amateur"
>> dye printers have, the most obvious being ugly color tones and non-
>> neutral grays under incandescent light. So perhaps the first thing to
>> do here is to get a high CRI fluorescent light with about a 5000k
>> color temperature (an Ott-Lite would do), and view your prints under
>> that. If the neutrality, perceived color cast, saturation etc... are
>> different under that light, then we've found the source of the
>> problem: Canon dye inks "metamerising" (technically "showing color
>> inconstancy") under non-5000k, low CRI light sources. No real color
>> management solution for that one, other than trading your Pro 9000 in
>> for a Pro 9500 with pigment inks.
>> >
>> > 4. Now believing that something is not set correctly in Windows
>> > Vista or my system that I just couldn't finger. I pulled out my old
>> > Windows XP system, ran the monitor calibration, attached both
>> > printers, printed out the test sheets, scanned, adjusted the soft-
>> > proof, and the printouts still show slight over saturation, red
>> > tint, etc. Again the Canon Standard Drivers match the monitor image
>> > almost exactly.
>> >
>> > 5. Put a very good SONY CRT monitor on the system, calibrated it
>> > and the same results as 4 above.
>>
>> You have certainly done your homework...
>> >
>> > I realize that there are many sliders to edit the profile but after
>> > a few boxes of paper and many ink cartridges it is difficult to get
>> > close to matching the printout to the display. I do realize gamut
>> > limitations but the Canon Standard Driver does a great job.
>>
>> I refer to such results as "Eden"; lovely if you are there, but you
>> can't go back again. If your color only matches by accident, there is
>> no tool to make it match again later, when something changes...
>> Thinking back to the days of Canon dye printers, I do seem to recall
>> that the canned results tended to lean towards an incandescent  
>> match...
>> >
>> > I was expecting that the Spyder3Pint was going to make it painless
>> > for me to generate profiles with different papers, I assumed you
>> > just printed the charts, scanned, and bingo the as perfect as
>> > possible ICC profile would be generated that would beat the Canon
>> > Standard Driver every time.
>>
>> Many users would describe their experience as being roughly what you
>> expected. But lets see what a 5000k High CRI fluorescent proofing
>> light does for the results. If it magically makes the prints look
>> right, then I'd say you may simply not be happy until you get a
>> pigment printer (or may simply give up an use canned profiles, if you
>> can't afford a less problematic printer).
>> >
>> > I really don't know where to go from here. I must be missing
>> > something somewhere.
>> >
>> > I can use all the help and suggestions that anyone can give me!
>>
>> Many comments, but only a couple suggestions, above... let us know  
>> how
>> things turn out!
>>
>> C. David Tobie
>> Global Product Technology Manager
>> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
>> CDTobie@...
>>
>>
>>
>> Datacolor
>> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>>
>
>
> 
>

On Sep 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Bob Petruska <petruska@... > wrote:

Bob S.

What grey color would you like me to measure and how do I do that?

Should I go into Photoshop and make a grey square with designated RGB values?

Then print the square using my Spyder generated profile, then measure using the Spectro?


Thanks,


Bob P.




At 03:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
[ mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver? [1 Attachment]

On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly
> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver
> matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this
> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
> detail differences against the I950.

As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
what lighting is involved.

Hi CD,

Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very informative.

As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey patch
with the Spyder Spectro and report the results? This would remove any
lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct. Or, am I
off base here?

Thanks,

Bob Schoner

>
>
> Bob, Dave....
>
> OK, I performed the grey block measurements.  Just so we are all  
> clear, these are the grey blocks for the B/W photo with the church  
> and boat.
>
> I first calibrated the Spectro a few times and measured the white  
> disk in the Spectro base.
>
> L 90.24
> a -1.05
> b -1.16
>
>
> Canon Photo Paper Pro paper white measurement.
>
> L 95.51
> a 0.30
> b -2.85
>
> Now the following are the two large grey and black blocks at the  
> bottom to the left of the word datacolor.
>
> Grey.
>
> L 48.28
> a 2.13
> b 0.52
>
>
> Black.
>
> L 8.22
> a -0.34
> b -4.66
>
>
> I also measured 4 of the grey blocks in the two rows of grey blocks  
> at the bottom.
>
> Top Left
>
> L 91.59
> a 0.11
> b -1.05
>
>
> Top Right
>
> L 56.78
> a 1.63
> b -2.25
>
>
> Bottom Left
>
> L 50.47
> a 1.53
> b -1.05
>
>
> Bottom Right...
>
> L 32.12
> a -5.23
> b -7.75
>
>
>
>
>
> I measured the same blocks using the Canon standard driver...
>
> Grey
>
> L 50.84
> a 3.17
> -b 9.29
>
> Black
>
> L 7.10
> a 1.37
> b -5.26
>
>
> Top Left
>
> L 94.89
> a 0.73
> b -2.48
>
> Top Right
>
> L 54.11
> a 2.87
> b -8.10
>
> Bottom Left
>
> L 52.77
> a 3.16
> b -8.66
>
>
> Bottom Right
>
> L 10.40
> a -1.01
> b -6.20
>
>
>
> The B/W  photo on the monitor looks great, neutral,  grey.
>
> The Spyder ICC profile print doesn't even look close, more of a  
> weaker grey appearance with an extremely faint tint that looks like  
> it is heading towards red.
>
> The  Canon Standard driver  print is a very close match with an  
> extremely faint tint heading towards blue.
>
> I also printed out a photo of a blood red car on green grass, the  
> Spyder profile printed more of an orange red and light green grass  
> compared to the monitor image, were the Canon standard driver  
> printed the red car and green grass the correct monitor colors.
>
>
> Bob, the Canon Pro 9000 has the same 6 inks as the I950 but with two  
> additional red and green inks, sorry no grey.
>
>
> I hope that all this helps determine where I'm going wrong.
>
> CD, yes the 9500 is probably going to give me more of a match, but  
> most of the people I shoot these photos for want gloss.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bob P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 06:21 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
>>
>>
>> Yes, you can use the larger medium gray patch in the lower left  
>> image in SpyderProof, printed directly from Spyder3Print, to check  
>> measured neutrality of midtones. Actually, any point in that image  
>> will give you a neutrality measurement.
>>
>> C. D. Tobie
>> Global Product Technology Mngr.
>> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
>> Datacolor.com
>> CDTobie@...
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Bob Petruska <petruska@... >  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob S.
>>>
>>> What grey color would you like me to measure and how do I do that?
>>>
>>> Should I go into Photoshop and make a grey square with designated  
>>> RGB values?
>>>
>>> Then print the square using my Spyder generated profile, then  
>>> measure using the Spectro?
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob P.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 03:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
>>>> [ mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
>>>> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
>>>> To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
>>>> Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse  
>>>> than standard
>>>> Canon driver? [1 Attachment]
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is  
>>>> slightly
>>>> > color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
>>>> > and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard  
>>>> Driver
>>>> > matches the original image very well. I would like to say that  
>>>> this
>>>> > printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
>>>> > detail differences against the I950.
>>>>
>>>> As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without  
>>>> discussing
>>>> what lighting is involved.
>>>>
>>>> Hi CD,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very  
>>>> informative.
>>>>
>>>> As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a  
>>>> grey patch
>>>> with the Spyder Spectro and report the results? This would remove  
>>>> any
>>>> lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to  
>>>> correct. Or, am I
>>>> off base here?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Bob Schoner
>
>
> 
>

From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cdtobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:35 PM
To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver?

 






Your Spyder profile grays aren't quite as neutral as they would be with a
pigment printer with multiple grays, but they tend to be within two units of
neutral (an excellent printer/paper combo can manage to get them all within
one unit of neutral). The Canon canned profiles have a bias towards red
(positive a) and a HUGE bias towards blue (negative b). Interesting that
these results could be seen as better... The Spyder is definately doing it's
job. Oh, and while you see the grays as weak in the Spyder profile, the
midgray measures as a bit darker than the Canon midgray; though both are
very close to a middle density. 

C. D. Tobie 

Global Product Technology Mngr.

Digital Imaging & Home Theater

Datacolor.com

CDTobie@...


On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Bob Petruska <petruska@...> wrote:

Bob, Dave....

OK, I performed the grey block measurements.  Just so we are all clear,
these are the grey blocks for the B/W photo with the church and boat.

I first calibrated the Spectro a few times and measured the white disk in
the Spectro base.

L 90.24
a -1.05
b -1.16


Canon Photo Paper Pro paper white measurement.

L 95.51  R 240  G  242  B247
a 0.30
b -2.85

Now the following are the two large grey and black blocks at the bottom to
the left of the word datacolor.

Grey.

L 48.28  R119  G113  B114
a 2.13
b 0.52


Black.

L 8.22
a -0.34
b -4.66


I also measured 4 of the grey blocks in the two rows of grey blocks at the
bottom.

Top Left

L 91.59  R230  G231  B233
a 0.11
b -1.05


Top Right

L 56.78  R137  G135  B140
a 1.63
b -2.25


Bottom Left

L 50.47  R122  G119  B122
a 1.53
b -1.05


Bottom Right...

L 32.12  R58.7  G78.5  B87.5    ??????
a -5.23
b -7.75





I measured the same blocks using the Canon standard driver...

Grey

L 50.84  R119   G 120  B137
a 3.17
-b 9.29

Black

L 7.10
a 1.37
b -5.26


Top Left

L 94.89  R239   G240  B245
a 0.73
b -2.48

Top Right

L 54.11  R128  G128  B143
a 2.87
b -8.10

Bottom Left

L 52.77  R124  G125  B141
a 3.16
b -8.66


Bottom Right

L 10.40   R21.7  G29  B36
a -1.01
b -6.20



The B/W  photo on the monitor looks great, neutral,  grey.

The Spyder ICC profile print doesn't even look close, more of a weaker grey
appearance with an extremely faint tint that looks like it is heading
towards red.

The  Canon Standard driver  print is a very close match with an extremely
faint tint heading towards blue.

I also printed out a photo of a blood red car on green grass, the Spyder
profile printed more of an orange red and light green grass compared to the
monitor image, were the Canon standard driver printed the red car and green
grass the correct monitor colors.


Bob, the Canon Pro 9000 has the same 6 inks as the I950 but with two
additional red and green inks, sorry no grey.


I hope that all this helps determine where I'm going wrong.

CD, yes the 9500 is probably going to give me more of a match, but most of
the people I shoot these photos for want gloss.


Regards,

Bob P.
















At 06:21 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:



  

Yes, you can use the larger medium gray patch in the lower left image in
SpyderProof, printed directly from Spyder3Print, to check measured
neutrality of midtones. Actually, any point in that image will give you a
neutrality measurement. 

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
 <http://Datacolor.com> Datacolor.com
 <mailto:CDTobie@...> CDTobie@...

On Sep 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Bob Petruska < <mailto:petruska@...>
petruska@... > wrote:




Bob S.

What grey color would you like me to measure and how do I do that?

Should I go into Photoshop and make a grey square with designated RGB
values?

Then print the square using my Spyder generated profile, then measure using
the Spectro?


Thanks,


Bob P.




At 03:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:



  



-----Original Message-----
From:  <mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com>
datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
[  <mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com>
mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
To:  <mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com>
datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver? [1 Attachment]

On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly 
> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out 
> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver 
> matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this 
> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout 
> detail differences against the I950.

As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing 
what lighting is involved. 

Hi CD,

Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very informative.

As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey patch
with the Spyder Spectro and report the results? This would remove any
lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct. Or, am I
off base here?

Thanks,

Bob Schoner

 








=

On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Bob Petruska <petruska@... > wrote:

Bob, Dave....

OK, I performed the grey block measurements. Just so we are all clear, these are the grey blocks for the B/W photo with the church and boat.

I first calibrated the Spectro a few times and measured the white disk in the Spectro base.

L 90.24
a -1.05
b -1.16


Canon Photo Paper Pro paper white measurement.

L 95.51
a 0.30
b -2.85

Now the following are the two large grey and black blocks at the bottom to the left of the word datacolor.

Grey.

L 48.28
a 2.13
b 0.52


Black.

L 8.22
a -0.34
b -4.66


I also measured 4 of the grey blocks in the two rows of grey blocks at the bottom.

Top Left

L 91.59
a 0.11
b -1.05


Top Right

L 56.78
a 1.63
b -2.25


Bottom Left

L 50.47
a 1.53
b -1.05


Bottom Right...

L 32.12
a -5.23
b -7.75





I measured the same blocks using the Canon standard driver...

Grey

L 50.84
a 3.17
-b 9.29

Black

L 7.10
a 1.37
b -5.26


Top Left

L 94.89
a 0.73
b -2.48

Top Right

L 54.11
a 2.87
b -8.10

Bottom Left

L 52.77
a 3.16
b -8.66


Bottom Right

L 10.40
a -1.01
b -6.20



The B/W photo on the monitor looks great, neutral, grey.

The Spyder ICC profile print doesn't even look close, more of a weaker grey appearance with an extremely faint tint that looks like it is heading towards red.

The Canon Standard driver print is a very close match with an extremely faint tint heading towards blue.

I also printed out a photo of a blood red car on green grass, the Spyder profile printed more of an orange red and light green grass compared to the monitor image, were the Canon standard driver printed the red car and green grass the correct monitor colors.


Bob, the Canon Pro 9000 has the same 6 inks as the I950 but with two additional red and green inks, sorry no grey.


I hope that all this helps determine where I'm going wrong.

CD, yes the 9500 is probably going to give me more of a match, but most of the people I shoot these photos for want gloss.


Regards,

Bob P.
















At 06:21 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:

Yes, you can use the larger medium gray patch in the lower left image in SpyderProof, printed directly from Spyder3Print, to check measured neutrality of midtones. Actually, any point in that image will give you a neutrality measurement.

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@Datacolor.com

On Sep 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Bob Petruska <petruska@... > wrote:

Bob S.

What grey color would you like me to measure and how do I do that?

Should I go into Photoshop and make a grey square with designated RGB values?

Then print the square using my Spyder generated profile, then measure using the Spectro?


Thanks,


Bob P.




At 03:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
[ mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
To: datacolor_group@...m
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver? [1 Attachment]

On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

> Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly
> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver
> matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this
> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
> detail differences against the I950.

As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
what lighting is involved.

Hi CD,

Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very informative.

As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey patch
with the Spyder Spectro and report the results? This would remove any
lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct. Or, am I
off base here?

Thanks,

Bob Schoner

=

From: datacolor_group@...m [ mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Cdtobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 8:35 PM
To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard Canon driver?






Your Spyder profile grays aren't quite as neutral as they would be with a pigment printer with multiple grays, but they tend to be within two units of neutral (an excellent printer/paper combo can manage to get them all within one unit of neutral). The Canon canned profiles have a bias towards red (positive a) and a HUGE bias towards blue (negative b). Interesting that these results could be seen as better... The Spyder is definately doing it's job. Oh, and while you see the grays as weak in the Spyder profile, the midgray measures as a bit darker than the Canon midgray; though both are very close to a middle density.

C. D. Tobie

Global Product Technology Mngr.

Digital Imaging & Home Theater

Datacolor.com

CDTobie@...


On Sep 3, 2009, at 11:06 PM, Bob Petruska <petruska@... > wrote:

Bob, Dave....

OK, I performed the grey block measurements. Just so we are all clear, these are the grey blocks for the B/W photo with the church and boat.

I first calibrated the Spectro a few times and measured the white disk in the Spectro base.

L 90.24
a -1.05
b -1.16


Canon Photo Paper Pro paper white measurement.

L 95.51 R 240 G 242 B247
a 0.30
b -2.85

Now the following are the two large grey and black blocks at the bottom to the left of the word datacolor.

Grey.

L 48.28 R119 G113 B114
a 2.13
b 0.52


Black.

L 8.22
a -0.34
b -4.66


I also measured 4 of the grey blocks in the two rows of grey blocks at the bottom.

Top Left

L 91.59 R230 G231 B233
a 0.11
b -1.05


Top Right

L 56.78 R137 G135 B140
a 1.63
b -2.25


Bottom Left

L 50.47 R122 G119 B122
a 1.53
b -1.05


Bottom Right...

L 32.12 R58.7 G78.5 B87.5 ??????
a -5.23
b -7.75





I measured the same blocks using the Canon standard driver...

Grey

L 50.84 R119 G 120 B137
a 3.17
-b 9.29

Black

L 7.10
a 1.37
b -5.26


Top Left

L 94.89 R239 G240 B245
a 0.73
b -2.48

Top Right

L 54.11 R128 G128 B143
a 2.87
b -8.10

Bottom Left

L 52.77 R124 G125 B141
a 3.16
b -8.66


Bottom Right

L 10.40 R21.7 G29 B36
a -1.01
b -6.20



The B/W photo on the monitor looks great, neutral, grey.

The Spyder ICC profile print doesn't even look close, more of a weaker grey appearance with an extremely faint tint that looks like it is heading towards red.

The Canon Standard driver print is a very close match with an extremely faint tint heading towards blue.

I also printed out a photo of a blood red car on green grass, the Spyder profile printed more of an orange red and light green grass compared to the monitor image, were the Canon standard driver printed the red car and green grass the correct monitor colors.


Bob, the Canon Pro 9000 has the same 6 inks as the I950 but with two additional red and green inks, sorry no grey.


I hope that all this helps determine where I'm going wrong.

CD, yes the 9500 is probably going to give me more of a match, but most of the people I shoot these photos for want gloss.


Regards,

Bob P.
















At 06:21 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:



Yes, you can use the larger medium gray patch in the lower left image in SpyderProof, printed directly from Spyder3Print, to check measured neutrality of midtones. Actually, any point in that image will give you a neutrality measurement.

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@...

On Sep 3, 2009, at 3:59 PM, Bob Petruska < petruska@... > wrote:


Bob S.

What grey color would you like me to measure and how do I do that?

Should I go into Photoshop and make a grey square with designated RGB values?

Then print the square using my Spyder generated profile, then measure using the Spectro?


Thanks,


Bob P.




At 03:17 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:





-----Original Message-----
From: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
[ mailto:datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of C D Tobie
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 9:04 AM
To: datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [datacolor_group] Re: Spyder3Print profiles worse than standard
Canon driver? [1 Attachment]

On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:

>; Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly
> color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
> and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver
> matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this
> printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
> detail differences against the I950.

As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
what lighting is involved.

Hi CD,

Thanks for monitoring this site the way you do, it is very informative.

As for the tint that Bob P is experiencing, could he measure a grey patch
with the Spyder Spectro and report the results? This would remove any
lighting consideration and maybe give a clue as to how to correct. Or, am I
off base here?

Thanks,

Bob Schoner

=

>
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>
>

>
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>
>