Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Hi,

Further to my recent questions I went ahead and used the Spyder 3 Print to build a printer profile for Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 188g for my Epson 3800. I ended up using the Media Setting of Epson Ultrasmooth as it looked like it gave the best gradients in the test images.

Now I notice that if I load a Colour Test image in photoshop and compare the out of gamut areas that are shown when soft proofing with the Hahnemuhle provided profile (from their website) vs the profile I created there are a lot more out of gamut areas in the darker colour areas. I am attaching a screenshot of what I see. The Hahnemuhle profile is applied to the left image and the Spyder3 built profile to the right image. Is this going to cause me some issues later? Will the printer have to make guesses about how to fit the non-gamut regions? I must admit the areas which are not out of gamut do look slightly better on the screen in the Spyder profile version...

See attached image: Mfr_vs_Spyder3.jpg

Rgds
Rick

Sorry, couldn't figure out how to attach to this message so have uploaded the screenshot to the files area as 'Mfr_vs_Spyder3.jpg'

Rgds
Rick

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, "rickbehl" <RickBehl@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
> 
> Further to my recent questions I went ahead and used the Spyder 3 Print to build a printer profile for Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 188g for my Epson 3800. I ended up using the Media Setting of Epson Ultrasmooth as it looked like it gave the best gradients in the test images.
> 
> Now I notice that if I load a Colour Test image in photoshop and compare the out of gamut areas that are shown when soft proofing with the Hahnemuhle provided profile (from their website) vs the profile I created there are a lot more out of gamut areas in the darker colour areas. I am attaching a screenshot of what I see. The Hahnemuhle profile is applied to the left image and the Spyder3 built profile to the right image. Is this going to cause me some issues later? Will the printer have to make guesses about how to fit the non-gamut regions? I must admit the areas which are not out of gamut do look slightly better on the screen in the Spyder profile version...
> 
> See attached image: Mfr_vs_Spyder3.jpg
> 
> Rgds
> Rick
>

>>Now I notice that if I load a Colour Test image in photoshop and compare the out of gamut areas that are shown when soft proofing with the Hahnemuhle provided profile (from their website) vs the profile I created there are a lot more out of gamut areas in the darker colour areas. I am attaching a screenshot of what I see. The Hahnemuhle profile is applied to the left image and the Spyder3 built profile to the right image. Is this going to cause me some issues later? Will the printer have to make guesses about how to fit the non-gamut regions? I must admit the areas which are not out of gamut do look slightly better on the screen in the Spyder profile version...

The difference is more about how the two profiles measure the dark gamut of the combination than anything else; since the custom profile is actually measuring the combination at hand, it's results should be at least as good. But judge this from prints, not from soft proofs...

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging and Home Theater
Datacolor inc. 
cdtobie@...
www.datacolor.com

On May 24, 2010, at 3:13 AM, "rickbehl" <RickBehl@...> wrote:

> Now I notice that if I load a Colour Test image in photoshop and compare the out of gamut areas that are shown when soft proofing with the Hahnemuhle provided profile (from their website) vs the profile I created there are a lot more out of gamut areas in the darker colour areas. I am attaching a screenshot of what I see. The Hahnemuhle profile is applied to the left image and the Spyder3 built profile to the right image. Is this going to cause me some issues later? Will the printer have to make guesses about how to fit the non-gamut regions? I must admit the areas which are not out of gamut do look slightly better on the screen in the Spyder profile version...

Thanks for your response Daniel. I agree that reducing the ink/color density may help eliminate or reduce the problem. But before I try this I thought I would try using the same measurement file from before (using Ultrasmooth as media type and -7% Color Density adjustment) but try 'customizing' my previously created profile with Shadow adjustments in the SpyderPrint software.

So I used my previous measurement file but then added a Shadow Detail adjustment at +5%, +10%, +15% and +20%. However I must have got my thinking wrong as this ended up creating even more out-of-gamut areas. Hence, I then went back and created adjustments at -5%, -10%, -15% and -20% (moving the slider towards 'More Punch') and created a new set of 4 profiles. Please see the file uploaded called GamutProblem.jpg in the files directory.

In this file you will see the Hahnemuhle profile applied to the top left image (very little out of gamut). On the top right was my original profile (created with no shadow adjustment). Here you can see the out-of-gamut areas in the darker areas as you noticed before. Now on the bottom left you can see the same profile as before but with an added -5% applied to increase Shadow Punch. Here you can see that the out-of-gamut areas have been reduced. This is even more pronounced on the bottom right example where a -10% adjustment was applied to Shadow Punch. 

Now my question is whether this is a valid approach or am I introducing new problems which I am yet to find ? Have I rescued the out-of-gamut areas but at the expense of some other part of the print?

On intial viewing of a hard print of the test image with a Shadow adjustment of -10% I can see the image seems to have more contrast in a nice way although possibly it needs some minor adjustments by a few % to get close to the original image...

Rgds
Rick

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Vézina <daniel_v@...> wrote:

>
> >>Now I notice that if I load a Color Test image in Photoshop and compare the
> out of gamut areas that are shown when soft proofing with the Hahnemühle
> provided profile >>(from their website) vs the profile I created there are a lot
> more out of gamut areas in the darker color areas.
> 
> By looking at your proof we can show on the very small Kodak gray ramp in
> the middle of the image that the dark tones are out of gamut. I suspect that
> the dark patches will be clogged a little bit (something that you will have
> to double check on a hard copy, not a proof, like David said, preferably by
> printing a bigger gray ramp; you can draw one by yourself in Photoshop).
> 
> I saw many 3800 that lay down too much ink on matte paper whenever the matte
> paper setting you use. These printers are pre-calibrated at the factory but
> I¹m force to realize that they¹re not all the same, especially when you work
> with matte paper.
> 
> Usually the paper setting to use with the Photorag is Enhance Matte/Archival
> Matte/Premium presentation matte photo paper (all these settings are
> identical and only reflect the paper name change in the recent years). Using
> one of these settings you will have to do some test at different ink
> density. Usually it is needed to reduce the ink density by about 10%, So you
> print the media setting check page from S3Print at 0, -5%, -10, -12, -15%.
> It should unclog your dark tones and then you do the profile using  the same
> setting.
> 
> Don¹t worry about the gamut and color saturation of the light tones, the
> profiling software will take care of it. You will get about the same gamut
> for non dark colors as long as you don¹t have to reduce the ink density too
> much, which would be an indication that you¹re not using the correct media
> setting.
> 
> My own experience show that ­10% ink density will probably be what  you¹re
> going to end with.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> Daniel Vézina
> Technical Director
> Numart Inc. 
> QC, Canada
>

>>So I used my previous measurement file but then added a Shadow Detail adjustment at +5%, +10%, +15% and +20%. However I must have got my thinking wrong as this ended up creating even more out-of-gamut areas. 

Your mistake,nas before, is to take the gamut warnings too literally.  Look at the resulting PRINTS and see if they have the shadow tone and detail you are looking for.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging and Home Theater
Datacolor inc. 
cdtobie@...
www.datacolor.com

On May 31, 2010, at 10:22 AM, "rickbehl" <RickBehl@...> wrote:

> So I used my previous measurement file but then added a Shadow Detail adjustment at +5%, +10%, +15% and +20%. However I must have got my thinking wrong as this ended up creating even more out-of-gamut areas.

Actually I am starting to look at prints as mentioned in my last message but what I want to ascertain is why when I am creating profiles using the Spyder3 it seems all the ones I have produced for matte papers are showing large areas of out of gamut colors in Photoshop. I would like to know whether that is symptomatic of some fundamental problem in my process or equipment or whatever... Obviously the best way to check the quality of profiles is to look at real prints but heh, paper doesn't grow on trees (well, not quite) and it ain't cheap !

So any problems I can address before getting to the hard print evaluation stage is going to save me time and money... both of which I am not rolling in right now...

Thanks
Rick


--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:

>
> >>So I used my previous measurement file but then added a Shadow Detail adjustment at +5%, +10%, +15% and +20%. However I must have got my thinking wrong as this ended up creating even more out-of-gamut areas. 
> 
> Your mistake,nas before, is to take the gamut warnings too literally.  Look at the resulting PRINTS and see if they have the shadow tone and detail you are looking for.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging and Home Theater
> Datacolor inc. 
> cdtobie@...
> www.datacolor.com
> 
> On May 31, 2010, at 10:22 AM, "rickbehl" <RickBehl@...> wrote:
> 
> > So I used my previous measurement file but then added a Shadow Detail adjustment at +5%, +10%, +15% and +20%. However I must have got my thinking wrong as this ended up creating even more out-of-gamut areas.
>

Like David said to you, you must check with real life images an not just with Gamut clipping. While I also like the gamut clipping method, you must be very careful about how you interpret it.

Usually when you profile for a matte paper you need to ADD some Shadow detail. My favorite value is +4 or +5. The profiling software always tries to get the maximum level of contrast (perceptually) for a profile, while trying to maintain maximum accuracy for colors and tones. i.e. to get the best "punch" with your images. But it may happen that the default values used by the software are not necessary the best one for a specific media. It is why we can control some parameters inside S3print to create our profiles and tune it to our taste. For me it is more important to have a good control in dark tones. I prefer to get 2% less contrast and still see details in the shadow. But it's me. Others may not like it this way.

No profile generation algorithm is perfect. There is always compromise to do and the laws of physics are the same for all software developers. 100% perfect profiles without human intervention (and even with it) are not possible to achieve.  Color models also have their limit (and some internal flaws), which restricts the maximum result achievable.

S3Print give you a lot of accuracy and quality for the price you pay. Good luck to find better software in this price range (and even if you look at the far more expensive ones)

The software must work with a very wide range of papers and medias. Default values may work better on medias showing a wider gamut like semi-gloss or luster photo paper. But they also works well with matte medias. I'm running a Fine Art printing business and consequently I mostly print on matte papers and I still have to find someone able to build better profile than what I can do with S3print on any matte medias.

Now, It is about 99% sure that by using negatives value on the shadow details sliders you will clog your shadows. But you will add more ink in the dark areas and maybe you will get a better black, and that the gamut clipping is reduced near pure black tones.

But I suspect that in practice, if you print with these "dark tones boosted" profiles, you will not see any difference in dmax (pure black) and you will LOSE details in the shadows.

Beware that it may be subject related. So if you try it on some pictures, use many different pictures to test. For this specific case, try to print a model with some dark hairs, or peoples wearing dark clothes, and see what you like the most.

Matte papers are not so easy to use and while some photographers and artists like it a lot and give high credit to these products, it is clear for me that it is not with it that you will get the widest color gamut. You will have to use these papers when you need a 100% matte finish or if you want to replicate the natural finish of a watercolor paintings, or if you like the look, or if you find that your Fine Art pictures produce an interesting "feeling" when printed on it etc. These are not product to achieve the widest color gamut prints. You will have no choice to play with hardcopies and experiment on many pictures using different sliders values.
My own recipe on Hahnies matte paper with K3 ink is:

Brightness set to -2
Saturation set to -2,
Yellow/blue slider set to +6
Shadow detail set to +4. 

To get these values I used hard copies and a lot of soft proofs. I also check the gamut clipping info but usually the soft proof on test images is the best to find the best adj values.

Good luck!

> On intial viewing of a hard print of the test image with a Shadow adjustment of -10% I can see the image seems to have more contrast in a nice way although possibly it needs some minor adjustments by a few % to get close to the original image...
> 
> Rgds
> Rick

> > Daniel Vézina
> > Technical Director
> > Numart Inc. 
> > QC, Canada
> >
>

Thanks for this very comprehensive reply Daniel !

See comments below:

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel" <daniel_v@...> wrote:

==>
"Like David said to you, you must check with real life images an not just with Gamut clipping. While I also like the gamut clipping method, you must be very careful about how you interpret it." 
==>

Yes, I see now that this part of the workflow is just one piece of the puzzle...

==>
"Usually when you profile for a matte paper you need to ADD some Shadow detail. My favorite value is +4 or +5. The profiling software always tries to get the maximum level of contrast (perceptually) for a profile, while trying to maintain maximum accuracy for colors and tones. i.e. to get the best "punch" with your images. But it may happen that the default values used by the software are not necessary the best one for a specific media. It is why we can control some parameters inside S3print to create our profiles and tune it to our taste. For me it is more important to have a good control in dark tones. I prefer to get 2% less contrast and still see details in the shadow. But it's me. Others may not like it this way." 
==>

Yes, I can see why usually it might be preferable for matte paper to try and add Shadow Detail. Personally I prefer to have a little more 'Contrast/Punch' to my images. This could be very well to do with the type of images of my own that I have looked at. I'm sure like you say this is completely subjective and that many others would prefer to get slightly more shadow detail at the possible expense of contrast.

==>
"No profile generation algorithm is perfect. There is always compromise to do and the laws of physics are the same for all software developers. 100% perfect profiles without human intervention (and even with it) are not possible to achieve.  Color models also have their limit (and some internal flaws), which restricts the maximum result achievable.
 
S3Print give you a lot of accuracy and quality for the price you pay. Good luck to find better software in this price range (and even if you look at the far more expensive ones)"
==>

Yes, I see that to go to the 'next level' with colour management would also take you do a whole new level of expense with regard to software/hardware so right now I think the Spyder3 is doing a good job for the price.
 
==>
"The software must work with a very wide range of papers and medias. Default values may work better on medias showing a wider gamut like semi-gloss or luster photo paper. But they also works well with matte medias. I'm running a Fine Art printing business and consequently I mostly print on matte papers and I still have to find someone able to build better profile than what I can do with S3print on any matte medias.
 
Now, It is about 99% sure that by using negatives value on the shadow details sliders you will clog your shadows. But you will add more ink in the dark areas and maybe you will get a better black, and that the gamut clipping is reduced near pure black tones.
 
But I suspect that in practice, if you print with these "dark tones boosted" profiles, you will not see any difference in dmax (pure black) and you will LOSE details in the shadows."
==>

I have now had the chance to print a few images using a few of these 'dark tone boosted' profiles. I do like the extra contrast but I see that I am losing some shadow detail. So at the moment I have to take a compromise between the two so I think I will stick to a profile of only -5% adjustment in the Shadow Detail. But obviously I still have my 'No Shadow Detail Adjustment' Profile from before so if I have images which have a lot of important detail in this part of the tonal range I may well switch back to this profile.
 
==>
"Beware that it may be subject related. So if you try it on some pictures, use many different pictures to test. For this specific case, try to print a model with some dark hairs, or peoples wearing dark clothes, and see what you like the most.
 
Matte papers are not so easy to use and while some photographers and artists like it a lot and give high credit to these products, it is clear for me that it is not with it that you will get the widest color gamut. You will have to use these papers when you need a 100% matte finish or if you want to replicate the natural finish of a watercolor paintings, or if you like the look, or if you find that your Fine Art pictures produce an interesting "feeling" when printed on it etc. These are not product to achieve the widest color gamut prints. You will have no choice to play with hardcopies and experiment on many pictures using different sliders values.
My own recipe on Hahnies matte paper with K3 ink is:
 
Brightness set to -2
Saturation set to -2,
Yellow/blue slider set to +6
Shadow detail set to +4. 
 
To get these values I used hard copies and a lot of soft proofs. I also check the gamut clipping info but usually the soft proof on test images is the best to find the best adj values."
==>

Thanks for this advice. I will try these settings too.