Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
July 25, 2021, 06:35:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Feb 2013: Qimage Ultimate Challenges... have fun and explore features!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Professional ICC Profiling Software for Windows
Create custom ICC profiles with
Profile Prism for accurate color!
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: I tried the new 8.1 Profile Prism.  (Read 25626 times)
Douggoldberg
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: July 17, 2014, 10:44:36 PM »

Gents, just got 8.1 to use with my r1900. What are the correct printer driver setting s to use to print the target image?
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3315



View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2014, 01:20:51 AM »

Peter,

On the left is the exact image set you posted here: top/bottom 8.0/8.1.  I took the liberty of copying the image off your website and set that to the right.  Are you telling me you think the top (8.0) image on the left is closer to the one on your website than the one on the bottom (8.1)?  If so, I either need eye surgery or brain surgery.  Please tell me I shouldn't book an appointment with one of those two surgeons!

What am I missing?  The top one looks dead: the grapes almost look like coffee beans.  They're almost all one color.  On the bottom, the pepper is much closer to what is on your website (which is pictured by itself on the right) in every region: grape have actual separation in color and they are more "grape" color and less "cocoa".  The crackers and the spread are almost dead on with the bottom left (which you say is 8.1).

Don't really know what to say with this comparison???

Is the image on the website "baked" for extra saturation and the one you printed not?  If so, I'd like to see a small version of the original here so we have something to compare to.

Also, you should probably try 8.3 to see if you see any difference.  I made some small enhancements to the saturation algorithm that could affect some printer profiles, particularly if you are using a scanner with lighting (like CCFL) that can cause metamerism or one that has a particularly small gamut both of which can affect the scan of the targets.

Mike
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 01:48:42 AM by admin » Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 18, 2014, 02:05:04 AM »

Peter,

On the left is the exact image set you posted here: top/bottom 8.0/8.1.  I took the liberty of copying the image off your website and set that to the right.  Are you telling me you think the top (8.0) image on the left is closer to the one on your website than the one on the bottom (8.1)?  If so, I either need eye surgery or brain surgery.  Please tell me I shouldn't book an appointment with one of those two surgeons!

What am I missing?  The top one looks dead: the grapes almost look like coffee beans.  They're almost all one color.  On the bottom, the pepper is much closer to what is on your website (which is pictured by itself on the right) in every region: grape have actual separation in color and they are more "grape" color and less "cocoa".  The crackers and the spread are almost dead on with the bottom left (which you say is 8.1).

Don't really know what to say with this comparison???

Mike


Hello Mike.

No you don't need to book an eye appointment. Relax!

"Are you telling me you think the top (8.0) image on the left is closer to the one on your website than the one on the bottom (8.1)? " ..... no I am most certainly not. I merely linked to the web version to show the image I was verbally describing.

You are comparing a scan of printed images with a jpeg web version, not printed nor scanned. The scanned version is not as bright as the original print (I've never calibrated the scanner), actually quite dull. A comparison is not relevant.

If you saw the printed large version using v8.0 you would instantly see what I mean and accept that the v8.0 print is much more realistic cf 8.1.

All my comments have been been directed towards the quality of the end print.

When I took the photograph I printed it and compared it to the actual objects and as viewed onscreen with the editor. I was (and still am) very happy with the v8.0 print as it was very close to the actual objects under the lighting I used, and what I saw onscreen. Hence I consider the v8.0 print as a good benchmark. Prints using v8.1, and to a lesser extent v8.3, have deviated from the realistic colours. The yellowish tint was the most glaring problem with v8.1.

The "realism" check I described above was also applied to the other three images of the series that are shown via the link. Each was taken at different times with non-identical lighting.

Hope this helps.

Regards

Peter

PS The scanner I use is an Epson Perfection 4990 Photo.
  

« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 02:49:15 AM by pshrutpark » Logged

PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 18, 2014, 02:28:35 AM »

Gents, just got 8.1 to use with my r1900. What are the correct printer driver setting s to use to print the target image?

Hello Doug.

The online Profile Prism help will tell you all you need to know.

Good luck.

Peter
Logged

Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5429



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #19 on: July 18, 2014, 09:41:08 AM »

Quote
Gents, just got 8.1 to use with my r1900. What are the correct printer driver setting s to use to print the target image?

Doug,
In 99% of making printer profiles, the driver is set to BEST Quality, select the correct matching paper, and then set the driver to NO COLOR ADJUSTMENT  (OFF)

It is important to remember what settings you use to create the profile, should be the same settings when you use the profile.
Fred
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2014, 09:57:05 AM »

Hello Fred.

Sorry to bother you again, but I find this whole topic interesting and intriguing.

Would you be willing to generate and present a v8.0 versus v8.3 comparison of your test photo?

Thanks

Peter
Logged

Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5429



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2014, 11:50:51 AM »

Quote
Sorry to bother you again, but I find this whole topic interesting and intriguing.

Would you be willing to generate and present a v8.0 versus v8.3 comparison of your test photo?

Of course.
I am not a fan of scanning a pair of prints when the object is so subtle as to be lost by scanning and then resizing that to fit within the post guidelines.
I would be happy to send you the test images via email and you can make your own A/B comparisons.

Just an aside:  Mike's comments about perhaps needing glasses after looking at your comparative prints was exactly my initial reaction when I read your post and your choice of which looks right!
I just didn't have the courage to say it.

Let me have your email address, please.
If you don't want it public, then email it to me  wathree.ssz@verizon.net

Thanks,
Fred
Logged
Douggoldberg
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: July 18, 2014, 12:45:45 PM »

Fred, Thanks. My question is; I selected no color adjustment but then it allows the selection of Adobe RGB or Epson standard or vivid color space and further selection of gamma. i set it to Epsosn standard and gamma 1.8 (per what I read in the help). Are these correct?
Logged
admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3315



View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2014, 01:37:00 PM »

You are comparing a scan of printed images with a jpeg web version, not printed nor scanned. The scanned version is not as bright as the original print (I've never calibrated the scanner), actually quite dull. A comparison is not relevant.

Ahh, but now I want you to think about something.  Something regarding how very important and relevant that scan really is!  The scanner is the same scanner that scanned both targets when you created your printer profile.  That means as the scanner sees it, v8.1 did a better job matching the image that is on the website... and that's the same scanner that "saw" those two targets you scanned for your profile.

In other words, in the eye of the scanner and under the scanner's light source, v8.1 is more accurate.  Now it'd be interesting to see an IT8 target scanned in the same scan as both prints so the scanner could be calibrated but Epson Perfection Scanners aren't known for drastic color/saturation shifts so I'm assuming your scanner is "normal" and produces reasonably accurate color.

What I'm getting to with all this is that your scanner uses CFFL lighting (fluorescent lighting).  That light source causes very significant metamerism on the IT8 target which shifts colors all around on the IT8 target and in turn affects the printer profile.  Unfortunately IT8 targets were meant to be shot under D50 lighting or at least full spectrum lighting and those IT8's are subject to metamerism.  We switched to Canon LiDE scanners almost a decade ago because their LED light sources are much more "neutral" from a full spectrum standpoint.

Now, I'm not suggesting you go out and buy a $79 LiDE scanner but I am well aware of the downsides of creating printer profiles with cold cathode scanners.  They almost always require some adjustment after the fact because no two CCFL tubes are the same.  It's possible the old v8.0 had some idiosyncrasies in its color matching algorithm that favored certain scanners but I can guarantee that v8.x is more accurate in general (that is, for the average user).

Also keep in mind that many, many colors in your image may not be reproducible on your printer.  You'd be surprised how many colors you see on your screen simply cannot be printed on your printer.  Printers have a much narrower gamut and dynamic range and while your printer may be able to produce a certain hue and saturation (like a deep red), it may not be able to reproduce the brightness of that color at the same time because inks on white paper can only be/go so dark or bright.  So compromises are always being made in how to represent a color that cannot be reproduced on your printer.  You can lock hue and then get a compromise of saturation and brightness.  You can lock the saturation and then fiddle with brightness and hue a bit.  Etc.

I may add something like a "vibrancy" checkbox in the next version where, if you UNcheck that box, it doesn't favor saturation as much.  That would tone down the saturated look at the expense of a small amount of hue shift (more like the old 8.0).  But for now, you should be able to just choose something like a -3 on the saturation control on the main window before developing your profile and see how that looks!  That should get pretty close to the old 8.0 and still have more accurate hue.

Regards,
Mike
Logged
Fred A
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 5429



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2014, 02:48:30 PM »

Quote
Fred, Thanks. My question is; I selected no color adjustment but then it allows the selection of Adobe RGB or Epson standard or vivid color space and further selection of gamma. i set it to Epsosn standard and gamma 1.8 (per what I read in the help). Are these correct?

No Doug!
You need to check NO COLOR ADJUSTMENT.
I have an 1800 driver in front of me here, and you need to click on ICM, and then wait. The NO COLOR ADJUSTMENT box will appear. Check that!
After you check that box, all those options disappear. 
Think this way.    You are trying to tell the driver: Hey! I am turning you off and I do not want anything changed from what Qimage (or any other software) is sending to be printed.

Fred
Logged
Douggoldberg
Newbie
*
Posts: 4


View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2014, 03:32:47 PM »

OK, I got confused by the help file as it discussed setting gamma etc. I will follow as you suggested.
Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2014, 10:29:22 PM »

Quote
Sorry to bother you again, but I find this whole topic interesting and intriguing.

Would you be willing to generate and present a v8.0 versus v8.3 comparison of your test photo?

Of course.
I am not a fan of scanning a pair of prints when the object is so subtle as to be lost by scanning and then resizing that to fit within the post guidelines.
I would be happy to send you the test images via email and you can make your own A/B comparisons.

Just an aside:  Mike's comments about perhaps needing glasses after looking at your comparative prints was exactly my initial reaction when I read your post and your choice of which looks right!
I just didn't have the courage to say it.

Let me have your email address, please.
If you don't want it public, then email it to me  wathree.ssz@verizon.net

Thanks,
Fred



Hello Fred.

I understand your avoidance of the tedium of scanning, converting and publishing.

The reason why I asked if you would generate the images was that it standardises the process so a relative comparison can be made across all the test images you have produced. An v8.3 scan is the only one missing from the set. 

Regarding your first comparison of Epson versus ppv8.1 profiles. I question whether Epson would produce a profile that results in a dull rendition of such a test image. Unless your printer has deviated from spec, i assumed that the extent of the dullness of the Epson profile scan was the result of scanning and conversion/compression to the JPG you posted. If this is the case then this would have affected both your Epson and v8.1 posted images.

This is certainly the situation for my 8.0 versus 8.1 scanned comparison. The scanned to JPG images are dull compared the actual prints. Hence what I consider the better rendition, the v8.0 print, is seen onscreen as dull whereas what I consider slightly over bright (ignoring the red and yellow issues reported by me and Terry), the v8.1 print, is seen as more "acceptable". My v8.0 print is actually closer to the image posted on my web site.

Hence I conclude that with the scanned and posted test/sample images the relativity between tests can be best judged and to a lesser extent their absolutes.

The smoothness of the transition from bright to dark of the various colours in your test image are useful. If the transition is smooth in the original test image then, for my use, it should be as smooth as possible in the printed image. This doesn't seem to be the case with 8.1.

For my type of photography if the subject is bright and vibrant then i expect the printed image to be bright and vibrant. If the subject is dull then I expect the printed image to be dull. If I want to deviate from those "default" outputs then I make adjustments in the editing software. I guess what I am saying is that i want the default processing steps in my workflow to be as neutral as practicable.

For years QImage and Profile Prism have been critical steps in my workflow to acheive the above.

Regards

Peter
Logged

PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2014, 11:00:37 PM »

You are comparing a scan of printed images with a jpeg web version, not printed nor scanned. The scanned version is not as bright as the original print (I've never calibrated the scanner), actually quite dull. A comparison is not relevant.

Ahh, but now I want you to think about something.  Something regarding how very important and relevant that scan really is!  The scanner is the same scanner that scanned both targets when you created your printer profile.  That means as the scanner sees it, v8.1 did a better job matching the image that is on the website... and that's the same scanner that "saw" those two targets you scanned for your profile.

In other words, in the eye of the scanner and under the scanner's light source, v8.1 is more accurate.  Now it'd be interesting to see an IT8 target scanned in the same scan as both prints so the scanner could be calibrated but Epson Perfection Scanners aren't known for drastic color/saturation shifts so I'm assuming your scanner is "normal" and produces reasonably accurate color.

What I'm getting to with all this is that your scanner uses CFFL lighting (fluorescent lighting).  That light source causes very significant metamerism on the IT8 target which shifts colors all around on the IT8 target and in turn affects the printer profile.  Unfortunately IT8 targets were meant to be shot under D50 lighting or at least full spectrum lighting and those IT8's are subject to metamerism.  We switched to Canon LiDE scanners almost a decade ago because their LED light sources are much more "neutral" from a full spectrum standpoint.

Now, I'm not suggesting you go out and buy a $79 LiDE scanner but I am well aware of the downsides of creating printer profiles with cold cathode scanners.  They almost always require some adjustment after the fact because no two CCFL tubes are the same.  It's possible the old v8.0 had some idiosyncrasies in its color matching algorithm that favored certain scanners but I can guarantee that v8.x is more accurate in general (that is, for the average user).

Also keep in mind that many, many colors in your image may not be reproducible on your printer.  You'd be surprised how many colors you see on your screen simply cannot be printed on your printer.  Printers have a much narrower gamut and dynamic range and while your printer may be able to produce a certain hue and saturation (like a deep red), it may not be able to reproduce the brightness of that color at the same time because inks on white paper can only be/go so dark or bright.  So compromises are always being made in how to represent a color that cannot be reproduced on your printer.  You can lock hue and then get a compromise of saturation and brightness.  You can lock the saturation and then fiddle with brightness and hue a bit.  Etc.

I may add something like a "vibrancy" checkbox in the next version where, if you UNcheck that box, it doesn't favor saturation as much.  That would tone down the saturated look at the expense of a small amount of hue shift (more like the old 8.0).  But for now, you should be able to just choose something like a -3 on the saturation control on the main window before developing your profile and see how that looks!  That should get pretty close to the old 8.0 and still have more accurate hue.

Regards,
Mike

Thanks for your full and detailed reply Mike.

I understand your explanation. It was good to revise those points in such a concise form. I have always realised how important the scanner is and the technical compromises involved especially relating to colour.

Currently my main use of the scanner is for documents and for colour profile generation using PP. If I were to regularly scan photographs and was wanting very accurate colour rendition then I would calibrate the scanner. In the meantime I have assumed the default quality of the scanner to be high enough.
 
I have always believed that PP uses the IT8 target as colour references to generate the profile and, in the process, to correct as much as possible the idiosyncracies of the particular scanner, including the effects of the CFFL. Is this correct?

I believe that my Epson 4990 has performed its step in PP profile generating process quite well (and so it should). During processing the IT8 and Target profiles have always been close to the ideal profiles shown in your PP help document. Furthermore the brightness ranges have been "full" (with very few exceptions) and the number of excluded cells minimal.

Clearly there are different expectations of printed output: those who want automatic "pop" and those who want "neutrality" by default. For that reason I think that your suggestion of the option button the allows user to choose the "built in vibrancy", or not, is a good one.

To my eye, the PPv8.3 printed output looks better than v8.1.  

Regards

Peter
« Last Edit: July 18, 2014, 11:17:14 PM by pshrutpark » Logged

admin
Administrator
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3315



View Profile Email
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2014, 12:23:19 AM »

Peter,

Your feedback is much appreciated.  I've just released my final adjustment in v8.4.  With v8.4, Profile Prism will generate profiles as "mathematically" accurate as possible.  If you want extra "pop", you can add it easily by selecting +1, +2, etc. in the "Saturation" control on the main window.  I've run v8.4 through a lot of paper and with a good scanner you should see stunning color accuracy!

Tip: Perceptual rendering intent tends to desaturate colors a bit in order to expand the usable gamut of the profile beyond that which is reproducible by your printer.  So if you want the highest color accuracy possible (within the limits of your printer/paper/ink), re-generate your profiles using v8.4 and print your photos using Relative Colorimetric intent.

Mike
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 12:24:57 AM by admin » Logged
PH Focal-Scape
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 262



View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2014, 12:48:12 AM »

Peter,

Your feedback is much appreciated.  I've just released my final adjustment in v8.4.  With v8.4, Profile Prism will generate profiles as "mathematically" accurate as possible.  If you want extra "pop", you can add it easily by selecting +1, +2, etc. in the "Saturation" control on the main window.  I've run v8.4 through a lot of paper and with a good scanner you should see stunning color accuracy!

Tip: Perceptual rendering intent tends to desaturate colors a bit in order to expand the usable gamut of the profile beyond that which is reproducible by your printer.  So if you want the highest color accuracy possible (within the limits of your printer/paper/ink), re-generate your profiles using v8.4 and print your photos using Relative Colorimetric intent.

Mike


Thank you Mike.

I am looking forward to testing v8.4. It sounds great!

How does Relative Colorimetric intent in the profile interact with, or relate to, RC set while printing with QIU? I always print with RC set.

Since I'm in early Saturday afternoon, I'd better get outside and enjoy the day. Will install and test v8.4 tonight.

Regards

Peter
Logged

Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!