|
Fred A
|
 |
« on: July 16, 2014, 04:11:56 PM » |
|
In the past, improvements in Profile Prism were usually subtle.
8.1 is not subtle. You will see the improvement immediately, so much so, that I re-profiled the papers I use most.
Like most of us, I settle in a few paper types I like best and we tend to stick with what works.
I use Epson Ultra Prem. Luster and Ultra Prem. Glossy, Epson Ultra Presentation matte, and an HP Advanced Glossy.
I have an Epson R2000 printer, and the results of redoing my profiles with 8.1 are extraordinary.
It's easy too since I saved the target scans and I just load them into Profile Prism, and make a new profile.
If there's anyone who never used Profile Prism and who says, Who needs to make profiles. I use the ones that came with my printer, I am going to attach a screen snap of a scan of a pair of test images I printed. Same sheet of paper; top one with Epson's Prem.Glossy paper and the profile for it from Epson.
The lower image is the same, with my new Profile Prism created printer profile.
By the way, no editing, no tweaking, all default settings.
Both images printed on the same sheet of Epson Ultra Premium Glossy 5*, at the same time, same driver setting,. Only the applied printer profile made by Profile Prism was used for the lower image.
Enjoy!!
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PH Focal-Scape
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 2014, 11:34:24 PM » |
|
Thanks for the pp update Mike and for the comments Fred.
Regarding the comparison of manufacturer's v pp8.1 profiles. Yes, the difference is striking. On my screen, comparing the bottom left red and green vertical bars of both images, there is a distinct transition "line" on the pp red and to a lesser extent the pp green. No such transition is on the manufacture's image.
Fred, do you have the same type of comparison but pp8 v pp8.1? I would be very interested to see it.
I have reprofiled my 5 Ilford papers and on visually comparing the pp8 v pp8.1 colourspaces there seems to be less at "bright" end, more at the "dark" end and a greater span of the colours.
Regardless of the pp version, I'm surprised at the lack of surface smoothness of the colour spaces of some of the papers. I guess this reflects the very different characteristics of some papers. I don't see this as a problem because i'm very happy with the output of the pp80 profiles.
However I have noticed a possible error with the generation of the 8.1 profile of the smooth gloss paper. The colour space is seriously jagged. See the comparison of 8.0 v 8.1 in the attached image.
I will regenerate the "offending" 8.1 profile as soon as i can.
Regards
Peter
Update: Regenerating the "offending" solved the jaggies problem. The 8.1 profile now looks normal.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 01:28:37 AM by pshrutpark »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2014, 12:28:41 AM » |
|
What viewer are you using? Attached is my comparison of v8.0 versus v8.1 profile for Epson Ultra Luster on the R1900. No such jaggies.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PH Focal-Scape
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 2014, 01:11:54 AM » |
|
Thanks Mike.
Profile viewed with Mac OS X ColorSync. The jaggies are only on one of the five profiles generated with 8.1
Am regenerating the problem profile now. .....
Update: Regenerating solved the jaggies problem. The 8.1 profile now looks normal.
Peter
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 01:27:36 AM by pshrutpark »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PH Focal-Scape
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 2014, 02:09:35 AM » |
|
Mike.
What Windows profile viewer do you use?
Thanks
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 17, 2014, 02:53:26 AM » |
|
I use PerfX. I did find a rounding error that could cause some minor jaggies but nothing like what you saw. I'll release 8.2 that fixes the rounding error just to be thorough.
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PH Focal-Scape
|
|
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2014, 03:15:57 AM » |
|
Thanks Mike. I have just compared by printing (via QIU) a single image using v8.0 and v8.1 profiles on two types of paper (with their correct custom profiles). Unfortunately for each paper type v8.1 is producing less realistic colours compared to: v8.0; the original objects, and; the colour calibrated display. There is a distinct unrealistic yellow shift in greens and browns. I noticed this in Fred's posted example as well. The colours also tend to be too bright. Regards Peter I use PerfX. I did find a rounding error that could cause some minor jaggies but nothing like what you saw. I'll release 8.2 that fixes the rounding error just to be thorough.
Thanks,
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2014, 03:53:03 AM » |
|
Thanks Mike.
I have just compared by printing (via QIU) a single image using v8.0 and v8.1 profiles on two types of paper (with their correct custom profiles).
Unfortunately for each paper type v8.1 is producing less realistic colours compared to: v8.0; the original objects, and; the colour calibrated display.
There is a distinct unrealistic yellow shift in greens and browns. I noticed this in Fred's posted example as well. The colours also tend to be too bright.
Regards
Peter
What kind of test image are you printing? It's going to be quite dependent on the image, printer, and paper. The colors in v81 will look brighter on things like gradients and very saturated colors because of the way v81 keeps the colors saturated when dealing with out-of-gamut colors. v80 was too dull! But again, I'd like to know what kind of test image. A lot of people get stuck on mathematical gradients in ProPhoto color space that aren't even possible in real photographs. For photos, we're finding much better color accuracy with v81! Mike |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PH Focal-Scape
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 17, 2014, 04:10:57 AM » |
|
Thanks Mike.
I have just compared by printing (via QIU) a single image using v8.0 and v8.1 profiles on two types of paper (with their correct custom profiles).
Unfortunately for each paper type v8.1 is producing less realistic colours compared to: v8.0; the original objects, and; the colour calibrated display.
There is a distinct unrealistic yellow shift in greens and browns. I noticed this in Fred's posted example as well. The colours also tend to be too bright.
Regards
Peter
What kind of test image are you printing? It's going to be quite dependent on the image, printer, and paper. The colors in v81 will look brighter on things like gradients and very saturated colors because of the way v81 keeps the colors saturated when dealing with out-of-gamut colors. v80 was too dull! But again, I'd like to know what kind of test image. A lot of people get stuck on mathematical gradients in ProPhoto color space that aren't even possible in real photographs. For photos, we're finding much better color accuracy with v81! Mike The test image is a high resolution still life with grapes, olives, capers, a chilli, and crackers with blue vein cheese and chutney! It's part of a project I'm working on. All natural objects. If Fred is there: could you please reproduce your comparison with v8.0 versus v8.1? Thanks. Peter |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 04:17:20 AM by pshrutpark »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 17, 2014, 10:26:53 AM » |
|
If Fred is there: could you please reproduce your comparison with v8.0 versus v8.1?
Thanks. Ok Peter I'll try. The prints actually look far better than the scan of the prints, but best I can do. The first one is a scan of the test image with PP 800 on top and 801 at the bottom. Then, I looked hard and wondered if my scanner was brighter at one end than the other. So I flipped the page and did a second scan with reversed position. Now 800 is the bottom; still the same. I have to admit that with the actual print in my hand, both look really good, and the distinction is harder to see than what you see on the screen. Each of us probably focuses on different facets. Pointedly though, What I especially like in 801, is the improved red. I look at the hood of that car, the guard's uniform, and the British flag, I see a richer red. Then I look at the spools of thread. 801 is showing me a better distinction between the red and the Orange next to it. I look at the yellow flower (sunflower, I guess). I see a refined yellow with petal detail in 801. 800 is a tad brighter yellow and hides the detail. There is also a bit more shadow detail in the brownish cabinet (I guess it is a cabinet) in 801 I will be home after lunch for the rest of the day. If you would like to pop in, I buy supper. Fred PS This is Epson Ultra Premium Luster paper |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 10:29:45 AM by Fred A »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PH Focal-Scape
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 17, 2014, 10:54:28 AM » |
|
Thank you very much Fred. I appreciate the time you put into the comparison. It is interesting. I understand what you are saying. What I am looking for in a profile is one which results in a print which most closely represents the actual colours of the objects photographed. This is especially important for fashion garment photography. Any colour enhancements are due to my editiing and not automatically applied by the profile. In my test image (described above) all objects look natural (as I intended) with the 8.0 profile but with 8.1, capers look too yellow, crackers unnaturally yellow and the red jalopeno not "real jalopeno red" anymore but too bright a red. Grapes are also to bright. In 8.1 objects may look more eye popping but i want to determine when something is to be eye popping. If I have time I will scan the test prints and post them. The test image I have been using in the print tests is actually the "Late Harvest" image on this page: http://www.pastoralsystems.co.nz/photography/galleries/raw-deal/. .... the test comparison I have been referring to is now attached. The reduced jpg doesn't do the image justice. Top is v8.0 and the bottom v8.1. Regards Peter |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 11:28:35 AM by pshrutpark »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 17, 2014, 11:20:58 AM » |
|
Hi Fred & Peter, What I especially like in 801, is the improved red I am not finding that to be the case. I made new profiles with 8.1 for both Iford Smooth Gloss and Epson Archival Matte. I made prints with the test image that Fred used and the "Printer Test File" that come with PP - it has a hand with coloured balls, a lady in a pink top and a B&W dog with a monitor. I made comparisons between PP 8.0 and 8.1 for the "Printer Test File" where 8.1 showed reds that tended towards orange on Ilford smooth gloss. Flesh tones looked like they had a yellow tinge. The PP8.0 print was weak on the reds and still tending towards orange with reds but much less saturated. On Archival matte I compared PP8.1 to the Epson profile. The latter is not perfect and I would prefer more saturation but when compared to PP 8.1, I would make the same comments about flesh tones and reds as above; this was the case with the "Printer Test File" and the one Fred used (baby face and cotton reels etc.) Finally, when the PP8.1 prints are compared to the (calibrated) monitor it confirms my comments above, ie. reds tending to orange, flesh tones with a yellow tinge, not sure about grass colour either, towards yellow a little. I did make a scan of 2 prints but it did not show the differences properly so have not posted it. Terry |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2014, 11:28:54 AM » |
|
In my test image (described above) all objects look natural (as I intended) with the 8.0 profile but with 8.1, capers look too yellow, crackers unnaturally yellow and the red jalopeno not "real jalopeno red" anymore but too bright a red. Grapes are also to bright.
I also appreciate your thoughts too. That's how Mike perfects his stuff. There's another point to consider. This is bandied about a lot. My prints do not match the screen; usually followed by the prints are too dark! 99% of the time, the monitor is too bright as you know! My point is that I hope my prints match my screen and so do you hope for the same. Yes, our monitors are profiled, but us the contrast and brightness the same for each of us? Here's the tricky part. If I use Mike's printer profile, by prints are so close to what the screen shows, that I can give it an A. (I agree that 801 is pushing the envelope on saturation) If I use the Epson Ultra Prem Glossy profile, my screen and the print are not even close. If I use the Epson Luster profile, pretty close. Next point of discussion. Reality! I can shoot a flower and look at the print and I get a match... if I walk outside to compare my print to the flower and it is tomorrow, and the color changed... So we tend to use test images with a steady unchanging vast combinations of colors and we can only compare an 800 print to an 801 print. I try not to fixate on one color. It's fun to share. Last comment. I made my 801 profile with no tweaks at all. I will however, most likely back off to a minus 2 saturation for my "keeper" profile. That is unless Mike performs his magic. Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 17, 2014, 11:34:31 AM » |
|
I made new profiles with 8.1 for both Iford Smooth Gloss and Epson Archival Matte. Terry, As you well know, some papers are not easily profiled. Archival Matte is one and I have only tangled with Ilford Smooth Gloss in the past.... OK you point is taken, but when we encounter more difficult profiling, we have the ability to EDIT and adjust the profile so the paper performs well. Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
PH Focal-Scape
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 17, 2014, 11:47:11 AM » |
|
Hi Fred & Peter, What I especially like in 801, is the improved red I am not finding that to be the case. I made new profiles with 8.1 for both Iford Smooth Gloss and Epson Archival Matte. I made prints with the test image that Fred used and the "Printer Test File" that come with PP - it has a hand with coloured balls, a lady in a pink top and a B&W dog with a monitor. I made comparisons between PP 8.0 and 8.1 for the "Printer Test File" where 8.1 showed reds that tended towards orange on Ilford smooth gloss. Flesh tones looked like they had a yellow tinge. The PP8.0 print was weak on the reds and still tending towards orange with reds but much less saturated. On Archival matte I compared PP8.1 to the Epson profile. The latter is not perfect and I would prefer more saturation but when compared to PP 8.1, I would make the same comments about flesh tones and reds as above; this was the case with the "Printer Test File" and the one Fred used (baby face and cotton reels etc.) Finally, when the PP8.1 prints are compared to the (calibrated) monitor it confirms my comments above, ie. reds tending to orange, flesh tones with a yellow tinge, not sure about grass colour either, towards yellow a little. I did make a scan of 2 prints but it did not show the differences properly so have not posted it. Terry Thanks for your comment Terry M. Your yellow tinge comments are consistent with my observations, also the red issues. I have delved into accurate colour matching of prints to actual objects to a considerable extent when I have done fashion garment photography where fabric colour is critical. To this end PP8.0 has served me very well, but at this point v8.1 doesn't seem it will. We will see what Mike comes up with. Well it's now midnight for me! Regards Peter |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 17, 2014, 09:15:10 PM by pshrutpark »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
