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 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.
  

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

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

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

OK, I got confused by the help file as it discussed setting gamma etc. I will follow as you suggested.

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

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