A basic guide (see post #1) to setting up ARGYLL CMS profiling on your computer

[Emulator]

The non monotonic warning always appears, so you must be doing something right!

The errors look pretty good, undetectable to the human eye, so how are the prints?

 

[frogman]

I am creating another profile for Permajet Oyster paper. It has a high OBA and I am curious how it will print.
Will comment in a minute.

Pete

 

[frogman]

I printed couple of pictures. One of them is the Bill Atkinson test file.
The ArgyllCMS profile is warmer than the Munki one and match the screen better.
I thought I will have better shadows, but I was disappointed. Below 10 nothing is visible on both prints - the one printed with Munki profile and the other with ArgyllCMS one.
I am happier with this new profile and would like to thank you Ian for your cooperation.
Errors on both profile are nearly the same level so I need to improve on that!
-----------------------
Next task is:

1. how to pre- condition the targen
2. to get the errors to 0.

I believe bigger patches will improve the reading, but what else?

Cheers
Pete

 

[Emulator]

You are now moving into the area that I was exploring when I produced the CAP957 33% greyscale 67% colour patches. I found this improved the B&W linearity. The two darkest black test squares tended to be identical until I employed at least 30% greyscale. You could try printing 957 on A3 paper, that should give you 14mm square patches. A minimum ambient lighting level is also important during reading.

Browsing through the Argyll documentation I came across this:
http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/FCMS2010_ArgyllTute.pdf
which addresses pre-conditioning and may be of help.

 

[frogman]

You probably red this article: http://www.ludd.ltu.se/~torger/photography/argyll-print.html
He put it very simple, but we will see how it goes...
I think the best bet is to modify .txt files we already have. I need to gain some experience with this Command line.

 

[Emulator]

At least you are in "experimental mode" now!!! Where are your print results?

 

[frogman]

Yes Ian, I am in this mode.

Where are your print results?

Results as a results are not great. I love photography, but it is a hobby for me, which is not bad as I do it for fun.
Attending competitions here and there with moderate success, but plenty of room to improve...I hope..
I am not sure if that is what you wanted to know, but at least you and the forum members know something about me.

Pete

 

[The Hat]

@frogman what Ian means is Show us the money… Ops photo results please..

 

[frogman]

@@frogman what Ian means is Show us the money… Ops photo results please..

I got it now. Thanks @The Hat . I am on the slow side.. I guess.

Where are your print results?

I doubt, The differences between the CM and the Argyll profiles will be visible on the web, considering my old, cheap scanner.
Comparing them on the web might lead you to a wrong conclusion.
The main difference, obvious one is the color temperature of the prints( both images printed on high OBA photo paper - Permajet Oyster). The Argyll profile is way warmer and the CM one is on the cool side. The Argyll profile is a closer match to the screen, which is important after all.
There is no other difference which I saw in a close inspection of the Bill Atkinson test file( the same you have)
Shadows are nearly identical, the Argyll profile is just a touch better( you can see a step further in the blacks). It wont be visible in a real print.
The black/white ramp is smooth and nice on both prints and Dmax( looking at the black and white patches) is with an ever so slight advantage for Argyll in the shadows, again negligible in a real print, but good to have it.

Cheers
Pete

 

[Emulator]

Argyll post profiling check:

1. peak error =2.70
2. avr error = 0.60
3. RMS = 0.76

I don't think I would chase RMS Delta E results below 1, "not detectable by the human eye". In fact 5 is often not detectable and even 10 unless you have side by side prints!

If the blacks are not right, but the measured errors are OK, it presumably means there are no points to measure or not enough, in the black region. Whether pre-conditioning or more greyscale points are the answer, you will be able to determine experimentally. I found that more greyscale points gave an improvement. You can now show us that pre-conditioning is the answer!