Colormunki/ArgyllCMS profile lacking dark tones (compared to ccStudio)

[Ink stained Fingers]

Please have a look to the last posting listed above

https://community.adobe.com/t5/ligh...print-module/m-p/14315976?profile.language=de

which shows a crop of a lightroom print control program window

This window shows an info text inside a program box "Black Point Compensation will be used for this print" for the activated perceptual RI , and as the explanation above goes, this BPC cannot be turned off for this rendering intent elsewhere in the program.
So this is intentional by Adobe and not a program fault, Adobe is limiting here the functionality of Lightroom vs. Photoshop which allows the deactivation of BPC for the perceptual RI.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I read that for photography, which I profile for, only Perceptual and Relative Colorimetric are useful. Also, from what I read and understand for the Perceptual rendering intent it doesn’t matter if BPC is activated or not. That leaves me with these three combinations:

- Perceptual
- Relative Colorimetric without BPC
- Relative Colorimetric with BPC

I really hope that not all of them are combinations that should not be used. No matter wich combination I tried I get the same result:

Colormunki/ArgyllCMS profile: overall look of printout lacks contrast because of too bright black tones
Colormunki/ccStudio profile: prints look much better (yet less accurate colors because of 50+50 patch target sheet)

@lmylm ,

I think your questions are more than answered at this point - it's overall a complex relationship between the profiles, the rendering intent and the print program you are using like Lightroom or Qimage or else and the origin of your profiles like ArgyllCMS or ccStudio or Colormunki or Dataco....... - it comes effectively down to create a usability matrix which combinations work and which don't

 

[Graeme Gill]

There is a problem for quite a number of users of the popular Lightroom package - BPC is always on in Lightroom for the perceptual rendering intent , you find quite some postings to this problem in luminous-landscape.com or dpreview.com and at plenty other postings like here

Then I suggest that a customer of Adobe (i.e. someone who owns a copy of Lightroom) report the problem to them
- I can't, since I'm not a customer!

Or use some other software without this bug, instead of Lightroom to manage your printing color workflow.
ArgyllCMS profiles match ICC specifications and work as intended with any software that doesn't impose a mandatory broken non-ICC BPC on the workflow. You can use ArgyllCMS's tools to process the color of images for printing if you want to convince yourself that the profiles work as intended.

Note that Adobe's own documentation on their BPC states that it is not normally used with Perceptual rendering intent. They state "Therefore, BPC should not be necessary." "For a given picture, the user can decide whether using BPC improves the color conversion and can select it or deselect it accordingly."
So it appears that Lightroom is not following their own guidance on this topic.

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Oh well - Adobe is creating a kind of their own color mgmt environment with this and that modification which they don't clearly communicate to Lightroom users - and even more to potential buyers of Lightroom.

But this is not the only company which thinks they can do it better.
When it comes to Datacol.. profiles they even recommend the preferable use of the saturation intent , this leaves Lightrooom users completely out of the softproof function - LR does not offer this RI at all. And just using another RI makes the softproof function pretty useless .

'Rendering Intent“ select the appropriate
settings. Besides “Saturation“ – which we recommend for the
use with profiles created by our SpyderPRINT-solution –
“Perceptual” and “Relative Colorimetric” may also be used'

copied from here
https://www.datacolor.com/spyder/downloads/Print-with-ICC-in-PS.pdf
on page 2.
And turn off BPC - which you can't with the preceptual RI and a Datacol.... profile in LR.

Or is this supposed to mean that the rendering intent does not matter at all ?

A journey to uncover all this was done some time ago

https://www.printerknowledge.com/th...r-print-profile-comparisons.13275/post-122562

Would you ever expect that much surprise and fun with icc-profiles ?????????????????