i1Studio with ccStudio vs ArgyllCMS

[erfus]

Hi all,

I've done a lot of research and read a lot of threads, but I still can't quite figure it out. I'm trying to create ICC Profiles for my printer, but I'm kind of gone down the rabbit hole of different software, rendering intents, etc. and now I'm kind of stuck not knowing what is "right". I'm also aware that perceptual rendering is not following any standard and also that black point compensation is a very discussed topic.
Please keep in mind I'm a complete amateur, I don't have any professional equipment or skill.

I've got an Epson ET-8550 with various papers to try, but in this example I'm using the Ilford Glossy Photo, IGPGP. I've also got an used i1Studio, it came with the original packaging and looks well taken care of, but I don't have any possibility to check if its in perfect technical condition, but I'm assuming it here.

I've got one profile made from a professional company, it was a 2033 patch size print with 2 A3 papers and has been scanned with some bigger X-Rite Device, I assume some kind if X-Rite iSis.
This is my current "gold standard", since I think that's technically the best/most professional profile I have.

Then I got my used i1Studio and made some profiles with it as well. You can see differences in soft proofing between the professional profile and the one made with the i1Studio, but they print very much the same.

And then I started my ArgyllCMS journey.
I've made my last profile with 921 patches on two A3 papers, these where the commands:

targen -v -d2 -G -g32 -f921 IGPGP
chartread -v -H -T0.4 IGPGP
colprof -v -qh -S <sourceprofile> -cmt -dpp -D"ET8550 Ilford IGPGP EPG 02112025 <sourceprofile>" IGPGP
profcheck -v2 -k -s IGPGP.ti3 IGPGP.icc

Profcheck seems good: Profile check complete, errors(CIEDE2000): max. = 1.448066, avg. = 0.204166, RMS = 0.253317

I made three profiles: One with AdobeRGB, one with sRGB, and one with ProPhoto RGB. When I printed with the specific profiles using Epson Print Layout I made sure to export a tiff in lightroom with the matching color space. I've printed all in perceptual rendering intent.

Here is the interesting part: In softproofing all of these profiles are extremly different. But the Professional one, the ccStudio one and the ArgyllCMS RGB one printed very similar.
But the AdobeRGB was way duller then the others, the ProPhotoRGB one was even more duller. The colors were way less defined, the RGB Profile had way stronger colors and looked way better to me.
Since ProPhotoRGB has a larger color space, and I made sure that color spaces matches from export to print, I expected it to be "better" than the others and not lighter/duller than the others.

Maybe someone with knowledge could take a look at these profiles, is there something I have done wrong here?
What is the best option I have for further profiles? Use ccStudio (or pay the 80€ for the upgrade to calibrite profiler), or use AgryllCMS (with what settings?) or just get them made profesionally?

Thanks!

 

[pharmacist]

Could you upload the ti3 file so I can have a look at it and regenerate the profile again ?

 

[erfus]

Thanks!
Attached the ti1-3 files!

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

The icc profiles in the above zip-file are created as V 4 profiles except the Adobe one which is a V 2 profile. Please could you redo the other profiles as well as V 2. profiles, some software like iccview.de or Monaco profiler only display V 2. profiles for review.

 

[pharmacist]

I get this with my makeprofile.bat (using adobeRGB as the reference color space for colprof.exe):

No difference in volume size and white point. Did you compare the other profiles with another using iccview.de ?

I just tried my profile against your "better" profile using sRGB as the reference color space for colprof.exe and exactly the same volume size and white point:

 

[pharmacist]

softproofing with the sRGB vs AdobeRGB based profiles using the relative colorimetric intent (NO black point compensation):

No difference using sRGB or AdobeRGB as target color space using the colprof.exe to generate both profiles.

 

[Epatcola]

softproofing with the sRGB vs AdobeRGB based profiles using the relative colorimetric intent (NO black point compensation):

No difference using sRGB or AdobeRGB as target color space using the colprof.exe to generate both profiles.

Profiles provided to colprof only affect saturation and perceptual intents.

I don't fully understand the point of providing a profile to colprof. In the op's profiles there is a huge gamut difference depending on rendering intent. There is much less difference between intents in the 'professional' profile he posted.

It now looks to me that providing a profile to colprof creates B2A tables for perceptual and saturation which map the whole gamut of the supplied profile into the gamut of the printer. That looks like a pretty specialised thing to do.

Normally if your image has some colors out of printer gamut you want to squeeze them in possibly with perceptual or saturation rendering. If you use a profile which had a color space given to colprof you are saying you want to squeeze all possible colors in the supplied profile into the printer gamut. I think the only benefit of squeezing the whole profile gamut is the printed colors would be consistent from one image to the next regardless of how far out of gamut some of the image colors may be. For that to be useful the profile should indicate what the that profile was and profiles generally (including the op's professional one) don't. You also don't want to use a profile much bigger than is needed for colors in your images. I don't know what happens if your image contains colors outside the gamut of the profile provided to colprof.

For the OP I suggest you forget about specifying a profile to colprof and as long as you are using 16 bits use profoto or AdobeRGB profiles for you printed images.

Bear in mind I possibly don't know what I am talking about