Making printer ICC profiles - Creating pro level paper profiles for my reviews. X-Rite i1iSis review
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- How I make the ICC printer profiles for printer and paper reviews. How and why I make profiles using i1Profiler software and i1 iSis scanning spectrophotometer.
How many patches are needed and other aspects of profile creation and measurement. Include using my specialist B&W test image for checking print linearity.
The original [2007] i1 iSis review using ProfileMaker software is at:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/x...
The iSis supports optical brightener compensation [OBC]
www.northlight-images.co.uk/r...
OBC is included in my i1Profiler printer profiling review:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/i...
The B&W test image [a free download] works with many different measuring systems - see the main article describing its use [includes links to relevant videos]
www.northlight-images.co.uk/t... 
Кино
I wish all RUclips channels would be this informative. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge with the world!
Thanks - that's appreciated.
Well..that was amazing! Feels like a custom-made video. I cannot thank you enough. I´ll be spending quite a lot of time creating my own profiles..
Thank you very much again.
Thanks - I'm glad the detail was of help
I'll never do profiles myself, but it's interesting to see how they are done. Thanks.
Thanks - I assumed not many people would have this kit, but might be curious about the process.
There are cheaper ways, but it's still far more than most people need ;-)
Very interesting, if it was not so expensive I would get my own X-Rite profiler. Thank you.
Glad it was of interest - if the XL vanished, I couldn't justify the expense either!
Thanks for the great video. I can't seem to find an affordable and top notch spectrophotometer based printer profiling solution for hobbyists unfortunately. The XRite i1 solutions keep getting more and more expensive as they push the printer profiling option exclusively to their higher end packages. You have to pay more than $3000 now. Their Colormunki device is a true spectrophotometer; however, when I tried it with my Canon iPF 6100, the shadows were always blocked and muddy. The low number of patches and the interpolation were just not good enough for a discerning photographer. Then I gave the Argyll color management software a try and got perfect results. It allows you to pick your own number of patches including grayscale. I used thousands of patches spread over multiple sheets of paper and the shadows opened up beautifully. It's usage is a bit clunky as it's command line driven (there may be a GUI written for it, I did not search it up) and I had to switch the Colormunki Windows drivers back and forth but it's a free software, so not much to complain about. I wish the i1Profiler software supported the Colormunki.
Thanks
I'm going to agree with that, but it's all about profits in a relatively shrinking market segment.
'Affordable' means you are not in the target market [pun intended ;-) ]
The ColorMunki/i1Studio/ccStudio 'solutions' are all deliberately limited (as you've discovered with ArgylCMS).
I'll be curious to see what future software comes along and if it still supports the old ColorMunki for example...
The companies involved in this area are simply not making enough money for their corporate overlords :-(
I just checked out the price of one of those print profilers and was totally shocked at the price.
Yup...
This is why I'm glad to have been working with X-Rite for many years testing new kit.
It gets good use every time I have a new printer to try out - takes a few hours rather than days to get the profiling done.
Very impressive bit of kit that. Sadly well out of my budget but I get results I'm happy with, creating my own ICC profiles using the basic X-rite i1 studio. 😊
Thanks - I'd hoped it would be of some general interest.
If you use the two stage refinement process for the i1Studio, you are going to get very useful profiles - you just don't get some of the flexibility of the kit I use.
Well that and the automated scanner makes it quite easy ;-)
I have a X-rite i1Studio & have never made a profile as of yet. Purchased a pack of Canon Fine Art Smooth paper that was on sale. Can't get a profile for it from Canon for the Pro100. Did a couple of prints with it using Other Fine Art2 & Matte paper. = Not bad. Has that Canson Aquarelle Canson Museum Etching type look but ultra smooth instead of the texture that those two Canson papers have. = Sort of a film grain look. So, I will probably make a profile for it.
Called Canon (no go) & what I don't understand is, Canon has a profile for use with the Pro1000 but not the Pro10. Both pigment ink printers &, that is why I think it should have a profile for the Pro10. Maybe they released the paper after the fact of the Pro10? Disclosure, I don't own a Pro10 but the tech mentioned it after I asked if it was a pigment ink printer paper only.
Profile making takes money...
Hence companies only produce profiles for popular papers and higher end printers - all decided by marketing choices.
An example would be the Epson ET-8550. Very much originally marketed as a consumer printer, hence few profiles. Once people started using it for more advanced photo use, more companies see the sales benefit of offering profiles ;-)
@@KeithCooper I get what you are saying but, the Canon sold a ton of Pro100 printers. And it is a Canon paper as is the Pro10= Canon. I'm guessing your talking about 3rd party papers. I am not.
No - it goes for Canon and Epson too
Selling lots of printers is nothing to do with it - it's the market position and perceived benefits of making profiles which matter.
They make profiles where it will benefit them, not you... ;-)
Decent vid, thanks.
Thanks
I use a colormunki with x-rite software. Nowhere near the patches you have, however the results were better than generic profiles from companies. Though this may have changed.
Yes, a lot depends on the kit/software they use.
Also printers have gotten a lot more consistent and linear, which means that with the right papers they are 'easier' to profile well.
Giving the custom ICC profile file a meaningful name is the right thing to do.
Just curious, does the software allow the addition of tags? So, the metadata will always have the extra information you need.
What extra information were you thinking of?
Things like paper type, printer, ink etc. That way, the metadata will tell you everything you needed to know about the custom ICC profile even if you didn't name the file properly.
No, not with i1Profiler. Maybe there is other software which will do it, but I've not seen it.
Hi Keith, I hope you are well and healthy!
I much appreciate your videos and just bought the two books about Color Management that you recommended :)
My question might be a bit out-of-scope:
If you are making a profile for a not-fully-opaque material, but you know the background color that this material will be put on ultimately:
Should you put that background color behind the material when creating the ICC profile?
This might not work with the isis2, but I am using i1pro2 with i1profiler.
( what I am asking about right now is creating ICC profiles for sublimation on not-fully-opaque white t-shirts that will be on top of my skin when wearing them, but it definitely applies to more situations )
In normal use, I'd still use the white backing board which comes with the 11Pro. A background colour of some sort would need to be consistent and matched to the expected illumination to be useful.
You do however touch on important issues in commercial packaging and signage. The i1Pro 3+ has polarising options and can profile back illuminated media.
www.northlight-images.co.uk/x-rite-i1photo-pro-3-plus-review/
I'll be doing a shorter version of this video with an i1iO and will remember to mention substrate issues there...
@@KeithCooper Thanks for your answer! But I have to ask a follow-up:
Given that my skin is not back illuminating the t-shirts 🙂 (or is it??), but it is definitely not as white as the backing but fairly consistent given consistent illumination at least at home and at work:
In my mind, if I create the profile with the white backing board, the colors that I see in a mirror on my shirt when wearing it over my skin will be shifted. If I profile with a skin colored background under the shirt I will get a smaller and somewhat transformed gamut but the colors will better match a properly profiled print on paper that I hold next to me in front of the mirror assuming I print both with relative colorimetric rendering intent and no BPC.
Is that correct?
hmmm, or would the match only be better with absolute colorimetric rendering intent?
I guess that is the crux of the matter for me:
Does the skin behind the partially transparent t-shirt only introduce a white point shift that you accept anyway by using relative colorimetric intent or does it create a whole new profile, as I am assuming?
Yes, it might well do, but the idea of colorimetric accuracy for a T shirt still puzzles me :-)
Of course this all depends on the light source for viewing the shirt, how you personally reflect light and a host of other imprecise variables...
Add the variability in textiles and other stuff and this does not seem a task really amenable to any precision in the processes... ;-)
If you asked various service providers to create their own custom ICC profiles, for the same paper + ink + printer which you provide, would you get the exact same custom ICC profile from all of them or not?
I suspect there will be a difference.
So, how can one know which custom ICC profile is the right one? This is important if I was doing printing that needed as precise as possible colour accuracy.
Depends on the software, number of patches, the instrument and also when the instrument was last calibrated. There are averaging techniques you can use [a lot of hassle - I never bother ;-) ]
You can use the refinement approach in i1Profiler as well - that and build your own custom patch sets. There are software packages available ($$$) to edit & analyse data...
So I would expect no two profiles to match precisely.
For most of the uses I have, there is no such thing as 'correct', just a profile which gives good results ;-) Remember that for most photographers 'accurate colour' and 'pleasing colour' are not necessarily the same thing.
If colorimetric accuracy is important then you need to approach profiling in a much more technical manner than I do. That's where I suggest knowing, in detail, that book (Real World Color Management) I suggested in a recent video... ;-)