[Stephane Bosman Participant Posts: 27]

Printing Colour Management

on: March 20, 2023 at 5:56 am

Hi

I just got a ColorChecker Studio in replacement of my 20 years old i1Pro. I inted to use it only for print profiling.

My first profiling attempt is for Hahnemuhle Photo Luster paper with my Canon Pro-1000 printer.

It is a disaster.

With the supplied software I get heavy posterization. I tried with ArgyllCMS and there I have smoothness but with very visible color shifts.

This happens only with color printing. I do not notice problems with B&W printing.

I never had those problems with the i1Pro.

I have 2 questions:

1. Is this usual? Hopefully it should work and I made a mistake.

2. Would I get better results with the Datacolor solution? It is my general impression that Datacolor hardware is not quite as good but they do not limit software features as severely as Calibrite. Is that correct?

Thanks!

[Tony Weikert]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #1 on: March 20, 2023 at 7:23 am

Stephane Bosman wrote:

I have 2 questions: 1. Is this usual? Hopefully it should work and I made a mistake. 2. Would I get better results with the Datacolor solution? It is my general impression that Datacolor hardware is not quite as good but they do not limit software features as severely as Calibrite. Is that correct?

FWIW as a ColorMunki/i1Studio/CCStudio owner in answer to your questions:

1.  It is not usual these units are very capable of producing very good profiles in spite of the limited number of patches produced.

2.  In my opinion moving to the Datacolor solution could well prove to be a backward step.  This admittedly based on the reports of other experienced users, including some that ‘upgraded’ to the X Rite solutions.

Its possible that you made a mistake, however the software offers a step by step mode that should not be too easy to deviate from?  It is also possible that your particular unit is somehow faulty or there are issues with your printer.  Assuming first that the unit is OK, have you considered the following (apologies if stating the obvious):

Are you using OEM or third party inks?

1.  Running a printer nozzle check.  Are all results as expected.  Any concerns do a head clean

2.  Using a standard printer reference image rather than your own images are the results with your profile showing the same banding?
For instance one of these from Northlight Images

File download page – photography

3.  How does the reference image appear using your home own profile and then printed using the Hahnemuhle ICC profile for your paper?

Just trying to eliminate the possibility of printer or specific image issues.

 

 

 

 

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Tony Weikert.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Kevin Raber.

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 781]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #2 on: March 20, 2023 at 9:35 am

Could you explain in detail how you printed the profiling target (software, settings and steps), and what target size did you use?

Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

[Stephane Bosman Participant Posts: 27]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #3 on: March 20, 2023 at 11:27 am

Thanks for the answers, both of you confirm it should work, so I tried again, with some changes:

1. I corrected settings in the print driver:
   • Paper type to Pro Luster instead of Pro Platinum (no idea why it was on platinum, first error probably)
   • Print quality to High instead of Highest, probably no impact on profiling, but probably no visible difference either
   • Clear Coating Area to Overall instead of Auto
2. I scanned the target much slower, pretty slowly actually and I am certain I did not have any side tracking of slight loss of contact with the paper or anything like that

I just printed the reference file again, I use the Datacolor colour reference image.

Comparing the print under a 5000°K light with the screen in Soft Proofing in Lightroom, it is very hard now to spot differences. I can see a blue sky appearing slightly cooler on the print. Maybe I could go through the profile optimization phase of the software.

In any case, this appears to be solved. Your answers helped by making me focus on being more rigorous. Thanks!

[Tony Weikert]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #4 on: March 20, 2023 at 4:22 pm

Good to hear that you are back on track.  Seems my post went AWOL; maybe as it was a first post or the included URL to Northlight Images broke the rules?

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Tony Weikert.

[Tony Weikert]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #5 on: March 20, 2023 at 5:58 pm

Tony Weikert wrote:

Good to hear that you are back on track.  Seems my post went AWOL; maybe as it was a first post or the included URL to Northlight Images broke the rules?

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Tony Weikert.

That would be a shame, it is a good website. Can’t imagine that?

[Tony Weikert]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #6 on: March 20, 2023 at 5:59 pm

Tony Weikert wrote:

Good to hear that you are back on track.  Seems my post went AWOL; maybe as it was a first post or the included URL to Northlight Images broke the rules?

• This reply was modified 2 months, 1 week ago by Tony Weikert.

I think it’s true with this forum, unlike many others, if you include URL hyperlinks the post is earmarked for review before being allowed on-site – this is a safety precaution, I understand.

Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

[Tony Weikert Participant Posts: 4]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #7 on: March 20, 2023 at 6:13 pm

Thanks Mark, will check out the rules as new to this forum.  I am all for safety measures that safeguard from the ‘wrong’ type of posters getting a hold

[Kevin Raber Silver Member Posts: 1163]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #8 on: March 21, 2023 at 4:41 pm

Yes it is a rule made by word press and a good one but a hassle.  I’ll check the forum posts and release it.

Kevin Raber
Publisher, photoPXL

[Mark D Segal Silver Member Posts: 781]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #9 on: March 21, 2023 at 5:34 pm

Funny – I had to rescue four PhotoPXL notifications from my Spam folder. I hope it’s “trained” now!  🙂

Mark D Segal Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8, SilverFast HDR, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop". Please check the PhotoPXL Store for availability.

[Tony Weikert Participant Posts: 4]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #10 on: March 22, 2023 at 5:49 am

Thank you 😊

[Stephane Bosman Participant Posts: 27]

Re: Calibrite ColorChecker Studio problem

Reply #11 on: April 6, 2023 at 12:36 am

Well, in the end, I sent it back to Amazon. That profile that looked successful with the test images from Keith Cooper proved unreliable on a shot I made of a newborn with her mother. Soft mixed lighting worked great on screen but once printed it turned too yellow, giving the mother and the baby an unhealthy look. I am not spending nearly 500€ on something I am not happy with.

The paper is Hahnemuhle Photo Luster and the printer Canon Pro-1000. The main reason to want my own profile is because the one provided by Hahnemuhle is made for the printer in Baryta Paper mode, which precludes using the top feeder.

I went back to my (very) old GretagMacbeth EyeOne (Revision A, even!) and produced a much better profile. Admittedly it took much more work, having to use ArgyllCMS and measuring 3,000 patches in strips of 21 with the EyeOne being no fun. But, in the end, I have a solid profile

Is it because that new low cost device is inferior to the 20 years-old EyeOne? Or because X-Rite went to far in the software simplification? I don’t know. I tried it with ArgyllCMS but with much less patches than for the EyeOne, the reason being the much larger patch size needed for a reliable scan with ColorChecker. The resulting profile was not good.

When I say the ColorChecker profiles profile are not good, it must be put in perspective. My wife finds the pictures printed with those “bad” profiles perfectly acceptable. I have to show her the differences and then she agrees. Or humours me 🙂

[Author]

Posts