Anyone encounter this problem-
Just built some new profiles with V5.02 and when I soft proofed with them in PSCS, the Simulate Paper White option was grayed out. I’ve never seen this before and recent profiles built with 5.0 (and 5.01 I think) do not exhibit this problem.
Details - WinXP, Dual P4, 2GB RAM, TC9.18 printed via IP 5.6 on 7600, read with Measure tool (spectral) and EyeOne. Paper is Epson FA UltraSmooth 500gsm sheet.
Did I find a bug or is it perhaps a ICC V4 issue with PSCS?
Any help appreciated!
I just did the same (just in an Epson 4000) and I have no problem. My profile was build with ICCv4.
Xavier
At 5:27 PM -0800 12/29/04, Greg Barnett wrote:
Anyone encounter this problem-
Just built some new profiles with V5.02 and when I soft proofed with them in PSCS, the Simulate Paper White option was grayed out. I’ve never seen this before and recent profiles built with 5.0 (and 5.01 I think) do not exhibit this problem.
Details - WinXP, Dual P4, 2GB RAM, TC9.18 printed via IP 5.6 on 7600, read with Measure tool (spectral) and EyeOne. Paper is Epson FA UltraSmooth 500gsm sheet.
Did I find a bug or is it perhaps a ICC V4 issue with PSCS?
Any help appreciated!
Hi Greg,
I have seen this “problem” when I chose a profile that was build using the old CMYK setup engine in Photoshop. They have a
“pure” D50 paper white (no true paper white in the profile) so Photoshop knows it can’t simulate that and disables the paper white option…
perhaps the white point of your new profile is very close to 100,0,0 Lab?
Can you take a look and let us know? I curious about this one… perhaps PM 5.02 is generating white points that are “off” sometimes…
Xavier’s experience of it working add to the mystery!
Regards,
Steve
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
o ColorGear ColorThink ColorValet ColorSmarts ProfileCentral
–
Post generated from email list
perhaps the white point of your new profile is very close to 100,0,0 Lab?
Can you take a look and let us know? I curious about this one… >perhaps PM 5.02 is generating white points that are “off” sometimes…
Hi Steve-
Here’s what I found, the media white point is 100,-0.11,2.79
I did some other tests using measurement data from earlier profiles of same paper (but from roll stock). The new profiles created in 5.02 using the same settings did not replicate the “problem.” Tried the same thing with data from other papers and paper white always shows up. Then I built new profiles from the data set in question and even with other settings, same result, no paper white.
So perhaps it is something about this batch of paper? Or maybe my EyeOne is a little whacked?.. The stock is so thick I can’t run it through my iCColor to compare.
I can send you the profile for a look if you’d like.
Thanks.
Greg
At 8:04 AM -0800 12/31/04, Greg Barnett wrote:
perhaps the white point of your new profile is very close to 100,0,0 Lab?
Can you take a look and let us know? I curious about this one… >perhaps PM 5.02 is generating white points that are “off” sometimes…
Hi Steve-
Here’s what I found, the media white point is 100,-0.11,2.79
yeah, interesting… anything with L=100 should have a and b as 0,0. I think this is the reason that PS doesn’t give you a white point sim option. Now, why the white is so hot in the profile arouses my curiosity… can you send me a copy of the profile?
I did some other tests using measurement data from earlier profiles of same paper (but from roll stock). The new profiles created in 5.02 using the same settings did not replicate the “problem.” Tried the same thing with data from other papers and paper white always shows up. Then I built new profiles from the data set in question and even with other settings, same result, no paper white.
right. It might be the measurement set,
So perhaps it is something about this batch of paper?
possibly
Or maybe my EyeOne is a little whacked?..
less likely but still possible
The stock is so thick I can’t run it through my iCColor to compare.
ah. too bad. it’s nice to have a point of comparison. If you want to drop a piece of the paper in the mail to us we can give the paper white a quick read with one (or more) of our instruments
I can send you the profile for a look if you’d like.
yes, please.
Regards,
Steve
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
–
Post generated from email list
At 8:04 AM -0800 12/31/04, Greg Barnett wrote:
perhaps the white point of your new profile is very close to 100,0,0 Lab?
Can you take a look and let us know? I curious about this one… >perhaps PM 5.02 is generating white points that are “off” sometimes…
Hi Steve-
Here’s what I found, the media white point is 100,-0.11,2.79
OK… I found a number of things:
-
this is a v2.4 profile, not 4.x. I don’t think this is relevant though.
-
the white point and 20 other measurements are in fact ABOVE 100 (up to 101). White point is at 101.2,0.1,3.2
In general this is bad. I suspect bad calibration leading to bad measurements. I would try calibrating again and reading again.
You can also run the i1 diagnostics on the instrument and see what it says.
Anything above 100 is not strange, it’s bad.
make sense?
Regards,
Steve
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
–
Post generated from email list
At 8:04 AM -0800 12/31/04, Greg Barnett wrote:
perhaps the white point of your new profile is very close to 100,0,0 Lab?
Can you take a look and let us know? I curious about this one… >perhaps PM 5.02 is generating white points that are “off” sometimes…
oh yeah… also…
what is that target? It looks like the 9.18 but there are tons of RGB patches along the side…?
Regards,
Steve
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
–
Post generated from email list
oh yeah… also…
what is that target? It looks like the 9.18 but there are tons of RGB patches along the side…?
Hi Steve-
It was the i1 target that came with 5.02. It does have a bunch of patches running down the side, quite different from the previous version. I was suprised when I first saw it but figured they must have reconfigured it for a reason and decided to not use the older target that I still have.
As for the high readings - yes that makes sense. I don’t use my i1 very often so I’ll run the diagnostics as you suggested. It calibrated ok when I read the target. We have several other i1’s around here so I’ll also take one home to compare with mine.
Guess I was pretty lucky that the profile and the images I needed to get out worked together! I had a limited quantity of the heavy sheet stock and it was a one shot-deal…
Thanks for taking the time to dig into this, really appreciate it Steve.
Greg
At 7:27 AM -0800 1/4/05, Greg Barnett wrote:
oh yeah… also…
what is that target? It looks like the 9.18 but there are tons of RGB patches along the side…?
Hi Steve-
It was the i1 target that came with 5.02. It does have a bunch of patches running down the side, quite different from the previous version. I was suprised when I first saw it but figured they must have reconfigured it for a reason and decided to not use the older target that I still have.
interesting… I’ll have to find out why they did this… no big deal but I like to know their thinking…
As for the high readings - yes that makes sense. I don’t use my i1 very often so I’ll run the diagnostics as you suggested. It calibrated ok when I read the target. We have several other i1’s around here so I’ll also take one home to compare with mine.
sounds good
Guess I was pretty lucky that the profile and the images I needed to get out worked together! I had a limited quantity of the heavy sheet stock and it was a one shot-deal…
well that is an interesting point. Sometimes you can get readings that are not necessarily a good indication of how a print appears (so the proofing capability of the profile is sub-optimal) but they sample the print output effectively enough to still built good rendering tables in the profile… strange but I’ve seen it before. That’s why I tend to experiment with filters, etc even though “logic” might tell me that it won’t work the way I want it to.
Thanks for taking the time to dig into this, really appreciate it Steve.
no problem, happy to help.
Regards,
Steve
o Steve Upton CHROMiX www.chromix.com
o (hueman) 866.CHROMiX
–
Post generated from email list
Steve-
An update, the instrument checks out ok so I’m re-reading the target and will do a comparison of the data files.
Wondering if there may be something going on with the measure tool? I’m also going to do a set of readings off my G5 (originals done on XP) as a further comparison.
Will keep you posted.
Greg
