Creating an excellent profile with i1Photo Pro 2?

[Robert Graham]

I have been on a quest to find the most accurate profile for my photo editing needs. I have tried SpyderPrint, Colormunki Photo, and the i1Photo Pro 2. I have found that the Colormunki provides very good profiles considering the 50+50 target that is used. I thought the i1Pro would be able to do noticeably better. But this has not turned out to be the case. I have analyzed Delta-E values using each printer profile on various printer test images. I am finding the performance of the Colormunki and i1Pro to be pretty comparable. This has surprised me.

Using i1Photo, I first generate about 1400 patches specifically using targets with an amount of included grey scales. I wait until the next morning to make my measurements. I make the selections in i1Profiler that I think would provide the best quality results, defaulting most selections. I then generate the profile. I would think it should be was simple as this. But I do not end up with a superior profile. I even measured each strip of patches carefully, not going too fast.

So what am I doing wrong?

I am thinking part of the problem is that I am not allowing for OBA in the paper. The other part of the problem may be the limitations of the printer I am using. I am profiling Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster with the Canon PIXMA Pro-10 printer. I am expecting better performance from a device that costs well over $1000.

Bob Graham

 

[Roy Sletcher]

I have been on a quest to find the most accurate profile for my photo editing needs. I have tried SpyderPrint, Colormunki Photo, and the i1Photo Pro 2. I have found that the Colormunki provides very good profiles considering the 50+50 target that is used. I thought the i1Pro would be able to do noticeably better. But this has not turned out to be the case. I have analyzed Delta-E values using each printer profile on various printer test images. I am finding the performance of the Colormunki and i1Pro to be pretty comparable. This has surprised me.

Using i1Photo, I first generate about 1400 patches specifically using targets with an amount of included grey scales. I wait until the next morning to make my measurements. I make the selections in i1Profiler that I think would provide the best quality results, defaulting most selections. I then generate the profile. I would think it should be was simple as this. But I do not end up with a superior profile. I even measured each strip of patches carefully, not going too fast.

So what am I doing wrong?

I am thinking part of the problem is that I am not allowing for OBA in the paper. The other part of the problem may be the limitations of the printer I am using. I am profiling Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster with the Canon PIXMA Pro-10 printer. I am expecting better performance from a device that costs well over $1000.

Bob Graham

You may not be doing anything wrong. I have read several reviews and evaluations from others who have come to the conclusion that there is very little visual difference between the two..

To paraphrase Andrew Rodney, `The colormunki gives extremely good profiles even with its 50+50 patches.``

I nearly bought the pro2 after I gave up on the Spyderprint a few years ago, but still waiting for some hard facts that would justify a cost about 3 times the colormunki cost.

Your mileage may vary.

RS

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

'I am expecting better performance from a device that costs well over $1000.'

There are/were several other threads running here on Spyder vs. ColorMunki, on profile assessment with Gamutvision, profile generation with ArgyllCMS etc.
There is an overall/common opinion that the Spyder profiles are not considered as good profiles, although it is
difficult in this discussion to have a common understanding what a 'good' or 'better' profile actually is.
OBA's need to be taken into account, at the time of profile generation, with the viewing conditions.
The gamut and black level values should show whether an Epson paper on a Canon printer is a good combination, or whether other papers show better results in this respect.

 

[RogerB]

I have been on a quest to find the most accurate profile for my photo editing needs. I have tried SpyderPrint, Colormunki Photo, and the i1Photo Pro 2. I have found that the Colormunki provides very good profiles considering the 50+50 target that is used. I thought the i1Pro would be able to do noticeably better. But this has not turned out to be the case. I have analyzed Delta-E values using each printer profile on various printer test images. I am finding the performance of the Colormunki and i1Pro to be pretty comparable. This has surprised me.

Can you expand a bit on how you are evaluating the profiles and what leads you to the conclusion that they are not good enough? I take it that you are using a software tool for this, so what dE values are you seeing, and in what colours?

Using i1Photo, I first generate about 1400 patches specifically using targets with an amount of included grey scales. I wait until the next morning to make my measurements. I make the selections in i1Profiler that I think would provide the best quality results, defaulting most selections. I then generate the profile. I would think it should be was simple as this. But I do not end up with a superior profile. I even measured each strip of patches carefully, not going too fast.

So what am I doing wrong?

Probably nothing at all.

I am thinking part of the problem is that I am not allowing for OBA in the paper. The other part of the problem may be the limitations of the printer I am using. I am profiling Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster with the Canon PIXMA Pro-10 printer. I am expecting better performance from a device that costs well over $1000.

Bob Graham

If I remember correctly the Epson papers do not have very high OBA levels in the coatings so I wouldn't expect this to be a big factor. Apart from that, I'm not at all sure that OBA effects would show up in a purely mathematical analysis of a profile. If your biggest errors are in very light colours then maybe OBAs are playing a part, but if they are in denser or more saturated colours it seems unlikely.

Would you care to share one (or two) of your profiles so that we could have a look at them ourselves? If you change the file extension to .txt you can upload them here.

 

[Emulator]

If you change the file extension to .txt you can upload them here.

These are not Argyll profiles, but Xrite etc. and are subject to company copyright, so I don't think that is wise.

 

[pharmacist]

Spyder4print is horrible. I never got good profiles with this device. Even with the infamous blue to purple shift correction trick did not correct this problem completely. Colormunki really does an amazing good job with only 50 + 50 patches.

I now create very neutral profiles with ArgyllCMS with only 480 patches on a single A4 sheet and the results are even better to the Colormunki method with 2 extra optimizations. However: the patches must be clean and untouched by smudges, stripes or scratches or errors will occur in your profile. I compared them to 960 and even higher count patches, but I couldn't see any improvement at all.

 

[RogerB]

These are not Argyll profiles, but Xrite etc. and are subject to company copyright, so I don't think that is wise.

I'm not suggesting that they would be offered as "generic" profiles - purely for research purposes, which is normally allowed by copyright laws...... however.....

...if the OP feels uncomfortable about sharing them perhaps he might like to do it via a private message.