- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 6,062
- Reaction score
- 7,234
- Points
- 363
- Location
- Germany
- Printer Model
- L805, WF2010, ET8550
I had a look to your profiles, there is the Epson XP-950 Premium Luster, that's tuned to cover tolerances in inks, the printer hardware/driver and manufacturing batches of papers, it is smoothed and averaged for that reason but nevertheless completely usable.
icm Profiles can be generated in 2 software versions - V2 and V4, both differ somewhat, V4 is newer, and not all graphics/printing software can handle V4 profiles. Differences are there, yes, the industry members of the ICC color consortium agreed on that newer version some time ago, differences are in the perceptual rendering, the transition area between colors in and out of gamut. But you cannot generally say that one version is 'better' than the other version. The Epson profile is V2 to make most universally usable in any software environment.
Your profile 'Kodak Ultra Premium' is of V2, and I can display those in a gamut viewer Monaco Gamutworks or Gamutvision, Gamutvision locks up with a V4 profile, so I only can discuss V2 profiles.
The wider translucent gamut body shows the Epson profile, the smaller one shows the Kodak Ultra Premium profile,
this is slightly smaller , both profiles have the same black level, the bottom tip.
This is the status at a medium lightness of L*=50, cutting through these volumes.
The green line covers a smaller color range, but I would think that this is only visible in prints in direct comparison and if such prints actually contain colors between the green and the red line.
It looks somewhat similar at a lower lightness, here at 20%
The Kodak profile is somewhat narrower than the Epson profile.
I cannot display your 3rd profile Kodak ultra studio, that is a V4 profile which I cannot display with my old software,
and Gamutvision locks up as well. This alone shouldn't be a reason for you not to use V4 profiles but as mentioned
you can get into some hiccups with V4 profiles with no real benefit otherwise. So I cannot give you an opinion about this profile.
You can easily set the version in the new Color Munki version, there should be a tab with profile options to select V2 or V4.
icm Profiles can be generated in 2 software versions - V2 and V4, both differ somewhat, V4 is newer, and not all graphics/printing software can handle V4 profiles. Differences are there, yes, the industry members of the ICC color consortium agreed on that newer version some time ago, differences are in the perceptual rendering, the transition area between colors in and out of gamut. But you cannot generally say that one version is 'better' than the other version. The Epson profile is V2 to make most universally usable in any software environment.
Your profile 'Kodak Ultra Premium' is of V2, and I can display those in a gamut viewer Monaco Gamutworks or Gamutvision, Gamutvision locks up with a V4 profile, so I only can discuss V2 profiles.
The wider translucent gamut body shows the Epson profile, the smaller one shows the Kodak Ultra Premium profile,
this is slightly smaller , both profiles have the same black level, the bottom tip.
This is the status at a medium lightness of L*=50, cutting through these volumes.
The green line covers a smaller color range, but I would think that this is only visible in prints in direct comparison and if such prints actually contain colors between the green and the red line.
It looks somewhat similar at a lower lightness, here at 20%
The Kodak profile is somewhat narrower than the Epson profile.
I cannot display your 3rd profile Kodak ultra studio, that is a V4 profile which I cannot display with my old software,
and Gamutvision locks up as well. This alone shouldn't be a reason for you not to use V4 profiles but as mentioned
you can get into some hiccups with V4 profiles with no real benefit otherwise. So I cannot give you an opinion about this profile.
You can easily set the version in the new Color Munki version, there should be a tab with profile options to select V2 or V4.