What color space does the 3880 really cover?

[berserk]

Ink stained Fingers:
That's by far not possible

We all know that - totally agree - but......!

Ink stained Fingers:
Did you do actual print tests with your hypotheses, and are they as you expect them to be - in terms of color rendition ?

Did You - if then YOUR conclusions? I have mine -!et's compare/discuss...

-------------
(OK we are just now talking printing -nothing else)
Mine - in the wider (WG) the working space and assigned workspace give the better subjective result! Whatever right space/ink/paper/profile that printer has sometimes that give tiny results however sometimes significant. And choosing intent is sometimes important. More in WG. But its like roulette - with a real good paper/ink/profile absolute intent is good but even"let printer manage color" might give subjective better result.

As said - we are all inside a color fence with the rest of our own real perspective color perception outside that fence. So as You said above - everything is impossible and we can only make illusions of how reality looks.

But lets fool and imitate!!
Not???

Photo art is another matter - some sort of freedom - just playing, using and enjoying all digital color restrictions. Publish it on the web with users with a monitor with at most 60% sRGB and enjoying it - and even winning photo contests with that..

 

[berserk]

A little twist! Perhaps a bit provoking....
I want to print with an as big color-space as possible.
This thread "What color space does the 3880 really cover?" with profile studies shows.


1/ 3880 is not enough
2/ Cone pro colors and others inks used here in this thread are not enough.
3/ Sihl "satin" is shit! (my own conclusion)

I probably must wait some years for a printer and a ink that's up to my demands!

Until then I'll imitate real life colors or using my outfit for "artistic" photographing.
Doing the last - there I'm pretty good - but replicate a famous painting is impossible.
The gamut of an oil painting is bigger than You think. An real artist/painter uses blends of colors that are perceptive for humans but not by my outfit - especially if you are printing on canvas with "narrower" profiles-
Test photos with X-rite "colorchecker" on a paintings might be very good but the painting itself is out of gamut with my outfit and thereby destroyed by the rendering intents.

That's why I'm happy reading this thread - it made me understand my shortcomings and why my outfit is not up to it.

I'm just imitating real life colors!

By the way - Photoshop can not use exact settings when using "Kodak Color Print Viewing Filter Kit" (Google!) from my wet darkroom.
Using them there in the wet darkroom you just You dialed in the RGB/YMC a compensating setting and an compensating exposure setting on the color head - voila- and there you was near 97% true and the rest was by taste. I also have noticed that quality wet photo color paper has bigger color space than my outfit. Photoshop should have exact numeric settings - not just sliders - a shortcoming of all serious photo-editors.

OK - there is a rule - "Work optimal with what You have!"
That's what I'm doing and thinking that way - I'm rather happy with my results.
Happy but never fully satisfied - it could always be better! However that's still more $$$$$$...

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

I think I would like to come to some conclusion, as long as you are of complete control of the imaging process from taking/creating the image to print and you have suitable equipment and software available supporting it you are best off using a wide color space.
Rendering intents are separate from the color space, it's rules - by formula and/or table - to map image colors to available output colors and how to treat out of gamut colors, so yes, the output should be different when using different rendering intents.
Conecolor Pro inks deliver a pretty wide gamut, but I found P600 inks by precisioncolors very close within a few % at a more affordable price.
If you are not not happy with the Sihl silk paper choose another one, there are plenty out there.
But if you are not happy with the gamuts aqueous inks can deliver overall - on the 3880 or another similar printer you may go a step further and test solvent inks, eco-solvent inks, UV curable inks, latex inks whatever else the professional printing market can offer you. Some of those are claimed to offer a wider gamut, but I just don't know I never tested them, the printer hardware is not available in smaller formats unless I would use some Chinese retrofit for my printer, solvents may be aggressive to the plastics used and need replacement like the ink tubing to the printhead.
But I don't agree that the wet color process has a wider gamut, I have tested several photo services and gave them profile target sheets to process, their gamut is significantly below the gamut I can get with an Epson photo printer on decent glossy photo paper.

 

[The Hat]

@berserk, What I can gather from your long posts is that you’re seeking an elusive print solution that will satisfy yourself made lust for perfection, which doesn’t exist, Quote:- @Roy Sketcher.... “It depends".

You’ve backed yourself into a cul-de-sac and can’t explain exactly what you’re looking for, so you proceed to condemn and blame everything for your own short comings, Quote:- “they’re all Shite” your words but somehow you think you are right. !

Take back control of your printer, paper, ink and colour combination, you’re getting nowhere and I reckon you should try to relax and enjoy what your producing again, if it’s not satisfying to you, then change it, but above all be patient there’s no time limit and spending $$$ won't fix the problem either..
P.S. hair loss tends to be permanent...

 

[berserk]

OK! Just show me a printer/ink that I can buy that at least shows the full Adobe RGB or more.

What I see in ColorThink Pro and Gamutvision hits me hard.

I thought I had good gear - but You pals did show me how bad it is.
A crimped Trabant well inside just the sRGB-space.

That said - I must use the gear and become an artist instead and be famous for imitating colors in a appealing way.

I shall start with trying to use just a limited part of all words in my own native language to try describe what I want - in a nice appealing way and perhaps lying a bit.

I like challenges!
In Swedish military I learnt the expression "Alltid gilla läget!!!"
That is something like. "Always Just love the situation!!!"

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

Just get one of the latest large LCD displays - wide gamut - HDR etc and display your images on the screen instead of printing them out

 

[martin0reg]

...
What I see in ColorThink Pro and Gamutvision hits me hard.

I thought I had good gear - but You pals did show me how bad it is.
A crimped Trabant well inside just the sRGB-space.
...

As already been said, there is the ink and the paper which is limiting the gamut.
And what you are looking at is a kind of mathematical map generated by a measuring device...not a photograph..

BTW I wonder how good is our own "gear" - our eyesight?!
It reminds me of art history and Claude Monet's eyes...
http://www.skepticalartist.com/2013...er-impressionist-painter-have-uv-supervision/
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/april11/med-optart-041107.html

 

[berserk]

Just get one of the latest large LCD displays - wide gamut - HDR etc and display your images on the screen instead of printing them out

Yes - that's what I Did, however just FHD (1920×1080 px; also known as full HD)
I did hurt a bit - it was not one of the cheapest in that area - (however I "can afford" - as they say).

One of the best things I ever did. I did it in in purpose of getting more "cream" in photo editing - mainly for printing purpose. However read the whole of this thread. --- ---

It's calibrated with Displaycal (I1profiler was not up there). As the authorizers of Displaycal suggested I first made an correction-matrix with I1pro2 and then used I1 Display pro to use that matrix and run an one hour extensive calibration at D55. That is - getting the best out of the resp. advantages of calorimeter vs spectrometer in a combined profile. WOW!!!!!

Yes - as you said above - I mainly enjoy my photos there. Love it! What a lift.

Soft-proofing there before printing hurts and reveal a lot of 3880/Cone color short comings. However - soft proofing has always for me been a bit hit or miss for me so I mostly do it the old way - that is hard proofing on cut down paper.

You can not use that WG monitor on the Internet - as most pics there are not color managed with proper profiles - pics looks most of the time crazy. On the web sRGB rules.

And for the printing, yes I can produce better imitations of what I shoot.

So for mainly surfing and other things I use my quality sRGB- monitor.

I think I'll look more into my BW-printing in the future.
Sound easy but for me it's more demanding - I think in an other way there - from shoot to print.

And hey pals - also there are other things out there than printing!

 

[berserk]

As already been said, there is the ink and the paper which is limiting the gamut.
And what you are looking at is a kind of mathematical map generated by a measuring device...not a photograph..

Sadly - so true, so true!
Not a photograph... as You said.

It just, at the best of it's ability, describe the intended scene.
That's why some call it "art" and some call themselves "artists".

However - let's continue with that.

 

[Roy Sletcher]

Just a few random comments based on the content of some messages on this thread.

Not sure of the end game for "Berserk's" questions, and it may be more a communication issue:

You seem to be asking for a champagne solution with a beer budget.

If your intent is high end colour reproduction then you are going to have to spend the Dollars or Euros to achieve that. This means several thousand dollars for a high end monitor, digital strength spectro, a powerful RIP. That gets you in for approx $12,000 - 15,000 with more to follow. Every device in you reproductive chain has to be top-of-the line. What camera are you using to capture the scene? Do you think Pixar, Disney Studios, or Imax are using the mickey mouse hobbyist tools we drool over? Oh, by the way it is harder to use these tools properly than it is to buy them.

Terms like best colour, accurate colour, real colour, etc are all misleading unless quantified with values. Do you have a clear idea of your realistic objectives. See my final question.

Another reality check - Printers do not have gamut specifications. For the record the Pro 3880 can, under correct conditions exceed AdobeRGB1988 colour space. This info is readily available from internet sources. Also you can use wide gamut monitors for the internet and colour reproduction. I have been doing it for years. You have to adjust your applications and workflow accordingly.

Nothing wrong with reproducing the best colour you can with the equipment you have. Just recognise it for what it is - the best colour you can reproduce with the tools you have available.

Nowadays you can buy a scanner for $99.00 that would have cost $50,000 25 years ago. Be grateful for the advances that permit this.

And, a final question - Humble 8 bit JPG's in the sRGB colour space give you 16.7 million colour values that can be achieved really economically' Is this not enough for your works of art? If not, why not?

I know I sometimes come across as abrasive. Not my intent. Trying to be respectful, and more importantly VERY VERY CLEAR.



rs