PanosJani i'l try it.
PanosJani i'l try it.
i use chromix and curve2
But neither Chromix (I'm guessing you actually mean) ColorThink or Curve 2 are a profile creation app as their core purpose & certainly neither app could be considered "Complete profiling Tool".
What kind of printer/press/whatever are you using Curve 2 to calibrate or profile?
Witch of this programs that you all discuss suports printers with 12 colors?. I have a canon ipf 8300 and after changing the ink the colors went craizy.
Usually the RIP will be set up to smoothly transition between inks at certain points and then you profile as a CMYK or RGB device.
The most important consideration concerning the profile target is simply what colour space the profile is being created for, RGB, CMYK or n-channel. There could be just 4 inks or there could be 44 inks but the profile target will still have the same number of patches. Number of inks/channels makes absolutely no difference as the profile target is only concerned with the output, not what is on the input side.
In reference to your Canon iPF8300, please tell me you did not use anything other than 100% genuine Canon inks. What do you actually mean by "after changing the ink"? What did you change it to? If you used any brand of 3rd party or replacement or non-genuine inks, that right there is your problem. Switch back to Canon inks & problem solved.
Regarding profile applications, as above, the profile is only concerned with output, not what is happening on the input side because the same profile creation app will work with a 3 colour true-RGB printer, 4 colour CMYK printer or as many inks/colours as can be shoved into a printer (20, 30, more?) will still work.
Really, a printer like your iPF8300 should be causing absolutely no problems at all & with such an expensive machine, any problems should be taken care of immediately by the Canon warranty & the place of purchase should be able to help with most any problems you run into.
I'm very curious about the "changing the ink" which has caused your problems. Please elaborate on this.
What do you mean about the ancient SpectroEye "is the most recommended one"? It is so old now & has been far & away surpassed in quality & the speed is just horrendous, so incredibly slow. Many instruments today are far more consistent & much easier to use.
Also, ceramic tiles can be extremely stable or not at all stable, it just depends on your reference point & how accurate/pedantic a person wants to be. For 99% of users I am sure BCRA ceramic tiles are very stable & they would never even need to think about the actual tile drifting. More than likely most instruments which are not 'lab grade' wouldn't even measure the drift of a ceramic tile.
How can 12 inks be too many to practically sample? If that was the case, how could anyone produce profiles for Canon's printers, or even Canon include canned profiles? Your statement just doesn't make sense.
This has nothing to do with gamut, which increases very little for each additional channel once you go past 3 channels with well placed primaries.
The only reason 12 inks can be profiled is because they are combined into fewer logical channels, and because the profiling apps leave out parts of device space that are unlikely to significantly increase gamut and/or are unusable for reasons like ink limits. (e.g. they wouldn't make a patch with all 12 channels at 100%)
I'm curious, why are you so much against multi-ink printers & multi-ink printing in general? Do you not like the incredible prints which can be output with the current technology? Would you prefer everything to be dull & lifeless & with huge, horrible grain patterns throughout a print? Also the huge vibrant gamut of the current printers allows for some beautiful images to be printed which previously just looked wrong because the colours being output to paper were nothing like either the original colours or what the artist had envisioned the final output to look like. I know that even in my own library of images, I can remember not being able to print extremely saturated or vibrant colours which occur in natural settings such as flowers, insects, landscapes, sunsets, etc. which I just simply could not reproduce on paper to a level that satisfied me or comes close to what the original colours were like. Now, with the current technology I am able to achieve most of those previously unattainable hues & with vibrant, saturated detail.
It has nothing to do with colour gamut. You could put the same ink in two tanks and it would still add a dimension in device space even though colour gamut stays almost the same (it may increase slightly since you can reach stronger densities)
So adding the 4th ink, black, has a modest increase in gamut - in the dark tones. Then, adding light cyan and magenta gives a very small increase in gamut - in the light saturated colours. Light/very light black probably don't add to the gamut at all. Orange/Green/Red/Purple/Blue add a modest amount in their respective saturated areas.
Note that small doesn't mean insignificant. Those increases in gamut can be very significant if you are trying to print detail in those areas or if a target colour must be met. And obviously there are other advantages besides increased gamut such as increased smoothness and blacks that match the sheen of the paper.
But the RIPs are currently still quite immature in dealing with colour beyond CMYK and that partly has to do with the huge size of device space. It is important to know both the benefits and limitations so you can get the best out of them.
I use Profile Maker, and are normally happy with the same profile, with many of the requirements
GMG COLORPROOF is a good choice.EFI COLORPROOF based on ICC output modalities have limitations, may cause problems too much, do not recommend the use of.