Any updates on targets or comments on advantages with i1Pro3? Wanting to up my protocols on profiling and eager to start. Happy new year!
Any target workflow you have currently can be adapted to Plus by simply opening the workflow, changing the device to i1Pro 3 plus, exporting the changed .tiff targets and printing those.
I will work on this in the next community edition update coming this month though.
best,
Walker
I have just started profiling with i1Profiler 3.3 and the i1Pro 3. You do not even have to switch the device. Just load the workflow file and click on profiling. Then i1Profiler will automatically detect the i1Pro 3 and you can calibrate it. The not so nice thing is, that you get 3 output files M0, M1 and M2. So far I have used the M0 file. I have started with the 256 step chart since I have run into problems with the 31x9 chart.
Btw, when you purchase an i1Pro 3 - for profiling PiezoPro you do not need any further licences. I had the Photo package on a dongle for the i1Pro 1 - and it is still working.
However, it looks like the installation of the i1Profiler 3 stopped the good old ColorPort from working under Mojave…
If you re-install ColorPort and XRD drivers it should work again.
-Walker
Thanks, good to know!
-Markus
Returned i13 Plus as I thought an additional $1500 for writing paper profiles was a bit over the top for alt processes. Ordering i1Pro 3 instead.
1 Like
I am just getting into this (day 1). Not sure I am following your instructions, Walker. I tried to load the workflow files from the i1 Profile folder, but they have a designation of Pro 2 and won’t load. I think i need more handholding, unfortunately.
You can see me do the loading of the workflow here:
If you are specifically printing the 16x21 target though look here for the workflow:
https://forums.piezography.com/uploads/short-url/7HxuktjP4ULGcQowmA03S6EDyfp.zip
best,
Walker
Walker, I am using the video and it is quite helpful. My issue seems to be the i1Pro2 workflow file cannot be used with the i1Pro 3 spectophotometer.
Not sure if this is correct but I did this to get the workflow file to work with my i1Pro 3
- Take the “w” out of the file extension of the work file. Change “xxx.pwxf” to" xxx.pxf"
- Load the work file (it will now be recognized)
- Change the patch size until the layout of the image looks like the test file (I can give you my settings for the 21x16 but not sure if yours will be different)
- Scan and measure as normal…
Works for me as I just linearized a new paper.
I should note that I am using an i1Pro 3 on a Mac (M1 chip) running Big Sur and i1Profiler version 3.4.0
Hope this helps
Howard
Would so love to be able to do bi-directional Single Scans. Are i1Pro3 PLUS targets and .pwxl files still on the horizon?
I can do but it requires bigger than letter size target . . .
maybe I put a video up on how to make targets.
This topic is a year old, but very relevant to me in 2022. As a newcomer to the Piezography community and to using a spectrophotometer, making the appropriate purchase choice must be based on other’s experience. The choice I see relevant for Piezography and related alt-processes, is picking up a used i1Pro 2 vs. a new i1Pro 3 or 3 Plus. I don’t want to get too tangled up in the “best” choice, but also don’t want to make this purchase again. The bottom line is which spectro provides the most practical balance of accuracy vs. cost that makes a difference in the print.
In my research review, the addition of the i1Pro 3 Plus has raised questions for me that prompted me to bring this to the forum. Should this technology be considered for profiling applications in piezography, DTP photogravure, and piezoDN? While I have come to the conclusion that any of these (i1Pro 2, 3, 3 Plus) will provide very good to excellent results for piezography, the Pro 3 Plus changes the game by providing an extended gamut in the shadow range. For color work, M3 provides a noticeable “deep color” benefit, especially in deep blues. Whether transmissive profiling is useful for piezoDN is another question. The obvious downside to the i1Pro 3 Plus is its higher cost and significantly larger profile patch size and likely needing to create my own targets for piezography. For those of you who use or have evaluated the benefits of the Pro 3 Plus, do you believe it provides a useful advance for your printmaking? Are you also performing color profiling or using the transmissive function of the i1Pro 3 Plus?
I spoke with Rick Hatmaker at Chromix, a color consulting firm local to me in Seattle that is well-known with an international reputation, and he confirms the M3 advantage for color profiling. Of course they are using high-end Barbieri and other instruments, but confirm the advantage of the technology they have had for several years and is now available in the i1Pro 3 Plus which they also sell. They offer a very cost-effective profiling subscription service oriented to photographers, “Color Valet Pro” that could certainly meet my color profiling needs; however, their custom bench services are not cost-effective for piezography. If I’m going to the expense of purchasing a spectro for piezography with use for DTP photogravure as well, and perhaps piezoDN, might the extended shadow gamut of M3 be applicable?
I look forward to hearing the wisdom of the community!
The best measurement is a measurement done at least twice.
By that I mean, accuracy in monochromatic measurements and with alt process etc, is defined by averaging multiple equal patches. That means small patches repeated several times on different parts of the sheet of paper.
i1 Pro v1, v2, v3 (not plus) is the best for monochrome because of this.
-Walker
Thanks Walker! The obvious solution to achieve the iterative measurements of same patch values with a spectro requiring larger patches is to use more paper with appropriately sized targets. That’s a gimme. The real issue is whether the newer technology offers us anything meaningful. Without comparative testing for our commonly used media and processes, it becomes conjecture. The newer technology does seem to offer the potential for a significant benefit, but where’s the evidence? Not likely we’re going to see it from X-rite.
If there are members who own, have owned or made comparison between the Pro 2 and 3 or 3 Plus, even anecdotal experience becomes very valuable to us as a community, and what I remain hopeful someone with that experience can contribute.
At my stage of learning piezography, this is likely the least important question I need to address except that it will require the outlay of a significant chunk of change to purchase a new spectro, and thus to my frugal mind it does matter. Thanks again for your guidance. I’ll accept that any of the above will do just fine, with your preference for the smaller aperture spectros.
Calibrating with i1Pro 3 Plus now for a couple years has gotten to be straight forward, though the larger patches required makes each calibration a bit more costly, I am by far happier with the results than with earlier x-rite i1Pro products. Especially with Alt processes. I have added 2 iPhone pics of just printed PtPd prints. One high contrast the other nothing but mid-tones.
Thanks for sharing your experience Don. Nice work and great examples.
My use will be for DTP Photogravure, but suspect the benefits of the i1Pro 3 will transfer similar to alt processes. Using a spectro is new for me, so learning to create my own targets seems like a necessary next step if going to the larger aperture. Since I posted earlier, I’ve picked up a i1Pro 2 at a good value, but will keep this in mind as I gain more experience.
Can you recommend any good links/sites for instruction on creating targets?
It is really straight forward. Import the .pwxf files you want into i1Profiler, open Page Data in step 1, then you can select the target in Assets when you open Profile, then select an appropriate paper size for the large patches (.630x.630) 11x17, 13x19, and save the file right out of i1Profiler, print as normal with QTR (Print Tool MAC). Follow Piezo profiling instructions. Thats it.
Thanks again Don! Really appreciate the guidance.