As I understand you are trying to compare the same prints made on two different systems.
One is Piezography Pro on an EPSON 3880 and the other is ConeColor on a 3800.
You encountered some page setup issues early which you seemed to have resolved. Now you are analyzing the differences in measurements of Piezography and ConeColor targets.
Are you actually trying to compare the prints and their differences on different systems, or are you attempting to make them the same, or just trying to understand how they are different?
What is your purpose of measuring differences in the data derived from the two different systems?
The purpose of doing the measurements is that when I soft proof each of the icc profiles it shows that same visually. When I print the image for each printer, I get two different images… so the soft proofing is off.
I tried creating a icc profile with 256 points but the PPET seem to give me a bogus profile. I then saw that Walker recommended using a 21 sample target and I created the icc profile using that target.
The problem I can see with the data across the 256 point is that the is a large variance across a relatively small number of samples of the 256. Considering that I used only 21 samples for the profile, I’m losing that information because it was averaged down to 1-3 samples of the 21. I think I need help in using a icc profile that uses 256 points instead of 21.
You would need to soft proof differently with a Piezography ICC than you do with an EPSON RGB ICC. The difference being the settings in the Soft Proof window in Photoshop.
With the Piezography ICC you would need check to on Preserve RGB Numbers. With the EPSON you would not check Preserve RGB Numbers and instead use Perceptual with BPC.
If you do this do the Soft Proofs more match the output. It won’t match exactly and will be closest if you are using a dimming viewing booth at the same brightness as your display. But are they closer to what you were expecting if you set the Soft Proof settings as to my suggestions?
Sorry I missed your other question. Yes, for soft proofing Piezography 21 steps is adequate and the recommended workflow. For the EPSON RGB you simply use the EPSON RGB ICC profile that you made regardless of the amount of color patches.
BTW… I don’t understand why it would be ok to soft proof with 21 points. That is what I’m doing and it doesn’t appear to be working. I think the data for the 256 points explains why it doesn’t. The points where most of my image gets printed is the area of the points that are flagged as the outliers of the data.
To make this a tat easier, I was going to attach a spreadsheet, but it doesn’t allow me.
I copied the data in the tab labeled Piezo ICC Profile Data in and created a file with a type .ti3. When I drag it over to Piezo ICC Profiler it gives me a read error.
You are creating a soft proofing profile of contrast and color. You do not need more than 21 steps to describe that relationship if the curve you used to print the 21 step is linearized. Make sure that you produce a validation measurement of your last new curve to make certain it is linear. The idea is to first create a fully linearized curve. Once you have you print the 21 step target. It is just a visual interpretation of the 256 step curve. This is why 21 steps is adequate for soft proofing. Does that make more sense for you now?
The documentation should include that you need put the .it3 file into the tools folder with Piezography-ICC-Profiler. It is the only way it can process the .it3 file. Try that and it should work for you.
OK… I just printed a copy using the 256 step curve and one for the 21 curve. They both have the same problem. The soft proof is right-on for the color profile, but doesn’t match for the piezo.
Tomorrow, once the prints dry, I’ll scan them to show what the differences are. Maybe I’m expecting too much with soft proofing with piezo. I’ve been soft proofing for years using the non-piezo icc profiles and I’ve that that has set my expectations.
Did you check Preserve RGB Numbers for the Piezography ICC in the Customize Proof Condition in Photoshop? That should look exactly like the attached image including the Paper Color and Black ink (of course the Device to Simulate would be the Piezography ICC profile you made):
If you did customize that same way and there still is not a match you might have a workflow issue that is being overlooked, something that could affect both your Piezography printing and your ICC profile making and also possibly your linearizations although that is a slightly different workflow.
With the image that you have determined is not matching, please post screenshots of that image in PrintTool and all of the settings you used to hand it off to QTR to print it. Please post a screenshot of the QTR settings that you used to print it. I will try and see if I can spot something unusual.
This very well could be a workflow issue. That’s what I’m hoping.
The icc profile that I created for piezo was generated by using the steps in this posting:
There is an easier way if just building soft proof profiles for linear/color match. print the 21step target, measure and save the measurement data as CGATS. The drag this over QTR-Create-ICC-RGB to build the soft proof profile.
best, Walker
I never saw the dialogue in the box above. Where does the dialogue box show up?
BTW… I’m using Lightroom… but I’m not printing using LR. Instead, I’m exporting the image to a .tif and using Epson Print layout for the 3800 and Print Tool for the 3880.
Ah, that explains the issues you’re encountering. To clarify, Lightroom’s color management architecture differs significantly from Photoshop’s, particularly in the context of advanced printing workflows like Piezography.
When I joined InkjetMall, I was also a Lightroom user. Jon, the owner of both InkjetMall and Cone Editions Press, provided me with hands-on training at Cone Editions Press. This experience highlighted the limitations of Lightroom for precise printing, especially when using custom ICC profiles like those for Piezography.
Specifically, Lightroom lacks the comprehensive Adobe Color Management (CM) system found in Photoshop. This limitation prevents the proper application of Piezography ICC profiles, as Lightroom doesn’t offer the necessary “Preserve RGB Numbers” functionality required for accurate Piezography profile rendering.
I recommend exploring Adobe Photoshop as a solution. I suggest downloading a trial version to evaluate its suitability for your workflow. Photoshop’s robust CM system allows for precise control over color spaces and profile application, and direct pixel editing make it a more suitable tool for high-fidelity printing with Piezography systems.
You can certainly use both apps in tandem. Remember to set your LR export space as Adobe RGB (1998). Then bring the image into PS and SoftProof with your Piezography ICC and perform your final contrast edit.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
I have Photoshop, and I started with Photoshop years ago and found that it was too cumbersome to use. In the last few years, they have enhanced Lightroom considerably to the point the it now does everything I needed to do in Photoshop. There is no going back in my book. As a photographer, I don’t need to be tweaking pixels… which is the only thing Photoshop has over LR.
I do have to say that I never like Lightroom printing interface (or Photoshop’s as well). I don’t use it. I use Epson Print Layout instead. Epson Print Layout is more functional than either Lightroom or Photoshop. You should take a look at it.
That all said, I’m wondering why we’re even talking about LR or Photoshop. I’m printing the same image outside of either program. I’m using Print Tool with a .tif file for piezo and Epson Print Layout for color. I’m using Adobe RGB (1998) for colorspace. Using Print Tool you can do soft proofing if you select print tool managed. Then you select soft proofing. I can use either the profile for the 3800 or 3880, and I see the same image on the screen. I can select some other paper and the image is updated to reflect that paper, so it appears to be working. The problem comes down to the image I see displayed in Print Tool (with soft proofing) does not match what comes out from the printer of piezo (3889). It does match if I change the printer to the 3800 and print on it via Print Tool. So this appears to be a problem with piezo printing.
Do you see an issue with anything that I’ve done that maybe explains this?
This is my last post of the weekend. I only come on a few times during Saturday. I’ll be back online Monday.
We were talking about Photoshop and LR because you were trying to soft proof both a color RGB printer profile (which works well in LR) and a Piezography ICC profile (which can not work in LR) and I explained to you that that is not possible with the Piezography ICC profile because LR does not have a complete Adobe CM system as does Photoshop. Therefore previewing Piezography prints by Soft Proof is only available in Photoshop because it has a manual Preserve RGB Numbers feature. I was attempting to manage your expectations. I believe that all of the other issues have been explained to you by Jon in previous replies and I explained the SoftProofing.
Hope you have a better printing experience this weekend and you edit your images to your satisfaction in Photoshop with SoftProof and Preserve RGB Numbers checked using your hardware calibrator display calibrated to about 85L, Gamma 2.20 and you use dim lighting in the room with a white (custom) background in Photoshop.
Sorry, but I will not be moving to Photoshop to print my B&W photos. That is too much to ask.
If you require your users to be using Photoshop for soft proofing, I wish you made that clear from the start, as it would have saved me a lot of time and money. I also don’t understand why there is a soft proofing feature in Print Tool that does not work. Another disappointment.
I’m very sorry that I took you and Jon’s time up. I should have made it clear that Photoshop was not an option from the beginning. I really appreciate the support. A big thanks!
I hope I have not given you the impression that there are a bunch of requirements outside of Piezography in order to make good Piezography prints. The only requirements are a supported well operating printer, installing the free Community Edition of Piezography, installing the inks in the correct positions, utilizing the QuadTone RIP, and if on OS X in order to work around AppleCM use Print Tool. We haven’t standardized imaging apps nor calibration methods as these are all user choices and preferences.
And we are here to help and I never feel our time is wasted in problem solving especially as it can help an entire community. Everyone can learn something by others experiences.
Again, I apologize for taking so much of your time. If I had done the proper search on your site I might have saved you both a lot of time.
Talking about learning from other experiences… The issue I had was described on a post dated Oct 2024. The person had done exactly the same steps I went through. It seems they have solved the problem by having two separate profiles.
One profile, for printing, using the gray ICC profile created by the PiezoPro. Another profile, for soft proofing, by using the RGB ICC created by the QTR. We are both using Lightroom. The only issue that is left is the detailed steps on the printing. I outlined the steps, but want to make sure I did it right. The steps outlined seem to get me far closer to what I need to do.
If I understand correctly you want to close up the shadow detail of a Piezography print so it imitates a print made with color inks, by printing with a Piezo ICC using Print Tool managed which could do that although we already offer two special ICCs that were designed to do something similar to that. You intend to make your own Piezo ICC.
And you want to be able to Soft Proof this effect in Lightroom and you intend to make an RGB ICC in order to do so.
In this case you would need print the target for making the RGB ICC with the Piezo ICC being used so that you can soft proof that condition, or better yet use instead our recommended printing ICCs.
However, we recommend that you print linear without the use of a printing ICC and just make the Soft Proof ICC because the purpose of doing so would let you exercise more expertise in your shadow adjustments especially since you’re on a hardware calibrator.
If you prefer doing it with both and making both yourself there may be some multiple of any adjusting you do under Soft Proof because the Piezo ICC is acting to increase Soft Proofing adjustments and it may not be a 1:1 relationship. My bigger concern is that in your trying to do this double ICC with the desire that the output be darker that you’re not contrast tweaking any part of the process to achieve that.
If I haven’t understood your intentions let me know.
