icc profile

[rain]

What is the best software for create ICC profile? How to set up

 

[J]

What is the best software for create ICC profile? How to set up

While most people use "By Guess and By Golly", many swear by "Craftsmanship" while others swear at it. While "Intuition" will work, I think that most everyone agrees that the best software is the one they're using.

So, perhaps if you thought about your question as much as you hope that others would think about it in order to answer, you might get an even more useful response.

J

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

What are you calibrating?
A profile program works better than Photoshop.
Form test I've seen Binuscan does a very good job of creating a Relative profile with intelegent interpretation of what is visually pleasing for out of gamut colours.
If you use it for a monitor you should have an application that can verify.

ProfileMaker, Monaco, Agfa ApogeeColour, Xrite are the ones I've tried works best to make proofer and printer profile with same software.

 

[encompus]

I am an X-Rite ProfileMaker man myself. However one of ways to get an unbiased opinion is to read Dr. Abhay Sharma's Profiling Review located here: WMU Profiling Review Home Page

Marc

 

[Louis Dery]

I am an X-Rite ProfileMaker man myself. However one of ways to get an unbiased opinion is to read Dr. Abhay Sharma's Profiling Review located here: WMU Profiling Review Home Page

Marc

Marc,
this review is outdated. It is a review of 2005. Many things has changed (improve) since then.

Louis

 

[encompus]

Louis,

Good point. Has anyone wrote anything since Abhay?

Marc

 

[qaos]

ProfileMaker: fast and easy

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

In my experience proofing works best if the same program (and measuring device if possible)
is used for output device and proofing device. Was more so before, current programs have better compatibility.

 

[khun boy]

Why did to make icc profile?

Why did to make icc profile?

Everybody can download standard icc profile under the agreement together. can get icc profile from http://www.adobe.com or http://www.colormanagement.org For Reference icc profile and I use FUJI Colorkit Profile suite make Device link icc profile.

 

[padrao]

Prinect toolbox 3.5

Prinect toolbox 3.5

The Best is from Heidelberg, Prinect Color ToolBox 3.0 or 3.5 .
If anyone look to any of the properties from any icc profile will the they where created by Printopen Heidelberg Druckmachinen. It can be from Fogra,ISO . . Maybe all of you wonder why ?
It´s thye most complete software with all the Iso Standarts ,for all the iso papers. Quality monitor integrated .
Its the professional tool for professional workers .

Must see it .
Binoscan . . .

 

[meddington]

The Best is from Heidelberg, Prinect Color ToolBox 3.0 or 3.5 .
If anyone look to any of the properties from any icc profile will the they where created by Printopen Heidelberg Druckmachinen. It can be from Fogra,ISO . . Maybe all of you wonder why ?

If I had to guess, I would say it was the software they had conveniently at their disposal. I don't want to disparrage Prinect in anyway as it's a fine product, but comparing ISOcoated_v2_300_eci.icc (created with Heidelberg software) to profiles created from Fogra39 using ProfileMaker, Monaco Profiler, Bassicolor and that included with Adobe CS4, ISOcoated_v2_300_eci.icc was my least favorite, particularly regarding hue shifting (blues yielding purple for example) and smoothness of the separation. Just my opinion though.

Each package has its advantageous and disadvantageous. Monaco Profiler has been my go to product, and does a great job overall, but I opt for ProfilerMaker for heavy GCR profiles. Monaco has shown large benefits over ProfilerMaker for RGB profiling, but device-links I've created with Monaco have had serious flaws. There are certainly other solutions out there as well ...as Louis, who is uncharacteristically reserved, would certainly love to point out.

But we all might have biases to the products we have experience with and I write this while trying to keep J's post at the begnining of this thread in mind.

It can be from Fogra,ISO...

Just for clarification, ISO (the organization) isn't involved in generating, certifying or approving profiles in anyway. I know that the ECI was using this to reference the ISO12647-2 printing standard to which their profiles are meant to represent, but IMO, "ISO" should should be dropped from the naming as it implies way too much. Sorry...pet peeve.

 

[Louis Dery]

Each package has its advantageous and disadvantageous. Monaco Profiler has been my go to product, and does a great job overall, but I opt for ProfilerMaker for heavy GCR profiles. Monaco has shown large benefits over ProfilerMaker for RGB profiling, but device-links I've created with Monaco have had serious flaws. There are certainly other solutions out there as well ...as Louis, who is uncharacteristically reserved, would certainly love to point out.

Hi Mike!
i could not resist to your invitation!
Here’s my personal comments you were looking for…
About GCR and devicelink, I agree with your comments for MP. PM is better than MP for GCR, but when you want to go at very low TAC and strong GCR, both fails. Dark saturated color turns grayish. PerfX CM Proâ„¢ and PerfX Device Link Proâ„¢ do not make such problem and are very good for this task (GCR and ink saving).

Louis

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

I know of a colour consultant here in Sweden, Hasse Sundqvist, that did tests creating "identical" setups as the FOGRA 39, using their data but generating it with several different Profile making software. Heidelbergs profile was not on top, and the resulting profiles were sent to FOGRA so that the truth can be tested (if there is the will).
Most commmon or most readily available is not allways the best, that is why we still have AdobeRGB as standard RGB working space ;P

 

[CGS]

Prinect

Prinect

Prinect is a stable icc profile software and works great with prinect Metedeminsion, however does not mean it is the "Best" for each individual situation.

 

[PDeuth]

It occurs to me that it's as much what you do with the software as it is the particular software you use. Good methods and technique are at least as important as the software which makes your profile. Profiles created on unstable and uncalibrated devices are as meaningful as the device is stable, and as reliable as the device's behavior is repeatable. Good profiling technique is important, too. Even better is good process management/sampling technique: an average of three readings or iterations is much better than a single reading or iteration.
Too, checking the profile for accuracy after you've made, or bought, it will save a lot of trouble. Color management is a dedicated tool, not magic. As such it ought to be used well and wisely. The Heidelberg package gets good reviews; the Fuji package is good; the Monaco Profile Maker is robust, too. As are others I've not been around or used. I think it's (at least) as much how you use them, as which particular one you choose. There is no magic, there ain't no silver bullet.