GMG mx4 Profile for Soft Proof;

[Dersu]

Is it possible to use mx4 profile for photoshop soft proofing?
What is the best method to export mx4 to icc? I know there is export icc option in profile editor, but what is the proper method?
Do I have to read only target values than export icc, than use profilemaker to create final icc with referance data, Any opinions?

Warm regards!
Sb.

 

[rich apollo]

Is it possible to use mx4 profile for photoshop soft proofing?

No. Photoshop needs ICC profiles for softproofing.

Are you trying to view the appearance of a file going to your proofer?

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

Is it possible to use mx4 profile for photoshop soft proofing?
What is the best method to export mx4 to icc? I know there is export icc option in profile editor, but what is the proper method?
Do I have to read only target values than export icc, than use profilemaker to create final icc with referance data, Any opinions?

In Profile Editor you may export your current values as an IT8 7.3 target and use the exported IT8 in i1Profiler to build a profile for viewing purposes. I don't think I would use this profile for conversions.
Regards,
Todd

 

[Dersu]

No. Photoshop needs ICC profiles for softproofing.

Are you trying to view the appearance of a file going to your proofer?

That's what I'm trying to achieve. Yes, it will be only for visually checking.

 

[Dersu]

In Profile Editor you may export your current values as an IT8 7.3 target and use the exported IT8 in i1Profiler to build a profile for viewing purposes. I don't think I would use this profile for conversions.
Regards,
Todd

Todd, this profile will be using for visual check. I exported target values to icc in profileeditor. Than in profilemaker used chart template as a reference and point out exported icc as measurement data. Is this method acceptable?

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Just curious how this compares to actually printing and measuring profiling charts and creating a profile? Has anybody compared both methods?

What condition/reference is the proofer simulating?

Stephen Marsh

 

[rich apollo]

What condition/reference is the proofer simulating?

Stephen, you're hitting on what I can't figure out. If he's trying to look at a reference printing condition, just use an existing ICC profile. If he's trying use the proofer profile as the reference condition, what is the purpose?

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

I agree with Rich and Stephen, but I think I can see where Dersu is trying to go with this.
Dersu, if you use the target data(Reference Print Condition) of the .mx4 to export and to build the profile, just use the reference print condition measurement data. Round tripping the data doesn't do any good. Since the current data of your .mx4 is based on the final iteration of the proof itself, you would want to export the current data of your .mx4 if you think it might give a more accurate view in PS. I personally don't think you are gaining any noticeable accuracy, and you may actually be introducing more inaccuracy by doing this.
Regards,
Todd

 

[meddington]

Is it possible to use mx4 profile for photoshop soft proofing?
What is the best method to export mx4 to icc? I know there is export icc option in profile editor, but what is the proper method??.

With regards to softproofing, I think you would find negligible difference visually between exporting an ICC from the .mx4 target values vs. exporting target values and generating ICC from them in another app. You could always round trip to test this numerically...export ICC from MX4 target values, than Import target value from that same ICC and compare the before and after data sets.

 

[meddington]

Since the current data of your .mx4 is based on the final iteration of the proof itself, you would want to export the current data of your .mx4 if you think it might give a more accurate view in PS.

This may depend on the goal. Exporting the "current" values would possibly represent the hard copy proof more accurately, though include any shortcomings of the proof in representing its simulation. Exporting the target values would not include any shortcomings of the proofing device. I'd personally opt for the latter as it would likely more accurately represent the final output conditions.

 

[tmiller_iluvprinting]

This may depend on the goal. Exporting the "current" values would possibly represent the hard copy proof more accurately

I believe this is the goal that Dersu has in mind. I am in total agreement with your analysis.
Regards,
Todd

 

[Dersu]

Thanks for the replies.

What if our referance chart is not 8.7.3 or eci2002? Let's say it's flexochart v2? We have to export target values to txt file, if we choose to save as 8.7.3 compatible, we will lost so many patch data. If we export flexochart to txt, profilemaker will not recognize this as a measurement data. Is there any way to make this file profilemaker compatible?

And, Yes Todd, this is my goal. I want to experiment things visually.