Profiling and PROOFSign with i1Publish HELP

[contrakid]

Hi all

Wondering if anyone may be able to give me and suggestions on what to try next.

I am trying to get our Epson 9890 proof to pass the ProofSIGN ISO 12647-7 Certification.

The we are using the Epson ultrachrome inks and a NON-Forgra paper but a proof paper by FUJI Euromedia and we have successfully set up this paper before to be ISO-12647

I am using a i1Pro to read charts and i1Publish latest version to make profiles.

RIP is Heidelberg ColourProofPro (Efi rip)

The problem I am having is I cannot get the DeltaE of the Magenta Solid down low enough to pass the Certification. The tolerance is 2.50 and the best I can get is 3.36 after optimising 2 times.

All other colour solids pass and all other colour patches pass just the solid Magenta!
Cyan = 0.37, Magenta = 3.36, Yellow = 0.47, Black = 0.04

I am using the same paper base linearisation I was using previously as the paper has not changed and the previous just by using my old profile that Heidelberg made I can a very low reading of 0.03 on the Magenta but the Cyan is way out. Hence why I am creating new Profiles. So this Base paper lin and total ink weigh is able to produce reading in tolerance for the Magenta but not with any profile i build it would seem.

I have created profile from charts with 3000 patches also from charts with 2000 patches and optimised with 500 patches and 1000 patches but it always is the same result. After first profile created and checked Magenta is always 5.26 deltaE out and other colour primaries are down around 1-2 then after optimising 2 times Magenta comes down to around 3.5 and other colours down below 1. All Average = 1.5 its just the solid Magenta that will not come down even the 75% Magenta is within tolerance.

I would really grateful if anyone had some pointer for me or suggestions what I can try.

Example attached of proofSIGN Certification FAIL

Many thanks in advance

Simon

 

[benstarr]

You're M ∆E is within tolerance, although a but high, it's the ∆H that is failing the tolerances.

Have you compared the Gamut of the linearized printer to that of your target profile? It seems to me that the printer/paper combination doesn't give you enough gamut in the magenta to hit your target, I have seen this with Epson 9900/9890 depending on how they are driven. I'd take a look at this in a tool that lets you compare gamuts and you should see the issue.

I'd take a look at the linearization and see what you can change. Is you're M limited too much? Can you increase the resolution (sometimes that can help with the gamut).

Ben

 

[Stephen Marsh]

I have had similar issues with different media/printer/RIP etc. The solid M value was fine, but the Hue angle was out of spec.

I tried multiple rounds of iterative calibrations. I tried remeasuring and rebuilding the proofer profile based off the best calibration etc.

If the RIP has colour controls to fine tune colour, then that provides the easiest route (such as with ORIS Color Tuner). If the RIP does not have built-in abilities to fine tune colour, then it may come down to profile editing (such as with Kodak Proofing Software).

In those cases, in the end I had to make specific edits to the solid magenta values in the (reference print) simulation devicelink profile. This was performed using Kodak ColorFlow software, which has the ability to fine tune selective colours in input or output values for ICC or DeviceLink profiles.

The source profile for say Fogra39 was of course unedited. I had to make edits to the link, so that when 100 magenta was the input, the output was then adjusted by a very minor value so that the proofer/paper device CMYK values were changed just enough to pass.

Of course, move things too far and then the solid or secondary overprints are out etc.

If you can’t create or edit specific colours in DeviceLink profiles in i1 Profiler, then you may have to work out what the Lab colour value is for 100% M in your reference printing condition. Then in your proofer profile PCS to CMYK, the same Lab input colour value would have it’s CMYK device values slightly edited to pass.

This is not fun and can be time consuming, trial and error process. You will also need to see how this trends, are all proofs say +2 dH off, or are some -2 dH off, shifting in the opposite direction?

Edit: are you using absolute rendering?

If the RIP has inline spectro fan options, play with those or with the measurement wait time for ambient air drying.


Stephen Marsh

 

[contrakid]

Thanks guys lots of food for thought from your replies.

Is it possible my i1Pro is out of line although its passes the diagnostics test and its calibrates ok.

I have also attached the proofSIGN FAIL report pdf from my previous profile that Heidelberg created, this is using the same paper linearise ink limit EPL file that I have used to create my profiles as the paper has not changed since Heidelberg profiled it. Magenta low Cyan high!

As i'm a bit new to this could some explain if this could still be because that of total colour gamut in the base ink primary setup.

So basically is it still worth me trying to redo the EPL file and improve total gamut even though Heidelberg achieved low DeltaE result on magenta with same EPL file as but the Cyan was high!

Is this because my profile is pulling the colour gamut one way and heidelberg is pulling it the other way hence there Cyan primary is high but not the Magenta and i'm the other way round.

Sorry hope I have made that clear!

Once again people many many thanks for your replies, I like to try and understand why and how these things work.

 

[benstarr]

My thought would be that your i1 is probably OK. When was it last certified? I'd recommend getting a factory certified annually but in this case I'm guessing that isn't the problem.

Is the proof that was initially set up matching to the same target as you are trying to hit now? If yes I think you need to look at the printer and make sure you don't have an issues with at clogged nozzle or something along those lines. If it's not clogged now it may have been during the profile and that could have caused the issue.

If you verify that the printer is printing well now. I'd redo the optimization and see the results you get then. If they are still no good I'd go back and take a look at the EPL.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Contrakid, does you RIP use open ICC profiles and or DeviceLink ICC profiles - or does it use a proprietary closed file format? I might be able to help if it uses ICC or DeviceLink profiles and you have suitable measurement data that I can use.


Stephen Marsh

 

[rich apollo]

If you measure the solids without color management and with color management, how do they compare. Just wondering if the RIP is running "clean" primaries. If it is, then I don't think profile editing is going to solve the problem.

Have you compared the paper white to the white point of the profile? Has the paper color shifted a little? The magenta primary is off hue about the same amount that the paper is off of being neutral. That could be the difference that moved your cyan closer to target and your magenta off.

Is the software indicating that further optimization is not going to improve your outcome? Why did you stop the optimization?

Have you considered starting from scratch - building a new EPL file, with new ink limits, et cetera?

Just to be straight, with a new Heidelberg profile the cyan is out, with a new Xrite profile the magenta is out?

 

[contrakid]

Hi all thanks for all help I have an interesting update for you

It would seem that the software I am using for the ISO 12647-7 verify reads the solid magenta patch as very different values to the xrite i1Publish software. I have also cross reference the lab values to another companies i1Pro and EFI software.

Solid Magenta readings

Target Fogra 39 LAB value:
48.00   74.00   -3.00

Xrite i1Publish with my i1Pro:
47.90   74.74   -4.82

EFI Color Editor with different i1Pro hardware:
48.87 75.69 -3.53

Bodoni System ProofSIGN with my i1Pro:
47.44 75.30 -6.89

So i really don't understand why the reading from the ProofSIGN is so different from the readings i get with other software and other hardware. The *b reading is so different i'm sure this is whats causing the certify to fail. But i'm sure my magenta is in tolerance.

 

[benstarr]

Check that both programs are measuring in the same mode and with the same calibration standard. If one program is measuring with XRGA calibration and the other program is not that could be the difference. I've seen this show up the most in C and M patches, and it really shows in ∆H which I believe is where your issues is showing.

My feeling is that ProofSIGN has either not implemented XRGA in the application or there is a setting somewhere that needs to be turned on for it to use XRGA. The reason I say that is I'm pretty sure that EFI uses XRGA and i1 Profiler uses it for sure.

 

[rich apollo]

I think Ben is correct. ProofSign uses XRGA for the i1Pro2, but GretagMacbeth calibration standard for the i1Pro.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Try using the free ColorPort program from X-Rite, it can measure a single patch (if you make a single patch target) and v2> uses XRGA so you should be able to also verify the measurement values compared to other software.


Stephen Marsh

 

[benstarr]

You can verify the proof in i1 Profiler using the Quality module. This will give you a verification and a repost similar to ProofSign, so you can verify your proofs at least.

Once you've verified the proof there then you can go back to proofsign, and figure out why they aren't measuring the same as i1 Profiler or EFI. Hopefully there is a way to make it read in XGRA. I've had a similar issue to this with some other software and until they correctly implement XGRA I'm doing all my measurements in i1 Profiler and importing into that software so I get the proper measurements, it's a little bit of a pain but it's the way to make sure the measurements are correct.