Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Thanks for your response Daniel. I agree that reducing the ink/color density may help eliminate or reduce the problem. But before I try this I thought I would try using the same measurement file from before (using Ultrasmooth as media type and -7% Color Density adjustment) but try 'customizing' my previously created profile with Shadow adjustments in the SpyderPrint software.

So I used my previous measurement file but then added a Shadow Detail adjustment at +5%, +10%, +15% and +20%. However I must have got my thinking wrong as this ended up creating even more out-of-gamut areas. Hence, I then went back and created adjustments at -5%, -10%, -15% and -20% (moving the slider towards 'More Punch') and created a new set of 4 profiles. Please see the file uploaded called GamutProblem.jpg in the files directory.

In this file you will see the Hahnemuhle profile applied to the top left image (very little out of gamut). On the top right was my original profile (created with no shadow adjustment). Here you can see the out-of-gamut areas in the darker areas as you noticed before. Now on the bottom left you can see the same profile as before but with an added -5% applied to increase Shadow Punch. Here you can see that the out-of-gamut areas have been reduced. This is even more pronounced on the bottom right example where a -10% adjustment was applied to Shadow Punch. 

Now my question is whether this is a valid approach or am I introducing new problems which I am yet to find ? Have I rescued the out-of-gamut areas but at the expense of some other part of the print?

On intial viewing of a hard print of the test image with a Shadow adjustment of -10% I can see the image seems to have more contrast in a nice way although possibly it needs some minor adjustments by a few % to get close to the original image...

Rgds
Rick

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Vézina <daniel_v@...> wrote:
>
> >>Now I notice that if I load a Color Test image in Photoshop and compare the
> out of gamut areas that are shown when soft proofing with the Hahnemühle
> provided profile >>(from their website) vs the profile I created there are a lot
> more out of gamut areas in the darker color areas.
> 
> By looking at your proof we can show on the very small Kodak gray ramp in
> the middle of the image that the dark tones are out of gamut. I suspect that
> the dark patches will be clogged a little bit (something that you will have
> to double check on a hard copy, not a proof, like David said, preferably by
> printing a bigger gray ramp; you can draw one by yourself in Photoshop).
> 
> I saw many 3800 that lay down too much ink on matte paper whenever the matte
> paper setting you use. These printers are pre-calibrated at the factory but
> I¹m force to realize that they¹re not all the same, especially when you work
> with matte paper.
> 
> Usually the paper setting to use with the Photorag is Enhance Matte/Archival
> Matte/Premium presentation matte photo paper (all these settings are
> identical and only reflect the paper name change in the recent years). Using
> one of these settings you will have to do some test at different ink
> density. Usually it is needed to reduce the ink density by about 10%, So you
> print the media setting check page from S3Print at 0, -5%, -10, -12, -15%.
> It should unclog your dark tones and then you do the profile using  the same
> setting.
> 
> Don¹t worry about the gamut and color saturation of the light tones, the
> profiling software will take care of it. You will get about the same gamut
> for non dark colors as long as you don¹t have to reduce the ink density too
> much, which would be an indication that you¹re not using the correct media
> setting.
> 
> My own experience show that ­10% ink density will probably be what  you¹re
> going to end with.
> 
> Good luck!
> 
> Daniel Vézina
> Technical Director
> Numart Inc. 
> QC, Canada
>