Sublimation ICC Profiling with Spyder

[pisquee]

OK, so I was wanting to be able to make my own profiles for printing - both sublimation work and for papers. I got Spyder3 (version for monitors and printers)

So, after having it lying around for weeks and only having done my monit, I decided to try the print side of things.

So, I printed the test card and transferred it onto a piece of white polyester fabric. So far, so good. Now, things don't seem to work so well from this point on. I have a load of white paper behind the fabric so I don't get the colour of the table influencing things. But, the colours that are scanned seem like a greyed version of what is on screen and actually on the fabric, but I persevered with scanning the whole chart and correcting obvious scanning mistakes.

So, I create the profile, and print from PhotoShop, and wow, my prints now have more than a slight yellow cast

What could cause this? Am I missing something important? Made newbie mistake? Anything else I could try?

Wasted hours so far, printing test cards, sublimating, scanning, printing test images ... Hours I could have been actually printing products to sell tomorrow.



Argh!

[JSR]

I didn't have any success profiling to fabric (I tried flag material and the resulting profile was hideous). I had some success profiling to a mousemat and to an old SubliSoft t-shirt.

So far, though, the best results have been when using metal sheets. I did try using UniSub placemats but couldn't get a scan at all from them.

I use a ColorMunki, though, so that might be different.

[Justin]

Be interesting to hear more about this. I'm looking at buying a Munki but may just go for the one to profile my screen. I've seen the others but wonder if these are as easy to use. I believe as JSR has said that the best profiles are created using white metal.

[JSR]

Be interesting to hear more about this. I'm looking at buying a Munki but may just go for the one to profile my screen. I've seen the others but wonder if these are as easy to use. I believe as JSR has said that the best profiles are created using white metal.

I find the Munki convenient for doing quick profiles and to check spot colours (this feature has been particularly useful) but, if I'm to be brutally honest, I get better results more quickly by using Paul's profiles. He has a much better (presumably more expensive) device that checks for so many more colours when creating the initial profile that it is much more accurate right off the bat.

The Munki uses less colour patches, which makes it quick to do a new profile, and it allows you to optimise the profile by examining the key colours in any photo you feed into it. That is very useful if you're forever doing different designs but, unless you really have a need for either (i) doing your own profiles, or (ii) checking spot colours, then life is a whole lot easier just to get Paul to do it. (I'm sure he won't mind me saying that!).

I actually profile my monitors using an old Spyder2 but, then, all of my monitors are either LCD flat screens or laptop flat screens which aren't ideally suited to profiling anyway. I've promised myself that I'll one day get one more suited to it, but I haven't yet.

[Paul]

I dont mind jonathan no at all...

I can not comment on this spider thing tbh as o dont know nothing about thos. But judging by the price and description i wouldnt coujt for to much. This is simial gear as a.munki but from diferent company. Munki is great fo simple profiles but not for profiles that you could sell with your ink. If you want to create decen icx then you need to invest few quid. Otherwise you only be able to create good ish iccs. For example i will show you diference in color gamut betwen 2 icx's for this same printer and ink but created with two diferent spectothingy you will be shocked how diferent they are.

[JSR]

Munki is great fo simple profiles but not for profiles that you could sell with your ink.

Yes, this is true. The ColorMunki is great to have it sitting beside you, and to optimise your profile on a "per design" basis. But, if you do similar designs, then you're best off starting with something from Paul's device.

This is mainly due to how many colour patches are used.

For those who don't know, the ColorMunki begins with a chart of 50 colour patches. After scanning this in, it determines the weakest colours and gets you to print an "optimisation" chart with up to 50 more colour patches. Any time in the future that you optimise the profile for your specific photo, it'll get you to do another chart that has up to 50 more colour patches (although usually a lot less if the design is predominantly just a few colours). So that's less than 100 colour patches to start, and less than 50 more when optimising.

When Paul does his profiles, you print three charts which, in total, contains 1100 colour patches. That's ten times more than the ColorMunki, and that's why it's more accurate right off the bat. Okay, so you can't optimise Paul's profiles specific to your photo/design, but chances are you won't need to because of how many patches have been scanned already.

[pisquee]

The Spyder does 967 patches for its biggest scan (729 colours, and 238 greys) so not far behind Paul's 1100.

I'm guessing that I am doing something wrong, or there is something wrong with my scanner, as I now have the aluminium sheets, and have redone the whole process, and yet there is still a yellow cast to the prints. Maybe my colour management has got messed up somewhere?

Frustrating printing, sublimating, scanning, printing, sublimating and still not right.

[Paul]

hmmm... i think this is down to the software... if you print on this same setting as you printed your patches then all should be perfect.
I think this might be the difference between x-rite and spider

btw... is there only yellow cast that is a problem?? all colors are fine??

[pisquee]

Yeah, everything is just too yellowy ... DataColor (Spyder's maker) has asked me to send them the measurement file to have a look at, to see if they can see what is going on - (2 hours after submitting the problem to them)

[Paul]

good respond then...