My suggestion, since your process has both scanner calibration and monitor calibration, is to scan the gray card to JPG and interrogate the values of R-G-B with a postprocessing program's Eyedroipper tool and look at the values.they should all be very similar in range, all be very close to 50% (mid-tone). These results prove that Kodak grey cards do not ordinarily deviate much from other standards like the ColorChecker card. These values were obtained with Canon 8800F flatbed scanner, using NO calibration adjustment, nor any IPS monitor adjustment. LR evaluated #2 card Before adjustement as R47.6, G48.5, B49.2 initially,Īnd After using eyedropper tool to render neutral the readings were R49.3, G49.4, B49.3, no.
#IT8 TARGET CHART PATCH#
LR evaluated #1 gray patch #4 Before adjustement as R48.3, G48.5, B47.4 initially,Īnd After using eyedropper tool to render neutral the readings were R48.8, G48.7, B48.5.Presumably a spectrophotometer can make measurements that more closely match what the human eye sees.īrian, I just did two scans and evaluated the neutrality via the eyedropper tool within Lightroom, as a basis of comparison with you result: I guess this is why you should not try to use a flatbed scanner to create or check icc profiles for a printer. However, when scanned, the printed version has an obvious green cast. To my eyes, when viewed in daylight, there is no obvious colour cast on the printed version when compared to the original. I see a similar effect if I make a print from the scanned IT8 target on Epson Premium Glossy paper and re-scan the printed version.
#IT8 TARGET CHART ARCHIVE#
So in my case the scanner may be calibrated for scans made using Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper (the same as the IT8 target) but anything else could give completely different results. You would need different profiles for every type of printed source material that you scan. If it is, then it seems to me that trying to create in input icc profile for the scanner is a waste of time. but I did not expect it to look this bad. I can understand why there could be a slight difference - matt vs glossy surface etc. I get a similar result.Ĭan anyone explain why the scanned grey card image looks so different to the original?
#IT8 TARGET CHART SOFTWARE#
I have also tried using the Epson scanning software (using it's own Epson input profiles). If I measure the grey card using a refelective densitometer, I get almost equal readings for the R,G,B densities. The scanner apparently registers the light reflected from the surface of the grey card differently to the human eye. When the originals are viewed next to each other in daylight, the greys both appear virtually idenitical.
![it8 target chart it8 target chart](https://www.silverfast.com/img/home-8/screens/sf8_it8_7_en.png)
If I try a scanning a Kodak grey card at the same time, the grey card has a very obvious green cast.
![it8 target chart it8 target chart](https://www.silverfast.com/img/home-8/screens/sf8_it8_4_en.png)
There is no color cast evident in the neutral grey border.
![it8 target chart it8 target chart](https://www.photrio.com/forum/proxy.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.static.flickr.com%2F4145%2F5057482452_e96f8fd6d3.jpg)
When I scan the IT8 target, the colour balance looks fine when viewed on my Eizo calibrated monitor. The Silverfast IT8 software created a new Input icc profile:. I calibrated the scanner using an IT8 Target from Wolf Faust.