digitaldog

WOW, so much for that fruitful discussion!

This IS insanity! In one day, ALL SPAM:

So Alan, you are really calibrating your display for 80 cd/m??? 😵

#2 is pointless: I only captured raw data. Color “accuracy and profiles”:Colorimetry and the dE testing is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. The reason why viewing a print is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices can't provide. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. Colorimetry was never designed as a color appearance model. It was never designed to even be used as an interchange space between device dependent color models. It's not designed for imagery at all. Colorimetry based on solid colors in very specific ambient and surround conditions. Anytime one speaks of color accuracy NOT pleasing color, we need a way to define accuracy numerically (otherwise, we're back to subjectivity). That's where colorimetry comes to play. And there are NO rules in how a perceptual rendering from a profile is produced. Just like there are no rules in how E6 rendering (Velvia vs Ektachrome) is produced. The profile maker and film manufacturer produce a rendering they feel their customers might prefer. So how to test profiles with a perceptual rendering? Subjectively with many color reference images (I'd suggest at the very least, the entire suite of Roman 16's).

Comments about what? FWIW: "I have used PSD for many years professionally." That is a file format. One, you never needed to use FWIW. Like Affinity, Photoshop, Lightroom Classic, etc, and more can use TIFF (an openly documented file format) that supports everything PSD can.

The primer (soft proofing and editing), in Photoshop. Lightroom Classic makes this 'easier' as Paddler4 outlines above. But the concepts are the same. http://digitaldog.net/files/SoftProofingInPhotoshopCC.mp4

Just get this: https://www.ebay.com/itm/176341074627?chn=ps&_trkparms=ispr%3D1&amdata=enc%3A1NuFOxx7FSZ6pAtiScI-q3Q32&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&mkscid=101&itemid=176341074627&targetid=1585159290171&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9030503&poi=&campaignid=19894961968&mkgroupid=148855406073&rlsatarget=pla-1585159290171&abcId=9307911&merchantid=6296724&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAAD_QDh-09WkU0-LctixormLUieMr4&gclid=Cj0KCQjwj9-zBhDyARIsAERjds1nlFy3yv2-zHikeY0AEjRihoaDHrZ5reaPMsvJiq1K-1i8jmR7wLYaAgwPEALw_wcB Even if you could find this bulb (I found a source, but it's out of stock), you won't get one for a mere $42.

The only accurate previews are in the Develop module at 1:1 and, of course, by soft proofing. The other modules use a different preview architecture.

That's why one tests with a color reference image that has no edits, but it's possible something somewhere changed the image. It's impossible for me to say. I've seen nothing change per se in those two OSs that would account for a change IF all print settings were identical.

Correct.

Yes, it sounds like the print output is fine, and the disconnect is the display.

You should always test output using good color reference images designed for that task. The color reference images RGB values are such that they are set for output and are editing and display agnostic. Test the output this way and examine for the same color issues so we know it's not your image-specific issues causing the problems: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip This and other such documents can also be downloaded at http://www.digitaldog.net/ If the issue is print-to-screen matching (and that's hugely different): https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4

We are, one factual, however. 😚 Perhaps someone else will tell you what you want to hear, even if it is untrue. Adiós