1) you like the profiles you generate with the ColorChecker more than Adobe's - do you mean more than Adobe Standard? Or do you mean Adobe's calibration profiles for other cameras you've used where Adobe
includes profiles for the default on-camera processing settings?
In case of Adobe Standard I
always prefer the results (colors, tones) I get from using my X-Rite profiles. I sometimes use Adobe's on-camera simulation profiles for my Sony files (e.g. Deep, Landscape, Standard, ...) but don't care too much for their (or Fuji's) X-Trans film simulations.
2) Could you describe your results with the ColorChecker profile? Is it flat and accurate, giving you lots to work with editing, or is it visually pleasing to you right from the start, or what?
I'd say it's more accurate than 'flat', certainly more visually pleasing to me than what I get from Adobe Standard, especially when it comes to X-Trans RAWs (colors AND tonal response); even right from the start in many cases but it always depends on the individual image but these are nothing but my subjective impressions - YMMV.
3) Iridient? I guess that's a third-party raw processor? That you were using because you hated LR's Adobe Standard profile for your X-Trans camera(s)? Why does print size matter?
I don't exactly hate Adobe profiles but in case of Iridient X Transformer (for Fuji X Trans) I bought it because it has a bit of an edge over LR5.7 when it comes to rendering fine details or structures and produces less artifacts like e.g color bleeding, worms, ... than the LR sharpening algorithms for those files but to me these differences only become relevant in some larger prints, A3 and above. I just can't be bothered to waste more time than necessary on each and every RAW file but OTOH I just don't care too much for in-cam jpgs.
Iask (1) and (2) because I know lots of people interested in color management are interested from the standpoint of
accuracy. That doesn't so much matter to me, as much as
flexibility, and having a visually pleasing starting point. I don't like Adobe Standard for my LX100 (well, or 70D) on the basis not only that it's flat and boring, but also (for the LX100 profile) the colors look shifted in hue in some areas from the standard profile JPEGs from the camera. Specifically, shifted in a way that's less pleasing. I'm not sure which is correct in an absolute sense (and the LX100 JPEGs seem occasionally over saturated), but I know I like the JPEGs more for the most part.
With my 70D raws, I know that if I pick "Camera Standard" as a cal profile, that looks very faithful to the out of camera JPEG with standard settings. From there, editing an individual image, I might pick one of the other cal profiles if I think it provides a better starting point for any particular edit. But I know Adobe Standard is never that flattering a starting point, and would take much more work to get a photo to my desired endpoint.
Luckily, it looks like I've now got that with the LX100 with the new profiles they just released![/QUOTE]