Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Pete JF on March 20, 2017, 02:40:29 pm

Title: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 20, 2017, 02:40:29 pm
Hi Folks..I'm trying to nail down a few inconsistent behaviors with my print results..

I've been trying a few different calibration schemes mostly variation in brightness of the overall calibration on my PA272

The following is confounding me:

When I print using Epson's ABW I get exact screen to print matches..

When I print in color (using Canson Baryta with Canson profiles) my prints are always a couple of noticeable notches lighter.than what the Monitor is showing me...The colot is feeling fairly accurate but the print are always a bit lighter..ABW-exact.

MY print viewing is being done, now, under a Hyperikon 3000k (testing a bit with 4000k Hyperikon too) BW and color prints under same lighting of course..

Could it be the Canson profiles? when I soft proof using the profiles I don't get a real shift in brightness..I was never comfortable with soft proofing and never..ever, had to do it when printing out of Photoshop and using my Sony Artisan..my color prints and my ABW generated prints were always right on the button..didn't have to think about and now that I do? It's driving me nuts..



Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 20, 2017, 02:57:55 pm
I can't understand what your problem is from this description. Please answer the following with "CORRECT" or "WRONG":

(1) When I print with ABW what I see on my display looks the same as the paper print.

(2) When I print with Canson's profile in RGB mode, I do not softproof on the NEC display and
(2A) in this condition the print looks brighter than the display image.

(3) When I print with Canson's profile in RGB mode, and I softproof on the NEC display, then
(3A) in this condition the print looks the same as the display image.

If all of the above are "CORRECT", then the obvious answer to your colour management problem is to always make your final edits under softproof.

As well, check that the calibration of your display is sending you the right information compared with what comes out of the printer using a standard printer evaluation image to which you make no adjustments.

If any of the above are "WRONG" further diagnosis may be needed.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 20, 2017, 03:18:05 pm
I can't understand what your problem is from this description. Please answer the following with "CORRECT" or "WRONG":

(1) When I print with ABW what I see on my display looks the same as the paper print. CORRECT

(2) When I print with Canson's profile in RGB mode, I do not softproof on the NEC display and
(2A) in this condition the print looks brighter than the display image. CORRECT

(3) When I print with Canson's profile in RGB mode, and I softproof on the NEC display, then
(3A) in this condition the print looks the same as the display image. (Meh...not really, soft proofing remains elusive to me, nothing I do gets me back to what the image looks like in the Develop module... WRONG)

If all of the above are "CORRECT", then the obvious answer to your colour management problem is to always make your final edits under softproof.

As well, check that the calibration of your display is sending you the right information compared with what comes out of the printer using a standard printer evaluation image to which you make no adjustments. Where can I find a suitable image for this?

If any of the above are "WRONG" further diagnosis may be needed.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 20, 2017, 03:21:05 pm
OK, I think you need to work on your softproofing. What do you find "elusive" about softproofing?
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 20, 2017, 03:57:44 pm
OK, I think you need to work on your softproofing. What do you find "elusive" about softproofing?

Everything. How's that for starters?  :  )  And I know I'm not alone.

For one..the white border/background becomes very distracting to my eyes.

Which tools to use..exposure-contrast, saturation, curves..Nothing seems to get me to what i was enjoying about the image in the develop module..It becomes a game of going backwards in some sense..a matching game...which is never good.

And, I don't understand why this is the only way to do it?..Example..How to get rid of the white background simulating the paper? why is this necessary?..Seems silly to have white light being shot at you while trying to evaluate an image on a screen made of light Couldn't they give you the option of using the profile in soft proof with out the white in your eyes? Maybe I'm missing something?

..it's not the same as looking at a print on paper with a white border around it...reflected light vs light beams directed at eyes.

Also a mystery as to why, when working out of photoshop using an artisan, i never had these issues previously.

thanks, Mark. I appreciate your attention.


EDIT: I just right clicked on the white background in Soft Proof mode and noticed that you can, in fact, change the color..

Do folks actually work with the white background usually? Or, do they change to darker color?





Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 20, 2017, 05:56:15 pm
Everything. How's that for starters?  :  )  And I know I'm not alone.

For one..the white border/background becomes very distracting to my eyes.

Which tools to use..exposure-contrast, saturation, curves..Nothing seems to get me to what i was enjoying about the image in the develop module..It becomes a game of going backwards in some sense..a matching game...which is never good.

And, I don't understand why this is the only way to do it?..Example..How to get rid of the white background simulating the paper? why is this necessary?..Seems silly to have white light being shot at you while trying to evaluate an image on a screen made of light Couldn't they give you the option of using the profile in soft proof with out the white in your eyes? Maybe I'm missing something?

..it's not the same as looking at a print on paper with a white border around it...reflected light vs light beams directed at eyes.

Also a mystery as to why, when working out of photoshop using an artisan, i never had these issues previously.

thanks, Mark. I appreciate your attention.


EDIT: I just right clicked on the white background in Soft Proof mode and noticed that you can, in fact, change the color..

Do folks actually work with the white background usually? Or, do they change to darker color?

OK, let's deal with this from the basics.

The purpose of the softproof is to simulate on your display the appearance of the print that will emerge from your printer.
For this to work satisfactorily, you should simulate paper white and ink.
The shade of the image surround does not need to be pure white - this can be hard on the eyes, but no darker than light gray. The purpose of this is simply that you view prints with light all over the place, so if you make the surround dark you will miss replicating this context, and the image on the display will appear to have more contrast than it will show out of the printer.
Softproof is working your printer/paper profile in reverse to produce the simulation you need. If the printer is managing colour, it is irrelevant because you aren't using a profile of your choosing. As long as you are working in RGB mode with Photoshop or Lightroom managing colour, you should adjust your photo under softproof for your printing/paper condition whether you are printing colour or B&W. You can make different editing versions or do it on layers if you want to preserve a non-softproofed version.
There is nothing more elusive to softproofing than these few principles. By using it, I keep my waste ratio well below 5% and my prints reliably look the way I want them to.
Finally, you need to calibrate your monitor by running a printer test image (such as the one on the Outback Photo website) through the printer using your usual paper (no adjustments to anything except choice of the right profile) and then making sure the brightness and contrast of your monitor are set so that what you see on the display looks like what came out of the printer under typical print viewing conditions; then profile the monitor with this calibration.

This combination of procedures should give you reliable, successful outcomes.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Wayne Fox on March 20, 2017, 09:01:41 pm
If it's a "profile" problem it's usually because the settings used to make the profile aren't matching the settings used to making the print.  It isn't the profile itself, but the settings in the driver determine ink load.  If you use a different paper type or have other settings that are different than what was used to make the profile it could mean not enough ink is being laid down.

If you find the ABW prints match well, but your color prints are too light, you might consider different monitor calibrations based on what type of print you are working on, and adjust the brightness of the display accordingly.

This is very simple to do if you are using NEC Spectraview software to calibrate your NEC.  Adjust the brightness in the monitor calibration until you get a nice match density wise.  Then switch based on which type of image you are working on, only takes about 20 seconds to switch in SpectraView. You may also find your ABW versions still look good and decently match to the new color setting.

Soft proofing is based establishing a good monitor/print match. Once that is established then soft proofing can help detect issues, but if the match isn't there, really no way to soft proof.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 21, 2017, 09:29:43 am
Morning,

I downloaded the test image, printed it using only the profile of the paper i was using.

The resulting print was, as is usual, a bight lighter than it looked on screen.

After thatI started making calibrations in Sprectraview 2 to try and match the print

 ..I basically upped the 'intensity' on each successive one..going from 70 to 130 across in increments  4 or 5 different test calibrations. The screen got brighter for sure but as far as the image it self..? The reds on the test print still seemed lighter and less saturated than the image on the screen..skin tones-lighter, less saturation..blue sky- same thing..on and on..it almost felt like the actual issues with the looked about exactly the same as it's been looking.

Keep in mind..this isn't  a huge difference..but it's enough..i've had better matches on much cheaper rigs using a spider

After about 4 or so test calibrations i switch to D50,  300:1, intensity 80 then 100 then 120..still felt the same..change contrast ratio..blah blah..went to bed

Something weird going on here.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 21, 2017, 10:11:47 am
Sorry to hear that. Also sorry I can't help on Spectraview because I don't use that software. I use BasicColor Display (http://www.basiccolor.de/basiccolor-display-5-en/) as I have found it to be more accurate when I tested both some years ago. With BasicColor Display, the key parameters for the calibration are the white point, the brightness and the gamma curve (contrast curve). For what it's worth, in my dimly lit working environment, I'm finding a reliable calibration with D50, 110 cd/M2, and L* gamma setting. I don't know how to translate that into Spectraview settings or whether that particular combination would be optimal in your environment. I am using an NEC PA271, which I believe is quite similar to your display.

As Wayne and I mentioned, you need to print under the same conditions used to make the profile you are using - in particular, are you sure you selected the correct Media Type (the same as the one for which the profile is specified) when you printed the test photo? When you compared the display image with the printed image, did you have the display image showing as a softproof? Both of these conditions are necessary for your purpose.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: deanwork on March 21, 2017, 02:25:32 pm
Try changing your rendering intent when printing color from the one you are using, both in soft proofing as well as when printing.





Morning,

I downloaded the test image, printed it using only the profile of the paper i was using.

The resulting print was, as is usual, a bight lighter than it looked on screen.

After thatI started making calibrations in Sprectraview 2 to try and match the print

 ..I basically upped the 'intensity' on each successive one..going from 70 to 130 across in increments  4 or 5 different test calibrations. The screen got brighter for sure but as far as the image it self..? The reds on the test print still seemed lighter and less saturated than the image on the screen..skin tones-lighter, less saturation..blue sky- same thing..on and on..it almost felt like the actual issues with the looked about exactly the same as it's been looking.

Keep in mind..this isn't  a huge difference..but it's enough..i've had better matches on much cheaper rigs using a spider

After about 4 or so test calibrations i switch to D50,  300:1, intensity 80 then 100 then 120..still felt the same..change contrast ratio..blah blah..went to bed

Something weird going on here.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Wayne Fox on March 21, 2017, 06:03:15 pm
MY print viewing is being done, now, under a Hyperikon 3000k (testing a bit with 4000k Hyperikon too) BW and color prints under same lighting of course..

Any possibility your lamps are too close and are too bright?  In matching density of prints to a display, the brightness of the light source on the prints is also a "variable".  Sometimes it can be changed, sometimes not, but if you are blasting too much light onto the print it may appear a little washed out when in fact it's about the right density.

Wondering which test print you downloaded as well. You said you printed it ... does it look pretty "normal" in other situations around your office or home?  Just trying to rule out something in the profile/paper settings as a possible issue.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Garnick on March 22, 2017, 10:24:37 am
Any possibility your lamps are too close and are too bright?  In matching density of prints to a display, the brightness of the light source on the prints is also a "variable".  Sometimes it can be changed, sometimes not, but if you are blasting too much light onto the print it may appear a little washed out when in fact it's about the right density.

Wondering which test print you downloaded as well. You said you printed it ... does it look pretty "normal" in other situations around your office or home?  Just trying to rule out something in the profile/paper settings as a possible issue.

Hi Wayne,

Been following this thread, since it pertains to a question I posted a few weeks ago in another thread.  It was a rather simple question, or so I thought.  I've been moving my business to my home location and setting up a new(er) lighting system for viewing/judging the prints I make for other photographers, as well as my own.  Since the late 60s-early 70s I've been using 5000K fluorescent with approximately 400 Lux intensity on the print.  The rather large selection of lighting being used for this purpose now gives me one more area to research, which I have already started.  However, my initial question pertained to the average intensity of the light on the print when viewing/judging for average lighting to be displayed under.  In traditional lab work there was always a consistent colour temp and intensity we had to reach for this work, but now it seems to be a "to each his/her own" scenario.  I have seen a Lux figure from 200 to 1500-2000 for such situations.  When I read your reply here it certainly peaked my interest, as I had been thinking along that path as well, the fact that a high intensity light source for viewing would definitely cause problems matching the display, and vice versa.  Again I come back to my original response in the former thread I had been involved in.  The fact is we are not selling displays, we are selling prints.  The print is the final product, while the display is simply a tool, one part of the process.  A well calibrated and profiled display is of course an essential part of the process, but of course not the final or most important part.

Gary
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 23, 2017, 04:39:57 am
This isn't a lighting issue.

The OP is having issues with differences between printing with a custom profile vs Epson ABW.

Quote
The following is confounding me:

When I print using Epson's ABW I get exact screen to print matches..

When I print in color (using Canson Baryta with Canson profiles) my prints are always a couple of noticeable notches lighter.than what the Monitor is showing me...The colot is feeling fairly accurate but the print are always a bit lighter..ABW-exact.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Jimmy D Uptain on March 23, 2017, 06:52:56 am
I had the same issue just last week with Red River's Baryta. It printed much brighter than my display. So I re-calibrated my monitor to a higher brightness, no joy.

If I changed to a different paper profile, it printed much closer. I didn't change the paper, just the profile.

The funny thing is, the closest profile was Canson's profile.

Good thing is, canned profiles are free, so you can try different ones to see if that's the issue.

Red River said it sounded like a bad profile and they would do another and see if that fixes my problem.



One more thing, my issue was only with color prints.

For about a month I have been using Quad Tone Rip for my b&W, and my prints are very nice. You don't have to convert your printer to use QTR. It will use your existing inkset.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Wayne Fox on March 23, 2017, 11:32:26 am
This isn't a lighting issue.

The OP is having issues with differences between printing with a custom profile vs Epson ABW.
While that is true, to me the main issue is he cannot seem to create a display profile that allows a density match to his color prints.  This is assuming he is printing a known test file and not printing files that have an issue of not enough density in them when trying to get a match.

Main causes for this to me seem to be:

-Incorrect settings in the driver.  i assume he has verified that he is using the correct Epson media type recommended by Canson.

-Poor profile which was his original questions. Could be checked by printing same image on another paper type, preferably an Epson paper with an Epson profile.  also might try Epson's legacy Baryta profile instead of Canson's.  I have tried Canson Baryta with the Canson profile on my p9000 and the results were fine. While I wouldn't rule out the profile I would be surprised.  Also Canson is a pretty popular paper and many on this forum have used it, really haven't seen any complaints like this about the canson profile so this seems unlikely.


While too much light seems  unlikely based on what sounds like a single LED bulb as the light source, I mentioned it because I have seen it a couple of times.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 23, 2017, 02:04:40 pm
Wayne, I downloaded one that was at Outback..this one(http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/550_PrinterEvaluationTarget.jpg)

Also to Wayne..I'm good with my driver settings..fairly straight up for this..media type=Espon Premium Semigloss (recommended for Canson Baryta) selecting the Canson profile etc..


Lighting wise I was careful to back the lamp off..took some measurements from the wall where I previously viewed images..satisified with what I have right now...plus the mention previously by someone that my ABW prints were perfect matches to the monitor.

And, update: I've been working in Soft Proof with a light gray background (MUCH better)..Things are matching up pretty well right now but I still hate working in Soft Proof..things feel weird and not intuitive..struggling with what tools to use will get me back to what my images look like in Develop mode..Trying to keep it simple and all but i don't find it simple in any way and feel that the image, as I want it in the Develop Module..is not exactly there.

Typically, what tools do you guys try to stick with when soft proofing??..lots of choices and can be frustrating..exposure, contrast, black clipping level, curves, saturation, dealing with color shifts..

Also, when do you jump into Soft Proof mode?  At the beginning of editing -working on a Proof copy? At the end after working in the Develop module?

And the nagging question is: Why did I never feel the need to Soft Proof when I was using my old Artisan?? My prints were always so close..i could pull a decent print and then a minor tweak or two and I had it..Never once used Soft Proof..tried it but could not deal with it..(in photoshop BTW)
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 23, 2017, 02:23:16 pm
Let's start off forgetting about your Sony Artisan. Those days are gone, over with. Need to adapt to what is available to use now.

Working in softproof is in principle methodologically no different from working without softproof. The reaction of the histogram will differ to the extent that the gamut limitation of the softproof condition is playing out there. This is what you want. You use the same editing tools you would have used without softproofing. It's just that the adjustments will be a bit different with glossy/luster papers and more different with matte papers. Be guided in your adjustments primarily by what the photo looks like under softproof, because that is close to what it will look like out of the printer. You can use the histogram for general guidance on what's going on re clipping etc., but the primary focus should be on the character of the photo as it looks under softproof and what happens to it as you use the usual controls in the usual ways.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 23, 2017, 02:47:27 pm
Mark, RE the Sony..it was a question because I'm curious as to why?

As for how to approach Soft Proofing..thank you..that's pretty much how I've been proceeding..also using the "Y" key to compare the differences.

I'm still curious about when you guys prefer to jump into Soft Proof mode (?) I'm sure that response will vary quite a bit.


Also and very interesting: I was reading Ctein's method for letting Printer Manage etc..

This morning I set up a print according to his settings...Very impressive. I printed an image straight out of the Develop module using his 'Printer Managed' routine and it looks pretty much dead on..This feels promising for me.

Have any of you experimented with this routine? I noticed a thread on this forum about it..







Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 23, 2017, 02:55:14 pm
I do 99% of my photo editing and printing out of Lightroom. I START with softproof active because I know which paper and printer I shall be using, and I'm unlikely to make another print using some other paper; but if I do, I also know I can easily make a virtual copy ay any stage of the image editing and start over (if I go back to the beginning) or adjust incrementally under softproof for the other paper. Lightroom makes all this easy because the history steps are preserved and the original never changes. The non-softproofed state is meaningless to me because I am printing. Except, I would NOT use softproof for photos that are only purposed to the Internet.

As for Printer Manages Color: a crap-shoot. I want to control what I'm producing, and because I'm properly colour-managed, my waste ratio is in the range of 1%.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 23, 2017, 03:27:40 pm
Also to Wayne..I'm good with my driver settings..fairly straight up for this..media type=Espon Premium Semigloss (recommended for Canson Baryta) selecting the Canson profile etc..
So you're NOT rolling your own profiles for each paper? You're using Canson's supplied profiles? Don't know if it's been mentioned already but printers can drift over time but then that would mean it would affect Epson's ABW profile as well.

To nail down what you describe as brighter looking prints is this in the blacks and shadows only giving an overall washed out contrast where you can still see distinction in the separation in highlight detail going by that small 12 step grayramp in the lower center of your test image. IOW do the blacks look as dense as in the test image?
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 23, 2017, 09:22:34 pm

So you're NOT rolling your own profiles for each paper? You're using Canson's supplied profiles? Don't know if it's been mentioned already but printers can drift over time but then that would mean it would affect Epson's ABW profile as well.

To nail down what you describe as brighter looking prints is this in the blacks and shadows only giving an overall washed out contrast where you can still see distinction in the separation in highlight detail going by that small 12 step grayramp in the lower center of your test image. IOW do the blacks look as dense as in the test image?

Hi Tim, thanks for your input..Im pretty satisfied that mine was a soft proofing issue.


As for Printer Manages Color: a crap-shoot. I want to control what I'm producing, and because I'm properly colour-managed, my waste ratio is in the range of 1%.

Hi Mark..I've been making a variety of prints this afternoon-testing out the 'printer managed' scheme. These prints are extremely close to my monitor and more importantly for me..accurate to what I'm happy with in the develop module...variety of subjects with different challenges So far I'm very impressed with the consistency and accuracy that I'm seeing. *seem* like a piece of cake to me, I'm thrilled but feel like I'm cheating a bit..Out of about ten test there is one print that came out lighter than what I have on screen..colors accurate..everything except overall value..noticeably lighter..
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 23, 2017, 10:25:32 pm
Quote
As for Printer Manages Color: a crap-shoot.
These prints are extremely close to my monitor and more importantly for me..accurate to what I'm happy with in the develop module...variety of subjects with different challenges So far I'm very impressed with the consistency and accuracy that I'm seeing.

Quote
MY print viewing is being done, now, under a Hyperikon 3000k (testing a bit with 4000k Hyperikon too) BW and color prints under same lighting of course..

The 3000K Hyperikon LED's will make a print noticeably warm, far warmer than the 4000K shown in the link below compared to 5000K so I'm having a hard time seeing anyone getting match to a 6500K calibrated display.

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=116755.20

But I notice my "All In One" Epson NX330 "Printer Manages Color" out of Photoshop prints with a noticeable royal blue bias where I have to add yellow by reducing the blue channel middle slider in Levels before printing.

What do your prints look like next to an open window during the day? Do they match your display?



Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 23, 2017, 10:35:01 pm
Hi Tim..I've been checking them under three light sources..a  3000k hyper ikon a 4000k Hyperikon and the halogen floods in my studio..window light looks fine too..

Most of my work these days ends up under gallery lighting or home 'gallery' lighting in the case of private clients or buyers..I always reference that temp range heavily..

Im printing on a 7800 and I'm still running tests in 'printer manages color' as we speak..I don;t see any of that..everything is coming out tight..im sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop..lol

Tim, are you changing your settings in the "Print Matching" menu of the Epson Driver to "Epson Color Control"

Then go to the Print Settings menu and select "Adobe RGB"

In the LR print module then select "Managed By Printer"..

That seems to be the extent of Ctein's scheme for doing this..
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 24, 2017, 04:07:27 am
Tim, are you changing your settings in the "Print Matching" menu of the Epson Driver to "Epson Color Control"

Then go to the Print Settings menu and select "Adobe RGB"

In the LR print module then select "Managed By Printer"..

That seems to be the extent of Ctein's scheme for doing this..

I don't print out of LR. I print from CS3 Photoshop by first selecting "Managed By Printer" then "Epson Color Control", "AdobeRGB" and "Gamma 2.2". I have the last three saved as a preset. It's an "All In One" so I don't expect perfection especially concerning color tint bias.

For some reason the CS5 Photoshop changed their print dialog box where I can't call up the Epson driver settings like I can in CS3. This flakiness makes me go the easy route and print out of CS3. I can print just fine from Mac OS 10.6.8's "Preview" app and Firefox browser, CS5 PS gives me trouble.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 24, 2017, 09:47:14 am

Hi Mark..I've been making a variety of prints this afternoon-testing out the 'printer managed' scheme. These prints are extremely close to my monitor and more importantly for me..accurate to what I'm happy with in the develop module...variety of subjects with different challenges So far I'm very impressed with the consistency and accuracy that I'm seeing. *seem* like a piece of cake to me, I'm thrilled but feel like I'm cheating a bit..Out of about ten test there is one print that came out lighter than what I have on screen..colors accurate..everything except overall value..noticeably lighter..

Well, can't argue with success; if you are 90% happy and it's working well for you, it's not cheating; just carry on using it. But only for Epson papers listed in the driver, or 3rd-party media that are very close to an Epson Media Type you can select in the driver, otherwise it will not necessarily work well for you.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Garnick on March 24, 2017, 10:14:32 am
I don't print out of LR. I print from CS3 Photoshop by first selecting "Managed By Printer" then "Epson Color Control", "AdobeRGB" and "Gamma 2.2". I have the last three saved as a preset. It's an "All In One" so I don't expect perfection especially concerning color tint bias.

For some reason the CS5 Photoshop changed their print dialog box where I can't call up the Epson driver settings like I can in CS3. This flakiness makes me go the easy route and print out of CS3. I can print just fine from Mac OS 10.6.8's "Preview" app and Firefox browser, CS5 PS gives me trouble.

Tim - This is also your quote from reply # 12 - "This isn't a lighting issue".  Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I simply cannot understand how you come to that conclusion, even though I am definitely not ruling out other very important factors.  However, it would seem that you are using a single bare LED bulb for judging your prints, probably the worst scenario for such activity.  For print/test judging one would normally use a diffused light source that would completely cover the print in a much more even manner.  In no way am I discarding the possibility of using LED bulbs, but I would never depend on one or two bare bulbs to do the job, especially when viewing/judging a print larger than perhaps 11x14.  I was also of the the impression that you were printing in a professional environment and with Pro Graphic Printers, but it would seem that is not the case.  Not to rule out the possibility that an "All In One" can perhaps produce an acceptable print, but in my opinion they are far from what I would ever consider professional printers of any category.  I print with only Pro Graphic Printers because the quality of output is what I and my customers demand, and that's exactly we receive, a professionally produced final print.  Now of course I will admit that some of the files I receive present much more of a challenge than those from photogs who possess at least some knowledge of colour management, and include it in their workflow.  However, it's my job to produce a print that's as good as it can be, regardless of the quality of the image file I have been presented with.  That has always been my job, whether in a traditional lab printing type "C", type "R", Ciba, Dye Transfer etc., or for the past 12 years in the digital lab.  But quite enough of my boring history.

Once more I return to my concern that it would seem at least some of the posters here have no concept of a constant/standard intensity of light under which a print should be viewed/judged.  Perhaps I'm the one who's out of the loop here, since my background always relied on a standard light intensity that most professionals were very comfortable with, as far as producing prints that would be very acceptable under varied lighting situations.  Of course if one is printing for a particular photographer or gallery lighting situation it might be prudent to adapt one's own lighting accordingly if possible.  In my situation that scenario has not been an issue, since I have never received complaints concerning the density of a print I had produced.  And of course I then come back to the LUX value of a lighting setup for viewing/judging prints.  Of course that intensity can also be measured in Foot Candles, EV etc., but it all converts to the same thing eventually, an average lighting intensity for the purpose at hand.  In my business that means printing my own work, but mostly for other professionals and amateurs alike.  Perhaps that "standard" has now become a moving target, one that has no bearing on any sort of standard at all in actuality.  However, in my business that's not a target I can pursue.

It's been very many years since I've had the urge to print from PS CS3 or CS5, and baring some sort of OS catastrophe that scenario will never interest me again.  It is your choice and I respect that, but I must say I do not understand the reasoning behind that choice.  Can you not upgrade your Mac OS to accommodate a newer PS version and print from that?  I am one who has yet to enter the "cloud" and still print from PS CS6 and occasionally LR, but when it reaches the point where the subscription becomes a necessity I will make the jump.  Thus far that has not been the case, and I will soon be upgrading from Mac OS 10.9.5 to 10.11.x.  I have a boot clone with El Capitan installed for testing the printers and other apps before installing the upgrade on my Mac HD, all of which will be done as soon as I am settled after my recent move.   

Gary     

 

 
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 24, 2017, 11:26:02 am
Well, can't argue with success; if you are 90% happy and it's working well for you, it's not cheating; just carry on using it. But only for Epson papers listed in the driver, or 3rd-party media that are very close to an Epson Media Type you can select in the driver, otherwise it will not necessarily work well for you.

Like i said to Tim, sort of waiting for the other shoe to drop..so far so great..we'll see. I have only a few regular fav papers so maybe they'll fall into the happy group.. made a few of prints on Canson Baryta and also Harman Baryta with the same results.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 24, 2017, 11:30:03 am
Those two papers are fairly close to Epson Legacy Baryta in respect to driver handling.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 24, 2017, 11:35:56 am
It's been very many years since I've had the urge to print from PS CS3 or CS5, and baring some sort of OS catastrophe that scenario will never interest me again.  It is your choice and I respect that, but I must say I do not understand the reasoning behind that choice.  Can you not upgrade your Mac OS to accommodate a newer PS version and print from that?  I am one who has yet to enter the "cloud" and still print from PS CS6 and occasionally LR, but when it reaches the point where the subscription becomes a necessity I will make the jump.  Thus far that has not been the case, and I will soon be upgrading from Mac OS 10.9.5 to 10.11.x.  I have a boot clone with El Capitan installed for testing the printers and other apps before installing the upgrade on my Mac HD, all of which will be done as soon as I am settled after my recent move.   

Gary

I have a had a print station in place for many many years using a G5 and CS2..producing great prints to this day..the G5 and the Sony monitor are failing now and Im moving on, but..the prints off of that deal are stellar, still..i don't know if Tim is just as comfortable as I am with that, or whatever his limitations are but there is a lot to be said for sticking with something that just works..

:  )
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Garnick on March 24, 2017, 12:00:12 pm
I have a had a print station in place for many many years using a G5 and CS2..producing great prints to this day..the G5 and the Sony monitor are failing now and Im moving on, but..the prints off of that deal are stellar, still..i don't know if Tim is just as comfortable as I am with that, or whatever his limitations are but there is a lot to be said for sticking with something that just works..

:  )

Hi Pete,

I am in total agreement with you on that point.  I still have a G5 that I use very infrequently for the Nikon Scan 3.14, which of course is not compatible with any OS beyond the G5.  I've experimented with Vuescan and the Nikon Super Coolscan 4000, but never with the results I can get with the Nikon driver.  When I have more time I'll get into Vuescan again and take it to the limits of the app.  It doesn't have the fine tuning that the Nikon Scan has, but I might be able to make it work well enough for what I need.  Lasersoft Imaging has a driver for the Nikon scanner but the price is prohibitive, given the infrequent use I have for that scanner now.  I've used Silverfast for the flatbeds for many years, but I'm reluctant to pop for the $$$ required for the Nikon version.  For quite few years I produced all of my work on the G5, but it finally came to the point where needed to step up the Mac Pro.  I now have two of them, one as a backup with cloned drives.  They are both the older style(2010-12), before the "garbage can" version of 2013.  Apple seems to be neglecting the professional imaging market within the past few years, so I'll probably stay with what I have now for quite a long time. 

Gary   

Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 24, 2017, 04:18:22 pm
Yepp, Garnick..Scanner software is so important..went through the same motions you described with my Heidelberg Lino flatbed /trans/print scanner..SCSI, running off a beige G3..hahahahaha..almost right up till now..One of several beige G3's I found to keep that scanner running and to keep using the Linocolor software which was nothing short of amazing..

After the original G3 started getting very flaky..I tried to upgrade to a G4 with an om SCSI card..Linocolor wouldn't run in the newer OS that the G4 was released on..SO, I tried Vuescan. Seriously, not even worth comparing..no joy whatsoever in every regard..The Linocolor software was top shelf press stuff and was amazing in use and the results were stunning.

Ditched the G4 > went and found another beige g3 and kept it rolling through one more after that..just decommissioned the scanner about 4 months ago or so..felt sort of sad about that.

Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 24, 2017, 04:25:03 pm


Also and very interesting: I was reading Ctein's method for letting Printer Manage etc..

This morning I set up a print according to his settings...Very impressive. I printed an image straight out of the Develop module using his 'Printer Managed' routine and it looks pretty much dead on..This feels promising for me.

Have any of you experimented with this routine? I noticed a thread on this forum about it..

Hi again Pete;

Re your question that I highlighted in bold above, I decided to have a second look at "Printer Manages Color", but I don't really "experiment" - I use scientific methods to produce repeatable and verifiable data that gives insight into the comparative quality of different processes and materials, as you would have perhaps appreciated from the numerous paper and printer reviews I have researched and written for this website.

So, following through with that approach, I prepared a test of "Printer Manages Color using Epson Legacy Baryta paper in my Epson SCP-800 printer. I regret to inform you that the results are absolutely and comparatively sub-standard. You can read-up on my methodology in the already published articles, I shall not repeat it here, except to mention that for printing the test target of course I selected Epson Color Control, Adobe RGB color space(more than enough for the target) and Gamma 2.2 in the printer driver and Printer Manages Color in the Photoshop Print screen. Just last December I had reprofiled my P800 for this paper in the usual way I make custom profiles (i1Profiler, i1Pro2 spectrophotometer, XRite 2033 patch target, dual scan mode for M0, M1 and M2 measurement conditions, etc.)

Key comparative results are as follows for the Printer Manages Color option (with the standard Photoshop Manages Color using my custom profile in brackets beside).

Overall Accuracy, Average dE: 6.05  (0.89)
Neutrals Average dE: 3.14  (1.08)
dE colour bias of the grayscale: 1.68  (0.82)
Three Worst Outcomes dE: Orange 13.6; Purplish Blue 10.3; Blue 13.4; (Cyan 1.6;  50% Gray 1.3; Foliage 1.2)
The "worst outcomes" for my custom profile are indeed not bad at all, the results for those colours under "Printer Manages Color" being considerably worse at 4.8, 3.1 and 5.0 respectively.

The instrument Epson used to make the internal profile that gets selected for Printer Color Management is not the same as my instrument, so a bit of measurement difference could be attributed to variances of the measurement technology itself, however nothing near to the extent of the gaps shown here.

As far as I'm concerned "Printer Manages Color" once again is demonstrably inferior to a high quality custom profiling approach using active colour management. I'll admit, however, this stuff can be charmingly deceptive, in the sense that just looking at the printed test target before any measurement, it doesn't look too bad at all. When the two targets are viewed side by side however, differences of these magnitudes are indeed noticeable.

Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Ferp on March 24, 2017, 06:05:18 pm
Also and very interesting: I was reading Ctein's method for letting Printer Manage etc..   I noticed a thread on this forum about it..

There were several threads in fact, as there were several Ctein articles.  To simplify matters, all you need to read is one detailed and systematic analysis of why Ctein got the results that he did:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104307.msg857415#msg857415

Mark (MHMG) may not agree with this statement, but I regard it as the definitive debunking of Ctein's position.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 24, 2017, 07:00:26 pm
Hi again Pete;

Re your question that I highlighted in bold above, I decided to have a second look at "Printer Manages Color", but I don't really "experiment" - I use scientific methods to produce repeatable and verifiable data that gives insight into the comparative quality of different processes and materials, as you would have perhaps appreciated from the numerous paper and printer reviews I have researched and written for this website.

So, following through with that approach, I prepared a test of "Printer Manages Color using Epson Legacy Baryta paper in my Epson SCP-800 printer. I regret to inform you that the results are absolutely and comparatively sub-standard. You can read-up on my methodology in the already published articles, I shall not repeat it here, except to mention that for printing the test target of course I selected Epson Color Control, Adobe RGB color space(more than enough for the target) and Gamma 2.2 in the printer driver and Printer Manages Color in the Photoshop Print screen. Just last December I had reprofiled my P800 for this paper in the usual way I make custom profiles (i1Profiler, i1Pro2 spectrophotometer, XRite 2033 patch target, dual scan mode for M0, M1 and M2 measurement conditions, etc.)

Key comparative results are as follows for the Printer Manages Color option (with the standard Photoshop Manages Color using my custom profile in brackets beside).

Overall Accuracy, Average dE: 6.05  (0.89)
Neutrals Average dE: 3.14  (1.08)
dE colour bias of the grayscale: 1.68  (0.82)
Three Worst Outcomes dE: Orange 13.6; Purplish Blue 10.3; Blue 13.4; (Cyan 1.6;  50% Gray 1.3; Foliage 1.2)
The "worst outcomes" for my custom profile are indeed not bad at all, the results for those colours under "Printer Manages Color" being considerably worse at 4.8, 3.1 and 5.0 respectively.

The instrument Epson used to make the internal profile that gets selected for Printer Color Management is not the same as my instrument, so a bit of measurement difference could be attributed to variances of the measurement technology itself, however nothing near to the extent of the gaps shown here.

As far as I'm concerned "Printer Manages Color" once again is demonstrably inferior to a high quality custom profiling approach using active colour management. I'll admit, however, this stuff can be charmingly deceptive, in the sense that just looking at the printed test target before any measurement, it doesn't look too bad at all. When the two targets are viewed side by side however, differences of these magnitudes are indeed noticeable.



hi Mark, I appreciate your attention and time taken to do that. Im using a 7800. I set up my driver according to an article where he runs through all of the settings..no profiles involved. The prints I'm making are dead on matches. I'm no scientist, I'm an artist. I ran a commercial studio for 20 years in a large market, have plenty of experience in getting prints and transparencies readied for and then approved for press..as well as being at countless press checks..some it involving rigorous color matching. I trust my eyes.

I'm not saying that this can't fail, perhaps I jumped in lucky on what I'm printing. I'll take that any day. I'm saying that, so far, I'm very impressed over the span of about 4 different papers. There is something here that can work and i'm seeing it. Like said..it could come crashing down with right (wrong ) image or paper combo. I don't know, we'll see  :  )

I had one bump today with the Canson Baryta..I made some small prints of an image that was always challenging to nail..it printed a little bit flat and lacking the saturation present on screen.. but i was able to nail it with a couple of quick tweaks on the second small test and it looks phenomenal in now in a 16x20..happiest I've ever been with this one..That's all i got  :  )
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Pete JF on March 24, 2017, 07:04:50 pm
There were several threads in fact, as there were several Ctein articles.  To simplify matters, all you need to read is one detailed and systematic analysis of why Ctein got the results that he did:

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104307.msg857415#msg857415

Mark (MHMG) may not agree with this statement, but I regard it as the definitive debunking of Ctein's position.

Debunk away...This is working for what I've got right now. Clearly, there seem to be multiple situations where this scheme works quite well.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Ferp on March 24, 2017, 07:32:41 pm
Debunk away...This is working for what I've got right now. Clearly, there seem to be multiple situations where this scheme works quite well.

If it works for you then far be it from me to tell you that it doesn't.  The problem with printer manages color is that if you don't understand why it works in certain situations then you're not in a position to be able to predict when it will and when it won't.  If you read the extensive comments sections to the three Ctein articles on TOP, especially the last one, then you'll read that Windows users have a particular problem with setting printer manages color in the print dialog in Adobe software. You'll get a silent conversion to sRGB en route to the printer driver and that ain't going to be good for strongly saturated images.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Mark D Segal on March 24, 2017, 07:55:17 pm
hi Mark, I appreciate your attention and time taken to do that. Im using a 7800. I set up my driver according to an article where he runs through all of the settings..no profiles involved. The prints I'm making are dead on matches. I'm no scientist, I'm an artist. I ran a commercial studio for 20 years in a large market, have plenty of experience in getting prints and transparencies readied for and then approved for press..as well as being at countless press checks..some it involving rigorous color matching. I trust my eyes.

I'm not saying that this can't fail, perhaps I jumped in lucky on what I'm printing. I'll take that any day. I'm saying that, so far, I'm very impressed over the span of about 4 different papers. There is something here that can work and i'm seeing it. Like said..it could come crashing down with right (wrong ) image or paper combo. I don't know, we'll see  :  )

I had one bump today with the Canson Baryta..I made some small prints of an image that was always challenging to nail..it printed a little bit flat and lacking the saturation present on screen.. but i was able to nail it with a couple of quick tweaks on the second small test and it looks phenomenal in now in a 16x20..happiest I've ever been with this one..That's all i got  :  )

Hi Pete, if I were to repeat my testing on a 7800 (which I cannot) I would expect the results to be similar to what I obtained on the P800. However, if you find printer color management satisfactory for your set-up and purposes, as I said previously, who are we to discourage you - just go for what works for you. This thread just made me curious to go back and double-check my original perceptions of the relative merits of printer versus application colour management and I am now satisfied I know the answer, using very straightforward and reliable methodology.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 24, 2017, 08:44:27 pm
Tim - This is also your quote from reply # 12 - "This isn't a lighting issue".  Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I simply cannot understand how you come to that conclusion, even though I am definitely not ruling out other very important factors.  However, it would seem that you are using a single bare LED bulb for judging your prints, probably the worst scenario for such activity.  For print/test judging one would normally use a diffused light source that would completely cover the print in a much more even manner.

I have over 5 brands of daylight balanced lights I've tested that put out enough evenly diffused light for my 8x10's. If I was printing poster size I'ld get several of the Hyperikon 5000K 110ยบ floods because they have the best even spread of intense diffused white light I've ever seen in a light bulb. I would not use their 4000K and 3000K to check screen to print matching. Color of light is more important for checking color anomalies due to metamerizm and gamut clipping with the ink/paper combo.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 24, 2017, 09:45:18 pm
And to point out the importance of using an "accurate to printer characterization" ICC profile for soft proofing I downloaded from Dry Creek Photo one for the Fuji Frontier DL600 at my Walmart. Since Walmart's DL600 prints only in sRGB, I instead assigned the ICC printer profile to the sRGB source file which shows the reddish bias in warm colors and clipping of cyans and jade colors pretty accurately in the source image.

The attached image shows the source file I sent to Walmart and a picture I took of my calibrated 27inch LG sRGB gamut display showing how close the profile compared to the photo I took of the 8x10 print at the bottom viewed under my Philips T8 5000K Natural Light flotubes.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Garnick on March 25, 2017, 09:36:59 am
And to point out the importance of using an "accurate to printer characterization" ICC profile for soft proofing I downloaded from Dry Creek Photo one for the Fuji Frontier DL600 at my Walmart. Since Walmart's DL600 prints only in sRGB, I instead assigned the ICC printer profile to the sRGB source file which shows the reddish bias in warm colors and clipping of cyans and jade colors pretty accurately in the source image.

The attached image shows the source file I sent to Walmart and a picture I took of my calibrated 27inch LG sRGB gamut display showing how close the profile compared to the photo I took of the 8x10 print at the bottom viewed under my Philips T8 5000K Natural Light flotubes.

Hi Tim,

I apologize, but I still don't understand your devotion to Walmart as your go-to photo lab for your work.  I have seen my share of prints from both Walmart and Costco that were terrible examples of anything approaching a good print.  Banding and other issues lead me to believe that QC is severely lacking in both of these retail locations, and therefore, why would you assume that they are in any way interested in producing a quality print, especially given the price range they work in.  I also cannot understand why you would bother to download a profile from Dry Creek for a printer sitting in a Walmart store.  That is anything but a custom profile, and those stores would quite likely benefit from a custom profile even more than someone who actually has any amount of knowledge concerning inkjet printing.  Sorry Tim, but I'm totally confounded by the notion that somehow Walmart has now become thee place to go for quality printing. 

However, to change the subject slightly.  You mention that you have more than five brands of LED bulbs for testing.  Question #1 - do you have the CRI numbers for any of these bulbs and are those numbers substantiated?  Question #2 - At what degree of light intensity are you viewing your prints?  Of course that can be measured in EV or Foot Candles, which can then be stated in LUX or Lumens. 

Gary   

Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 25, 2017, 02:24:08 pm
Hi Tim,

I apologize, but I still don't understand your devotion to Walmart as your go-to photo lab for your work.  I have seen my share of prints from both Walmart and Costco that were terrible examples of anything approaching a good print.  Banding and other issues lead me to believe that QC is severely lacking in both of these retail locations, and therefore, why would you assume that they are in any way interested in producing a quality print, especially given the price range they work in.  I also cannot understand why you would bother to download a profile from Dry Creek for a printer sitting in a Walmart store.  That is anything but a custom profile, and those stores would quite likely benefit from a custom profile even more than someone who actually has any amount of knowledge concerning inkjet printing.  Sorry Tim, but I'm totally confounded by the notion that somehow Walmart has now become thee place to go for quality printing. 

However, to change the subject slightly.  You mention that you have more than five brands of LED bulbs for testing.  Question #1 - do you have the CRI numbers for any of these bulbs and are those numbers substantiated?  Question #2 - At what degree of light intensity are you viewing your prints?  Of course that can be measured in EV or Foot Candles, which can then be stated in LUX or Lumens. 

Gary

Hi, Gary.

I'm confounded on your insistence to put words in my mouth and over react to my using a big box vendor printer for 8x10's for home display. Take a powder and move on.

I'm also confounded how you can't see with your own eyes the print match in the soft proof example above of the shot of my display and 8x10 as confirmation of how off the Walmart print is from the source file.

I never said Walmart one hour photo dry lab is the go to printer. I just demonstrated just how accurate to the characterization of color errors the ICC profile showed me by assigning it to the sRGB source image. I've done this many times using DryCreekPhoto profiles of a number of local one hour photo labs to pre-visualize these errors for printers that print in sRGB which was the color space the ICC profile was built from at DryCreekPhoto.

I could have converted to that DryCreekPhoto profile and gotten a match but I didn't because I didn't print a test file to do a previsualization. The odds of getting a match to a color dump like the source image by assigning an ICC profile built from the same sRGB space printer miles away is rare with most one hour photo printers so this indicates how valuable and accurate building a printer profile can be even of some unknown off the wall printer.
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Garnick on March 26, 2017, 10:29:23 am
Hi, Gary.

I'm confounded on your insistence to put words in my mouth and over react to my using a big box vendor printer for 8x10's for home display. Take a powder and move on.

I'm also confounded how you can't see with your own eyes the print match in the soft proof example above of the shot of my display and 8x10 as confirmation of how off the Walmart print is from the source file.

I never said Walmart one hour photo dry lab is the go to printer. I just demonstrated just how accurate to the characterization of color errors the ICC profile showed me by assigning it to the sRGB source image. I've done this many times using DryCreekPhoto profiles of a number of local one hour photo labs to pre-visualize these errors for printers that print in sRGB which was the color space the ICC profile was built from at DryCreekPhoto.

I could have converted to that DryCreekPhoto profile and gotten a match but I didn't because I didn't print a test file to do a previsualization. The odds of getting a match to a color dump like the source image by assigning an ICC profile built from the same sRGB space printer miles away is rare with most one hour photo printers so this indicates how valuable and accurate building a printer profile can be even of some unknown off the wall printer.

You're absolutely correct Tim, I have been rather fixated on your apparent fixation with the Walmart Print Lab.  WOOPS...there I go again, letting my fingers get ahead of my brain and writing something I probably shouldn't have.  However, what's done is done and I will do as you suggested and "take a powder".  I'm sure you will be most happy to read those words, and I don't blame you for that.  You have offered a bit more information in your most recent post and I now understand your reason for such research, I think.  However, there is still one bit of information I would like to get from you concerning the viewing/judging of your prints, whether from Walmart or from your own printer.  One more time, can you please let me know the intensity of the light falling on the prints you are viewing.  That is a very important piece of information that I cannot seem to find on this forum, an average "standard" intensity of the lighting use to view/judge prints.

I do apologize for being a PITA Tim.  Perhaps we will have a more productive conversation at some point in the future.

Have great day -- seriously,

Gary  :)
Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 26, 2017, 03:08:24 pm
Gary, I can't tell you the exact intensity of light according to some lux, lumens, cd/m2 metric. I get a white light, any white light, and I move the print or light bulb/tube closer or farther away to get a match.

Any gallery track lighting setup or print matching booth will allow the same adjusting.

As an example to show that this doesn't seem to be an issue my local photography club I'm not a member gave a show at our local civic center [I found out about through my local Time Warner Cable/Spectrum news outlet] where they had the halogen track lights about 10 feet above the framed photos hanging on the wall pointing straight down. None of the light's beams were making it to the pieces. I had to rely on the diffused skylight another 10 feet higher up to provide enough dim light.

I asked a civic center technician I saw rigging up a media presentation projection system for another venue across from the photo display wall if they could get the track lights closer or at least directing the beam more on the pictures and he said it was all fixed and unmovable. That's the best they could do for lighting.

No one viewing the photos seemed to care or were bothered by the dim lighting of the photos.

Below is how I light my 8x10's in my living room next to a window I keep the blinds closed to diffuse the light. If I can see what the picture is depicting, I have enough light.

Title: Re: Print lighting, NEC PA272w Calibrations..Printing...differing results
Post by: Garnick on March 27, 2017, 01:53:34 pm
Gary, I can't tell you the exact intensity of light according to some lux, lumens, cd/m2 metric. I get a white light, any white light, and I move the print or light bulb/tube closer or farther away to get a match.

Any gallery track lighting setup or print matching booth will allow the same adjusting.

As an example to show that this doesn't seem to be an issue my local photography club I'm not a member gave a show at our local civic center [I found out about through my local Time Warner Cable/Spectrum news outlet] where they had the halogen track lights about 10 feet above the framed photos hanging on the wall pointing straight down. None of the light's beams were making it to the pieces. I had to rely on the diffused skylight another 10 feet higher up to provide enough dim light.

I asked a civic center technician I saw rigging up a media presentation projection system for another venue across from the photo display wall if they could get the track lights closer or at least directing the beam more on the pictures and he said it was all fixed and unmovable. That's the best they could do for lighting.

No one viewing the photos seemed to care or were bothered by the dim lighting of the photos.

Below is how I light my 8x10's in my living room next to a window I keep the blinds closed to diffuse the light. If I can see what the picture is depicting, I have enough light.

Hi Tim,

Although your information really doesn't apply to my situation, it does point out a huge flaw in the way some print shows are illuminated by amateurs.  That's a pretty sad tale about the camera club display, and also the fact that most of those viewing it didn't seem to have a problem with the lighting issues.  Taking into account the possibility that there were some good quality photographs on display, it is indeed a shame that the lighting was not able to present them in a manner befitting that quality.  Of course the method of lighting your own prints displayed in your home is entirely at your discretion, and may vary with whatever ambient light is available, but that is not the case with my situation.  I print for other photographers,  serious amateurs and professionals alike, so I need to have an average/"standard" for the lighting system I have for evaluating the prints as well as displaying them to my customers.  My background in Pro Custom Labs was such that we always kept a close eye on the print evaluation lighting setup, to be sure it adhered to both commercial and general photographic printing jobs.  As mentioned previously, I am doing some research concerning the efficacy of using one of the new LED system, and since one of the manufacturers mentioned(Lumicrest) is about a 25 minute drive away in Toronto, I am concentrating on them as a possible supplier.  I will soon be speaking to someone there and likely visiting their location very soon.  However, none of that research has or will give me the information I need concerning the "proper" lighting intensity necessary for my situation and needs.  In my previous location my evaluating light source was delivering approximately 400 LUX to the print, so I imagine I'll probably settle on that again, regardless of the actual bulb(s) I'll be using. 

Have a great day Tim,

Gary