Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: NikosR on December 13, 2006, 05:00:33 am
-
Hi,
I am facing a strange (?) problem trying to use the canned Hahn. icc profles on my Epson printers.
Please note that I seem to face the same problem on both my Epson 2100 (2200) using the 2100 icc profiles, and on my 3800 using the 3800/4800 canned profiles. I see the problem on both PhotoRag and Fine Art Pearl papers, using MK and PK inks respectively.
I have a calibrated screen, and I don't face the same problem with other paper / profile combinations (e.g. Epson papers and Epson canned or custom profiles).
I also use Hahn. recommended paper settings and perceptual intent with b.p. compensation off.
In short, the prints I get do not seem to match the softproofs. I get a much darker (saturated?) print than what is shown on the screen. This is not a subtle difference. It is plainly visible. Overall tone balance and relative tone distribution seems correct but the prints come out much darker.
This is not an issue of the shadows blocking. The whole print looks darker/more saturated. I don't know how to describe it, but it is sort of similar to increasing the saturation in PS, but not exactly the same. Sorry I cannot be more specific.
Can this be an over-inking problem to be corrected by adjustments in the driver?
I thought I would ask if anybody has faced the same issue before wasting too much paper playing with the ink settings in drivers.
-
Not to sound like a smarty-pants, but are you printing on the right side? I do the tongue test, sticky side is the ink receptor side. Also, what media setting are you using?
-
Yes I'm printing on the correct side Let me point out that the prints do not look 'smudged' in any way. In fact they are very nice prints, I think. Just much darker and saturated than on the soft proof (and also than the screen look without softproof on).
Media setting for PhotoRag is Velvet Fine Art, for FAP is Premium SemiGloss (as per Hahn's instructions).
Let me also say that I haven't tried any other profiles for the particular papers. Maybe I'll try the VFA profile with the PhotoRag just to see if I get the same problem.
-
I've always used the Enhanced Matte setting in the driver when printing with Photo Rag. You may even try the EEM profile with it and see if you get closer. I'm not sure how Hahnemühle is constructing their profiles, so if you still aren't getting good results you may consider a custom profile.
How are you calibrating/profiling your screen? Gamma settings? What package? You should not be seeing such a noticeable discrepancy. Also, you should be looking at your prints in a reasonable amount of light, preferably a D50 lightbox or Solux lamp. Soft proofing is quite dependent on the quality of your light source.
Regards,
-eric-
-
Eric,
Thanks for the comments. As I said I intent to test some epson profiles with the Hahn. papers to see if the problem persists. I'm still not sure if it is an icc problem or something else.
Softproofing works ok for other paper/profile combinations, that's why I'm puzzled with this problem.
I proof under both a Solux lamp and under a GTI viewing station (D50 fluorescent), and have my monitor calibrated with Spyder2 Pro.
I am pretty certain this is not a proofing or monitor calibration problem.
I suspect 4 things:
1. Hahn. profiles have a problem in the softproof portion of them (but this does not seem probable since I get a large discrepancy between screen and print, not between screen and softproof on screen)
2. Inking problem related to Epson driver and media seting
3. Completely screwing up my color managment print settings (has happened before ) and getting double color management or something.
4. Hahn. profiles just being plain wrong. But for both the 2100 and the 3800?. The 3800 profile is suspect since its the same as the 4800, but the 2100 should be well tested by now.
Any other ideas?
I think I'm in for a long night of tests and paper wasting.
-
The last resort option is to print your own profile targets and either read them yourself if you have that capability, or send them to a profile person like Andrew Rodney to be read. This way, you are assured of making your prints with the exact same media setting, etc., as you printed the targets with.
-
Thanks. jjlphoto, I'll do that eventually but I want to get to the heart of this issue.
I'm thinking of following the following test procedure:
1. Pray
2. Try the same prints with significantly lowering the ink in the printer driver. See if that brings the print closer to the soft-proof
3. Trying the HM papers with the recommended Epson media settings AND epson icc profiles.
4. Trying an Epson paper (for example VFA and EEM, both of which I have in stock) with the HM PhotoRag profile.
5. Curse.
I hope these tests help me pin-point the problem. Especially the fifth one.
Any other ideas?
-
You are certainly good at looking at all the variables. I hope you get to the heart of the problem. Personally, I have had mixed resuts when using a paper vendors's free supplied profiles.
-
Hi,
I am facing a strange (?) problem trying to use the canned Hahn. icc profles on my Epson printers.
Please note that I seem to face the same problem on both my Epson 2100 (2200) using the 2100 icc profiles, and on my 3800 using the 3800/4800 canned profiles. I see the problem on both PhotoRag and Fine Art Pearl papers, using MK and PK inks respectively.
I have a calibrated screen, and I don't face the same problem with other paper / profile combinations (e.g. Epson papers and Epson canned or custom profiles).
I also use Hahn. recommended paper settings and perceptual intent with b.p. compensation off.
In short, the prints I get do not seem to match the softproofs. I get a much darker (saturated?) print than what is shown on the screen. This is not a subtle difference. It is plainly visible. Overall tone balance and relative tone distribution seems correct but the prints come out much darker.
This is not an issue of the shadows blocking. The whole print looks darker/more saturated. I don't know how to describe it, but it is sort of similar to increasing the saturation in PS, but not exactly the same. Sorry I cannot be more specific.
Can this be an over-inking problem to be corrected by adjustments in the driver?
I thought I would ask if anybody has faced the same issue before wasting too much paper playing with the ink settings in drivers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=90218\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
-
Hi,
I am facing a strange (?) problem trying to use the canned Hahn. icc profles on my Epson printers.
Please note that I seem to face the same problem on both my Epson 2100 (2200) using the 2100 icc profiles, and on my 3800 using the 3800/4800 canned profiles. I see the problem on both PhotoRag and Fine Art Pearl papers, using MK and PK inks respectively.
I have been printing on photo rag on a 3800 with custom profiles that I had made. Prints are very good indeed.
I can't speak for the Hahnemuhle profiles, but before getting custom profiles I made a number of prints using the canned epson profiles that were installed with the driver. Try making a print on photo rag using either the installed epson Archival Matte paper or Enhanced Matte Paper profiles (I can't remember their names off hand), relative colormetric rendering intent and then the appropriate media setting in the print driver (making sure that color management is turned off). My experience is that prints on these settings are very good and really very close to the custom profiles I now use. They are also very close to what I see on my monitor.
I have never found Soft Proofing to be particularly accurate however carefully I calibrate my monitor but it is at least close. If you continue to get the same results using the epson profiles as above then something is very wrong - either your monitor is way off (seems unlikely) or something is corrupted and needs to be reinstalled.
I have found that the 3800 appears to lay down rather more ink than I am used to on other printers and prints do appear rather dark as they come out of the printer but dry down - rather like trad fibre papers in the wet darkroom.
-
FWIW I have found current Hahnemuhle canned profile for the 9800 very good. The company seems to update profiles and recent profiles are better than earlier ones. In comparing custom and canned profiles here, we have noted differences in linearity between printers, despite Epsons efforts. These shifts are minor except for very critical uses. If you use different drivers, ink settings etc from Hahemuhle there is not much use using a profile.
Why not contact Hahnemuhle?
Cheers,
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
Hi- A couple of things, I presume you are viewing the prints in daylight conditions or similar as the waters become quickly muddied if the quality (metamerism rears its head) or quantity of light used to judge the print is wrong. I have used Hana papers with Epsons for years and they are certainly harder to create profiles for than conventional photo papers or bright whight coated matt papers- i presume this means that canned profiles would probably be less reliable for this fussier media. Thirdly if any settings are changed within the driver from how it was set when the profile was made the benefit the profile may have offered is completely negated.
hope you sort it
-
i have the 4800 and had the same experience with hahne FAP....calibrated monitor, canned profiles, print looks good on screen, print....too dark....not bad but just....a little too dark....had some custom profiles made...got the profiles, a little better, but still too dark...called them, had them re-do my profiles, still the same.....gave up on the issue, just adjusted for the output in PS.....
second part of my story: i have a eizo ce240w monitor, which i love....when i got it (along with my intel mac) i found out that i could not perform the hardware calibration becuase the software wasn't ready....still the calibration looked good, had no problems other then the FAP issue which i thought was the paper profile......last week someone in this forum pointed out that there was a new software available to perform the hardware calibration on my eizo....did it, looks great, i honestly don't see the difference to the other profile (not hardware calib.)...anyway printed on FAP (hadn't in a while) and forgot to make adjustments....the prints are perfect.....much better then before with the adjustments....
i think the paper is actually capable of showing nuances in the shadows that the screen could not show properly and simply made lighter? not sure i can explain but i guess the DR is so god that the monitor really has to be abslutely perfect in order to represent the range....
a lot of my work depends on the shadows and i always have problems interpreting the screen, because someting backlit can obviously never really represent a flat piece of paper...but the combination of the eizo (with the hardware calibration!) and the FAP is the closest yet for me.....
-
Not to add insult to injury, but on my 1280, since 2003, I have been making custom profiles for various Hahnemuhle papers like Torchon, PhotoRag, Albrect Drurer, all with my GMB i1 Pro and Match 3 software. They profiled fine just like any other paper I profiled. I haven't made any Hahnemuhle profiles yet for my 3800.
-
I am having the EXACT same issue as Nikos. Was there ever a solution found for this?
Thanks,
Darrell
-
Make sure you have the latest Hahn profiles. Hahn updated their profiles mid last year. Much better.
I use Epson 4000 with Hahn Photo Rag factory profile. Set printer paper to Watercolor RW. Execellent results.
p
-
Like Nikos, I have the 3800. I downloaded the profile just 10 days ago.
Thanks for the suggestion though.
Make sure you have the latest Hahn profiles. Hahn updated their profiles mid last year. Much better.
I use Epson 4000 with Hahn Photo Rag factory profile. Set printer paper to Watercolor RW. Execellent results.
p
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96857\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I'm thinking of following the following test procedure:
1. Pray
...
5. Curse.
I can't offer much, except to say that in my testing of the Canon IPF5000 I have not found either of these steps effective or satisfying
--John
-
OK, here is another piece of info to our puzzle...
I am printing with the settings that Hahn recommends, using the Hahn driver.
Percteptual Rendering
BPC Off
Paper Type: As Hahn recommends.
I set up my proofing with the same settings.
My Hahn prints have come out dark and over saturated just like Nikos. So as a test, I switched my proof rendering from Perceptual to Relative. And now my screen matches the prints I had been getting.
Now, to switch the proof to match my prints is backwards. After all, these same files that look good on the screen, make great looking Glossy, Luster, and other type prints.
I would wonder if Hahn did something wierd in thier profiles, but many others have used them without probblems. Hmmm...
-
I've been using Hahn FAP on a 3800 and after some experimentation they are looking terrific.
These are my settings:
Custom ICC profile
Media: Premium luster
Paper thickness: 0.4
Platen gap: wide
Print quality: 2880
Hi speed finest detail etc are off
Rendering intent: Rel. Colorimetric with black comp on
Contrary to Hahns guidlines I found a better lay down of ink with Premium Luster compared to the semi matte. I also found their canned profile too dark.
Interestingly I find I get far superior results when printing on FAP with a dpi of 2880. The darks get notably dotty/splodgy in appearance with 1440. I haven't seen this big a difference with other papers.
-
Tim,
Are the images still saturated using these settings, and are the colors accurate?
It sounds like the Luster profile is laying down less ink. Some say that throws the color accuracy off, but if you are getting good results thats all that matters.
I will try your settings. I want to at least be able to determine if I like this paper without investing in a custom profile. With the Han profile/settings, I just cant tell yet.
Regards,
Darrell
I've been using Hahn FAP on a 3800 and after some experimentation they are looking terrific.
These are my settings:
Custom ICC profile
Media: Premium luster
Paper thickness: 0.4
Platen gap: wide
Print quality: 2880
Hi speed finest detail etc are off
Rendering intent: Rel. Colorimetric with black comp on
Contrary to Hahns guidlines I found a better lay down of ink with Premium Luster compared to the semi matte. I also found their canned profile too dark.
Interestingly I find I get far superior results when printing on FAP with a dpi of 2880. The darks get notably dotty/splodgy in appearance with 1440. I haven't seen this big a difference with other papers.
Cheers
Tim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Tim,
Are the images still saturated using these settings, and are the colors accurate?
It sounds like the Luster profile is laying down less ink. Some say that throws the color accuracy off, but if you are getting good results thats all that matters.
I will try your settings. I want to at least be able to determine if I like this paper without investing in a custom profile. With the Han profile/settings, I just cant tell yet.
Regards,
Darrell
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=96983\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Saturation is good and colours are spot on. For what it's worth I didn't like this paper until I had a custom profile made but now I'm very happy with it
-
I have an update on the FineArt Pearl profile.
When I used the FineArt Pearl the dark areas were a bit muddy, and many the red-brown colors were got merged into on color. red-brown areas that have details on the monitor and other papers/profiles became flat.
I purchased PrintFix Pro hoping the Hahn profile was the issue. I did a Glossy profile as a warm, then went for the FAP profile.
The FAP profile turned out much better than Hahnemuhle's. The muddiness in the shadow ares is gone, and the red-brown colors print out fine.
The Printfix package is supposed to be a good package but definetly not the very best, and this is only my 2nd profile. How did Hahn put out a poor profile, that a newbie could best it, on the first try?
I and others have wasted so much time and paper trying to get this paper/profile to work. I am annoyed that Hahn wastes our time and paper with such a poor profile.
Maybe I should trade them my profile for a box of paper. Mine box is almost empty now.
I am in the middle of a big job right now, but I plan to make a profile for the Photo Rag and PhotoRag Bright soon. The Hahn profiles for these papers are better than the FAP profiles, but still not great.
Regards,
Darrell
Hi Darrell,
Saturation is good and colours are spot on. For what it's worth I didn't like this paper until I had a custom profile made but now I'm very happy with it - in for a penny.....
Cheers
Tim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=97006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]