Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: nilo on September 01, 2010, 04:32:06 pm
-
I have been reorganizing and rethinking a lot of my work flow and techniques in the last months, last but not least because I moved to bigger studio and finally got myself access to the Internet.
With the new NEC PA241, I find myself in the classic situation, that my prints come out too dark ;-) That means the monitor, at 80cd/m2 is is too bright or my viewing booth is to dark. A NEC PA241W at 80cd/m2 is at it's minimum. The viewing booth next to the monitor is dimmed to 50% and is visually definitely brighter than the screen. The print looks too dark there, when compared to the screen. But I have a big 3x2m wall viewing booth, at a high brightness level (because that's where I compare proof to print etc.), and still the print is to dark! Contrast looks very good, and usually with the PA241 the print looks closer to the screen when I turn PS proof off... even the colors!
Thank you in advance for any help with this
regards
nino
-
- is the printer actually profiled?
- do you use the paper the profile refers to?
- do you use the ink the profile refers to?
- are the printer settings correct?
- are you sure your softproof settings are appropriate?
-
Thank you for your quick reply!
- is the printer actually profiled? Yes
- do you use the paper the profile refers to? Yes
- do you use the ink the profile refers to? Yes
- are the printer settings correct? Yes.
- are you sure your softproof settings are appropriate? I don't understand! What do you mean?
-
- are you sure your softproof settings are appropriate? I don't understand! What do you mean?
do you set the softproof to either rel.col or perceptual? did you select simulation of "black ink"? the simulation of "paper white"? is "preserve rgb numbers" deselected?
did you make the paper profile by yourself and do you have extensive experience with profiling papers?
is the paper profile based on Colormunki?
-
I use relative colometric because I do portraits. It comes out darker on the screen than perceptual, so I would think that this should make my prints even brighter.
I have selected "Black Point Compensation" and "Simulate Paper Color", which automatically checks "Simulate Black Ink"
"Preserve RGB Numbers" is deselected.
Also I always try to view the soft proof with no menu bars etc. nothing but the full screen image.
I do not make paper profiles myself. I usually send out for profiling, but as I was not completely satisfied with that either till now, I often end up with the canned profile for Hahnemuhle, Canson and Epson. (Maybe I have to finally try one of the big names and send over to America for a profile?) It is because I have not enough time nor money to start to get some experience with profile making. I played a view times with Monaco EZColor in the past. The software came with the V750Pro, but I was very disappointed. Not that the results where that bad, just the canned profiles where always better. Certainly tweaked, so not related to the actual measurements IMHO. For similar reasons I would not get a Colormonki. If I would believe that there are better results to be obtained with a i1Pro, I would maybe buy one. As time goes by, I buy a lot of all those must haves. Most of them appeared to be way behind the big euphoria on the forums for some reason or another.
-
I have selected "Black Point Compensation" and "Simulate Paper Color", which automatically checks "Simulate Black Ink"
are you telling me that "simulate paper color" makes the softoproof brighter ? (above you said the monitor view without softproof does match better).
try to softproof without "simulate paper color" but select only "simulate black ink". the simulation of paper color actually only works if the profiles are optimized... IMO.
now, if your monitor is already as low as 80cd/m2 and the prints are still too dark... that's strange. Hard to give advice without seeing the actual prints and the actual monitor... sorry.
-
are you telling me that "simulate paper color" makes the softoproof brighter ? (above you said the monitor view without softproof does match better).
Checking Rel.col. makes things usually darker on the screen. So, if I uncheck everything except Rel.col, the distribution of highlights and shadows look closer to the print (surprise, I printed with rel.col), but the overall impression of the screen is darker than the print, because the paper simply is not that black and does not have the contrast. Now, when I add to that only the Black Point compensation, as you suggested, that makes things look quite good, though still a bit dark, because of the Black Level capabilities of a monitor. If I than finally mix in, as you said, "simulate Black Ink" without "simulate paper color" things turn brighter, or less contrasted. You are right, it is actually "simulate Paper color" that ruins the game here by me! That's why without soft proof the image looked closer to the print, because simulate paper color spoiled the soft proof.
Thank you so much!!! Finally! I did a little test print right now, and could see definite improvement!
But what about the colors? I guess that adjusting the white point of the monitor to that of the paper, is not enough? What are optimized profiles? (As I thought that that would be a separate subject, I posted a new thread on that: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=46011.0 )
-
...
Also I always try to view the soft proof with no menu bars etc. nothing but the full screen image.
Is the screen background around the image set to black? I need a white background around the image to perceive it correctly. With gray or black I tend to adjust the image too dark.
Dave
-
Checking Rel.col. makes things usually darker on the screen. So, if I uncheck everything except Rel.col, the distribution of highlights and shadows look closer to the print (surprise, I printed with rel.col), but the overall impression of the screen is darker than the print, because the paper simply is not that black and does not have the contrast. Now, when I add to that only the Black Point compensation, as you suggested, that makes things look quite good, though still a bit dark, because of the Black Level capabilities of a monitor. If I than finally mix in, as you said, "simulate Black Ink" without "simulate paper color" things turn brighter, or less contrasted. You are right, it is actually "simulate Paper color" that ruins the game here by me! That's why without soft proof the image looked closer to the print, because simulate paper color spoiled the soft proof.
Thank you so much!!! Finally! I did a little test print right now, and could see definite improvement!
But what about the colors? I guess that adjusting the white point of the monitor to that of the paper, is not enough? What are optimized profiles? (As I thought that that would be a separate subject, I posted a new thread on that: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=46011.0 )
Simulate Paper Color should make the soft-proof more accurate, not less, so there is still something wrong here. You need BPC to remap Black to what is printable if your rendering Intent is RelCol. If you are using Simulate Paper Color, Simulate Black Ink is checked by default and you can't change it unless you don't simulate paper color.
There hasn't been much discussion here about your monitor settings. Even working in a rather dimly lit environment, 80 cd/m2 is VERY low. One would expect a more correct setting to be in the range of 100~120. From your first post, you appear to be suggesting that the problem started with the new monitor - the NEC PA241. What hardware and software you profiling this monitor with and what calibration settings are you making for the monitor profile. Your whole problem may be more related to the monitor than to the printer side of the colour management chain.
-
Simulate Paper Color should make the soft-proof more accurate, not less, so there is still something wrong here.
it highly depends on the profiles. If the paper contains OBAs you can forget the simualtion of paper color.
But even if it does not contain OBAs it doesn't work out of the box. Assumed your monitor is calibrated to match paper white in the viewing booth... now, if you turn on "simulate paper color" in the softproof settings and it results in the slightest change in white (often goes hand in hand with a loss of highlight differentiation on the monitor) than something simply doesn't add up.
We are talking endlessly about a visuell match for the monitor calibration. Simply because measurement devices are seeing things differently than we are seeing it (if you work under D50 conditions and set the monitor to 5000K it will look yellowish... mostly a value somewehere between 5200-5800 is the better match). Actually it's the same with papers - the simulation of paper color is highly questionable unless someone tweaks the profiles so that they visually match.
On the other hand: if the monitor matches paper white a rel.col softproof with simulate black ink is WYSIWYG (well, very close at least).
Attached sofproof-screenshots with 3 papers - FUJI matt/C-print with heavy OBAs (on Chromira), Innova Fiba ultrasmooth with OBAs (on Epson 11880) and a profile from Bill Attkinson for the Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper (on Epson 11880). Each without sofproof (top left), with rel.col+BPC+simulate black ink (bottom left), with rel.col+BPC+simulation of paper color (top right) and the latter set to abs.col. for reference (bottom right).
The first two reproduce a much too blue white point (logically). I don't use the Bill Atkinson profile nor the paper in question but I am sure nobody would see a greenish tint on the real paper.
In short: these "paper whites" most likely represent correct measurements. But a human eye would never rate the differences of "white" that high. So... assumed the monitor matches the paper white of the respective papers (white point and brightness) the samples bottom left will match the real print.
edit: for further reference see for instance here: http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Printer_to_Match_my_Screen#SOFT_PROOFING
maybe Pat Herold can elaborate further...
-
Simulate Paper Color is a utility in Photoshop designed to use the reverse look-up of your paper profile to project a simulation of the change in tint and reduced dynamic range that will emerge on the print relative to what you see on the display. To the extent your printer profile is a good one and permits a reliable reverse look-up, the feature should work as advertised - to provide a visually more realistic prediction of how the print will come out. I routinely use this feature - in the old days with Epson Enhanced Matte which is chalk-full of OBA to today with Ilford Gold Fibre Silk which has baryta rather than heavy doses of OBA, and in both cases it has prevented me from wasting a hell of a lot of paper and ink. But each to his own. All of this of course assumes that your display is properly colour-managed, and that is why I raised the question about the specifics of how this gentleman's display is managed. He's posted stuff on three different threads, perhaps because he doesn't know that all of these problems may well be related, and it should all be brought under the same microscope in the same place. Then we may begin to get somewhere.
-
To the extent your printer profile is a good one and permits a reliable reverse look-up, the feature should work as advertised - to provide a visually more realistic prediction of how the print will come out.
Great… in theory.
Attached you'll find the simulated paper white of 20 profiles of Bill Atkinson (for the Epson 11880).
I am sure they are all accurate in terms of colormetry. But obviously it's rather unlikely that the real paper whites would look like that visually.
I'd consider them all as ununsable for softproof with the simulation of "paper color" (though I didn't print with them anywhere).
Now, maybe someone can post such a "good" profile with a "reliable reverse look-up" that works as advertised.
as to dynamic range:
1.) when measurement devices record a certain color tint for a certain paper this automatically means that the measured white is not only "colored"… it is also darker than white. This can effectively affect the dynamic range of the softproof (i.e. slightly compressed highlights that are actually visable in print).
2.) if the monitor already matches the brightness of the print paper all you need to do is to check "simulate black ink" to see the actual dynamic range of the print.
This is actually self-explanatory.
agreed on the importance of an accurately calibrated monitor...
-
I'm not reporting on theory, I'm reporting on my own experience over thousands of prints. using Photoshop and Epson professional printers. If you are talking from theory, that's one thing, if you are talking from the experience of actually having made prints on the basis of intelligent soft-proofing, well, I can say is that we've had different experience! You won't see the practical effect of any of this by posting a profile. Users just need to try it and see whether it works for them.
Now, how does the monitor match the brightness of the print paper. When you look at a print, you are seeing reflected light, so are we looking at the print under candlelight or bright sunlight? OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. Then the display - what is the ambient lighting environment in which you are looking at display brightness? Ambient environment affects how bright the image looks regardless of the cd/m2 setting, and as someone mentioned, the colour of the surround within the image window. And what do you think makes best practice - to have a different display parameter and therefore display profile for each different paper you use, or have one properly calibrated and profiled display set-up, and use the correct printer profile and corresponding soft-proofing for each different paper? I can tell you the industry-standard answer to that question, but I think you know it - and for those who don't - it's the latter.
None of this is answering the OPs question about why he's getting the kind of mismatch he mentioned in post #1 and what he needs to do to fix it - correctly. So if his problem isn't solved yet, I would suggest we revert to the basic question.
-
Are the prints too dark no matter how and where you view them?
-
...You are right, it is actually "simulate Paper color" that ruins the game here by me! That's why without soft proof the image looked closer to the print, because simulate paper color spoiled the soft proof....
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the issue, but with simulate paper color on, did you actually follow through and adjust the softproofed view to match the non-softproofed view on your screen? It usually takes some curves or levels adjustments.
-
Mark, you didn't adress the issue of colormetry vs. visual perception... (of course not in general, but WRT to paper white).
Papers are different, of course! But they are not as different as the colormetric measured paper white show us.
The (photographic) paper white range goes from warm over neutral to cold white (or so)... but they don't go from magenta over green and yellow to blue... it's not wrapping paper :-)
Now, how does the monitor match the brightness of the print paper. When you look at a print, you are seeing reflected light, so are we looking at the print under candlelight or bright sunlight? ...
are you asking me? D50 viewing booth to eye up prints. Behind my monitor there is a big shade (grey painted) and behind that shade there is a D50 light ... etc. pp. It certainly doesn't meet all criteria of the ISO standards but I'd say it's quite good.
Surprisingly my prints look good (i.e. as intended). Colors match very good, gradation from the blacks to the whites and overall brightness is very close to what I see on the monitor. And I am quite pedantic when it comes to my prints...
-
Thank you! All of you!
Lucky me, I had a lot of work, and could not get the time to answer earlier.
regards
nino
-
Is the screen background around the image set to black? I need a white background around the image to perceive it correctly. With gray or black I tend to adjust the image too dark.
Dave
Dave,
In Full screen mode, I often switch around between black, white and gray, as I find that each of them lets you see different aspects of an image. Typically though, I use gray. Also, I could only notice that the background color has effects on the perception of highlights and shadows, contrast etc., not on color hue, but maybe I am wrong... ???
nino
-
Mark,
Simulate Paper Color should make the soft-proof more accurate, not less, so there is still something wrong here.
I am aware of that. Let me add a thing. Most people I know would say that everything in my color management looks perfect, including most importantly the final result. A lot of my colleagues, whose monitors I have seen, would not notice the problem, or even if they would, they would not bother. I mean to say, that even if I say, that color and brightness are off, things are relative. But for my standard, for your standard, for our standard things are simply off. And something is definitely wrong here since I got a, without any doubt, better monitor, the PA241W.
So I hope that "Simulate Paper Color" will again be of use. Only, what I understood from "tho_mas" is that sometimes it is better to leave it unchecked. I can see an immediate example for that. In the few Epson 3880 canned profiles I use, checking SPC is ok. The Canson canned 3880 profile for CIFA Platine is better with SPC unchecked. Now when I try to use CIFA Baryta Photographique things are worse, because I found absolutely no way of making my colors match the screen. Whatever I do. All this became clearer with the help of "tho_mas"'. I also see that the canned profiles for the 3880 and the 9900 give me very different results, even I soft proof for each on separately.
[...]
There hasn't been much discussion here about your monitor settings. Even working in a rather dimly lit environment, 80 cd/m2 is VERY low.
That was one of my problems. I continued to turn down the monitor, as prints did not get bright enough. There was change, but not enough. When I hit 80, I realized that I will need help with this ;)
One would expect a more correct setting to be in the range of 100~120.
"tho_mas"'s questions made me reconsider my whole settings. I started all over again. Calibrating by trying to match paper color visually, which is an extremely difficult task. I am unable to accomplish this to my satisfaction. I tried to measure it, but things are worse. Presettings of 5000, 5500, 5800... all left me unhappy till now. So with the NEC PA241W I started also to be more demanding, as it is such a good piece of equipment. With a click of the mouse I can change settings. It's amazing. So right now I have a targeted each of my few papers regarding the white point. For example around 4700K x 0.3526 y 0.3584 is close to a visual match for me, the PA241 and JUST@5000K. Luminosity ranges between 110 and 120.
From your first post, you appear to be suggesting that the problem started with the new monitor - the NEC PA241.
You are right. And, as I said, the exchange with "tho_mas" made me go through this recalibrating, rethinking. I could not go lower than 80cd/m2. So I went back to 120 and left Simulate Paper color unchecked, as per instruction. And it got a lot better, maybe very good ;) Even for the colors quite close, but not close enough. In my understanding this must be due to a poor profile, right? With a better profile SPC would presumably also work well (I still don't know to whom in America, to send those targets for profiling).
What hardware and software you profiling this monitor with
NEC MDSVSENSOR and SPectraViewII
and what calibration settings are you making for the monitor profile. [...]
White point: function of paper white (BTW I normaly use OBA free papers)
Gamma: 1.8
Brightness: 110-120
Contrast: Monitor default (around 375:1 for these conditions. I hope that this default means minimum neutral black. High Delta E numbers I get for the blacks might suggest otherwise??)
nino
-
it highly depends on the profiles. If the paper contains OBAs you can forget the simualtion of paper color.
My standard papers, CIFA Platine and HM PR Baryta do not contain OBA/FBAs. I also use Epson semi-gloss and semimatte and SPC works fine with them. CIFA Baryta Photographiue and Harman Gloss FB AL Wt are a real problem for me with the canned profiles.
But even if it does not contain OBAs it doesn't work out of the box. Assumed your monitor is calibrated to match paper white in the viewing booth... now, if you turn on "simulate paper color" in the softproof settings and it results in the slightest change in white (often goes hand in hand with a loss of highlight differentiation on the monitor) than something simply doesn't add up. We are talking endlessly about a visuell match for the monitor calibration. Simply because measurement devices are seeing things differently than we are seeing it (if you work under D50 conditions and set the monitor to 5000K it will look yellowish... mostly a value somewehere between 5200-5800 is the better match). Actually it's the same with papers - the simulation of paper color is highly questionable unless someone tweaks the profiles so that they visually match.
On the other hand: if the monitor matches paper white a rel.col softproof with simulate black ink is WYSIWYG (well, very close at least).
that makes perfectly sens to me and, as I said, I tried it out. The only thing is that, the visual match gets me in the regions of 4700K. And I understand the profile must be at fault, if my colors are still off with one profile and visual paper white match, but closer with another paper and its profile.
[...]
edit: for further reference see for instance here: http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Printer_to_Match_my_Screen#SOFT_PROOFING
maybe Pat Herold can elaborate further...
thank you also for that reference
nino
-
[...] All of this of course assumes that your display is properly colour-managed, and that is why I raised the question about the specifics of how this gentleman's display is managed.[...]
I hope I could answer this in reply to your last post.
He's posted stuff on three different threads, perhaps because he doesn't know that all of these problems may well be related, and it should all be brought under the same microscope in the same place. Then we may begin to get somewhere.
or, maybe I have nonetheless a little bit of experience with threads. Discussions usually tend to drift away one way on one aspect. I correctly assumed that you would notice the other threads I started simultaneously. Also did I crossreference them explicitly when it I felt necessary. Each thread underlines one particular angle, or lets call it a different symptom, of a possible common problem, "My pictures print to dark" and "colors are way off".
regards
nino
-
[...]
Now, how does the monitor match the brightness of the print paper. When you look at a print, you are seeing reflected light, so are we looking at the print under candlelight or bright sunlight? OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get the point. [...]
But isn't it precisely for that reason that we have contractual standardized viewing conditions
Then the display - what is the ambient lighting environment in which you are looking at display brightness?
don't we have standards for that too?
Ambient environment affects how bright the image looks regardless of the cd/m2 setting, and as someone mentioned,
the PA241w has a compensation function for that (not sure though how that works)
the colour of the surround within the image window.
in an industry standard situation that should not be a problem either
And what do you think makes best practice - to have a different display parameter and therefore display profile for each different paper you use, or have one properly calibrated and profiled display set-up, and use the correct printer profile and corresponding soft-proofing for each different paper? I can tell you the industry-standard answer to that question, but I think you know it - and for those who don't - it's the latter.
on the other hand, things could get better, and technology advance also. 3D Luts (possible device and paper simulation) and one click change between calibration/profile...
None of this is answering the OPs question about why he's getting the kind of mismatch he mentioned in post #1 and what he needs to do to fix it - correctly. So if his problem isn't solved yet, I would suggest we revert to the basic question.
Thanks Mark. My situation is partially better. Partially because, regarding one paper, turning off "SPC" and having my monitor visually match that paper white, gives me now good results for brightness highlight and shadows, not so good for color. Another paper though, consistently gives me colors that are considerably off and desaturated compared to the soft proof. I tried very hard both approaches described here, yours with independently calibrated and profiled monitor with SPC tuned on, and "tho_mas"' approach with visual match of white point and luminance and SPC unchecked. I tried and tweak again and again. All this is with the manufacturers profiles. I will use custom profiles (once I'll know where to send the color targets). Nonetheless I should be able to make things a little bit better, but I can't, for CIFA Baryta Photographique particularly on 3880 K3VM nothing helped so far?!
regards
nino
-
Andrew,
Are the prints too dark no matter how and where you view them?
You are right! That is what I wrote in the OP. On my desktop viewing booth dimmed to match the screen, on full power 2x3m large viewing wall, under the 4700K and the 3600K Solux spots, and where ever in the house and on the terrace: too dark.
EDIT: viewing booths are 5000K
-
Chas,
Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the issue, but with simulate paper color on, did you actually follow through and adjust the softproofed view to match the non-softproofed view on your screen? It usually takes some curves or levels adjustments.
I did. That's the normal procedure. I usually open a duplicate. Turn on soft proof on that one. Do the actual soft proof, meaning the adjustments... Print. Compare it with the screen. That's how I found out that the print does not look like the screen ;)
regards
nino
-
[...] D50 viewing booth to eye up prints. Behind my monitor there is a big shade (grey painted) and behind that shade there is a D50 light ... etc. pp. It certainly doesn't meet all criteria of the ISO standards but I'd say it's quite good.
I think my darkroom does meet the standards.
Surprisingly my prints look good (i.e. as intended).
When I use soft proof only, mine don't.
Colors match very good, gradation from the blacks to the whites and overall brightness is very close to what I see on the monitor. And I am quite pedantic when it comes to my prints...
me too, that's why I continue to rely heavily on hard proofs. To what extant custom profiles will change the quality of the match, I am not overly optimistic...
nino
-
White point: function of paper white (BTW I normaly use OBA free papers)
Gamma: 1.8
Brightness: 110-120
Contrast: Monitor default (around 375:1 for these conditions. I hope that this default means minimum neutral black. High Delta E numbers I get for the blacks might suggest otherwise??)
the latter got my attention again.
You should definitely not go for the "deepest" black, but (if you like the contrast) you should go for the deepest neutral black.
Otherwise you can get color cast in the blacks.
If your software doesn't allow you to switch from "deepest black" to "deepest neutral black" (or whatever it is called) you should set a black level slightly above the generic black point (0.2 or 0.25 or what... I'd go for 0.3, but you already knew that).
The next thing that comes to my mind is that you might have a weak measurement device. Unless you use one of those $$$$$$ Minolta spectrometers all the measurment devices have issues to measure dark tonal values accurately (which is, BTW, another reason to slightly boost the black level). If your DeltaE numbers are within reasonable values all over the tonal range but not in the dark tonal values this is certainly the first issue to adress.
So I'd say:
- calibrate for the deepest neutral black or set an appropriate numeric value for the black level
- if things still look bad maybe loan a second colorimeter to run a comparision (if possible a DTP94 as they are usually not that bad in dark tonal values)
Ambient environment affects how bright the image looks regardless of the cd/m2 setting, and as someone mentioned
the PA241w has a compensation function for that (not sure though how that works)
are you using this ambient light compensation? Turn it off!
-
Andrew,
You are right! That is what I wrote in the OP. On my desktop viewing booth dimmed to match the screen, on full power 2x3m large viewing wall, under the 4700K and the 3600K Solux spots, and where ever in the house and on the terrace: too dark.
EDIT: viewing booths are 5000K
IF they look too dark everywhere, then lets move away from the display for the moment and see if this is true for all images (even those reference images that are known to have ideal RGB values) because this points to a color management problem elsewhere, like the ICC profile, how its being used, the printer etc. My suggestion would be to download a reference image, print it as you print other work and see if its dark. I have a Printer Test File on my tips and tricks web page, Bill Atkinsion has a great series on his download page (http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html) and Thomas Holm has a series of excellent images at http://www.pixl.dk/download/
-
Whilst Nino goes through the testing with the reference images Andrew suggested I wanted to come back to softproofing as I am finding some of the suggestions a bit misleading.
I think the "standards" are clear and you can look them up in several publications.
Still - we all are facing the problem of a mistmatch of colormetric measured values and visual perception… and also the problem of measurement errors.
Why don't you simply use D50 for the monitor? Or the measured "ambient light" value of your viewing booth? Because it doesn't look accurate to your eyes.
Finally you won't get profiles with a "good" reverse look up everywhere; often you get a profile that is good (or even perfect) for printing but not tweaked for accurate softproofing.
What puzzles me in this context is that people recommend to get a visuell match of monitor and paper but at the same time recommend to view the softproof abs.col. on the monitor… i.e. to activate the simulation of paper color that effectively changes the monitor white + luminance. Simply doesn't make sense at all.
Either the monitor matches prior to activating the softproof or after activating the softproof. Both at the same time is a contradiction in itself.
Now as to the claim "simulation of paper white should match better" …
"Simulate paper color" means that the softproofed image goes back to the monitor with abs.col. RI.
The abs.col. RI does not use a dedicated table in the profile. It uses the rel.col. table but takes the media white point into account (which is an approximation anyway).
Abs.col. RI and rel.col. RI produce identical results when the paper white point is exactly D50 - by definiton.
In turn this means - consequently - when the monitor already matches paper white (i.e. both monitor white and paper white are equalized) there is no reason for the color management to spin the white point further towards the paper white point or to turn the whites darker or anything.
So the "rel.col." method is an accurate color managed workflow. The only downside here is that you actually have to create a separate monitor profile for each paper (or maybe 3: one for warm, one for neutral and one for cold white …). On the other hand you don't have to deal with measurement-errors resp. with the difference of colormetric values and visual perception.
As to the aboved mentioned "industry standards": IMO, if you want to use them you have to set everything to the standards. So for instance a monitor luminance level of 160cd/m2 to meet the 500Lx of the viewing booth.
Now, with a monitor that bright and a softproof that reduces the brightness (according to the, say, L*96 luminance or whatever is stored in the respective paper profile)… the result may also come very close to a match in terms of brightness and contrast. Makes sense. Still begs the question if the colormetric measured paper white really matches visually…
Also let's not forget that the industry standards allow a certain range of color differences, i.e. tolerances. But a difference of 2 DeltaE for the white point is actually inacceptable, even 1 DeltaE is inedible… at least for me (whereas a difference of, say, 4 DeltaE in high saturated, dark blues or so might be almost indiscernible).
The issue here, IMO, a monitor that is adusted to meet the required white point and luminance level is actually not exactly appropriate to edit images - because working without the simulation of (any) paper color it will be too bright.
Me I feel much better to edit my images at a luminance level that matches paper white from the very beginning (which, again, refers to a "rel.col" workflow).
So, to me, it doesn't make sense to calibrate the display to match paper white visually and to set the softroof to simulate paper color at the same time and I am curious how you eliminate this contradiction…?
-
IF they look too dark everywhere, then lets move away from the display for the moment and see if this is true for all images (even those reference images that are known to have ideal RGB values) because this points to a color management problem elsewhere, like the ICC profile, how its being used, the printer etc. My suggestion would be to download a reference image, print it as you print other work and see if its dark. I have a Printer Test File on my tips and tricks web page, Bill Atkinsion has a great series on his download page (http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html) and Thomas Holm has a series of excellent images at http://www.pixl.dk/download/
Whether I set the monitor to D50 or, to my visual match of a specific paper white, the reference images turn out darker and cooler. I tried 110-120cd/m2 and again 80cd/m2. Also with soft proof turned on (Rel.col and respectively SPC or not) everything looks washed out on the screen, compared to the much more saturated and contrasted print. Basically, and to put it in more scientific terms, I would say that the print looks good, not so the screen. In regard to colors, the skin tones on the print look much more natural than those of the screen. Generally, as mentioned, the screen looks like through a warming/yellow filter. So I tried to go up to UGRA standard 5800K, which did not produce a better screen to print match, neither did way to blue D65.
-
does this look as supposed to when you open it in photoshop?
edit: and if I rembember correctly you are running 3 monitors side by side... is this correct?
I'd switch to a single monitor setup (with your NEC) until this issue is fixed.
-
does this look as supposed to when you open it in photoshop?
yes. I can easily see a difference between the steps.
edit: and if I rembember correctly you are running 3 monitors side by side... is this correct?
I'd switch to a single monitor setup (with your NEC) until this issue is fixed.
done
-
yes. I can easily see a difference between the steps.
and they all look neutral... no color cast?
how does this image look printed? (or: as you alredy have printed one of those test images... how does the grey scale looks like in the print?)
-
and they all look neutral... no color cast?
how does this image look printed? (or: as you alredy have printed one of those test images... how does the grey scale looks like in the print?)
All the grey scales I printed do not seem to have any visually assessable color cast. (I am still at D50, 1.8, 120.)
Edit: No color cast on the screen either
-
All the grey scales I printed do not seem to have any visually assessable color cast. (I am still at D50, 1.8, 120.)
did I get this right...?
- the greyscale looks equidistant on the monitor and on the print.
- the greyscale also doesn't show color cast neither on the print nor on the monitor?
(okay, just now saw your "edit"...)
So the yellowish cast you were talking about is only in colors ... not in the greyscale?
And at the same time your monitor is too dark, even if you set it as low as 80cd/m2?
could you briefly outline your workflow when calibrating the display?
How do you make the black calibration of the measurment device (which device are you using)?
Could you attach your monitor profile here (as you can't attach files withthe suffix "icc" resp. "icm" just rename the suffix to "txt")?
-
did I get this right...?
- the greyscale looks equidistant on the monitor and on the print.
- the greyscale also doesn't show color cast neither on the print nor on the monitor?
right.
So the yellowish cast you were talking about is only in colors ... not in the greyscale?
right.
And at the same time your monitor is too dark, even if you set it as low as 80cd/m2?
No, the print is too dark, even when I set the monitor to 80cd/m2.
-
No, the print is too dark, even when I set the monitor to 80cd/m2.
sure... confused - sorry!
while we're at it:
do you have the impression that the monitor is too bright all over the tonal range... or rather that the dark and mid tonal values are too bright (compared to the print, of course) wheras the white is okay?
-
Why don't you simply use D50 for the monitor? Or the measured "ambient light" value of your viewing booth? Because it doesn't look accurate to your eyes.
I totally agree! Its why in the old CRT days, calibrating them to D50 didn’t produce a match to a so called D50 viewing condition. Its why I start the process at D65 then adjust the values to get a visual match.
Finally you won't get profiles with a "good" reverse look up everywhere; often you get a profile that is good (or even perfect) for printing but not tweaked for accurate softproofing.
The system is far from ideal. I do adjust the white point to produce a match with the soft proof on.
What puzzles me in this context is that people recommend to get a visuell match of monitor and paper but at the same time recommend to view the softproof abs.col. on the monitor… i.e. to activate the simulation of paper color that effectively changes the monitor white + luminance. Simply doesn't make sense at all.
Its generally more about getting a match with a better contrast ratio, especially today where we have LCDs that far exceed that of a print (although better solutions do allow us to control this which is very useful). IOW, the Absolute intent is more useful for showing us a white that has a white and black that doesn’t assume white being the whitest the display can produce and black that is a black hole in terms of the display. I find that it helps to do this because of the big disconnect in display versus paper white once a white point has been adjusted. Note too, there is no reason why, with a good display system like the NEC SpectraView that you cannot make multiple calibration targets and associated profiles which are loaded on the fly. Other solutions kind of force you into a white point and contrast ratio that is supposed to be good for all papers and profiles. Not ideal. Going a step farther, NEC’s newer units allow us to load an actual output profile into their software for a creation of this “more ideal, soft proof per product” concept. But as I said, all this is still far from a totally ideal situation for soft proofing.
Either the monitor matches prior to activating the softproof or after activating the softproof.
The goal is after. Prior, I’m editing the image visually to look as good as it can, in this RGB working space preview. Its my master that will have to undergo some editing while in soft proofing mode, on adjustment layers, based on each paper profile, the rendering intent I decide that image needs etc.
The abs.col. RI does not use a dedicated table in the profile. It uses the rel.col. table but takes the media white point into account (which is an approximation anyway).
Abs.col. RI and rel.col.
Considering the only differences are the white rendering, is there a reason you think two tables would be necessary?
As to the aboved mentioned "industry standards": IMO, if you want to use them you have to set everything to the standards.
Standards like this are useful when they work and when people need to work in a collaborative environment. Not everyone does. They use different viewing booths, different display manufacturers etc. In a true collaborative environment, a true reference environment, even the exact display make and model, the same Colorimeters (ideally the same lot of Colorimeters) along with a very high grade reference device would be used. Any shift from these items will cause issues with matching.
Also let's not forget that the industry standards allow a certain range of color differences, i.e. tolerances. But a difference of 2 DeltaE for the white point is actually inacceptable, even 1 DeltaE is inedible… at least for me (whereas a difference of, say, 4 DeltaE in high saturated, dark blues or so might be almost indiscernible).
And this is easily a delta one can find just by measuring color in the center and then the edges of even a good quality display. As I said, this is all far from ideal!
So, to me, it doesn't make sense to calibrate the display to match paper white visually and to set the softroof to simulate paper color at the same time and I am curious how you eliminate this contradiction…?
It makes sense if whoever is doing this results in that visual match or the elusive and often difficult goal of WYSIWYG. And in the end, an emissive display and a reflective print will never perfectly match. We hope that we can view a soft proof and with maybe one or two prints, get our work done without any surprises. Soft proofing is just that, a goal in avoiding as much expensive hard proofing as possible. It could be better. Its not close to perfect but it seems many users who struggle with it and get close find it useful.
-
Andrew - thanks for the in depth reply. Much appreciated!
Finally... we agree that there is a lot to "tweak" and there are many things to consider WRT to a "match" or "mismatch".
So even if you set everything to the recommended "standards" you will not automatically get a match.
I do adjust the white point to produce a match with the soft proof on.
Now that makes sense! So you still have to adjust your display for each paper...
But this is basically the same as adjusting the white point without softproof and leave "simulate paper color" unchecked.
I prefer a display that is more neutral for image editing without softproof enabled... so I prefer the "rel.col" method.
So one way or another... I think we agree here.
The abs.col. RI does not use a dedicated table in the profile. It uses the rel.col. table but takes the media white point into account (which is an approximation anyway).
Considering the only differences are the white rendering, is there a reason you think two tables would be necessary?
no, not at all! I just wanted to point out that there is no "magic" (or so) in abs.col. ... rather that it is just adjusting the white point. And in the end result there is no difference if I adjust the monitor towards the paper white without softproof eanbled (and consequently leave simulation of paper color unchecked). I was referring to the statement abs.col. "should match better". It can match as good... but not better.
-
Now that makes sense! So you still have to adjust your display for each paper...
Sometimes (depends on the paper of course, I usually only work with two) but the NEC SpectraView makes loading different target calibrations and their associated ICC profile a one button affair.
-
Sometimes (depends on the paper of course, I usually only work with two) but the NEC SpectraView makes loading different target calibrations and their associated ICC profile a one button affair.
I think I have to take a look at one of those NEC displays and the said feature at Photokina (or elsewhere). Sounds handy.
I actually only use one monitor profile. As my prints are being made in a lab (C-prints, FUJI matt) and I literally always use the same paper it's easy to handle for me. When I am (occasionally) printing on Innova Fiba ultra smooth (which is high white, semi gloss) or when I have to prepare files for offset printing (coated paper) I simply switch to a slightly higher luminance (i.e. from 100cd/m2 to 115cd/m2 here ... without paper simulation).
-
sure... confused - sorry!
while we're at it:
do you have the impression that the monitor is too bright all over the tonal range... or rather that the dark and mid tonal values are too bright (compared to the print, of course) wheras the white is okay?
It's more the darks and the mid tonal values that are brighter on the screen than on the print. And highlights are whiter on the paper. The print seems to have more contrast and saturation than the screen. Especially yellow is more saturated in the print. The dark blues and greens area little bit lighter on the screen. All this seems to cause a slight blueish color cast, which is noticeable on all skin tones. But grey scales appear neutral.
-
Sometimes (depends on the paper of course, I usually only work with two) but the NEC SpectraView makes loading different target calibrations and their associated ICC profile a one button affair.
But the new NEC PAs offer even greater possibilities: You can actually load the paper-profile into the 3DLUT of the monitor, and also change between different simulation with a click of the mouse.
That should give new perspectives to the above described work flow? Especially regarding soft proofing?
-
It's more the darks and the mid tonal values that are brighter on the screen than on the print. And highlights are whiter on the paper. The print seems to have more contrast and saturation than the screen. Especially yellow is more saturated in the print. The dark blues and greens area little bit lighter on the screen. All this seems to cause a slight blueish color cast, which is noticeable on all skin tones. But grey scales appear neutral.
My guess is that the calibration curve down from a certain luminosity is off... This can have several reasons. For instance it can result from a bad black calibration of the puck prior to the actual calibration.
But first let's check this...:
your calibration target is Gamma 1.8. ... please create a smooth gradation in Photoshop from black to white in ProPhoto RGB (or ECI-RGB or any Gamma 1.8 working space...). Now assign (not "convert" to!) your monitor profile. Does the dispersion of luminance remains the same or does the gradation change?
edit: and mabye you can post a validation chart... like this:
-
My guess is that the calibration curve down from a certain luminosity is off... This can have several reasons. For instance it can result from a bad black calibration of the puck prior to the actual calibration.
But first let's check this...:
your calibration target is Gamma 1.8. ... please create a smooth gradation in Photoshop from black to white in ProPhoto RGB (or ECI-RGB or any Gamma 1.8 working space...). Now assign (not "convert" to!) your monitor profile. Does the dispersion of luminance remains the same or does the gradation change?
edit: and mabye you can post a validation chart... like this:
Thank you Tho_mas for your patience and for taking the time to sort this out!
The dispersion of luminance remains the same, when in PS assigning the monitor profile to a ProPhotoRGB smooth gradient.
Regarding the validation chart, I don't have software to produce one. i1Match does not recognize the NEC monitor profile. SpectraviewII does validations, but gives not report chart... Maybe BasICColor?
regards
nino
-
SpectraviewII does validations, but gives not report chart...
so maybe you can post a screenshot of that validation?
and, again, which puck are you using?
-
so maybe you can post a screenshot of that validation?
and, again, which puck are you using?
Here is a screen shot of two measurements with the NEC MDSVSENSOR and one with the DTP94B. Very interesting indeed! I made all the profiles until now with the NECMDSVSENSOR that I especially bought because it is supposed to give better results with the wide gamut monitor as it is custom mated to the NEC wide gamut monitors...
EDIT added the attachments ;)
-
Now, basically those validations do not tell a lot in terms of "absolut" DeltaE … but they tell something about the difference of target->profile based on the measurment with the same puck.
For my taste the DeltaE of the greyscale is much too high. On a higher quality display the greyscale should be around 0.5 or so. In any case clearly below 1 DeltaE.
Not sure… but maybe the color shift you are seeing comes from the inconsistent greyscale.
Also not sure what to do here without seeing the actual monitor.
So just some random thoughts to consider WRT to calibration…
- reset the monitor and make sure that any "auto" feature is disabled (such as ambient light compensation etc.)
- monitor should run 2 hours prior to calibration
- the puck should be warmed up on the display. The i1Displays (the NEC is based on the i1Display, correct?) may very well need 15 minutes to warm up (mine definitely needs 15 minutes).
Why? The devices get more sensitive to dark tonal values when they warm up. So if they warm up during the calibration you may get a inconsistent calibration curve.
(for some reason this does not apply to the DTP94… at least not to my copy).
- black calibration. When the software is asking you to put the device on a flat surface (or so)… do not use a flat surface. Black Molton (or similar) is much better. Whatever you use, make sure that absolutely no light creeps under the puck.
Why? When the puck measures a black value during monitor calibration that is below the black level of the initial calibration the entire greyscale can be screwed up.
- you have certainly seen sometime when pressing your thumb on an LCD it will show a kind of "glow" that disappears after some seconds.
Now, the puck may also produce that kind of glow from its own weight when it is sitting on the display (which is ideally tilted back so that the puck sits securely on the LCD).
So make sure that you either don't move the puck as long as it sits on the LCD, or - if you have to remove it temporarily - that you place it on exactly the same position (otherwise it may measure in the area of the "glow").
If you can't get better results for the greyscale I'd contact your dealer. Maybe you have to exchange the monitor...
edit:
here are the greyscale values from the above attached validation of my 3 year old Eizo CG241W after 9200 hours of use.
Your brand new NEC should be able to come close.
another edit: I may very well have overlooked something! So take it with a grain of salt...
-
Now, basically those validations do not tell a lot in terms of "absolut" DeltaE … but they tell something about the difference of target->profile based on the measurment with the same puck.
For my taste the DeltaE of the greyscale is much too high. On a higher quality display the greyscale should be around 0.5 or so. In any case clearly below 1 DeltaE.
Not sure… but maybe the color shift you are seeing comes from the inconsistent greyscale.
Also not sure what to do here without seeing the actual monitor.
So just some random thoughts to consider WRT to calibration…
- reset the monitor and make sure that any "auto" feature is disabled (such as ambient light compensation etc.)
- monitor should run 2 hours prior to calibration
- the puck should be warmed up on the display. The i1Displays (the NEC is based on the i1Display, correct?) may very well need 15 minutes to warm up (mine definitely needs 15 minutes).
Why? The devices get more sensitive to dark tonal values when they warm up. So if they warm up during the calibration you may get a inconsistent calibration curve.
(for some reason this does not apply to the DTP94… at least not to my copy).
- black calibration. When the software is asking you to put the device on a flat surface (or so)… do not use a flat surface. Black Molton (or similar) is much better. Whatever you use, make sure that absolutely no light creeps under the puck.
Why? When the puck measures a black value during monitor calibration that is below the black level of the initial calibration the entire greyscale can be screwed up.
- you have certainly seen sometime when pressing your thumb on an LCD it will show a kind of "glow" that disappears after some seconds.
Now, the puck may also produce that kind of glow from its own weight when it is sitting on the display (which is ideally tilted back so that the puck sits securely on the LCD).
So make sure that you either don't move the puck as long as it sits on the LCD, or - if you have to remove it temporarily - that you place it on exactly the same position (otherwise it may measure in the area of the "glow").
If you can't get better results for the greyscale I'd contact your dealer. Maybe you have to exchange the monitor...
edit:
here are the greyscale values from the above attached validation of my 3 year old Eizo CG241W after 9200 hours of use.
Your brand new NEC should be able to come close.
another edit: I may very well have overlooked something! So take it with a grain of salt...
I will do as you say.
BTW, I forgot to mention that I made the test prints with more than one printer. It was the 3880 and the 9900. I also used more than one paper and profile. It was Canson Platine and Baryta Photographique, as well as Hahnemuhle PR Baryta and PR Pearl. The cast was an issue on all the papers and profiles. So I really think that there is a problem with the PA241W. Unfortunately I can't get it back to the dealer, as I had to bring it over by plane from Europe, because the local dealer does not sell those screens (When I asked them they told me a price that was something outrageously ridiculous)
-
Unfortunately I can't get it back to the dealer, as I had to bring it over by plane from Europe, because the local dealer does not sell those screens (When I asked them they told me a price that was something outrageously ridiculous)
is there no NEC service in your country or so? Maybe give it a try...
Have you tried to create an LUT profile? Maybe this will improve things.
If the NEC software doesn't create table based profiles take BasICColor Display...
Last but not least you can also try to hardware-calibrate with the NEC software and additionally sofware-calibrate with BasICColor Display (LUT, 16bit) to the same targets... resp. to the "native" white point, to the "min. black point" (in this case, as the NEC software already set the black point...) and to Gamma 1.8.
-
is there no NEC service in your country or so? Maybe give it a try...
[...]
I'll try that, but they do not sell graphic high-end monitors here, and from my experience with the local distributor, they do not know what they talk about.
Have you tried to create an LUT profile? Maybe this will improve things.
[...]
? I don't know what exactly you mean!
-
Have you tried to create an LUT profile? Maybe this will improve things.
I don't know what exactly you mean!
In BC Display the 5th subitem of "adjustments", i.e. in the "profile" tab you can choose to create a TRC matrix profile (which is mostly okay) or to create a table based profile (LUT = "look up table").
In Quatos iColor Display it's the last menu "save profile as". Here you can also choose to safe the profile as matrix or LUT profile.
Possibly an LUT profile will improve things.
As to my "last but not least" advice above... maybe it's better to use iColor Display instead of BC Display for the additional software calibration as you can choose the correction table "generic IPS wide gamut" here.
But first I'd try to create an LUT profile with BasICColor in hadware calibration mode (normally BasICColor supports hardware calibration for all the NEC displays... not sure if the latest update already supports your model).
-
I don't know what exactly you mean!In BC Display the 5th subitem of "adjustments" in the "profile" tab you can choose to create a TRC matrix profile (which is mostly okay) or to create a LUT profile (LUT = "look up table").
In Quatos iColor Display it's the last menu "save profile as". Here you can also choose to safe the profile as matrix or LUT profile.
Possibly an LUT profile will improve things.
As to my "last but not least" advice above... maybe it's better to use iColor Display instead of BC Display for the additional software calibration as you can choose the correction table "generic IPS wide gamut" here.
But first I'd try to create an LUT profile with BasICColor in hadware calibration mode (normally BasICColor supports hardware calibration for all the NEC displays... not sure if the latest update already supports your model).
I was about to ask you why you preferred BC to Quato. There is only one thing. I have a European monitor, and I already double checked with BC, it does not support hardware calibration , because it has been blocked (which is not the case for the North-American models). SO I think I'll have to go with Quato and software calibration, if the above described retry and routine does not work out.
BTW we have this NEC because we had issues with the EIZOs :D
-
I already double checked with BC, it does not support hardware calibration , because it has been blocked
man, those things are really totally unnecessary and annoying!
SO I think I'll have to go with Quato and software calibration, if the above described retry and routine does not work out.
yes. But first have a look if the NEC software can create an LUT profile. Only if not I'd try the "dual" calibration method...
-
Tho_mas,
Here are the calibration and validation DeltaE results obtained with the DTP94b
-
looks much, much better now!!
does it also look better visually?
A smooth gradient black to white in Photoshop looks good, i.e. shows no banding?
Did you create a LUT profile or is this just the result of my advices WRT to black calibration etc. ?
Now, it will get even better!
The blacks still look off way too much.
What black level did you set as target?
-
looks much, much better now!!
does it also look better visually?
A smooth gradient black to white in Photoshop looks good, i.e. shows no banding?
Did you create a LUT profile or is this just the result of my advices WRT to black calibration etc. ?
Now, it will get even better!
The blacks still look off way too much.
What black level did you set as target?
I simply redid a calibration/profiling with SpectraViewII applying all the advices. A few major differences to my prior tries with the PA241W:
- I warmed up the puck (I wanted to believe that, when placed on the screen right before the calibration/profiling, and the profiling being very quick, that there was no need to warm the puck up).
- I used the DTP94b instead of the NEC MDSVSENSOR, NEC's custom mated i1d2 (I resisted this replacement because I paid so much and had so much trouble to get this NEC puck over from America. And it is supposed to be better!)
- In the preferences I checked "Avarage low luminance measurements" ("Improves the accuracy of low luminance measurements by taking several measurements and averaging them."
- I set 52 calibration and profile steps instead of 32.
- I changed the calibration priority from "maximize contrast ratio" to "Best grayscale color tracking" (That was a winner I think?!)
- I used the option "extended luminance stabilization time"
- all other auto's are off
I can't see no banding on a gradient.
The test images show the same kind of difference to the print. The screen is a little bit too bright and has a yellow color cast.
As Black Level I choose "Monitor Default", that's around 450.
I just validated the calibration again, and again and again. This time with the NEC puck, and things look like this:
White point Delta E: 2.95, 3.32, 3.12, 3.79
Maximum Grayscale Delta E: 2.95, 3.32, 3.12, 3.79
Average Grayscale Delta E: 2.19, 2.67, 2.55, 2.89
I have a third colorimeter, a regular i1D2. Here is the validation:
White point Delta E: 8.28, 7.64
Maximum Grayscale Delta E: 8.28, 7.64
Average Grayscale Delta E: 6.63, 6.17
New validation with DTP94b:
White point Delta E: 0.29
Maximum Grayscale Delta E: 1.09
Average Grayscale Delta E: 0.65
Hmmm...???
So I did a new calibration with the NEC puck, and Delta E is at an average 0.86 and a max 2.86 (including dark values). DTP94b validation is White Point DeltaE:2.87, Max Grayscale DeltaE:2.87, Average Grayscale DeltaE: 2.04
To be honest, for soft proofing purposes, or any critical color work that is, this screen is not usable. Mainly because of the yellow cast. As I said, prints, on different printers and with different profiles, consistently come out darker and blueish, magenta.
-
Thomas,
I followed your advice and lowered the contrast a bit, to approximately 0.4. Consequently the Delta E readings of dark values got better. A got averages as low as 0.4-0.5. As a matter of fact the bad deep blacks, just got cut off. Superstitiously, I also covered the monitor with a viewing cloth from the large format camera, though that wouldn't be necessary I think, as the digital darkroom is also a big, real old fashioned darkroom, just pitch black.
It took me lot of time, and I head to try that off business hours. The result is very good. Brightness and matches, insofar as the dark values are a bit darker on the print and the light values are bit lighter on the paper. So the paper seems to have, what I would call, a bigger dynamic range. I have the monitor at 125cd/m2 now and the gamma at 2.2.
The yellow cast of the screen, making the paper appear bluish and cold, got almost solved by again lifting the temperature. Its now 6000K and good match for now.
There is one last thing which I can't correct. That is that the print seems to show more red everywhere, more saturated reds, in the shadows, highlights and mid-tones. And the screen definitely lacks the reds.
I hope you have a good advice for this ;)
regards
shaya
-
- In the preferences I checked "Avarage low luminance measurements" ("Improves the accuracy of low luminance measurements by taking several measurements and averaging them."
- I set 52 calibration and profile steps instead of 32.
- I changed the calibration priority from "maximize contrast ratio" to "Best grayscale color tracking" (That was a winner I think?!)
these were the crucial changes, especially the first and the latter are essential.
I just validated the calibration again, and again and again. This time with the NEC puck, and things look like this:
White point Delta E: 2.95, 3.32, 3.12, 3.79
Maximum Grayscale Delta E: 2.95, 3.32, 3.12, 3.79
Average Grayscale Delta E: 2.19, 2.67, 2.55, 2.89
I have a third colorimeter, a regular i1D2. Here is the validation:
White point Delta E: 8.28, 7.64
Maximum Grayscale Delta E: 8.28, 7.64
Average Grayscale Delta E: 6.63, 6.17
New validation with DTP94b:
White point Delta E: 0.29
Maximum Grayscale Delta E: 1.09
Average Grayscale Delta E: 0.65
Hmmm...???
So I did a new calibration with the NEC puck, and Delta E is at an average 0.86 and a max 2.86 (including dark values). DTP94b validation is White Point DeltaE:2.87, Max Grayscale DeltaE:2.87, Average Grayscale DeltaE: 2.04
when you are calibrating with device A the validation with device B is absolutely irrelevent! You are wasting time!
Obviously the DTP94 makes the better greyscale, especially in the dark tonal values (which is no surprise).
So if the NEC puck and the DTP94 produce roughly the same results WRT to colors I'd use the DTP94.
I followed your advice and lowered the contrast a bit, to approximately 0.4. Consequently the Delta E readings of dark values got better. A got averages as low as 0.4-0.5. As a matter of fact the bad deep blacks, just got cut off.
Sounds very good!
Do you see what that means?
If you want to calibrate the monitor to (for instance) 5000K but the display has a generic white point of (for instance) 6500K (mostly even bluer in the blacks) the software has to adjust the hardware... i.e. it has to adjust the RGB channels of the monitor from RGB 0-0-0 to RGB 12-8-0 (or whatever... fictitious numbers). Strictly speaking this adjustment does not apply to the actual RGB channels of the monitor (only the white point is adjusted by the RGB channels) but it applies to the RGB channels in the LUT of the monitor.
So a neutral black - without any color cast and consequently whithout such a high DeltaE value - is always brighter than the absolut black (as said RGB 12-8-0 is simply not pure black).
It's up to you whether you prefer a bad calibration curve but higher contrast or prefer an accurate calibration curve but a lower contrast.
I think it's quite clear which one I would prefer.
BTW, a black level of 0.4cd/m2 is absolutely not uncommon for IPS panels. Maybe this new NEC is advertised as an IPS monitor with a lower black level. But if you can utilize the low black level only at the generic white point it's useless... IMO.
You have to get used to the somewhat lower contrast. But I promise you will get used to it after some time.
Now, as to a "match" with the prints, contrast wise, I bet the monitor still has a much, much higher contrast.
If you feel prints and monitor match better when you set the softproof to rel.col. + BPC (for the conversion) but leave the simulation of paper white and even the simulation of black ink unchecked, than go for it. It sounds a bit strange to me, as in re.col. viewing on the monitor (so without SPC) simulate black ink should match better.
But maybe, probably, this is something you have to get used to.
How does monitor and prints match if you move back from the display 1 or 2 meters? Maybe you are just far to close to the monitor. I don't know... you have to find out what works best. As mentioned several times in this thread monitor and prints will never really match 100%. Find out how to get the closest match for you...
The yellow cast of the screen, making the paper appear bluish and cold, got almost solved by again lifting the temperature. Its now 6000K and good match for now.
makes sense.
There is one last thing which I can't correct. That is that the print seems to show more red everywhere, more saturated reds, in the shadows, highlights and mid-tones. And the screen definitely lacks the reds.
I hope you have a good advice for this ;)
yes, but first you should check if all your prints, i.e. all your papers show higher saturated reds.*
If so, you can adjust the colors of the monitor profile. Again, I don't know the NEC software but my software provides the adjustment of 6 color channels (hue and saturation). But actually one would fine tune the monitor profile for each paper individually. This is also not a totally easy task... when you say "red" the magenta and yellow might also play a role here. So boosting the saturation of the red channel will most likely not give you an accurate result. Most likely it will make things worse...
So my advice is to skip this for a while and first get accustomed to your new setup. It's possibly easier (less "destructive") to just create a color layer in Photoshop that you simply add for softproofing purposes, i.e. to simulate the actual print saturation (of course you have to delete or deactivate that layer prior to printing the file !!! ).
*edit: of course you should also check whether these colors are inside the actual gamut of your monitor. If you are talking about reds your display is not able to produce, than any adjustment won't help.
Check it this way: first convert the file to your printer profile (rel.col + BPC). Secondly set your monitor profiles as proof profile and enable color warning.
-
Thomas,
Thank you so much for your help and advice with this. I learn a lot!
I haven't got enough time now for a detailed reply. I'll be back after the Holidays, on Sunday.
kind regards
nino
-
Back to work ;-)
Since yesterday, I recalibrated and profiled the monitor to spectacular good results by following your additional advice.
Obviously the DTP94 makes the better greyscale, especially in the dark tonal values (which is no surprise).
So if the NEC puck and the DTP94 produce roughly the same results WRT to colors I'd use the DTP94.
Surprisingly I tried the NEC sensor again and got very low DeltaE values, and an even closer visual match.
Sounds very good!
Do you see what that means?
If you want to calibrate the monitor to (for instance) 5000K but the display has a generic white point of (for instance) 6500K (mostly even bluer in the blacks) the software has to adjust the hardware... i.e. it has to adjust the RGB channels of the monitor from RGB 0-0-0 to RGB 12-8-0 (or whatever... fictitious numbers). Strictly speaking this adjustment does not apply to the actual RGB channels of the monitor (only the white point is adjusted by the RGB channels) but it applies to the RGB channels in the LUT of the monitor.
You are right, it defintly improved things!
But are you saying that even in the case of hardware calibration it is preferable to remain close to the generic white poit. BTW what do you mean by generic white point of the monitor.
So a neutral black - without any color cast and consequently whithout such a high DeltaE value - is always brighter than the absolut black (as said RGB 12-8-0 is simply not pure black).
It's up to you whether you prefer a bad calibration curve but higher contrast or prefer an accurate calibration curve but a lower contrast.
I think it's quite clear which one I would prefer.
BTW, a black level of 0.4cd/m2 is absolutely not uncommon for IPS panels. Maybe this new NEC is advertised as an IPS monitor with a lower black level. But if you can utilize the low black level only at the generic white point it's useless... IMO.
yes, so I stay around 0.4 for the moment.
You have to get used to the somewhat lower contrast. But I promise you will get used to it after some time.
Now, as to a "match" with the prints, contrast wise, I bet the monitor still has a much, much higher contrast.
If you feel prints and monitor match better when you set the softproof to rel.col. + BPC (for the conversion) but leave the simulation of paper white and even the simulation of black ink unchecked, than go for it. It sounds a bit strange to me, as in re.col. viewing on the monitor (so without SPC) simulate black ink should match better.
But maybe, probably, this is something you have to get used to.
How does monitor and prints match if you move back from the display 1 or 2 meters? Maybe you are just far to close to the monitor. I don't know... you have to find out what works best. As mentioned several times in this thread monitor and prints will never really match 100%. Find out how to get the closest match for you...
makes sense.
yes, but first you should check if all your prints, i.e. all your papers show higher saturated reds.*
That's the one thing I found out. The paper profile that I was struggling with is definitely not good. I did also ask around a bit locally, and that's what I heard from others too. I had to do quite some printing during the last day, where I tried to check the screen/print match for different papers. As tings are the match is outstanding, except for one paper/printer/ink combination, CIFA Baryta Photographique on 3880/k3vm, and that was the paper I was trying to match all along! So for last 24h of printing I changed the paper.
If so, you can adjust the colors of the monitor profile. Again, I don't know the NEC software but my software provides the adjustment of 6 color channels (hue and saturation). But actually one would fine tune the monitor profile for each paper individually. This is also not a totally easy task... when you say "red" the magenta and yellow might also play a role here. So boosting the saturation of the red channel will most likely not give you an accurate result. Most likely it will make things worse...
tried and true
So my advice is to skip this for a while and first get accustomed to your new setup. It's possibly easier (less "destructive") to just create a color layer in Photoshop that you simply add for softproofing purposes, i.e. to simulate the actual print saturation (of course you have to delete or deactivate that layer prior to printing the file !!! ).
*edit: of course you should also check whether these colors are inside the actual gamut of your monitor. If you are talking about reds your display is not able to produce, than any adjustment won't help.
Check it this way: first convert the file to your printer profile (rel.col + BPC). Secondly set your monitor profiles as proof profile and enable color warning.
thank you again for your help.
From what I understand, the best for me would be to set the monitor to the best possible paper independent state. This should be where I can get the lowest DeltaE. Only, the next step involves soft proofing and print to paper match, right?
regards
nino
-
But are you saying that even in the case of hardware calibration it is preferable to remain close to the generic white poit. BTW what do you mean by generic white point of the monitor.
From what I understand, the best for me would be to set the monitor to the best possible paper independent state. This should be where I can get the lowest DeltaE. Only, the next step involves soft proofing and print to paper match, right?
First off, while the native white point may produce the least banding, the question is, do you get good print to display matching with that native WP? If not, I suspect most of us would take a bit of banding to counter a display that is too warm or cool compared to the print.
Second, the deltaE values are kind of meaningless unless they are very high, indicating an issue somewhere (you are after all, using the same instrument to report on itself that you used to build the calibration). Again, do you have a good screen to print match? I’d take a higher deltaE value considering the above use of the same instrument if I got a match than a lower deltaE value that didn’t match.
Lastly, the paper profiles are in the chain here when you soft proof so I’m not sure what you mean by set the monitor to the best possible paper independent state. I’d get a good reference image and print it out with a good paper profile. I’d pop that into my viewing booth and load the soft proof correctly (paper and ink simulation on, full screen mode, no palettes) and my goal would be screen to print matching. I’d calibrate for that aim. Switch paper profiles and load the soft proof, all should be fine (again assuming good profiles who’s tables for preview and output are working as they should).
-
Here we go again :-)
From what I understand, the best for me would be to set the monitor to the best possible paper independent state.
if I understand you correctly "paper indepent" means a state, where the monitor matches paper white visually but without further tweaking of color saturation (either in the monitor hardware - actually not recommended unless you really know what you are doing - or on a color layer in Photoshop).
If so: yes, that's fine.
This should be where I can get the lowest DeltaE. Only, the next step involves soft proofing and print to paper match, right?
yes, correct.
From here on it's up to you... the thread is full of talk about the visual match of monitor and paper white and Andrew ("digitaldog") and I agree basically on most things - except for the white reference.
Andrew suggests to calibrate to a paper white with softproof enabled (and paper simultion activated) whereas I suggest to calibrate to paper white with softproof disabled (so if you want so, to calibrate for an average white or your preferred paper ... or, if you can get one, for the white of a proof paper). Consequently I do not enable SPC when softproofing - I only enable "simulate black ink".
So Andrew's display is probably a bit more accurate for that one particular paper with SPC enabled but off for anything else.
My display is neutral to the ambient light I am working under (all D50 here) ... but the white point of some particular papers might be a bit colder or a bit warmer in some cases. In my case they all match quite fine as long as we talk about coated offset printing papers and the range of photographic papers I am using. If I'd also use papers with warmer tones I'd probably simply make a second monitor profile for those...
Both ways will work fine - your choice ;-)
-
First off, while the native white point may produce the least banding, the question is, do you get good print to display matching with that native WP? If not, I suspect most of us would take a bit of banding to counter a display that is too warm or cool compared to the print.
Second, the deltaE values are kind of meaningless unless they are very high, indicating an issue somewhere (you are after all, using the same instrument to report on itself that you used to build the calibration). Again, do you have a good screen to print match? I’d take a higher deltaE value considering the above use of the same instrument if I got a match than a lower deltaE value that didn’t match.
Lastly, the paper profiles are in the chain here when you soft proof so I’m not sure what you mean by set the monitor to the best possible paper independent state. I’d get a good reference image and print it out with a good paper profile. I’d pop that into my viewing booth and load the soft proof correctly (paper and ink simulation on, full screen mode, no palettes) and my goal would be screen to print matching. I’d calibrate for that aim. Switch paper profiles and load the soft proof, all should be fine (again assuming good profiles who’s tables for preview and output are working as they should).
On this last point: If I do as you said, popping a print into the viewing booth and trying to get the match, which is what I did, I'll get a good color temperature match for that paper, but not for another. So, when I switch paper profiles and load the soft proof, that should not be that fine, no?
By paper independent state, I meant, if that makes sens, the state that someone who does not print profiles/calibrates for.
Finally how can I tell if I have a good profile who's tables for preview and output are working as they should?
-
Here we go again :-)
if I understand you correctly "paper indepent" means a state, where the monitor matches paper white visually but without further tweaking of color saturation (either in the monitor hardware - actually not recommended unless you really know what you are doing - or on a color layer in Photoshop).
If so: yes, that's fine.
yes, correct.
From here on it's up to you... the thread is full of talk about the visual match of monitor and paper white and Andrew ("digitaldog") and I agree basically on most things - except for the white reference.
Andrew suggests to calibrate to a paper white with softproof enabled (and paper simultion activated) whereas I suggest to calibrate to paper white with softproof disabled (so if you want so, to calibrate for an average white or your preferred paper ... or, if you can get one, for the white of a proof paper). Consequently I do not enable SPC when softproofing - I only enable "simulate black ink".
So Andrew's display is probably a bit more accurate for that one particular paper with SPC enabled but off for anything else.
My display is neutral to the ambient light I am working under (all D50 here) ... but the white point of some particular papers might be a bit colder or a bit warmer in some cases. In my case they all match quite fine as long as we talk about coated offset printing papers and the range of photographic papers I am using. If I'd also use papers with warmer tones I'd probably simply make a second monitor profile for those...
Both ways will work fine - your choice ;-)
Ok. I got confused again, but now after your post in which you briefly recap the thread, it's clear again.
Thanks once more to both of you for clearing this issue up. It was, once again, very instructive, helpful and interesting.
-
On this last point: If I do as you said, popping a print into the viewing booth and trying to get the match, which is what I did, I'll get a good color temperature match for that paper, but not for another. So, when I switch paper profiles and load the soft proof, that should not be that fine, no?
That’s not been my experience, but I’ll admit that differing papers could be an issue. When you switch paper profiles however, the information about the paper white should of course be updated in the soft proof.
Finally how can I tell if I have a good profile who's tables for preview and output are working as they should?
You get good matches <g>
-
On this last point: If I do as you said, popping a print into the viewing booth and trying to get the match, which is what I did, I'll get a good color temperature match for that paper, but not for another. So, when I switch paper profiles and load the soft proof, that should not be that fine, no?
Nino, when you look at the four paperas you are using frequently do have the impression that they are significantly different?
So one is cleary blueish/greyish (i.e. dark), one is blueish and bright, one is magentaish and one is yellowish?
Or are we talking about very subtile differences... so one is slighty warmer/colder/darker than the other but actually they are all quite similar?
Now make a white 800x800 pixel wide square in Photoshop (either way how your display is calibrated for the time being) and enable softproof with SPC enabled for the respective four papers.
Do you have the impression that the simulation of paper white in Photoshops represents the real differences the papers show visually or do you have the impression the differences in Photoshop are more emphasised... or maybe even less?
-
So Andrew's display is probably a bit more accurate for that one particular paper with SPC enabled but off for anything else.
I don’t know about that. But what I can do with the SpectraView software is build multiple calibration target aim points (and associated ICC profiles) and switch on the fly which is really useful. I’m also building these various calibration targets at differing contrast ratio’s depending on the papers.
-
That’s not been my experience, but I’ll admit that differing papers could be an issue. When you switch paper profiles however, the information about the paper white should of course be updated in the soft proof.
You get good matches <g>
I'll try to calibrate for each paper white in a separate monitor profile, as it is very to switch between them (and to forget to switch between them ;))
Regarding good profiles, I would like to add, that from my recent experience with the manufacturer's profile for CIFA Baryta Photographique on 3880/k3VM, what ever I did and tried, no satisfying match was achievable.
-
Nino, when you look at the four paperas you are using frequently do have the impression that they are significantly different?
So one is cleary blueish/greyish (i.e. dark), one is blueish and bright, one is magentaish and one is yellowish?
Or are we talking about very subtile differences... so one is slighty warmer/colder/darker than the other but actually they are all quite similar?
Now make a white 800x800 pixel wide square in Photoshop (either way how your display is calibrated for the time being) and enable softproof with SPC enabled for the respective four papers.
Do you have the impression that the simulation of paper white in Photoshops represents the real differences the papers show visually or do you have the impression the differences in Photoshop are more emphasised... or maybe even less?
I am impatient to try this out! I'll report back on that.
-
I don’t know about that. But what I can do with the SpectraView software is build multiple calibration target aim points (and associated ICC profiles) and switch on the fly which is really useful. I’m also building these various calibration targets at differing contrast ratio’s depending on the papers.
With the new PA series, one could also just load the profile into the monitor's 3D-Lut?! Nothing else should be necessary?! Maybe fine tuning?!
-
I don’t know about that. But what I can do with the SpectraView software is build multiple calibration target aim points (and associated ICC profiles) and switch on the fly which is really useful. I’m also building these various calibration targets at differing contrast ratio’s depending on the papers.
my issue with your workflow is that Photoshop's palettes and anything white on the monitor that is not affected by Photoshop's softproof settings is actually not a neutral white anymore. I prefer a monitor that is neutral to the ambient light I am working with.
I can handle the response curves of the papers I am working with much, much better with layers in Photoshop... and these layers only contain very subtile adjustments.
The monitor is my "default" ... the respective papers are only certain targets that need some (minor) adjustments.
But I certainly do not doubt that you personally get very good results with your workflow - not at all!
-
I am impatient to try this out! I'll report back on that.
do it!
I bet Photoshop will show you something like this (from page 1 of this thread): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46010.0;attach=23650;image
Have you EVER seen a printing paper that looks like wrapping paper?
Now someone will tell you these profiles are "wrong" or "not good" or contain "bad reverse tables".
Hell, these are most likely very, very good profiles. But at least that's what you get in 99% of the cases unless someone takes the time to tweak these profiles for really accurate softproofing.
As long as Photoshop tells me that one of these fancy candy colors is a "paper white" I simply ignore the simulation of paper white... it won't work with any of the papers shown in the image linked above.
-
do it!
I bet Photoshop will show you something like this (from page 1 of this thread): http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=46010.0;attach=23650;image
Have you EVER seen a printing paper that looks like wrapping paper?
Now someone will tell you these profiles are "wrong" or "not good" or contain "bad reverse tables".
Hell, these are most likely very, very good profiles. But at least that's what you get in 99% of the cases unless someone takes the time to tweak these profiles for really accurate softproofing.
As long as Photoshop tells me that one of these fancy candy colors is a "paper white" I simply ignore the simulation of paper white... it won't work with any of the papers shown in the image linked above.
I get your point and I remember this post of yours now (It was a long break).
-
I get your point and I remember this post of yours now (It was a long break).
no trouble at all.
Maybe your profiles are fine! Who knows. If so: fine!
But if not... use your eyes... rather than following "rules" derived from colormetric theory.
-
I think you both noticed this new thread. "Simulate Paper Color:Don't know anymore (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47185.msg393058#new)" http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47185.msg393058#new
regards nino
-
I think you both noticed this new thread.
yes, but this has been an ongoing topic over years and this or the other thread won't solve anything.
You really have to find out what works best for you personally.
What I am honestly finding totally unsatisfying is a statement like: "set the sofproof to rel.col or perceptual and active SPC - it must work."
Well, it must (should). But it doesn't ...mostly.
-
my issue with your workflow is that Photoshop's palettes and anything white on the monitor that is not affected by Photoshop's softproof settings is actually not a neutral white anymore.
Correct and it is an issue. I hope the Lightroom team when they get around to soft proofing fix this. But I find I get much higher degree of print to screen matching, and the previews with the soft proof on are closer with the simulation so I only turn it on when I want to do output specific tweaks on an adjustment layer using dual displays OR when I want to evaluate that the screen and print do match. IOW, I use the soft proof with and without the simulation based on the task at hand.
-
Correct and it is an issue. I hope the Lightroom team when they get around to soft proofing fix this. But I find I get much higher degree of print to screen matching, and the previews with the soft proof on are closer with the simulation so I only turn it on when I want to do output specific tweaks on an adjustment layer using dual displays OR when I want to evaluate that the screen and print do match. IOW, I use the soft proof with and without the simulation based on the task at hand.
yes, I believe this a good workflow. But I also think that the papers (and profiles) you are using allow you to work like that. Unfortunately this is not always possible.
-
Anyhow good profiles are a prerequisite. I find it very disturbing to having to tweak a bad profile with layers in PS. Till now I did not encounter a relay bad canned profile. I started this whole thread because I used a profile, for which I was unable to get any good match. I thought my color management etc was at fault. While trying to adjust targets in this and that direction in order to compensate, things started to get out of hand. I did not get to use a bad canned profile till now. But the detour, the exercise that followed thanks to both of you, made me learn and understand a lot. So now I even get a lot better match for the good profiles, for which I was not complaining (that much ;)).
regards
nino
-
so case closed? fine! :-)
one last question... did you check this? (post #65) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=46010.msg392859#msg392859
-
so case closed? fine! :-)
one last question... did you check this? (post #65) http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=46010.msg392859#msg392859
you are right! In the course of a full days work I forgot about that. I must see that right away!
-
Nino, when you look at the four paperas you are using frequently do have the impression that they are significantly different?
I assume you mean comparing them under in viewing booth for example. Yes, they are significantly different. Even though, they are all more less OBA-free. I assume because I use canvas, alpha-cellulose for small sizes and cotton rag for large format, and lastly proofing paper. Among those types the paper color seems quite consistent.
So one is cleary blueish/greyish (i.e. dark), one is blueish and bright, one is magentaish and one is yellowish?
Or are we talking about very subtile differences... so one is slighty warmer/colder/darker than the other but actually they are all quite similar?
There is a clear difference, but is not like candy or wrapping paper, as you put it ;-)
Now make a white 800x800 pixel wide square in Photoshop (either way how your display is calibrated for the time being) and enable softproof with SPC enabled for the respective four papers.
Do you have the impression that the simulation of paper white in Photoshops represents the real differences the papers show visually or do you have the impression the differences in Photoshop are more emphasised... or maybe even less?
well, is see changes that look, even though unbelievable at first, quite realistic when double checked against the paper in the booth. I notice that it gets very emphasized, for my taste at least, with the cold papers. I checked some of the Epson premium papers. (Maybe the papers that are closer in color to the present state of the monitor are easier acceptable?!).
-
well, is see changes that look, even though unbelievable at first, quite realistic when double checked against the paper in the booth. I notice that it gets very emphasized, for my taste at least, with the cold papers.
not sure I get it...
When the difference of the real papers (to each other) is about the same as the difference of their profiles softproofed with SPC enabled... or in other words: if the white square softproofed with the respective profiles and SPC enabled really match the visual appearance of the real papers you may very well use SPC for softproofing!
-
not sure I get it...
When the difference of the real papers (to each other) is about the same as the difference of their profiles softproofed with SPC enabled... or in other words: if the white square softproofed with the respective profiles and SPC enabled really match the visual appearance of the real papers you may very well use SPC for softproofing!
I think so too, after doing that test. Only it did not work in the beginning of this thread, because I was using a "not so optimal" paper profile, which I became only aware of in the course of the investigations.
-
Now, a few months later, with a costume profile, everything is fine! For those who cannot make a custom profile right away, there is a simple thing to do to get a lot better colors from that Canson Baryta Photographique paper: Use the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk profile with associated printer/media settings and everything will look a lot better. Some say it's the same paper. I just still wonder, again and again, about Canson.
regards
EDIT: We are talking about the Epson 3880 with K3VM here, so you have to see what that is worth on other printers and inks.
-
Now, a few months later, with a costume profile, everything is fine! For those who cannot make a custom profile right away, there is a simple thing to do to get a lot better colors from that Canson Baryta Photographique paper: Use the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk profile with associated printer/media settings and everything will look a lot better. Some say it's the same paper. I just still wonder, again and again, about Canson.
regards
EDIT: We are talking about the Epson 3880 with K3VM here, so you have to see what that is worth on other printers and inks.
Hi, I came across this post when trying to find an answer to a question I posted on the board regarding a similar problem. Sounds like my issue could be the Canson profile as I suspected. I will try the IGFS one and if this looks better will make a custom one. However I cannot agree with the comment on IGFS and Canson being the same paper. At least here in the UK they are very different. Canson is much more to my taste. Kind of like the old Harman FB AL Gloss except less glossy and the blacks seem to be deeper.
-
Hi, I came across this post when trying to find an answer to a question I posted on the board regarding a similar problem. Sounds like my issue could be the Canson profile as I suspected. I will try the IGFS one and if this looks better will make a custom one. However I cannot agree with the comment on IGFS and Canson being the same paper. At least here in the UK they are very different. Canson is much more to my taste. Kind of like the old Harman FB AL Gloss except less glossy and the blacks seem to be deeper.
I have both papers. I've made gamut plots for both of them, I've measured the paper white and maximum black for both of them, I've looked at the surface of both of them with the same image on them, and quite frankly these papers are VERY similar - not identical, but very similar. Which you prefer is completely a matter of personal taste, but the main point is that if you have a viable profile for IGFS, it is certainly worth trying it on the Canson. I would not be the least bit surprised if the Canson profile were part of your problem. Paper manufacturers have been known to issue less than satisfactory profiles, and trying the IGFS profile would be a good way of testing for that possibility. If you get the same kind of results with the IGFS profile, it most likely means your problem is not with profiles, but elsewhere.
-
As I said, to me too they look very very similar. The GFS is better, but still far from ideal (for me it was a little bit greenish). But now, as soon as I decide to try a paper more thoroughly, I do custom profiles. And I don't do them myself, as I know to much to be satisfied by my own work and equipment. I therefore let my papers be profiled with an iSis and the Atkinson 1728 target. I can most definitely see a differences if a profile was only made with a simple iOi1 (not on the gamut plot though, it's more in accuracy and overall distribution of tones). It is also important that those machines and especially the software should be operated by someone with experience (I go for decades ;-). However hard I tried by myself, it didn't come close to a custom profile from the best of the industry. Also, I am not a color scientist, nor a color management service provider, but a photographer. I spend my time taking pictures and printing them.
regards
nino
-
At least for the Epson 3800, there appears to be a problem with the Canson profile. I did some tests comparing the Canson and Ilford papers, and I agree that the papers are extremely similar, both to my eye and to the spectrophotometer. When I constructed custom profiles (ColorMunki) for both, the resulting test prints were virtually identical. When Lab values for a neutral step gradient were plotted against percent ink density, the Canson generic profile yielded results that were far from linear; the curve was pulled to the left, yielding overly bright midtones. A friend saw similar results with his Epson 3800, so it's not machine-specific. The Ilford canned profile is better; it gives superior results with the Canson paper, than Canson's own profile does, in my hands.
-
When Lab values for a neutral step gradient were plotted against percent ink density, the Canson generic profile yielded results that were far from linear; the curve was pulled to the left, yielding overly bright midtones.
Could you please unpack what this is all about? Exactly what data (from where) are you plotting against what data (from where) and what kind of insight should such a plot provide?
-
Mark, I don't have time to go through it in detail right now, but the approach was similar to those described at Digital Outback Photo (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070201 (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070201)) and Northlight Images (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html)).
-
Mark, I don't have time to go through it in detail right now, but the approach was similar to those described at Digital Outback Photo (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070201 (http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070201)) and Northlight Images (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html)).
Arlen, when you have time to describe the source of your data, what exactly you are doing with it and what purpose the results are supposed to serve, it will be interesting to read. Meanwhile I regret it means little to me in the specific context of this discussion thread.
-
I have both papers. I've made gamut plots for both of them, I've measured the paper white and maximum black for both of them, I've looked at the surface of both of them with the same image on them, and quite frankly these papers are VERY similar - not identical, but very similar. Which you prefer is completely a matter of personal taste, but the main point is that if you have a viable profile for IGFS, it is certainly worth trying it on the Canson. I would not be the least bit surprised if the Canson profile were part of your problem. Paper manufacturers have been known to issue less than satisfactory profiles, and trying the IGFS profile would be a good way of testing for that possibility. If you get the same kind of results with the IGFS profile, it most likely means your problem is not with profiles, but elsewhere.
Mark, once the Canson paper has dried, I can now see that the differences between it and IGFS have largely disappeared. I can still just detect minor differences in surface and the gloss level and the Canson prints ever so slightly warmer when using the same IGFS profile. And yes, the Canson profile was the culprit of my problems and switching to the IGFS profile produces a much better print. You and Nino Loss were correct on that score too, thank you both.
I will go ahead and custom profile the Canson paper but given the lower price of the IGFS here in the UK I am not sure if I will use the Canson that much.
-
Though there is one thing in favor of the Canson BP. I can quote Canson and say that it is acid-free, museum grade, complies with ISO 9706, internally buffered... My clients like that ;-) If someone could point me to the same info for Iford's GFS, I would appreciate.
I wouldn't bother with Canson, if only Ilford would be available here in my remote little place. The price difference is in disfavor of Ilford, after shipment.
regards
nino
EDIT: P-S: I should add, that as a selling point Ilford has got it's name as a big advantage. All my clients know the brand from the dark(room) ages. It has a traditional flavor.
-
Though there is one thing in favor of the Canson BP. I can quote Canson and say that it is acid-free, museum grade, complies with ISO 9706, internally buffered... My clients like that ;-) If someone could point me to the same info for Iford's GFS, I would appreciate.
I wouldn't bother with Canson, if only Ilford would be available here in my remote little place. The price difference is in disfavor of Ilford, after shipment.
regards
nino
EDIT: P-S: I should add, that as a selling point Ilford has got it's name as a big advantage. All my clients know the brand from the dark(room) ages. It has a traditional flavor.
Nino, I too have had some concern about the previous lack of corroborated information supporting the Archival properties of Ilford GFS, so I sent a request to them in Switzerland and got this reply:
<Gold Fibre Silk does contain a small amount of OBA in the paper fibres.
This explains the fluorescence you have reported. We do not believe this
quantity poses any risk to the archival properties of this material, as the
quantity is low. In addition, the fact that it is in the paper stock means
that it is not in the coated layer nor the baryta layer and is therefore
protected to some degree against yellowing. We have had enough confidence
in the archival properties of the product, to have submitted for Wilhelm
testing and for the Arttrust initiative and we believe the results to date
look very encouraging (see attached Press Release from Photokina 2010).>
In the press release they say that (as of then) the testing work was still underway. However, on my reading, the conclusive results were not ready then. I have checked Henry Wilhelm's site periodically, including just now, and not found any reports there yet, so either the work is on-going or arrangements to make it public are not yet in place.
Here in Toronto both the Canson and Ilford papers are now priced quite competitively - I'd use either depending on availability.
-
Mark and Nino,
There is ample data from Aardenburg (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html) on IGFS that provides support about print longevity (you don't need to be a paying member to access the test data though I would strongly recommend supporting Mark's work here). In addition if you look at Ernst Dinkla's (http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm) data on spectral scans of the paper show it to have one of the most even responses of all the papers tested. Sure there is a small amount of OBA in the paper stock but based on the available data show it to be a very good paper. The only issue is with the "feel" of the paper and that it is not a true rag stock paper. Unfortunately, there is not the level of test exposure for the Canson paper at Aardenburg and one cannot make any judgment at this point about comparing the two with regard to print fading. FWIW, from my own perspective, the papers are pretty much interchangeable and one should make a purchase decision based on price.
-
I have had a very helpful response from Canson on the profile issue and they have also commented on the differences between their paper and IFGS. Although I prefer the Canson paper (acknowledging the differences are slight) the pricing of IGFS in A2 sheet form here in the UK is very good when calculating the price on a sq metre basis. Much lower than their roll and other sheet sizes and much lower than Canson. I will reprint on Canson using their amended profile. Here is their response:
Start of Quote:
Dear Mr Owens
following your report on Canson Infinity website today, our technical department has taken up the matter very seriously.
We do confirm that the profile you have downloaded is defective. Even more, we have already corrected the mistake in the past, and we do not know how or why exactly, but the wrong profile was again put up for download on our website in replacement of the good one !
As for the comments on the Luminous Landscape forum, I confirm our paper is different from the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, however with a similar technology.
The difference is into the formula of the base paper and into the coating that is working better with certain printers than the Ilford Gold Fiber Silk (our product was released several years after the IGFS).
Please find enclosed a profile that was submitted to me for forwarding by our Technical Department. This one should work great as they say !
In the case you send a reply to me, would you please confirm whether you are based in the UK or in New Zealand (your email address ends with .nz)
Reason is that I'm in charge of sales into the UK but not to New Zealand (although I know Wellington, having been there a few years back).
Cordialement/ Kind Regards
Christophe Renard
Regional Sales Manager
End of Quote
-
Mark and Nino,
There is ample data from Aardenburg (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/index.html) on IGFS that provides support about print longevity (you don't need to be a paying member to access the test data though I would strongly recommend supporting Mark's work here). In addition if you look at Ernst Dinkla's (http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm) data on spectral scans of the paper show it to have one of the most even responses of all the papers tested. Sure there is a small amount of OBA in the paper stock but based on the available data show it to be a very good paper. The only issue is with the "feel" of the paper and that it is not a true rag stock paper. Unfortunately, there is not the level of test exposure for the Canson paper at Aardenburg and one cannot make any judgment at this point about comparing the two with regard to print fading. FWIW, from my own perspective, the papers are pretty much interchangeable and one should make a purchase decision based on price.
Hi Alan,
Yes, I've checked what MMG has on his site for IGFS - almost all the entries are for sprayed prints. The closest to what would be of interest to Epson professional printers owners (unsprayed, from a pigment inkjet printer) is for a Canon model, and those results do look good. Based on what I hear repeatedly from several manufacturers, as long as the OBA content is small and mixed in the base, it should indeed have little long-term impact on image appearance. I can pass on the rag feel - I'm mainly interested in the quality of what's on the surface! But I know it's important to others, and why so much about paper choice is a matter of personal preference - and yes, price.
-
Hi Alan,
Yes, I've checked what MMG has on his site for IGFS - almost all the entries are for sprayed prints. The closest to what would be of interest to Epson professional printers owners (unsprayed, from a pigment inkjet printer) is for a Canon model, and those results do look good. Based on what I hear repeatedly from several manufacturers, as long as the OBA content is small and mixed in the base, it should indeed have little long-term impact on image appearance. I can pass on the rag feel - I'm mainly interested in the quality of what's on the surface! But I know it's important to others, and why so much about paper choice is a matter of personal preference - and yes, price.
Mark, there is data on IGFS from an Epson 4800 that is not coated (I just checked this morning prior to my previous post) and has passed through 140 megalux hours. It shows the same problems with the yellow K3 ink that is problematic in all Epson prints (which is why the light flesh tones fade more than other colors).
-
Mark, there is data on IGFS from an Epson 4800 that is not coated (I just checked this morning prior to my previous post) and has passed through 140 megalux hours. It shows the same problems with the yellow K3 ink that is problematic in all Epson prints (which is why the light flesh tones fade more than other colors).
Yes correct - for some reason about 4 of the IGFS results failed to load earlier today when I sorted the paper column to group all the IGFS together. I just tried it again and it worked, and indeed what you report is there. Speaking of the results, a dE of only 4.5 at the 50 megalux level (translating to 200 years) is really not bad. It just means my great-great grandchildren might think we were all a bit bluer than we really are, but then again these days there is enough to be blue about, no? :-)