Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: SunnyUK on November 19, 2012, 10:51:30 am

Title: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: SunnyUK on November 19, 2012, 10:51:30 am
I've managed to get my new NEC Spectraview 271W calibrated and profiled (using the European NEC Spectraview Profiler software and a Colormunki Photo hardware).  I used gamma 2.2, D65 and 140 cd/m.

I have also profiled my Epson 2880 printer using Colormunki Photo.

Finally I watched the LuLa color management videos and replicated Michael's and Jeff's setup for soft proofing in Photoshop CS5.

Much to my pleasure compared to the bad old days of just a week ago, colours actually match now between the monitor and the printer. Yehaw! That's a great result.

But the prints still come out somewhat darker than the softproof on the screen.

Any good tips about what should be my next steps to get things to match better luminosity-wise?

Thanks in advance for any help.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 19, 2012, 11:43:01 am
Take a shot of your studio display and lighting setup you view your prints with the print being lit by that light while showing the Soft Proof preview on the display and post that image here.

If you don't do this, it's a waste of time. Everyone has different interpretations on what considered a "dark" print while at the same time not letting us see just how much light the print is being lit by.

Other than that get the print closer to your viewing light.

See this thread as well...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70438.0
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on November 19, 2012, 11:56:29 am
But the prints still come out somewhat darker than the softproof on the screen.
Any good tips about what should be my next steps to get things to match better luminosity-wise?

Lower or raise either until you get a visual match.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: rhahm on November 19, 2012, 07:52:06 pm


 this is my first post to this forum - hope this helps :



  1.  using Photoshop create a duplicate layer of your finished photo

  2.  make sure this is the top layer

  3.  set the blend mode of this duplicate layer to "Screen"

  4.  set the opacity of this layer to ~ 25-30%

  5.  print and be amazed


(this tip is credited to Matt Kloskowski from NAPP)

Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 19, 2012, 09:09:54 pm
Nice tip.

Just tried it.

It appears to apply a linear scaling while lightening the image especially in the highlights compared to lightening the image using the middle slider in Levels.

I did both to a duplicate file and copy/pasted onto the Screen Blend version and toggled preview off/on.

The Screen Blend preserves clarity throughout the entire image.

NICE!

Wish I could do that in one move in ACR.

Thanks for the tip.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: elliot_n on November 19, 2012, 09:17:47 pm
Work with a white canvas in Photoshop...
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: walter.sk on November 20, 2012, 10:18:55 am
  1.  using Photoshop create a duplicate layer of your finished photo
  2.  make sure this is the top layer
  3.  set the blend mode of this duplicate layer to "Screen"
  4.  set the opacity of this layer to ~ 25-30%
  5.  print and be amazed
This sounds like a good workaround, but why not complete the calibration process by matching the luminance of the monitor to the viewing situation first, as suggested by DigitalDog?  Until you have done that, you have not finished setting up your softproofing environment.  Once you have done that, you know that you can depend on more effective and accurate (never perfect, of course) softproofing.  I speak from experience.  It is really very, very reassuring to know that my hard work on images will produce consistent results.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on November 20, 2012, 11:29:49 am
This sounds like a good workaround, but why not complete the calibration process by matching the luminance of the monitor to the viewing situation first, as suggested by DigitalDog?  Until you have done that, you have not finished setting up your softproofing environment.  Once you have done that, you know that you can depend on more effective and accurate (never perfect, of course) softproofing.  I speak from experience.  It is really very, very reassuring to know that my hard work on images will produce consistent results.

Exactly. You don't need this kludge if you just get the two items to visually match. If the image looks too dark on-screen, then use that technique or similar to fix the master (I'd never let it get out of Lightroom this way where layers are moot).
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: SunnyUK on November 20, 2012, 03:14:29 pm
Thank you very much for all the input. This is great!

Quote from: tlooknbill
If you don't do this, it's a waste of time. Everyone has different interpretations on what considered a "dark" print while at the same time not letting us see just how much light the print is being lit by.

Here's an example (pardon the mess)

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8208/8203050285_29b86277e6.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunnyuk/8203050285/)
20121120-_TP50991 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunnyuk/8203050285/) by sunnyUK (http://www.flickr.com/people/sunnyuk/), on Flickr

The room is lit by 4 halogen bulbs overhead, two of which are bounced off a white wall. They are not daylight bulbs.

The problem with the prints is most easily seen in the shadow detail (or rather, the lack of shadow detail on the print). I have also watched the print outdoor in "real" daylight, and the shadows are also way darker there than on-screen.

Thank you for the very interesting thread about daylight bulbs. I will have to look into that in more detail when/if I get a separate room for my photo work.

Quote from: digitaldog
Lower or raise either until you get a visual match.

If I lower the luminosity of the monitor, the shadow details dissapear there. While that sounds like an improvement, it isn't really, because it hides detail that is in the image. What I would like to achieve is for the monitor to show me everything that is in the image, and only throw away detail when it comes to softproofing (if the problem is caused by the printer's inability to print as fine luminosity details). And even "real" daylight won't show me the shadow details.

Quote from: rhahm
  1.  using Photoshop create a duplicate layer of your finished photo
  2.  make sure this is the top layer
  3.  set the blend mode of this duplicate layer to "Screen"
  4.  set the opacity of this layer to ~ 25-30%
  5.  print and be amazed

(this tip is credited to Matt Kloskowski from NAPP)

That seems to work really well, and definitely bring some details out in the picture which weren't visible before. I would still prefer to just softproof and see there what the print would look like, but in the interim this is most certainly a work-around I'll use. Thank you!!

Quote from: elliot_n
Work with a white canvas in Photoshop...

I'm afraid I don't follow you. It's not a general perception issue, it is the fact that there are details on-screen that are very close to invisible on the print. I don't think changing the canvas colour is going to change that. Am I missing a point here?

Quote from: walter.sk
This sounds like a good workaround, but why not complete the calibration process by matching the luminance of the monitor to the viewing situation first, as suggested by DigitalDog?  Until you have done that, you have not finished setting up your softproofing environment.  Once you have done that, you know that you can depend on more effective and accurate (never perfect, of course) softproofing.  I speak from experience.  It is really very, very reassuring to know that my hard work on images will produce consistent results.

I would prefer to do as you suggest. Hence my original post asking for help figuring out what to do. I don't want to reduce the luminosity of the monitor so much that it throws away detail - that would sorta defy the purpose of having a good monitor. And I can't see all details in the print regardless of how much light I throw at it.

So I'm still hoping there is a step in the softproofing setup I can complete that will be able to give me the best of both worlds, so to speak. A monitor that can show all the details in the file, and a softproof that can show me what the printer will print. That's the holy grail, innit?

Thanks again for all the input, and please keep it coming.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on November 20, 2012, 03:28:03 pm
Quote
What I would like to achieve is for the monitor to show me everything that is in the image, and only throw away detail when it comes to softproofing (if the problem is caused by the printer's inability to print as fine luminosity details). And even "real" daylight won't show me the shadow details.

You are calibrating for a match to the print with soft proof on, right?

Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: abiggs on November 20, 2012, 03:29:34 pm
In my experience 140cd/m2 is fairly bright, even for bright viewing environments. To put it very simply, a white document in Photoshop needs to equal the brightness and color of your paper you are printing on in the display environment. Otherwise everything else is going to be off. It's the first starting point and the most important one.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: SunnyUK on November 20, 2012, 03:50:04 pm
You are calibrating for a match to the print with soft proof on, right?

That's what I would like to achieve, yes. Just to make sure I haven't overlooked something simple (which, given how new I am at this is entirely possible), these are the steps I went through:

1) calibrate monitor using NEC's software
2) profile printer using Colormunki's software
3) take a picture into Photoshop
4) setup the softproof to match the printer profile created in step 2
5) swiching softproof on. Noticing that there is shadow detail
6) printing picture
7) noticing that there is (almost) no shadow detail on the print, regardless of whether I watch it under my (not daylight) halogen lights or outside in overcast shade (the only light available at this time of the year in this country. Rain optional)

In my experience 140cd/m2 is fairly bright, even for bright viewing environments. To put it very simply, a white document in Photoshop needs to equal the brightness and color of your paper you are printing on in the display environment. Otherwise everything else is going to be off. It's the first starting point and the most important one.

I thought the starting point should be to make sure that the screen can show a full greyscale. In other words, if some of the dark steps blend together, the monitor is too dark. If some of the bright steps blend together, then the monitor is too bright. Is that incorrect?
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on November 20, 2012, 03:52:15 pm
1) calibrate monitor using NEC's software

Right, but there's a lot of options in the SpectraView software. When you adjust the settings, you're doing so to match the print and the soft proof, NOT without the soft proof simulation right?
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: SunnyUK on November 20, 2012, 04:24:26 pm
Right, but there's a lot of options in the SpectraView software. When you adjust the settings, you're doing so to match the print and the soft proof, NOT without the soft proof simulation right?

I don't understand this. The settings were about luminosity, gamma and colour. I didn't have a print and a soft proof at that stage. I simply plugged the colormunki in, got it working with SpectraView Profiler and asked it to do it's thing. It went through displaying a lot of grayscale patches and a fewer number of red/green/blue patches, measuring it, and then creating a profile.

Is it not the case that the softproof is meant to show the printer's ability on the calibrated monitor? Your words sounds as if I am meant to adjust the monitor to match the print, but if my printer has a smaller gammut than my monitor, then that wouldn't make sense.

...

I think I understand it. You're talking about the softproof functionality built into the SpectraView software so that the monitor itself can do softproofing, right? I'm talking about softproofing in Photoshop, without changing the monitorsetting between "normal" and "softproof". Am I wrong?
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Simon Garrett on November 20, 2012, 04:49:19 pm
If I lower the luminosity of the monitor, the shadow details dissapear there. While that sounds like an improvement, it isn't really, because it hides detail that is in the image.
That shouldn't happen.  If your monitor is correctly calibrated/profiled at a lower brightness setting, it should still be able to show the full tonal range (e.g at http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php (http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php) and http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php (http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php)).  I don't have any problem with the full tonal range at a brightness below 100cd/m2. 

Obviously the total dynamic range between black and white is narrower, as black stayed the same but you've reduced white.  But that should match the print better. 

You show a picture of your room lighting: what happens if you hold a piece of printer paper by the screen.  Does the paper look darker than the whites on the screen?  If so, try bringing up the room lights or lowering the screen brightness (and recalibrate). 

Nice picture of Whitby Abbey, by the way!
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on November 20, 2012, 05:06:28 pm
I don't understand this. The settings were about luminosity, gamma and colour. I didn't have a print and a soft proof at that stage.

Back then to:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: rhahm on November 20, 2012, 05:22:09 pm
This sounds like a good workaround, but why not complete the calibration process by matching the luminance of the monitor to the viewing situation first, as suggested by DigitalDog?  Until you have done that, you have not finished setting up your softproofing environment.  Once you have done that, you know that you can depend on more effective and accurate (never perfect, of course) softproofing.  I speak from experience.  It is really very, very reassuring to know that my hard work on images will produce consistent results.


hi walter


because the title says it all:      "My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled"


yes, I read the books and the articles on profiling and calibrating

calibrated a Dell 24" high gamut whatever monitor with a Spyder Pro to a ridiculously low luminescence

and guess what?

the prints on my brand new Epson 3880 were way too dark!


damn - maybe if I had gone for that high end Nec or Eizo and the XRite stuff, or bought a hood, or worked under a blanket

to block out that ambient light, or wore my Ray Bans ...


then one day I was watching an episode of Photoshop TV and Matt K mentioned that he hated to work on a dull dark monitor

and uses this technique if wants to print something


I tried it and was blown away by my prints on the 3880


just trying to pass it on to others having this problem like I did


do an internet search on "Prints too dark" there are tons of people with this issue


I am not saying it is for everyone - but it works for me


I see this at my job all the time now, information flows around the net like wildfire and soon something is written in stone

there is more then one route to most destinations


just my 2 cents


cheers

rh
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on November 20, 2012, 05:28:40 pm
Quote
Does the paper look darker than the whites on the screen?

I think his posted pic of his setup just answered your question.

His lighting is not bright enough to make a fair comparison even if the OP indicated it looked the same in direct sunlight. I can see shadow detail on the building (though noticeably dimmer and darker) on the print on my calibrated display.

But aside from that I'm surprised no one caught the difference between the blue to orange transition in the sky in his image on the display compared to the print which may point to an inaccurate printer profile.

SunnyUK, can you confirm the differences? Or is it that your photo you posted isn't that accurate. There's a big white gap on the display between the blue to orange gradation in the sky that isn't on the print.

SunnyUK, can you post a downsized for the web version of the original image of the Abbey so we can see if your display is showing shadow detail and that blue/orange gradation faithfully so we can rule out display calibration/profiling?
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on November 20, 2012, 06:01:28 pm
because the title says it all:      "My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled"

The exercise of calibrating a display in no way means it's calibrated properly to match a print nor that the print viewing conditions are in sync (correct).

The best looking print you've ever seen in your life will look dark when viewed by too dim an illuminant!
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: fdisilvestro on November 20, 2012, 07:04:11 pm
Think the other way around:  My monitor is too bright.

It's the monitor that should match the print. If your printer / paper combination cannot get detail in the dark areas, then you should not see them in the monitor either when softproofing.

Anyway, softproofing is always an approximation. Besides brigthness, there are colors that you monitor can show outside of the print gamut (handled also by softproofing) and colors that can be printed which are outside of the monitor gamut (no solution for this so far)

Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 20, 2012, 07:15:49 pm
... If I lower the luminosity of the monitor, the shadow details dissapear there. While that sounds like an improvement, it isn't really, because it hides detail that is in the image....

In my humble opinion, the above statement is at the core of the problem. If you lower the luminosity of the monitor and the shadow details disappear, bring them back in post-processing.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Rand47 on November 20, 2012, 11:23:53 pm
That's what I would like to achieve, yes. Just to make sure I haven't overlooked something simple (which, given how new I am at this is entirely possible), these are the steps I went through:

1) calibrate monitor using NEC's software
2) profile printer using Colormunki's software
3) take a picture into Photoshop
4) setup the softproof to match the printer profile created in step 2
5) swiching softproof on. Noticing that there is shadow detail
6) printing picture
7) noticing that there is (almost) no shadow detail on the print, regardless of whether I watch it under my (not daylight) halogen lights or outside in overcast shade (the only light available at this time of the year in this country. Rain optional)

I thought the starting point should be to make sure that the screen can show a full greyscale. In other words, if some of the dark steps blend together, the monitor is too dark. If some of the bright steps blend together, then the monitor is too bright. Is that incorrect?

OK, I may be showing a lack of knowledge here, but in step 4 above you mean "the paper specific profile" created, right?  Not a printer profile?
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: fdisilvestro on November 21, 2012, 01:44:33 am
It is actually a paper/printer combination profile
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Rhossydd on November 21, 2012, 02:33:04 am
If I lower the luminosity of the monitor, the shadow details dissapear there. While that sounds like an improvement, it isn't really, because it hides detail that is in the image. What I would like to achieve is for the monitor to show me everything that is in the image, and only throw away detail when it comes to softproofing (if the problem is caused by the printer's inability to print as fine luminosity details). And even "real" daylight won't show me the shadow details.
This paragraph sums up a core problem.
Yes, you can match your monitor to your print, BUT you want to see things in the image you can't print, you expect soft proofing to deliver that.
I can understand that point of view, but right now the only way to do it is to lower monitor luminosity when soft proofing. Not impossible, but not convenient either.

Slobodan's post is probably most helpful " If you lower the luminosity of the monitor and the shadow details disappear, bring them back in post-processing." Get used to working with monitor images that closer to printable.

Maybe the problem here is that current soft proofing expects a higher level of luminosity matching between print and monitor than most people can achieve. Maybe it's better to think of soft proofing as just a colour matching tool, rather a perfect overall print match.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Schewe on November 21, 2012, 02:51:46 am
Maybe the problem here is that current soft proofing expects a higher level of luminosity matching between print and monitor than most people can achieve. Maybe it's better to think of soft proofing as just a colour matching tool, rather a perfect overall print match.

Bullshyte...if you can't get a screen>print match using soft proofing, something is wrong in your chain or you don't have a clue how to soft proof. Look, I've been doing this successfully for years and with LR4 it's even easier. It ain't rocket science...it's a matter of having the right circumstances and set up. If you learn how to do it, it's really useful. If you cover your eyes and run off screaming, not so much.

If your print is too dark, you don't understand what you are doing and it would be useful to start at scratch and work from the ground up. Some of us have been doing this stuff for years and yes, it really can work. But if you want to stick you head in the sand and claim it doesn't work...then I suggest you walk off the deep end of the pier and ask for help. Likely you'll drown but maybe not, ya know? Maybe you can be saved (and learn how to do this stuff correctly). Or not...in which case, go ahead and drown...
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Simon Garrett on November 21, 2012, 03:53:59 am
In my humble opinion, the above statement is at the core of the problem. If you lower the luminosity of the monitor and the shadow details disappear, bring them back in post-processing.
In my (I hope equally) humble opinion, this is not the right way to go.  Get the monitor right, don't compensate for the error in post processing. 
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: SunnyUK on November 21, 2012, 06:45:04 am
If your print is too dark, you don't understand what you are doing and it would be useful to start at scratch and work from the ground up. Some of us have been doing this stuff for years and yes, it really can work. But if you want to stick you head in the sand and claim it doesn't work...then I suggest you walk off the deep end of the pier and ask for help. Likely you'll drown but maybe not, ya know? Maybe you can be saved (and learn how to do this stuff correctly). Or not...in which case, go ahead and drown...

With all due respect... I have stated from the beginning that I am very new at this. I have also stated that I started by reading about the issues and watching the training video that YOU and Michael put together. When I realised that I was not getting the same results as you and other people (unsurprising, for I am a newbie), I came here asking for help.  So it grates to be told that I don't know what I'm doing and that  I'm sticking my head in the sand.

I would of course be grateful for any suggestions.

In my humble opinion, the above statement is at the core of the problem. If you lower the luminosity of the monitor and the shadow details disappear, bring them back in post-processing.

Even though several people have suggested this, I don't understand it. I would like to understand. If there is detail (that this specific printer cannot print on this specific paper), would it not be wrong to match the monitor to the printer (rather than matching the softproof to the printer)?  If I do as suggested, and if I print on different papers and different printers, I will end up adjusting monitor luminosity for each print. If that is best practise, then I'll have to do it. It just sounds as if this omits the whole purpose of the softproof. Can you help me understand where my thinking is wrong, please?

But aside from that I'm surprised no one caught the difference between the blue to orange transition in the sky in his image on the display compared to the print which may point to an inaccurate printer profile.

SunnyUK, can you confirm the differences? Or is it that your photo you posted isn't that accurate. There's a big white gap on the display between the blue to orange gradation in the sky that isn't on the print.

SunnyUK, can you post a downsized for the web version of the original image of the Abbey so we can see if your display is showing shadow detail and that blue/orange gradation faithfully so we can rule out display calibration/profiling?

Good point, Tim. I'm at work at the moment, but will post an updated picture tonight and also confirm any differences in the graduations. Thank you.

That shouldn't happen.  If your monitor is correctly calibrated/profiled at a lower brightness setting, it should still be able to show the full tonal range (e.g at http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php (http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php) and http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php (http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/white.php)).  I don't have any problem with the full tonal range at a brightness below 100cd/m2. 

Obviously the total dynamic range between black and white is narrower, as black stayed the same but you've reduced white.  But that should match the print better. 

You show a picture of your room lighting: what happens if you hold a piece of printer paper by the screen.  Does the paper look darker than the whites on the screen?  If so, try bringing up the room lights or lowering the screen brightness (and recalibrate). 

Nice picture of Whitby Abbey, by the way!

Thank you for those two test images. Very useful! I will check them on the monitor tonight and reply.

Thank you also for the compliment. I like the Abbey.

In my (I hope equally) humble opinion, this is not the right way to go.  Get the monitor right, don't compensate for the error in post processing. 

That's also what my logic tells me. But I'm keen to learn from the experienced people and get a "true" setup that gives all the benefits of the monitor, of the printer and of the softproofing software in Photoshop.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: bjanes on November 21, 2012, 07:21:46 am

The problem with the prints is most easily seen in the shadow detail (or rather, the lack of shadow detail on the print). I have also watched the print outdoor in "real" daylight, and the shadows are also way darker there than on-screen.

Thank you for the very interesting thread about daylight bulbs. I will have to look into that in more detail when/if I get a separate room for my photo work.

If I lower the luminosity of the monitor, the shadow details dissapear there. While that sounds like an improvement, it isn't really, because it hides detail that is in the image. What I would like to achieve is for the monitor to show me everything that is in the image, and only throw away detail when it comes to softproofing (if the problem is caused by the printer's inability to print as fine luminosity details). And even "real" daylight won't show me the shadow details.


You have calibrated your monitor, but that is only half the solution. What about the printer profile? Printers have more difficulty in reproducing shadow detail than the monitor, since the monitor has a greater dynamic range and a lower DMAX. That said, an accurate printer profile should enable softproofing the appearance of the shadows. Also, what rendering intent are you using, and do you have black point compensation (BPC (http://www.gamutvision.com/docs/blackpoint.html)) in the case of relative colorimetric?

Regards,

Bill

Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: SunnyUK on November 21, 2012, 07:35:02 am
You have calibrated your monitor, but that is only half the solution. What about the printer profile? Printers have more difficulty in reproducing shadow detail than the monitor, since the monitor has a greater dynamic range and a lower DMAX. That said, an accurate printer profile should enable softproofing the appearance of the shadows. Also, what rendering intent are you using, and do you have black point compensation (BPC (http://www.gamutvision.com/docs/blackpoint.html)) in the case of relative colorimetric?

Hi Bill,

I created a printer/paper profile using Colormunki Photo and use that for the softproofing. When printing, I use rendering intent Perceptual with Black Point Compensation ticked. I seem to remember reading somewhere that perceptual is good in 80% of the cases, and since I am not skilled enough to know what the exceptions are, I have been sticking to that.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: jeremypayne on November 21, 2012, 07:49:48 am
I created a printer/paper profile

If you are truly a beginner, profiling your printer is significant overkill in my opinion.

Start with an off-the-shelf paper and use the profile offered by the manufacturer.

Print an unedited test file.  Review in your normal fashion.   Let us know how you find that print.

I think you'll find that unless you are using exotic papers (without supplied profiles for your printer) that you don't really need to profile your printer.  I've never found the need to profile a printer and get consistent and predictable output from several different HP and Epson printers.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: fdisilvestro on November 21, 2012, 07:55:16 am
If there is detail (that this specific printer cannot print on this specific paper), would it not be wrong to match the monitor to the printer (rather than matching the softproof to the printer)?  If I do as suggested, and if I print on different papers and different printers, I will end up adjusting monitor luminosity for each print. If that is best practise, then I'll have to do it. It just sounds as if this omits the whole purpose of the softproof. Can you help me understand where my thinking is wrong, please?

Yes, it has to be in "Softproof" mode when matching the monitor to the print, but this might require lowering the brightness anyway. If you do it correctly, it should work well for other printer/paper combinations without adjusting the monitor, provided you use the same viewing conditions.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on November 21, 2012, 12:09:54 pm
In my (I hope equally) humble opinion, this is not the right way to go.  Get the monitor right, don't compensate for the error in post processing.  

Ha! The battle of two equally humble opinionators! :)

In all seriousness, I thought that lowering luminance is (a part of) "getting the monitor right," no? There should be no "error" to compensate for if the monitor is properly calibrated, which would include a proper luminance. This, of course, should be done only once (during calibration/profiling), not for every paper/print combination.

Now, about that "blue to orange transition in the sky." It seems that is yet another sign that the monitor is too bright. Bring the luminance down, and you might start seeing some (or all) of that orange back. It might be simply overblown by exposure (though not in camera, but by "overexposure" of the monitor).

If you ever shot film, especially transparencies, you will remember that how much shadow detail you can see depended on the light source behind the slide film. If weak light, your shadows would certainly look blocked. Keep increasing the light and you will start to see details in the shadows. Do it too much and you will blow highlights, just like in-camera exposure.

Monitor is just like a light source for transparencies, i.e., it emits light, vs. prints that reflect it.

It might be just an impression, but just by looking at your supplied photo of the setup, one gets the impression that the monitor is too bright and too blue (relative to the print). In other words, either the monitor's white point is off, or your room lighting is too warm.



Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on November 21, 2012, 12:12:44 pm
This, of course, should be done only once (during calibration/profiling), not for every paper/print combination.

Not for us SpectraView users (or those with similar capabilities). We can build a suite of calibrations including contrast ratio's for each paper we hope to soft proof for, load them on the fly within the software and it swaps in the correct ICC profile for that calibration. It's the beauty of these smart display systems.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: SunnyUK on November 21, 2012, 01:11:01 pm
Not for us SpectraView users (or those with similar capabilities). We can build a suite of calibrations including contrast ratio's for each paper we hope to soft proof for, load them on the fly within the software and it swaps in the correct ICC profile for that calibration. It's the beauty of these smart display systems.

Now think I understand why I didn't understand your previous suggestions. You are talking about using the SpectraView display modes in order softproof, instead of using Photoshop. Is that correct?
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on November 21, 2012, 01:18:18 pm
Now think I understand why I didn't understand your previous suggestions. You are talking about using the SpectraView display modes in order softproof, instead of using Photoshop. Is that correct?

No, I'm not talking about using the SpectraView soft proof functionality. We're still working within Photoshop and Lightroom using their soft proofing.

I'm saying if you need to calibrate to match a print, you have the option of multiple targets and calibrations thanks to that system. Without, you need to stick to one OR recalibrate for each use. 
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: walter.sk on November 21, 2012, 01:57:06 pm
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8208/8203050285_29b86277e6.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunnyuk/8203050285/)
20121120-_TP50991 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunnyuk/8203050285/) by sunnyUK (http://www.flickr.com/people/sunnyuk/), on Flickr

The problem with the prints is most easily seen in the shadow detail (or rather, the lack of shadow detail on the print). I have also watched the print outdoor in "real" daylight, and the shadows are also way darker there than on-screen.

If I lower the luminosity of the monitor, the shadow details dissapear there. While that sounds like an improvement, it isn't really, because it hides detail that is in the image. What I would like to achieve is for the monitor to show me everything that is in the image, and only throw away detail when it comes to softproofing...
Some more thoughts:  While it is difficult to tell from your picture of the monitor, it seems to me that the shadows are blocked in your image, and that you are under the impression that the monitor is supposed to show you the "correct exposure" of your image.  If my image looked as blocked in the shadows on my monitor as yours does I would try to open up the shadows in Photoshop or LR, or whatever you are using.

You say you would like to have the "monitor to show me everything that is in the image..."
Well, with your excellent monitor and and calibration tool, I would assume it *does*.  I suspect if you re-calibrated your monitor anywhere from 115 or 120 rather than the 140 for the luminance, reopen the RAW file and get it to look right, and then print it you would see whether the darkness of the print is moving toward the correct appearance.

A second thought:  Buying a task lamp, especially one like a Solux with controlled temperature that you can position relative to your print viewing area such that the luminosity of the paper resembles that of the monitor, would give you a consistent viewing light that would allow for judging the brightness of the print.

The third point:  It does not appear that, when you look at the softproofed version of your image you are making any further adjustments of it compared to the original image in order to recapture as much as possible the look of the original.  This would entail adding contrast, shifting color balance, brightening, boosting blacks, etc, that compensate for the shifts from the original image to the softproofed version.  
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Schewe on November 21, 2012, 03:31:13 pm
I seem to remember reading somewhere that perceptual is good in 80% of the cases, and since I am not skilled enough to know what the exceptions are, I have been sticking to that.

Actually, you have that wrong...RelCol is often the best rendering intent because the keeps colors that are in gamut the same. Percep rending adjusts all colors so the out of gamut colors are in gamut–which can have a negative impact on in-gamut colors.

The ONLY way to KNOW which rendering intent will be best for a given images is to look at both and see which one does the best job. Blindly selecting Percep is a poor choice.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: bjanes on November 21, 2012, 05:10:44 pm
I created a printer/paper profile using Colormunki Photo and use that for the softproofing. When printing, I use rendering intent Perceptual with Black Point Compensation ticked. I seem to remember reading somewhere that perceptual is good in 80% of the cases, and since I am not skilled enough to know what the exceptions are, I have been sticking to that.

BPC is not usually used with perceptual rendering, since that rendering attempts to match the source black to the output black as explained in this Adobe paper (http://www.color.org/AdobeBPC.pdf) on BPC (see section 6.2). Nonetheless, Adobe states that BPC is still available for use with perceptual rendering in the case of malformed profiles (not suggesting that your profiles are malformed :)).

Two good but rather old articles on rendering intents are here (http://www.creativepro.com/article/out-of-gamut-realizing-good-intentions-with-rendering-intents) and here (http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/understanding-rendering-intents.html). The important thing to remember is that the color management system (CMS) does not look at what colors are actually in your image. Perceptual rendering compresses the color gamut whether or not compression is needed for out of gamut colors. If your image contains no out of gamut color, this compression may be undesirable. The situation may change with "smart CMSs" with ver 4 profiles, but ver 4 is reportedly not ready for prime time and I have not seen a good explanation on how or when to use them. Perhaps Jeff or the Digitaldog can chime in and help us out here.

In past times when we were printing to devices with relatively narrow color gamuts, many authors recommended perceptual rendering for general use. However with current wide gamut ink jet printers, it is less likely that an image will contain colors that are out of gamut for the printer and I think that relative colorimetric is preferred most of the time as Jeff Schewe indicated. Soft proofing using both intents can be helpful to see which works best. However, soft proofing can be limited by the gamut of the monitor, which obviously can not proof colors that are out of its gamut and within the gamut of the printer. Nonetheless, it works most of the time.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: SunnyUK on November 24, 2012, 10:09:14 am
Firstly, thank you very much for all the helpful input and explanations.

Secondly, I need to eat a large portion of humble pie. I finally re-calibrated my monitor to 120 cd/m2, edited the picture so the deep shadows got unblocked, and printed. To my untrained eye, the print is now very close to the Photoshop soft-proof. I consider the setup "good enough" for me at this stage.

Of course this was what you kind people were saying right from the beginning.

Thank you also for the links to further reading. I've read it all, and will keep it handy for when I start to get in doubt about profiling again.

I'm going to buy a good daylight balanced lamp, maybe one of the fancy Solux ones.

I haven't quite gotten my head around the use of multiple monitor profiles that can/should be changed on the go. I know my Spectraview monitor can do such stuff. I'll need to read up on that some more to get my head around it.

So thank you again for all your help. You've all been very kind.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Kanvas Keepsakes on December 20, 2012, 10:28:47 pm

 this is my first post to this forum - hope this helps :



  1.  using Photoshop create a duplicate layer of your finished photo

  2.  make sure this is the top layer

  3.  set the blend mode of this duplicate layer to "Screen"

  4.  set the opacity of this layer to ~ 25-30%

  5.  print and be amazed


(this tip is credited to Matt Kloskowski from NAPP)



Brilliant!  Such a simple trick yet works so well.  I was just posting about this same issue with my prints coming out a little darker.  I just got a Colormunki Photo yesterday and calibrated.  Things look great but with these prints I have here for this photographer that likes to take real dark images, this trick works great.  Thanks!
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: bill t. on December 20, 2012, 11:15:29 pm
Image->Adjustments->Shadows/Highlights... works as well, although you will want to apply it to a copy of your image since it is non reversible.  Normally you would only work on the Shadows controls.

There is a useful variation of the "Screen" layer trick that concentrates the effect mostly on the dark areas.

--With the image layer selected, create a "Luminosity" select with Ctrl+ Alt + 2.

--Invert the selection with Shift + Ctrl + I.

--Create a Curves layer above the color image layer, which will inherit the already inverted luminance selection as a mask.

--Set the new Curves layer's blend mode to Screen.

(You don't normally make any adjustments to the new Curves layer, it's there just to do the Screen magic.  But you can fiddle with it if you like.)

--Adjust the Opacity slider on the new Curves layer to taste.

--Helps to have an overall Curves layer on top of all this, use Luminosity mode if you want to avoid over saturation.

--You can adjust the brightness and contrast of the mask to further concentrate the effect in even darker areas of the image.

As with any adjustment layer with an image-based mask, you need to do any rubber stamping and dust bunny removal beforehand.


Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on December 21, 2012, 10:08:59 am
Brilliant!  Such a simple trick yet works so well.  I was just posting about this same issue with my prints coming out a little darker.  I just got a Colormunki Photo yesterday and calibrated.  Things look great but with these prints I have here for this photographer that likes to take real dark images, this trick works great.  Thanks!

Then fix the issue (see: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml)

Let's look at this logically:

 We have a document who's data may be too dark, too light, too magenta etc. We've had techniques for lightening dark images since version 1.0 of Photoshop. The 'issue' isn't that we can or cannot lighten an image. The issue is, why and where in the process? Is the data really containing numbers that represent a dark image or is the image OK and the print really is too dark. Big friggin difference in this issue and workflow and the fix!

Let's look at Matt's concepts again. He says he calibrates his display and his prints are too dark. I see this issue being caused by one or more of the following and the fixes are attributed to the problem.

1. He shoots JPEG and can't figure out proper exposure so his images are under exposed (too dark). Why doesn't one see this on a calibrated display and fix the capture? Is it possible he doesn't see that his images are indeed too dark? Then learn not to under expose. Learn to properly calibrate his display so it doesn't look 'normal' when the data is dark. Dark captures should look dark on screen.

2. He shoots raw and can't figure out proper exposure so his images are again under exposed (kiss of death for raw if noise and image quality is important). We still don't know why he doesn't see this. If he did, the fix at this point is use something like Exposure in ACR/LR (we all know Matt would not use a non Adobe raw processor). Then learn not to under expose. Learn to properly calibrate his display so it doesn't look 'normal' when the data is dark. Same as #1.

3. Capture is fine. Display is showing image far brighter than print, print looks dark(er) in caparison. The URL above goes into the reasons for why and how to fix it. Raise print viewing conditions. Lower display luminance. Get a match!

Does print still look too dark? Yes: Something is off sending data to printer. No: Print is not properly illuminated. HOW does lightening the document data fix this problem? It doesn't. The print may look fine but if the issue was low illumination on the print, it will look too light when moved elsewhere. And you still have this disconnect between display and printer. Fix is easy, calibrate the display for a match.

Let's take this out of the display+print making+Photoshop environment. Let's suppose you had a lens that always shot 1 stop under what was ideal exposure. Would you have that one lens fixed so it acts like the others and produces proper exposure OR would you just apply 1 stop more lightening in processing? That might be analog or digital development but the 'fix' is the same kludge as using any Photoshop technique that lightens an image that isn't too dark solely for a print that looks too dark. A print is either too dark or it isn't but might appear that way if improperly illuminated (how's the best Adams print look lit with a 6W nightlight bulb?).

In Matt's somewhat confused world of color management, he thinks he's calibrating his display (at least he tells us he does) yet his display lies to him and he fixes the document. Am I missing something or is this a pretty messed up way of looking at and fixing a problem? If we didn't have displays or ways to calibrate them, his workflow would make a lot more sense. With the tools we have today, it makes virtually no sense. Don't fall into this simplistic mideset of problem solving. You have just edited an image who's data is OK to fix something else causing a print that looks too dark.

You'd think an Photoshop guru like this would have a handle on reading histograms and numbers plus have a calibrated display that matches what he prints. If you had to process an image and your tools for doing so were: a properly calibrated and profiled display, a group of RGB numbers and a Histogram, which do you think would be the best to understand if the image were too dark or too light among many other image attributes you might want to alter? All three are useful One is really far more useful in terms of rendering a print*. It seems Matt and others are using none and then don't recognize of the document data or the print processing and viewing are causing a problem.

*http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: JoachimStrobel on February 10, 2016, 05:25:29 am
This is an excellent thread. It is over 3 years old. But still, I like to add a comment:
Back in the 60´s, my father would use slide film because prints were too expensive. So we got used looking at slides in a dark room, eventually using a marvelous 250 watt Leica slide projector. One would never look at a print after such an experience and I gradually gave up on printing. (I would be interested to know if there is any digital projector technology that would quality match those analog projections. The Leica projector did cost 500 USD in the 80´s). For me, this changed with the appearance of Cibachrome. Now one could get a halfway decent print from slides. It worked well for those saturated colors from places like Yosemite Valley but was tough for getting the midnight sun over Norwegian snowfields correctly. Eventually, I discovered Cibachrome transparent film, which gave “slides” that were out of this world for contrast (for out of this world prices). Human color perception seems to be much more tolerant to a backlight image than to a printed one, so even my slightly tainted examples looked good on transparencies. (They always looked great when projected in a dark room, no matter what the color taint was).
All this happened almost 40 years ago. I then turned to negative film where one never saw how good a photo would have looked liked like it if were a slide. I was happy with those photos for documenting the family.  About 10 years ago, I started digitized negatives for archiving and, of course, played with digital cameras. While watching those photos on a screen, I thought that now I have it all. Slide like quality and a way to display it. Over times, I bought four screens for the house and have photos displayed there. I bought a Sony TV for the living room just for photos, no TV signal connected.
Sure, I also make prints and, yes, I have posted something like “why are my prints too dark”. Sure, they are too dark because the screen is too good. That is fine, photos look better on a screen anyway. And times will come when we will be able to buy large UHD or XUHD OLED displays costing the same as 10 large prints. Moreover, all other photos will be looked at on OLED type tablets.
In the meantime, I do adjust my screen to 90 cd/m2 to adjust photos for printing and that sort of works. As somebody pointed out, soft proofing is for colors and not for exposure on paper. And when I do order the most expensive Whitewall print it does almost look like on my screen. I still believe that the industry should think about a soft proofing standard that allows for a quick check how a print would look like even if the screen still is adjusted to 140 cd/m2 or more. That seems not to be available unless one has a digital interface that enables the computer to control the brightness of a screen. I do not know if that exists.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 10, 2016, 06:43:40 pm
... I bought four screens for the house and have photos displayed there. I bought a Sony TV for the living room just for photos, no TV signal connected...

Ha! Funny you mentioned that. This is what I wrote four years ago in another thread. (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=63855.msg513802#msg513802)

Quote
I was in a furniture store the other day and noticed they are using flat-TVs to display images of their collections, kind of slide show. Then it hit me: how long before the price of a TV equates the price of framing a print? At this point, printing and framing a 24x36 print would cost between $200 and $300, give or take. The same dimension TV is 43" diagonally and they are currently already close to that, i.e., around $400-$500. Wait for a deal, and you just might get it for the price of framing a single print.

Add to the equation that, for the purpose of displaying photos only, the TV may be stripped of all other features, kind of a giant photo frame, and you can see how close the prices will converge.

And that is all in comparison to ONE framed print. A TV can display gazillion of them. Imagine the problem most people have with large prints on their walls: they do not have enough walls! Let alone the effect of getting used to seeing the same print day in, day out, to the point of becoming oblivious to it.

Add to the equation that most photographs look better on screen than in print (contrast ratio, reflecting vs. emitting light, etc.).

Finally, here comes Retina display, to address the most common argument in favor of print: resolution. Retina display already matches and surpasses ppi of most prints.

Most of todays gazillion photographs, dare I say 99.9 % of it, will never, ever be printed. People are already content with showing it on Flickr, Facebook or emailing it, watching it on their phones, computers and iPads.

And that is all happening already today. For tomorrow, no wonder I feel the print is dead, for all but the selected few.

EDIT: Shall I add that Kodak was betting its future on printing... we know the outcome.

Not everyone agreed with me, of course, and you can see several good arguments pro and contra in the thread.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: JoachimStrobel on February 11, 2016, 06:04:54 pm
Thanks for the link to that thread. This is good reading. Today I also read that this website is all about prints - so this subject will be difficult to argue.
The human eye sees red-green-blue and can handle a high contrast. So a screen should come naturally. With a screen one gets used to not seeing all colors because of the sRGB space. That may be a bad thing. I noticed that a lot a H&M t-shirts have out of sRGB space colors which makes them look attractive to me now.

Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Jimmy D Uptain on February 14, 2016, 09:49:56 am
I have the same monitor.
However I use SpectraView II software.
Anyway 140 cd does seem high. Mine is set at 90cd and prints are a much closer match.
Plus its a lot easier on the eyes 8)
I did notice that the Delta E was a bit higher with the lower intensity, but then found a setting (Extended luminance stabilization time) that solved that little problem.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: luxborealis on February 14, 2016, 04:35:12 pm
Wow - I just spent the day printing with LR 6 on a 2011 glossy 15" MacBook Pro, an Epson 3880 on 13x19" MAOB Entrada Rag Natural and

In the whole day I made 3 test strips 2¼" wide. Is it magic? NO! It's all about...

Blindly following a technical recipe without looking, thinking, comparing and learning will result in less-than-ideal prints. Once you learn what your system does, you will be amazed at how simple it can be. It's unrealistic to expect a backlit digital screen to perfectly represent a front lit print and vice versa.

Try tilting your monitor slightly - the tonal relationships change. Try standing and looking at your monitor instead of sitting - again different tonal relationships. Try looking at your print in a gallery, at a friend's house, in your hallway, in your living room - all will have different colour and tonal relationships depending on the mix and brightness of the lighting. Which one is "correct"? All of them because that's the reality of the situation.

Photographers are OVER-OBSESSED with this. Do you think watercolour, oil or acrylic painters go through all this angst. OMG!!! No!! They will paint outside in the sunlight or shade or in a studio (I know, ideally with indirect light, but certainly not always) only to have their work shown in who knows what kind of lighting.

Go ahead, drive yourself crazy trying to match every colour in a print to the on-screen image. Who cares - it's what's on the wall that counts and the moment you move it from the living room to the bedroom it will be different because no one lights their home equally and evenly and to so many cd/m2 or to match some special print-viewing light source (not even all galleries).

Okay, rant over. I know you are only trying to be as exact as possible, but really, unless you're in product photography where exact colour matching is required, you'll be surprised at how well you do once you make a few test strips and learn your equipment and materials.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 14, 2016, 08:23:33 pm
In the whole day I made 3 test strips 2¼" wide. Is it magic? NO! It's all about...
  • setting the develop module background to white;
  • thoughtfully comparing how it looks in the Print module with even more white around the image;
  • making a few thoughtful test strips; and
  • LEARNING WHAT TO EXPECT OF YOUR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS.
Sounds awfully reminiscent of what we used to do in the wet darkroom years ago.
Especially "LEARNING WHAT TO EXPECT OF YOUR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS.
 ;)
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: kencameron on February 14, 2016, 09:07:24 pm
It's unrealistic to expect a backlit digital screen to perfectly represent a front lit print and vice versa.
I have to say that taking on board this proposition has made printing a less stressful activity for me. Not an excuse for ignoring all the good advice that is available, including from several luminaries on this site. More about recognising something about how my own perceptual system actually works.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on February 14, 2016, 09:10:30 pm
It's unrealistic to expect a backlit digital screen to perfectly represent a front lit print and vice versa.
It is only unrealistic to expect it if someone promised you that and you believed them. If someone promised you that with soft proofing, you were lied to.
It's unrealistic to expect a transparency to perfectly represent a printed piece in book or magazine, no matter the time and money spent, and vice versa.
Didn't stop some of us from using product A to produce product B.
IF anyone promised you magic, you were again lied to.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Simon Garrett on February 15, 2016, 07:54:03 am
Wow - I just spent the day printing with LR 6 on a 2011 glossy 15" MacBook Pro...

Try tilting your monitor slightly - the tonal relationships change. Try standing and looking at your monitor instead of sitting - again different tonal relationships.

If the tonal relationships change when you move viewing position then this sounds like you don't have an IPS screen.  I don't know what screens Macbooks had in 2011, but if not IPS then you're quite right that colour will change with viewing position, and there's very little point in colour management. 

On a good quality IPS monitor, the tonal relationships do not change when you move viewing position. 
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: luxborealis on February 15, 2016, 11:19:59 pm
If the tonal relationships change when you move viewing position then this sounds like you don't have an IPS screen.  I don't know what screens Macbooks had in 2011, but if not IPS then you're quite right that colour will change with viewing position, and there's very little point in colour management. 

On a good quality IPS monitor, the tonal relationships do not change when you move viewing position.

It is a rare monitor that does not alter tonal values with changes in angles. You can bet most users of colour-matching and profiling hardware-software do not also have "IPS" monitors!

But the point of what I was saying is more to do with the impossibility of controlling every last nuance of colour and tone when a simple change in print location from one room to another throws all the obsessive colour matching out the window. An IPS monitor will get you close, but move the framed print from a neutral hallway to bright room painted yellow and you can throw colour matching out the window.

Colour matching is not useless, but obsessing over it is.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Doug Gray on February 16, 2016, 12:21:46 am
It is a rare monitor that does not alter tonal values with changes in angles. You can bet most users of colour-matching and profiling hardware-software do not also have "IPS" monitors!

But the point of what I was saying is more to do with the impossibility of controlling every last nuance of colour and tone when a simple change in print location from one room to another throws all the obsessive colour matching out the window. An IPS monitor will get you close, but move the framed print from a neutral hallway to bright room painted yellow and you can throw colour matching out the window.

Colour matching is not useless, but obsessing over it is.

The point of color management is to control what you print so that it is consistent. For instance if you print an image of a colorchecker, it will look exactly like a real colorchecker if your print process is correctly set up. You can take that print and a real colorchecker into another room with different lighting and they will still look the same. Profiling a monitor is just a way to work in a specific lighting and it can be set to match whatever your favorite environment is within a pretty large variation. 
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Rhossydd on February 16, 2016, 05:54:27 am
It is a rare monitor that does not alter tonal values with changes in angles.
I haven't used a monitor that displays that sort of unacceptable behaviour for 15 years, even my laptop has an IPS screen.
All the other serious photographers I know use decent screens, so I think you may be a little out of touch about how widely decent monitors are used.

It continually amazes me that people spend big amounts on camera kit, computers, printers, software and then compromise on one of the most important bits of kit, the monitor. Good monitors aren't hugely expensive, why work with second rate kit ?

No wonder you don't 'get' colour management if you can't see colour properly on your monitor. As others have said, it provides the consistency that eliminates blundering about having to make test strips.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: GWGill on February 16, 2016, 07:31:41 am
But the point of what I was saying is more to do with the impossibility of controlling every last nuance of colour and tone when a simple change in print location from one room to another throws all the obsessive colour matching out the window.
Appearance changes with viewing and lighting conditions can be allowed for in the color management process if you wish to, and if you are using a sufficiently flexible system. (See CIECAM02 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIECAM02)).
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on February 16, 2016, 10:40:31 am
The point of color management is to control what you print so that it is consistent.
I'd suggest that color management is number management, giving (in most cases) a triplet of numerical values, a meaning based on a color colorimetry and color perception. However, colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Simon Garrett on February 16, 2016, 05:55:51 pm
It is a rare monitor that does not alter tonal values with changes in angles. You can bet most users of colour-matching and profiling hardware-software do not also have "IPS" monitors!

I don't think this is true. 

I am sure that most of those that use colour management (that is, calibrating and profiling their monitors and using colour-managed software) will use IPS screens.  Any book, article, Q&A, FAQ, blog or whatever about colour management includes advice to choose an IPS monitor.  The large majority of good-quality screens are IPS (or similar technology), even moderately priced ones (except laptops, most of which are not IPS). 

The point (for me) of colour management is not about obsessing over colour.  Colour management means that you have a controlled, consistent way of viewing images.  It reduces the sources of error, reduces the variability, and reduces the "why the heck did it come out that colour" moments.  Far from needing test strips, more often than not prints come out right first time.  What you see on the screen (perhaps with a quick check of soft proofing) gives you a reliable indication of what the print will look like without trial and error. 

It just makes the workflow quicker and easier. 
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Doug Gray on February 17, 2016, 11:19:58 am
I don't think this is true. 

I am sure that most of those that use colour management (that is, calibrating and profiling their monitors and using colour-managed software) will use IPS screens.  Any book, article, Q&A, FAQ, blog or whatever about colour management includes advice to choose an IPS monitor.  The large majority of good-quality screens are IPS (or similar technology), even moderately priced ones (except laptops, most of which are not IPS). 

The point (for me) of colour management is not about obsessing over colour.  Colour management means that you have a controlled, consistent way of viewing images.  It reduces the sources of error, reduces the variability, and reduces the "why the heck did it come out that colour" moments.  Far from needing test strips, more often than not prints come out right first time.  What you see on the screen (perhaps with a quick check of soft proofing) gives you a reliable indication of what the print will look like without trial and error. 

It just makes the workflow quicker and easier.

Exactly!  It's like painting a drywall patch. Painters that use suppliers with good "color management" usually get better, and faster results.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: luxborealis on February 20, 2016, 05:31:10 pm
Exactly!  It's like painting a drywall patch. Painters that use suppliers with good "color management" usually get better, and faster results.

Can't get much better or faster results than doing what I'm doing: one or two 2" test strips followed by a fine print (but preceded by learning my equipment and materials, not through trial and error, but through thoughtful looking and responding, instead of relying on technology to solve the problem).

What responders don't seem to understand is there is another way that's not based on a technological fix, but on looking and learning and applying. It doesn't work for everyone; all I'm saying is that you don't need to reach for the Colour-Munki or Spyder to get great, repeatable results.

It's similar to the difference between standard and automatic; guess which one I drive, despite living in North America?! We will both get to the same place at the same time, but guess who will have more fun along the way as well as the added pleasure in knowing they were an active part of the decision-making?
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on February 20, 2016, 06:50:22 pm
What responders don't seem to understand is there is another way that's not based on a technological fix, but on looking and learning and applying.
Heck, you don't a lick of need color management, or even a color display, if your goal is a print and you can make as many as necessary until you reach your goal.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Simon Garrett on February 20, 2016, 07:32:33 pm
What responders don't seem to understand is there is another way that's not based on a technological fix, but on looking and learning and applying. It doesn't work for everyone; all I'm saying is that you don't need to reach for the Colour-Munki or Spyder to get great, repeatable results.

If you're suggesting that technology is somehow an alternative quick fix to "looking and learning and applying": well, I would say it's the opposite way round.  Photography is a technology-based creative art, and one needs some knowledge of the underlying technology to get the best out of it.  Without that knowledge one is just muddling through, it seems to me. 

I think all photographers would agree that to get the best out of the craft, a photographer needs to understand something of technologies such as aperture, shutter speed, focal length and so on, and to understand the implications of choices of those parameters.  Time has moved on, and photography is almost entirely digital.  That brings a whole new set of technologies an understanding of which enables better use of them. 

To some extent I agree with you second point: "you don't need to reach for the Colour-Munki or Spyder to get great, repeatable results".  I've just this last week given a talk to a camera club on colour management, and I know full well that most of them don't (and won't) use colour management.  As a result, a significant part of the talk was about the limitations of not using colour management, and the pitfalls to avoid when not using colour management.  However, IMHO one can get more repeatable, more consistent, faster results by "reaching for the Color-Munki or Spyder"!

Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: JoachimStrobel on April 14, 2016, 01:18:59 am
So I spend a long time trying to calibrate my monitor to the results I am getting from professional printing labs, mainly Whitewall in Germany. I illuminate the prints with a 50 watt tungsten bulb from 1-2 m distance, my set-up in my house for many rooms. Somme rooms have a wooden ceiling.
In winter, little extra light comes into the corner where the print hangs, now, in spring it is a bit more, therefore I waited with this post.
In spring, now, calibrating my screen to 5500k and 90cd gives a good match from screen to print, 6000K is still not bad. But everything above is not good. In winter 5000k is not low enought, but my Spyder 3 would not allow calibrating to 4000k. I tried it manually and it looked good.
I only have a simple LCD screen, in fact I tried a Dell and an Acer. They just so pass the SRGB triangle, it gets better with lower color temperature settings.
So at least I am done. As said before, I also have a lot of screens hanging at my walls. It is difficult to calibrate a TV screen to 5000K, 6500k seems to be "warm", some makers seem to set neutral to 9500K which people then find " brilliant". So I end up making two sets of outputs: One for TV-screens, adjusting my computer screen to 6500K and making pleasing adjustments on my photos for that. And one for print. I look at  prints mainly in wintertime, so I set the white point low.... Two outputs are fine, just as in old times: Slides were for projection and negatives for printing...
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Peter_DL on April 15, 2016, 06:56:54 pm
So I end up making two sets of outputs: One for TV-screens, adjusting my computer screen to 6500K and making pleasing adjustments on my photos for that. And one for print. I look at  prints mainly in wintertime, so I set the white point low.... Two outputs are fine, just as in old times: Slides were for projection and negatives for printing...

Doesn't it also require two different luminance settings.
At least that's how I proceed: ca. 200 vs 75 cd/m2.

Regarding all the different white points which you mention, it is certainly a subject which can easily drive you crazy. In my experience the process of chromatic adaptation simply takes some time, longer than needed to support side by side comparisons. Hence the approach to calibrate the monitor's white point to a visual match e.g. between the display and the print next to it does not really make no sense for me. Others may *see* it differently.

With the Spyder Elite software it is possible to place the sRGB.icc profile in the file folder where the calibration targets are stored, so that the D65 CIE xy chromaticity values as well as the sRGB-TRC can be used as the target for calibration. Works well for me, I don't make it output-dependent.

Peter

--
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: JoachimStrobel on April 16, 2016, 02:49:19 am
Thanks for the icc hint, I try that.
Sure, I forgot to mention the luminance problem. 80 to 90 cd/m2 is good for me for judging how a print may look. When considering photos for a screen display, then I can assume 140 to 200 cd/m2 as target. Again like in old times: slides vs prints.
For me it us about expectation management. The eye adapts to all. That is why one never "sees" a color taint in a dark room slight projection, but the very same photo hanging at a wall suddenly looks different. "Calibrating" my screen prepares me for what I will be getting. I had cases where the print looked much different than on screen - but I liked the print better. But this is a bit of a gamble...

Joachim
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: Peter_DL on April 17, 2016, 07:12:07 am
"Calibrating" my screen prepares me for what I will be getting.

Hmm, I think the question is, if and how the different monitor and calibration settings really influence the way how we process and edit the images.

There is for sure a significant influence from the monitor's luminance. A low setting of <100 cd/m2 for print will provoke some stronger processing, in particular stronger tonal adjustments, compared to let's say 150-200 cd/m2 (or maybe even higher) for digital presentation.
Recommended reading: http://www.lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/pscs3_rendering_image.pdf

Actually, in consequence, it may lead to a 2 step image editing approach with the different outputs in mind, a kind of making the "slides" first and then the prints.

Regarding the monitor's white point, I think there is some tolerance here - let's say somewhere in the range from 6500 to 5500K CCT, along the daylight locus or the Planckian locus – where it does not really matter, provided that there is sufficient time for chromatic adaptation.

Some time ago in the past I had changed from a somewhat warmer monitor white point to D65 now, and when I now revisit old images I do not feel the need to re-edit the white balance.

Peter

--
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: JoachimStrobel on April 17, 2016, 06:05:53 pm
Reflecting on the many post that I meanwhile wrote about this subject - it is frustration.This wonderful digital world, it has not managed to produce a switch like: this print will be for a wooden room with a 50 watt bulb and hence be around 4000k and please make me a print that is pleasing "Viewing type = mother" so replace take my current setting which are for a 6500K screen at 200cd/m2 and make it at nice print.
I can hardly believe that we write the year 2016 and all I have is a slider in Lightroom that can be used to make prints somehow brighter for prints. There is a disconnect somehow between the 42 MB sensor and the real world. Or I just wait for 4K panels replacing prints, I guess that will happen first.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: FrankG on April 23, 2016, 07:42:38 pm
What I find interesting is that we can all set our calibration targets slightly differently to one another - for example, White Point & Gamma are pretty much universally accepted targets but the Luminance seems more variable depending....

Once we have the WP, Gamma & Luminance and our room lighting, and our print viewing booth, all balanced and sorted out we can arrive at a good display to print match.
Well & good, but what happens if we send our files to an outside lab for printing? If their Luminance is set differently then the display on my monitor may not match their print output.

Case in point - I have a calibrated display set to WP 6500K, Gamma 2.2, Luminance 115 cd/2. This works well, in my setup, when printing to a 3880 using manufacturers paper/ink profiles.
I just sent a few files to a lab and the prints are a tad too dark (under a Pantone Color Viewing booth) does that indicate that I have set my display luminance too high ?

Because I see the image lighter/brighter on my display compared to the slightly darker print output from the lab, instead of 115 cd/2 I could try setting it to 110 or 105 ? Dimming the display a little will make me brighten the images more.
Alternately, I could create a correction curve , or use the Screen mode duplicate layer method mentioned above. And apply that to all the lab print files.

Soft proofing with the lab's paper profile does not preview the slight darkening experienced.
Any thoughts? I'm just trying to tweak my calibration to match the lab output.
Thanks
Frank
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: digitaldog on April 23, 2016, 08:28:48 pm
Once we have the WP, Gamma & Luminance and our room lighting, and our print viewing booth, all balanced and sorted out we can arrive at a good display to print match.
Well & good, but what happens if we send our files to an outside lab for printing? If their Luminance is set differently then the display on my monitor may not match their print output.
The goal is WYSIWYG so you'd still be expected to place the lab's print next to your display and view the soft proof (expecting a visual match).
Quote
Case in point - I have a calibrated display set to WP 6500K, Gamma 2.2, Luminance 115 cd/2. This works well, in my setup, when printing to a 3880 using manufacturers paper/ink profiles.
I just sent a few files to a lab and the prints are a tad too dark (under a Pantone Color Viewing booth) does that indicate that I have set my display luminance too high ?
So one could suggest the lab's printer isn't ideally setup; it's printing dark. Or the profile they supplied isn't so good or it's not really being used. Or the device has drifted from what the profile once defined. Or, the contrast ratio differs which you could account for in your calibration. Or some of each. The ideal way to work IMHO is to use a display system that allows you to calibrate to differing output which is what my SpectraView does. Think about just your 3880 and the profiles that are for it that are presumably good. A matt paper has a vastly different contrast ratio and probably paper white than a glossy paper. You'd calibrate for both and switch the calibration and profile for each use.

Quote
Alternately, I could create a correction curve , or use the Screen mode duplicate layer method mentioned above. And apply that to all the lab print files.
You could but that's a non color management hack. It might come to that. But it's not ideal.
If you take a reference image who's RGB values are sound, the output should reflect that. Now there are differences in color gamut, rendering intents, profile quality and so on. Some we can account for, some we can't.

Quote
Soft proofing with the lab's paper profile does not preview the slight darkening experienced.
Which is why I suspect either the profile isn't so good or suffers some of the above possible issues or you need to better target the calibration of the display for that output.
Title: Re: My print is too dark - and I *have* calibrated and profiled
Post by: FrankG on April 25, 2016, 08:51:43 am
Thanks for all that Andrew. So many variables. And so it could vary even further if I switched from one lab to another. Or from inkjet to c-type continuous tone. Different calibrations for different labs/output is probably a good idea but beyond my old tools and setup - good to know for the future though (I'm going to upgrade)