What about printer managing color? Ctein says "yes."

[Tony Jay]

Rob my information (may need correction) is that the actual panels used by both Eizo and NEC are identical.
I know that my choice was informed by price.

Tony Jay

[r010159]

There you go, Rob.  Lots of NEC Spectraview users here, so if you get that one you'll have a nice support group.  The only other panel that a serious printmaker would want to consider is an Eizo CG screen.  Either will get you where you need to be.  To my knowledge, that's it.  There aren't any others.

Which isn't to say there aren't a bunch of really nice monitors out there.  The problem is they're all designed for mainstream consumers.  Video gaming.  Watching movies/video.  Doing web stuff.  They're sRGB.  They're built for high-contrast and high-brightness, the very things that sell a consumer when he walks into Best Buy or the Apple Store.  And the latest extra premium models are ultra HD.

All of which is what you want when you're watching that Blu-Ray disk of Gladiator.  Or the latest CGI flick.

And they'll work fine for screen-based photo editing.  Which, let's be honest, is where most images end up these days.

But if your ultimate destination is paper, they will, at least part of the time, leave you wondering "what the hell happened?"  Like Ctein.

Last thing is what Andrew mentioned ("That and calibrating to that goal which I'm not sure is happening in this case.").  Color-profiling a NEC or an Eizo isn't enough.  You have to calibrate your monitor for paper.  Luminance and contrast have to come way down.  So much that it hurts.  I don't use my Eizo for anything other than printing.  It's too dismal for anything else.

The flip side is, well, printing is glorious.

Do not forget to calibrate the monitor to paper white, for a particular paper. I try to use a calibration, profile setup for each paper I soft proof. However, laziness gets in the way.  LOL

Bob

[MHMG]

Thanks for all the replies regarding displays.  Almost everyone here seems to use NECs rather than Eizos.  Is there a reason for this other than price?

Rob

Price was indeed an overarching factor. I can't tell you (because I simply don't know) whether there are other factors that distinguish between Eizo and NEC high end wide gamut monitors. I can only tell you that my purchase of a NEC monitor with corresponding Spectraview II calibration software was a huge step up from the Apple Cinema Display that i had previously used. Much of that improvement has to do with the internal 10 bit LUT that supercedes your computer's video card, the carefully mapped brightness uniformity edge to edge, and the tightly integrated calibration software performance that is difficult if not impossible to replicate on more general purpose displays combined with third party calibration software applications.

Truth be told, I got along pretty well with my older Apple Cinema display and third party calibration software. A good ISP panel combined with good third party calibration puck is a nice start that will help many novice printmakers up their game, but if you want to get truly serious about great quality soft proofing for predictable print output, an Eizo or NEC Specraview display is very likely in your future... total overkill for surfing the web or playing video games, but great for serous printmaking activities.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[Wayne Fox]

Thanks for all the replies regarding displays.  Almost everyone here seems to use NECs rather than Eizos.  Is there a reason for this other than price?

Rob

I use the NEC's,  but have some Eizo's at my store.  the Eizo's work well, but I prefer the NEC's with the spectraview II software.  I use a manually adjusted calibration and work with 3 different NEC's, 2 30" side by side (301w and 302w) at my home where I do most of my image adjustments, and a third at my store (as I said I prefer the NEC's so I gave the Eizo to another user).

[Josh-H]

Yep...when you get a quality display, you can use soft proofing very well. Most of the people who argue that soft proofing doesn't work are using cheap-ass displays. It's really hard to use a display that barely has sRGB and expect soft proofing to work. I can do it in a pinch but I much prefer my NEC displays. Sadly many of the "experts" don't use quality displays and don't really believe soft proofing works. It does and does so very well.

I completely agree with this - Anyone who says Soft proofing doesn't work either doesn't understand how to use it, or, is using a poor quality display (or both). Soft proofing not only works, but it works exceptionally well if you know what you are doing.

In relation to Eizo vs. NEC. I suspect most people here choose NEC because its significantly cheaper but offers still excellent performance. There are some key differences between them - depending on what model you select.

I am just finishing up reviewing the new Eizo 4K 31.1" display and will post the review here soon. Its a game changer in terms of a displays capability for soft proofing in my experience with the panel (amongst other things).

Rob my information (may need correction) is that the actual panels used by both Eizo and NEC are identical.

I do not believe this is correct Tony. Or rather, it is not across the board true. Certainly the new 4K Eizo is a different panel to the UHD4K NEC.

I have great respect for Ctein and his dye transfer printing. His comment 'let printer manage color' makes me suspect his knowledge of the digital print process is more limited though. There are many factors that could lead to this false conclusion - not the least of which is a poor quality profile.

[Ernst Dinkla]

A NEC here, that now needs to be replaced, backlight degraded too much. Softproofing in art reproduction? There is no substitute for proof prints in my opinion. Too many color translations between original pigments etc and the printer pigments and both available at the end of the workflow to compare to one another in the same light shows that the RGB monitor in between is nice but not precise enough for that task. Discussions on camera profiling for reproduction tasks appear at regular intervals, in practice there will always be a shift of some color in the image and then often too subtle to see it on the monitor while they just corrupt a good reproduction in print. All IMHO, it could be my eyes. An electro-wetting CMY(K) monitor (light reflecting and/or transmitting) is still not around and may not solve it either.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

[Schewe]

There is no substitute for proof prints in my opinion. Too many color translations between original pigments etc and the printer pigments and both available at the end of the workflow to compare to one another in the same light shows that the RGB monitor in between is nice but not precise enough for that task.

I don't disagree...evaluating the actual ink on the final paper is the ultimate evaluative tool...however if one does enough hard proofs (after soft proofing), one learns enough to transfer that eval to upgrade the soft proofing stage even further. But eventually, soft proofs need to be backed up by hard proofs...to get the best optimal output.

[digitaldog]

I don't disagree...evaluating the actual ink on the final paper is the ultimate evaluative tool...however if one does enough hard proofs (after soft proofing), one learns enough to transfer that eval to upgrade the soft proofing stage even further. But eventually, soft proofs need to be backed up by hard proofs...to get the best optimal output.

Like Polaroid to transparency film in the old days (it's better now).

[Tim Lookingbill]

It's really nice to read a thread that has no alternate and/or contentious views on display brands.

I just wish it was information I can use instead of what amounts to an NEC love in.

What I don't understand is why no one is offering as detailed a description as Ctein outlines in getting a better print using "Printer Manages Color" which I'm now starting to realize might be the trade off for paying for expensive Epson inks and paper. I wonder what the savings are between investing all that time and money in printer profiling, soft proofing on a more expensive wider gamut display vs just figuring out how to get a good print as demonstrated in that article.

Even I get decent print matches on my $50 Epson NX330 using Epson paper and inks using "Printer Manages Color". It's nice to know Epson is providing some improvement in their technology that justifies their expensive printing supplies.

[ThirstyDursty]

I have zero expertise.

But Reading this makes me think

1) there is zero percent chance that a generic profile (Epson baked in profiles) will more accurate at reproducing accurate color from a file (not from screen, this is another matter), given individual product variability...especially with non Epson papers...but unless quality tolerance is super tight...each machine will have a small nuance. A custom profile will be more accurate.

What he sees on his display and what he likes as a print outcome is a different matter.

2) what he is suggesting is that rather then actually controlling the process (profiled printer and monitor, monitor capable of displaying as many printable colors as possible) that you understand the abstraction between the inaccurate version on the screen and potentially inaccurate print.

3) he says soft-proofing doesn't work, for him...which is a give away that what he sees on the screen never matches the print outcome.

While he might be a great photographer. Clearly the fine detail aspects of print making excellence is not his specific passion...he should probably stick to blogging about what he is an expert in.

[robgo2]

It's really nice to read a thread that has no alternate and/or contentious views on display brands.

I just wish it was information I can use instead of what amounts to an NEC love in.

What I don't understand is why no one is offering as detailed a description as Ctein outlines in getting a better print using "Printer Manages Color" which I'm now starting to realize might be the trade off for paying for expensive Epson inks and paper. I wonder what the savings are between investing all that time and money in printer profiling, soft proofing on a more expensive wider gamut display vs just figuring out how to get a good print as demonstrated in that article.

Even I get decent print matches on my $50 Epson NX330 using Epson paper and inks using "Printer Manages Color". It's nice to know Epson is providing some improvement in their technology that justifies their expensive printing supplies.

If maximum economy and minimal effort are your highest priorities, then by all means, follow Ctein's lead.  That assumes that you are pleased with the print output. Ctein seems to be in spite of the limitations of his process that have been highlighted in this thread.

[Tim Lookingbill]

If maximum economy and minimal effort are your highest priorities, then by all means, follow Ctein's lead.  That assumes that you are pleased with the print output. Ctein seems to be in spite of the limitations of his process that have been highlighted in this thread.

Just wish Ctein would provide more print samples representing a broader array of image types encompassing various scene gamuts to check for consistency using "Printer Manages Color".

Can't imagine how much ink he's expended printing such a dark image that large which most likely used all color ink cartridges to get that level of dense night sky while providing a smoother and consistent color grade in the light beam. He's now had to toss the "Photoshop Manages Color" version along with all that ink and paper.

Maybe the "Printer Manages Color" version doesn't provide the closest to screen match, but just a google image search of the "Mona Lisa" will give at least ten different color renderings with quite a few looking pretty bad and yet no one's complaining.

[robgo2]

Just wish Ctein would provide more print samples representing a broader array of image types encompassing various scene gamuts to check for consistency using "Printer Manages Color".

Ctein has promised a post specifically on this subject over at TOP. He is already aware of the opposing arguments, so it should be interesting to see what he has to offer.

Rob

[ThirstyDursty]

Controversy is good publicity.

[Josh-H]

Controversy is good publicity.

Very true - But I would think Ctein was above that sort of click bait.

[Schewe]

I have zero expertise.

But Reading this makes me think

1) there is zero percent chance that a generic profile (Epson baked in profiles) will more accurate at reproducing accurate color from a file (not from screen, this is another matter), given individual product variability...especially with non Epson papers...but unless quality tolerance is super tight...each machine will have a small nuance. A custom profile will be more accurate.

Perhaps true for 3rd party papers (although recently 3rd parties are providing pretty decent profiles) but I disagree when it comes to Epson papers in Epson printers. The unit to unit variations on Epson pro printers is miniscule. Also Epson can profiles are very good. I know, I've made a lot of profiles and it's unusual that my custom profiles are better. Usually that only happens with matt papers because then you can make of custom modifications while making the profile that can produce different (and perhaps better results). But for glossy papers, you would be hard pressed to make any substantial improvements. Really! See if Andrew agrees with me :~)

[ThirstyDursty]

Perhaps true for 3rd party papers (although recently 3rd parties are providing pretty decent profiles) but I disagree when it comes to Epson papers in Epson printers. The unit to unit variations on Epson pro printers is miniscule. Also Epson can profiles are very good. I know, I've made a lot of profiles and it's unusual that my custom profiles are better. Usually that only happens with matt papers because then you can make of custom modifications while making the profile that can produce different (and perhaps better results). But for glossy papers, you would be hard pressed to make any substantial improvements. Really! See if Andrew agrees with me :~)

Thanks for chiming in. You've changed my understanding on this...there is so much conflicting info for a beginner like me. That said, despite owning an Epson printer for 2 months...I'm yet to use a single sheet of Epson paper...but on my third roll of Canson Baryta and starting to explore their textured matt papers.

The company I bought the printer from offers a custom profile service and gave me 5 with the purchase...so I guess they have a vested interest in the view on profiles

[Schewe]

The company I bought the printer from offers a custom profile service and gave me 5 with the purchase...so I guess they have a vested interest in the view on profiles

So did you try the  profile Canson has provided? And yes, services who provide custom profiles tend to have a vested interest in pushing custom profiles...

[ThirstyDursty]

So did you try the  profile Canson has provided? And yes, services who provide custom profiles tend to have a vested interest in pushing custom profiles...

To be honest, the way they talked about it, made it sound not worthwhile to bother with the generic profiles.

I've also been under tight time frames to deliver an exhibition of 15 panoramic images...a few 2m long.

In addition to small matted prints and Art cards for sale the show. Opened today.

So my 8 weeks of ownership has been filled with getting those right, when not doing my day job.

Now I'll have time....to really learn this aspect of my passion. And I think first off will be to try the Baryta generic vs custom profile and some sample packs of papers. I've been happy with the paper, but scratches easily.

[digitaldog]

Not all profiles, custom or otherwise are created equally!
Even canned profiles are kind of all over the map. Even Epson profiles! There are two sets or groups, one very good, one not so good. For example, the canned profiles from Epson for Luster paper are made in Japan and are not so great compared to say the Exhibition Fiber profile made in the US by Epson. Big, big difference in blues (they map to dark black in the Epson Japan profile, render blue in the better USA profile). Test!
The custom profile below is very similar to the Epson USA profile, the badly rendered blue is Epson Japan.