SHadow areas printing too dark - topic rears its ugly head

[BradFunkhouser]

Out of curiosity, what rendering intent are you using?

[BradFunkhouser]

I downloaded your file, assigned it ProPhotoRGB and looked at the shadow areas.  The histogram shows a lot of clipping on the left and a lot of the shadows are outside the gamut of my 9900 with Museo Silver Rag, which is my widest gamut paper, so I think they're probably also outside the gamut of the 4900 with Gold Fibre Silk.  Looking around the rock and tree shadows, the absolute Lab luminosity values range from 2 to around 12, which is a very dark range for trying to delineate details on a print, even with our widest gamut papers.

My display is calibrated and profiled, and I can see the tree and rock shadows pretty well from ProPhotoRGB and also when soft proofing using Silver Rag relative colorimetric with black point compensation, but from my experience I think those details would probably look plugged if I printed them.

Maybe this image has a lot of shadow details that hit a spot where soft proofing shows the details on a backlit display that aren't really quite discernible on an actual print?  My monitor is measured with an i1Pro Rev D.  I've read somewhere that spectrophotometers like ours actually have more trouble measuring dark saturated monitor colors than cheaper colorimeters do.  I wonder if we're seeing that effect with this image?

[digitaldog]

I downloaded your file, assigned it ProPhotoRGB and looked at the shadow areas. 

Who's file and why did you assign any profile to it?

[BradFunkhouser]

The original file attached to the very top of this post...  "Sunset at Grand Lake I"

Assigned ProPhotoRGB since the file itself was untagged, but vartkes said he was using ProPhotoRGB.

[digitaldog]

The original file attached to the very top of this post...  "Sunset at Grand Lake I"
Assigned ProPhotoRGB since the file itself was untagged, but vartkes said he was using ProPhotoRGB.

How do you know it's ProPhoto RGB to tag it as such? Is it possibly sRGB untagged? Doesn't matter, wrong file to be messing with to figure out what the issue is (soft proof, output or both). One of the Color Reference Files is where to start.

[vartkes]

I downloaded your file, assigned it ProPhotoRGB and looked at the shadow areas.  The histogram shows a lot of clipping on the left and a lot of the shadows are outside the gamut of my 9900 with Museo Silver Rag, which is my widest gamut paper, so I think they're probably also outside the gamut of the 4900 with Gold Fibre Silk.  Looking around the rock and tree shadows, the absolute Lab luminosity values range from 2 to around 12, which is a very dark range for trying to delineate details on a print, even with our widest gamut papers.

My display is calibrated and profiled, and I can see the tree and rock shadows pretty well from ProPhotoRGB and also when soft proofing using Silver Rag relative colorimetric with black point compensation, but from my experience I think those details would probably look plugged if I printed them.

Maybe this image has a lot of shadow details that hit a spot where soft proofing shows the details on a backlit display that aren't really quite discernible on an actual print?  My monitor is measured with an i1Pro Rev D.  I've read somewhere that spectrophotometers like ours actually have more trouble measuring dark saturated monitor colors than cheaper colorimeters do.  I wonder if we're seeing that effect with this image?

Hi, I am so grateful that people in the community are trying to help....
The file I posted was a .JPG conversion (into sRGB) from the original Master .PSD file (in ProPhotoRGB). It was NOT the soft-proofed version. So by definition going to a smaller color space the shadows would become even more blocked in. Incidentally the 9900 and the 4900 use the same inkset, print-head technology and will have the same gamut on the same paper.
The softproof-ed version has lots of detail and luminescence. The issue is that what I am printing is so far away (into the darker shadows) from the softproofed version, as if I did not softproof the image before print. The phenomenon is with the image file/monitor calibration rather than at the paper/ink/printer end. GFS has remarkably wide  gamut for a paper and a admirable Dmax value. I have printed challenging images like this in the past with deep shadows and wide dynamic range on this printer/ink/paper combo successfully.
I have yet no idea what is going on. It is something insidious. I have proven that The printer/ink and the Ilford factory profile for Gold Fiber Silk is working well. The issue resides somewhere upstream. Quite frankly i am suspecting Adobe's latest Photoshop release. I can't be certain since I did not print anything prior to this release for 5 weeks. in the meantime there were updates to Windows 10. There again I am seeing the same behaviour when printing from Lightroom too which did not receive an update last week.
I have to fix this.
Vartkes

[vartkes]

I printed the test print image on the Ilford GFS paper using the Ilford factory ICC profile. The print looks good both in grey-scale, highlight detail in the fur of the wolf, skin tones are realistic; all good except the aforementioned magenta tinge in the blues. So the ICC profile is good enough, print of reference is good and this leaves the calibration of the monitor. I will go back there and see if I can fix the problem - contrast ratio.
thanks for all your suggestions.
Vartkes

Hello Andrew, further to the calibration of the monitor, I have attached the information of current calibration from SpectraView. Do you see anything suspicious. The Contrast Ratio is the maximum available and NEC recommends the use of maximum contrast ratio available to the monitor for photo editing apps. I have for years used this setting. It can be set to much lower ratios.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hello Andrew, further to the calibration of the monitor, I have attached the information of current calibration from SpectraView. Do you see anything suspicious. The Contrast Ratio is the maximum available and NEC recommends the use of maximum contrast ratio available to the monitor for photo editing apps. I have for years used this setting. It can be set to much lower ratios.

Hi,

That the display can reach as low as 0.13 cd/sq.m is a pleasant surprise to me, but IMHO it's too low if you want to mimic paper.

When you measure your output, you are most likely to get something in the range of 7 to 7.5 stops (128:1 to 181:1) of contrast (depending on the paper and ink). So if your (more accurately measured) top luminance is in the region of 80 cd/sq.m, then your bottom luminance would need to be closer to 0.625 to 0.44 cd/sq.m.

Now, as far as the black level measurement is accurate enough, your display contrast exceeds your output medium's contrast, so you will see more detail at all luminance levels on display, compared to printed output.

As a first attempt to achieve more predictable output, I'd get the black level up to something higher, 0.50-ish if you use different output media (otherwise take a measurement of the D-max - D-min).

Cheers,
Bart

[digitaldog]

Hello Andrew, further to the calibration of the monitor, I have attached the information of current calibration from SpectraView. Do you see anything suspicious.

No, because just about any value is fair game IF it produces a visual match. I suspect altering the contrast ratio from Max may help.


Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:
Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem


High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4

[vartkes]

Hi,

That the display can reach as low as 0.13 cd/sq.m is a pleasant surprise to me, but IMHO it's too low if you want to mimic paper.

When you measure your output, you are most likely to get something in the range of 7 to 7.5 stops (128:1 to 181:1) of contrast (depending on the paper and ink). So if your (more accurately measured) top luminance is in the region of 80 cd/sq.m, then your bottom luminance would need to be closer to 0.625 to 0.44 cd/sq.m.

Now, as far as the black level measurement is accurate enough, your display contrast exceeds your output medium's contrast, so you will see more detail at all luminance levels on display, compared to printed output.

As a first attempt to achieve more predictable output, I'd get the black level up to something higher, 0.50-ish if you use different output media (otherwise take a measurement of the D-max - D-min).

Cheers,
Bart

Hi Bart,
I produced a print last night by brute force that is satisfactory; by pushing the softproofing process beyond what I normally need to and thus increasing the luminescence of the shadows to reveal good detail-in-the-shade. But I still donot get WYSIWYG with the softproof on the screen. I will try your suggestion of last through the calibration app and see the result. Andrew Rodney suggested that I reduce the contrast ration from 600+ it is now. I can do that on steps of 50 from 500 to 50 in the same app.
I did want to ask you one last favour; you obviously know alot more about color management than I do. I rarely meet such a person. Would you please point me to where I may be able to learn color management at a deeper level such that I could have deduced to increase the black point to the level you suggested by myself?
Thanks again
Vartkes

[vartkes]

No, because just about any value is fair game IF it produces a visual match. I suspect altering the contrast ratio from Max may help.


Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:
Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem


High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4

Hello Andrew, thank you for staying in the discussion and providing much advice. I watched the video and now I know better how to deploy the use of the GTI viewer I have packed away. I will work with the contrast ratio, white point and backlight luminescence of the NEC PA241W I use, with Spectraview application. Thank you again.
Vartkes

[digitaldog]

Hello Andrew, thank you for staying in the discussion and providing much advice. I watched the video and now I know better how to deploy the use of the GTI viewer I have packed away.

Setting the backlight and white point for display calibration is trial and error. But I may be able to get you a bit closer to a starting point since I'm using a GTI SOFT-View with dimmer. For me, CCT 5150K was the right value, might work for you too. Or close to that starting point. I have a digital dimmer on this booth, set to 50, with a 150 cd/m^2 target in SpectraView. Both settings are used for my primary paper, Premium Luster. Your values may change especially based on the paper white. But maybe this can be a good starting point for you. Oh, contrast ratio is set to 300:1.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Hi Bart,
I produced a print last night by brute force that is satisfactory; by pushing the softproofing process beyond what I normally need to and thus increasing the luminescence of the shadows to reveal good detail-in-the-shade. But I still donot get WYSIWYG with the softproof on the screen. I will try your suggestion of last through the calibration app and see the result. Andrew Rodney suggested that I reduce the contrast ration from 600+ it is now. I can do that on steps of 50 from 500 to 50 in the same app.

I think Andrew is more familiar with the display you are using, and the calibration controls, than I am. If the contrast numbers are what I assume, and if you'd want to achieve a display contrast that's similar to the output medium (e.g. glossy inkjet paper), then you'd aim for something like 200:1 (delta-D=2.30). That does assume some linearity of the tone-curve in the shadows.

I did want to ask you one last favour; you obviously know alot more about color management than I do. I rarely meet such a person. Would you please point me to where I may be able to learn color management at a deeper level such that I could have deduced to increase the black point to the level you suggested by myself?

That's hard to say, I've just been around for quite a while, and Densitometry and Sensitometry was part of my early education to become a licensed Professional Photographer. Then I read a lot about these things, and experimented for myself. So it's basically a theoretical foundation with a lot of practical experience added.

I'd recommend getting a handle on Densitometry/Sensitometry basics, Wikipedia is a start. Andrew wrote a book about Colormanagement for Photographers.

Cheers,
Bart

[JohnHeerema]

For what it's worth, I think it's possible that some manufacturer's ICC printer/paper profiles might be colour-accurate, but make the shadows relatively dark for "esthetic" reasons.

I haven't looked at this scientifically, so I'm not really sure ... but I did encounter a similar problem with an Epson media profile. I'm afraid that I took the "easy" way out, and built my own ICC profile for that media (I used a ColorMunki and Argyle CMS, which I think is a reasonably decent budget-minded approach to building your own ICC profiles).

In my own case (and remember that I took the lazy approach), I could match my profiled monitor quite closely if I was willing to bump the "shadow" slider in Camera Raw or the print proof in Lightroom a bit. I wasn't willing to do that, and I also wasn't willing to spend a ton of time debugging the whole situation, which is why I built my own ICC profile. I got a quite satisfactory delta-E using 480 patches, and the prints are very close to what I see on my calibrated NEC PA302W, so I left it at that.

I'd be interested to know what the real reason for my over-dark shadows was, but never did seriously try to find out. I don't know if my situation is like yours or not, but I thought I'd share my experience, in case its helpful.

[vartkes]

For what it's worth, I think it's possible that some manufacturer's ICC printer/paper profiles might be colour-accurate, but make the shadows relatively dark for "esthetic" reasons.

I haven't looked at this scientifically, so I'm not really sure ... but I did encounter a similar problem with an Epson media profile. I'm afraid that I took the "easy" way out, and built my own ICC profile for that media (I used a ColorMunki and Argyle CMS, which I think is a reasonably decent budget-minded approach to building your own ICC profiles).

In my own case (and remember that I took the lazy approach), I could match my profiled monitor quite closely if I was willing to bump the "shadow" slider in Camera Raw or the print proof in Lightroom a bit. I wasn't willing to do that, and I also wasn't willing to spend a ton of time debugging the whole situation, which is why I built my own ICC profile. I got a quite satisfactory delta-E using 480 patches, and the prints are very close to what I see on my calibrated NEC PA302W, so I left it at that.

I'd be interested to know what the real reason for my over-dark shadows was, but never did seriously try to find out. I don't know if my situation is like yours or not, but I thought I'd share my experience, in case its helpful.

Hello John, My challenge was and to some degree still is very similar to your. Only the deep shadows printed too dark (compared to what I had softproofed image) while midtones and highlights were just right. The image has a very wide dynamic range, having been constructed from three explosures; +/-2EV and 0 EV.
I did two things that has helped but not completely resolved this dilemma.
First>> I printed a reference image with Ilford's factory profile for Gold Fibre Silk. I  then calibrated my monitor, tweaking the parameters until I closely matched the print viewed in a GTI viewing booth dialled to ~50% brightness, next to the monitor which was displaying the reference image with soft proofing on, again with the Ilford ICC profile. The monitor calibration parameters that I settled on are close to what DigitalDog and Bert suggested, 150 cd/sq.m for intensity, 5500K for white point and 300:1 contrast ratio.
Second>> I decided to make my own profile using XRite i1Pro2 spectro and iProfiler software. I made two profiles; one with UV included and one with UV-cut. I then printed the same reference image with each of the ICC profiles I made and compared to the image printed by factory profile - all in bright daylight indoors - my target viewing environment. The two images printed by the two profiles I made look almost identical. Further, these two closely match the image using the factory profile! Also all three look great in bright daylight and in the GTI viewing booth. So what did I learn from these trials and where do I stand with my original problem?
 >I partially solved my problem. I still need to lighten up the shadows in soft-proof more that what I want in the final image, in order to get what I want to see in the final image!
 >The UV included or cut makes little difference with this paper.
 >Ilford likely used the same hardware and software to produce their profiles.
 > I am more convinced that Photoshop or Lightroom are printing with the given profiles fine. I am tempted to tweak the monitor calibration parameters, specifically the contrast ratio and intensity to see if I can bring the initial image softproof closer to what it prints.

[JohnHeerema]

Well, it would certainly seem that you are creating using  ICC profiles in the way in which they were designed.

The whole science of profiling necessarily makes some assumptions about human vision, and the validity of colour space conversions. When you look at a monitor, your visual system is mapping the range of luminance values into a perceptual space. Thanks to adaptability, there's a rather wide range of luminance ranges that get mapped into more or less the same perceptual space. Profiling doesn't really take this into account, which is why you often hear people complaining about their prints being too dark, despite having calibrated their monitors. My own belief is that this perceptual mapping is susceptible to characterization (this is close to my personal research area), but the reality is that people settle on using a particular monitor maximum brightness that works for them and the intended viewing environment for their prints. You might find that lowering the whitepoint luminance on your monitor does the trick for you, or you might find that punching the shadows up by a certain amount in your soft proof does the trick for you.

Does ICC mapping work reliably over the entire range of what printers can produce, and monitors can display? In principle, sure, but there's no question but that the perception of directly illuminated additive colour (monitors) differs from that of subtractive colour vision (prints). I would be curious as to whether other people perceive the same monitor vs. print mapping that you do, of if your individual vision might be more sensitive to shadows areas on a monitor (we know that people differ in their ability to perceive dimly lit objects)?

I think that you are probably on the right track in thinking that adjusting your monitor profile to push shadow areas closer to black, is going to give you a better match between what you see on your monitor, and what your prints look like in their intended viewing environment.