Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200  (Read 1538 times)

Fed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« on: June 25, 2017, 07:53:29 PM »

I finally dove into generating my own profiles, and bought the CMUNPH.  Wow what a difference on the display.  The printer (Epson 2200) is better in terms of colour, but it seems way too dark. The issue is the same for all 3 papers I have profiled.  They look similar, which is good, but all too dark.

This is a new install.  The printer dialog, when profiling, is greyed out, and ColorSync is checked.  Fast is off, No Colour Management is chosen.

Any idea how I should proceed?

I profiled using v4 icc, 2.2 gamma.  Should I reprofile with different settings there? Do I need to reprint both swatches?

Thanks in advance,

Fed
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2130
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2017, 08:17:41 PM »

Don't make v4 profiles. Only v2.

And the following discussion below will show you that your print viewing lights white intensity needs to be bright enough to make white print paper match the intensity as display white...

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=79948
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 08:21:14 PM by Tim Lookingbill »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10407
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2017, 08:38:49 PM »

I only make V4 profiles and they perform very well, but I am aware of this advice about sticking with V2 from some time back. The ICC and X-Rite both recommend making V4 printer profiles.

The main reason why the prints appear too dark is most likely because the display is too bright. If your profile is OK and the printer is working correctly, you need to dial down the brightness of your display to match what comes our of the printer viewed under the kind of lighting conditions you normally use for viewing prints. For example, I view my prints under Solux 4700K overhead illumination about 5 feet from the print, and my display is set to D50 white point, 110 cd/m2. The matching is very good. If the display is too bright it induces you to darken the photos and of course they will then emerge from the printer looking too dark.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2130
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2017, 09:08:15 PM »

The Epson 2200 was released in 2002. Sierra OS in 2016. A 14 year spread.

Hopefully the Epson driver is compatible with such a new OS.

Or is there a newer Epson 2200 model? I looked it up but found nothing but the Epson Stylus 2200.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10407
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2017, 09:44:28 PM »

Yup - Epson 2200 struck me as well - several generations ago!

Believe it or not, checking the Epson website, there appears to be a compatible driver from Apple Software Update for Mac OSX 12.x covering 2009~2016, so maybe it still works.

There is no newer Epson model of the 2200. It was what it was till replaced, if I remember correctly by the 2400, and onward and upward.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Fed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #5 on: June 29, 2017, 12:06:24 AM »

Thanks for the input.  I have been problem solving with x-rite for the past few days.  I made many more profiles and have now run out of ink. 

I found no difference between v2 and v4. I was told to use v4. I was wondering why do some people insist v2 is better?

I was also asked to make several monitor profiles at different luminosity to see if any match the prints.  I tried several, but they all look the same. I just change the brightness on my mac, as you guys have suggested.  Seems like an easy fix, if that is all.  But why do the monitor profiles all look the same when x-rite seems to insist they are different?

I tried to fine tune the profile using the image I was printing.  It actually made the print even darker.  Strange indeed.

The Epson driver works with the 2200 (yes, 14 years old and still kicking).  But there are a couple glitches.  I tried an earlier driver (for 10.6) as Epson told me, but no help.

 I am still stumped.  Maybe the solution really is to light up the print more, and lower the brightness on the monitor.

Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10407
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #6 on: June 29, 2017, 06:57:01 AM »



I found no difference between v2 and v4. I was told to use v4. I was wondering why do some people insist v2 is better?

V2 profiles, according to the ICC and to XRite are not "better". There was a time quite a while back when there were some issues with V4 coherence with certain OS versions, but that appears to have been long since resolved - at least to the extent I have seen no recent complaints anywhere about V4 profiles. You can read on the ICC website the differences between V2 and V4 which point to the superior performance of V4 profiles. That is why the specification was introduced and is in widespread use.

I just change the brightness on my mac, as you guys have suggested.  Seems like an easy fix, if that is all. 

Yes, as I mentioned in Reply #2, that should be all.

I tried to fine tune the profile using the image I was printing.

Poor approach. Firstly you don't know how representative of all situations the image you were printing is, and secondly, getting your color management set-up correct is going to be much easier and safer than tinkering with profiles. Just make sure the profile is made correctly.


 I am still stumped.  Maybe the solution really is to light up the print more, and lower the brightness on the monitor.

No reason to be stumped - from what you say above you seem to have solved your problem by lowering the monitor brightness. Once you lower the monitor brightness sufficiently, you will automatically be adjusting the tones of the photo so that they emerge correctly from the printer. Maybe a bit of trial and error to get the monitor brightness just right, but if you adjust within a range of 90 to 120, you won't need more than several attempts to get it right, but use a proper printer evaluation test image to do this, not any arbitrary photo.

I've responded in BOLD for ease of distinction between your words and mine. I think you are well on the way to having your problem solved and nice that the Epson driver is on the whole working for you.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Ethan Hansen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
    • Dry Creek Photo
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #7 on: June 29, 2017, 01:05:29 PM »

I found no difference between v2 and v4. I was told to use v4. I was wondering why do some people insist v2 is better?

V4 printer profiles offer advantages over V2. The white point of the print media is more completely defined and black points are no longer a free-for-all. Perceptual rendering is improved because the dynamic range and gamut of the reference is also defined. There are other differences but none that particularly pertain to print.

At least that's the theory. In practice, the implementation is left up to the profile manufacturer. V4 adds complications with black points and how the profile connection space (PCS) is encoded. Gamut mapping between profiles becomes a chained process. Each transformation creates some level of error. If all profiles in the chain are created by the same profiling software, the calculated transforms usually behave the same. Otherwise the errors can compound, leading to undesirable behavior.

We have seen this on multiple occasions with our customers who use V4 display profiles. The commonality here is a combination of OSX and Adobe software. If a V4 monitor profile is in use, Adobe products sometimes give inaccurate soft proofs when the Adobe CMM is selected. Switching to the Apple CMM or a V2 monitor profile and everything behaves properly.

V4 profiles also incorporate the Perceptual Reference Medium Gamut (PRMG). V2 profiles typically assume a print with an infinite gamut and perfect reflectivity. The PRMG is based on the P2 viewing condition - 500 lux - and a dynamic range of 288:1 with specified white and black reflectance values and color gamut. In general this is a good approach. If your printer has a very wide gamut (e.g. Epsons on good gloss stock) there can be a gamut expansion at print time; i.e. printer colors exceeding the PRMG reproduce more saturated than the soft proof shows.

For camera profiles, V4 is the way to go. LUT tables can be encoded as floating point numbers, allowing significantly more precision for huge gamut color spaces.

I am still stumped.  Maybe the solution really is to light up the print more, and lower the brightness on the monitor.

No reason to be stumped - from what you say above you seem to have solved your problem by lowering the monitor brightness. Once you lower the monitor brightness sufficiently, you will automatically be adjusting the tones of the photo so that they emerge correctly from the printer. Maybe a bit of trial and error to get the monitor brightness just right, but if you adjust within a range of 90 to 120, you won't need more than several attempts to get it right, but use a proper printer evaluation test image to do this, not any arbitrary photo.

Be careful when lowering monitor brightness. Some panels perform well at levels below 120-130 cd/m2, most do not. Pay very close attention to black level definition when lowering brightness below 130. A simple step wedge works or you can view a black level check such as on our web site. If you can reduce brightness to where your prints match the screen without compromising on-screen viewing, great. If not either increase the monitor brightness and make the necessary visual compensation or increase the light level in your viewing area.

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10407
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #8 on: June 29, 2017, 01:32:02 PM »

Fair enough - I was advising on the basis of an NEC PA271W, or prior to that a LaCie 321.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2130
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2017, 02:37:18 PM »

Maybe the solution really is to light up the print more, and lower the brightness on the monitor.

You still didn't tell us what light you're viewing your prints under. Instead of adjusting anything further what happens when you just move the print closer to the light?

This could be a contrast issue which can make prints look darker. The only way to test is to print a linear gray ramp. Make sure the black step is as dark as possible and the gradual progression toward mid-range is a match. You should be able to see all steps in the print even the '9' in the white step.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10407
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2017, 05:19:11 PM »

You still didn't tell us what light you're viewing your prints under. Instead of adjusting anything further what happens when you just move the print closer to the light?

This could be a contrast issue which can make prints look darker. The only way to test is to print a linear gray ramp. Make sure the black step is as dark as possible and the gradual progression toward mid-range is a match. You should be able to see all steps in the print even the '9' in the white step.

At the Blacks end it would depend on the paper too. The first several steps may be quite indistinguishable with most matte papers that don't begin to differentiate luminance till the steps get beyond the range of L* 13~18 or so. This is a useful idea but best tested with a luster/gloss paper and corresponding profile.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Fed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2017, 09:15:46 AM »

I've run out of ink, and ordered more, so my testing will have to wait.  I will try the grey pattern, thanks.  Also, my print viewing setup is not good.  I will work on that.

I'll post again once these steps are done.

Thanks again!
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2130
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2017, 08:10:44 PM »

At the Blacks end it would depend on the paper too. The first several steps may be quite indistinguishable with most matte papers that don't begin to differentiate luminance till the steps get beyond the range of L* 13~18 or so. This is a useful idea but best tested with a luster/gloss paper and corresponding profile.

I made that grayramp specifically to lighten the shadow area in order to somewhat correct for any type of Black Point Compensation and Render Intent manipulation that changes the gradualness of the steps toward midgray which influences contrast/brightness appearance. The OP should try it on any paper under wide range of settings to see how black point and dark shadows are rendered.

Ideally there should be settings that deliver a print match to the original file. If it was an AdobeRGB 2.2 gamma space 21 step grayramp made in Photoshop the steps between black and the next step would barely be distinguishable and the rate of grading to midgray would be much different.
Logged

Fed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #13 on: July 09, 2017, 03:44:44 PM »

Thank you very much. I finally got my inks, and was able to print out your  grayramp. That helped a lot. Unfortunately, Nikon Capture NXD does not seem to have black point compensation. I must choose between relative colourmetric, or perceptual. The programs that I have that do include black point compensation are all out of date, and do not recognize the new profiles. 

Am I missing something, or does Nikon Capture NXD really not have black point compensation?

Thanks again.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2130
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #14 on: July 09, 2017, 05:54:55 PM »

Thank you very much. I finally got my inks, and was able to print out your  grayramp. That helped a lot. Unfortunately, Nikon Capture NXD does not seem to have black point compensation. I must choose between relative colourmetric, or perceptual. The programs that I have that do include black point compensation are all out of date, and do not recognize the new profiles. 

Am I missing something, or does Nikon Capture NXD really not have black point compensation?

Thanks again.

Why not print from those programs that do provide black point compensation? I mean I assumed in this discussion you were printing from Photoshop and/or Lightroom which provide these print rendering settings options.

You can always convert the image to the printer profile manually in Photoshop/LR where the preview will somewhat show what the results will be and then save it as a tiff/jpg and print from the Nikon software.

Other than that I don't know how to solve your problem. I'm not familiar with Nikon Capture NXD.
Logged

Fed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #15 on: July 09, 2017, 07:06:29 PM »

My version of Photoshop (CS3) does not seem to recognize the profiles my ColorMunki is making. Nor does Capture NX2, and they both have BPC.  Capture NXD does recognize the profile, but no BPC...

I would never buy software on a monthly charge. I find the idea ridiculous.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10407
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #16 on: July 09, 2017, 07:20:53 PM »

My version of Photoshop (CS3) does not seem to recognize the profiles my ColorMunki is making. Nor does Capture NX2, and they both have BPC.  Capture NXD does recognize the profile, but no BPC...

I would never buy software on a monthly charge. I find the idea ridiculous.

Actually it isn't ridiculous - objectively speaking - but this has been debated ad nauseum and you can read all the claims and counter-claims in numerous threads in this Forum so I won't delve into it here - just to say - don't dismiss it out of hand; the Adobe Photoshop/LR Photographer's Package is actually pretty reasonable.

Anyhow, the good news is you don't need to buy a subscription to use software that has BPC. If you print with RelCol Intent, you need BPC, especially with matte papers. It dramatically improves shadow detail/tonal gradation. As well, and as far as I know, Photoshop CS3 should recognize any standard ICC-compliant printer/paper profile. Are you sure you are loading the profiles you make into the correct folder so that the application can access them? This sounds to me like some kind of user-fixable management problem, not an application limitation.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Ethan Hansen

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 79
    • Dry Creek Photo
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #17 on: July 09, 2017, 08:24:38 PM »

My version of Photoshop (CS3) does not seem to recognize the profiles my ColorMunki is making. Nor does Capture NX2, and they both have BPC.  Capture NXD does recognize the profile, but no BPC...

I would never buy software on a monthly charge. I find the idea ridiculous.

Photoshop performs basic sanity checking on profiles, refusing to load corrupt or invalid ones. That said, I have not seen any version of PS that did not accept ColorMunki profiles. As Mark mentions above, have you placed them in the correct folder? If you use a Mac, you may need to experiment with different locations to have PS see the profiles as well as rebooting after each attempt. On Windows, just drop the profile into the system profile folder and you're done.

If you have doubts about a particular profile, shoot me an email or PM and attach the profile in question.

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10407
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #18 on: July 09, 2017, 08:36:27 PM »

Photoshop performs basic sanity checking on profiles, refusing to load corrupt or invalid ones. That said, I have not seen any version of PS that did not accept ColorMunki profiles. As Mark mentions above, have you placed them in the correct folder? If you use a Mac, you may need to experiment with different locations to have PS see the profiles as well as rebooting after each attempt. On Windows, just drop the profile into the system profile folder and you're done.

If you have doubts about a particular profile, shoot me an email or PM and attach the profile in question.

Ethan - just an added note on profile location in OSX. Two locations could be relevant: (1) HD>Library>Colorsync>Profiles. and (2) username>Library>Colorsync>Profiles (i.e. one system level, the other user level; normally the first one is fine, but as insurance, good to load both.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml

Fed

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
ColorMunki on OSX Sierra with Epson 2200
« Reply #19 on: July 10, 2017, 06:41:09 AM »

If you print with RelCol Intent, you need BPC, especially with matte papers.

I used to print with RelCol.  But since I cannot use BPC, I am now printing with Perceptual.  It seems slightly washed out, but otherwise nice.

Quote
... as far as I know, Photoshop CS3 should recognize any standard ICC-compliant printer/paper profile. Are you sure you are loading the profiles you make into the correct folder so that the application can access them?

I think so.  The profile shows up and can be chosen, but does not seem to make a difference.  I tried a v2 version, and unfortunately I see the same outcome.


Quote
This sounds to me like some kind of user-fixable management problem, not an application limitation.
I hope so.

Quote from: Ethan Hansen
If you have doubts about a particular profile, shoot me an email or PM and attach the profile in question.
[/quote
Thanks, I will.  I already sent it to ColoMunki, and they say it is fine.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up