whats wrong with my workflow?

[Endeavour]

Hi
I am running the following setup:
Windows 10
Capture One Pro 10
Photoshop 2017
Dell Ultrasharp monitor (without premier color)
HP Z3100 printer

I have calibrated my monitor with an iDisplay device
I have calibrated and profiled my Z3100 for the particular paper I am using: (Hahnemuhle Museum Etching and Photo Rag Satin)

I have an image on my screen in photoshop, using soft proofing, which matches very well the output I want (I am making prints of existing artwork, so what I am seeing on the screen closely matches the original painting)
When I print out, the prints are quite a bit darker than they should be, and some of the colours are de-saturated.

I've attached my printing/proofing settings. I have turned off ICM and Colour management in the printer driver, so that Photoshop manages my colours

What could be going wrong with my setup?

any helpful advice or thoughts would be most appreciated

thanks
Simon

[pearlstreet]

In the proof view, you should have simulate paper and ink checked. Do you normally have it unchecked?

[Endeavour]

In the proof view, you should have simulate paper and ink checked. Do you normally have it unchecked?

yes I normally have that off, but turning on just lightens up the display image - the output prints are considerably darker

[Alan Goldhammer]

Andrew Rodney no longer contributes here but he would be the first to tell you to watch this video:  http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4

Alan

[pearlstreet]

If you don't have simulate paper and ink checked, you aren't soft- proofing. I agree with Alan that the video is very helpful.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Your monitor is too bright.

[Kiwi Paul]

Or your viewing light isn't bright enough?

[kers]

Your monitor is too bright.

+1

the printer is usually right... your reference
dim the light in your room and dim the monitor until it matches your print.
view the print in bright light.
my (dell) monitor is at 90 candelas ( have a z3100 and a mac)
also it is good to check your printer if it working fine- then make a reference print for future use and reference.
Prints i made 10 years ago still come out exactly the same.

[Garnick]

It is true that the brightness of the display is a very important factor in prints that are too dark.  However, the print evaluation lighting must also be bright enough, 500LUX plus.  If that is not the case you will be forever chasing the dark print scenario.  Only a bright enough viewing light will display what is actually happening with the print.  With your display/monitor calibrated at 90-100 candelas the 500LUX mentioned should be pretty close to what you are seeing on the display.  Never exact, but close.  For my viewing station I use 4000K LED EasyLinx Bars from Lunicrest - http://lumicrest.com/ not far from you, in Toronto.  I have a rectangle, 6"x4' of these bars and at the highest level I get approximately 900LUX, which I would only occasionally for art reproductions where the shadow detail is very important.  For the overall evaluation I would then dim then back to 500LUX.     

Gary 

[bill t.]

Soft proof less, hard proof more.  It just works, and in the end often generates the smallest possible amount of discardable media.

Because even with a technically perfect screen to print match, what looks optimal on a monitor may not look optimal on a print.  Those two are at best only distantly related  image containers.

And let's not even talk about the dismally lighted Hell most prints will be cast into out in the world.

[Garnick]

Soft proof less, hard proof more.  It just works, and in the end often generates the smallest possible amount of discardable media.

Because even with a technically perfect screen to print match, what looks optimal on a monitor may not look optimal on a print.  Those two are at best only distantly related  image containers.

And let's not even talk about the dismally lighted Hell most prints will be cast into out in the world.

I couldn't agree more Bill.  I cut my colour printing teeth in a custom colour lab in the late 60s early 70s, and obviously there was no such animal as soft proofing then.  The closest would have been the video analyzers that were quite good, sometimes.  And they were extremely costly as well of course.  Therefore every "C" print or "display tranny" produced was hard proofed.  In other words, a smallish test strip that eventually became a somewhat larger strip, depending on the size of the final print.  Actually a small test strip was usually sufficient to let the printer know what the final print would look like, once one became familiar with which section of the image to test.  To this day, even though I do incorporate the "soft proof" I still rely on a 2x8" test strip for every file I print.  I get five of these strips on an 8.5x11" sheet and they have always served the purpose very well, and perhaps a larger test for a larger final print.  Of course there are many occasions in which one test is not enough, but two or three strips is better than wasting a large sheet, or of course larger roll sizes.  Even though the calibrated displays we use now are a very good indication for the first test, they seldom match the final print in all categories.  And the only way that is at all possible is to have a viewing booth in close proximity to the display.  Otherwise it's always a guess as to the degree of matching once you leave the viewing/evaluating area and go back to the computer.  Even with the viewing booth scenario one has to confine the size of the test, or have a rather large booth.  Indeed, we do not sell or hang soft proofed images on a computer display.  We sell or hang PRINTS, and the only viable way to achieve good prints is to hard proof(tests).  Of course if one is selling high priced prints, one can afford to do full sized "test prints", since that's what the discards amount to in the final outcome.

I eventually set my own lab in 1974 which, after many years of business, I have now downsized and moved to my home.  Still HARD proofing!     

Gary

 

[Chris Kern]

even with a technically perfect screen to print match, what looks optimal on a monitor may not look optimal on a print.  Those two are at best only distantly related  image containers.

And let's not even talk about the dismally lighted Hell most prints will be cast into out in the world.

I agree, but I think you are raising another issue that really has nothing to do with making reliable predictions about print results from soft-proofing.

With a correct soft-proofing technique—including properly-adjusted monitor brightness and print-viewing conditions—there shouldn't be any surprises when you go from screen to print.  The colors should be as expected and the print shouldn't be "too dark."

But I think some photographs that look fine on a monitor simply don't print well.  We edit on transmissive devices with substantially greater dynamic range than any reflective media.  Some images seem to demand a 500:1 or even 1000:1 brightness ratio to appear the way the photographer had in mind.

I've especially found this to be true of nighttime cityscapes and other shots where the essence of the picture is the interplay of bright highlights against a dark, detailed and quite visible—at least to the human eye and computer monitor—background.  I shot a number of these recently during a vacation trip to Kyoto.  They look the way I want on my color-calibrated NEC monitors.  They look fine on my wife's uncalibrated iMac.  (Well, actually, a bit too shiny for my taste, but they capture the essential appearance I had in mind when I made them.)  I had no problem soft-proofing them ... except that the proof copies looked awful.  Not dark.  Not off-color—in fact. except for a few tiny areas, the paper I was using (Epson premium luster) covered the entire gamut of the images—but flat.  Boring.  This was true of the entire series.  And the prints, alas, accurately reproduced the soft proofs.

I've attached one of the photos from this series as an example.  I'm sure someone with better printing skills than mine could have done a better job with it than I did.  I suspect a different paper might have produced a marginally better result.  But my takeaway from this experience is that there are some images that simply don't work as prints.

I've been looking lately at high-end transmissive display devices: special-purpose 4K digital monitors that supposedly have been optimized for still photography.  I'm not entirely satisfied with the functionality and specs of any of the units currently on the market, but there appear to be more under development and, even if I eventually have to make some compromises, I think I'll eventually pop for one and see what it can do.

I really like prints and I enjoy making them.  But in this digital era I think there are some photographs that beg to be digitally displayed.

[Endeavour]

thanks for all your comments

Root cause found - it was a faulty monitor calibration/profile.

I re-calibrated and generated a new profile and wayhey - my prints match beautifully to my screen.