Topic: HP Z3100 Color Question (Read 3698 times)

alanmcf · « **on:** June 09, 2007, 10:04:54 pm »

I have been printing with an Epson 2200 and sometimes a 9600 from recent Photoshop versions for several years mostly on Epson Enhanced Matte. Turns out whether I chose "Color Handling" of "Let Photoshop Determine Colors" or "Let Printer Determine Colors" the results looked the same on either printer. I then used Adobe Gamma to get my monitor to match the prints and have been pretty happy ever since.

Now I am just starting to use a new HP Z3100. After initial setup, I put in a 24" roll of Epson Enhanced Matte and created a profile. When I choose "Let Photoshop Determine Colors" (including setting "Color Management" in the driver to "Application Managed Colors") I get output much like I get on the Epsons' -- just a tad bit darker. When I choose "Let Printer Determine Colors" (and "Printer Managed Colors" and Adobe RGB in the driver) I get output that is a whole lot more saturated -- lighter more saturated blues in the sky and much brighter/vibrant more saturated greens in the grass.

Has anyone else experienced of the two methods producing different results? The brilliance of Printer Management is a bit more like the brilliance of the monitor and of the original Velvia 4x5, but it is also way too Disney like. PS Management is more real but a bit dull. Any thoughts and ideas would be appreciated as to which way to go. Of course at this point a tiny part of me is saying that I need the Advanced Profiling that I did and do not want to buy. Somewhere in between is what is needed.

Thanks, Alan

SeanPuckett · « **Reply #1 on:** June 10, 2007, 09:53:59 am »

Alan,

I'm having a horrible time with CM with the z3100 since the firmware/driver upgrade to 5.0.0.4. I firmly believe that I am getting profiling done by the printer even though I've selected "application managed colours" in the driver. I've checked driver / application / windows settings dozens of times and made dozens of check prints, and never has the colour been closer to "right" as to when source data is passed to the driver as unmanaged sRGB and I let the printer do all CM.

This flies in the face of everything I've learned and used on every other printer, and even with this printer when I first started using it.

At this point, I am so frustrated with my inability to get a clean application managed colour workflow, that I have just printed a target with printer CM enabled so that I can try a workflow with intentional double-profiling (app & printer) -- with the hope that colour will be at least consistently applied.

I've wasted several pounds of paper going around and around with this and it's really driving me crazy. I have portraits to produce and skin tones must be perfect!

N.B. this happens whether I profile with the printer's built in software/hardware or use standalone x-rite software/hardware.

-s

Geoff Wittig · « **Reply #2 on:** June 10, 2007, 10:03:15 am »

Sounds like time for a call to tech support. I've been using the Z3100 (base model) on a variety of papers including lots of Epson stock left over from my 7600, and color results with the built-in profiling system are consistently accurate. I do find that the HP profiles yield slightly darker shadows & 3/4 tones than I got with the Epson and Bill Atkinson's profiles, but once I figured this out and compensated at the image editing stage everything's been fine.

I suspect that your Z3100 may be producing much more saturated prints when the printer is managing color because its default colorspace is sRGB, which may give you cartoonish exaggerated color from your Adobe RGB files.

alanmcf · « **Reply #3 on:** June 10, 2007, 11:27:55 am »

Sean & Goeff... thanks for the reassurance. With my first call the tech helped me update to 5.0.0.4 and now CM is clearly very wrong (never printed before the update). No matter how bad the profile... both printing methods should produce similar results (the Epsons produced "same" results). Is there a firmware version that I can go back to that worked correctly.

My next step will be calling tech support. Thanks, Alan

rdonson · « **Reply #4 on:** June 10, 2007, 12:37:06 pm »

Quote

Sean & Goeff... thanks for the reassurance. With my first call the tech helped me update to 5.0.0.4 and now CM is clearly very wrong (never printed before the update). No matter how bad the profile... both printing methods should produce similar results (the Epsons produced "same" results). Is there a firmware version that I can go back to that worked correctly.

My next step will be calling tech support. Thanks, Alan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122047\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My experiences are like Geoff's. I use Epson Enhance Matte on my base Z3100 a lot and it only requires a little tweak to lift the shadows.

My only question is about the adjustment of your monitor, Alan. You're not using a colorimeter to calibrate and profile your monitor?

alanmcf · « **Reply #5 on:** June 10, 2007, 01:45:58 pm »

Maybe I have been lucky... but trusting the Epson 2200 CM (which also gave the same results on a 9600)... I just made my monitor look the same as the print and I have been a very happy camper (shooting landscapes as a hobby). I have enough "new" going on here... but of course I do wonder if profiling would help.

And your "requires a little tweak to lift the shadows" may work for for me here as long as I only use "PS Color Management" (till they fix the firmware). What firmware version are you using?

Also, do you "lift the shadows" by a minor adjustments in PS and if so how? And does anyone know if QImage would make this kind of adjustment a global thing.

Thanks, Alan

Quote

My experiences are like Geoff's. I use Epson Enhance Matte on my base Z3100 a lot and it only requires a little tweak to lift the shadows.

My only question is about the adjustment of your monitor, Alan. You're not using a colorimeter to calibrate and profile your monitor?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

rdonson · « **Reply #6 on:** June 10, 2007, 03:32:08 pm »

Quote

Maybe I have been lucky... but trusting the Epson 2200 CM (which also gave the same results on a 9600)... I just made my monitor look the same as the print and I have been a very happy camper (shooting landscapes as a hobby). I have enough "new" going on here... but of course I do wonder if profiling would help.

And your "requires a little tweak to lift the shadows" may work for for me here as long as I only use "PS Color Management" (till they fix the firmware). What firmware version are you using?

Also, do you "lift the shadows" by a minor adjustments in PS and if so how? And does anyone know if QImage would make this kind of adjustment a global thing.

Thanks, Alan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In my mind the first step of color management is calibrating and profiling your monitor. I always let the application manage color not the printer as well.

If you're printing from Photoshop just bring up the shadows a little in a curves adjustment layer. I rarely print from Photoshop though. I do prefer Qimage and there's a curves adjustment available there. If you're only using one paper you could make a filter in Qimage and apply it to all you do.

Geoff Wittig · « **Reply #7 on:** June 10, 2007, 03:57:56 pm »

My procedure is pretty much the same. I'm using firmware v 5.0.0.4 under Windows XP, printing straight from Photoshop CS3 (worth it for the vastly improved ACR 4.1). Essentially every image I've ever printed requires a curves adjustment layer somewhere along the line, so I just dial in slightly lighter shadows and 3/4 tones.

alanmcf · « **Reply #8 on:** June 11, 2007, 05:24:48 pm »

Thank you all three very much. Your answers have eliminated a lot of my worry... but it may be a few days before I get a chance to work with the printer again.

I called tech support. His answer was a firm "use PS color management", not printer. He says the PS plugin should be out soon and agreed with my "month or two" guess.

I will also be trying QImage.

Thanks again, Alan

Author Topic: HP Z3100 Color Question (Read 3698 times)