First printing experience - almost there

[Irwin]

Last year I made my first attempt at printing.  The results weren't bad but made me realize I had to concentrate on the photography itself before sweating print making.

Now I have a some images that are worth printing and I'm about to give it another go.  Before I do, there's one lingering issue from my first attempt that I want to clear up.

I was using a 15" PowerBook with Tiger, an R2400 and CS2.  The LCD was calibrated with a Spyder and Epson's premium profiles for the R2400.  Apparently my color calibration and research into print settings for CS2 paid off.  On the screen I thought I was seeing a faint blue cast on a bald eagle's white feathers.  The print had the same color cast.  A slight adjustment and the bird's feathers where white on the screen and the print.  Elation !

But then I noticed that detail in the bird's dark feathers hadn't make it to the print - they were completely black.

Numerous calls to over a few days to Apple, Epson, and the Spyder people got me nowhere.  I accepted an offer for a new Spyder but the difference was negligible.  Then I looked back to the original print and some, but not all, of the shadow detail had magically appeared.  Imagine my surprise when Epson confirmed this was normal - but only after I'd told them it had happened.

So my question is if some loss of shadow detail is to be expected with the equipment I have or if something else is wrong.  Epson had confirmed my CS2 settings were correct.  I would have expected a perfect-as-possible screen to print match, especially considering that I was using the premium profiles and that a slight color cast on the screen was faithfully printed.

Also I'd say, for the foreseeable future I'm staying with the R2400 and probably adding a 23" Cinema Display.  If a different colorimeter and/or software would matter I'd consider them - though I tend to think that they would not.

[DarkPenguin]

Not an answer but I recommend picking up the From Camera to Print download available on this site.  It is about $35 for about 6 hours of content.  Might answer a lot of questions.

[Geoff Wittig]

In an ideal world, accurate printer profiles would give you detail from just above D-max all the way to just below paper white. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

If you're losing detail in the shadows, the simplest way to get it back is to print a black ramp running from RGB 0 to RGB 256 using your intended paper and profile. (There are a number of such targets out there on the web; I use Uwe Steinmuller's). Then look at the resulting print in good light, and determine the darkest level at which you can first see a difference. In my case, using (for example) Epson Ultrasmooth on a 7600 with Bill Atkinson's profile, I could see a distinction between RGB level 248 and 249, but below that it looks solid black. When I make a "real" print with important shadow detail, before hitting the "print" button I apply a "levels" adjustment and move the shadow output slider to 249 or 250. This makes the image on-screen look flatter, but the resulting physical print has detail right into the shadows.

See if that works for you.

[lumpidu]

Not an answer but I recommend picking up the From Camera to Print download available on this site.  It is about $35 for about 6 hours of content.  Might answer a lot of questions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

And adds a lot of unanswered questions as well .... I would agree that it gives an overview over the essentials, but I was sort of disappointed, because many gotchas of color management and printing as well as helpful explanations are left out. It doesn't help so much if the interviewer knows already most of the answers and Michael does often not ask the questions which are interesting to Workflow novices (like me). So the OP will nevertheless come back here to get the missing pieces... Or do you think the missing details in the shadows of the birds feathers would be resolved in this case by the method Jeff Schewe is showing to "generally" shut out all blacks up to 10 ?

[rdonson]

Last year I made my first attempt at printing.  The results weren't bad but made me realize I had to concentrate on the photography itself before sweating print making.

Now I have a some images that are worth printing and I'm about to give it another go.  Before I do, there's one lingering issue from my first attempt that I want to clear up.

I was using a 15" PowerBook with Tiger, an R2400 and CS2.  The LCD was calibrated with a Spyder and Epson's premium profiles for the R2400.  Apparently my color calibration and research into print settings for CS2 paid off.  On the screen I thought I was seeing a faint blue cast on a bald eagle's white feathers.  The print had the same color cast.  A slight adjustment and the bird's feathers where white on the screen and the print.  Elation !

But then I noticed that detail in the bird's dark feathers hadn't make it to the print - they were completely black.

Numerous calls to over a few days to Apple, Epson, and the Spyder people got me nowhere.  I accepted an offer for a new Spyder but the difference was negligible.  Then I looked back to the original print and some, but not all, of the shadow detail had magically appeared.  Imagine my surprise when Epson confirmed this was normal - but only after I'd told them it had happened.

So my question is if some loss of shadow detail is to be expected with the equipment I have or if something else is wrong.  Epson had confirmed my CS2 settings were correct.  I would have expected a perfect-as-possible screen to print match, especially considering that I was using the premium profiles and that a slight color cast on the screen was faithfully printed.

Also I'd say, for the foreseeable future I'm staying with the R2400 and probably adding a 23" Cinema Display.  If a different colorimeter and/or software would matter I'd consider them - though I tend to think that they would not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167696\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You don't mention soft proofing the image prior to printing or what paper you're printing with.  You do understand that what you see on the screen will never match the print exactly, right?.  There is always a difference in gamut and the difference between transmitted light (your LCD) and reflected light (your print).

If you've got CS2 CM set up properly and you're calibrating your monitor that indicates you aren't a total newb.  Your next step in CM may be to learn softproofing and Camera 2 Print covers that nicely.

[DarkPenguin]

And adds a lot of unanswered questions as well .... I would agree that it gives an overview over the essentials, but I was sort of disappointed, because many gotchas of color management and printing as well as helpful explanations are left out. It doesn't help so much if the interviewer knows already most of the answers and Michael does often not ask the questions which are interesting to Workflow novices (like me). So the OP will nevertheless come back here to get the missing pieces... Or do you think the missing details in the shadows of the birds feathers would be resolved in this case by the method Jeff Schewe is showing to "generally" shut out all blacks up to 10 ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think you need to watch it again.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Isn't 248-249 almost white? Sorry for asking. Viewing light matters a lot, something a profile cannot really handle.

Best regards
Erik

In an ideal world, accurate printer profiles would give you detail from just above D-max all the way to just below paper white. Unfortunately that's not the world we live in.

If you're losing detail in the shadows, the simplest way to get it back is to print a black ramp running from RGB 0 to RGB 256 using your intended paper and profile. (There are a number of such targets out there on the web; I use Uwe Steinmuller's). Then look at the resulting print in good light, and determine the darkest level at which you can first see a difference. In my case, using (for example) Epson Ultrasmooth on a 7600 with Bill Atkinson's profile, I could see a distinction between RGB level 248 and 249, but below that it looks solid black. When I make a "real" print with important shadow detail, before hitting the "print" button I apply a "levels" adjustment and move the shadow output slider to 249 or 250. This makes the image on-screen look flatter, but the resulting physical print has detail right into the shadows.

See if that works for you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

There is a chapter in the video discussing how to prepare a picture for printing. (Using the 'make my picture crap' button.)

The idea is that you look at two copies of the print, one with a proper simulation of the media and one with the original image. The simulation of the print will look "crap" because paper cannot yield the density range you have on screen ( Screen 1:500, paper less then 1:100). So you adjust your simulated print so you can discern the same amount of dark detail in both views.

This technique works, I use it when ordering prints from lab. The bad thing is that you need Photoshop CS to do it right. It's expensive and I prefer to work with Lightroom all the way. I hope that Adobe improves Lightroom with the features I need (distortion correction, perspective correction and improved printing comes to mind).

Best regards

Erik

And adds a lot of unanswered questions as well .... I would agree that it gives an overview over the essentials, but I was sort of disappointed, because many gotchas of color management and printing as well as helpful explanations are left out. It doesn't help so much if the interviewer knows already most of the answers and Michael does often not ask the questions which are interesting to Workflow novices (like me). So the OP will nevertheless come back here to get the missing pieces... Or do you think the missing details in the shadows of the birds feathers would be resolved in this case by the method Jeff Schewe is showing to "generally" shut out all blacks up to 10 ?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167717\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[Geoff Wittig]

Hi,

Isn't 248-249 almost white? Sorry for asking. Viewing light matters a lot, something a profile cannot really handle.

Best regards
Erik
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=167737\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"D'oh!"
Sorry about that. You are correct. I haven't had to do this for a while. The black ramp runs from paper white to D-max, and you can actually adjust output sliders to recover both highlight and shadow detail. At least in my experience shadow detail is a lot more problematic.

[alfin]

When I make a "real" print with important shadow detail, before hitting the "print" button I apply a "levels" adjustment and move the shadow output slider to 249 or 250. This makes the image on-screen look flatter, but the resulting physical print has detail right into the shadows.

See if that works for you.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Geoff, you might also want to read this by Martin Evening:

[a href=\"http://photoshopnews.com/2008/01/14/camera-raw-and-the-shadow-output-levels/]http://photoshopnews.com/2008/01/14/camera...-output-levels/[/url]

BR/Lars

[photo570]

Hi,
I had the exact same issue when I got my 7800, heavy or blocked up shadows. But plenty of detail in the file. I guess it depends on how much printing you do, but the solution I went with was to get a descent RIP, Colorburst in my case. Like night and day. Same file printed 10 mins after the print through the Epson driver was a revelation to say the least. The "secret" is that a rip can and does allow for linierization and ink limiting. It really does make a huge difference. But you need to decide if it is worth the cost, for your situation, for some it is, some it isn't.

Best of luck.
Jason Berge.

[Pat Herold]

If details in the shadows are lost, the first thing I ask a customer is what rendering intent are you using to print (and soft-proof)?

Perceptual will give you more details in the shadows.

Relative Colorimetric can also be used if you make sure to check "Black point compensation".  This will attempt to scale the blacks up to the closest printable black according to the profile.

-Patrick Herold
www.chromix.com

[Irwin]

My thanks to all of you that replied and I apologize for not responding sooner.  

I've started on From Camera to Print.  I get the feeling this is going to be one of the most informative things I've ever seen from guys that know what they're talking about as opposed to just repeating what they might have heard from someone else.

I'm also remembering that I had an article that said how to set all things in PS for photographic prints.  It would be really beneficial if someone could point me to something like that.  Or perhaps From Camera to Print covers this basic stuff too ?


Geoff: Is this Uwe Steinmuller's test print you were referring to ?  

I created a greyscale once myself with PS but PS also added an "artifact" of a single line between each patch - not the optical illusion one sees when looking at a greyscale - a real line visible at 100%.  I never was able to figure out what did that.

As to the question of viewing light, my shadows were gone even under 500 watts of ordinary incandescent bulbs.

And, Geoff, I think loss of shadow detail is prevelant in all sorts of digital imagery.  My HD TV does the same thing.


BR/Lars: If I understand it, the article you referenced only applies to Camera Raw or LR but not to PS itself.  Is this correct ?


rdonson:  Thanks for mentioning soft proofing.  Yes the image was soft proofed but I neglected to mention that.  As I recall, I used Epson's Glossy and Luster (+ adjectives Premium, Photo, etc.) and each had the same result.  I don't think a matte was involved.

I do have some long exposure night time carnival images that I don't think will ever look good printed.  Having the light behind them is what makes them exciting.


Jason:  I'd always thought a RIP was for converting vector to raster?  Could the "ink limiting" you mentioned by approximated with a dot gain adjustment?  And they do look pricey!


Patrick:  I ought to be able to say without thinking which intent I used and if bp comp was checked, but it's been almost a year.  My understanding back then was there was one combination for photography with the other RI's and BPC settings were for business graphics, etc.  Is my understanding incorrect ?


Again, thanks to all of you as I get my feet wet (again).


-Irwin

[Geoff Wittig]

My thanks to all of you that replied and I apologize for not responding sooner. 
 
Geoff: Is this Uwe Steinmuller's test print you were referring to ? 

-Irwin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=168257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nope. That one is a version of Bill Atkinson's well known test page. The one I'm talking about is a straight white to black ramp, with the patches nicely labelled with RGB numbers so you know what's going on. I found it referenced in Uwe's book on digital printing, so I'm not sure I am permitted to post a link to it.
Geoff.