Working on a EIZO CG241W, but do i see too much details?

[tived]

Hi guys,

I am very lucky to work on the above screen, its just lovely. Sometimes, I find that even with custom profiles for the printer (Z3100) i am not seeing enough details in my prints that I do on screen, often I have to lift the images 20 or more points in the shadows in my Levels, to get the details.

Is anyone else here experiencing this, I am not having the same problem at home using a Dell 2405 screen to my Epson 4000 also using custom profiles.

just wanted to check, thanks

Henrik

[Czornyj]

Hi guys,

I am very lucky to work on the above screen, its just lovely. Sometimes, I find that even with custom profiles for the printer (Z3100) i am not seeing enough details in my prints that I do on screen, often I have to lift the images 20 or more points in the shadows in my Levels, to get the details.

Is anyone else here experiencing this, I am not having the same problem at home using a Dell 2405 screen to my Epson 4000 also using custom profiles.

just wanted to check, thanks

Henrik

Do you softproof the image with printers profile before printing, and use perceptual rendering intent in Photoshop Color Handling options?

[tived]

Do you softproof the image with printers profile before printing, and use perceptual rendering intent in Photoshop Color Handling options?

Hi,

Yes, I do soft-proof, but I use Rel-Col instead of Perceptual

is this my pitfall?

thanks

Henrik

[Czornyj]

Yes, I do soft-proof, but I use Rel-Col instead of Perceptual

is this my pitfall?

Give it a try - it should work better, especially in the shadows. If it won't help, try to calibrate the panel at lower luminance.

[walter.sk]

Give it a try - it should work better, especially in the shadows. If it won't help, try to calibrate the panel at lower luminance.

Rel Col and Perceptual each have their place, depending on the image content.  Just make sure to print with the same choice as you used in the softproof.

Also, are you adjusting the softproofed version of the image to resemble the unsoftproofed duplicate image as much as possible?

Another factor:  What are you using as your print-viewing lighting?  How the print appears in relation to the softproof is dependant on the color temperature of the viewing light, which should probably be 5000K.  The intensity of that light should match that of your monitor, as well.

Also, after all is said and done, the detail in the shadows will be more apparent in the display, which is likely to have a greater contrast range than the print, regardless of the print-viewing light.  Having the display luminance brighter than that of the print viewing luminance is also a problem.

[tived]

Rel Col and Perceptual each have their place, depending on the image content.  Just make sure to print with the same choice as you used in the softproof.

Also, are you adjusting the softproofed version of the image to resemble the unsoftproofed duplicate image as much as possible?

Another factor:  What are you using as your print-viewing lighting?  How the print appears in relation to the softproof is dependant on the color temperature of the viewing light, which should probably be 5000K.  The intensity of that light should match that of your monitor, as well.

Also, after all is said and done, the detail in the shadows will be more apparent in the display, which is likely to have a greater contrast range than the print, regardless of the print-viewing light.  Having the display luminance brighter than that of the print viewing luminance is also a problem.

Thanks for the replies,

I have tried to adjust the softproofed image so it looks like the non- soft proofed, but I am aware that it will not be quite the same.

The lighting here is not optimal, actually it varies so much it can give you headaches, from 3700k to 4800k with a Lux of 45 to 146. So quite a large range, and non are optimal.

We are going out to get Solux lights next week i hope.

I am hoping by creating and applying standards we can push the standard/quality higher and higher, and applying good working practices, but it is a long and sometimes slow process.

Henrik

[Tim Lookingbill]

Drag and drop this 21step grayramp I made and posted at Photo.Net and view in Photoshop:

http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard...Sh-71447584.jpg

The separation between the 000RGB black and the next step which is 12,12,12RGB should be barely noticeable. Print the entire grayramp or crop the section of the shadows if you want to save ink and paper. The relational difference between black and the next step on the print should match what you see on your display.

The thing about dynamic range viewing a grayramp on a modern high end display like the Eizo is that you're limited to 256 differentiating levels which limits the dynamic range at a certain point with increased brightness and contrast before you start seeing posterization in smooth gradients. It's the distribution ratio (the gradualness) that seems to be at fault here and that is controlled by the calibrating software when it builds correction curves with tweaks to the shadow regions to correct for the display's nonlinear response which can be influenced both in the software and within the hardware LUT's of the Eizo itself.

I'm assuming your Eizo probably came with calibration hardware and software that offers different appearances to this gradation gradualness ratio like maybe a setting for L*, native gamma, etc. I'm not familiar with Eizo since I've never used one. Just make sure your black point reads quite low like at around .1 or whatever scaling your calibration offers in measuring black point.

[tho_mas]

Or the other way around: calibrating your display you can also boost the displays blackpoint.
The CG241W with its VA panel has quite a deep blackpoint.
But it helps if the display is a bit closer to the conrast of prints.
contrast of 400:1 is not bad. And very comfortable if you sit hours in front of the display.
So for example 0.3 cd/qm black and 120cd/qm luminance. Or 0.4cd/qm black and 160cd/qm luminance or whatever.
Additional upside: all the colorimeters have problems with accurate measurement in areas less than 0.3cd/qm. So the calibration curve will be a bit more precise.

Softproof: perceptual or relative colormetric depends on the image as already mentioned.
But either way I prefer not to simulate paper white but always paper black (if this is the correct term).
Actually around 90% of my prints are fine (accurate) with setting relative colormetric with BPC and for the display simulation just paper black activated (i.e. relative colormetric conversion from the paper profile back to the display).

With regard to TRC L* - makes sense when using ECI-RGB V2 with a L* curve.
But Color Navigators L* curve is not accurate. It does not match ECI-RGB V2. Actually the mid tones are a bit to bright when calibrating to L* with Color Navigator.
So if L* is need you should use BasICColor Display 4 (can do Hardwarecalibration of the CG241W) or you choose gamma 2.2 or gamma 1.8 and use Color Navigator (this is what I prefer).