Prints do not match monitor

[ChuckZ]

Where you say you turned your display brightness "all the way down" - what specifically does that mean in CD/mm2? It could be that "all the way down" isn't down enough. Were the prints from the lab VASTLY darker than what you see on the display. Recall, there is some inherent additional luminosity apparent from the display relative to a print simply because the former is transmitted light and the latter reflected light. One never totally overcomes this divide, so you need to make some mental adjustment for it - but in today's calibrated and managed environments, not a whole lot, why I'm asking whethe the difference you see is very large. As well, it may be important to verify whether the profile the lab gave you provides a current and valid protrayal of their machines' actual behaviour. You also need to be sure you are softproofing with "Simulate Paper White" selected, so you can be sure to be capturing the effect of the paper white on the overall appearance of the softproof.

My prints were significantly darker than what the monitor shows.  The Brightness control on my monitor is a slider with values 0 -100, so I don't think I can set it at a particular value in CD/mm2, which I assume is a value of brightness.  Also, the software that came with the Spyder2 calibrator says I need to have the Brightness control on the monitor to be set at the factory default which is 50.  Maybe I need a better calibrator software?

[Mark D Segal]

yes, it's confusing, but it's correct.
You have to think laterally here (I always forget about that as well): the softproof simulates a certain output (paper) profile. Now this paper profile is displayed WITH BPC to the monitor if "simulation" is deselected. I.e. the paper contrast range is displayed within the contrast range of the monitor - not within the contrast range of the paper itself. So from paper to monitor there is a BPC.

With "black ink" selected the (paper-) image is displayed without BPC on the monitor... i.e. without stretching the paper-contrast ratio to that of the monitor.
With "black ink" selected you actually have a relative colormetric view of the paper on the monitor.
So in short: "black ink" is boosting the black point of the display to that of the paper. The result is that you are viewing the contrast range of the paper itself not that of the monitor.
I use "black ink" all the time, I never use "paper simulation" (see above).

I don't want the DR of the monitor when I am trying to simulate the DR of the paper in a soft proof. Checking "Simulate Paper white" does this for me.

To keep this discussion dead-easy and grounded in reality - and my experience with thousands of prints using differnet papers over the years:

- to get as close a matching as possible between the display and my Epson 3800 output with Photoshop Managing Color, The Customize Proof Condition needs to have both BPC and SPC checked using RelCol or Saturation RI.

- with Perceptual RI BPC doesn't matter, but SPC does.

- with AbsCol RI BPC is greyed out, but SPC matters.

- under all RI, Simulate Black Ink is checked and greyed. All my images leave LR or ACR with ProPhoto RGB embedded.

(Preserve RGB Numbers is always unchecked).

Getting back to the OP's issue, I think Andrew Rodney's post (#5) is likely the most relevant factor and relates directly to the question I put to the OP about what "all the way down" means for his display. But the OP should get back to us on this.

[Mark D Segal]

My prints were significantly darker than what the monitor shows.  The Brightness control on my monitor is a slider with values 0 -100, so I don't think I can set it at a particular value in CD/mm2, which I assume is a value of brightness.  Also, the software that came with the Spyder2 calibrator says I need to have the Brightness control on the monitor to be set at the factory default which is 50.  Maybe I need a better calibrator software?

What display calibration/profiling software are you using? Good software should allow you to set display luminance to a user-defined value in CD/mm2.

[ChuckZ]

What display calibration/profiling software are you using? Good software should allow you to set display luminance to a user-defined value in CD/mm2.

I am using a Spyder2express calibrator together with the software that came with it.  Do you have a recommendation on software(Windows) that would allow me set the luminance?  Thanks

[tho_mas]

I don't want the DR of the monitor when I am trying to simulate the DR of the paper in a soft proof.

me neither.

Checking "Simulate Paper white" does this for me.

checking simulate "black ink" does it for me as white already matches paper white in the viewing booth.

[Mark D Segal]

I am using a Spyder2express calibrator together with the software that came with it.  Do you have a recommendation on software(Windows) that would allow me set the luminance?  Thanks

Yes, download the demo of ColorEyes Dsplay Pro 1.5 for Windows and see whether it makes your life better (Integrated-Color.com Demo)

[Mark D Segal]

me neither.

 checking simulate "black ink" does it for me as white already matches paper white in the viewing booth.

Fine. Different strokes for different folks. That's what makes all this so intriguing!  

[Lisa Nikodym]

In a quick skim of this thread, I didn't notice anyone mentioning another issue that could be at play here: the print viewing conditions.  Of course the print will look darker than the monitor if you're viewing it under typical indoor lighting conditions, which aren't very bright.  Have you looked at the print under either direct sunlight, a controlled viewing light or viewing booth, or other bright and relatively controlled lighting conditions?  I also thought my prints were too dark until I finally got one under a really good light, and realized that the lighting has a big effect on how it appears.

[Mark D Segal]

Indeed - really important. The whole problem could be as simple as that. It can make a huge difference. Ideally, the OP would want to view the prints under Solux D50 illumination. A print held a few feet from a Solux desk lamp is an inexpensive (but not perfect) substitute for a viewing booth Tailored LIghting.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Indeed - really important. The whole problem could be as simple as that. It can make a huge difference. Ideally, the OP would want to view the prints under Solux D50 illumination. A print held a few feet from a Solux desk lamp is an inexpensive (but not perfect) substitute for a viewing booth Tailored LIghting.

For those of amateurs who can't afford all the bells and whistles, Solux offers a nice clamp on flexy light that can do just that (pretty inexpensive as well, though you will want to add the difusion filter to provide even illumination).  Mine is mounted on the computer table right next to the Epson R2880.  I can look at the prints after they come out and compare them to the monitor.  Even to my "old" eyes, the match is spot on (NEC P221 SpectraView calibrated monitor).

[digitaldog]

In a quick skim of this thread, I didn't notice anyone mentioning another issue that could be at play here: the print viewing conditions.

See my first post above.

Read Brooks piece and see if there’s any mention of print viewing.

[Mark D Segal]

For those of amateurs who can't afford all the bells and whistles, Solux offers a nice clamp on flexy light that can do just that (pretty inexpensive as well, though you will want to add the difusion filter to provide even illumination).  Mine is mounted on the computer table right next to the Epson R2880.  I can look at the prints after they come out and compare them to the monitor.  Even to my "old" eyes, the match is spot on (NEC P221 SpectraView calibrated monitor).

Alan, just so you'll know, there are those amateurs out there who can afford a lot more than many professionals. You see, some of them have made much more money in their various professions than many professional photographers will ever aspire to - though in the latter category there are also those who have done very well for themselves.

Anyhow, back to topic, I have exactly what you describe, and it's good.

[Mark D Segal]

See my first post above.

Read Brooks piece and see if there’s any mention of print viewing.

Yes indeed, you did. Still worth emphasizing. Many people have either no room or no money for a viewing booth, so discussion of useable work-arounds is worthwhile.

[bjanes]

yes, it's confusing, but it's correct.
You have to think laterally here (I always forget about that as well): the softproof simulates a certain output (paper) profile. Now this paper profile is displayed WITH BPC to the monitor if "simulation" is deselected. I.e. the paper contrast range is displayed within the contrast range of the monitor - not within the contrast range of the paper itself. So from paper to monitor there is a BPC.

With "black ink" selected the (paper-) image is displayed without BPC on the monitor... i.e. without stretching the paper-contrast ratio to that of the monitor.
With "black ink" selected you actually have a relative colormetric view of the paper on the monitor.
So in short: "black ink" is boosting the black point of the display to that of the paper. The result is that you are viewing the contrast range of the paper itself not that of the monitor.
I use "black ink" all the time, I never use "paper simulation" (see above).

This clears up things. Paper Black is essentially Black Point Compensation when going from the simulation black to the monitor black. If it is unchecked, the simulation black is displayed as monitor black, which would use the full DR of the monitor. The BPC box determines how the image black is mapped to the simulation black. Is this correct?

[tho_mas]

This clears up things. Paper Black is essentially Black Point Compensation when going from the simulation black to the monitor black. If it is unchecked, the simulation black is displayed as monitor black, which would use the full DR of the monitor. The BPC box determines how the image black is mapped to the simulation black. Is this correct?

if I understand correctly, then yes, that's right.

[attachment=17625:proof.jpg]
the red part is related to the device/output you want to simulate = proof.
The BPC here refers to the conversion of the source profile to the device you want to simulate.

the green part is how the proof will be displayed on the way back to the monitor.
"black ink" deselected will display the proof within the (higher) contrast range of the monitor - so with BPC from paper to monitor.
"black ink" selected will display the proof within its own contrast range - not within that of the monitor - so without BPC from paper to monitor.

[ChuckZ]

Yes, download the demo of ColorEyes Dsplay Pro 1.5 for Windows and see whether it makes your life better (Integrated-Color.com Demo)

Now I know I need to be using better software.  Is the Spyder2 puck good or should I be getting a better puck too?  Thanks.

[Mark D Segal]

Now I know I need to be using better software.  Is the Spyder2 puck good or should I be getting a better puck too?  Thanks.

I personally have not used Spyder 2, but most of the advice I've heard suggests that the XRite DTP-94 and the Spyder 3 are much better. Integrated-Color has advised me that Spyder 3 is better for a wide-gamut monitor (one approaching ARGB (98) - which yours is not- than is the DTP-94. Spyder 3 is also more widely available. DTP-94 as far as I know is now only available from several providers of integrated hardware/software packages. Spyder 3 is also a much more recent product than DTP-94. Either should give you more accurate results than the Spyder 2 from all that I've heard. I'm using a DTP-94 with ColorEyes Display 1.5 and it has been serving me very well.

[ChuckZ]

I personally have not used Spyder 2, but most of the advice I've heard suggests that the XRite DTP-94 and the Spyder 3 are much better. Integrated-Color has advised me that Spyder 3 is better for a wide-gamut monitor (one approaching ARGB (98) - which yours is not- than is the DTP-94. Spyder 3 is also more widely available. DTP-94 as far as I know is now only available from several providers of integrated hardware/software packages. Spyder 3 is also a much more recent product than DTP-94. Either should give you more accurate results than the Spyder 2 from all that I've heard. I'm using a DTP-94 with ColorEyes Display 1.5 and it has been serving me very well.

XRite no longer sells the DTP-94, but they do sell a unit called the i1Display2.  Have you heard anything about that one?

[Mark D Segal]

XRite no longer sells the DTP-94, but they do sell a unit called the i1Display2.  Have you heard anything about that one?

Sorry, don't know it; but others who post here may well.

That is why I mentioned the DTP-94 is available from several vendors, but not in general circulation any longer.