Why do images look different on different papers?

[digitaldog]

Are you saying that you calibrate your monitor differently for different papers?

What part of: we end up with differing calibrations per paper or and why, those of us serious about it use a reference display system that allows us to calibrate to multiple calibrations to do just that  wasn't clear?.

My understanding is that the OP is not just talking about empty (of color) areas in an image, where paper white would show through. My understanding is that he is talking about overall color balance.

Whatever your understanding is, based on the above, I'm going to stick with my understanding.  

OP wrote: If I have multiple papers profiled with the same device (colormunki) why is it the images don't always match? Example: an image on Epson Hot Press is much warmer than the same image on photo paper, which appears much cooler. Shouldn't these images match? Isn't that the point of creating paper profiles?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

What part of...

Can't you just answer a simple question: "Are you saying that you calibrate your monitor differently for different papers?"

[digitaldog]

Can't you just answer a simple question: "Are you saying that you calibrate your monitor differently for different papers?"

The question was answered before the question was asked!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The question was answered before the question was asked!

Then what was the answer?

[tho_mas]

What part of: we end up with differing calibrations per paper or and why, those of us serious about it use a reference display system that allows us to calibrate to multiple calibrations to do just that  wasn't clear?.  Whatever your understanding is, based on the above, I'm going to stick with my understanding.  

OP wrote: If I have multiple papers profiled with the same device (colormunki) why is it the images don't always match? Example: an image on Epson Hot Press is much warmer than the same image on photo paper, which appears much cooler. Shouldn't these images match? Isn't that the point of creating paper profiles?

This endless debate about "how to" implement and use color management at the end simply tells one simple truth: color managment doesn't work "out of the box". A lot of fine-tuning is required! A lot of testing and viewing "experience" is required. A lot!!
Be it fine tuning of the printer profiles (to be usefull for REALLY reliably softproofing) or be it fine tuning of the monitor calibration (to REALLY match a particular paper-white).

You can learn color managment. You can spend hours and hours of inspection. Hours and hours of fine tuning. And it will work REALLY great... for one particular paper... when you REALLY take the time to fine adjust your profiles.

But... color management NEVER works out of the box.

Now, the above is what I take from all this continous questions/answers (very often quite questionable answers...) and from the the very same questions/issues posted again and again. And I think it would be cool ... and smart... to simply admit that colormanagemt doesn't work as advertised... even if you set everything as it should be set.

IMHO ...

[tho_mas]

Then what was the answer?

I am also interessted in that very answer ... !

[digitaldog]

Then what was the answer?

What part of: The question was answered before the question was asked! do you not understand?
Either you're unable to understand simple English or this is another attempt of yours to start a color management rabbit hole of your own confusion like the Gamut and Color numbers post last year. I'm not going to play that game with you but I'd be happy to use Google Translate and provide the text I wrote today in any language you prefer over English. Further, there is an article here on LuLa for years that also explains it, albeit in English: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
IF that article isn't clear, start a new post asking questions so I can ignore it!
You've come here today and made several posts and the most telling was: Count me in the perplexed category. You've done nothing to aid the OP. You've asked repeated questions that don't need to be asked because the answers were provided already. I don't know what your agenda is, but I'm not wasting my time again playing that game. I don't think you're stupid but maybe I'm the one wrong in that opinion so I can't understand how you can fail to connect the dots here. Either way, this isn't your post so start one so you can own it, then I can steer clear of it.

[digitaldog]

This endless debate about "how to" implement and use color management at the end simply tells one simple truth: color managment doesn't work "out of the box".
But... color management NEVER works out of the box.

I agree with most of your points but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd say color management works out of some boxes better than no color management. But the results are far from what many of us who are picky desire. Color management is far from perfect. Color management has plenty of areas to improve.

And I think it would be cool ... and smart... to simply admit that colormanagemt doesn't work as advertised... even if you set everything as it should be set.

Most of what is advertised is marketing BS! Every time I read some color management vendor telling us their product will provide more 'accurate color' I want to smack some marketing person at said company. But they do have a job of selling to unsuspecting and less than informed customers. But then what does work exactly as advertised? Not impossible, but pretty rare!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I can only hope someone else will be kind enough to answer my, OP's and tho_mas' simple questions.

[digitaldog]

I can only hope someone else will be kind enough to answer my, OP's and tho_mas' simple questions.

Hope springs eternal, good luck. I'm here to assist the OP, you're own your own bud.

[tho_mas]

I agree with most of your points but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd say color management works out of some boxes better than no color management.

Totally agree!

But the results are far from what many of us who are picky desire. Color management is far from perfect. Color management has plenty of areas to improve. Most of what is advertised is marketing BS! Every time I read some color management vendor telling us their product will provide more 'accurate color' I want to smack some marketing person at said company. But they do have a job of selling to unsuspecting and less than informed customers. But then what does work exactly as advertised? Not impossible, but pretty rare!

Very true! Unfortunately you are avoiding to respond to the topic...

What part of: The question was answered before the question was asked! do you not understand?
Either you're unable to understand simple English ...

Me I am German ... and my English is unfortunately not that good.
I am still interessted in the answer ... since this is what I have proclaimed over and over again here on the forums: make a monitor profile individually for each single paper (-profile). This is what I do and it works perfectly! Really reliably! But of course this is not what color managment is supposed to work like ... at least not completely ... as I do adjust the white point and luminosity for each paper visually BY EYE... and NOT by measurement... (this is - BTW - why I am still softproofing with paper simualtion disalbed ... only "black ink" enabled" ...).
I am totally with you that working with color managment is much, much better than without. But it still requires a lot of tuning and a lot of subjective/personal perceptual tweaking ... Well, as I said: it doesn't work out of the box. I am glad we can agree on this!
I would like to add: it doesn't work as supposed to. Human perception is too different from measurement devices...

[digitaldog]

I am still interessted in the answer ... since this is what I have proclaimed over and over again here on the forums: make a monitor profile individually for each single paper (-profile).

Exactly! That's what a good reference display system like the old Sony Artisan up to modern Eizo/SpectraView systems provide. One size doesn’t fit all (but I already said that today).

But of course this is not what color managment is supposed to work like ... at least not completely ... as I do adjust the white point and luminosity for each paper visually BY EYE... and NOT by measurement...

That is necessary and doesn't at all diminish what color management can and does do. Ever work with a profile editor? Mostly done visually. Ever edit by the numbers and find the numbers are incorrect? Happens all the time. Color management is based on colorimetry which has a slew of perceptual flaws. I think today I wrote that ICC profiles know nothing about color in context. They know nothing about images. They "see" the world, one pixel at a time based on that one pixel's values. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance!
If you examine say SpectraView where you can set the White Point, you are able to enter values. But you are also able to set WP visually! It's all fair game. In the end, our goal is WYSIWYG such the display and the print next to it properly illuminated, visually match.
If anything, we need more color management tools based on what we see, not based on what we measure. That only gets you so far.

[tho_mas]

Exactly! That's what a good reference display system like the old Sony Artisan up to modern Eizo/SpectraView systems provide. One size doesn’t fit all (but I already said that today). That is necessary and doesn't at all diminish what color management can and does do. Ever work with a profile editor? Mostly done visually. Ever edit by the numbers and find the numbers are incorrect? Happens all the time. Color management is based on colorimetry which has a slew of perceptual flaws. I think today I wrote that ICC profiles know nothing about color in context. They know nothing about images. They "see" the world, one pixel at a time based on that one pixel's values. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance!
If you examine say SpectraView where you can set the White Point, you are able to enter values. But you are also able to set WP visually! It's all fair game. In the end, our goal is WYSIWYG such the display and the print next to it properly illuminated, visually match.
If anything, we need more color management tools based on what we see, not based on what we measure. That only gets you so far.

(emphases by me...)
Great!! Many thanks for the reply!!! Now all stars align and we can agree to agree :-)

[ognita]

Hi Slobodan,
The answer to your question is Yes.
Digitaldog uses different calibrations for different paper and use a reference display system that allows him to calibrate to multiple calibrations.

As per Digitaldog

<snip>we end up with differing calibrations per paper or and why, those of us serious about it use a reference display system that allows us to calibrate to multiple calibrations to do just that<snip>

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hi Slobodan,
The answer to your question is Yes...

Thanks ognita. That is what I assumed, just wanted to double-check.

Which then raises a couple of questions for us mere mortals who do not work with said reference display systems. How do you profile a simple monitor with, say, Colormunki, for different papers? There are hundreds of different papers, so some grouping is in order, even with a reference system, no? Is it just matt, glossy, or it gets more complicated?

[digitaldog]

Hi Slobodan,
The answer to your question is Yes.
Digitaldog uses different calibrations for different paper and use a reference display system that allows him to calibrate to multiple calibrations.
As per Digitaldog

Thanks, it appears that if someone other than I try to explain this to Slobodan, even by pasting my own text, he 'gets it'.

[D Fosse]

What if we just say:

In terms of profile conversion, white is just white. 255 remaps to 255 regardless.

The white (and black) point is not part of the color management chain - it defines the environment / framework for color management to work in. Hence you need different calibration targets for different papers.

Would that work?

Which then raises a couple of questions for us mere mortals who do not work with said reference display systems.  How do you profile a simple monitor with, say, Colormunki, for different papers?

Simply put, this is why said reference display systems are worth the price.

[Jimbo57]

..... How do you profile a simple monitor with, say, Colormunki, for different papers? There are hundreds of different papers, so some grouping is in order, even with a reference system, no? Is it just matt, glossy, or it gets more complicated?

 It sometimes seems that some folk are more interested in technology than photography.

Why would anyone want to "profile" their monitor "for different papers" using a ColorMunki?

The whole purpose of using a Color Munki is to ensure as far as possible (and the absolute is impossible) that the printer prints what you see on your monitor.

Forget all the hype - whether from manufacturers or self-appointed "experts". Simplify the question.

We all edit our images on our computers, looking at our monitors. We edit until what we see on our monitors is what we want to see in our print.

That is why we need ICC printer profiles, such as we produce with the ColorMunki. Because different papers will show different results from each other if printed with the same standard profile.

We do not profile our monitors for different papers. We use different printer profiles for different papers - so that what we see in our prints is as close as possible to what we see on our monitors.

That is why, when using a ColorMunki, we need to repeat the process with each paper that we use. (and also with each different printer and ink set if we use more than one)

Only then will we be able to print on different papers without having to re-edit the image file to suit each paper.

[Simon Garrett]

We do not profile our monitors for different papers.

The only exception might be that we might calibrate the monitor for different white points for different papers and viewing condidtions, I suppose. 

[Denis de Gannes]

The only exception might be that we might calibrate the monitor for different white points for different papers and viewing condidtions, I suppose. 

A monitor profile is created so that you can be reasonably sure that what you see displayed on the screen is as accurate as possible in terms of color and luminosity with respect to the image file whether the color space is sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB, etc. The monitor profile is not used to print.

A print profile needs to be created specific to the printer being used and the specific paper, to ensure what is in the image file is accurately processed by the printer. Lots of paper manufacturers offer printer profiles for their paper and many of the popular printers. If you have a proper matching profile then you may not necessarily need to create one for yourself.