Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Robcat on November 06, 2009, 04:38:13 pm
-
When I print on Harman FB Gloss, I do not get the same separation of subtle gradations in dark tones as I get with the same image on Epson Semigloss---the colors are spot on but the shadows are too dense on the Harman. The custom profiles for each paper were both made by the same firm (Inkjetart) at the same time. I'm using an Epson 2400. Any ideas on what to do? Can I cut down the black ink output somehow? Reprofile?
Interestingly, I noted the same loss of shadow detail on the Harman paper when I had prints done commercially on an HPZ3100.
-
When I print on Harman FB Gloss, I do not get the same separation of subtle gradations in dark tones as I get with the same image on Epson Semigloss---the colors are spot on but the shadows are too dense on the Harman. The custom profiles for each paper were both made by the same firm (Inkjetart) at the same time. I'm using an Epson 2400. Any ideas on what to do? Can I cut down the black ink output somehow? Reprofile?
Interestingly, I noted the same loss of shadow detail on the Harman paper when I had prints done commercially on an HPZ3100.
Myself and others I have discussed this with are concluding that our measurement devices see into deep tonality, in relation to substrate surface light scatter characteristics, differently, and therefore the tonal relationships that result from profiling with these devices vary from how our eyes perceive them, depending on the paper surface.
With the same measurement device, profiling software, inkset, and printer, shadow separation seems to diminish as the paper gets glossier. I'm not talking about the available density range differences, or the fact that the different prints may need different illumination (obvioulsy high dmax papers will result in the entire range stretched downward toward the higher available dmax) , I'm talking about the tonal relationships. I easily see this using soft proof with the various profiles, on the monitor.
Without looking into this further, I'd suggest for now that this is another argument for using soft proof correctly, and making file edits accordingly for the particular print.
I've resorted, for now, to using two different profile creation applications, one for photo surfaces and one for matte. They have different perceptual luminosity characteristics...
I'm not positive this is your issue, but it could be. Also, I wonder if a polarized device may negate these differences...
Tyler
-
Have you tried printing with the profile from Harman (http://www.harman-inkjet.com/home.asp)? On the 3800 I've found their profile for FB Gloss to be pretty close. Rather than adjust to amount of ink being laid down, you could take an image with a lot of shadow detail, and when softproofing it, divide the shadows into strips with a different adjustment to the shadows in each strip, find the adjustment that works for you and create an action to do this on a layer before softproofing in future.
David
-
Have you tried printing with the profile from Harman (http://www.harman-inkjet.com/home.asp)? On the 3800 I've found their profile for FB Gloss to be pretty close. Rather than adjust to amount of ink being laid down, you could take an image with a lot of shadow detail, and when softproofing it, divide the shadows into strips with a different adjustment to the shadows in each strip, find the adjustment that works for you and create an action to do this on a layer before softproofing in future.
David
I only did a few with the profile from Harman before I got the custom one. The adjustment layer sounds like a reasonable idea to try. Thanks.
Rob P