Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jtmiller on February 11, 2015, 03:03:01 pm
-
I'm helping my artist daughter obtain "perfect" print and monitor image matching. Perfect in quotes for the reason that nothing is perfect.
We have CS6, LR5, Z3200PS with calibrated gloss paper and HP inks, and monitors which have been color calibrated with a Spyder3 within the last week.
Our current results are close. Skin tones are quite close but the overall images are still darker than seen on the monitor.
My 67 year old male eyes aren't as good as hers for evaluating color so I have to trust her judgment that we're just not there yet.
We've selected the proper calibrated paper settings and profiles in the various print dialogs, having PS manage the colors and using perceptual rendering.
I'm wondering if we've hit the limits of what can be done "automatically" and need to do some sort of preset to make up the difference.
Is this what is normally done? If so, how, so as to make it as "recipe-like" as possible.
She certainly doesn't want to have to go through and adjust all her images in her 2 terabyte catalog. So some sort of "just before printing" canned adjustment approach would be what is desired.
Of course we'd have to get that canned adjustment made here based on a variety of images but would certainly like some advice and help to make it as painless as possible to use at "print time." Most of her printing is done through PSCS6.
Thanks
Jim
-
my first question(s) would be..............
what are your monitor calibration targets (color temp, luminance, gamma, etc) ?
what kind and intensity of lamp are you using to compare the printed output vs. screen?
'slightly dark' prints *usually* means that the monitor is too bright relative to how you're viewing the prints.
-
'slightly dark' prints *usually* means that the monitor is too bright relative to how you're viewing the prints.
For me this is the most important point. If the white (unprinted paper) on the print looks "darker" than the white on the monitor then the whole print will look darker. You need a lot of light on a print to make it match a monitor. If you're not prepared to put that much light on your print then you need to lighten the image before you print it.
-
I'm helping my artist daughter obtain "perfect" print and monitor image matching. Perfect in quotes for the reason that nothing is perfect.
We have CS6, LR5, Z3200PS with calibrated gloss paper and HP inks, and monitors which have been color calibrated with a Spyder3 within the last week.
Our current results are close. Skin tones are quite close but the overall images are still darker than seen on the monitor.
My 67 year old male eyes aren't as good as hers for evaluating color so I have to trust her judgment that we're just not there yet.
We've selected the proper calibrated paper settings and profiles in the various print dialogs, having PS manage the colors and using perceptual rendering.
I'm wondering if we've hit the limits of what can be done "automatically" and need to do some sort of preset to make up the difference.
Is this what is normally done? If so, how, so as to make it as "recipe-like" as possible.
She certainly doesn't want to have to go through and adjust all her images in her 2 terabyte catalog. So some sort of "just before printing" canned adjustment approach would be what is desired.
Of course we'd have to get that canned adjustment made here based on a variety of images but would certainly like some advice and help to make it as painless as possible to use at "print time." Most of her printing is done through PSCS6.
Thanks
Jim
Forget perfect, 2 different mediums.
Get close and make work prints.
-
Before you change anything first view the print in the brightest light you have in the house and make sure it's right next to the monitor. Get the print as close as possible to the light to create a match. Window light with a sunbeam coming through is best. Bluish diffused skylight will change color appearance.
If it matches, then you need to find a light that's bright enough to allow the print to get as close to it or you need to lower the brightness of your display and recalibrate so display white is as bright as white paper you print and view under the lights you have.
-
Thanks all for the quick and useful input. Will research all and report back.
Thanks!!
Jim
-
Jim, another thing to remember when trying for the perfect match is that the image on the monitor is back lit and the print you are comparing it to is reflectively lit. Pretty close may be as perfect as you can get. - Jim
-
If it is just the brightness that is the biggest difference, just lower the monitors brightness. Do you happen to know what monitor she is using? Depending on what kind, you can actually adjust some things to make it match a print better.
If she thinks something else differs, can she give us a prioritized list on things, so perhaps we can help her step by step.
-
.... So some sort of "just before printing" canned adjustment approach would be what is desired...
There is an app for that, as Apple would say :)
It is called Print Adjustment, at the bottom of the Print panel in LR, where you can adjust brightness and contrast "just before printing."
-
Before you change anything first view the print in the brightest light you have in the house and make sure it's right next to the monitor. Get the print as close as possible to the light to create a match. Window light with a sunbeam coming through is best. Bluish diffused skylight will change color appearance.
Of course if one is working in the evening this great solution is not possible. An inexpensive approach is to get a clamp-on Solux fixture and put it next to the monitor (https://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/clampon.html ) this way you have a uniform light source that can be used to view the printed image and adjust the monitor's parameters until you get as close a match as possible. Although viewing booths are perhaps best, you cannot easily get the monitor next to it and it is a more costly option.
-
You've gotten some good advice. But, it's important to remember that getting a good print-monitor match is a means to an end, and not a goal in itself (except for techno-fiddlers, I suppose). The end is being able to make prints that look the way you want on the first try. And remember too that print and monitor will never really match because of the inherent differences between transmitted and reflected light.
-
There is an app for that, as Apple would say :)
It is called Print Adjustment, at the bottom of the Print panel in LR, where you can adjust brightness and contrast "just before printing."
It's a huge kludge. It ensures all other app's will not honor the numbers in a document and print it differently. It's a color management cop-out. If I can be so kind to use color management and this kludge in the same sentence!
Fix the issue where it needs to be fixed: the calibration of the display or adjustment to the print viewing conditions.
And it isn't Apple's kludge, it's Adobe's. Shame on them.
The fix explained for the OP: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
-
It's a huge kludge....
"Color management folks were aghast, but this is actually a very elegant solution."
Jeff Schewe, The Digital Print, page 220
-
My thoughts are that there is no possible way to "match" an additive color light emitting medium to a subtractive color light reflecting medium. You can get close. You want the overall tone and color balance on. To make even a really really close match, you would have to have different print viewing lighting conditions for every ink/paper set because they have different reflective properties.
I use a X-Rite ColorMunki and it works pretty well. But the big problem is that we are going at it from the wrong end. We need the print calibrated and then make the monitor look like the print. The output should be the target, not the monitor!!! If you use the softproofing and/or match paper and printer color check boxes in the Photoshop you get the hint. There should be multiple monitor calibrations to match the printer. There used to be really expert folks in the early days that did this. They would make a reference print that was what they were looking for and then adjust the monitor to try to match the print. They did it by eye and by hand. Some of these folks were the ones that could color correct by numbers.
It's a huge kludge. It ensures all other app's will not honor the numbers in a document and print it differently. It's a color management cop-out. If I can be so kind to use color management and this kludge in the same sentence!
Fix the issue where it needs to be fixed: the calibration of the display or adjustment to the print viewing conditions.
This is not a kludge. It's an understanding that every ink/media has different reflective properties.
-
"Color management folks were aghast, but this is actually a very elegant solution."
Jeff Schewe, The Digital Print, page 220
Jeff is correct, it is a very elegant solution -- for people who do not want to fully color manage their workflow.
-
"Color management folks were aghast, but this is actually a very elegant solution."
Jeff Schewe, The Digital Print, page 220
I totally disagree. Jeff (and the Adobe team) got an ear full from me and others.
It is nothing more than a kludge! It treats the data differently from all other app's that can access that rendered data. All to fix something that can be done at the source. There are all kinds of sliders in these products that affect image lightness. The RGB values either need it or they don't. RGB working space are print output agnostic. By design! So the numbers are either OK or they make 'dark prints.' What Adobe has done is take a slider that's appeared since version 1 of ACR let alone LR to make the image lighter but placed it in a stupid place to aid stupid users. It seems NAPP designed ;D
If the RGB working space values are correct but print too dark, it's not the fault of the RGB working space numbers. Fix the problem at the source.
If you have to screw something in and you have the option to use a kitchen knife or a screwdriver, you're stupid to pick the kitchen knife. IMHO of course.
-
My thoughts are that there is no possible way to "match" an additive color light emitting medium to a subtractive color light reflecting medium. You can get close. You want the overall tone and color balance on. To make even a really really close match, you would have to have different print viewing lighting conditions for every ink/paper set because they have different reflective properties.
The goal (my goal) is to output a print, place it next to the display under a controlled print viewing condition, view a soft proof and see that the two are visually close.
This is a much closer visual match than a Polaroid and E6 film which I used in a similar way in the analog capture days. I'm not expecting what isn't possible, a 100% match. What I expect and see is a print and display that correlate which is what I expect from color management.
We need the print calibrated and then make the monitor look like the print. The output should be the target, not the monitor!!! If you use the softproofing and/or match paper and printer color check boxes in the Photoshop you get the hint. There should be multiple monitor calibrations to match the printer.
No. Build multiple display calibration's to match the print under that viewing booth. Different papers have different paper whites and contrast ratio's. With the correct display and calibration technology, you can calibrate for this. Or make the wide gamut display simulate sRGB.
Without something like a SpectraView with their software plus your ColorMunki, that's not going to happen.
Once the print leaves the booth, it should look fine under other and differing illuminants within reason. The other light source, the colorants and paper (OBAs?), how the profiles are built, all play a role here. When the RGB values in a working space look good color managed and produce what I see, color management is working as it should.
-
The goal (my goal) is to output a print, place it next to the display under a controlled print viewing condition, view a soft proof and see that the two are visually close.
This is a much closer visual match than a Polaroid and E6 film which I used in a similar way in the analog capture days. I'm not expecting what isn't possible, a 100% match. What I expect and see is a print and display that correlate which is what I expect from color management.
No. Build multiple display calibration's to match the print under that viewing booth. Different papers have different paper whites and contrast ratio's. With the correct display and calibration technology, you can calibrate for this. Or make the wide gamut display simulate sRGB.
Without something like a SpectraView with their software plus your ColorMunki, that's not going to happen.
Once the print leaves the booth, it should look fine under other and differing illuminants within reason. The other light source, the colorants and paper (OBAs?), how the profiles are built, all play a role here. When the RGB values in a working space look good color managed and produce what I see, color management is working as it should.
First, let me admit that I have used your advice and techniques alot. So thanks!
I get that you calibrate the monitor to a known point and then the Softproof simulates the paper and ink. My typical setup is to do base adjustments in regular mode and then using adjustment layers in softproof mode to do target output adjustments.
-
My typical setup is to do base adjustments in regular mode and then using adjustment layers in softproof mode to do target output adjustments.
Right but you expect that base adjustments (on what I presume you mean the RGB working space) is done based on what you see on-screen right? Backed up by numbers and/or Histograms to a degree. Further, you expect soft proof to look like print using a profile. There's no role here for the sliders. It's a kludge. The print is or isn't too dark or appears too dark for another reason and that needs to be addressed.
-
There was a 4 month period last year where I obsessed over color profiles, and making sure my prints were as color accurate as possible. I calibrated my monitor, I had ICC profiles created by professionals, and after spending thousands of dollars, I was still not satisfied. This was my own fault, because there is no such thing as a perfect color accurate profile. Colors change with even the slightest change of light. Types of lights, positioning of the print along with countless other factors play a role in how we see colors in a print.
What I did find was holding up a print next to your monitor is not a good idea. They will always be different, no matter what you think or know, they will always appear different put up next to each other. The best way I found to compare a print to what you see on a monitor, is to look at them separately. Look at the monitor, then turn to look at your print (preferably hanging close by on a wall). If you can not notice a difference doing this, then your in good shape.
Looking back I now realize that I obsessed over color too much. I know this because I work with some of the most pickiest and particular photographers in the world, and I have never once heard that the colors are slightly off. I have been told to make a print slightly lighter or darker, but I believe that was just an adjustment for that particular print, not a fault of the profile.
My advice would be to not obsess over color too much. Consult with someone who deals with color for a living such as digitaldog if it means that much to you and you need some assurance that your colors are accurate, but dont drive yourself crazy over it.
-
Of course if one is working in the evening this great solution is not possible. An inexpensive approach is to get a clamp-on Solux fixture and put it next to the monitor (https://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/clampon.html ) this way you have a uniform light source that can be used to view the printed image and adjust the monitor's parameters until you get as close a match as possible. Although viewing booths are perhaps best, you cannot easily get the monitor next to it and it is a more costly option.
I should've paraphrased by pointing out my advice was meant only as a method to check if the amount of light is affecting the look of the print. This LuLa B&W Master Printer article... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/bw_master_print.shtml
...demonstrates a similar effect light reflectance plays on print viewing with regard to "luminosity" vs "luminance" that affects whether the print looks dim, dull or vibrant. "Dark" is a way too subjective and vague description.
Note: the picture of the egg's luminance vs luminosity which can be affected by the amount of light the print is viewed under. Color saturation reflectance acts the same way depending on the quality of light the best being full spectrum daylight or the Solux bulb.
This discussion... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=79948.msg644973#msg644973
...demonstrates how changing available room lighting either from a window or turning on a center room light makes a print look dark or vibrant. This is to show that it's best to change the light and not have to go to the trouble of changing an established calibrated and color managed editing environment.
Here's a demonstration of how light affects vibrance, contrast and luminosity using my own print off of a $50 Epson "All In One" on Epson Ultra Premium Glossy paper compared to the original file on top.
-
The problem with comparisons like that, Tim, is that they are, well... comparisons. In absence of something to compare it with, your "window blind light" would look the same as the other two, after our eyes (and brain) compensate for less light.
As someone above already stated, the best thing is to look at the print in the most likely light it is going to be displayed and see if you like it, not to use the screen as the ultimate criterion, but just a starting point. Yes, calibrate it properly; yes, soft proof; yes, use the good lighting to match it, etc., but ultimately, look at the print and see if you like it.
-
The problem with comparisons like that, Tim, is that they are, well... comparisons. In absence of something to compare it with, your "window blind light" would look the same as the other two, after our eyes (and brain) compensate for less light.
As someone above already stated, the best thing is to look at the print in the most likely light it is going to be displayed and see if you like it, not to use the screen as the ultimate criterion, but just a starting point. Yes, calibrate it properly; yes, soft proof; yes, use the good lighting to match it, etc., but ultimately, look at the print and see if you like it.
The "window blind light" image was to show the effects of changing levels and character (diffused or spot) of light has on a print compared to viewing on a calibrated transmissive display. The B&W Master Print "Luminance vs Luminosity" linked article was demonstrating the same effect except how it's rendered through edits on a real image viewed on a display.
It's a characteristic of light we tend to edit into our images (especially Raw) to make them appear 3 dimensional or "pop" on screen but can be lost on a print because we aren't viewing the print under the same level and character of light that got us to make the image "pop" on screen. This is basic digital darkroom editing to take advantage of the dynamics of a transmissive display. You don't want to dumb that process down by reducing the dynamics of the display.
And the OP isn't talking about "liking" the print results. They're wanting their print to match their screen edits. If I can get a match off a $50 printer of an image "I like on screen" then anyone else can do the same as long as the print viewing light matches.
You can always edit the image on the screen to look lighter to compensate for viewing the print in lower lighting situations but it will never have that 3D "pop" as it appears on screen because prints have a severely reduced dynamic range compared to a display and viewing the print in much lower light reduces those dynamics even further.
-
Right but you expect that base adjustments (on what I presume you mean the RGB working space) is done based on what you see on-screen right? Backed up by numbers and/or Histograms to a degree. Further, you expect soft proof to look like print using a profile. There's no role here for the sliders. It's a kludge. The print is or isn't too dark or appears too dark for another reason and that needs to be addressed.
I was reading the Luminous Landscape article linked above in this thread. To my mind, most prints are too dark because most monitors are too bright.
I have 2 question:
1. In the old days (I actually owned an original Epson Stylus Color printer circa 1994) it was customary to set the output levels of a file sent to a printer to bottom out around 5 and top out around 250-252. Is that still standard practice or has Color Management handled that?
2. In the article you state that basically you want to calibrate your monitor to the same point as the print viewing locations (brightness, white point, etc.) and then profile it and build the ICC profile. I understand why, but then when I soft proof using that same paper/ink as the monitor settings I really shouldn't see a significant difference?
What most people want CMM to be that it isn't is to be able to set the monitor to calibration X and profile it. Then when given a good monitor profile and printer profile, they want the CMM engine to take RGB values R1, G1, B1 that look like X on the monitor and translate it to (simpifying) C1, Y1, M1, K1 that looks like X. But, of course, a print can never look like the monitor due to the limitations of the ink and paper medium to translate to the higher standard of a monitor. Hence we softproof to basically dumb down the monitor to ink/paper level as best as possible.
-
1. In the old days (I actually owned an original Epson Stylus Color printer circa 1994) it was customary to set the output levels of a file sent to a printer to bottom out around 5 and top out around 250-252. Is that still standard practice or has Color Management handled that?
No, that's another kludge!
2. In the article you state that basically you want to calibrate your monitor to the same point as the print viewing locations (brightness, white point, etc.) and then profile it and build the ICC profile. I understand why, but then when I soft proof using that same paper/ink as the monitor settings I really shouldn't see a significant difference?
Soft proof view should match the print as closely as the technology you embrace allows, simple as that.
What most people want CMM to be that it isn't is to be able to set the monitor to calibration X and profile it.
There is a big difference between calibration and profiling.
Then when given a good monitor profile and printer profile, they want the CMM engine to take RGB values R1, G1, B1 that look like X on the monitor and translate it to (simpifying) C1, Y1, M1, K1 that looks like X.
And if they follow the article and use the proper tools, that's what they see (Soft proof view should match the print as closely as the technology you embrace allows). There is calibration and there is profiling and one doesn't happen until the first is accounted for.
But, of course, a print can never look like the monitor due to the limitations of the ink and paper medium to translate to the higher standard of a monitor.
Nor could a Polaroid and a piece of transparency film. But the closer you get, the more predictable the final process becomes. A display and a print can look pretty darn close. Such that what you see and accept on the display is what you get and accept on the print. That's all color management is (number management). The Polaroid and the film were analog processes, the match or mismatch was what it was. We don't suffer those limitations thanks to digital color management even if the final results are not prefect. They are almost always better, closer to a match with color management than without!
-
No, that's another kludge!
Soft proof view should match the print as closely as the technology you embrace allows, simple as that.
There is a big difference between calibration and profiling.
And if they follow the article and use the proper tools, that's what they see (Soft proof view should match the print as closely as the technology you embrace allows). There is calibration and there is profiling and one doesn't happen until the first is accounted for.
Nor could a Polaroid and a piece of transparency film. But the closer you get, the more predictable the final process becomes. A display and a print can look pretty darn close. Such that what you see and accept on the display is what you get and accept on the print. That's all color management is (number management). The Polaroid and the film were analog processes, the match or mismatch was what it was. We don't suffer those limitations thanks to digital color management even if the final results are not prefect. They are almost always better, closer to a match with color management than without!
I final and important question.
I just profiled my display. The print viewing light was around 112. I set it to a D55 white point and profiled it. Then I made a Print of the PrinterEvaluationImage_V002_ProPhoto.tif file using Epson Hot Press Bright on the Epson R2400. Looking at the monitor and the print, there is a pretty good match. Brightest areas and darkest areas on the monitor are not quite as bright and dark, and the reds in the strawberrys aren't quite as deep as the monitor, but overall, I'm extremely satisfied.
Problem is that when I turn soft proofing on selecting the "Simulate Paper Color" the colors get muted and the light and dark areas of the monitor come down well under what the actual print looks like. Basically, I get a better match in normal space than with soft proofing on. Is that normal?
-
Problem is that when I turn soft proofing on selecting the "Simulate Paper Color" the colors get muted and the light and dark areas of the monitor come down well under what the actual print looks like. Basically, I get a better match in normal space than with soft proofing on. Is that normal?
That is normal and it should better match the print.
Got control over contrast ratio? If not, the profile has to do a lot more heavy lifting and hopefully well. Either way, if you have a device with perhaps a 1200:1 contrast ratio and you want to view a print simulation that is 300:1 contrast ratio, something is going to look different when you toggle the two previews.
-
That is normal and it should better match the print.
Got control over contrast ratio? If not, the profile has to do a lot more heavy lifting and hopefully well. Either way, if you have a device with perhaps a 1200:1 contrast ratio and you want to view a print simulation that is 300:1 contrast ratio, something is going to look different when you toggle the two previews.
Thanks Dog!
BTW, for an amateur like me, who doesn't get to sit and do this on a consistent basis, some times that the print is dark, it really is the RGB values in the image. The best thing I usually do is to throw up some sort of reference image (monitor calibration or printer test image) next to my image. It is amazing in that what looked like a great image is really darker than first thought. When I do this, there is usually a WB tweak, overall brightness and even a shadow contrast change in the cards. I find the darkest areas of the image tend to loose their contrast and merge closer in tone to each other.
-
Thanks Dog!
BTW, for an amateur like me, who doesn't get to sit and do this on a consistent basis, some times that the print is dark, it really is the RGB values in the image. The best thing I usually do is to throw up some sort of reference image (monitor calibration or printer test image) next to my image. It is amazing in that what looked like a great image is really darker than first thought. When I do this, there is usually a WB tweak, overall brightness and even a shadow contrast change in the cards. I find the darkest areas of the image tend to loose their contrast and merge closer in tone to each other.
I've experienced the same more than I want to admit. I can't tell you how many images I've had to re-edit because I unintentionally made them too dark due to the amount of time I've spent tone mapping a dim, dark and flat looking Raw viewed on a transmissive display causing my eyes to adapt to seeing shadows and contrast as too flat and foggy.
Here's an example I demonstrated in a thread I started about how to gauge the actual density of black from what was seen in the original scene to how it should look viewed on a transmissive display...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=89689.msg731263#msg731263