Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: JimAscher on August 19, 2015, 02:36:29 pm
-
I suspect this is a problem for which there is no solution. Long ago I was able to fairly satisfactorily match the “tonality” of my monitor images to my prints. However, because of the very nature/difference between a rear-projected monitor image and my (preferred) matt printing, I have never been able to match in my printing the particular “luminosity” of the monitor’s image. This is especially (obviously?) the case when there’s any water in my images, i.e., seaside photos. I have therefore come to the (very reluctant) conclusion that I’m not going to be able to effectively print photos involving luminous “seascapes,” and this is especially troubling as I reside, and principally photograph, in the area of Washington State bordering on the Pacific Ocean. Oh, well, maybe I should move to Arizona!
-
If you softproof with a correct profile and paper white simulated, what you see on the display should match what you get from the printer. However, what you see on the display may still not be what you want if you are looking to reproduce the high luminance and contrast of an inherently bright luminous scene with strong contrast. You will have to move off matte paper and use luster or gloss, which have much higher DMax and gamut.
-
there is also a difference between matte papers and their ability to shadow detail. what paper(s) are you using? Printer?
-
Jim,
What printer are you using?
-
I suspect this is a problem for which there is no solution.
Sure there is, it's proper display calibration, for each paper, based on the soft proof:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
You'll never get 100% match but you can get very close, depending on the display and it's calibration robustness.
-
Sure there is, it's proper display calibration, for each paper, based on the soft proof:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
You'll never get 100% match but you can get very close, depending on the display and it's calibration robustness.
That's part of what I said in Reply #1, but I don't think that's his problem. I think his problem is that he's trying to get more brilliance out of matte paper than it can deliver, no matter how well the display and the print cohere.
-
If you softproof with a correct profile and paper white simulated, what you see on the display should match what you get from the printer. However, what you see on the display may still not be what you want if you are looking to reproduce the high luminance and contrast of an inherently bright luminous scene with strong contrast. You will have to move off matte paper and use luster or gloss, which have much higher DMax and gamut.
I think what Mark says is spot-on.
-
That's part of what I said in Reply #1, but I don't think that's his problem. I think his problem is that he's trying to get more brilliance out of matte paper than it can deliver, no matter how well the display and the print cohere.
I tend to agree with Mark's assessment. I use Epson Hot Press Natural. I forgot to mention, by the way, that I'm a black-and-white photographer, and use three carbon pigment dilutions on my trusty Epson 1400 printer. (100%, 18% and 6%) Where "luminosity' is not an issue, I've been getting quite satisfactory prints matching, as I said earlier, the levels of "tonality" I see on the monitor.
-
Sure there is, it's proper display calibration, for each paper, based on the soft proof:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
You'll never get 100% match but you can get very close, depending on the display and it's calibration robustness.
I agree. I'd like to know what the monitor is and how it's calibrated, esp what brightness and white point and black point as discussed in that article. Brightness especially. I bet the monitor is too bright for matte soft-proofing. My experience is that this is (even) more critical for matte than gloss / baryta. It may be that Jim ultimately may not be able to get the look he wants on matte, but with proper monitor calibration and matching viewing conditions, he should be able to get a fairly close match.
There's also the question of whether he has an ICC profile to soft-proof his custom B&W setup.
-
Long ago I was able to fairly satisfactorily match the “tonality” of my monitor images to my prints.
Did you guys miss that part of the OP's point? Of course the Jim doesn't say what type of paper he printed on long ago. What changed? Switching to matte paper?
Seaside ocean scenes even in broad daylight present a challenge to digital captures because water tends to be sort of dark depending on whether a polarizing lens filter is used and/or the amount of shine versus shadow differentiation that exists at different shutter releases. Certain parts of the day can reduce the amount of discreet individual tones to look almost posterized especially shooting B&W.
This looks like an editing issue if you shoot color and convert to B&W in post. Individual edits using the HSL sliders to coax more individual tones so the seaside water can be lightened while maintaining contrast without looking flat may be needed.
Jim, could you post a sample image of the scene in question both the color and B&W version if that's how it was captured?
-
Did you guys miss that part of the OP's point? Of course the Jim doesn't say what type of paper he printed on long ago. What changed? Switching to matte paper?
I GUESS I STATED THE MATTER A BIT IMPRECISELY. WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WAS THAT "LONG AGO" I BECAME ABLE TO ACHIEVE MATCHING "TONALITY" WITH MY CURRENT MATTE PAPER, I.E., EPSON HOT PRESS NATURAL
...This looks like an editing issue if you shoot color and convert to B&W in post. Individual edits using the HSL sliders to coax more individual tones so the seaside water can be lightened while maintaining contrast without looking flat may be needed.
Jim, could you post a sample image of the scene in question both the color and B&W version if that's how it was captured?
I REGRET I DON'T KNOW HOW TO "POST" PHOTOS IN THIS FORUM, BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ON MY MONITOR I CAN GET EXACTLY THE "TONALITY" AND "LUMINOSITY" I WANT, BUT THE PHOTO ON THE MATTE PAPER MATCHES ONLY THE "TONALITY," NOT THE "LUMINOSITY." IF I BEGIN TO "COAX" TONES ON THE MONITOR, I (PRESUME) I'LL THEN BE CHANGING THE PHOTO'S APPEARANCE ON THE MONITOR. I GUESS, REALLY, IT'S THE CHOICE OF MY MATTE PAPER. IN THE WORDS OF BECKETT'S "GODOT" I GUESS: "NOTHING'S TO BE DONE!"
-
To clarify my last posting on several points:
First, I used capital letters solely to separate my text more clearly from that I quoted from Tim's previous posting. It was not my intention to appear to be "shouting!"
Second, while I believe I would have some difficulty attaching a sample photo or two, as Tim usefully (and graciously) requests -- as I have not yet learned how to do that in this forum, I would refer Tim (and anyone else interested) instead to my SmugMug web site. In the first Gallery there, of recent photos I took in England and France, there are a good number taken on the water, with significant luminosity. While these photos reproduce to my satisfaction in SmugMug, I have been unable to actually print them to my satisfaction, for reasons already stated.
My SmugMug site is: JimAscherPhotos@SmugMug.Com or https://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Third, it's actually not Godot who says in "Waiting For Godot" that "Nothing's to be done!" It's one of the two protagonists in that play who utters those words a number of times. Godot himself never appears.
Many thanks to all who have joined in to help me so far.
-
Jim,
This problem is really very simple: you are trying to mix oil and water and hoping to get a smooth savory sauce out of it. Won't happen. The DMax of monitors is higher than the DMax from matte papers (and a good many other papers). If you want to come close to the brilliance and richness of a monitor image you must use a quality luster or gloss paper. Try it for yourself using the correct profiles for each paper and you will come back to the first conclusion you were reaching in this thread.
-
Dear Jim,
Earlier this year I printed a set of portrait photos to be exhibited in a local theatre, quite large maybe 40" x 30" on Photo Rag. When I went down for the exhibition opening my first reaction was "wow, they've binned my prints and gone with lightboxes!!". They hadn't of course, they had just lit each print with a seperate stage light masked down to a rectangle Combined with the generally low light level in the room the effect was startling. I don't know what situation your prints are displayed in but if you have some control over the lighting that may be a way to cheat some of that luminosity back in.
William Chitham.
-
my first reaction was "wow, they've binned my prints and gone with lightboxes!!". They hadn't of course, they had just lit each print with a seperate stage light masked down to a rectangle
Absolutely. Canon's print display at NAB this year fooled me totally with their use of framing projectors to illuminate their 30" prints. On close inspection, I was surprised to see my shadow on the print. What I thought were back lit transparencies were in fact front lit prints.
From exposure to display, lighting is everything.
-
I had a somewhat similar experience. I have a painter friend who want to see every print on matte-he insisted, so I made him a few. (he was paying for them)
Result, not so good.
Jim, try Canson Baryata satin. I only print b/w. It has been accepted in any show I was in.
-
DMax of monitors is higher than the DMax from matte papers (and a good many other papers). If you want to come close to the brilliance and richness of a monitor image you must use a quality luster or gloss paper.
Or dim and adjust the screen to better match the paper. It can be done. Once you've done it, you may or may not like the result, but you should be able to get a match.
-
As I said before, I don't think his problem is the matching, it's the basic appearance of the print on matte paper relative to his vision of the scene luminescence.
-
A print cannot match the brightness of a modern monitor. A "properly calibrated" monitor would reduce that brightness if its purpose was to match a print, but that is not the purpose of modern monitors.
I personally toggle between my "printing" profile and my "Netflix" (OEM default) profile by right clicking on my Desktop and pulling up my Nvidia control panel.
For the B&W printing profile, I made it manually by matching the monitor to a test print, lighted as it would be in the display environment. I used a test print that included tough to match values as well as a 21-step test strip. The test print was printed with a recently made (via QTR's Create ICC-RGB) ICC, with the image file in Gray Gamma 2.2 workspace, which is what I edit in.
It works very well.
Let me add a few comments that go against the usual assumptions. For the most "pop" in shows where I'm competing side-by-side with bright color prints, my B&W dyes on metallic paper are very successful. They are the only B&W medium I've found that gives me a shot at outselling the color painters. However, sitting in my office next to me is one of those dye prints with a matte carbon print next to it. The matte carbon print is clearly better, has brighter whites and deeper blacks, with much more depth. How can this be? It's all about reflections and lighting. Which media will look better depends on the display and viewing circumstances. On the wall and under glass/acrylic in your real world viewing environment, use a spot meter to measure 100% black blocks. You might be surprised to see the matte dmax exceeds the glossy dmax. Reflections kill our dynamic range, and that's all we B&W guys have. With a glossy snapshot, we instinctively move it around to avoid the reflections. With a print on the wall, it's not so simple. Most of us do not have ideal gallery lighting in our home and offices.
My next move is going to be to test Tru Vue Museum glass (optically coated anti-reflective glass) with the carbon pigment, matte prints. In my gallery the pastel artists who have gone to this display style are doing very well with it.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Jim, try Canson Baryata satin. I only print b/w. It has been accepted in any show I was in.
Herb: In researching your recommended Canson Baryata Satin on the internet, it seems I wouldn't be able to employ my preferred carbon pigment inks with it. But thanks for the suggestion.
The responses here from everyone to my query (and dilemma) have been very much appreciated, with the end result being only for me to recognize the limitations of the materials I have chosen to work with, and hopefully be able to tweak them sufficiently to conform to an ultimately satisfactory output.
-
To clarify my last posting on several points:
First, I used capital letters solely to separate my text more clearly from that I quoted from Tim's previous posting. It was not my intention to appear to be "shouting!"
Second, while I believe I would have some difficulty attaching a sample photo or two, as Tim usefully (and graciously) requests -- as I have not yet learned how to do that in this forum, I would refer Tim (and anyone else interested) instead to my SmugMug web site. In the first Gallery there, of recent photos I took in England and France, there are a good number taken on the water, with significant luminosity. While these photos reproduce to my satisfaction in SmugMug, I have been unable to actually print them to my satisfaction, for reasons already stated.
My SmugMug site is: JimAscherPhotos@SmugMug.Com or https://jimascherphotos.smugmug.com/
Third, it's actually not Godot who says in "Waiting For Godot" that "Nothing's to be done!" It's one of the two protagonists in that play who utters those words a number of times. Godot himself never appears.
Many thanks to all who have joined in to help me so far.
Jim, it seems I'm the only one to have checked out your images so far, so my comments are restricted to these - which is where the problem lies, IMO. First, all are distinctly dark on my print-calibrated monitor, but there're other problems.
I'll take one for example - the Beach-Sky image which should be a quite luminous image. In checking the histogram, the luminance values are compressed in a very restricted range of 0-200, which is guaranteed to kill any sense of luminance. By simply going into Levels in PS and pulling the luminance input slider in to the 200 point does wonders. Of course you can do it more elegantly in curves. Before and after just the levels adjustment on the image below:
-
Pete beat me to it.
The entire dynamic range of your images has been compressed. I downloaded the "Boats and Fowl (1)" image and checked Photoshop's histogram and max black point is at 13RGB (sRGB space) and brightest highlight is 224RGB.
One thing that'll reduce the reflectance/luminance of matte white paper under any light is a dense layer of ink in the brightest portions of the image.
I have to constantly fight the tendency to maintain the look of overcast light editing my images too look dark and dim even on glossy paper. I edited your image to max out the DR and maintain tonality (modeling) to the brightest highlights in the water and the image still looks like it's overcast but just a brighter version. I also brought out more detail in the water fowl and boats.
At least I've found someone else with the same perception problem I have.
-
The DMax of monitors is higher than the DMax from matte papers (and a good many other papers). If you want to come close to the brilliance and richness of a monitor image you must use a quality luster or gloss paper.
OR calibrate to a fixed contrast ratio and soft proof.
-
And remember the eyes adapt to fixed contrast and brightness levels during long edits staring at a backlit display. Sort of like wearing sunglasses and seeing that as normal lighting and taking them off and experiencing snow blindness. Use the histogram.
I attempted to address the issue in this thread I started a while back...
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=89689.0
-
...By simply going into Levels in PS and pulling the luminance input slider in to the 200 point does wonders. Of course you can do it more elegantly in curves....
Pete (and Tim): I am now keen to have a go with the PS luminance input slider, to see if that'll make any useful difference for me. I think I'll try one from my French trip which I'd earlier wrestled with, achieving no satisfactory sea luminance result. (It's labeled "Chapel in Shade" on my SmugMug site.) One further query, however -- all my photos on my site have been converted to and worked on in black-and-white. Should I apply the luminance slider to the black-and-white, or should I go back to my initial RAW image?
Thanks again to all for the time you've taken on this matter.
-
OR calibrate to a fixed contrast ratio and soft proof.
Agreed. There are two separate but related questions here:
(i) Can he get a good screen to print match?
(ii) Will a matte paper give the look he wants?
The answer to the first question is yes, although print viewing conditions are an important factor. Also, it's easier with some monitors than others. No point saying that it can't be done to those who've done it.
The answer to the second question is less clear, and really only the OP can decide that. I agree that matte paper is better suited to some images than others.
But to suggest that matte is the wrong paper simply because there isn't a good screen to print match is to confuse the two issues.
-
Agreed. There are two separate but related questions here:
(i) Can he get a good screen to print match?
(ii) Will a matte paper give the look he wants?
The answer to the first question is yes, although print viewing conditions are an important factor. Also, it's easier with some monitors than others. No point saying that it can't be done to those who've done it.
The answer to the second question is less clear, and really only the OP can decide that. I agree that matte paper is better suited to some images than others.
But to suggest that matte is the wrong paper simply because there isn't a good screen to print match is to confuse the two issues.
Good way of putting the matter. They are completely separate issues and I think Jim is more concerned about the second.
-
Didn't read the whole post, sorry, and this may well have been covered: Equally important are the luminance value to which your monitor us calibrated, and conditions of viewing your print.
-
Pete (and Tim): I am now keen to have a go with the PS luminance input slider, to see if that'll make any useful difference for me. I think I'll try one from my French trip which I'd earlier wrestled with, achieving no satisfactory sea luminance result. (It's labeled "Chapel in Shade" on my SmugMug site.) One further query, however -- all my photos on my site have been converted to and worked on in black-and-white. Should I apply the luminance slider to the black-and-white, or should I go back to my initial RAW image?
Thanks again to all for the time you've taken on this matter.
Jim, to preserve maximum dynamic range I'd recommend going back to your RAW image (I use ACR/PS6) and begin by adjusting the exposure slider until the right end of the histogram approaches the clipping level, then play around with the white level, contrast, and highlight-taming slider to get the brights where you want them. Then adjust shadows for the detail you want. I usually adjust the black level down for a small amount of clipping, as weak blacks can kill color as well as B/W prints.
Since all your images appear dark on my printing-calibrated monitor, it's essential to get your monitor calibrated to a significantly lower luminance level down to where you get a pretty good match with your prints, which will be lighter and more luminous with a little more processing work.
Pete
-
Just make sure the display white luminance level matches the brightness of a blank piece of white paper you'll be printing on lit under the lights you'll being assessing screen to print matches.
If you're editing with PV2012 ACR/LR versions get to know how to override the highlight compression from both Exposure and Highlight sliders in how it flattens highlight detail. This post from a recent thread on retaining paper white texture in artwork...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=102284.msg839248#msg839248
...shows how to maintain tonality in highlight detail while somewhat maximizing luminance as in water and clouds. Note the cloud version on the left looks darker overall but with more modeling over the right version which looks brighter but flatter (very little highlight detail).
The two illustrate what you're experiencing with dark and dim prints. It's very difficult on low dynamic range prints to retain highlight detail as in the cloud on the left and still have the image appear bright. The slider behavior doesn't make things easier either but at least Adobe keeps making improvements. Point curve helps a lot as well.
-
While we're on this topic has anyone here come across inkjet paper that doesn't show a glossy shine on both ink and paper finish but prints with a very dense black similar to printing on glossy paper?
I don't have access to professional paper, just checking what others have found here.