Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: vartkes on August 22, 2016, 08:34:21 am
-
I am aware that this subject has been up in the forum many times and I reviewed the discussion threads for situations that may be similar to what I just started experiencing without results... I also read the recent, July 2016 article by Mark Segal about Adobe screwing up the print engine and the promise from Adobe to release a fix in August 2016. Adobe released "some bug fixes" in August 2016.
Problem is shadows are printing too dark compared to soft proof seen on the monitor in a darkened lighting environment. The outcome is the same printing from Ps or Lightroom using the same profile & rendering intent. Color management is by Ps or Lr, with Epson driver color management OFF.
Test chart prints e.g. from Digital Outback Photo, Bill Atkinson etc DON'T replicate the problem.
Here are the particulars:
Application environment: Windows 10 64bit, Photoshop CC2015.5.1 (latest release from August 2016 installed) or Lightroom CC2015.6.1. Ps and Lr color space set to ProPhoto RGB.
Monitor: NEC Multisync PA241W, calibrated to 80 cd/sq.m with XRite iProfiler i1Pro2
Printer: Epson 4900 with HDR inkset. Printer nozzle test chart print show no nozzle plug issues. Ink cartridges removed and gently shaken, one by one.
Paper: Ilford Gold Fibre Silk
ICC Profile: Ilford's profile from its website AND a custom profile I built using the XRite iProfiler within the last two days to see if the factory profile was no good. This profile printed shadows even darker than the factory profile from the SAME soft-proofed file.
The image in question is attached (of course after conversion to .jpg)
-
at the risk of showing my ignorance, have you tried letting the printer manage colors or going to Adobe color? Seems like I have seen this situation when I got fancy with color selection. 8)
-
Under what lighting conditions are you viewing the print? Those shadow areas will always be difficult to see on a print unless it is rather brightly lit.
-
I find the area with the trees at the top right is very dark and lacking in contrast so I wouldn't be surprised if it looked too dark in a print - even under good illumination. I would try a slight Shadow/Highlight adjustment (around 15% with 15% tone) or possibly a curves adjustment using a luminosity mask.
-
at the risk of showing my ignorance, have you tried letting the printer manage colors or going to Adobe color? Seems like I have seen this situation when I got fancy with color selection. 8)
No I have not let printer manage colurs for this image. I found doing that in the past resulted in false colors. However it is a good idea just to try on this image and see what the result is...
Vartkes
-
Under what lighting conditions are you viewing the print? Those shadow areas will always be difficult to see on a print unless it is rather brightly lit.
I am viewing the prints in a sunny room as well as in a calibrated light box. I agree that looking at the print as it comes out of the printer in a darkened room is not going to show the result in shadow areas.
Vartkes
-
I very frequently find the need to bump up the darkest part of my printed images so that some detail is retained all the way down. I know that my 3880 isn't linear at near-black so a bump such that 'black' reads approx 8 (prophoto RGB) in PS. Most often done w/ a curves layer in the softproof layer 'group' I make.
-
Problem is shadows are printing too dark compared to soft proof seen on the monitor in a darkened lighting environment.
Hi,
To make sure that the softproofing is set up as it should, have you tried printing one of the test page images (http://www.kel.cc/downloads/index.php?dir=Graphics%2Ftest+prints%2F&download=4800test.jpg) (or here (http://www.jirvana.com/printer_tests/PrinterEvaluationImage_V002.zip)) that have a guaranteed correct tonality? If they print well, then the softproofing is wrong, if they also print very dark shadows (which is less likely), then the profiling needs to be checked.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Is this print problem happening ONLY with the image in question? You indicate that test chart prints look fine... what about other images of your own. The reason I ask is that the example JPEG attached has no tagged colour space. Perhaps the tag was lost only in the creation of the example JPEG to post here, or perhaps it was lost earlier from your master file.
Obviously if you print a non-colour managed file in a colour managed workflow, you're not going to get a very desirable result. If all the other images you're printing are properly tagged but this one is not, that's likely the issue right there.
If your print master file is properly tagged, or if other properly tagged images also fail to print properly, then something else may be going on...
-
Is this print problem happening ONLY with the image in question? You indicate that test chart prints look fine... what about other images of your own. The reason I ask is that the example JPEG attached has no tagged colour space. Perhaps the tag was lost only in the creation of the example JPEG to post here, or perhaps it was lost earlier from your master file.
Obviously if you print a non-colour managed file in a colour managed workflow, you're not going to get a very desirable result. If all the other images you're printing are properly tagged but this one is not, that's likely the issue right there.
If your print master file is properly tagged, or if other properly tagged images also fail to print properly, then something else may be going on...
The Master file is ProPhotoRGB, 16bpc. My RAW files begin in Lr as ProPhotoRGB and move to Ps, preserving embedded tags etc, may go to/return to On1 or NIK plug-ins then to print.
All printers are unable to reproduce shadows as vividly as on a high-gamut, calibrated screen. However these shadow areas, after soft-proofing, are reading R,G,B values in the range of 40! I should see good shadow tonal and hue detail at those values.
Vartkes
-
Hi,
To make sure that the softproofing is set up as it should, have you tried printing one of the test page images (http://www.kel.cc/downloads/index.php?dir=Graphics%2Ftest+prints%2F&download=4800test.jpg) (or here (http://www.jirvana.com/printer_tests/PrinterEvaluationImage_V002.zip)) that have a guaranteed correct tonality? If they print well, then the softproofing is wrong, if they also print very dark shadows (which is less likely), then the profiling needs to be checked.
Cheers,
Bart
I printed couple of the test charts you reference successfully. The prints look perfect except of course a magenta tinge to the blue on the smooth transition in the 3rd vertical stripe, which is "pure" B.
Can you elaborate please what you mean, or how soft-proofing could go wrong? In Lr I use the softproofing interface inside Develop Module, utilize the ICC profile I intend to use and go forward with the adjustments I need to make. In Ps I place the image into View>Custom> selecting the ICC Profile of the target paper, selecting Black Point Comp and Simulate Paper Color. I use Perceptual or Relative Colorometric depending on the intent I am trying to adopt. Then I go forward with tonal adjustments typically using Luminosity Masks, saturations using Saturation Masks and Hue adjustments if need be using Color Balance or H/S Adjustment Layers. My Sharpening is the final step prior to go to print. I adopt this workflow fairly consistently for my prints.
Vartkes
-
Problem is shadows are printing too dark compared to soft proof seen on the monitor in a darkened lighting environment.
Fix your display calibration if possible (adjust the contrast ratio) IF the disconnect is the soft proof NOT document data or how it is output. If it's the output (and you need to separate this possibility from the preview and edit), it could be any number of factors. You say you output color reference files and they print too dark. Is that indeed the case no matter how and where you view them?
I'm not concerned yet that the soft proof and print don't match. I'm convened that the color reference images are indeed blocking up detail. That leads us to which end of the workflow is the issue.
-
Fix your display calibration if possible (adjust the contrast ratio) IF the disconnect is the soft proof NOT document data or how it is output. If it's the output (and you need to separate this possibility from the preview and edit), it could be any number of factors. You say you output color reference files and they print too dark. Is that indeed the case no matter how and where you view them?
I'm not concerned yet that the soft proof and print don't match. I'm convened that the color reference images are indeed blocking up detail. That leads us to which end of the workflow is the issue.
Thanks for replying Andrew.
The display is calibrated to 80 cd/sq.m. using i1Pro2 with NEC's SpectraView calibration app, which I have used now trouble free, for almost 10 years. I described my Soft-proof then print workflow from Lr and Ps above. Test chart prints are printing with GOOD tonal range and H/s except a tinge of magenta in the pure blue gradual dark to light strip.
I have been printing for years and I have not seen this phenomenon to this extent until this image. The soft proofed image is reading RGB values in the 40s in the shadow areas. Ilford has not changed its ICC profile as I see it for several years, based on the time-stamp of the download file. In any case I have been using the Ilford ICC for several years with much success. I am less satisfied with the profile I made with the iProfiler; the hues are dull and darker than the Ilford profile output.
Vartkes
-
The display is calibrated to 80 cd/sq.m. using i1Pro2 with NEC's SpectraView calibration app, which I have used now trouble free, for almost 10 years.
The values per se are meaningless. The only values we care about are the unique group that produces a match to the print next to the display. You should futz around with SpectraView's contrast ratio! That might be the key here. Control over black. IF (again if) the issue is the soft proof, not the output.
Is the issue the soft proof, the output or a bit of both?
-
I printed couple of the test charts you reference successfully. The prints look perfect except of course a magenta tinge to the blue on the smooth transition in the 3rd vertical stripe, which is "pure" B.
To me this seems to suggest that the printer side of things is not causing your issues.
Can you elaborate please what you mean, or how soft-proofing could go wrong? In Lr I use the softproofing interface inside Develop Module, utilize the ICC profile I intend to use and go forward with the adjustments I need to make.
Okay, not much else you can do in LR. Does the test chart on display look like the print, or is it just that the printed output shadows are not blocked up, unlike those in your problem image ?
It's strange that this particular file is causing you problems, while past images printed as expected.
I agree with Andrew, first check the display contrast. Your display setting of 80 cd/sq.m does not seem too bright, although it also depends on how dark the workplace is. The question now becomes how dark are the display blacks (e.g. 0.6 cd/sq.m), i.e. how it the display contrast? Most inkjet papers struggle to get much above 7 stops (deltaD=2.1) of Dmax-Dmin, so getting your display in that same range would get you in a comparable ballpark, assuming decent linearity of the output profile.
Then comes the comparison with output next to the display, which is always difficult due to the different media and workplace lighting conditions.
Cheers,
Bart
-
The values per se are meaningless. The only values we care about are the unique group that produces a match to the print next to the display. You should futz around with SpectraView's contrast ratio! That might be the key here. Control over black. IF (again if) the issue is the soft proof, not the output.
Is the issue the soft proof, the output or a bit of both?
The softproof on screen looks exactly how I would like to reproduce in print. It is the output that is much darker in the shadows than the softproof. It is important to note that while the shadows in print are dark with GOOD detail the mid-tone and light areas are close to the softproof. The issue seems to be confined to the darkness (compared to soft-proof on screen) of the shadows with good discernible detail, only in print.
I will go back to SpectraView where i can set the contrast ratio!
Vartkes
-
To me this seems to suggest that the printer side of things is not causing your issues.
Okay, not much else you can do in LR. Does the test chart on display look like the print, or is it just that the printed output shadows are not blocked up, unlike those in your problem image ?
It's strange that this particular file is causing you problems, while past images printed as expected.
I agree with Andrew, first check the display contrast. Your display setting of 80 cd/sq.m does not seem too bright, although it also depends on how dark the workplace is. The question now becomes how dark are the display blacks (e.g. 0.6 cd/sq.m), i.e. how it the display contrast? Most inkjet papers struggle to get much above 7 stops (deltaD=2.1) of Dmax-Dmin, so getting your display in that same range would get you in a comparable ballpark, assuming decent linearity of the output profile.
Then comes the comparison with output next to the display, which is always difficult due to the different media and workplace lighting conditions.
Cheers,
Bart
Hello Bart, yes I do have a daylight compensated viewing stand that i can haul out and set up next to my screen, in a darker environment. Maybe that is the next step and checking into the contrast ratio... Another thought is to go back to the RAW images ( the originals are three images shot for wider DR, then I used the HDR function in Lr) and develop from the HDR .dng file.
Vartkes
-
Another thought is to go back to the RAW images ( the originals are three images shot for wider DR, then I used the HDR function in Lr) and develop from the HDR .dng file.
No! Stick with the color reference images that are KNOWN to produce good output, then play with your own files after you fix the issue!
Here's one more such reference image:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
-
The softproof on screen looks exactly how I would like to reproduce in print. It is the output that is much darker in the shadows than the softproof.
Soft proof or output is wrong. Figure which is which. That's why you need to stick with output of color reference files, who's RGB values were not polluted by editing based on an iffy display calibration.
-
Soft proof or output is wrong. Figure which is which. That's why you need to stick with output of color reference files, who's RGB values were not polluted by editing based on an iffy display calibration.
I printed the test print image on the Ilford GFS paper using the Ilford factory ICC profile. The print looks good both in grey-scale, highlight detail in the fur of the wolf, skin tones are realistic; all good except the aforementioned magenta tinge in the blues. So the ICC profile is good enough, print of reference is good and this leaves the calibration of the monitor. I will go back there and see if I can fix the problem - contrast ratio.
thanks for all your suggestions.
Vartkes
-
Out of curiosity, what rendering intent are you using?
-
I downloaded your file, assigned it ProPhotoRGB and looked at the shadow areas. The histogram shows a lot of clipping on the left and a lot of the shadows are outside the gamut of my 9900 with Museo Silver Rag, which is my widest gamut paper, so I think they're probably also outside the gamut of the 4900 with Gold Fibre Silk. Looking around the rock and tree shadows, the absolute Lab luminosity values range from 2 to around 12, which is a very dark range for trying to delineate details on a print, even with our widest gamut papers.
My display is calibrated and profiled, and I can see the tree and rock shadows pretty well from ProPhotoRGB and also when soft proofing using Silver Rag relative colorimetric with black point compensation, but from my experience I think those details would probably look plugged if I printed them.
Maybe this image has a lot of shadow details that hit a spot where soft proofing shows the details on a backlit display that aren't really quite discernible on an actual print? My monitor is measured with an i1Pro Rev D. I've read somewhere that spectrophotometers like ours actually have more trouble measuring dark saturated monitor colors than cheaper colorimeters do. I wonder if we're seeing that effect with this image?
-
I downloaded your file, assigned it ProPhotoRGB and looked at the shadow areas.
Who's file and why did you assign any profile to it?
-
The original file attached to the very top of this post... "Sunset at Grand Lake I"
Assigned ProPhotoRGB since the file itself was untagged, but vartkes said he was using ProPhotoRGB.
-
The original file attached to the very top of this post... "Sunset at Grand Lake I"
Assigned ProPhotoRGB since the file itself was untagged, but vartkes said he was using ProPhotoRGB.
How do you know it's ProPhoto RGB to tag it as such? Is it possibly sRGB untagged? Doesn't matter, wrong file to be messing with to figure out what the issue is (soft proof, output or both). One of the Color Reference Files is where to start.
-
I downloaded your file, assigned it ProPhotoRGB and looked at the shadow areas. The histogram shows a lot of clipping on the left and a lot of the shadows are outside the gamut of my 9900 with Museo Silver Rag, which is my widest gamut paper, so I think they're probably also outside the gamut of the 4900 with Gold Fibre Silk. Looking around the rock and tree shadows, the absolute Lab luminosity values range from 2 to around 12, which is a very dark range for trying to delineate details on a print, even with our widest gamut papers.
My display is calibrated and profiled, and I can see the tree and rock shadows pretty well from ProPhotoRGB and also when soft proofing using Silver Rag relative colorimetric with black point compensation, but from my experience I think those details would probably look plugged if I printed them.
Maybe this image has a lot of shadow details that hit a spot where soft proofing shows the details on a backlit display that aren't really quite discernible on an actual print? My monitor is measured with an i1Pro Rev D. I've read somewhere that spectrophotometers like ours actually have more trouble measuring dark saturated monitor colors than cheaper colorimeters do. I wonder if we're seeing that effect with this image?
Hi, I am so grateful that people in the community are trying to help....
The file I posted was a .JPG conversion (into sRGB) from the original Master .PSD file (in ProPhotoRGB). It was NOT the soft-proofed version. So by definition going to a smaller color space the shadows would become even more blocked in. Incidentally the 9900 and the 4900 use the same inkset, print-head technology and will have the same gamut on the same paper.
The softproof-ed version has lots of detail and luminescence. The issue is that what I am printing is so far away (into the darker shadows) from the softproofed version, as if I did not softproof the image before print. The phenomenon is with the image file/monitor calibration rather than at the paper/ink/printer end. GFS has remarkably wide gamut for a paper and a admirable Dmax value. I have printed challenging images like this in the past with deep shadows and wide dynamic range on this printer/ink/paper combo successfully.
I have yet no idea what is going on. It is something insidious. I have proven that The printer/ink and the Ilford factory profile for Gold Fiber Silk is working well. The issue resides somewhere upstream. Quite frankly i am suspecting Adobe's latest Photoshop release. I can't be certain since I did not print anything prior to this release for 5 weeks. in the meantime there were updates to Windows 10. There again I am seeing the same behaviour when printing from Lightroom too which did not receive an update last week.
I have to fix this.
Vartkes
-
I printed the test print image on the Ilford GFS paper using the Ilford factory ICC profile. The print looks good both in grey-scale, highlight detail in the fur of the wolf, skin tones are realistic; all good except the aforementioned magenta tinge in the blues. So the ICC profile is good enough, print of reference is good and this leaves the calibration of the monitor. I will go back there and see if I can fix the problem - contrast ratio.
thanks for all your suggestions.
Vartkes
Hello Andrew, further to the calibration of the monitor, I have attached the information of current calibration from SpectraView. Do you see anything suspicious. The Contrast Ratio is the maximum available and NEC recommends the use of maximum contrast ratio available to the monitor for photo editing apps. I have for years used this setting. It can be set to much lower ratios.
-
Hello Andrew, further to the calibration of the monitor, I have attached the information of current calibration from SpectraView. Do you see anything suspicious. The Contrast Ratio is the maximum available and NEC recommends the use of maximum contrast ratio available to the monitor for photo editing apps. I have for years used this setting. It can be set to much lower ratios.
Hi,
That the display can reach as low as 0.13 cd/sq.m is a pleasant surprise to me, but IMHO it's too low if you want to mimic paper.
When you measure your output, you are most likely to get something in the range of 7 to 7.5 stops (128:1 to 181:1) of contrast (depending on the paper and ink). So if your (more accurately measured) top luminance is in the region of 80 cd/sq.m, then your bottom luminance would need to be closer to 0.625 to 0.44 cd/sq.m.
Now, as far as the black level measurement is accurate enough, your display contrast exceeds your output medium's contrast, so you will see more detail at all luminance levels on display, compared to printed output.
As a first attempt to achieve more predictable output, I'd get the black level up to something higher, 0.50-ish if you use different output media (otherwise take a measurement of the D-max - D-min).
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hello Andrew, further to the calibration of the monitor, I have attached the information of current calibration from SpectraView. Do you see anything suspicious.
No, because just about any value is fair game IF it produces a visual match. I suspect altering the contrast ratio from Max may help.
Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:
Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4)
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4 (https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4)
-
Hi,
That the display can reach as low as 0.13 cd/sq.m is a pleasant surprise to me, but IMHO it's too low if you want to mimic paper.
When you measure your output, you are most likely to get something in the range of 7 to 7.5 stops (128:1 to 181:1) of contrast (depending on the paper and ink). So if your (more accurately measured) top luminance is in the region of 80 cd/sq.m, then your bottom luminance would need to be closer to 0.625 to 0.44 cd/sq.m.
Now, as far as the black level measurement is accurate enough, your display contrast exceeds your output medium's contrast, so you will see more detail at all luminance levels on display, compared to printed output.
As a first attempt to achieve more predictable output, I'd get the black level up to something higher, 0.50-ish if you use different output media (otherwise take a measurement of the D-max - D-min).
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Bart,
I produced a print last night by brute force that is satisfactory; by pushing the softproofing process beyond what I normally need to and thus increasing the luminescence of the shadows to reveal good detail-in-the-shade. But I still donot get WYSIWYG with the softproof on the screen. I will try your suggestion of last through the calibration app and see the result. Andrew Rodney suggested that I reduce the contrast ration from 600+ it is now. I can do that on steps of 50 from 500 to 50 in the same app.
I did want to ask you one last favour; you obviously know alot more about color management than I do. I rarely meet such a person. Would you please point me to where I may be able to learn color management at a deeper level such that I could have deduced to increase the black point to the level you suggested by myself?
Thanks again
Vartkes
-
No, because just about any value is fair game IF it produces a visual match. I suspect altering the contrast ratio from Max may help.
Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:
Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4)
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4 (https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4)
Hello Andrew, thank you for staying in the discussion and providing much advice. I watched the video and now I know better how to deploy the use of the GTI viewer I have packed away. I will work with the contrast ratio, white point and backlight luminescence of the NEC PA241W I use, with Spectraview application. Thank you again.
Vartkes
-
Hello Andrew, thank you for staying in the discussion and providing much advice. I watched the video and now I know better how to deploy the use of the GTI viewer I have packed away.
Setting the backlight and white point for display calibration is trial and error. But I may be able to get you a bit closer to a starting point since I'm using a GTI SOFT-View with dimmer. For me, CCT 5150K was the right value, might work for you too. Or close to that starting point. I have a digital dimmer on this booth, set to 50, with a 150 cd/m^2 target in SpectraView. Both settings are used for my primary paper, Premium Luster. Your values may change especially based on the paper white. But maybe this can be a good starting point for you. Oh, contrast ratio is set to 300:1.
-
Hi Bart,
I produced a print last night by brute force that is satisfactory; by pushing the softproofing process beyond what I normally need to and thus increasing the luminescence of the shadows to reveal good detail-in-the-shade. But I still donot get WYSIWYG with the softproof on the screen. I will try your suggestion of last through the calibration app and see the result. Andrew Rodney suggested that I reduce the contrast ration from 600+ it is now. I can do that on steps of 50 from 500 to 50 in the same app.
I think Andrew is more familiar with the display you are using, and the calibration controls, than I am. If the contrast numbers are what I assume, and if you'd want to achieve a display contrast that's similar to the output medium (e.g. glossy inkjet paper), then you'd aim for something like 200:1 (delta-D=2.30). That does assume some linearity of the tone-curve in the shadows.
I did want to ask you one last favour; you obviously know alot more about color management than I do. I rarely meet such a person. Would you please point me to where I may be able to learn color management at a deeper level such that I could have deduced to increase the black point to the level you suggested by myself?
That's hard to say, I've just been around for quite a while, and Densitometry and Sensitometry was part of my early education to become a licensed Professional Photographer. Then I read a lot about these things, and experimented for myself. So it's basically a theoretical foundation with a lot of practical experience added.
I'd recommend getting a handle on Densitometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Densitometry)/Sensitometry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitometry) basics, Wikipedia is a start. Andrew wrote a book about Colormanagement for Photographers (https://www.amazon.com/Color-Management-Photographers-Techniques-Photoshop/dp/0240806492).
Cheers,
Bart
-
For what it's worth, I think it's possible that some manufacturer's ICC printer/paper profiles might be colour-accurate, but make the shadows relatively dark for "esthetic" reasons.
I haven't looked at this scientifically, so I'm not really sure ... but I did encounter a similar problem with an Epson media profile. I'm afraid that I took the "easy" way out, and built my own ICC profile for that media (I used a ColorMunki and Argyle CMS, which I think is a reasonably decent budget-minded approach to building your own ICC profiles).
In my own case (and remember that I took the lazy approach), I could match my profiled monitor quite closely if I was willing to bump the "shadow" slider in Camera Raw or the print proof in Lightroom a bit. I wasn't willing to do that, and I also wasn't willing to spend a ton of time debugging the whole situation, which is why I built my own ICC profile. I got a quite satisfactory delta-E using 480 patches, and the prints are very close to what I see on my calibrated NEC PA302W, so I left it at that.
I'd be interested to know what the real reason for my over-dark shadows was, but never did seriously try to find out. I don't know if my situation is like yours or not, but I thought I'd share my experience, in case its helpful.
-
For what it's worth, I think it's possible that some manufacturer's ICC printer/paper profiles might be colour-accurate, but make the shadows relatively dark for "esthetic" reasons.
I haven't looked at this scientifically, so I'm not really sure ... but I did encounter a similar problem with an Epson media profile. I'm afraid that I took the "easy" way out, and built my own ICC profile for that media (I used a ColorMunki and Argyle CMS, which I think is a reasonably decent budget-minded approach to building your own ICC profiles).
In my own case (and remember that I took the lazy approach), I could match my profiled monitor quite closely if I was willing to bump the "shadow" slider in Camera Raw or the print proof in Lightroom a bit. I wasn't willing to do that, and I also wasn't willing to spend a ton of time debugging the whole situation, which is why I built my own ICC profile. I got a quite satisfactory delta-E using 480 patches, and the prints are very close to what I see on my calibrated NEC PA302W, so I left it at that.
I'd be interested to know what the real reason for my over-dark shadows was, but never did seriously try to find out. I don't know if my situation is like yours or not, but I thought I'd share my experience, in case its helpful.
Hello John, My challenge was and to some degree still is very similar to your. Only the deep shadows printed too dark (compared to what I had softproofed image) while midtones and highlights were just right. The image has a very wide dynamic range, having been constructed from three explosures; +/-2EV and 0 EV.
I did two things that has helped but not completely resolved this dilemma.
First>> I printed a reference image with Ilford's factory profile for Gold Fibre Silk. I then calibrated my monitor, tweaking the parameters until I closely matched the print viewed in a GTI viewing booth dialled to ~50% brightness, next to the monitor which was displaying the reference image with soft proofing on, again with the Ilford ICC profile. The monitor calibration parameters that I settled on are close to what DigitalDog and Bert suggested, 150 cd/sq.m for intensity, 5500K for white point and 300:1 contrast ratio.
Second>> I decided to make my own profile using XRite i1Pro2 spectro and iProfiler software. I made two profiles; one with UV included and one with UV-cut. I then printed the same reference image with each of the ICC profiles I made and compared to the image printed by factory profile - all in bright daylight indoors - my target viewing environment. The two images printed by the two profiles I made look almost identical. Further, these two closely match the image using the factory profile! Also all three look great in bright daylight and in the GTI viewing booth. So what did I learn from these trials and where do I stand with my original problem?
>I partially solved my problem. I still need to lighten up the shadows in soft-proof more that what I want in the final image, in order to get what I want to see in the final image!
>The UV included or cut makes little difference with this paper.
>Ilford likely used the same hardware and software to produce their profiles.
> I am more convinced that Photoshop or Lightroom are printing with the given profiles fine. I am tempted to tweak the monitor calibration parameters, specifically the contrast ratio and intensity to see if I can bring the initial image softproof closer to what it prints.
-
Well, it would certainly seem that you are creating using ICC profiles in the way in which they were designed.
The whole science of profiling necessarily makes some assumptions about human vision, and the validity of colour space conversions. When you look at a monitor, your visual system is mapping the range of luminance values into a perceptual space. Thanks to adaptability, there's a rather wide range of luminance ranges that get mapped into more or less the same perceptual space. Profiling doesn't really take this into account, which is why you often hear people complaining about their prints being too dark, despite having calibrated their monitors. My own belief is that this perceptual mapping is susceptible to characterization (this is close to my personal research area), but the reality is that people settle on using a particular monitor maximum brightness that works for them and the intended viewing environment for their prints. You might find that lowering the whitepoint luminance on your monitor does the trick for you, or you might find that punching the shadows up by a certain amount in your soft proof does the trick for you.
Does ICC mapping work reliably over the entire range of what printers can produce, and monitors can display? In principle, sure, but there's no question but that the perception of directly illuminated additive colour (monitors) differs from that of subtractive colour vision (prints). I would be curious as to whether other people perceive the same monitor vs. print mapping that you do, of if your individual vision might be more sensitive to shadows areas on a monitor (we know that people differ in their ability to perceive dimly lit objects)?
I think that you are probably on the right track in thinking that adjusting your monitor profile to push shadow areas closer to black, is going to give you a better match between what you see on your monitor, and what your prints look like in their intended viewing environment.