Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: mg73 on April 06, 2022, 10:43:05 am
-
So I've had my NEC PA 301W monitor for 10-15 yrs. I've calibrated it for years with the xrite Spectra Sensor Pro and Spectraview II that came with the monitor. I print on 5 yr old Canon IPF 8400. I use Photoshop CC to process. I used a Canon for years but now shoot with a Fujifilfm 100S with Fuji GFX lenses. I'm not a pro so I don't use the monitor 24/7 but I have used it a lot over the years. Not sure how many hours or if there is a way to check the hours on the monitor. I'd say I'm somewhere around an advanced amateur level of photographer. I've been calibrating monthly over the past 6 months using the following settings in a moderately darkened room: White point: D50, Gama 2.2, Intensity 90 cd/m2, Contrast 200:1, Color gamut Native.
I process in photoshop till I get what I like on screen. Use factory profiles for printing. My problem is that now the print is always significantly overall darker than what is on the monitor. I usually have to go back and use curves to lighten up what I'm seeing on the monitor to where it's almost too bright on the monitor in order to get the print to come out at a reasonable brightness. The darkness with the first print is most notable in the darker areas of the picture where color and detail are being lost, but it is also darker overall than what is on the monitor. I've noticed this problem for years but it seems it's getting worse.
So I'm not sure if I have the calibration settings wrong? Or is my monitor and/or xrite sensor getting too old to reproduce brightness accurately? Any thoughts or suggestions?
-
To tackle these problems it is good to have a reference file - that you know from the past - printed fine.
There are some reference files out there, you could print one and see if these are too dark too.
if these print are fine you have to adjust your monitor. If these print too dark also- something is wrong with the printer, or more like likely the printing software between the computer and printer.
It could also be something you have done wrong using the printer software...wrong profile etc etc...
-
My problem is that now the print is always significantly overall darker than what is on the monitor.
Then calibrate the display for a visual match:
Why are my prints too dark?
Why doesn’t my display match my prints?
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
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4
-
Try Lightroom. Aren't you paying for it in CC anyway? It has soft proofing to use when printing.
Also, lower the brightness - see quote below and link. By lowering the CD, you will brighten the picture during editing so it won't come out as dark.
"The acceptable range is 80 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2, with 100 cd/m2 being the most commonly recommended brightness for pre-press work. The brightness of the monitor is driven to a large degree by the brightness of the working environment. The brighter the working environment, the brighter the monitor will need to be."
https://www.dpbestflow.org/color/monitor-calibration-and-profiling#:~:text=The%20acceptable%20range%20is%2080,monitor%20will%20need%20to%20be.
-
Try Lightroom. Aren't you paying for it in CC anyway? It has soft proofing to use when printing.
So does the product he's using and asking about! :o
Do you have Lightroom Classic and Photoshop CC Alan, like the OP clearly stated in his first post here?
"The acceptable range is 80 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2, with 100 cd/m2 being the most commonly recommended brightness for pre-press work.".
Where did he say he's going prepress Alan? Are you doing prepress?
I drive my display at 150 Cd/m2. IF I followed your 'recommendation' my display would be far too dim for my print viewing conditions.
"The brighter the working environment, the brighter the monitor will need to be."
Seems you missed that.
"The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management is that those who have it are so eager to regularly share it!” - The Digital Dog
-
And he's off on another pi$$ing contest...
-
And he's off for another pi$$ing contest...
Ah, the carpet pooper is back:
You've got to love the behaviour of someone who about once a month walks into the room, takes a dump on the carpet and departs, never to be seen again until next month.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1222178#msg1222178
See you in a month Frans? Give yourself time to come up with more excuses for your inability to take a photograph (at least Alan makes the attempt; what's your excuse today?). And post off-topic as you just did here.
-
Yes, I was right: another pi$$ing contest.
-
Yes, I was right: another pi$$ing contest.
Without stupidity and massive misunderstandings and confusions, we would have no one to laugh at (but Frans). Thank you for your contribution to the forums today.
“It’s so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don’t say it.”- Anonymous.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/AllDoubtsRemoved.jpg)
-
Sorry I tipped my toe back in the water. What a waste this forum has become.
-
Sorry I tipped my toe back in the water.
Maybe read the questions first, study the topic then dip your toe into the water.
All I did was point out what you missed and asked you to explain yourself; I fully understand you (and certainly Frans) cannot go there :'(.
"For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" -H. L. Mencken
What a waste this forum has become.
You are free to leave at any time sir.
-
And more of the same.
-
And more of the same.
Gotta get your last carpet poop laid before wondering what photography is all about Frans; understood.
And like photography, this topic you've hijacked is past your understanding and experience.
-
And more...
-
Geeze Louise, 150 cd/m^2 is right when soft proofing, w/o show paper white, under 500 Lux lighting which is what the ICC assumes prints will be viewed under.
That said, many people use lower illumination levels like 300 Lux, and those people will get the best match with 80-100 cd/m^2. So that's right for that viewing environment.
The reason is that perfectly white paper (which doesn't exist as even really good "white" paper only reflects 80-90% of the light hitting it) reflects the Lux level perpendicular to it at the equivalent of Lux/Pi cd/m^2.
-
Geeze Louise, 150 cd/m^2 is right when soft proofing, w/o show paper white, under 500 Lux lighting which is what the ICC assumes prints will be viewed under.
I'm uncertain what ICC assumes. I'm not a big fan of assumptions anyway. ;D
And of course, paper white simulation is more than about, Cd/m2; it's about the color too. Kind of important.
My print viewing conditions are fixed as defined for a GTI booth at a fixed level I can set. For primarily one print paper I use.
The OP is at 90 Cd/m2 and reports the display is too bright (prints are darker, no definition of viewing conditions), seems the solution is an adjustment to Cd/m2 OR print viewing conditions which is a possibility.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg)
-
I'm uncertain what ICC assumes. I'm not a big fan of assumptions anyway. ;D
And of course, paper white simulation is more than about, Cd/m2; it's about the color too. Kind of important.
My print viewing conditions are fixed as defined for a GTI booth at a fixed level I can set. For primarily one print paper I use.
The OP is at 90 Cd/m2 and reports the display is too bright (prints are darker, no definition of viewing conditions), seems the solution is an adjustment to Cd/m2 OR print viewing conditions which is a possibility.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg)
ICC viewing environment:
https://www.color.org/icc1-v41.pdf
1931 CIE standard colorimetric observer, and 0o/45o or 45o/0o reflectance measurement geometry. The
reference viewing condition shall be ISO 3664 viewing condition P2 using the recommended 20% surround reflectance. This is a graphics arts and photography print comparison environment using a D50 illuminant at an illumination level of 500 lux.
-
I am aware of the ICC doc; how is that an assumption?
-
I am aware of the ICC doc; how is that an assumption?
It's just a description of the viewing environment ICC profiles were designed for. D50, 500 Lux. To get a monitor to match side by side, you need about 150 cd/m^2 when using soft proofing w/o view paper white. When using "view paper white" you need need about 180 cd/m^2 so that the drop off after selecting view paper white gets you down to the actual, lower, reflectance of real life papers.
I tend to like "view paper white" when soft proofing. Mostly because it doesn't require changing monitor settings with difference paper's white points. That said, the "make my print look ugly" effect is pretty real and distracting w/o taking precautions as you have noted.
-
Geeze Louise, 150 cd/m^2 is right when soft proofing, w/o show paper white, under 500 Lux lighting which is what the ICC assumes prints will be viewed under.
I am aware of the ICC doc; how is that an assumption?
It's just a description of the viewing environment ICC profiles were designed for. D50, 500 Lux.
Again, I'm aware of this recommendation but I'm totally lost about the bit about an assumption. If I'm a bit confused by your suggestions, what about the OP and do you have something to suggest for his issue: prints appear darker than his display?
Let me make it perfectly clear I am not suggesting any Cd/m2 settings (mine or otherwise) for the OP or anyone else; that's folly to do and can only be provided based on assumptions.
IF someone clearly defines they are using the same NEC PA as I do, the same software and colorimeter and viewing conditions, and the same paper I use, I could provide a recommendation as a starting point. We are not there.
-
...I'm totally lost about the bit about an assumption. If I'm a bit confused by your suggestions...
I think that you and Doug are on the same general page, but just inadvertently talking past each other. I think Doug's post was counterpoint to Alan's comment that "The acceptable range is 80 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2".
-
I think that you and Doug are on the same general page, but just inadvertently talking past each other. I think Doug's post was counterpoint to Alan's comment that "The acceptable range is 80 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2".
All of us should ignore anything Alan recommends. He's lost in (color) space. 😂
-
Again, I'm aware of this recommendation but I'm totally lost about the bit about an assumption. If I'm a bit confused by your suggestions, what about the OP and do you have something to suggest for his issue: prints appear darker than his display?
Let me make it perfectly clear I am not suggesting any Cd/m2 settings (mine or otherwise) for the OP or anyone else; that's folly to do and can only be provided based on assumptions.
IF someone clearly defines they are using the same NEC PA as I do, the same software and colorimeter and viewing conditions, and the same paper I use, I could provide a recommendation as a starting point. We are not there.
About the only thing I "assumed" is that the OP was viewing prints under 300 Lux. That may well not be correct. The first way to check is compare how bright an unprinted paper appears compared to the monitor with a screen filled with "white" when adjacent. If the paper is significantly darker one would expect prints to also appear darker. If not there may be some problem with either the profile being used to print or the one controlling the monitor. Usually it's because the prints are viewed with lower lighting levels than correct for the monitor's cd/m^2 setting. May well be he's viewing the prints with 150 Lux or even less. That's going to make the prints look too dark even if properly printed.
To get matches to match you need to control all aspects including viewing light, monitor's white point and tint to match, and the printer/paper profile being used. All too frequently the viewing light levels are not controlled to match the screen.
-
About the only thing I "assumed" is that the OP was viewing prints under 300 Lux.
News to me.
The first way to check is compare how bright an unprinted paper appears compared to the monitor with a screen filled with "white" when adjacent. If the paper is significantly darker one would expect prints to also appear darker.
No assumptions necessary here: he told us there is a brightness mismatch.
To get matches to match you need to control all aspects including viewing light, monitor's white point and tint to match, and the printer/paper profile being used.
Absolutely and I provided a video that covers this.
-
Our hard working volunteer moderator left out of frustration such as:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=137306.msg1205403#msg1205403
He's active on Photo PXL where far less moderation is necessary.
-
Our hard working volunteer moderator left...
That's OK by me. I hope that he's well and happy and stays where he landed.
-
That's OK by me. I hope that he's well and happy and stays where he landed.
OK by me too.
Based on a private conversation, he ain't showing up here again.
-
I see that, in my absence, there are plenty of contenders vying to take over my role as the Jerk-In-Chief ;D
-
Welcome back. Nice to see you again.
I guess we'll all just have to live with each other's idiosyncrasies and attitudes — just like in real life.
-
I see that, in my absence, there are plenty of contenders vying to take over my role as the Jerk-In-Chief ;D
I guess I have to disappoint you, but the title of Jerk-In-Chief has been awarded for eternity to, drumroll please, digitaldog.
-
I guess I have to disappoint you, but the title of Jerk-In-Chief has been awarded for eternity to, drumroll please, digitaldog.
No disappointment nor anything new in your posting agenda: once again, you've proven the fact your presence here in these photography forums, as one without any ability to apply photography or comment on the topic (Prints too dark) is well summed up by Mr. Marx
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot". -Groucho Marx
Wouldn't your ”valuable” time be more constructively spent on a new hobby; perhaps photography?
-
Let me spell it out for you, Andrew: there is no longer a need to defend and/or prove your ability as the Jerk-In-Chief; this distinguished title is for eternity.
-
Let me spell it out for you....
That's a task that is far over your head Frans. Much like making a snapshot, let alone creating a photograph!
"It's very hard not to be condescending when you're explaining something to an idiot."-Bill Maher
With tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of websites with forums on so many topics, how is it Frans has decided to come here, take a dump on our carpet so often when it's clear he has zero talent or an ability to take a photograph? All while his audience nearly unanimously rejects virtually everything he posts?
I sometimes don't agree with Slobodan but there is no question (and proof of concept) he is a very good photographer.
I almost never agree with the fiction Alan posts on the topic of technology, but he's at least able to show us, he can take a picture.
With Frans, one has to wonder if anyone he encounters takes him seriously let alone respects him. Here and on PhotoNet (another photo website he frequently dumps his bowel movements), not the case. This distinguished fact is for eternity....
-
i think you two also have some calibration issues...
please go back to the subject od this post...
"It's very hard not to be condescending when you're explaining something to an idiot."- says one idiot to the other
-
...please go back to the subject od this post...
It's an excellent suggestion. Although, given that the person who started the topic did not respond to the first two replies, both of which offered assistance, perhaps they should just lock the thread. If the topic starter is not responding to the helpful posts and all we have are wrestling matches, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to keep it open.
-
please go back to the subject od this post...
Indeed, as seen in posts #2 and #3. Then confusion started in #4 and was hijacked by Frans in post #6.
-
The lack of clean hands by most participants here is readily apparent. I'm washing my dirty hands right now and moving on. Best wishes to you all.
-
I see that, in my absence, there are plenty of contenders vying to take over my role as the Jerk-In-Chief ;D
Since it's still open... one last thing. I've had plenty of heated public debates with Slobodan, and privately some nice exchanges.
I let him know privately, several months ago, that I respect his intelligence and enjoy his wit. I just thought that I'd take this opportunity to embarrass him by stating it publicly. ;)
-
Indeed, as seen in posts #2 and #3. Then confusion started in #4 and was hijacked by Frans in post #6.
Correction: personal attack by you in post #5; I called you out on that in post #6 and I will continue to do so whenever I see you do it.
-
Correction:
That's a task that is far over your head Frans. Much like making a snapshot, let alone creating a photograph!
"It's very hard not to be condescending when you're explaining something to an idiot."-Bill Maher
With tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of websites with forums on so many topics, how is it Frans has decided to come here, take a dump on our carpet so often when it's clear he has zero talent or an ability to take a photograph? All while his audience nearly unanimously rejects virtually everything he posts?
I sometimes don't agree with Slobodan but there is no question (and proof of concept) he is a very good photographer.
I almost never agree with the fiction Alan posts on the topic of technology, but he's at least able to show us, he can take a picture.
With Frans, one has to wonder if anyone he encounters takes him seriously let alone respects him. Here and on PhotoNet (another photo website he frequently dumps his bowel movements), not the case. This distinguished fact is for eternity....
-
And yet another, repeated personal attack.
The only thing worse than a major hypocrite is a hypocrite who can't take a snapshot posting in forums about photography!
In just this one topic, one in which Frans hasn't ever discussed (due likely to ignorance and inexperience), Calibration issue with NEC PA301W. Prints too dark..., hijacking and yes, personally attacking, and soiling our forum carpet (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1222178#msg1222178) again.
And he's off on another pi$$ing contest...
Yes, I was right: another pi$$ing contest.
I guess I have to disappoint you, but the title of Jerk-In-Chief has been awarded for eternity to, drumroll please, digitaldog.
Let me spell it out for you, Andrew: there is no longer a need to defend and/or prove your ability as the Jerk-In-Chief; this distinguished title is for eternity.
"On the internet you can be anything you want*. It’s strange that so many people** choose to be stupid".- Anonymous
* Even a photographer!
** Specifically here, Frans!
-
Oh, I get it Andrew: I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything about photography (where's your proof of concept?) and so are some others here (like Alan). You on the other end are the cat's meow and can insult others at will and don't we dare call you out on it. Get a life!
-
Oh, I get it Andrew: I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything about photography....
Not limited to photography. :D No you don't get it.
Keep telling yourself your big lie:
"I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggone It, People Like Me!" -Stuart Smalley aka Frans Waterlander
As to so many of your posting issues, I seriously doubt anyone here will disagree with this analysis of your childhood behavior:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Fav3iPTE0
Since you cannot and will not post on the topic, please allow the rest of us to do so; move on, get a life, try a hobby like.... never mind.
-
And the hate spewing continues...
-
Well, that was an impressive show. Of what, I haven't quite decided, but impressive nevertheless.
-
Did you examine the metadata (for Copyright)?
No, I didn't. I had already seen enough of this ham-handedly woven veil and pretext.
-
.
-
Might I suggest the extra-large size popcorn sir? It may or may not be entertaining, but the show will be long.
-
Wow, that's a pretty loaded accusation mostly based on a lot of assumptions.
Look who is talking!
-
Look who is talking!
Indeed, the carpet craper (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1222178#msg1222178) who can't manage to load a photograph he's taken for us to view.
In addition, a poster who hasn't a clue nor can post anything on this topic: Calibration issue with NEC PA301W. Prints too dark...
-
Indeed, the carpet craper (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1222178#msg1222178) who can't manage to load a photograph he's taken for us to view.
In addition, a poster who hasn't a clue nor can post anything on this topic: Calibration issue with NEC PA301W. Prints too dark...
Assumption #1: I can't manage to load an image
Assumption #2: I have no clue nor can I post anything on this topic.
And you accuse others of making assumptions?
-
💩Assumption #1: I can't manage to load an image
💩Assumption #2: I have no clue nor can I post anything on this topic.
💩And you accuse others of making assumptions?
1&2, zero proof of concept. Zero. And you can't. You are simply incapable!
Best summed up again:
With tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of websites with forums on so many topics, how is it Frans has decided to come here, take a 💩dump on our carpet so often when it's clear he has zero talent or an ability to take a photograph? All while his audience nearly unanimously rejects virtually everything he posts?
I sometimes don't agree with Slobodan but there is no question (and proof of concept) he is a very good photographer.
I almost never agree with the fiction Alan posts on the topic of technology, but he's at least able to show us, he can take a picture.
With Frans, one has to wonder if anyone he encounters takes him seriously let alone respects him. Here and on PhotoNet (another photo website he frequently dumps his 💩 bowel movements), not the case. This distinguished fact is for eternity....
It would be such a stretch IF you could understand the fact that your readers here can't and never take you seriously.
This sums up your posting agenda and problems to a tee Frans: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Fav3iPTE0
-
uff my monitor is way to bright... i can read everything!
-
uff my monitor is way to bright... i can read everything!
Just change the font to Symbol 😝
-
uff my monitor is way to bright... i can read everything!
A monitor that's way too bright may be a strain on the eyes. Reading everything is a strain on the brain.
You can choose to read everything. I don't and wouldn't recommend it to others.
-
.
-
You're right, of course. [⬆︎about beating a dead horse⬆︎] I can't deny it.
Then again, that horse decided to kick me once too often. So, there is that as an excuse... poor as it may be.
But... you're right.
* Just between us... that horse wasn't really a horse. It was actually a jackass disguised as a horse.
(https://mediacloud.theweek.com/image/private/s--lQsn0o7z--/f_auto,t_single-media-image-mobile@1/v1608225534/26216_cartoon_main.jpg)