Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: SeanPuckett on June 14, 2007, 05:38:30 pm
-
I got on the fone today with HP Canada and spoke to someone helpful, however we didn't get to the bottom of the issue. Here's a picture which shows what's going on.
Basically, I get bad colour if I choose "application managed colour" in the driver and try to have my RIP do colour management. It's consistent no matter what app I print with, no matter what ICC profile I use, no matter what paper is chosen. It prints too dark and too saturated. Gloss media isn't so bad -- in fact if you weren't printing portraits for picky clients you might miss the effect -- but uncoated matte media is where it really shows itself (I'm guessing because of the reduced gamut).
The tech suggested I try printing from the Mac to eliminate windows OS / windows driver problems, and I'll give that a stab tomorrow. But it's not a long-term solution, and he doesn't suggest that it is.
I really don't remember this being a problem on the old 4.x firmware/driversuite.
But there's no way to go back.
(http://photi.ca/photos/162936366-O-0.jpg)
I'm upset because this is eating into production time and material.
Shouting at the guy won't help, though.
-
Sean, I am trying to do some testing with this as most of the media settings seem to print too saturated with the lastest firmware.
My beta media settings that I used when testing with HP still print ok (reds are too magenta) so I am using these for nearly all my prints.
I must say that I am fast losing confidence in HP and I am not alone in this.
Robert
-
As posted here (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17490) I am also not very happy with the results I'm getting and slowly getting kind of upset on spending so much money on a printer which still is not able to deliver good results.
-
Currently the only "good" results I have seen are from 3100's driven by Wasatch and GMG rips and this is becuase these rip vendors chose to drive the z3100 in halftone mode which means that they contreol the colour mixing.
Currently most of the others, up till now, and the RGB driver rely on HP to do the colour mixing and the results speak for themselves.
-
I keep asking myself, "why do you pursue this if using the printer/driver to manage colour delivers acceptable results?" And I answer myself...
1) because it's only acceptable with prints that don't push the gamut too much. Thankfully, I can ship my wedding and portrait prints, and some of my B&W prints. But there's no way my high saturation stuff is acceptable -- it turns turtle at the gamut edge and the hues change terribly.
2) because, even if it was acceptable all of the time -- that's not the way it's supposed to work. Rendering Intent is a very important decision and not one to be left to the printer. Colour spaces are too important to be left to the printer/driver. I can't resign myself to an sRGB workflow; that's totally unacceptable.
I see some of the colours coming out of the machine with each test print and I fall in love with it all over again. The blues are almost electric, and the pinks of some of my floral prints fairly scream off the paper -- but they are the wrong blues and the wrong pinks, because the printer's rendering intent is inappropriate and the colour space is wrong. I want to print those colours when my artwork indicates, and at no other time!
I like the printer mechanism, although I can see myself creating some sort of roll-feed cover with velcro and some canvas. I got too much dust in my studio to have media sitting out. But man, these colour issues are driving me batty. I got lectures to prepare for, prints to finalize, software to write, business plans to attend to, and, uh, that photography thing .... and I'm spending my time running the same set of six prints over and over again to see "is this any better? how about now?"
When this is over, a comp roll or two of media and some ink would be nice. But I'll never get the time back.
-
Sean I know how you feel. I am few hundred hours down the line testing and I just don't want to waste more time, money, media and inks (about a set and a half all in all) testing until HP can prove to me that there is something worth testing and that is not happening.
Robert
-
Hp needs to either devote the needed resources into getting this printer going or just go back to the pie chart and graph printing buisness. It is such a shame. I can't help but think this machine has high potential as an Epson Killer. I am worried that the managment has moved their engineering resources onto their next product and orphaned this one. I've seen it before in other technologies. I most certainly hope I'm wrong.
The latest firmware release is so messed up it seems they just yacked it up without true regard for the outcome. "We kept our promise. Heres the new firmware, now go away and be happy already"
Wrong
-
I have had no problems with the z3100 or the new firmware.
I printed a few photos with saturated bold colors. MAYBE they looked slightly darker than what was on my monitor, but I have been slack and haven't calibrated my monitor in about 3 weeks. Prints were made on Kodak Rapid Dry Lustre. Previous prints made on Kodak Rapid Dry Glossy were spot on.
I recently printed some prints of paintings that have saturated bold primary colors. Red and other colors are dead on. These prints were made on Innova Cold Press Art.
I always use Application Managed Color.
Not saying the problem doesn't exist, I'm just not seeing it so far with images I'm printing.
-
This is really the sad part. The printer does really not performe as it should, but still there is nearly NO review out there, which really looks at the problems. Funny thing, it's really not that hard to see... Just print nearly any pircture with saturated red in it and compare it with an Epson. (Matt paper)
At that point I wasted so much money on media and ink, testing, that it really would have been cheaper buying an Epson and switching between Matt black and Photo black. At least on Epson both media deliver good results.
Now I know it sounds really bad, but one has to understand that after owning that printer for such a long time, with in the End nothing really happened from HP side, it's really getting frustrated.
AND YES the printer is cabable of producing better results, just look at some halftone RIPs. They are producing Epson killer results. Just don't feel like have to investing a tone of money to get something which really should be coming with a 7.000EUR printer...
-
Roscolo,
It has been suggested to me that certain paper types do not suffer from the colour issues of the new firmware. More specifically, if you created a custom paper with a particular paper definition that wasn't updated by the new firmware, then these colour issues won't afflict you.
So, what paper definition are you using for these papers that you say work just fine with the latest firmware and application managed colour? Because I'd like to try them myself.
-s
-
More samples, from HP Professional Satin
The most important thing to take away from these images is this: ICC profiles are intended to describe the output capabilities of a device and provide guidance on rendering reproducible colour on that device. Unfortunately, when using application managed colour with the latest firmware, ICC profiles do not produce reproducible colour, and in fact result in colour that is very bad, as the portrait shows. Note the subject's skin tone on the right side of the face in particular. The driver print is far better than the application managed print -- but see the floral print!
(http://seanmpuckett.smugmug.com/photos/163104893-O.jpg)
Relying on the printer to do it right is not an acceptable solution either, as the floral print shows. The driver print shows very bad out-of-gamut colour mapping, resulting in an unsalable image.
(http://seanmpuckett.smugmug.com/photos/163104909-O.jpg)
My expectation is that the prints on the left -- application managed -- should have the best colour, always comparable to if not superior to the prints on the right -- printer managed -- because that is what ICC profiles are supposed to accomplish.
The z3100's latest firmware is turning years of colour management experience into useless handwaving. When will I have a printer that I can use?
(All prints scanned using epson perfection 4990 with identical settings)
-
Sean, if your are using HP's profiling system , try switching to a system that is not based on Gretag Software.
The only media setting that I can get anywhere close to useable colour is my Beta Super Heavy Weight Coated Paper setting.
Robert
-
Further bafflement as to HP's choices.
Compare the sRGB colourspace against the output gamut of the z3100 on gloss/satin media as measured by third-party spectro. There are large areas of output colour produced by the inkset that are are outside of sRGB -- even outside of AdobeRGB. However, when using "driver managed" colour, you must map your image to either sRGB or AdobeRGB for the driver to properly understand your colours.
Thus, printer-managed colour denies you access to some of the most saturated colours the printer can mechanically produce. Particularly (and unsurprisingly to those who have read this forum for some time), deep reds, purples and cyan and light yellow/orange. So, if you want to know where your "reds" went, they got eaten by the driver during the enforced sRGB conversion.
This is why "application managed" colour, which handles colourspace translation from imagespace to inkspace in a true L*a*b* or XYZ environment, is the only truly acceptable colour management solution.
I am slow to anger, but my momentum is building.
Trying alternate profiling tools now, but I have little hope.
-
Sean
QImage is not a RIP, it's a helper app that uses the HP printer driver. We are using this setup and getting very good results.
Could you check the settings by accessing the driver properties from QImage?
Make sure that the Advanced>Graphic>Image Color management>ICM Method is set to ICM disabled.
This should allow QImage to handle color management properly, as long as the proper source and output profiles are set up in QImage, and the color tab setting for the printer is set for app managed color.
I was lucky enough to attend the Color Management Forum that GATF sponsors in 2005. One of the most common problems people were having was tracking down issues due to color management being applied multiple times in a workflow. It's the first thing I check when I have issues.
Regards,
Marc Sitkin
-
Make sure that the Advanced>Graphic>Image Color management>ICM Method is set to ICM disabled.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is correctly configured, and has been during the life of these problems. I appreciate the double-check, though. I'd be thrilled if it was just a simple matter of an incorrect setting in some obscure property page.
-
I've just finished testing this with Photoshop on the Mac and the problem is the same. Indeed, the prints in both situations look the same as the ones from Windows/QImage. Even when using the HP Photosmart plug-in (which seems to me to be just a wrapper around some of the uglier parts of the Mac printing UI instead of a new output pipe, so no surprise).
-
Roscolo,
It has been suggested to me that certain paper types do not suffer from the colour issues of the new firmware. More specifically, if you created a custom paper with a particular paper definition that wasn't updated by the new firmware, then these colour issues won't afflict you.
So, what paper definition are you using for these papers that you say work just fine with the latest firmware and application managed colour? Because I'd like to try them myself.
-s
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=122953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I created custom paper and profiled for Kodak Rapid Dry Glossy (Photo Gloss Paper). I created custom paper and profiled for Kodak Rapid Dry Lustre (Photo Semi-Gloss/Satin Paper). I created custom paper and profiled for Innova Cold Press Art (Thick Fine Art Paper >250g/m2).
For the Kodak Papers - Gloss Enhancer On. On these papers I printed several nature images of colorful snakes for a client - colors, including some reddish-oranges in one of the snakes - were virtually a perfect match to my monitor. Photos were perfect.
On the Innova Cold Press I printed several paintings featuring bold colors - including reds, blues, puples - and these were spot on perfect as well and looked at least as good as the exact same files that were previously printed on an Epson before I scrapped it for the z3100.
I used Application Managed Color and the appropriate custom profile for each paper, although on one of the snake photos I used Printer Managed color and the result was still a match.
Maybe someone should upload one of the problem files and we should all print the same file and see if we all get the same result. I am willing to do this and I'm sure others are as well if it helps get to the source of the problem. Could be the problem could exist on my machine and it has just not made itself obvious in the images I am printing.
BTW, I'm not using QImage. I'm not using a RIP. Just printing from Photoshop CS2.
-
I'm a little lost on this one.
Maybe everyone is a little lost with all the firmware updates. Untold amounts of test chart printing filled many cubic volumes with media and ink went by on all these firmware updates.
I did not see anything drastic though .
I received a shipping version of the 44" non PS this week. I set it up, hopefully stripped out all the beta software, and updated from the install DVD. No problems with the firmware update, nor software, nor utility updates. Mac PC both went fine.
I profiled ID Gloss, and Satin with APS. The output was spot on compared to the older printer with the same set ups (exception being it is a PS driver).
One thing I've always seen is a lighter print on the printer colour management. It's not stated in the docs but the printer colour managment is taking into account your source profile, and printing to LUT's not through ICC profiles. Even if you profile through the built in profiler, the ICC profiles are only used if you use Photoshop CM.
The profiles screen portion of the return of the Z printer profiles has not been that good, much better with APS or even better with external profiles.
If I had the same media as you do I could send you a profile and you could validate the proximity of colours. I can't see any other way. If it is a question of firmware it does seem odd if you are creating new profiles for the media set ups. If the LUT's correspond to old firmware, yet the new profiles are created on the new oms files then there would be one answer. The screen to print match if you use a decent monitor calibrator should be at least close . I have always found the prints to be better than a soft preview using the said profile , all in all matching the non screen preview in Photoshop well (except on matte of course due to the weaker black point).
Hope this helps, and hope you can find something to get a better match.
-
Maybe someone should upload one of the problem files and we should all print the same file and see if we all get the same result. I am willing to do this and I'm sure others are as well if it helps get to the source of the problem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123014\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd be happy to help and print some test images on my base Z3100. I can print from Qimage, CS2 or CS3. Unfortunately I don't have HP Pro Satin paper. I do have HP Instant-Dry Satin.
-
I've created a TIFF file in ProPhoto space with the above images and four other images I use to gauge soft proofs and colour accuracy. It's sized to fit on a 24" wide roll taking up 5 inches of space. 3.7MB Test File (http://nexi.com/test/testprints.tif)
Curious to see the results others get, especially in the skin tones.
Now, if someone would send me a RIP to test....
-
I've created a TIFF file in ProPhoto space with the above images and four other images I use to gauge soft proofs and colour accuracy. It's sized to fit on a 24" wide roll taking up 5 inches of space. 3.7MB Test File (http://nexi.com/test/testprints.tif)
Curious to see the results others get, especially in the skin tones.
Now, if someone would send me a RIP to test....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am about to leave today, but I will try to print some of these tonight or tomorrow (Sat.). I just received my free paper with the Rebate, so I have HP Matte Litho Realistic and HP Super Heavyweight Matte Plus, as well as some Kodak Rapid Dry Lustre.
-
I would have preferred a JPG as this tiff is pretty low res (100ppi).
There are a lot of out of gamut colours in the synthetic blues, and even the richness of the flowers isn't going to be had on a lot of printers.
Here is the soft preview of relative on from l 2 right, Durst Lambda, Canon iPf5000 on Glossy, Epson 9800 Premium Glossy Bill Atkinson profile, HP Z on ID Glossy.
comparison Lambda,Canon,Epson,HPZ (http://homepage.mac.com/neil_snape/.Public/SPLambda_Canon_EpsonK3_HPZ3100.jpg)
And yes I print a screen to print match within the gamut boundaries as expected.
-
Also for the question of a rip, here is a preview of ImagePrint V7 vs HP driver.
Please consider the IP color maps not to be fixed yet. The driver is shipping so it should be considered as such.
Oh I forgot this is Glossy on the driver and Satin in IP as I only have a profile for Satin.
HP driver vs ImagePrint v7 beta (http://homepage.mac.com/neil_snape/.Public/HPvsIP7.jpg)
-
Yet another view on this. Now I didn't have time to make a new cal or profile for Hahnemuhle PhotoRag 308 since this weeks arrival of the new Z, here are two views , soft proofing of relative with simulate BP and Paper White. It is a profile from Print Center, on Collector Canvas settings which no longer will be as good as >250 g/m2 fine art. This clearly shows where HP and Canon cannot and will not perform in the reds as well as Epson.
It also clearly demonstrates the superior Dmax on the HP. What you prefer is up to you. As I have said many times the HP profiles have a problem in the return portion of the rgb from Lab so the prints always look better in print than on screen. There are good things in both previews. In the flowers the Epson handles the mapping much better, but don't forget this is relative mapping from Kodak ProPhoto of a magenta with near clipping in there (some g numbers around 4) so a super saturated magenta is normal for all spaces with a smaller than the Prophoto gamut.
HPR 308 Epson vs HPZ (http://homepage.mac.com/neil_snape/.Public/HPR308_EpsonvsHPZ.jpg)
I also wanted to say this is the weaker side of the Z as I have said enough times already. On rag and relatively uncoated papers the HP pigments are not strong. It requires a more substantial coating to produce best results. It is not such a problem on HP Smooth or similar. The reds are acceptable, and the overall print quality on HP Smooth very much in line with any other printer.
-
Neil, your efforts are appreciated but do nothing to provide clarification of the problem.
Soft proofs do match not the prints. I can look at the portrait all day on my monitor in soft proof and see that it is neither too red nor too yellow nor too dark nor too blotchy nor too saturated, and yet when I go to print, it is all of these things when sent through application managed colour via an ICC profile made either by the printer, by Argyll or by ProfileMaker.
My monitor is calibrated.
I have checked for double profiling.
This worked just fine with the previous firmware.
-
Neil, your efforts are appreciated but do nothing to provide clarification of the problem.
Soft proofs do match not the prints. I can look at the portrait all day on my monitor in soft proof and see that it is neither too red nor too yellow nor too dark nor too blotchy nor too saturated, and yet when I go to print, it is all of these things when sent through application managed colour via an ICC profile made either by the printer, by Argyll or by ProfileMaker.
My monitor is calibrated.
I have checked for double profiling.
This worked just fine with the previous firmware.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123124\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I did say that the print on ID Gloss looks exactly like the soft proof which in turn looks like the original. I think I explained the conditions too, but I haven't tried on matte paper, which I also said.
-
I did say that the print on ID Gloss looks exactly like the soft proof which in turn looks like the original. I think I explained the conditions too, but I haven't tried on matte paper, which I also said.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Neil,
I've reread your posts above and don't see anything about actual prints -- I'm sorry if I'm just not understanding you. I believe what you say about the prints matching, but this is not what I see with any media I try. I would really like this problem to just go away with a "oh, look, I'm doing it wrong" but I can find nothing, anywhere, in my configuration that indicates that I am doing so. Remember that I have tried on the Mac and on XP (two different computers) and the failure mode is identical each time. I have pounds of printout that all look wrong in exactly the same way, except when they are even more wrong because I have intentionally double-profiled.
From my analysis of the problem, I am wondering if the driver or the printer is ignoring the "application managed" option, when it is selected, and performing some sort of colourspace conversion or automatic print adjustment, so that when the raw RGB comes from the application it is translated even though it is told not to.
I wonder further if my printer, having had multiple firmware upgrades applied, somehow works differently than printers that have more recently shipped with a virgin firmware installation.
I wonder if it is possible to install a "null" profile into the printer for a paper type, such that even if it was told to manage colour itself, it would actually not perform any lookup. And, thus, it would be impossible for the printer or driver to screw up application managed colour at all.
Does anyone know of a pre-built "null transform" ICM or ICC profile I could try this theory with? I could probably convince argyll to create one, but if one already exists I would be more sure of doing it right and not spoiling the test.
Really, all I want is my printer back. I'm so weary and fed up.
-
I think that I'm experiencing the same kind of problem. I just got my 24" Z3100 two weeks ago, and, as long as I print with the printer handling color, then everything is fine. If I let PSCS3 do the color and printing through the HP profile, I get unacceptable results. Here's an example of my problem.
The shot at the left is a preview pdf of the photo being handled by the printer, and the one at the rifht is being processed via PSCS3. Look at the differences! The one on the left matches my calibrated apple 23" monitor.
What gives? BTW, I am using the latest firmware. Should I open up a case with HP too??
Marc Weinberg
(http://marcw.smugmug.com/photos/163455430-L.jpg)
-
Two questions Marc,
is it printing the same from any previous Adobe apps , like CS2 Photoshop?
and is the capture on the right lighter etc, than if you print with PCM?
Normally the PCM should be the lighter of the two.
I'm still trying to get a handle on the problem, trying to see what direction the PCM vs Photoshop managed colors is going. I don't have CS3 yet , it has not been delivered thus I'm still waiting.
And is this PC or Mac?
-
Here is the soft preview of relative on from l 2 right, Durst Lambda, Canon iPf5000 on Glossy, Epson 9800 Premium Glossy Bill Atkinson profile, HP Z on ID Glossy.
comparison Lambda,Canon,Epson,HPZ (http://homepage.mac.com/neil_snape/.Public/SPLambda_Canon_EpsonK3_HPZ3100.jpg)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123077\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been doing a number of similar comparisons with prints from these printers and I'm seeing different results from what this comparison would suggest. Are all of these devices profiled with exactly the same profiling software and method? On the Canon IPF printer was the driver or plug-in used? If the driver, then I'd suggest trying it again with the plug-in as the gamut is dramatically improved. And I assume on the Z and K3 the driver was used?
-
.... as long as I print with the printer handling color, then everything is fine. If I let PSCS3 do the color and printing through the HP profile, I get unacceptable results.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Marc,
Yes, exactly, this is the problem. However, and further, profiles created by third party tools (ColorElite, ProfileMaker, Argyll) also do not preform properly -- even when they work well when stuffed into the printer via ICC profile installation.
The problem with installing them into the printer, of course, is the limited gamut available, and the poor mapping of out-of-gamut colours.
Glad to know I'm not insane.
-s
-
Sean,
Printed your files with Mac OSX, Latest driver and firmware (this was my 1st driver and 3rd firmware upgrade). I am using APS 1.21 (just released a few days ago). Paper is HP ID gloss.
Printed both percetual +BPC and relative + BPC. Both match respective soft proofs on screen (never been an issue for me). Relative seems closest to the native Prophoto space with obvious clipping in the saturated blues and magentas when viewed against soft proof.
The prints look decent (for 100dpi). The skin tones are slightly red on shadow side of face with relative, even more with perceptual.
From what I understand, your issue is prints not matching soft proof since last firmware/driver upgrade? The three things that changed for me were:
1. Serious network problems. Finally figured it out after a week of HP support and my own noodling.
2. Colors are a bit more saturated with perceptual than they were before. I always print perceptual since it seems to match my existing prints best (from Epson 9800) and matched Prophoto scans.
Now all the work seems to match best with relative color intent.
3. I noticed my profiles weren't being updated automatically in my paper list. Now I go into printer utility and manually update/add profiles I've made.
- Doug
ps. If you want the prints I can mail them to you.
-
I've created a TIFF file in ProPhoto space with the above images and four other images I use to gauge soft proofs and colour accuracy. It's sized to fit on a 24" wide roll taking up 5 inches of space. 3.7MB Test File (http://nexi.com/test/testprints.tif)
Curious to see the results others get, especially in the skin tones.
Now, if someone would send me a RIP to test....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A very interesting test image, Sean. An 8 bit TIFF in ProProto space. Anyway, thanks for making it 5"x24". I create a custom size of 6"x24" and printed out some app managed color tests. Next are the printer managed color tests.
My tests were run on HP Premium Instant-Dry Satin with GE On using Perceptual Rendering. Perceptual looked better in soft-proof than relative colorimetric. These were also done on a PC (XP Pro) with the latest firmware and drivers.
The first round yielded an interesting finding. Based on Neil's recommendation I used both CS3 and CS2 and threw in a print from QStudio (Qimage) as well. I screwed up the QStudio print though by leaving final sharpening on.
The prints I got were pretty darn close to the soft-proofing in Photoshop. There were some interesting differences between CS2 and CS3 though.
Original Image
(http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums/album156/Sean_test_image.jpg)
Soft-proofed
(http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums/album156/Sean_test_image_softproof.jpg)
Out of Gamut in CS3
(http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums/album156/Sean_test_image_softproof_gamut_warning.jpg)
Out of Gamut in CS2
(http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums/album156/Sean_test_image_softproof_gamut_warning_CS2.jpg)
I'm loathe to report much until the prints have more time to dry but I think CS2 yields the better print. Closer to what you're looking for. The difference is subtle and really only noticeable on the b&w portrait and the color portrait. The color portrait is slightly less "ruddy" in the skin tone.
More later....
-
Sean
Could you check the settings by accessing the driver properties from QImage?
Make sure that the Advanced>Graphic>Image Color management>ICM Method is set to ICM disabled.
This should allow QImage to handle color management properly, as long as the proper source and output profiles are set up in QImage, and the color tab setting for the printer is set for app managed color.
Regards,
Marc Sitkin
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=122974\")
There are some odd choices and obscuring texts in the Z3100 driver and Qimage's choices on CM. This is the Windows combination of course.
For instance the full Z3100 driver choices gives two spots where you can select CM on, off, etc. First in the start>printer+faxes>Z3100>preference settings>advanced>graphic>ICM there are 3 choices: ICM off, ICM by host (I guess that application is meant but it could be network related), ICM by printer. I have the Dutch driver and translate it here so it can be phrased different on your systems. It is set on off in my settings. Then there is the choice between printer controlled ICM and application controlled ICM under the color tab in the driver menu. The one you also can change at the last stage before printing in the driver menu that pops up in the application. I have that one set on application controlled ICM in the preferred settings too so the whole setup should default to application controlled ICM normally.
In Qimage I get the same choices offered as the one first described for the Z3100 driver: ICM enabled (with the green text: Qimage will manage color via the printer profile below), ICM disabled (off) (with the same green text though so not correct, it should simply disappear or read: no ICM), it is only when you click the printer icon in that menu that the green text says: Printer/driver will manage color: use the ICM option in driver. The profile choice window in Qimage shows the sRGB profile that is actually the default "space" profile for printer/driver color management in my case. But 1st the printer/driver may not have a real ICM option, 2d you can still change the printer profiles in that Qimage profile choice window and after OK that profile pops up in the general profile window of Qimage and Qimage will control ICM again (which is understandable but opens up confusing choices for newbies, the profile choice window should simply grey out and not be accessible after you let the printer/driver do CM). Also the driver menu still is showing that it uses application controlled ICM when you open it in Qimage while you have set printer/driver ICM control on in Qimage itself. So while it is possible to have two profiles on top of one another in many workflows in this case it is also possible to fall between two stools with this application, or at least not get the right information back which program is doing what. Custom profiling per image in the Qimage print page is still open for selections but defaults to printer/driver ICM control after the OK so should not have been available after the general choice for printer/driver CM control.
There are more problems of cooperation between the two programs and I can not write who is to blame as I am not capable to find what causes it. But at least be aware that you need a consistent method to avoid contradictions in the menus and hopefully you will get consistent working of ICM as a result. I'm keeping the printer/driver away from any CM control but the media settings.
Ernst Dinkla
try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]
-
For the question of the poster on what was used for the 4 up soft proofs, yes all GMB PM except the Lambda which is Binuscan. The Canon profile was from an early version of the driver I believe. If you have a new one from the plug-in by all means send it my way.
It may well be that CS3 is not working as expected rather than the HP driver and firmware.
And yes the skin tones in the test image are quite red. As much as 11 % more magenta than cyan on the shadow cheek. Yet that shows very well on screen, so I'll assume it is intended.
-
My problems began after loading the latest firmware / driverset. Before that, I was quite content with soft proof consistency whether or not I used AMC or PMC.
The AMC to softproof mismatch is much more obvious on low gamut (e.g. art or watercolour) papers. See sample images in first post. As my other prints show, it still reveals itself on high gamut media.
I don't have CS3, but do my non-qimage testing with CS2. The output is essentially the same, which suggests to me that it's not QImage related.
-
My problems began after loading the latest firmware / driverset. Before that, I was quite content with soft proof consistency whether or not I used AMC or PMC.
The AMC to softproof mismatch is much more obvious on low gamut (e.g. art or watercolour) papers. See sample images in first post. As my other prints show, it still reveals itself on high gamut media.
I don't have CS3, but do my non-qimage testing with CS2. The output is essentially the same, which suggests to me that it's not QImage related.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sean, I just printed your sample image on Kodak Rapid Dry Lustre (it's what I had loaded in the printer).
Five of six images in your sample are spot-on perfect match to my monitor. The only image that looks slightly different, is the 3rd image from the left. My monitor looks a bit more blue - the print appears more purple. I haven't calibrated my monitor in 3 weeks and it is aging as well. There is not over-saturation in the red flowers - they are a perfect match. There is no over-saturation or red in the shadow side of the color portrait - it's a match. The other 3 images (b&W's and the 2nd image from the left are a match as well. Before printing, I did have to lighten the image in Photoshop CS2 just using Brightness scale, up to +35, because it just appeared too dark on my monitor.
I am using XP Pro SP2, latest driver and firmware for the z3100. I printed with Application Managed Color using the custom profile I made for Kodak Rapid Dry Lustre using the z3100's profiling system. In Photoshop I printed with Rendering Intent set to Perceptual and Black Point Compensation Checked. I have no RIP or QImage installed on my machine.
Maybe something is up with your individual machine or your set-up.
I hope this helps. If you don't resolve the problem, I will be happy to print this again on some HP Matte or Litho-Matte when I load one of those papers.
-
Two questions Marc,
is it printing the same from any previous Adobe apps , like CS2 Photoshop?
and is the capture on the right lighter etc, than if you print with PCM?
Normally the PCM should be the lighter of the two.
I'm still trying to get a handle on the problem, trying to see what direction the PCM vs Photoshop managed colors is going. I don't have CS3 yet , it has not been delivered thus I'm still waiting.
And is this PC or Mac?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123145\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's a Mac, and I'm using CS3. I don't have CS2 installed anymore. The photos would print out exactly as they appear. It seems that only some of the colors are affected . . . .
Marc
-
A very interesting test image, Sean. An 8 bit TIFF in ProProto space. Anyway, thanks for making it 5"x24". I create a custom size of 6"x24" and printed out some app managed color tests. Next are the printer managed color tests.
My tests were run on HP Premium Instant-Dry Satin with GE On using Perceptual Rendering. Perceptual looked better in soft-proof than relative colorimetric. These were also done on a PC (XP Pro) with the latest firmware and drivers.
The first round yielded an interesting finding. Based on Neil's recommendation I used both CS3 and CS2 and threw in a print from QStudio (Qimage) as well. I screwed up the QStudio print though by leaving final sharpening on.
The prints I got were pretty darn close to the soft-proofing in Photoshop. There were some interesting differences between CS2 and CS3 though.
Original Image
(http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums/album156/Sean_test_image.jpg)
Soft-proofed
(http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums/album156/Sean_test_image_softproof.jpg)
Out of Gamut in CS3
(http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums/album156/Sean_test_image_softproof_gamut_warning.jpg)
Out of Gamut in CS2
(http://www.shutterfreaks.com/albums/album156/Sean_test_image_softproof_gamut_warning_CS2.jpg)
I'm loathe to report much until the prints have more time to dry but I think CS2 yields the better print. Closer to what you're looking for. The difference is subtle and really only noticeable on the b&w portrait and the color portrait. The color portrait is slightly less "ruddy" in the skin tone.
More later....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123167\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Update: after drying over night the prints look virtually identical - CS2, CS3 and QStudio. In all cases they are very close matches to what I see on my LCD (calibrated and profiled with Eye-One Display 2). As Neil mention the ruddy complexion in the color portrait is in the image.
-
Sean-
I ran your test file on some Ilford Galerie Gloss, which is a material recently added to my media after the last firmware upgrade, and profiled with the APS.
Results were pretty much as I expected. Color matches between QImage and CS3PS when using application controlled color.
Softproofs were very close to the prints.
CS3 Photoshop printing after conversion from your source to Adobe RGB and printed with printer managed color yielded a print slightly lighter and less ruddy on the portrait.
Please send me shipping info and I'll send these out to you.
Marc Sitkin
-
Marc just brought up something that I noticed when printing a lot of images the week before last for a show on my 44" Z3100.
A couple of prints came out wacky...poor pastel transitions in the skies, blue/cyan color shifts on redish subjects like the hoodoos at Bryce canyon. All other prints were fine. Then I had remembered that I had only saved two master files with a ProPhoto colorspace...the ones that had issues. I went back and converted to AdobeRGB for the print file and lo and behold, both prints came out fine.
I haven't tested this further, but I wonder if Sean's issue has something to do with printing directly from ProPhoto colorspace.
Jim
-
Just to add my two pennys worth I have had a mixed experience with the z3100. I sympathise with Sean in what sounds to be a very frustrating situation.
On the positive side in the last week i have reproduced an old LightJet print on ID Satin with such accuracy that even seasoned professionals have not been able to tell which print came from which machine.
On the negative an old giclee customer came in and brought me down to earth by asking me to reproduce a painting consisting of deep reds- nothing too outrageous on first glance, some quinacridone here, alizarin there, venetian red and burnt umber. What followed was a day of frustration in which i did not even manage to come close. i was printing on old stock Hanhamuhle 230gsm which may have been part of the problem, I used a Pulse to make the profile as i only have A2 sheets which are no good for APS.
May I say though it has always been a predictable nightmare with the soft proof on my Spectraview always matching what pops out.
When converting on the fly I am printing from Adobe RGB. When mission critical however I am converting to the destination printer space within PSCS1 and doing any tweaks b4 printing within the space. It strikes me it is asking a lot more of the Adobe engine to convert from a very wide space like prophoto down to an output space.
-
Then I had remembered that I had only saved two master files with a ProPhoto colorspace...the ones that had issues. I went back and converted to AdobeRGB for the print file and lo and behold, both prints came out fine.
I haven't tested this further, but I wonder if Sean's issue has something to do with printing directly from ProPhoto colorspace.
Jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought that as well. When I did my test prints of Sean's images I printed from ProPhoto and did a conversion to AdobeRGB prior to printing. I saw no difference with my test prints.
-
Marc just brought up something that I noticed when printing a lot of images the week before last for a show on my 44" Z3100.
A couple of prints came out wacky...poor pastel transitions in the skies, blue/cyan color shifts on redish subjects like the hoodoos at Bryce canyon. All other prints were fine. Then I had remembered that I had only saved two master files with a ProPhoto colorspace...the ones that had issues. I went back and converted to AdobeRGB for the print file and lo and behold, both prints came out fine.
I haven't tested this further, but I wonder if Sean's issue has something to do with printing directly from ProPhoto colorspace.
Jim
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I gotta check this out too. Maybe I need to convert back to adobeRGB, rather than printing straight out of Lightroom using prophoto. Hmmm.....
Marc
-
I gotta check this out too. Maybe I need to convert back to adobeRGB, rather than printing straight out of Lightroom using prophoto. Hmmm.....
Marc
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=123638\")
I've had no problems printing from the ProPhoto colorspace with perceptual rendering and BPC.
My current favorite test print from Outback Print is in ProPhoto colorspace. [a href=\"http://www.outbackprint.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html]Click here.[/url]
-
I'm not adding a solution but more questions.... I have to ask how can one make a judgment when the image contains colors that are OOG on both printer and display? Certainly some of this problem/issue has to do with how color engines manage OOG color. I wonder if the people that report differences between CS2 and CS3 have different color engines selected in their preferences? Or if somewhere along the data path different color engines are being used? One other thought - on the mac os-x one can select which color space is the conversion space by device in the color sync utility. This is normally generic RGB ... not all that great for color spaces bigger than that. Is there a windows analog to that?
-
I'm not adding a solution but more questions.... I have to ask how can one make a judgment when the image contains colors that are OOG on both printer and display? Certainly some of this problem/issue has to do with how color engines manage OOG color. I wonder if the people that report differences between CS2 and CS3 have different color engines selected in their preferences? Or if somewhere along the data path different color engines are being used? One other thought - on the mac os-x one can select which color space is the conversion space by device in the color sync utility. This is normally generic RGB ... not all that great for color spaces bigger than that. Is there a windows analog to that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123668\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes the printing architecture changes system wide and application level can have some side swiping . Definitely if you print with printer color management the data has to be sent with a space of some form, and that space has to be tagged or the XYZ coordinates included in the up front side for the driver to know at least what type of data color to be expected. The defaults will always be a less than ideal situation exception being if the driver/system is doing something worse than default color.
How do you tune for OofGamut? The only way I know of is to set the monitor saturation to less 20 or more in Photoshop color settings to simulate at least a type of smoothness between transitions in screen previews. It won't tell you a thing about the actual colors, but will show you where artifacts may lay in the image edits. Other than that just a lot of experience.
I've been using Adobe rgb for many years, but realise that with the advent of the Z printers and Canon many image colors are well outside Adobe rgb, and many colors in the image are if converted from raw to say Prophoto in range for a Z or Canon. Yet you won't see these colors on a monitor.
-
Definitely if you print with printer color management the data has to be sent with a space of some form, and that space has to be tagged or the XYZ coordinates included in the up front side for the driver to know at least what type of data color to be expected. The defaults will always be a less than ideal situation exception being if the driver/system is doing something worse than default color.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123673\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Neil,
Thanks for your response....sounds like one would never want to allow the printer to manage colors if it can be done from the application then?
To see what's OOG in my monitor space, I have been soft proofing with the monitor profile first then then printer profile. I'll try the desaturate by 20% too.
Eric
-
Sean,
I just had time to hack out your test image on the end of roll ID Glossy.
As expected prntr cm is lighter and not the same, the APS profile is the better of the easy or canned profiles, and just for a comparison printed through the canned profile with relative in Photoshop with Photoshop CM.
No surprises, and it prints better than the onscreen view. That is normal as I use a CRT for ref. that cannot show many of the sat colors in this test.
I had to scan it on my Epson so patching it together is hard, and the cm of scanned inks is not at all accurate. The scan is also converted here to sRGB so the pure cyans will be lost.
Visually the APS is a matrch to screen and the other two are more than acceptable. The canned profile is better than prntr cm, ond close to the APS profile in many areas.
http://homepage.mac.com/neil_snape/.Public...edVSprntrCM.jpg (http://homepage.mac.com/neil_snape/.Public/APSvsCannedVSprntrCM.jpg)
-
Neil,
Thank you very much for this.
Your strip #2 and strip #3 look almost exactly like the test strips that drive me crazy. This is pretty solid evidence that our printers are rendering colour similarly.
The APC portrait in #3 is too dark and too saturated; it doesn't match my screen at all, while PM print #2 is a close match.
I really like strip #1 best overall.
It could be that my monitor profiles are bad, but I do profile weekly with Pulse ColorElite + OptixXR in carefully controlled lighting, so I'm not sure how that could be the case. I'll check my monitor profiles and recheck my workflow there.
Thanks again. I've got some research to do now -- possibilities to examine. That's more than I had last week.
-
Yes it could be the monitor settings.
Download a demo of ColorEyes and you have three tries with the demo.
Always set the monitors to max 120cd/m2 for LCD and around 85-95 for CRT.
The APS as I said will print a little darker than printer color management or the canned or easy profiles by about 1/2 stop. They do absolutely match the original though as much as possible within the gamut of the CRT. I use a Just lightbox, and the monitor white point is set to 5500 K at 85 cd/m2 with L* gamma. I also see better smoothing with the APS than the HP profiles so again, APS is a worthwhile kit to have.
-
I also see better smoothing with the APS than the HP profiles so again, APS is a worthwhile kit to have.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123783\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's sounding better all the time.
Neil, do you know if APS will correct the problem I see with reds on non-HP matte papers?
-
It's sounding better all the time.
Neil, do you know if APS will correct the problem I see with reds on non-HP matte papers?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah there's the catch. I haven't yet profiled stock like HP Smooth FA, witht he latest firmware. Before I preferred the Easy profiles on all matte papers. I don't know why Gretag can't profile mattes, but if the results are the same as before, APS isn't optimal for rag / matte. When I get time I'll give it a go though.
The reds on Smooth are okay, different in any case between both HP Print center (Easy) and APS.
There is only so much a profile can do, as the ink separations are what control the Dmax and Chroma to a large degree.
It's hard to say exactly what APS or how it will respond to other papers. I only have Hahnemuhle PR 308 and a few German matte papers here. I would like to see some Monaco profiles on the same media to see if just that needed extra bit of control will result in more pleasing color.
-
Ah there's the catch. I haven't yet profiled stock like HP Smooth FA, witht he latest firmware. Before I preferred the Easy profiles on all matte papers. I don't know why Gretag can't profile mattes, but if the results are the same as before, APS isn't optimal for rag / matte. When I get time I'll give it a go though.
The reds on Smooth are okay, different in any case between both HP Print center (Easy) and APS.
There is only so much a profile can do, as the ink separations are what control the Dmax and Chroma to a large degree.
It's hard to say exactly what APS or how it will respond to other papers. I only have Hahnemuhle PR 308 and a few German matte papers here. I would like to see some Monaco profiles on the same media to see if just that needed extra bit of control will result in more pleasing color.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123793\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the insights, Neil. I really appreciate it. I've been considering when I get my HP rebate check of investing it in the APS. I've found it a few places for around $750 U.S. which isn't too bad.
-
I haven't had time to re-examine this issue in detail over the past few days because of other obligations, but my monitor calibration is different when using coloreyes than with pulse colorelite (damn x-rite for abandoning it). I haven't forgotten this issue, and if it turns out that my core issue was inadequate monitor profiling rather than any severe printer fault, I will gladly reveal this (and modify post #1).
-
Sean,
You seem happy with your colours now...what fixed it?
I am still having these problems
I am on v6 firmware.
Have APS
Using PS CS2 and Qimage on WinXP
Any advice would be very much appreciated
-
This is mostly to bookmark this thread, but I printed the test images on RedRiver Pro Matte and the match was spot on except for blues and greens that are mostly out of gamut. In order to get the detail I had to print in Perceptual and it matched my preview quite accurately.
I profiled this paper with the Pulse system rather than the onboard spectro.
Should those colors be accessible on matte paper?
Wayne
I've created a TIFF file in ProPhoto space with the above images and four other images I use to gauge soft proofs and colour accuracy. It's sized to fit on a 24" wide roll taking up 5 inches of space. 3.7MB Test File (http://nexi.com/test/testprints.tif)
Curious to see the results others get, especially in the skin tones.
Now, if someone would send me a RIP to test....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=123033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I got the colours mostly sorted by recalibrating everything I was using from top to bottom. In the process, I discovered that my Sony panel has a break in it's RG colour mixing curve that makes some skin tones look slightly yellow while all other colours are correct. Making sure that my monitor white levels was 120 and black level was calibrated to 0.5 helped a lot, also. And using ColorEyes instead of Pulse for screen profiling. And running the latest firmware on the printer.
I don't think the problems I was having point to just one failure. I think that my monitors, my calibration and the printer were all off-kilter. Sometimes these things cancel each other out. In my case, it took everything way off base.
I'm happy now, mostly. And experimenting with hand correction and Absolute Colourimetric printing. V. interesting.