Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: Texas308 on October 20, 2013, 05:35:13 pm
-
NEC PA301W running SV and trying to print from Lightroom 5 - The print is sooooo much darker that the display, tried both options under "Color Management" section in Lightroom meaning tried both profiles, etc and still the same dark prints -
Printer is Epson 3880 and paper is Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster.
What am I doing wrong?
-
Does your print look tolerably good if you take it away from the computer to a 'normal' lighting situation? If so, I suggest looking at Andrew Rodney's advice here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml).
Cheers
Tim
-
NEC PA301W running SV and trying to print from Lightroom 5 - The print is sooooo much darker that the display, tried both options under "Color Management" section in Lightroom meaning tried both profiles, etc and still the same dark prints -
Printer is Epson 3880 and paper is Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster.
What am I doing wrong?
Assuming your print evaluation area/parameters are adequate, and consistent, the most typical reason for this it that the luminance of your display is too bright. When you profile your monitor, what luminance value are you using? Have you experimented with lowering the luminance value in the profile run in SVII? Andrew Rodney (The Digital Dog) has been of great help to me in understanding color management. The link above is well worth your time.
Rand
-
My current SV "Target Settings" shows this information:
White Point: D65
Gamma: 2.20
Intensity: 140.0 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: Monitor Default
Color Gamut: Native (Full)
-
My current SV "Target Settings" shows this information:
White Point: D65
Gamma: 2.20
Intensity: 140.0 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio: Monitor Default
Color Gamut: Native (Full)
The other half of the equation is the luminance of the viewing booth or whatever you are using to view the print. For the brightness of the monitor and the print to be equal, the illumination incident on the print should be 140 x Pi or about 440 lux.
Bill
-
White Point: D65
Gamma: 2.20
Intensity: 140.0 cd/m2
Your monitor is setup fine for viewing the web, and not appropriately for previewing a print.
First though, consider finding a "test image" of known character on the web, and print it. Adjust your print driver to make that print look right.
Then calibrate/adjust your monitor to make the same image displayed on the monitor appear as close as possible to your print. You probably want a color temperature closer to D50 rather than D64, a gamma closer to 2.4 than 2.2, and you absolutely want the intensity to be between 80 and 100 cd/m2 (the exact brightness depends on the ambient light).
The essential point to get here is that the printer is adjusted to get the right print, and the monitor is adjusted to display that image as close to what the print looks like as possible.
-
Adjusted to the following:
White Point : D50
Gamma: 2.40
Contrast Ratio: Monitor Default
Color Gamut: Native (Full)
Same exact results!!! Ugh!!!
I turned off all the lights in my study/office so super dark and only lighting is off the display...
Guidance please...
-
Adjusted to the following:
White Point : D50
Gamma: 2.40
Contrast Ratio: Monitor Default
Color Gamut: Native (Full)
Same exact results!!! Ugh!!!
I turned off all the lights in my study/office so super dark and only lighting is off the display...
Guidance please...
1) restore the ambient light to a "comfortable level" for looking at everything other than the monitor.
2) find a "standard test image" on the web and print it.
A. Adjust the printer or print driver to get a correct print.
B. Do not change the monitor again until the print is correct.
3) when you can get a correct print, than and only then, you can worry about adjusting the monitor.
4) the monitor should be adjusted to display the image as closely as possible to what the print looks like.
Most significantly you have to realize that monitor adjustment has nothing to do with what the print looks like, and no change to the monitor configuration or calibration is going to change a print.
-
First though, consider finding a "test image" of known character on the web, and print it. Adjust your print driver to make that print look right.
Then calibrate/adjust your monitor to make the same image displayed on the monitor appear as close as possible to your print. You probably want a color temperature closer to D50 rather than D64, a gamma closer to 2.4 than 2.2, and you absolutely want the intensity to be between 80 and 100 cd/m2 (the exact brightness depends on the ambient light).
This is wrong...it is foolish to try to screw up your display to match your print. That's completely backwards as the the OP has indicated...
As for the OP, you haven't stated what OS you are running and what driver version you have for the 3880. Two important pieces of info. Also, you haven't indicated anything about the color of the prints: dark and greenish indicates no color management while light and magenta'ish means double color management. If your prints are dark and greenish, somewhere in your pipeline color management has failed.
-
Hardware Overview:
System Software Overview:
System Version: OS X 10.8.5 (12F45)
Kernel Version: Darwin 12.5.0
Model Name: Mac Pro
Model Identifier: MacPro5,1
Processor Name: 6-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3.33 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 6
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 12 MB
Memory: 32 GB
Processor Interconnect Speed: 6.4 GT/s
Boot ROM Version: MP51.007F.B03
SMC Version (system): 1.39f11
SMC Version (processor tray): 1.39f11
Serial Number (system): C07J900FF4MG
Serial Number (processor tray): J5232011CCZJC
Hardware UUID: 17FA3041-794A-5838-9BB6-27C71C0A5BC4
Status: Idle
Print Server: Local
Driver Version: 8.64
Default: Yes
Shared: No
URI: dnssd://EpsonStylusPro3880-1F4B8D._printer._tcp.local./
PPD: EPSON SPro 3880
PPD File Version: 8.64
PostScript Version: (3011.106) 0
CUPS Version: 1.6.2 (cups-327.7)
Scanning support: No
Printer Commands: Clean PrintSelfTestPage ReportLevels
CUPS filters:
rastertoescpII:
Path: /Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Filter/rastertoescpII.app/Contents/MacOS/rastertoescpII
Permissions: rwxr-xr-x
Version: 8.64
commandtoescp:
Path: /Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Filter/commandtoescp.app/Contents/MacOS/commandtoescp
Permissions: rwxr-xr-x
Version: 8.64
Fax support: No
Low ink tool: /Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Utility/UT4/EpsonSuppliesTool4.app/Contents/MacOS/EpsonSuppliesTool4
Low ink tool version: 8.64
Printer utility: /Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Utility/UT4/Epson Printer Utility 4.app
Printer utility version: 8.64
PDEs:
PDECPlugin01.plugin:
Sandbox compliant: No
-
This is wrong...it is foolish to try to screw up your display to match your print.
That is in fact the standard method.
Changing the monitor display does not change how an image is printed. A standard image should be used to adjust the printer and/or print driver to provide whatever one decides a "correct" print is. That has nothing at all to do with the monitor, and changing the monitor's configuration/calibration will not change the correctness of the standard image print. (Actually, a correct print can obviously be made without ever even viewing it on a monitor.)
The entire point of calibrating a monitor is to make it display a standard image as close as possible to the desired print from your intended printer.
Typically one does not use the print itself to make these comparisons because people have a very difficult time judging the characteristics of a print, if for no other reason than not having a standard light box for illumination. Instead they use monitor calibration tools that have the same standard characteristics build in, and because of that the monitor can be calibrated first, and quite separate from the printer. But make no mistake the monitor is calibrated to show what the printer will produce, not the other way around.
-
Here are a few URL's where "standard" test images can be found
http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/index.shtml
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/test_images.html
http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1916&page=5
The first URL is recommended by Norman Koren <http://www.normankoren.com/printer_calibration.html> and from the page this is the specific test image that I've been using for several years:
http://digitaldog.net/files/Printer%20Test%20file.jpg
-
That is in fact the standard method.
Changing the monitor display does not change how an image is printed. A standard image should be used to adjust the printer and/or print driver to provide whatever one decides a "correct" print is. That has nothing at all to do with the monitor, and changing the monitor's configuration/calibration will not change the correctness of the standard image print. (Actually, a correct print can obviously be made without ever even viewing it on a monitor.)
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but not mine. The OP has a NEC PA301W. The recommended display luminance (from NEC) is 150 cd/m2. The ISO standard for graphic arts viewing displays is between 80 cd/m2 but suggested (by the ISO) is 160 cd/m2. NEC (and I) recommend D65 and a gamma 2.2 (or native gamma).
The weak point in your argument is assuming you have a "standard print file", without an accurately calibrated and profiled display, how are you supposed to know what the image is supposed to look like? If you have an accurately calibrated and profiled display and the print doesn't match the image (in LR or PS) then you have a breakdown in your color managed print workflow...simple as that.
In terms of the OP. I suspect that an Apple update may have overwritten the Epson print striver with a generic Gutenprint driver. The way to get rid of that is to download the current Epson driver and install it over the Gutenprint driver. It's possible that the OP may need to reset the system Print and Faxes system. The way to do that is to hold down the control key while clicking in the print list of Print & Faxes to reset, then re-install the most recent driver from Epson.
If that doesn't do it, the OP may need to go to greater lengths...Wayne Fox has written about resetting the Print & Faxes and deleting all Epson components before reinstalling the proper driver.
But as the OP has found, simply re-calibrating and re-profiling won't fix a problem with the print driver/OS system.
-
That is in fact the standard method.
Really ? says who ? Care to post a reference to it ?
-
Maybe in your neck of the woods, but not mine. The OP has a NEC PA301W. The recommended display luminance (from NEC) is 150 cd/m2. The ISO standard for graphic arts viewing displays is between 80 cd/m2 but suggested (by the ISO) is 160 cd/m2. NEC (and I) recommend D65 and a gamma 2.2 (or native gamma).
So which one is right then? They can't all be...
The weak point in your argument is assuming you have a "standard print file", without an accurately calibrated and profiled display, how are you supposed to know what the image is supposed to look like?
A standard image file does not assume either your printer or your monitor is correct in order to calibrate the other.
I've given URL's were such files can be downloaded. Calibration devices, whether for a monitor or a printer, generate their own "standard image file". The colors produced by the display device are then measured to determine when the display is correctly configured. An accurately calibrated and profiled monitor has virtually nothing to do with calibrating and profiling a printer.
If you have an accurately calibrated and profiled display and the print doesn't match the image (in LR or PS) then you have a breakdown in your color managed print workflow...simple as that.
Yes, and it is just as likely as anything else that the problem is your "accurately calibrated and profiled display" is not in fact accurately calibrated.
In terms of the OP. I suspect that an Apple update may have overwritten the Epson print striver with a generic Gutenprint driver. The way to get rid of that is to download the current Epson driver and install it over the Gutenprint driver. It's possible that the OP may need to reset the system Print and Faxes system. The way to do that is to hold down the control key while clicking in the print list of Print & Faxes to reset, then re-install the most recent driver from Epson.
If that doesn't do it, the OP may need to go to greater lengths...Wayne Fox has written about resetting the Print & Faxes and deleting all Epson components before reinstalling the proper driver.
But as the OP has found, simply re-calibrating and re-profiling won't fix a problem with the print driver/OS system.
That all might well be useful to the OP (I have zero familarity with his equipment).
But recalibrating his monitor cannot change the print.
-
Really ? says who ? Care to post a reference to it ?
Here is a very good authoritative article. Note that monitor brightness, contrast, and color temperature are all set manually. The choices made are intended to provide a monitor calibrated to match a well calibrated printer.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/2012/01/17/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor/
As to why it is done this way, that's fairly simple. Generally we have one monitor, but may use many variations of papers and printers, some of which we do not own and cannot control. Which is to say we can't necessarily change the printer's configuration. So instead we get a profile for every printer/paper combination that we use, and adjust out monitor by applying that profile to cause the "print preview" to emulate whatever the printer and paper combination will produce.
But once again let me repeat that changing the monitor calibration cannot ever change the way an image prints! The print is only going to change if the image is edited. How you edit an image might change due to monitor calibration...
-
Here is a very good authoritative article. Note that monitor brightness, contrast, and color temperature are all set manually. The choices made are intended to provide a monitor calibrated to match a well calibrated printer.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/2012/01/17/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor/
I looked at the Scientific American blog article. It is well written by an expert in digital imaging. The author does not adjust the monitor to match the print, but rather uses hardware calibration just like Mr. Schewe and most other experts. BTW, do you know who you are arguing with--Schewe is a recognized well published expert who also shares his expertise on LuLa. Your advice appears off target and I wonder what are your qualifications?
The SciAm author uses gamma 1.8 and a white point of D50 (5000K), whereas Schewe uses D65 and gamma 2.2. Otherwise their approaches are similar.
But once again let me repeat that changing the monitor calibration cannot ever change the way an image prints! The print is only going to change if the image is edited. How you edit an image might change due to monitor calibration...
The image is almost always edited, either by the rendering software or by the artist. See Karl Lang (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf).
Bill
-
I looked at the Scientific American blog article. It is well written by an expert in digital imaging. The author does not adjust the monitor to match the print, [...]
The author not only does adjust the monitor to match the print, he repeatedly states that is the purpose of the calibration he is discussing.
The author says exactly what I've said: contrast (gamma) and color temperature recommendations are for "If you do mostly print work". The brightness of the monitor is a matter of ambient light, but the recommendations for that are also geared towards grading displayed images for printing.
The article repeatedly makes the point that calibration is specific to matching printer output.
[...] but rather uses hardware calibration just like Mr. Schewe and most other experts.
The hardware calibration equipment does not determine what brightness, contrast, and color temperature settings should be. Those are set manually and the hardware measures how closely they can be matched.
The OP has not indicated being equipped to do a proper hardware calibration. It's wonderful that you and I and everyone who claims to have expertize can and does, but that doesn't help the OP. His need for such equipment is a different discussion.
And lacking hardware to measure how close the printer is to standard and how close the monitor is the the selected parameters, the OP has little choice but to obtain a standard print to use for manual comparisons. He absolutely will not get the more accurate results that proper hardware can produce, but he can at least get close enough to get on with his work.
The SciAm author uses gamma 1.8 and a white point of D50 (5000K), whereas Schewe uses D65 and gamma 2.2. Otherwise their approaches are similar.
Rather clearly those settings calibrate the monitor to match the way a print will look! That is, he is doing exactly what I described. And what he has said is exactly what I said.
The hardware device used to calibrate the monitor doesn't choose the parameters for those characteristics, they are set manually. The hardware device then measures the linearity and therefore the color accuracy, and provides a look up table to maintain correct colors. (And I'm sure you are aware of that, as is Schewe.)
The disagreement isn't on what is being done, it's on what perspective to put it in for someone to best learn how it works and how to manipulate it for effect. Note for example that I recommended the OP start with a gamma of 2.4, which would darken the monitor display. His complaint is that the print is darker than his monitor, and that is a compensation for that. He might well find that with a lower brightness, something like the gamma 1.8 recommended in the cited article will be more appropriate for his needs
The image is almost always edited, either by the rendering software or by the artist. See Karl Lang (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf).
But not the "standard test image". That is accepted as correct to start with (and is usually generated on the fly by the hardware calibration equipment), and the question is how to get the display device to correctly display a correct image. We don't need to look at it on a monitor when calibrating a printer, nor do we need to print it when calibrating a monitor... except as is noted in the article I cited, and you clearly agreed above, that when calibrating a monitor it is necessary to set the brightness, the contrast, and the color temperature manually to match the desired output characteristics which in this case is specifically to match prints.
What Schewe specified is very commonly used to view web pages targeted at sRGB. Note that the cited article specifically says that is not the correct choice to calibrate when editing for a printer. Note also that I did discuss exactly that earlier too, and while the values I suggested to the OP are different than those specified in the article, they are very close (and different due to what the OP stated plus they were intended to be a starting point to see if that helped his situation).
-
I take the simple approach. The calibration white point targets are set to match the paper - the perception of which obviously varies with the ambient light. I usually end up in the neighborhood of 6200K and 110 cd/m², but that's just me.
But from there on in, the display is king. That's my reference for what the file should look like.
Gamma doesn't really matter in a color managed workflow, the file is remapped into monitor gamma by the two profiles anyway. So my philosophy is just to stay close to the monitor's native gamma (2.2).
-
Here is a very good authoritative article. Note that monitor brightness, contrast, and color temperature are all set manually. The choices made are intended to provide a monitor calibrated to match a well calibrated printer. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/2012/01/17/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor/
Interesting article. The author does indeed advocate choosing some basic settings {brightness, gamma, color temperature} to make the monitor match an eventual print. However, he also states in the very first paragraph that the purpose of monitor calibration is to match a digital reference, not an eventual print: "Proper calibration guarantees that the image shown on screen matches the numerical color data saved in the digital file."
When the author later says that the choice of a low gamma "produces noticeably lighter images on screen" that seems contradictory. It seems he is ignoring the whole concept of a color space, which specifies the desired conversion of digital values into brightness or color.
Does monitor calibration preserve the white point defined by monitor brightness and color temperature settings? Will a monitor profile ever result in a display of pure white (RGB=255,255,255) with some pixels not at maximum brightness? How does the chosen color space enter into this?
If monitor calibration preserves this white point, it makes sense that you want to set monitor brightness and color temperature to match an eventual print, under whatever normal lighting conditions you choose for print display.
Monitor calibration will then take care of displaying non-white colors and gray levels correctly, relative to this white point. This requires a digital reference (and color space) and has nothing to do with a print. Similarly, printer calibration matches printer output to a digital reference (and color space) and has nothing to do with a monitor. The way monitor calibration influences the final print is by inducing the user to edit the image until the monitor image looks good.
-
When the author later says that the choice of a low gamma "produces noticeably lighter images on screen" that seems contradictory. It seems he is ignoring the whole concept of a color space
Indeed he is. The article is really about monitor calibration from a non color management perspective. Most of the story is missing here. What's missing is the description of the monitor in its calibrated state, i.e. the profile. There's no color management here because there's no profile-to-profile remapping, and then yes, gamma makes a difference. Just as the native monitor color space makes a difference, even if it has been "linearized" through calibration.
-
When the author later says that the choice of a low gamma "produces noticeably lighter images on screen" that seems contradictory. It seems he is ignoring the whole concept of a color space, which specifies the desired conversion of digital values into brightness or color.
He is probably referring to non ICC (color managed) applications. In ICC aware applications, the gamma's can all be different. Non ICC aware app's don't know what a color space is.
-
I sure would be handy if my OS detected "non ICC aware apps" and switched the monitor into sRGB-emulated mode automatically.
As is now, I tend to view websites and videos with really off colors (over saturated). Too lazy to dive into the monitor menues, switch to sRGB mode, then back again when working in Lightroom.
-h
-
I take the simple approach. The calibration white point targets are set to match the paper - the perception of which obviously varies with the ambient light. I usually end up in the neighborhood of 6200K and 110 cd/m², but that's just me.
But from there on in, the display is king. That's my reference for what the file should look like.
Gamma doesn't really matter in a color managed workflow, the file is remapped into monitor gamma by the two profiles anyway. So my philosophy is just to stay close to the monitor's native gamma (2.2).
I use a similar approach. Printing a standard print that produces a known result (and which I have reference prints available that I have printed in the past) I can verify my printing pipeline is producing a correct print. If the print does not match my display, the only choice is to modify the viewing condition of the print to match (very hard to do some times), or I can vary the calibration settings for the monitor profile. This is assuming the viewing conditions of the print are adequate and consistent - I use Solux 4100k bulbs in my viewing setup. However I also have a small GTI viewing station that holds smaller prints, and I feel that in either lighting condition the prints I produce now are a very close match.
I find it difficult to see the "white" point difference between a piece of paper vs a white document in Photoshop on the display to a great degree of accuracy, although I find luminance for this works pretty good. I print a standard print and will tweak the white point of my calibration software until I get a visual color match between the display and the print. This is almost always in the 6100k range or so. If at 6500 my prints are warm. Not unacceptably so, but they do not match the display.
With the SV software on my 301w, I do this by manually setting the white point ... using the xy adjustment. It took 4 or 5 attempts to achieve a profile but now I'm quite confident that my print will be very close to what I'm seeing.
With the 301w I also set the contrast to 300:1 which seems to give me a better match in shadow detail as well.
-
Here is a very good authoritative article.
Which doesn't suggest doing what you've suggested in reply #5 "First though, consider finding a "test image" of known character on the web, and print it. Adjust your print driver to make that print look right."
How could you adjust a print driver to make a print "look right" if you're not using a reliable monitor to know what it should be ?
Now if you can find any credible reference in colour management literature to that workflow please supply it.
-
Here's an update:
When I go in and change the profile used within LR 5 "Print Job" section to use "Epson Stylus Pro 3880_3885_3890 PremiumLusterPhotoPaper" the print comes out MUCH BETTER and along the lines of what I was looking for in a print.
-
When I go in and change the profile used within LR 5 "Print Job" section to use "Epson Stylus Pro 3880_3885_3890 PremiumLusterPhotoPaper" the print comes out MUCH BETTER ...
What ICC profile were you using previously ?
or did you have Print Job > Color Management > Profile: 'Managed by printer' selected ?
-
I was using the "PA301W 25106369UW 2013-10-20 21-41 D65 2.20" profile...
-
.
-
I was using the "PA301W 25106369UW 2013-10-20 21-41 D65 2.20" profile...
This sounds like a monitor profile. What you should be using is an ICC profile for your chosen printer/paper combination. For the Epson 3800 that would be something like ' Pro38 PLPP ' . Not sure what it is for the 3880.
-
It is the display profile for the NEC.
-
Interesting article. The author does indeed advocate choosing some basic settings {brightness, gamma, color temperature} to make the monitor match an eventual print. However, he also states in the very first paragraph that the purpose of monitor calibration is to match a digital reference, not an eventual print: "Proper calibration guarantees that the image shown on screen matches the numerical color data saved in the digital file."
The sentence you quote says exactly the same thing as use a "standard image". Lacking the hardware to do a proper calibration, the OP can download a standard image and use that to get the correct "numerical color dtata saved in the digital file". Granted it is better to actually measure it the output, but lacking the equipment the OP can get something workable without it.
When the author later says that the choice of a low gamma "produces noticeably lighter images on screen" that seems contradictory. It seems he is ignoring the whole concept of a color space, which specifies the desired conversion of digital values into brightness or color.
He is precisely correct.
Does monitor calibration preserve the white point defined by monitor brightness and color temperature settings? Will a monitor profile ever result in a display of pure white (RGB=255,255,255) with some pixels not at maximum brightness? How does the chosen color space enter into this?
If monitor calibration preserves this white point, it makes sense that you want to set monitor brightness and color temperature to match an eventual print, under whatever normal lighting conditions you choose for print display.
Monitor calibration will then take care of displaying non-white colors and gray levels correctly, relative to this white point. This requires a digital reference (and color space) and has nothing to do with a print. Similarly, printer calibration matches printer output to a digital reference (and color space) and has nothing to do with a monitor. The way monitor calibration influences the final print is by inducing the user to edit the image until the monitor image looks good.
Good questions, but that is for another discussion. The OP doesn't have the equipment to generate a monitor profile.
-
Which doesn't suggest doing what you've suggested in reply #5 "First though, consider finding a "test image" of known character on the web, and print it. Adjust your print driver to make that print look right."
He recommended doing exactly that! The article "encouraged all digital artists to invest in a monitor calibration system" which is to say, get a device that produces a standard test image. The OP doesn't have the hardware needed, but that is a different discussion. He can download a standard test image in a few seconds and get useful results that are very educational.
How could you adjust a print driver to make a print "look right" if you're not using a reliable monitor to know what it should be ?
Now if you can find any credible reference in colour management literature to that workflow please supply it.
If you understand what a standard test print is and what it shows there is no need to compare it to a monitor. However, if that is difficult for whatever reason, then one method would be to have it printed by a commercial print shop to then have a known "correct" print to use for comparison.
Edit: Here are two URL's of interest that Wayne Fox posted to a different thread. A very good "standard image", but also a nice discussion about each part of it and how it is useful.
http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html
http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi049/essay.htm
-
The OP doesn't have the equipment to generate a monitor profile.
The OP does. He is running SV (NEC's SpectraView calibration and profile generating software) which comes with NEC monitors when you buy the associated hardware puck.
Brian A
-
Here's an update:
When I go in and change the profile used within LR 5 "Print Job" section to use "Epson Stylus Pro 3880_3885_3890 PremiumLusterPhotoPaper" the print comes out MUCH BETTER and along the lines of what I was looking for in a print.
The profile changes the monitor to make it look like the printer output.
Obviously that profile is specifically for use with the 3880 and Epson's Premium Luster paper. You may or may not be able to find a profile specifically for the paper you want to use.
This is much like the issue of monitor calibration, where by far the best solution is to purchase the necessary hardware equipment and generate your own printer profiles. But absent that you can again "download a standard image" that will put you in the ballpark. In this case the "standard image" is hopefully a profile specifically for the paper type and the printer model you use, but it that can't be found you'll probably be able to find a profile for a different but similar paper that works. Even for different printers may be close enough, if they use the same ink set, and hence a profile for an Epson 4880 or 7890 might do if nothing else can be found.
-
The OP does. He is running SV (NEC's SpectraView calibration and profile generating software) which comes with NEC monitors when you buy the associated hardware puck.
Brian A
Okay. Thanks, I had missed that. (I didn't know what "SV" was.)
That just makes it easier, and more accurate. Now that he is using something close for a printer profile, he might want to go back to trying different brightness, gamma, and color temperature parameters when he calibrates the monitor to start with. Once again perhaps reading Dr. Perkins' article cited previously... which hopefully will make more sense after reading this discussion.
-
Okay. Thanks, I had missed that. (I didn't know what "SV" was.)
I guess you also missed the fact that the OP was trying to print out while using his display profile as the output profile? That's why his prints looked like crap.
-
Here is a very good authoritative article. Note that monitor brightness, contrast, and color temperature are all set manually. The choices made are intended to provide a monitor calibrated to match a well calibrated printer.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/2012/01/17/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor/
Well, I finally read the article and I'm sorry to say that Jim has a lot of stuff wrong (or mostly wrong with enough right that it may escape a casual read). Jim claims that Apple has had a default gamma of 1.8 and that was only changed with Snow Leopard (10.6.8). Sorry, but Apple quit "defaulting" to 1.8 about a decade ago (once Apple quit selling Laserwriter printers).
Jim's also wrong'ish regarding the current thinking (in fact, a lot of Jim's thinking is pretty old school) about an optimal white balance. The further you try to move a display off it's native state, the more work the profile has to do...this is particularly true of any display that doesn't have internal calibration settings like the NEC has.
The other thing he doesn't mention at all is luminance targets for display calibration and profiling...so he's ignoring 1/3 of the display triad of major, critical factors.
Sorry, while Jim certainly comes off as "scholarly" (he is, after all, an academic) I'm not real sure he has a lot of real world experience (he even admits the only printer he has is a cheapo inkjet printer that came with his computer–that was in his first post).
Can you calibrate and profile a display to D50, Gamma 1.8 and get good results? Yes...but with current LCDs, unless you have a display that can calibrate internally (or you are using a 10-bit display pipeline and Photoshop on Windows) trying to calibrate a current LCD to D50 and gamma 1.8 is gonna be less accurate if your display pipeline is 8-bit/channel.
I have some friends at RIT (my alma mater) and I think I'll need to ping them and see if I can get in touch with Jim and teach him a few things...
So, a "very good authoritative article"? Nope, it's a very basic and somewhat flawed article at best. Sorry...
Now, if you want to learn how to properly calibrate and profile a display, just ask. Andrew (or I) are willing to help. But the very idea that you should wank on a display calibration to make your image on screen look like your print went out back in the old EFI Color Cachet which was around in the early 1990's. Modern thoughts are to calibrate to a standard: which I suggest be in the D65, gamma 2.2 with luminance output at about 150 cd/m² and match your viewing environment to match your display environment so the print can match your display (not the other way around. Oh, for these of you with NEC displays, I also suggest using a 250/1 contrast range which more closely matches the contrast range you can get off a glossy print.
:~)
-
I guess you also missed the fact that the OP was trying to print out while using his display profile as the output profile? That's why his prints looked like crap.
I "missed" that, and so did you! The OP posted that 25 messages into this thread...
Of course the procedure I recommended would have made it the obvious cause very quickly too! Printing a test print to verify color management is, as I and others have suggested, a very useful tool.
-
Well, I finally read the article and I'm sorry to say that Jim has a lot of stuff wrong (or mostly wrong with enough right that it may escape a casual read). Jim claims that [...]"
I'm never impressed with disrespect for someone who clearly does have significant credentials and knowledge about the topic of discussion.
Professor Jim Perkins has worked with the basis for how color management is done, and seems to understand the theory as well as some one specific implementation. I may or may not agree totally with each and everything he said, but I have a great deal of respect for each point he makes.
Here's an example:
Jim's also wrong'ish regarding the current thinking (in fact, a lot of Jim's thinking is pretty old school) about an optimal white balance. The further you try to move a display off it's native state, the more work the profile has to do...this is particularly true of any display that doesn't have internal calibration settings like the NEC has.
Your statement of theory is exactly correct, but you seem to think that supports your set of parameters rather than those given in the cited article. In fact, since gamma 1.8 and D50 will be closer to what the display will ultimately be, the profile will at best have less work to do, and at worst exactly the same work, than if your gamma 2.2 and D64 are the initial configuration parameters. Jim Perkins is precisely correct!
Sorry, while Jim certainly comes off as "scholarly" (he is, after all, an academic) I'm not real sure he has a lot of real world experience (he even admits the only printer he has is a cheapo inkjet printer that came with his computer–that was in his first post).
He comes off as being very credible, and doesn't try to twist facts or other people's words. He said he uses only one printer for his "professional work" as an artist. We can also assume that he has access, in his academic role, to all of the fancy printers he has mentioned not needing to own personally. Given his discussion it is pretty clear that he knows exactly what he's talking about, and stands on what he says rather than trying to denigrate those who might disagree.
I have some friends at RIT (my alma mater) and I think I'll need to ping them and see if I can get in touch with Jim and teach him a few things...
Learning is a better goal.
So, a "very good authoritative article"? Nope, it's a very basic and somewhat flawed article at best. Sorry...
Now, if you want to learn how to properly calibrate and profile a display, just ask. Andrew (or I) are willing to help.
Anyone wanting to learn should certainly read what you have to say, and should pay attention to the discussion it generates. But they should also pay particular attention to more credible sources, such as Jim Perkiins, and weight their thoughts on the subject too.
-
Learning is a better goal.
Anyone wanting to learn should certainly read what you have to say, and should pay attention to the discussion it generates. But they should also pay particular attention to more credible sources, such as Jim Perkiins, and weight their thoughts on the subject too.
So, Jim is "more credible"? Ok, well I think we can stop talking right there...
BTW, I'm more that "credible" source about the subject Jim is writing about and have perhaps written a bit more about the subject than Jim. Peer review is peer review...
-
Again, the article makes no mention of proper color management. In a color managed workflow, the gamma setting makes no difference to what displays on screen. Whatever the setting is compensated in the profile.
What does matter, however, is that forcing a display into non-native behavior is never a good idea. And it's not even necessary, unless you care how it looks without color management (I don't).
For color management purposes, monitor calibration doesn't require a colorimeter. What you need to do is set the white point luminance and temperature, and this should be done in the monitor's hardware anyway. A hardware calibrator will do it of course, but it can also be done in the monitor's OSD menu. This is the user defined part. Luminance is critical, but temperature can be left at native if desired. Gamma should be left at native (it just happens to be close to 2.2).
Then you need to make a profile, a full description of the monitor in whatever state the calibration leaves it, using a colorimeter. That's the color management part (which the article ignores). A color managed application doesn't even know about the calibration, it doesn't need to. It just uses the profile.
-
The profile changes the monitor to make it look like the printer output.
No. It's a printer profile used to make sure the printer delivers the best colours.
It can be used for soft proofing the printer's output, but it doesn't change the monitor in itself.
-
No. It's a printer profile used to make sure the printer delivers the best colours.
It can be used for soft proofing the printer's output, but it doesn't change the monitor in itself.
When soft proofing, it changes what the monitor displays in order to accurately reflect what
the printer will produce.
-
When soft proofing, it changes what the monitor displays in order to accurately reflect what
the printer will produce.
"Accurately" ? NO.
It's just an approximation and restricted by the gamut of the monitor and the fundamental differences between a transmissive and reflected image.
-
"Accurately" ? NO.
It's just an approximation and restricted by the gamut of the monitor and the fundamental differences between a transmissive and reflected image.
Why deny, and then repeat the essence using more words?
Don't you think the meaning was clear? I do.
-
Proofing to a printer profile doesn't change what the monitor displays - it just limits the gamut to the proof profile. But anything within gamut is unchanged.
Think of it like this: source/document profile <convert to> proof profile <convert to> monitor profile. It's a standard color management chain, but with an extra link. The final result is the same, but with gamut limitations imposed first by proof and then by monitor.
-
Don't you think the meaning was clear? I do.
No, it's not clear, it's misleading and wrong.
You've given poor advice already in this thread, maybe it's time to just stop and go away and learn more about the subject.
-
NEC PA301W running SV and trying to print from Lightroom 5 - The print is sooooo much darker that the display, tried both options under "Color Management" section in Lightroom meaning tried both profiles, etc and still the same dark prints -
Printer is Epson 3880 and paper is Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster.
What am I doing wrong?
Did you get it resolved? I use a Nec PA271W with SV2 and have my luminance set to around 90 to match with prints illuminated with a Solux4700k (actually measured around 4500-4600k) and get a good match. (gamma L (native) with contrast at default, or 2.2 with contrast range at around 250-300, depending on the paper used,)
If nothing else in your pipeline is "broken", bringing the luminance down or increasing the illumination of the print in the viewing setup should provide a resolution to the issue.
-
No, it's not clear, it's misleading and wrong.
You've given poor advice already in this thread, maybe it's time to just stop and go away and learn more about the subject.
Gee, that's how I would have described what you said! Small world, eh...
-
Modern thoughts are to calibrate to a standard: which I suggest be in the D65, gamma 2.2 with luminance output at about 150 cd/m² and match your viewing environment to match your display environment so the print can match your display (not the other way around. Oh, for these of you with NEC displays, I also suggest using a 250/1 contrast range which more closely matches the contrast range you can get off a glossy print.
What viewing illumination assumptions are you using? I've found 150 cd/m2 doesn't get my prints bright enough (confirmed when I went to a Charles Cramer workshop - prints too dark), 100 cd/m2 and 6500 gets me there.
-
What viewing illumination assumptions are you using? I've found 150 cd/m2 doesn't get my prints bright enough (confirmed when I went to a Charles Cramer workshop - prints too dark), 100 cd/m2 and 6500 gets me there.
It isn't just the print viewing conditions, it is also ambient light for the monitor. I use D65, 2.2 and 140 cd/m²and it works for me. I have huge (shaded) north facing windows in my print studio, and I rarely work in the evenings.
Brian A
-
No, it's not clear, it's misleading and wrong.
You've given poor advice already in this thread, maybe it's time to just stop and go away and learn more about the subject.
+1
Bill
-
The whole point of an ICC color management workflow is so that images can be reproduced device independent, therefore we calibrate to a standard, so that when I make color corrections for a book in Perth, I will Print as expected in Hong Kong.
I follow the standard, the printer follow the standard - it takes all the guess work out of it. well 90% of the time :-)
6500k 2.2G and 100cd/m2 seems to do the trick - I am using SpectraView II on a 2690v2
I hope the OP got his print right in the end - definitely need to use the right profile for the right device.
All the best
Henrik
-
Both Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney have tons more real world experience and understanding on this matter then the person to whom you are referring. Carefully look at Andrew's and Jeff's credentials.
Gee, that's how I would have described what you said! Small world, eh...