Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: narikin on March 31, 2015, 12:33:43 pm
-
Hi All,
I'm trying to print an image with bright RED elements that must really pop out. It does on my (wide gamut) NEC screen, but sadly is much reduced when printed with Epson K3vM inks. Both soft proofing and printed reality disappoint - it's simply not the same image this way.
It's a little better on the 12-ink Canon ipf8300, with a dedicated Red cart, but not enough. Might I improve things on an HP, or some other printer/inkset? It's being printed on Canson Platine, using hi sat custom profiles. I've soft proofed through multiple papers, and I found Epson Proofing paper seems to give a marginal boost, with its full color volume, but still nothing like the red in the file or onscreen with soft-proofing off.
So: any suggestions on how to get a rich vibrant red in a print?
Tried looking at soft proofs of C-prints via Lambda or Fujiflex - worse than inkjet, it seems. This needs be pigment ink on a PK paper, as it's an 'art' print, though I suspect dyes may be more vibrant if we were to explore that route.
-
could you consider using a spray-on finish?
-
Have you tried a metallic paper?
-
Tried looking at soft proofs of C-prints via Lambda or Fujiflex - worse than inkjet, it seems. This needs be pigment ink on a PK paper, as it's an 'art' print, though I suspect dyes may be more vibrant if we were to explore that route.
Pretty easy to “pop out” colors with a back lit system such as a display vs reflected light from a print. If you have complete control of the environment where the print is displayed often you can use lighting and print things a little dark to pop the image.
Hard to know what “red” you are after, there are many flavors. I suspect the HP won’t do any better.
You may find the C print reds are better than the soft proof. I know the strawberries in Bill Atkinsons test page are pretty rich, especially if printed on something like Kodak Metallic or Fujiflex.
-
be realistic:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/red.png)
-
The reds on the Z3200 are pretty good, not that I've seen prints from an Epson or Canon to compare. But then again it may well be your monitor's gamut is just too rich to make a comparable print. And what sort of paper are you using for the print?
Neal
-
you are very likely running into the transmitted vs reflected light conundrum. you simply don't get the vibrance off of a reflected surface, even the best c prints never did the projected slide justice.
-
Technically the HP Z3200 wins (by a hair) on the true reds when printing on Canson Platine over the Epsons and Canons. The Epson x900 wins on the orange/yellow side by a larger margin and the Canon 8300/8400 wins on blues/purples. The difference on the reds is really not that big in favor of the Z3200 as it used to be when it was released.
As Marcin said, be realistic. No printer today will give you a red close to what you get on a wide gamut display.
-
If you'd like I can do a test print for your. But I think a couple people have pointed out that the screen vs reflective is different, and MUCH more pronounced in a wide gamut screen.
I use a XL30 Samsung as 1 of 3 screens I proof under and the wide gamut is going to be very rich in the reds. I like the suggestions given for differnt papers. I would be happy to do a test for you on the Z3200.
-
...
So: any suggestions on how to get a rich vibrant red in a print?
...
it is all relative - so as long as your NEC monitor is not shown side by side and you have done your best to enhance it in print- it will pop..
You can also do some things on the display side - put a spot light on the reds... - that will make them pop out ..
PK
-
As Marcin said, be realistic. No printer today will give you a red close to what you get on a wide gamut display.
Right. Even the Z3200 reds on Epson Proofing White Semi-Matte do not come close to that but they are very saturated for a print. A gloss finish like face mounted Diasec would improve on that impression, maybe not on actual color saturation. Beyond that it is N-color dye and N-color dye + back-lit I guess. Will be difficult to profile.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Depending on the image you may be able to accentuate the red by tweaking the colours around it. A given shade of red will look "redder" if surrounded by blue so cooling the rest of the colours in the print might help.
William.
-
Thanks all for the useful replies.
Yes, Czornyj's "be realistic" is a useful sanity check. Also a reminder how far we have to go with our inkjet gamut, before we come close to ARGB. I did wonder about the new 10color (?) small format Epson's announced late last year, but that is not wide enough for a 40" print.
I'll think about the generous HP offers, (thanks Phil!) but it sounds from what's said here, that the gain is marginal, in any case. This does indeed have to be a classic reflection print, and cannot be on metallics or backlit, or whatever.
Yes, it is relative, and with no comparison looks ok, but it really looks amazing on screen, that's the image I want to get closest to, and makes it very hard to accept the trade-down in gamut. I'll do an iPF 8300 print, to compare, but expect to see only the smallest of difference.
-
Could you post the image in question?
-
Sadly I can't really - not my copyright.
-
ps: I was half expecting someone to suggest a new generation Dye based printer like the Pixma Pro-100 as compromise solution.
Does anyone have a gamut plot for that dye-based system compared to Epson HDR or Canon Pigment?
-
ps: I was half expecting someone to suggest a new generation Dye based printer like the Pixma Pro-100 as compromise solution.
Does anyone have a gamut plot for that dye-based system compared to Epson HDR or Canon Pigment?
Not much joy there…
Epson 9900 red, Canon Pro 100 green. Profiles from Canson for Platine
(http://theartfulimage.com/images/forums/9900redPro100green1.jpg)
(http://theartfulimage.com/images/forums/9900redPro100green2.jpg)
… and the 9900 and ipf8400 don't differ that much.
Brian A
-
ps: I was half expecting someone to suggest a new generation Dye based printer like the Pixma Pro-100 as compromise solution.
Does anyone have a gamut plot for that dye-based system compared to Epson HDR or Canon Pigment?
I agree that dyes probably have the potential to hit the highest gamut. I do not have a gamut plot of the Epson advanced dyes (Claria, Noritsu, UltraChrome D6), but is side-by-side comparisons to pigment color prints, the dyes, in general, win the beauty contest. I never saw a direct red comparison, however.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
-
Selective color is your best tool. But I must ask are you clipping the gamut of your working space? And are you using pro photo as you're working space? Using pro photo with highly saturated colors leads to very problematic gamut compression.
-
Not much joy there…
Epson 9900 red, Canon Pro 100 green. Profiles from Canson for Platine
(http://theartfulimage.com/images/forums/9900redPro100green1.jpg)
(http://theartfulimage.com/images/forums/9900redPro100green2.jpg)
… and the 9900 and ipf8400 don't differ that much.
Brian A
So that would seem to put the lie to the claim that dye based inkjet printers have a larger potential gamut than pigment based, yes ?
-
Epson Claria is wider than the 9900.
Canon is a thermal head technology that must use inks that are thinned more than the epson heads.
This allows Epson printers to have a heavier ink with respect to colorant load which can give more gamut.
Canon ipf wide format pigment printers are a heavier ink but do not have a dye ink available.
The best way to compare is to do an apples to apples comparison with the same head / ink formulation tech.
In that case the Claria dye still wins.
-
So that would seem to put the lie to the claim that dye based inkjet printers have a larger potential gamut than pigment based, yes ?
At least on Canson Platine Rag, it does much worse than the Epson 9900 and Canon 8400. Unless Canson's own profile for the Pro 100 isn't very good. One would hope that is does better on RC papers.
Brian A
-
Epson Claria is wider than the 9900.
If by wider you mean wider gamut, then it doesn't appear to be so, at least not on the paper of choice, Canson Platine Fibre Rag 310.
Brian A
-
I don't know how you can claim that since Canson does not have profiles for the Claria printers to make a controlled comparison.
-
I don't know how you can claim that since Canson does not have profiles for the Claria printers to make a controlled comparison.
Yes, you are right, a little too much projection on my behalf. When I get back into work on Monday, I could plot Claria against Pro 100 on Red River RC paper. And then look at the Pro 100 gamut on Red River's only baryta paper. It isn't direct, but I am still surprised on how poorly the dye inks of the Canon printer did.
Brian A
-
I was very surprised myself to see the gamut being so limited. My guess is that it is from the driver not allowing enough ink load. I'm not familiar with the platine fiber rag but I would assume that it is capable of a very high ink load and the desktop printer driver doesn't allow enough ink load.
-
I was very surprised myself to see the gamut being so limited. My guess is that it is from the driver not allowing enough ink load. I'm not familiar with the platine fiber rag but I would assume that it is capable of a very high ink load and the desktop printer driver doesn't allow enough ink load.
It could also just be a poor profile. A sample size of one isn't good.
Brian A
-
maybe the 12 color inkset from American inkjet could come closer to what you want? They might be able to point you to a printer running their inks for a test print?
http://www.americaninkjetsystems2.com/
-
The closest Red River paper to Canson Platine Fiibre Rag is their San Gabriel Baryta. So this is a comparison of the Epson UltraChrome (9900) vs the Epson Claria Hi Def (Artisan 1430). The UltraChrome is wireframe.
(http://theartfulimage.com/images/forums/ClariaVsUltraChrome2.jpg)
(http://theartfulimage.com/images/forums/ClariaVsUltraChrome1.jpg)
The Epson Claria inks have a wider gamut than the Canon Pro 100, but has a slightly smaller gamut volume than the UltraChrome inks. It is better in some areas, but not in others.
Brian A
-
Interesting. Brian, is your Canon Pro100 the original or a later iteration ?
The reason I ask is that my Pro100 (original) puts a lot of ink down. But I have noticed that more recent models of A4 printers put down a lot less ink (you can tell by the wetness of the paper). So perhaps the newer Canon’s put down less ink ? Just wondering if this might explain the differences…
-
Brian,
It is interesting that the Claria primaries gamut exceeded the Ultrachrome gamut in these plots.
The Ultrachrome has deeper blacks and smoother intermediates but lower gamut width with more colorful darks.
Using 3d wireframe is not the best way to measure gamut width if saturation is concerned 2d works for that.
However the OP is interested in deep colors so the UC will be better.
-
Interesting. Brian, is your Canon Pro100 the original or a later iteration ?
The reason I ask is that my Pro100 (original) puts a lot of ink down. But I have noticed that more recent models of A4 printers put down a lot less ink (you can tell by the wetness of the paper). So perhaps the newer Canon’s put down less ink ? Just wondering if this might explain the differences…
These are plotted using generic profiles supplied by paper manufacturers and refactorers. They are not specific to any version of the Pro 100. But, the ink loading is not determined by the profiles, they only deal with color tramforms.
Brian A
-
It is interesting that the Claria primaries gamut exceeded the Ultrachrome gamut in these plots.
The Ultrachrome has deeper blacks and smoother intermediates but lower gamut width with more colorful darks.
Using 3d wireframe is not the best way to measure gamut width if saturation is concerned 2d works for that.
However the OP is interested in deep colors so the UC will be better.
It is for visualization, not measurement, there are better ways of measuring using the data (ColorThink, for example).
Two-dimensional plots are only better as static snap shots, the three-dimensional plots are better when you can rotate and zoom. All the saturated colors are a the edge boundary. A three-dimensional plot will give you, for example, an idea of how well a profile will deal with transitions between saturated colors of a similar hue. If, for example, the surface doesn't form a convex hull (if it has troughs and/or craters), then there will b e places where pasteurization can occur.
ICCView is a free online 3D plotter that anyone can play with. It allows the uploading of up to two profiles. It doesn't work with version 4 profiles, only version 2.
http://www.iccview.de/
Brian A
-
Brian,
We are referring here to the saturation capacity of the Claria vs the Ultrachrome.
When comparing an inkset to another inkset the 2d plot determines which has greater saturation capacity.
The metrics with 3D plots you mention are for judging a paper & print driver profile quality. I thought the conversation was regarding the gamut potential of the 2 inksets.
The quality of the profile is not the sole characteristic of the inkset. It is the quality of the profile mapping, driver and paper.
One can make a poor quality profile with an outstanding inkset all too easily. and vice versa.
Ink limits, GCR/ UCR, multi color limits, gamut mapping settings, ink laydown order, etc all can either make or break a profile
which is where 3D plots come into play to show the quality of the PROFILE and not the ultimate measure of the inkset gamut.
Remember that the most saturated colors are not the highest inkload. The poor shadows of the Claria profile simply tell us that there is low chromatic black generation in the driver, which is unfortunate but
an ink saving technique for a desktop printer.
Granted most people are simply using the windows driver which is what most of these plots are based on and do not get every last bit of fidelity.
I don't really want to get into a tit for tat conversation but we were talking about the gamut volume of an inkset and the 3D plot confuses the subject with variables not solely attributable to the inkset.
-
To do the tests justice, you’d use the same paper for both printers, build a profile with the same software and settings and view the gamut, 3D in ColorThink. It will provide a Gamut Volume but more useful is, as hugowolf had done, in 3D, looking at all angles. Why ColorThink specifically? See: http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28#Myth_26
No idea if the product hugowolf used works the same way or not. But ideally it would.
If we have two profiles from two different manufacturers, the tests are iffy at best.
-
Yes ProPhoto, but obviously my screen is just showing me an ARGB interpretation of that.
I have indeed used selective color, and did what was possible to improve it - it's a good help in fact, but still nothing like the wonderful red on screen!
This will also be reproduced as the cover of a book, the printer is testing 7 color special inks to get it as alive as they can, but obviously CMYK printing ink color space is even smaller than pigment inkjet.
-
Without using a fluorescent ink there is no way to get the colors brighter than paper. I have been down this road before and spent an enormous amount of funds trying to engineer a system for a famous flower photographer only to find that he was only happy with his monitors presentation.
Knowing that it is a CMYK destination leaves less hope for a reasonable solution.
Optical brighteners help but are short lived.
Knowing that highly saturated colors are brighter, I would look to create a darker / denser image with less gamut clipping and maintain the saturation brightness relationship with the rest of the image colors.