A Visual Examination of Printer Manages Color - Oh My!

[Doug Gray]

Having commented in the past about the fairly large differences printer manages v Photoshop manages for color reproduction I thought an experiment showing how a Colorchecker prints differently between the two processes. The attached images demonstrate the rather extreme lightening and increase in saturation that occurs on my Canon 9500 II just letting the printer print v properly color managed process.

I started with a Colorchecker CGATS color set from BabelColor. Created a CC image from them and converted it to sRGB. The conversion changes the cyan patch reducing saturation a bit but not any of the others.

Then I made a tiff image of the printed colors showing on the right side of each patch the starting CC color and the left side the color printed. One set is printed with Printer Manages using the defaults in the Windows driver, the other was made using Photoshop Manages with a custom profile and Perceptual Intent. The paper used was Canon Pro Platinum.

What is most startling is that Printer Manages pushes saturation (check the cyan patch). It also lightens most all the print colors a huge amount. Some of the colors are beyond sRGB even though the original was sRGB.

This is not a result of manufacturing tolerance. It's almost certainly intentional. Assuming Canon did research that shows people like casual snapshots printed this way what does this tell us? Perhaps this can be explained by CIECAM02? I would expect something like this to be done using CIECAM02 converting from a luminance of 500 Lux to say, 150 Lux.

See this link:
https://sites.google.com/site/clifframes/ciecam02plugin

Anyone here consider the use of CIECAM02 or tweak images to accomplish these large shifts?


First image is CC and Printer Manages, second image is CC and Perceptual with Photoshop Manages.

[Mark D Segal]

Not surprised, even though I can't see the images. You have them in TIFF format rather than JPEG. For whatever reason, either this website or Firefox won't open TIFF images in this Forum board. On the subject matter itself, I have reviewed the performance of Printer Manages Color (PMC) in one or the other of my printer and paper reviews (e.g. see Printing Can be Fun and Easy) and also noticed that there are saturation differences, but I was surprised by how close PMC can come to Application Managed printing. Methodologically orthodox quantitative evaluation is rendered difficult because one does not have Absolute Rendering Intent with PMC.

[digitaldog]

And difference via the OS?

[Alan Goldhammer]

Not surprised, even though I can't see the images. You have them in TIFF format rather than JPEG. For whatever reason, either this website or Firefox won't open TIFF images in this Forum board.

quite right, I know you are on MacOS,  Firefox on Windows doesn't show them either.  It would be useful for posters to render things to JPEGs so that we don't have to open the image in another application.

EDIT:  In my case, clicking on the image title prompts me to either save the image or open it in Windows Photo Viewer which I guess is OK as I clearly saw the differences.

[Stephen Ray]

I see the images fine using Mac OS and Safari.

[rasworth]

I guess we've sort of shanghaied this thread, but one can Google for "firefox tif viewer" while in W10 Firefox, first item is free download/plug-in via Mozilla.org for tif viewing.

Richard Southworth

[Doug Gray]

Thanks for the feedback on what browsers work on these files.

I've recently shifted to 16 bit, zip compression, Interleaved RGB, IBM byte order, tiff files because they use up the smallest space at the same time as being able to have high resolution (dEs from digitization of < .05). This really is only necessary for high precision targets which I sometimes need for certain purposes. Displays on Windows IE. At least versions from Win 7 or later. Tiff files with zip compression are known to be less compatible but they take up much less disk space.

Tiff's are not needed for this image (or most) so I have changed them and placed them on a single jpeg.  Unlike the 16 bit tiffs, the Lab values at the bottom of the patches will only match colors to 1 or 2 dE but the very large color shifts are way beyond that.

It's fascinating that a good Perceptual print results in a slight darkening. This is completely normal because Perceptual scales paper white to L*==100 so the printed white patch (L*=96) will be lower.  But to brighten the other patch colors so much requires very high compression on the highlights.

Compare the 6 neutral patches on the bottom rows to see how extreme this tone curve change is.

[Doug Gray]

And difference via the OS?

That's a good question Andrew. I suspect OEMs would use the same driver defaults with the same model and different OSes for Printer Manages Color but don't know for sure.  I do know there is variation between printer OEMs because my Epson 9800 does this too, but it is more subtle.

I am quite curious as to how this has evolved and what the OEMs have chosen. If anyone wishes, I can provide image targets of CC colors for scanning with my iSis and will provide a mailing address for those willing to print them. I will post the results. It would be interesting to see how the different OEMs have made their choices and how it's evolved.

[Mark D Segal]

I guess we've sort of shanghaied this thread, but one can Google for "firefox tif viewer" while in W10 Firefox, first item is free download/plug-in via Mozilla.org for tif viewing.

Richard Southworth

Thanks Richard

[Alan Goldhammer]

I guess we've sort of shanghaied this thread, but one can Google for "firefox tif viewer" while in W10 Firefox, first item is free download/plug-in via Mozilla.org for tif viewing.

Richard Southworth

+1 to what Mark just wrote.  Downloaded the plug in and the Tif images are right there now!!

[Mark D Segal]

Yes same here.

[digitaldog]

Here's what I'm seeing on Mac OS, Epson 3880.
Printed my Gamut Test File (http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif) using both Application Manages Color (Photoshop) and Printer Manages Color.
Printer Manages Color is pretty butt ugly! Over saturated and lots of banding in Granger Rainbow etc. I picked RelCol and Auto using Epson Luster paper.
There's no comparison between the two; the print without proper color management is pretty awful in comparison. I could make some scans but not sure it's worthwhile. Both synthetic imagery (Bills Balls, gradients) and actual images from raw to ProPhoto are dark and contrasty and over saturated. I can't imagine anyone preferring this output.

Friends don't let friends use Printer Manages Color with such data. Maybe converting to sRGB first (which I'd never do and would hose much of the nice saturated colors) may be better.

If you folks really want to see scans or a photo of each, let me know or download and make your own prints with this file.

[Doug Gray]

Here's what I'm seeing on Mac OS, Epson 3880.
Printed my Gamut Test File (http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif) using both Application Manages Color (Photoshop) and Printer Manages Color.
Printer Manages Color is pretty butt ugly! Over saturated and lots of banding in Granger Rainbow etc. I picked RelCol and Auto using Epson Luster paper.
There's no comparison between the two; the print without proper color management is pretty awful in comparison. I could make some scans but not sure it's worthwhile. Both synthetic imagery (Bills Balls, gradients) and actual images from raw to ProPhoto are dark and contrasty and over saturated. I can't imagine anyone preferring this output.

What you see doesn't surprise me given the colors in your test image. It's really good for stress testing custom or canned profiles using color management. No telling what might result with printer management.  Windows will only print sRGB images using the printer driver defaults. Like you, I'm not sure it's worthwhile converting it to sRGB then printing. The Colorchecker only has one patch outside sRGB. Almost everyone has one so it seemed like a reasonable candidate to look at what stuff the OEMs were up to.

Friends don't let friends use Printer Manages Color with such data. Maybe converting to sRGB first (which I'd never do and would hose much of the nice saturated colors) may be better.

If you folks really want to see scans or a photo of each, let me know or download and make your own prints with this file.

Yeah, no kidding.  What I'm trying to wrap my head around is why OEMs would make such changes so hyper saturated, and strongly lightened tone curve? Do they have studies that show some preference for this? I'm pretty sure their studies show most people that aren't doing their own color management are in sRGB or some, probably unmanaged approximation of sRGB. But that doesn't explain the saturation and tone curve changes. However, at first blush it is at least somewhat consistent with the alterations made by CIECAM02 with reduced viewing luminance. But if so their studies must indicate some large preference for lower luminous environments and that they are targeting those for the plug and play crowd.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Is there a reason why you chose to use default printer settings with "Printer Manages Color"? Isn't this kind of hobbling the results for a bias toward "Photoshop Manages Colors"?

I don't own an expensive printer. I have to use "Printer Manages Color" on my $50 Epson "All In One" printing Epson Ultra Premium Glossy 8x10's, but I do have to use specific driver settings (not defaults) that renders a close enough match on a wide range of photographed scenes.

But you've proven your point for high end printers costing over $100 that "Photoshop Manages Color" is the way to go. I'm sure this thread will help a lot of folks who use this level of quality printers.

[Doug Gray]

Is there a reason why you chose to use default printer settings with "Printer Manages Color"? Isn't this kind of hobbling the results for a bias toward "Photoshop Manages Colors"?

I don't own an expensive printer. I have to use "Printer Manages Color" on my $50 Epson "All In One" printing Epson Ultra Premium Glossy 8x10's, but I do have to use specific driver settings (not defaults) that renders a close enough match on a wide range of photographed scenes.

What I'm trying to understand is what the printer OEMs think the part of their market, probably pretty sizable, that doesn't use color management considers "good."  One presumes the defaults are set to what most like since otherwise it's a sort of commercial suicide. It differs considerably from properly color managed processes and I'd like to know why.  The only explanation that makes any sense at all, other than gross incompetence, is that they are somehow applying a CAM (Color Appearance Model) to the images.

[digitaldog]

I don't own an expensive printer. I have to use "Printer Manages Color" on my $50 Epson "All In One" printing Epson Ultra Premium Glossy 8x10's, but I do have to use specific driver settings (not defaults) that renders a close enough match on a wide range of photographed scenes.

Good to know, should a future discussion about color management (or the lack thereof) and printing come up here or elsewhere.
Further, your idea that you have to use Printer Manages Color makes no sense considering I also own an Epson All In One (XP-860) and as you may be able to see, I can and do select custom ICC profiles within Photoshop and other applications using that printer and can utilize Application Manages Color!

[digitaldog]

What I'm trying to understand is what the printer OEMs think the part of their market, probably pretty sizable, that doesn't use color management considers "good."

Yes, 'good enough' color. Like close enough. Perfect for the hobbyists here 

[Tim Lookingbill]

What I'm trying to understand is what the printer OEMs think the part of their market, probably pretty sizable, that doesn't use color management considers "good."  One presumes the defaults are set to what most like since otherwise it's a sort of commercial suicide. It differs considerably from properly color managed processes and I'd like to know why.  The only explanation that makes any sense at all, other than gross incompetence, is that they are somehow applying a CAM (Color Appearance Model) to the images.

Have you found this CAM takes into account the other printer setting options that do change the results as I described above with the Epson "All In One"?

All this is you just speculating on what a bunch of Canon engineers or marketers think what color should look like. Maybe you're misjudging the market these printers were aimed at especially considering we're now living in a time of content overload where the value of an image isn't worth the trouble you've outlined.

IOW nobody cares except technologists who expect split hair precision printing targets from a device that's not meant to be used as a precise tool. Close enough is close enough and move on. People have over thousands of images to cull through to print, frame and hang on their walls. They'll probably spend 3 seconds looking at them and not notice how off some of the color is to what? The original image? Why would they want to make those comparisons?

[digitaldog]

IOW nobody cares except technologists who expect split hair precision printing targets from a device that's not meant to be used as a precise tool.

Speaking for all others or speaking for all hobbyists?

People have over thousands of images to cull through to print, frame and hang on their walls.

People and professionals often differ. A good definition of a professional: you can't pay or convince them to produce anything but the highest quality possible.
Don't just learn the tricks of the trade, learn the trade. That's another difference between pro's and amateurs. 

A professional is someone who can do his best work when he doesn't feel like it.
-Alistair Cooke

[Mark D Segal]

Before anyone gets carried away with conclusions about the relative merits or demerits of Printer Manages Color (PMC), (which BTW is not a workflow I would use for my printing), please consider that not all versions of it are born equal. Epson engaged some high-end scientific talent to design it for the SC-P5000 printer and the results that I obtained using this printer would seem to justify that effort (please see my Printing Can Be Fun and Easy article). The sample on the right is PMC, the one on the left is Application managed, custom ICC profile. The PMC version is a bit over-saturated, and the gray ramp is a bit less neutral looking and a bit heavier in the quartertones than it should be; but grosso modo it is a result not to be scoffed at - as I said, not for my portfolio, but for many it would be satisfactory. It may perhaps be relevant to recall here that I'm on OSX, so I had and used the option to work it in ARGB(98).