Calibration issue with NEC PA301W. Prints too dark...

[TechTalk]

...I'm totally lost about the bit about an assumption. If I'm a bit confused by your suggestions...

I think that you and Doug are on the same general page, but just inadvertently talking past each other. I think Doug's post was counterpoint to Alan's comment that "The acceptable range is 80 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2".

[digitaldog]

I think that you and Doug are on the same general page, but just inadvertently talking past each other. I think Doug's post was counterpoint to Alan's comment that "The acceptable range is 80 cd/m2 to 120 cd/m2".

All of us should ignore anything Alan recommends. He's lost in (color) space. 😂

[Doug Gray]

Again, I'm aware of this recommendation but I'm totally lost about the bit about an assumption. If I'm a bit confused by your suggestions, what about the OP and do you have something to suggest for his issue: prints appear darker than his display?
Let me make it perfectly clear I am not suggesting any Cd/m2 settings (mine or otherwise) for the OP or anyone else; that's folly to do and can only be provided based on assumptions.
IF someone clearly defines they are using the same NEC PA as I do, the same software and colorimeter and viewing conditions, and the same paper I use, I could provide a recommendation as a starting point. We are not there.

About the only thing I "assumed" is that the OP was viewing prints under 300 Lux. That may well not be correct. The first way to check is compare how bright an unprinted paper appears compared to the monitor with a screen filled with "white" when adjacent.  If the paper is significantly darker one would expect prints to also appear darker. If not there may be some problem with either the profile being used to print or the one controlling the monitor. Usually it's because the prints are viewed with lower lighting levels than correct for the monitor's cd/m^2 setting. May well be he's viewing the prints with 150 Lux or even less.  That's going to make the prints look too dark even if properly printed.

To get matches to match you need to control all aspects including viewing light, monitor's white point and tint to match, and the printer/paper profile being used. All too frequently the viewing light levels are not controlled to match the screen.

[digitaldog]

About the only thing I "assumed" is that the OP was viewing prints under 300 Lux.

News to me.

The first way to check is compare how bright an unprinted paper appears compared to the monitor with a screen filled with "white" when adjacent.  If the paper is significantly darker one would expect prints to also appear darker.

No assumptions necessary here: he told us there is a brightness mismatch.

To get matches to match you need to control all aspects including viewing light, monitor's white point and tint to match, and the printer/paper profile being used.

Absolutely and I provided a video that covers this.

[digitaldog]

Our hard working volunteer moderator left out of frustration such as:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=137306.msg1205403#msg1205403
He's active on Photo PXL where far less moderation is necessary.

[TechTalk]

Our hard working volunteer moderator left...

That's OK by me. I hope that he's well and happy and stays where he landed.

[digitaldog]

That's OK by me. I hope that he's well and happy and stays where he landed.

OK by me too.
Based on a private conversation, he ain't showing up here again.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I see that, in my absence, there are plenty of contenders vying to take over my role as the Jerk-In-Chief 

[TechTalk]

Welcome back. Nice to see you again.

I guess we'll all just have to live with each other's idiosyncrasies and attitudes — just like in real life.

[Frans Waterlander]

I see that, in my absence, there are plenty of contenders vying to take over my role as the Jerk-In-Chief 

I guess I have to disappoint you, but the title of Jerk-In-Chief has been awarded for eternity to, drumroll please, digitaldog.

[digitaldog]

I guess I have to disappoint you, but the title of Jerk-In-Chief has been awarded for eternity to, drumroll please, digitaldog.

No disappointment nor anything new in your posting agenda: once again, you've proven the fact your presence here in these photography forums, as one without any ability to apply photography or comment on the topic (Prints too dark) is well summed up by Mr. Marx
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot". -Groucho Marx

Wouldn't your ”valuable” time be more constructively spent on a new hobby; perhaps photography?

[Frans Waterlander]

Let me spell it out for you, Andrew: there is no longer a need to defend and/or prove your ability as the Jerk-In-Chief; this distinguished title is for eternity.

[digitaldog]

Let me spell it out for you....

That's a task that is far over your head Frans. Much like making a snapshot, let alone creating a photograph!
"It's very hard not to be condescending when you're explaining something to an idiot."-Bill Maher

With tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of websites with forums on so many topics, how is it Frans has decided to come here, take a dump on our carpet so often when it's clear he has zero talent or an ability to take a photograph? All while his audience nearly unanimously rejects virtually everything he posts?
I sometimes don't agree with Slobodan but there is no question (and proof of concept) he is a very good photographer.
I almost never agree with the fiction Alan posts on the topic of technology, but he's at least able to show us, he can take a picture.
With Frans, one has to wonder if anyone he encounters takes him seriously let alone respects him. Here and on PhotoNet (another photo website he frequently dumps his bowel movements), not the case. This distinguished fact is for eternity....

[kers]

i think you two also have some calibration issues...
please go back to the subject od this post...
"It's very hard not to be condescending when you're explaining something to an idiot."- says one idiot to the other

[TechTalk]

...please go back to the subject od this post...

It's an excellent suggestion. Although, given that the person who started the topic did not respond to the first two replies, both of which offered assistance, perhaps they should just lock the thread. If the topic starter is not responding to the helpful posts and all we have are wrestling matches, there doesn't seem to be a good reason to keep it open.

[digitaldog]

please go back to the subject od this post...

Indeed, as seen in posts #2 and #3. Then confusion started in #4 and was hijacked by Frans in post #6.

[TechTalk]

The lack of clean hands by most participants here is readily apparent. I'm washing my dirty hands right now and moving on. Best wishes to you all.

[TechTalk]

I see that, in my absence, there are plenty of contenders vying to take over my role as the Jerk-In-Chief 

Since it's still open... one last thing. I've had plenty of heated public debates with Slobodan, and privately some nice exchanges.

I let him know privately, several months ago, that I respect his intelligence and enjoy his wit. I just thought that I'd take this opportunity to embarrass him by stating it publicly. 

[Frans Waterlander]

Indeed, as seen in posts #2 and #3. Then confusion started in #4 and was hijacked by Frans in post #6.

Correction: personal attack by you in post #5; I called you out on that in post #6 and I will continue to do so whenever I see you do it.

[digitaldog]

Correction:

That's a task that is far over your head Frans. Much like making a snapshot, let alone creating a photograph!
"It's very hard not to be condescending when you're explaining something to an idiot."-Bill Maher

With tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of websites with forums on so many topics, how is it Frans has decided to come here, take a dump on our carpet so often when it's clear he has zero talent or an ability to take a photograph? All while his audience nearly unanimously rejects virtually everything he posts?
I sometimes don't agree with Slobodan but there is no question (and proof of concept) he is a very good photographer.
I almost never agree with the fiction Alan posts on the topic of technology, but he's at least able to show us, he can take a picture.
With Frans, one has to wonder if anyone he encounters takes him seriously let alone respects him. Here and on PhotoNet (another photo website he frequently dumps his bowel movements), not the case. This distinguished fact is for eternity....