Rant 23

[tho_mas]

However, they do allow that some people working in extremely color critical environments and having complete control over all variables may want to adjust the white point of the monitor to match a sheet of paper in the viewing booth. What type of paper is not specified.

too, it is possible to edit the white point of the media profiles and in fact this is what some professionals do. But it is a lot of work and AFAIK one have to really know what he is doing. So we should cancel that :-)
I'm sorry that I can't provide links or literature where the problem is discussed... it's all German.

[Ray]

I've mentioned the visual match of paper and monitor white several times. You seem to ignore this. Too, I explained why the measurement with certain papers (especially those used for photgraphy, namely literally all semi glossy or glossy papers) leads to a blueish/grayish representation of white in those profiles.

 The first part (simulate black ink turns off the BPC) - in my reading - is nonsense. In fact it enables BPC for the preview on the monitor.
If you don't trust me, try it yourself. Look at an image (Jack's printer test) without softproof. Now enable softproof with rel.col RI + BPC and only with "black ink" for the preview: the dark tonal values will be displayed brighter (and less contrastier). Why? Because the black point of the paper (of the target profile) is reflected for the preview on the monitor. With "black ink" disabled the (rel.col+BPC) softproofed image is displayed within the contrast range of the monitor.
Too, as with "paper simulation" the "black ink" simulation is selected simultaniously that would mean - in the consequence of what they are saying - that BPC for the preview would be turned off as well. Doesn't makes sense to me... other than there a misreading due to language barriers.
Now as to paper simulation... in theory that's all great. Above all: in theory it's true. The problem is the (real world) measurement of certain media. Photographic papers often contain, I repeat myself, optical brighteners. Optical brighteners reflect UV light as bluesih. So the actual white is recorded as a light blue in the profile. And therefore at the same time darker than white. See my post #141.

You can make your own proof: adjust the display to the white of the paper - so that the monitor white matches the paper white under your prefered viewing conditions visually.
Now white is white. Not warmer nor colder but the same. Not darker nor brighter, but the same.
Now you enable paper simulation and the white changes. At the latest now you must wonder what is going on - the monitor already matched the paper white; if the white changes duee to "paper simulation", it simply can't be "true".

I haven't ignored it. I'm just not clear how you are matching the paper color and monitor white in your calibration process. After I've calibrated my monitor, I wouldn't want to touch any controls. I've got options of individual R,G,B, adjustments, and a selection for 9300K, 5000K and sRGB. The monitor is calibrated at maximum contrast setting and minimum brightness setting.

I've gone to the trouble of posting a screen shot of your original cloud scene as it appears on my monitor using 'Simulate Paper Color' demonstrating that my setup does not produce a bluish/grey white with Epson Enhanced matte which quite a white paper for matte and I would therefore think it would have a lot of artificial whiteners and brighteners. Now it's true that Simulate Paper Color in relation to the Prm Lustre and Prm Gloss profiles does produce a slightly more blue/grey appearance in my monitor preview, but I assume (from memory) that's how the papers are. The whites of Matte papers, especially rag papers, tend to be more yellow, and glossy papers more blue. Is this not the case?

I don't use a viewing booth. I work on my computer in an open environment, in broad daylight with a view out of the window. In the evening I use 'cool-daylight' energy-saving lights.

[tho_mas]

I haven't ignored it. I'm just not clear how you are matching the paper color and monitor white in your calibration process. After I've calibrated my monitor, I wouldn't want to touch any controls. I've got options of individual R,G,B, adjustments, and a selection for 9300K, 5000K and sRGB. The monitor is calibrated at maximum contrast setting and minimum brightness setting.

ah, okay, I see.
As part of the calibration you set the white point by adjusting the RGB chanels to match a certain target (e.g. 5800K or 6500K or whatever).
Skip that!
Take your prefered paper (in your case preferably in smooth, cloudy daylight) and adjust the RGB chanels so that the monitor white matches the white of the paper.
Now reset the white point target in the calibration software, i.e. set the software to calibrate to "native white point" (i1 Match provides it as far as I remeber correctly). Now the calibration software will do the rest as usual.
After calibration, of course, don't touch the monitor menu anymore.

I've gone to the trouble of posting a screen shot of your original cloud scene as it appears on my monitor using 'Simulate Paper Color' demonstrating that my setup does not produce a bluish/grey white with Epson Enhanced matte which quite a white paper for matte and I would therefore think it would have a lot of artificial whiteners and brighteners. Now it's true that Simulate Paper Color in relation to the Prm Lustre and Prm Gloss profiles does produce a slightly more blue/grey appearance in my monitor preview, but I assume (from memory) that's how the papers are. The whites of Matte papers, especially rag papers, tend to be more yellow, and glossy papers more blue. Is this not the case?

That's true. Matte papers are more yellowish and glossy papers more blueish (basically). Cheap newspaper papers are extremely yellowish. There are some papers without any optical brighteners, e.g. from Canson and AFAIK Hahnemühle has some, too (probably other manufacturers as well, I don't know).
But the measurment errors in the profiles affect the preview on the monitor much more as you would consider the difference between those papers hanging on the wall. My prefered FUJI semi matt is slightly darker and a touch more bluesih in reality as the Innova Fiba ultra smooth. But in softproof mode with paper simulation it's a world of a difference - here the FUJI is clearly blue, the Innova is actually almost neutral (edit: hups - bad memory; the Innova is quite blueish as well)... still paper simulation darkens the image on the monitor. That would be fine if the resulting print would be darker as well... but it is not.
I.e. whilst the differences of the papers are almost negligible (as long as you don't compare the papers side by side) the white points in their respective profiles are very, very different.
So I don't change the calibration of the display either way which print I prepare. The monitor simply displays "neutral" white and as long as the papers I use are within a certain tolerance that's all fine.
I would possibly re-calibrate if I'd use noticeably warmer papers as well (with hardware calibration you just switch profiles and the software adjusts the monitor hardware to the respective values, so that's quite comfortable with HW calibration in this case).
BTW: I don't have any printer... I am prining in a lab.

[Ray]

Take your prefered paper (in your case preferably in smooth, cloudy daylight) and adjust the RGB chanels so that the monitor white matches the white of the paper.
Now reset the white point target in the calibration software, i.e. set the software to calibrate to "native white point" (i1 Match provides it as far as I remeber correctly). Now the calibration software will do the rest as usual.
After calibration, of course, don't touch the monitor menu anymore.

I'll experiment a bit and see what results I get. I notice that the RGB channels on my monitor cannot be adjusted individually. I've always left them at their maximum setting. My first colorimeter was the Spyder many years ago that I used to calibrate a ViewSonic monitor that did have individually adjustable RGB channels. I found it frustrating and impossible to get a good result. The Eye-One produces a much better result automatically. I believe when trying the 'advanced mode' I incorrectly set D65 as a white point instead of 'native white point'.

Thanks for your feed-back.

[tho_mas]

Thanks for your feed-back

You're welcome.

Just checked a selection of the Bill Atkinson profiles I found on the web.
Here's a selection of paper profiles set as softproof for a white plane with re.col+BPC & paper simulation (screenshots converted to sRGB).
I've copied a white square in the center so that the tint shift and luminance decrease is clearer.
Now if you consider the white square in the center as the white color and white luminance level you are perceiving when you look at the papers these examples show quite well the dilemma of color management regarding the white point simulation of print media.
Yes, there is a slight difference in the tint of papers when you compare them visually (so "real world") - but these differences are clearly far less accentuated visually as the white points in the respective profiles (try to) simulate.

Bill Atkinson Epson9800 Kodak Premium Luster:
[attachment=17148:9800_kplu.jpg]

Bill Atkinson Epson9800 Premium Glossy:
[attachment=17149:9800_pgl.jpg]

Bill Atkinson Epson9800 Premium Semimatte:
[attachment=17150:9800_psm.jpg]

Epson 11880 Innova Fiba ultrasmooth:
[attachment=17155:innova_fb_us.jpg]

Epson 11880 Hahnemühle Photorag:
[attachment=17154:hm_photorag.jpg]

FUJICOLOR CRYSTAL ARCHIVE DIGITAL PAPER TYPE DPII glossy:
[attachment=17151:fujigloss.jpg]

FUJICOLOR CRYSTAL ARCHIVE DIGITAL PAPER TYPE DPII semimatte:
[attachment=17152:fujimatt.jpg]

And some standard offset profiles...

GraCol2006coated1v2:
[attachment=17153:gracol06_coated1v2.jpg]

Swop2006coated3v2:
[attachment=17157:swop06_coated3v2.jpg]

ISOcoatedV2:
[attachment=17156:isocoatedV2.jpg]

I'll experiment a bit and see what results I get

yes, I'd say figure out if you can get a closer match with paper simulation deselected in the softproof settings.
By now, as you've mentioned above, the prints get too dark compared to the display when you set the softproof without paper simulation.
If this is true, decrease the luminance level of your monitor a little bit so that monitor white matches at least the brightness level of your paper under your prefered viewing conditions.
Whether you get a closer match with or without "black ink" you have to see. In my experience on very good linearized displays it's better to select "black ink" simulation as it reproduces the contrast range of the print on the monitor.
If this doesn't turn out to be an improvement switch back to the setting you are currently working with as it obviously works good for you.

Have fun :-)

[JeffKohn]

Matte papers are more yellowish and glossy papers more blueish (basically).

I think it has more to do with the use of OBA's, than whether the surface is matte or glossy.

The problem with matching monitor white to paper white during calibration, is that now your monitor calibration is only good for one paper. Maybe that's all some folks need, but many folks use multiple papers.

[tho_mas]

The problem with matching monitor white to paper white during calibration, is that now your monitor calibration is only good for one paper. Maybe that's all some folks need, but many folks use multiple papers.

to reply I quote myself:

Yes, there is a slight difference in the tint of papers when you compare them visually (so "real world") - but these differences are clearly far less accentuated visually as the white points in the respective profiles (try to) simulate.

does, BTW, the Colormunki solve the problem?

[Wayne Fox]

Dang, thought I was lost and fell into the color management forum for a minute ...

(sorry, couldn't resist  )

[Alan Goldhammer]

does, BTW, the Colormunki solve the problem?

You could create a separate monitor profile for each paper if you want to use the matching white approach.  Spectraview allows this but it may be far more trouble than it's worth if you are printing on more than 2 or 3 papers (I think you would have to reboot the computer to load the new monitor calibration if you are switching papers; not to mention the need to go through the recalibration process multiple times according to your schedule (I recalibrate every two weeks)).

[tho_mas]

You could create a separate monitor profile for each paper if you want to use the matching white approach.  Spectraview allows this but it may be far more trouble than it's worth if you are printing on more than 2 or 3 papers (I think you would have to reboot the computer to load the new monitor calibration if you are switching papers; not to mention the need to go through the recalibration process multiple times according to your schedule (I recalibrate every two weeks)).

actually I was referring to the UV cut filter of the Colormunki - in my opinion the Colormunki should not have problems with optical brighteners... so actually it should be possible to create a profile with an accurate white point with the Colormunki, no?

[Ray]

yes, I'd say figure out if you can get a closer match with paper simulation deselected in the softproof settings.
By now, as you've mentioned above, the prints get too dark compared to the display when you set the softproof without paper simulation.
If this is true, decrease the luminance level of your monitor a little bit so that monitor white matches at least the brightness level of your paper under your prefered viewing conditions.
Whether you get a closer match with or without "black ink" you have to see. In my experience on very good linearized displays it's better to select "black ink" simulation as it reproduces the contrast range of the print on the monitor.
If this doesn't turn out to be an improvement switch back to the setting you are currently working with as it obviously works good for you.

Have fun :-)

Thomas,
My memory has been jogged. I bought the Eye-One with i1Match software over 4 years ago. The colorimeter comes with a plastic cap which clips over the sensors when measuring the ambient temperature. My first few calibrations would have been in 'advanced' mode, selecting 'native white point'. This option requires one to go through the procedure of taking an ambient temperature reading before sticking the colorimeter on the middle of the screen. That cap is a hassle to prise off.

I would have initially ticked the 'reminder' box. The maximum reminder period is no more than one month. That's too fussy for me. At some point, to save unnecessary hassle, I would have switched to 'easy' mode which gave me equally good results, and have stuck with that mode for the past few years, although I now don't bother recalibrating every month as recommended. You might recall the monitor profile I sent you was dated July 2009. A recalibration every 3 months I think is good enough.

Now, what happens when I adjust the monitor before calibration, in an attempt to match the paper white in my ambient lighting conditions with the pure white of a new document in Photoshop on the monitor?

Almost complete disaster!   .  Although I'm working in an open area with just the natural daylight through the windows, the ambient temperature of my environment is very warm, according to i1. As low as 3900K. I presume the reason for this is that much of my interior walls consist of varnished timber which is rather reddish yellow.

If I have a near-perfect match with my monitor settings at maximum RGB brightness, which I do, then any changes to the monitor settings prior to calibration are likely to result in a worse match, wouldn't you say?

First of all, it's not really possible in my circumstances to get a precise match between monitor white and paper white, probably because I have no adjustment of the individual RGB channels. Selecting the monitor's preset 5000K seems about as close as I can get for Epson Enhanced Matte. The resulting calibration using the monitor's 5000K preset, produces an image in proof setup, with simulate black ink, which looks in daylight like the print looks in warm, artificial light in the evening.

Now, that's not a bad appearance. I quite like it. But it's not a good match between monitor preview and print under the same ambient lighting conditions. However, if a client were to request a print which would only be viewed in the usual warm lighting conditions of the average home in the evenings, and if I were only prepared to work during the day with my current setup, then that monitor profile would be ideal for that specific purpose, would it not? I could even show the client on the monitor in the daytime what his print would look like in his requested viewing conditions in the evening.

Which brings me to a related issue. If you are producing prints under controlled lighting conditions, in a viewing booth for example, then ideally such prints should always be viewed under the same or similar lighting conditions, give or take a reasonable margin of error. Now, this may be possible in a gallery or museum, but is unlikely to be the situation in people's homes. In fact, one of the beauties of the print, as opposed to the monitor, is the way a print's appearance will change so easily in accordance with changing lighting conditions. The hues and shades of a print on your wall, viewed in the natural light of a bright day, will differ considerably when viewed in the evening; will differ again in the subdued lighting suitable for watching TV, and yet again when having a candle-light dinner. Is this not the case?

I still believe that whatever your viewing environment, the most important thing is the match between monitor preview and print, not whether you have a viewing booth, or work in the evening with D50 or D65 artificial lighting, or whether your walls are white, off-white or cream etc.

[tho_mas]

I still believe (...) the most important thing is the match between monitor preview and print...

correct

...not whether you have a viewing booth, or work in the evening with D50 or D65 artificial lighting, or whether your walls are white, off-white or cream etc.

search for D50 and keyword "metamerism" on the web and you'll find some reasons why the above mentioned match is achieved at best under those viewing conditions.

[Ray]

correct
 search for D50 and keyword "metamerism" on the web and you'll find some reasons why the above mentioned match is achieved at best under those viewing conditions.

I shall be very interested to find out what the ambient temperature reading is when I move into my new house which has been designed with lots of windows and glass sliding doors (I have no privacy issues where I live). The ceiling and walls are mostly off-white, and the floor tiles are a pale beige. I wouldn't be surprised if the ambient temperature during the daytime is pretty close to D50. For the evening, I'll experiment with whatever lighting I can find. If the D65 of daylight streaming through my windows results in an ambient temperature of D50 throughout the house, then I should fit the house with D65 light bulbs for the evenings, right?