Prints darker than reality / what my eyes are seeing?

[ZoranC]

Try this file. Print it and tell us what you see.
http://webtransformer.com/calibrate/Calibration-Composite-ICC-sRGB-Full.jpg

My guess is that it will still print too dark. But then again, you don't have the babies and bikini model in front of you, so how would you know whether the reality is matching the print?

I will let you know exact answer once I had a chance to print it and examine it. In the meantime my guess is if shot of model taken on the beach starts looking as if it is taken at midnight.

[Schewe]

I was not commenting on Jeff's technical competency. What I was pointing out is why I feel that I am being spun in circles.

Yeah, you're right...it's become increasingly difficult to keep track of what info you've produced...ok, you have a new 3880. I presume you are printing on Windows (I presume because you've not stated and it make a difference). You've indicated you've tried printing from Elements (what version?) and "QPrint/QuickView" and I have no idea what those are and whether or not they are color managed...

In terms of Elements, in the print module, there should be a way of selecting the correct printer/paper profile. You've not indicated (have you?) what profile is selected. Assuming a Window environment, what are your settings in the 3880 Print Properties? Do you have is set to Off (no color management)?

Since you invested on a good printer to make prints, I would suggest getting more mainstream software which is a higher level than Elements. Lightroom 4 just came out and can make excellent prints...or Photoshop CS5 although there will be a learning curve involved...

In Photoshop and Lightroom you can soft proof your images so you can tweak them before you print. That's the proper way.

With regards to your paper choice, Epson Ultra Presentation Matte, it has a very narrow D-max...which means the blacks are not very black and the whites are rather dim. Depending on how you set up the printer, and the settings (which again you've not bothered to mention) it's entirely possible you have the wrong media settings and are over inking the prints. Don't know...but pooling ink and wrinkled prints is a clue.

If you you are printing with the 3880 are not matching up to prints you've had made by 3rd parties, I lean towards thinking your printer settings and profile are wrong. But we don't know because you've not shared them.

Maybe what you need to do is a meta-post where you share ALL the settings you are making in the application and print driver and indicate what OS you're using...

[ZoranC]

Yeah, you're right...it's become increasingly difficult to keep track of what info you've produced...

I do not know why when I have produced majority of that info in first several posts, including the very first post, but let's go through this again.

I presume you are printing on Windows (I presume because you've not stated and it make a difference).

Yes, I am. Win 7 64-bit.

You've indicated you've tried printing from Elements (what version?) and "QPrint/QuickView" and I have no idea what those are and whether or not they are color managed...

Elements 10. QuickView is one of file viewing apps. I have also tried QImage Ultimate and result is exactly same as from QuickView (as in better than Elements but still too dark).

In terms of Elements, in the print module, there should be a way of selecting the correct printer/paper profile. You've not indicated (have you?) what profile is selected.

I have indicated that. I am using profile whose name is matching paper.

Assuming a Window environment, what are your settings in the 3880 Print Properties? Do you have is set to Off (no color management)?

Mode is set to Auto.

Since you invested on a good printer to make prints, I would suggest getting more mainstream software which is a higher level than Elements. Lightroom 4 just came out and can make excellent prints...

I don't have problem investing in quality stuff if I am sure that will address problem. But with prints not getting any better no matter which app I use, including one of commonly used printing apps, what guarantee I have anything will change?

With regards to your paper choice, Epson Ultra Presentation Matte, it has a very narrow D-max...which means the blacks are not very black and the whites are rather dim. Depending on how you set up the printer, and the settings (which again you've not bothered to mention) it's entirely possible you have the wrong media settings and are over inking the prints. Don't know...but pooling ink and wrinkled prints is a clue.

Wrinkled print with Matte might be a clue but I doubt it is my setting that is causing it because I have mentioned I have tried with several different Epson papers, all with their corresponding profile, and result is same with all of them.

Maybe what you need to do is a meta-post where you share ALL the settings you are making in the application and print driver and indicate what OS you're using...

I will go back and make sure I systematically went through settings. I will also try LR. But even before that I might try ImagePrint to see if that will change anything drastically.

[Schewe]

Mode is set to Auto.

That is a problem if you are expecting application managed color...if you set the profile in the application the printer properties should be set to Custom and then select Off (no color management). It's also super critical that you set the correct media settings (which are not the same as the printing profile). When you select the Media Type, is it set to Presentation Matte and is the ink listing Matte Black ink?

[ZoranC]

That is a problem if you are expecting application managed color...if you set the profile in the application the printer properties should be set to Custom and then select Off (no color management). It's also super critical that you set the correct media settings (which are not the same as the printing profile). When you select the Media Type, is it set to Presentation Matte and is the ink listing Matte Black ink?

I think I will best answer this by checking what they are exactly when I get home and posting some screenshots.

[Wayne Fox]

So the OP is saying the took a shot of a room with their camera, printed it, and then is holding it up so they can see the print and the room at the same time, and have decided the print is too dark because it doesn't look like the scene they see?

sorry, but I don't see the logic in that at all, not sure why the OP would even expect it, and have never heard of anyone printing this way. There is no workflow I"m aware of where this is a plausible scenario, and I can't understand why anyone would think this is a logical expectation.

What control is there to "light" the print when doing this type of comparison?  I see you all trying to explain things as though he might have a color management problem, but bottom line this is a pretty illogical approach, and the idea that he shouldn't have to make adjustments to a file because it is "exposed" correctly is crazy, seeing how there isn't really any such thing.  All the meter in the camera is doing is driving everything to a consistent level of grey, so if there is a lot of dark stuff in the scene the file will be "overexposed" even though it says 0EV, if there is a lot of light stuff in the scene the file will be underexposed, and assuming you shouldn't have to make any adjustments at all to get a perfect print is illogical.

My suggestion is quit trying to evaluate a print by holding up against the original scene you photography ... if you want to do that fine, but then after you hold it up understand you will always have to make adjustments to it.  There is absolutely no magic in metering systems and an exposure of 0EV just means the entire scene will blend to an 18% gray.  Shoot a white wall at 0, a black wall at 0, print them both with no adjustments (assuming the camera maker and software don't interfere) and guess what ... you get too prints pretty much the same tone of grey.

[chichornio]

Well, a very simple topic turned out to be an "almost"  philosophical thread about "Real Life" CM issues... if you go back and check my replies to your problem in this therad, I would suggest to you right know to get rid of your 3880 and get an HP 3200 24". You must get rid of the Epson canned profiles and build your owns until you are satisfied.
I`m an amateur printmaker, sefl-taught, from the end of the word (near Patagonia, South America).

[Schewe]

...I would suggest to you right know to get rid of your 3880 and get an HP 3200 24". You must get rid of the Epson canned profiles and build your owns until you are satisfied.

Not for nothing but that's an idiotic piece of advice...have you ever used a 3880? It's a very capable printer when the user has the right settings. Brining in a printer platform war to a discussion on how to properly set up a printer is a foolish waste of bandwidth...what printer the OP has installed has nothing to do with his issues...how he trying to use it is pivotal. If you have nothing constructive to add to the OP, move along...there's nothing of interest here for you (these are not the droids you were looking for).

[Farmer]

Have you done a nozzle check on your printer?

And, to be clear, the assembled experience and expertise with printing of the people just posting in this forum is *extensive* and when you feel they are wrong and you are right, it's usually a good idea to check that thought and instead of insisting that they listen to you, that you instead listen to them.

But, again, have you done a nozzle check pattern?

[chichornio]

Not for nothing but that's an idiotic piece of advice...have you ever used a 3880? It's a very capable printer when the user has the right settings. Brining in a printer platform war to a discussion on how to properly set up a printer is a foolish waste of bandwidth...what printer the OP has installed has nothing to do with his issues...how he trying to use it is pivotal. If you have nothing constructive to add to the OP, move along...there's nothing of interest here for you (these are not the droids you were looking for).

I won`t answer that agression. I have any business with HP at all! ZoranC, please re-build your "canned" profile and get one that suit your needs. "What you see if what you get" it`s a MYTH. Get closer...

[Schewe]

I won`t answer that agression. I have any business with HP at all! ZoranC, please re-build your "canned" profile and get one that suit your needs. "What you see if what you get" it`s a MYTH. Get closer...

Point in fact, because the unit to unit variation is so tight with Epson (compared to the loosy goosey of HP & Canon) the "canned profiles" with the Epson pro line are very, very good. You obviously don't have any experience in that regard, right?

To the OP don't be distracted by your choice of printer...your 3800 is a fine machine and the Epson supplied profile very good (assuming the correct settings). Yes, you might be able to eak out a tiny improvement with custom made profiles, but that's not been my experience with Epson pro printers (including 3880, 4900, 7900 and 9900) with "canned profiles" for the Epson papers I print on.

With regards to my aggression, it's there because nothing about your posts are the least bit useful to the OP...he has a 3880. What do you honestly expect him to do. Trash the 3880 and buy an HP? I don't think so...let us know when you have something useful to contribute...otherwise you might want to un-clutter the noise in this thread.

[ZoranC]

So the OP is saying the took a shot of a room with their camera, printed it, and then is holding it up so they can see the print and the room at the same time, and have decided the print is too dark because it doesn't look like the scene they see? ...

We already wrapped up topic of exposure so, unless I am missing something new added to it in your post, I see no need to restart it.

[ZoranC]

Have you done a nozzle check on your printer?

Yes, it is perfectly fine.

[BarbaraArmstrong]

Going back to the subject of this topic -- "what my eyes are seeing?" -- the OP should bear in mind that what his brain perceives in any scene with brights and shadows encompasses a much higher dynamic range than his camera is capable of.  Your brain is instantaneously adjusting as your eyes move from a light to a dark area, and you take in the details over a much broader range of lighting than the camera will register.  With the afternoon California sun the OP mentioned, the camera is likely stopping down to adjust to that light, and yielding a darker-than-desired negative or digital file.  The OP said others have been printing his files.  I suspect that the prints have been lightened up from what he submitted.  The machinery of a printing shop will have done this automatically without his ever knowing.  Nowhere has the OP indicated that his monitor is calibrated.  He wishes to avoid discussing the monitor.  But the monitor functions as our eyes on the digital file.  There may be other problems in his workflow/software settings, but the initial step, suggested by others, to simply dial down the brightness of the monitor until prints and monitor are close, may well get him to the point where he can enjoy the other benefits of his imaging software. --Barbara

[ZoranC]

Try this file. Print it and tell us what you see.
http://webtransformer.com/calibrate/Calibration-Composite-ICC-sRGB-Full.jpg

My guess is that it will still print too dark. But then again, you don't have the babies and bikini model in front of you, so how would you know whether the reality is matching the print?

This is getting interesting. I have printed this file using Mode on Auto and it is printing almost exactly same as it is displayed on monitor, both color wise and brightness wise. Same when Mode is on Custom - Color Controls. When I use Mode - Custom - Off colors are off and darker. Skin of babies ends up having unhealthy tones, dice are darker, berries in bowl are not red but almost brown and so are red in color checker, bikini, and flower in the hair. Funny thing is not everything is affected. For example red on a robot seems unchanged and on a boat it is darker but not as much as others.

What would be your conclusion based on this?

It doesn't make sense to me why photo you told me to use prints exactly same as on monitor when photo I took prints darker than on monitor.

[ZoranC]

Nowhere has the OP indicated that his monitor is calibrated.  He wishes to avoid discussing the monitor.  But the monitor functions as our eyes on the digital file.  There may be other problems in his workflow/software settings, but the initial step, suggested by others, to simply dial down the brightness of the monitor until prints and monitor are close, may well get him to the point where he can enjoy the other benefits of his imaging software. --Barbara

Barbara please see post above in which I am saying file I was provided printed almost exactly same as it is on monitor.

[Bryan Conner]

Make sure that in the Photoshop Elements print dialogue box (assuming it has one...I do not use elements) that it indicates that the printer will manage the colors.  Send an sRGB image to your printer.  Make sure that the printers dialogue box indicates that it will manage the color.  Maybe this is where your auto setting is.  Have your paper type chosen correctly and print.  Maybe using this "very vanilla" setting will produce an acceptable print as far as brightness is concerned.  If it does, then we can proceed to eliminate other variables and find the culprit. 

[a.lorge]

Here is a screen shot of the printer settings i would use in photoshop elements (screen shot attached):

And use these driver settings:

[Wayne Fox]

Yes, it is perfectly fine.

well, except to perhaps reiterate your expectations seem completely outside of reality, so all the other talk really is irrelevant.  Everyone is attacking this as a color management issue, bottom line it isn't.

[a.lorge]

well, except to perhaps reiterate your expectations seem completely outside of reality, so all the other talk really is irrelevant.  Everyone is attacking this as a color management issue, bottom line it isn't.

That's probably true.  Being able to print an image that exactly duplicates a photographed subject is an interesting concept though.  Sound like technology Wile E. Coyote would be very interested in.  Numerous Potential Road Runner tricking applications.