Prints are way too dark.

[dumainew]

A beginner printer stuck.

I'm printing on a calibrated iMac (Color Munki) in PSCC to an Epson 50. Using a custom printer profile for Epson Luster paper. Putting the image thru PS soft proofing as specified by Jeff Schewe. (Wouldn't be anywhere without him.) In soft proofing if I match the 2 images the print comes out way too dark. I have to adjust the RGB values way, way up to get a decent photo. I went back and lowered the screen luminousity, but to minumum improvement.
Wondering if soft proof adjustments after applying all the sharpening steps in PhotoKit 2 could be a problem.
Read the fine article by Andrew Rodney for troubleshooting the problem of dark prints, whose suggestions for test shots has been somewhat helpful. Looked at the prints under different kinds of light, but they all were still dark. The trouble persists.
Has anyone encountered as baffling a problem as this ?
Not at all sure what to do next.
I'll be grateful for any suggestions.
Thanks

[IWC Doppel]

Did you set your screen luminescence to 100 or even 90?

[Tony Jay]

Did you set your screen luminescence to 100 or even 90[cd/m2]?

Yes, this is almost certainly the issue.

Tony Jay

[dumainew]

Not sure if it's proper. I set the screen to match the room light, which was 80.

[Wayne Fox]

I recommend  printing a printer evaluation file from another source.  If it looks pretty good on your screen but  also prints dark then something in your workflow is amiss (double profile, wrong profile, etc).  If it prints normal but looks dark on your display then you may have an issue with your monitor calibration.

There are several out there, you may want to try this one. There is a follow up article about what to look for in this one to help evaluation your profiles and other options based on the print,

[MarkH2]

I recommend  printing a printer evaluation file from another source.  If it looks pretty good on your screen but  also prints dark then something in your workflow is amiss (double profile, wrong profile, etc).  If it prints normal but looks dark on your display then you may have an issue with your monitor calibration.

There are several out there, you may want to try this one. There is a follow up article about what to look for in this one to help evaluation your profiles and other options based on the print,

Wayne,

I have to say there are numerous excellent contributors on LULA but you are in the top echelon.  Thanks for your many posts over the years, you go the extra mile.   I have learned a lot from you.  Well done!

Mark

[MHMG]

Have you set up a properly illuminated print viewing area? You need about 500 lux minimum illumination at the print surface to get a proper match to a monitor set to luminance of 80-100 cd/m2.  Or as a crude but more brightly lit alternative, have you walked the dark prints outside in decent daylight to see if they still look too dark?

If yes to one or both of those questions posed above and the prints still seem too dark, then perhaps you've got a double profiling situation where the printer pipeline is making the conversion to the output color space more than just once. It happens in numerous cases where prints end up looking dark, but typically double profiling also makes the color balance look pretty bad as well.

Also, as Wayne noted, a trusted printer evaluation profile will help to sort out monitor calibration problems from printer/ink/media calibration problems. However, a trusted printer evaluation file, even when it looks good on the monitor and then printed on a correctly profiled printer/ink/media combination will also look too dark if your print viewing environment is not lit properly. Hence, it's important to understand that there are actually three major factors in getting good screen-to-print matching, i.e., properly calibrated monitor , properly profiled printer, and proper viewing illumination when examining the prints.

Lastly, are you choosing "printer manages color" or "Photoshop manages color" in PSCC?  On a Mac and PSCC, "Photoshop manages color" should force the printer to "No color adjustment" mode and thus prevent double profiling, but if using printer manages color, you have to choose the "colorsync" option in the printer "color matching" menu. If that menu is on "Vendor matching" then the custom profile is not being invoked. Also, the Mac OS colorsync option was not working correctly, IMHO, on Mac OS7, and even in OS8 until the most recent Mac OS 10.8.5 update. So "PS manages colors" is the safer printing path for a number of reasons, IMHO.

[Wayne Fox]

Also, as Wayne noted, a trusted printer evaluation profile will help to sort out monitor calibration problems from printer/ink/media calibration problems. However, a trusted printer evaluation file, even when it looks good on the monitor and then printed on a correctly profiled printer/ink/media combination will also look too dark if your print viewing environment is not lit properly. Hence, it's important to understand that there are actually three major factors in getting good screen-to-print matching, i.e., properly calibrated monitor , properly profiled printer, and proper viewing illumination when examining the prints.

Very good points, and the first step to setting up a solid color managed workflow is establishing appropriate viewing conditions for evaluation of the prints.

I would say that based on the title of this thread, prints being "way" too dark, that even if the viewing environment is poor, while the prints will look "dark" the viewer will be subconsciously allowing for the dimmer light so they may not be judged that dark.  a proper print in a dim environment is dark in a different way that a "dark" print because of too much density when printed. So "way" too dark seems to imply there is something amiss in the printing process.

[aaronchan]

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

[Pete Berry]

I recommend  printing a printer evaluation file from another source.  If it looks pretty good on your screen but  also prints dark then something in your workflow is amiss (double profile, wrong profile, etc).  If it prints normal but looks dark on your display then you may have an issue with your monitor calibration.

There are several out there, you may want to try this one. There is a follow up article about what to look for in this one to help evaluation your profiles and other options based on the print,

Excellent advice. Be sure not to edit the test image in any way, and it may be worth while to print both with your normal PS profile-controlled work flow as well as with printer controlling colors to get further insight into the problem.

PB

[JRSmit]

Not sure if it's proper. I set the screen to match the room light, which was 80.

my experience with imac is that it cannot get the screen luminance that low. It stops at something like 160. Thus way too high for matching prints. That is under normal operation. In this case we digged into the controls to eliminate the auto luminance do not know what we did. But then we were able to get ig to around 90. But the display was then awfull. Blotchy luminace differences collapsed colors. Ended up in buyjng a new computer with a good monitor.

[Czornyj]

Have you set up a properly illuminated print viewing area? You need about 500 lux minimum illumination at the print surface to get a proper match to a monitor set to luminance of 80-100 cd/m2.  Or as a crude but more brightly lit alternative, have you walked the dark prints outside in decent daylight to see if they still look too dark?

Mark,

You need π x monitor brightness in cd/m^2, so in case of 80cd/m^2 it's 3,141 x 80 = ~ 250lux. 500lux is a brightness value for critical colour evaluation, we get a match between 500 lux viewing booth and 160cd/m^2 calibrated monitor - this setup is a standard in printing industry, so that's why it's common value in suggested calibration targets.

Colorimetry is basing on photopic vision CIE XYZ model, so that's why higher luminance values are preferred for critical colour evaluations, below 160-80cd/m^2 rods start to change the way we see.

Another issue that may influence the colors on a screen are viewing conditions around our display. If the monitor background is too dark it may visually brighten the shadows and midtones. The optimal monitor background shouldn't be darker than 20% of the monitor's wtpt brightness:



If it's impossible to "calibrate" viewing conditions, we should increase gamma value of display's TRC, or measure the ambient light behind the display, and create calibrate the display to a corrected TRC:


The above solution is not as optimal as working in optimal environment, but better than nothing when we work in a dark surround

[alain]

...
Another issue that may influence the colors on a screen are viewing conditions around our display. If the monitor background is too dark it may visually brighten the shadows and midtones. The optimal monitor background shouldn't be darker than 20% of the monitor's wtpt brightness:
...

Hi Marcin

I have a NEC 271 with a black hood.  At the left and right side I have "deep" black.  I'm I reading you're recommendation correctly that I should remove it?  (I have no side illumination, so the hood is not blocking much light.)

Alain

[MHMG]

Mark,

You need π x monitor brightness in cd/m^2, so in case of 80cd/m^2 it's 3,141 x 80 = ~ 250lux. 500lux is a brightness value for critical colour evaluation, we get a match between 500 lux viewing booth and 160cd/m^2 calibrated monitor - this setup is a standard in printing industry, so that's why it's common value in suggested calibration targets.

Your answer is definitely more technically precise than mine was,for sure, and thank you for that. However, most people don't follow through and set up uniform neutral gray surround conditions with 100 lux background illumination as noted in your analysis for the 160cd/m2 monitor station, rather they drop to even dimmer surround conditions of less than 60 lux which in turn requires luminance values in the 80-100 cd/m2 range rather than the 160 cd/m2 value for a more realistic print viewing match at 500 lux or higher.  And speaking from personal experience many monitors just look like crap no matter what surround condition is used when trying to go as low as 80cd/m2. 100cd/m2 is often a practical lower limit for many monitors these days, and as was previously noted in this thread, many iMac displays just can't be turned down even to 100cd/m2, thus forcing higher print illumination levels to make a good match.

Anyway, my point is that all of these visual adaption models, criteria, and recommended settings have a notable amount of idealized assumptions when compared to real enduser working conditions. This in turn makes monitor luminance and print illuminance recommendations more loose than what could otherwise be specified if the actual monitor whitepoint luminance and surrounding reflectance/illuminance conditions are more precisely determined.  I erred therefore on the conservative side with my print viewing illumination recommendation to help ensure that the OP was not misinterpreting the actual print output tone curve.



cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

[alain]

Your answer is definitely more technically precise than mine was,for sure, and thank you for that. However, most people don't follow through and set up uniform neutral gray surround conditions with 100 lux background illumination as noted in your analysis for the 160cd/m2 monitor station, rather they drop to even dimmer surround conditions of less than 60 lux which in turn requires luminance values in the 80-100 cd/m2 range rather than the 160 cd/m2 value for a more realistic print viewing match at 500 lux or higher.  And speaking from personal experience many monitors just look like crap no matter what surround condition is used when trying to go as low as 80cd/m2. 100cd/m2 is often a practical lower limit for many monitors these days, and as was previously noted in this thread, many iMac displays just can't be turned down even to 100cd/m2, thus forcing higher print illumination levels to make a good match.

Anyway, my point is that all of these visual adaption models, criteria, and recommended settings have a notable amount of idealized assumptions when compared to real enduser working conditions. This in turn makes monitor luminance and print illuminance recommendations more loose than what could otherwise be specified if the actual monitor whitepoint luminance and surrounding reflectance/illuminance conditions are more precisely determined.  I erred therefore on the conservative side with my print viewing illumination recommendation to help ensure that the OP was not misinterpreting the actual print output tone curve.



cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com

Mark

Yes, but it's always nice to know how it should be.  I'm lucky that I have a small room where I can adjust things to get a close result.  Even then I have regular doubts about all my settings ;-)

Alain

[MHMG]

Mark

Yes, but it's always nice to know how it should be.  I'm lucky that I have a small room where I can adjust things to get a close result.  Even then I have regular doubts about all my settings ;-)

Alain

Fair Enough. I agree. Yikes, I now better get some spectrally neutral L*=50 grey paint, repaint the walls in my studio, and send my lux meter in for recalibration to NIST standards

[Czornyj]

Fair Enough. I agree. Yikes, I now better get some spectrally neutral L*=50 grey paint, repaint the walls in my studio, and send my lux meter in for recalibration to NIST standards

You don't need spectrally neutral grey paint nor lux meter - white paint or cardboard is way better, you'll need less light to make it looking like 50 L* grey on a screen. And you'll simply see it if it's not too dark / too bright when comparing to 50% grey background displayed on a screen

[MHMG]

You don't need spectrally neutral grey paint nor lux meter - white paint or cardboard is way better, you'll need less light to make it looking like 50 L* grey on a screen. And you'll simply see it if it's not too dark / too bright when comparing to 50% grey background displayed on a screen

OK, so the 100 lux specification in your posted diagram is illumination striking a white wall, right? In any case, more than one combination of background surface reflectance and illuminance of those background surfaces can meet your visual criteria of appearing to match the middle gray value on screen. Similarly, other combinations of monitor luminance and background illumination will work, but as those values change so does the brightness (not the same as luminance) response curve of the human visual system, thus luminance and illuminance cannot be precisely defined without factoring in those brightness curves which are not part of the CIELAB color model.

Anyway, the way I actually set up a calibrated monitor and viewing condition on a practical basis is to use the monitor calibrator to define the monitor's whitepoint, blackpoint, color temp (I use 5000K not 6500K), and TRC, and then I physically move a pair of approximately 5000K Solux lamps in the background to create a print viewing condition that allows the printed image brightness to match the image brightness on the monitor, so I don't think our approaches to a proper print viewing environment are so different after all.

As for determining if a print is technically too "light: or "dark", I use the instrumentation which built the printer profile to verify that the printed values of known test images are matching the Lab values predicted by the profile. I never make "alternate" profiles to try to compensate print density for ambient lighting because I never know where my prints will actually end up being displayed. Thus, I'd rather print to a known standard that optimizes the peak color gamut of the printed image and let the recipients of my prints light those prints to suit their own tastes. Sometimes high quality prints are lit well, often not. That's even true in museums and galleries where the gallery owners, curators, conservators, etc. should indeed know how to light a print well.

[alain]

I'm still puzzled why the hoods for high end monitors then do come in black and for my NEC it's even black velvet.
Large parts on the "sidewings" of my hood are blacker than 0,0,0 RGB.


But I have a mid range old EIZO that I bought with a grey bezel.


BTW. When there are some basic measurements (a hardware calibrator is for me a must and the needed measurments can even can be done with a camera), it's easy and fast to do the compares from there on.

[Wayne Fox]

my experience with imac is that it cannot get the screen luminance that low. It stops at something like 160. Thus way too high for matching prints. That is under normal operation. In this case we digged into the controls to eliminate the auto luminance do not know what we did. But then we were able to get ig to around 90. But the display was then awfull. Blotchy luminace differences collapsed colors. Ended up in buyjng a new computer with a good monitor.

There was one model of iMacs that couldn't be dimmed far enough, but that was several years (and several models) ago. Most iMacs except those older ones dim just fine ... far enough you can't see the screen well at all.  I think the OP already said he was at 80 ...

As far as the technical comments, good information, but perhaps excessive for a "beginning" printer.  He seems to be on the right track, certainly the excellent article by Andrew he has already referenced discusses many of these concepts.   Bottom line, set up a decent viewing area with a decent light.  There is no "magic" luminance value, you adjust your brightness on the display to match the viewing area.  Normally I do this with an unprinted piece of paper and a plain document in Photoshop.  Once you are sure your workflow is set, you may need to tweak this using a good standard print in the viewing area and on the screen.  And important, you shouldn't really be able to see both at the same time.  Much better if you have to look away from the screen to see the print.