Big difference between soft proofing and actual print

[The View]

I saw a big difference in color and brightness between my soft proofing in Photoshop CS6 and the actual print.

I'm printing with a Canon 9500 mark II.

The monitor is NEC PA 271 W, calibrated with i1 display to a 140 brightness level, using the NEC Spectraview software, recently updated from the web.

Paper: Hahnemuehle semi-gloss baryta - profile downloaded from Hahnemuehle, and it's checked.

I'm using the 16bit data for printing.

I noticed the print was:

1. slightly darker
2. more red
3. less blue
3. more contrast
4. more saturation

...than in the soft proof.

What could be the problem?

When I go to soft proofing the contrast is reduced (imitate paper color is checked), and the darkness is slightly reduced, but the colors stay the same.

Admittedly, I'm not viewing the print with a daylight balanced light, but with a regular incandescent bulb. I know this will give me a warmer impression... but it's still too much off.

Is a paper profile editable, so you can create your adjustments?

[huguito]

I profiled my monitor to 90-100 using color munki.
The prints come out of the printer dead on

[Bryan Conner]

I saw a big difference in color and brightness between my soft proofing in Photoshop CS6 and the actual print.

I'm printing with a Canon 9500 mark II.

The monitor is NEC PA 271 W, calibrated with i1 display to a 140 brightness level, using the NEC Spectraview software, recently updated from the web.

Paper: Hahnemuehle semi-gloss baryta - profile downloaded from Hahnemuehle, and it's checked.

I'm using the 16bit data for printing.

I noticed the print was:

1. slightly darker
2. more red
3. less blue
3. more contrast
4. more saturation

...than in the soft proof.

What could be the problem?

When I go to soft proofing the contrast is reduced (imitate paper color is checked), and the darkness is slightly reduced, but the colors stay the same.

Admittedly, I'm not viewing the print with a daylight balanced light, but with a regular incandescent bulb. I know this will give me a warmer impression... but it's still too much off.

Is a paper profile editable, so you can create your adjustments?

It looks like (no pun intended) 2/3s of the proofing/printing process under control.  What about the lighting environment that you are viewing your prints under?

[The View]

It looks like (no pun intended) 2/3s of the proofing/printing process under control.  What about the lighting environment that you are viewing your prints under?

Yes, as mentioned it's a regular incandescent bulb - not a color balanced lamp.

I created a print that matched the proof on screen, and will see tomorrow, in daylight, if I now have a hard, ice cold print at my hands.

I guess my next step will be getting a color balanced lamp for print viewing.

Can anybody give me a recommendation what to buy? Just a bulb to put into a regular lamp, or a dedicated lamp?

[The View]

I profiled my monitor to 90-100 using color munki.
The prints come out of the printer dead on

So you think profiling to 140 is making the screen too bright?

Spectraview allows to create more than one profile. I could create a specific profile I'd switch to when I prepare for print...

[JRSmit]

The fact that your print are darker than the softproof indicates your monitor luminance is too high.
Go for 90 and compare. Also lighting for evaluating prints ,  i use solux halogen 4700 kdlvin. Or pure daylight sun midday ish clear sky. Window panes ingroduce a serious  color  shift.

[Some Guy]

My favorite lamp were the Silvania tungsten blue photofloods (EBW and 4800 Kelvin) for judging balance.  Brighter and closer to daylight than my Ott "daylight balanced"  (yeah. sure. right.) lamp.  Not too crazy over the Eiko brand of blue photofloods either which seem warmer/yellow to me from a painted looking surface verses the Sylvania blue tint.

SG

[jferrari]

Also lighting for evaluating prints ,  i use solux halogen 4700 kdlvin. Or pure daylight sun midday ish clear sky. Window panes ingroduce a serious  color  shift.

Is this because your customers will also be displaying your prints that way?

[Paul2660]

You may be out of gamut for the particular profile in the areas that don't look right in the soft proof.  Especially if you are seeing changes in saturation levels or the way a blue sky is displayed with a soft proof.

You can check the "gamut warning" box to see if the colors showing the problem will appear with the grey gamut warning.  

This is a issue I run into often, and one reason I tend to stay in Adobe RGB (1998) for printing.  It's possible the printer you have can't print the full 16 bit gamut you have you have created, in 16 bit, (not sure of the color profile, assuming Prophoto RGB.  

In CC or CS6, one thing to try is other profiles for your printer and see if they can get closer to the result in a soft proof, glossy papers will tend to give a closer match.  

Your luminance setting in spectraview  is a bit bright, at 140 from what I have read, I tend to keep mine at 105 to 115.  

Paul

[howardm]

I'd turn off 16 bit printing and lower the luminance of the display calibration just for starters.

I've heard of 2nd hand print 'issues' of using 16 bit path.  Maybe not unlike the faith of using v4 profiles instead of v2 since v4 is 'newer and better'

[PeterAit]

You are not, by chance, using double-correction (in which both Photoshop and the printer driver apply the profile)? It's one or the other, as I learned a while back!

[digitaldog]

Spectraview allows to create more than one profile. I could create a specific profile I'd switch to when I prepare for print...

As you should.
See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

[JRSmit]

Is this because your customers will also be displaying your prints that way?

No. It is for me to be sure the print is ok, ie my print process including softproof is predictable in its outcome.

Actually when using normal halogen to illuminate the print under normal situations, on a wall in a living room or so, if you follow the kruithof curve it will look fine.

[The View]

You are not, by chance, using double-correction (in which both Photoshop and the printer driver apply the profile)? It's one or the other, as I learned a while back!

There is a warning to turn off the printer color management in the Photoshop print dialog.

I searched the whole dialog and even searched on the web where it could be - no results.

Where could I turn off the printer color management (I selected "Photoshop manages color").


PS: I checked out the prints by daylight - same conclusions in regards to the off colors. (I think the eyes can pretty well adjust for different light sources.)

I had applied a set of corrective layers, and the print came out well.

I sometimes think that the very same colors that look cooler and bluer on a screen turn up warmer and redder and more saturated, because a print is so different from a monitor display.


I have read the comments about 16bit printing could be the problem. I'll try out an 8-bit print.

[hugowolf]

It will vary between operating systems, but it should be something like:
" Color / Intensity Manual Adjustment "
 Then click the " Matching " tab
 Then click on " NONE "

Brian A

[Iluvmycam]

I keep reading all these same type of threads here.  Listen up, just make work prints and stop trying to perfect soft proofing.

Sure get the monitor close, but it seldom works out exact. No easy way around it if your a serious shooter.

Many of my images go through 10 to 20+ revisions before I get them ready to print. Then it may take another 4 or 6 work prints to perfect.

[TonyW]

The Canon drivers are similar across the range (I think!) so although the attachement is for the low end 4900 I suspect your print dialogue will be similar.  I assume with you saying 16 bit printing that you are on a Mac? or using the Canon XPS driver for Windows?
EDIT: Just noticed that Brian already covered this !

[The View]

I keep reading all these same type of threads here.  Listen up, just make work prints and stop trying to perfect soft proofing.

Sure get the monitor close, but it seldom works out exact. No easy way around it if your a serious shooter.

Many of my images go through 10 to 20+ revisions before I get them ready to print. Then it may take another 4 or 6 work prints to perfect.

When I was doing darkroom work, I'd always use strips of paper first.

What about digital: do you do test strips or print excerpts of several images on one page to see how it comes out, and only then go to full page prints?

[The View]

The Canon drivers are similar across the range (I think!) so although the attachement is for the low end 4900 I suspect your print dialogue will be similar.  I assume with you saying 16 bit printing that you are on a Mac? or using the Canon XPS driver for Windows?
EDIT: Just noticed that Brian already covered this !

I'm on a Mac, and the menu tells me to disable the printer color management in the "print settings" dialogue.

I went to "color matching" and it gives you two radio buttons 1. Color Sync  2. Canon Color matching.

Both are grayed out, which probably means that as soon as you switch to "Photoshop manages color", Canon color matching is turned off automatically.


But why this constant warning then to turn off the Canon Color management?

Is there any Canon/Mac user who knows  about this?

[colinm]

But why this constant warning then to turn off the Canon Color management?

Is there any Canon/Mac user who knows  about this?

A combination of outdated information refusing to die and not everyone being on the same toolchain. Schools and many corporate environments, for example, may still be far enough behind that they do need to manually color manage.

If your versions of Mac OS X and Photoshop are modern enough to sort it out by themselves, just soldier on and ignore it.