I have an IMAC 24 and the spyder3pro – My ambient light I am told is moderately low. When ever I calibrate with the Spyder and the check call it says the target is not met. In addition I need to use special software (Shades) to reduce the back light lower than Mac controls allow and Spyder keeps suggesting I calibrate to 5800 not 6500.
To illustrate the drift:
Desired 2.2 Gamma Current 1.93 Previous 1.94 White point Target .313/329 Current.318/.335 Previous .318/,335
Does the drift in Gamma make a big difference? Does the drift in white point (using native makes no difference) make a difference? Is this the reason why my prints are much darker than they should be? Any suggestions?
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Does the drift in Gamma make a big difference? Yes Does the drift in white point (using native makes no difference) make a difference? Yes Is this the reason why my prints are much darker than they should be? Probably Any suggestions? Call the Spyder tech support
I believe it is the glossy MAC. Although the time there was/is no choice of glossy or un Glossy on the IMAC – for laptops, where there was a choice they suggested glossy. Big expensive mistake if that is the issue! Have sent a message to support for the second time. Thanks for responding I would appreciate any help I can get with this.
Datacolor support has been terrific. Three calls lost of questions and a lot of sweat and things work. It appears that the way around the problem is calibrate the monitor covered over so no ambient light enters. Tested once an hour for three hours no significant drift – printed some printer test images of the shelf on Epson Lustre and the colors were fine just a marginally darker than on the screen. Not sure if the extra few percent is with spyderprint pro or not, but 2.2 nd K6500 as a target sure works better. in any event, the glossy screen poses challenges, but I don’t have room for a second monitor whihc was the only other solution that seemed like it would work.
Victory for science or not, I now have a claibrated monitor that does not drift at 2.2. 6500K. Problem is that my prints remain too dark – color is within 98% accuracy to my eye. I am going to darken my room as the only option with a glossy screen to ensure no ambient reflections; but of the other options I have I would be grateful for advice.
1. Spyder3 pro recomends using 5800K in moderately low light – to do this on a Mac requires special software (shaades for example) that lowers the brightness below the lowest setting possible on the IMAC.
2. Move to printer profiling (Spyder3pro etc.)
3. Use Glossy paper (now using Epson premium Lustre.
4. Some trial and error until I have a brightness/contrast setting that works on most shots.
Of these options which is likley to help me the most or are there others short of buying a new screen to attach to my IMAC for which I have no space.
Is this the reason why my prints are much darker than they should be?
The monitor has nothing to do with how the file prints (so don’t let it confuse the troubleshooting process).
The file PRINTS that way because of a SourceSpace-to-PrintSpace Conversion.
The file DISPLAYS that way because of a SourceSpace-to-MonitorSpace Conversion.
MonitorSpaceProfile and PrintSpaceProfile are independent of each other and the SourceSpaceProfile.
If your monitor brightness is noticeably shifting, I would look for some ambient light sensor feature and turn it off. If Apple tells you their monitor doesn’t have this feature, send it back back and let them tell you why it is shifting — you may have defective hardware.
If you build a proper monitor profile and set it in Displays, it should stick and be forgotten until you reprofile the monitor in a couple weeks. AND you shouldn’t need to add on any other special software.
I just wanted to suggest you try "Coloreyes Display Pro" calibration software…
They have a trial version you can download and try for 30days.. I think at "Integrated Color".
I know it works with the spyder calibration device (thats what I have). I tried it with my apple cinema display and got one of the best profiles I’ve ever had. It just seemed to handle the brightness issues better than most. I’m not a sales rep. I’m a novice Photoshop user at best. Just thought you should be aware of all the options to try out. I also don’t know how it works with the glossy imac screen? ..
You’ve talked about getting the color temperature of the display where you want it but nothing at all about the luminence. If your prints are too dark, either you screen is too bright as measured in candelas per meter squared (cd/m2), you ambient light too low for the luminence of the monitor, you print viewing conditions too dark or a suboptimum output profile – or some combination of all the above. The first place to start is setting the luminence to something in the 110-120 cd/m2 range and working with the ambient light levels in your editing room to find the right balance for you situation. Contrary to a previous post here, your monitor and how it’s calibrated makes a huge difference in the actual output when you are adjusting images according to what you see on screen, as most people do. If your screen is too bright and your ambient light is too low, you are very likely to be looking at an image that appears too bright and force it to go darker. It now looks great on screen but prints darker than you wanted.
First off I appreciate all of the advice; sooner or later I will find a solution.
The drift is fixed and it was due to the inability to lower the luminescence of the IMAC below a certain point; I am told it is above 120 cdm/2 – though I have nothing to measure it by. Part of the problem is ambient light. If the light is in front of the monitor all you get is more glare my light is above and behind the monitor. Spyder3pro tells me that the level (moderately low if fine, but suggests a Kelvin of 5800 not 6500 at 2.2 or native at 2.2 Gamma. I do think the problem is luminescence.
I will try the trial software.
Just to be clear, I am using adobe color space (printer manages color off on the printer, photoshop manages printing) an Epson printer with Epson ICC profiles for that Epson paper. At the very least that part of the color management is I believe correct. So I can either brighten my ambient light (a second 60 watt lamp) or lower the luminescence of the monitor. The latter is the problem with the IMAC.
Because light is seeping into the room through the window shades I intend to cover that up. But I will try a second light and see if that makes a difference.
To add on to Peter’s comments about the importance of an accurate luminance setting for your monitor:
There are very sophisticated hardware/software tools that will balance the luminance of your monitor to the ambient viewing conditions of your work area. EyeOne Display2 is one that works well.
However, a good "seat-of-the-pants" test to see what sort of visual match you’re getting between monitor and print is do the following:
Open a new file in Photoshop. Fill it with white (255/255/255.) Go into full screen mode and, using the zoom tool, fill the screen with that white. Next to the monitor, prop up a blank piece of printing paper, typical of what you print on. Set your ambient lighting to be representative of the way your work room looks during your working hours. Compare the whites of the monitor and the paper. They should be very close in brightness. If not, you’re getting a false preview on your monitor of what the print will look like.
There is a lot of emphasis on monitor calibration (this is good.) But not nearly enough emphasis on proper viewing conditions (this is bad.) It’s all one big system that must be integrated before you can achieve good, predictable color.
Will try this tonight. The spyder3pro monitors ambient light and uses a mesure ment of ambient light to help with calibration – the sotware satys most people do not use it but reading your post I am glad I am doing so. Thanks
Just thought to ask what lamps should I be using is the kelvin temprature of the room lamp an issue, or is the lumens of the lamp that are the issue in brightening the room – does halogen, tungsten or CFL make a difference? I was thinking os two lamps with CFls equivleent of 60 watts.
Contrary to a previous post here, your monitor and how it’s calibrated
makes a huge difference in the actual output when you are adjusting images according to what you see on screen
Yes, certainly, if you write it like that.
In my previous post, I am simply making the point that the printer can PROOF the source file faithfully regardless of how right or wrong the monitor is set up.
The same as the monitor can PROOF the source file faithfully regardless of how right or wrong the printer is set up.
Getting a known good file into Photoshop allows me to evaluate the monitor and the print to help me identify where the problem is occurring.
I have used color chart like color match to look at colors and its damn close. They are darker by a few % but not as much as my photos which are off by as much 20-30%.
Of course, because this is how people tend to work.
"In my previous post, I am simply making the point that the printer can PROOF the source file faithfully regardless of how right or wrong the monitor is set up."
Victor has been talking about why his prints are darker than his screen. Without knowing whether his viewing condtions and output profiles are correct, the print means nothing. Troubleshooting problems like this involve systematically eliminating the variables bearing in mind that it can be a combination of problems. His problem is still likely to be rooted in monitor luminence and that his calibration software won’t let him set luminence only makes it that much more difficult to address. I would call this two strikes against ColorVision. Rick’s suggestion is a step in the right direction but is still (not Rick’s fault) dependent on your comparative visual skill, which may be different every time you calibrate.
There is still a lot of trial and error involved in getting the best monitor calibration, but once you get those parameter the hardware will keep it all consistant.
I have had a lot of help from datacolor and they have walked me through some other issues. The IMAC’s inability to be lowered in brightness beyond a certain point is another thing.
Rick suggested that I set up photoshop and a pure white space at full screen – clearly brighter than any paper I have. It makes sense to me that this highlights the brightness being the key issue.
However, having said that, it leads to another question – if I soft proof a plan white file (255/255/255) it gives a slight magenta/pink cast to the page. Now is that an issue? The soft proof is Epson’s Premium Lustre.
I am going to re-profile my screen for the new higher ambient light levels and see where that gets me. Sure would be nice to have no-cost solution! Thanks for all the advice keep it coming.
Of course, because this is how people tend to work.
People who understand the theory do not work that way, and that’s my point.
Victor has been talking about why his prints are darker than his screen.
Without knowing whether his viewing condtions and output profiles are correct, the print means nothing.
I read his posts. At this point the monitor is as great as suspect as his print workflow as his source files.
If he 1) downloads the Adobe RGB PDI file, 2) opens it in Photoshop, 3) confirms it is still in the AdobeRGB color space, 4) prints it, and 5) compares the monitor to the print — he could possibly understand and identify the problem more easily, or at least tell us what he sees there for more help.
I don’t know if Sears still has the daylight lamps they carried until two years ago, and i can’t remember the mfg name but they were about twenty bucks and advertised as being full spectrum. The glossy iMac is the problem and I believe several people here remarked when they came out that they couldn’t be used for serious work. A magenta cast indicates double color management is in effect. Check everything again.
"> Of course, because this is how people tend to work. People who understand the theory do not work that way, and that’s my point."
What are you taking about Gary? Of course people who understand what they’re doing rely on what they see on screen. You can set white points, black points and neutral by the numbers, but you need to see and trust your image on screen to make overall tonal and relative color adjustments. What’s the point of calibrating if you can’t trust what you see? I’ve been working at very high levels like this on hardware calibrated monitors for thirteen years now, when Chris Cox was still poopooing ICC profiles on the old aol forums.
Unless you have bad hardware or bad system installed, getting your monitor profiled should be easy and uncomplicated.
It took [me] more than several tries to figure out the hardware-profiling process, but I wouldn’t get you too caught up in it yet.
Simply target 2.2 gamma, D65/6500 — adjust your brightness from the monitor adjustment buttons or Displays panel (not the profiling software), and see what happens.
for some reason I like a higher Luminance around 180 on my newer LCDs — your Apple brightness adjustment should be able to dim your screen brightness all the way down to black for lower luminance
If that fails to produce a great monitor image of the PDI file, I would try setting System Preferences> Displays> Color to sRGB profile and rebooting to rule out a defective puck that might be giving you defective monitor profiles…if a fresh sRGB profile clears the display problem, there’s your warranty point.
Of course, the glossy iMac panel may be the problem like Lundberg02 says…seeing is believing.
I remember AOL forums twelve years ago, I didn’t get my first Mac and PS fully up until Jan of 96. We attended some of the same Apple/ Adobe meetings in Santa Monica, Peter, but somehow I never figured out which guy you were. To my regret I was never able to get down to your shop. I had worked myself out of a job by winning the cold war and was clinically broke at the time. I miss the Margoulis, . Lyons, Cox, Fraser(god rest him) input here . Thank heaven Schewe is still around.
Re calibrated with brighter light. Had to use Shades to reduce the brightness of the IMAC .Photoshop is set to Adobe RGB in the color settings. ACE is he engine Perceptual Intent and use Black Point.
Calibrated monitor for 6500 and 2.2 – the callibration check says it is within margins but the reading is 1.99 Whie Point is .307/.323 (whatever that means).
Soft proofing a 255/255/255 file makes the white go a bit gray (say 5%) but you would expect soft proofing to change things otherwise what point is softproofing?
The Adobe PDI printed out shows that everything color seems the same except the gray scales all of which are darker. One exception At the bottom where the fifteen wedges are the first and second can be better distinguished on the print than on the screen. Kodak strip is worse from 14 on same on the screen same situation with hedelberg blacks and grays. I can see why this would affect shadows.
I fear my very expensive IMAC is the culprit – the inability to lower the brightness seems to be the issue. Shades is not ideal as it makes the screen sometime flash brighter.
Any other suggestions – some suggested trying some other software and I think I will give that a go – would tailored printer profiles help? Or am I forced to buy a second screen for my IMAC?
Yeah, I remember those days. How things have changed, and how they’re still the same. We really were on the cutting edge back then and we were all struggling to get a handle on the digital color stuff. I remember one meeting where, on the way out, the concept of working spaces clicked in and I was able to explain it to someone who didn’t get it yet, and still, it was unfolding in my own mind as the words came out of my mouth. I remember either talking to you or emailing you regarding the meeting and yet we never actually met. Well, maybe the next time I come through Idaho on the way to Bozeman. That is where you’re at now, right?
It’s all tied together. Canned Epson profiles are okay, but custom ones are much better, although you shouldn’t see much of a brightness difference in prints, more of a color and neutral gray accuracy with custom profiles.
Get your monitor calibration done first, then move on to your printer profiles. If, by chance, the canned profile you’re now using was off a lot in lightness, then yes, a new profile would help, but that’s not really a likely scenario.
Even better than just having a test file to look at on screen is to have the test file along with a known print to go along with it. Every once in a while I’ve sent that combo to people to help them get sorted out. Having both gives you two visual references and can be of great value in diagnosing where the problems lie.
Something else occurred to me, how is it that I could see things on the monitor in my pictures in the shadows that did not print but when I look at the gray scales on the PDI I cannot distinguish some of the darker gray scale boxes?
As for coloreyes – I tried it with my normal room lights (e.g ambient light) and with a blanket over the IMAC that was two separate tries – results identical to what spyder gave me – I set the luminescence CDM/2 to 120 Gamma to L and 6500K. When I day identical the problems are in the blacks bottom left last two boxes indistinguishable on print or screen, even fewer boxes with Kodak and Heildelberg.
I must be missing something here. I will re-read the suggestions for color management in Real World CS3 to make sure the settings in CS3 are correct. but failing that its stuffing another monitor into my already over-wired over-stufffed little room.
I have hard copy original Kodak IT8 7/1993 MONR2002:12-10 Version 2 slide from Monaco systems but I do not have a printable file of it. If there was a web jpg of it then I could compare a known color swatch with a print. Do you know where can I get a jpg of the IT8?
I would rather see you use an image that might include an IT8 but not solely made up of an IT8 for that type of evaluation. The IT8 was originally designed as a scanning input profiling aid, and is harder to evaluate visually than an image like the PhotoDisc image. I like to use the PhotoDisc test image with a few of my own known images added, including RGB black and white full tone images and gray step wedges with particular attention given to both the top and bottom ten steps – from zero to ten and from 245 to 255.
An image like that is also a great aid in checking your overall calibration of the monitor, especially the ability of the screen to be neutral over the full tonal range and whether or not you can see the most subtle differences in pixel values on screen. There are only a couple of monitors than can show every step from 0-255 and this will show you exactly what yours is capable of. I know that both my Sony Artisan and Barco Reference Calibrator can to that. It’s great to know if you might have detail in your file that you screen can’t show you.
What you’ll also see is that even on the best printers with custom profiles, everything below about 10,10, 10 RGB will go to black but you will still be able to see the difference in print between 253 and 255.
If you click on my name you’ll find out how to contact me. I can send you the file I use with a calibrated print made with a Gretag generated custom profile, but I can’t get it out until Monday.
Sunday I will try changing some of the variables in coloreyes starting with lowering the CD/M2 lower than 120. Grateful any suggestions. Really want to avoid having to crowd my work space with a second monitor.
The Adobe PDI printed out shows that everything color seems the same
The same as what? If you mean the print looks the same as the monitor, then I am reading the print matches the monitor (except for some expected differences in the blacker levels).
the same except the gray scales all of which are darker… One exception
At the bottom where the fifteen wedges are the first and second can be better distinguished on the print than on the screen.
The monitor will always show much more defined steps in the darker wedges (in the PDI image, in my experience) — so it sounds odd that I am reading you are seeing the opposite unless I misunderstood what you mean by 1st and 2nd wedges.
The type paper you are printing to also has characteristics. Matte paper will tend to block up the blacks more that the more glossy papers.
+++++++
At this point it reads like you are on track, but just need a bit more training your eye to work on the new monitor.
I appreciate your effort here. My pintout was quite good except in the grayscal to balck area where surprisingly and just faintly the print out of the PDI target shwed distinctions in the blackest of back patches. Frankly I think this is due to the glossy screen.
If I understand you well using glossy paper would help my blacks – a cheaper solution than a new monitor.
Sunday I am going to try to calibrate to a brightness of less than 120 Cd/M2 – any suggestions how low I should go?
Secondly does using L* over 2.2 gamma mae a difference?
If I go back and strat from scratch is there soemthing I shuld be looking at in colorsynch on the IMAC?
Is the priting intent something to consider (I am using perceptual)?
I think I am coming close to giving up the ship and acquiring a second monitor that can be calibrated – will crowd me out of my already overheated room!
My pintout was quite good except in the grayscal to balck area…I think
this is due to the glossy screen.
No, the screen has zero to to with how the PDI file prints (regardless of how it looks on screen) that’s half original my point.
If the PDI image printed like a good photograph, that would indicate the printer side of workflow is okay.
+++++++
If the PDI image displays like a good photograph in Photoshop, that would indicate your monitor is okay.
120 Luminance here is way too dark for my tastes, I work in a room with low light and I just re profiled my LCDs at 180.
If the print and screen match up, like I said earlier, I would train my eye to work off the new monitor.
++++++
I don’t get into printing intents, L*, IT8 — that is better discussed with the rocket scientists here and better book authors who you enjoy reading.
PS:
Colorsync is only a Color Management System CMS.
In this forum, most people will tell you to set Adobe ACE CMS in Photoshop Color Settings, and turn off any Color Adjustment in the print driver — making ColorSync irrevelent — but your mileage may vary…
I see your logic. The only discrepancy in the print was the ability to distinguish the darkest 2 or 3 black squares – while I am using semi gloss, what epson calls Premium Lustre it may be a factor that I am not using glossy paper.
The same discrepancy in the darkest blacks existed on screen to a greater extent.
Generallyh on bothits hard seeing marginal differences in color darkness thatn it is to see it in grayscale.
I hope this is clear.
Finally what CD/M2 would you recommend in a room with medium light or would I be better off going back to moderately low and what CD/M2 would you then suggest.
I use Epson PLPP here, too, it is my favorite photo paper, and it gives more black steps than the paper matte paper I was talking about earlier.
The same discrepancy in the darkest blacks existed on screen to a greater
extent.
Like I said earlier, I would expect BETTER definition of the darkest wedges on the Photoshop monitor the print I would expect won’t do as well on the darker blacks (and could easily make us think there is a problem) so I would look at the monitor profile.
To rule out your profiling process (the monitor profile), go to SYSTEM PREFERENCES> DISPLAYS> COLOR and set sRGB2.1 as your monitor profile.
Then reboot and take another Photoshop look at the AdobeRGB PDI file.
My expectation is the darker black levels will pop out much better, the neutrals will hold, and the skin tones will look okay if this is happens, I would guess a bad puck, bad profiling routine, or some display haxie you added on.
Of course, you will need to have uninstalled any other monitor haxies, and put Photoshop Color Settings back to a known state (like North American Prepress 2) before…
I have the 2880 that just came out – I am not sure what menu to do that in without turning the printer color management on, and I am trying to have CS3 manage colors. Grateful any clarification. Thanks
I will be heckled and booed by the upperclassmen here, but let me make a suggestion.
Get SuperCal, it’s like 25 bucks. Get some Epson Premium Presentation Matte, 13 bucks for 50 sheets. Do an eyeball cal with Super at the recommended brightness, 9300, 1.8,and save the profile. Use this profile and a printer setting for Matte-Fine if there is one on that printer, if not, use whatever good matte setting it has. If you don’t like the results, so sue me. You can always do it the right way. I just don’t like glossy. To me matte is more like the real world.
If you can, use the IT8 you have to cal your scanner using VueScan (80 bucks) and use that to cal your printer.
I still think you need to get a decent second monitor. Fearless suggestion: get a wide gamut, you’re not doing web, it’s the wave of the future.
with my 2200 Epson and 10.4 I had to apply a lower Curves adjustment on EVERYTHING so it wouldn’t print dark (wasn’t this a known bug?)
CS3 and 7880 (same generation ink?) and PLPP and Epson PLPP Profile prints my pictures like my monitor looks and I don’t have a need dink with my Epson jobs
I Let PS Handle Colors, No Color Adjustment and no complaints
then again I’m not proofing CMYK press jobs either, just my photos…
I’m doing both. CMYK proofs and printing my own prints. CS2 was right on the money. CS3 is 15 to 20 points out in CS3. I don’t print much from Photoshop my Workflow is Designed with InDesign in mind. Since all my CMYK proofing is done through ID, I just print everything from ID including all my RGB photoshop prints.
Thanks for all the suggestions. I am shooting raw (nef converted to tiff through NX2 for processing in CS3. I think its worthwhile trying the SRG idea and supercal. I think its also worthwhile comparing a print to hard copy printed elsewhere professionally. The 7880 uses different inks to the 7880 (thats one massive printer almost the size of the room I use for post processing !). My only reluctance about another monitor is the space it will take up and the heat it will geenratge in small room. Frankly, its a last resort and one I will try late in August, until then I may have to live with what I have.
Let me go back to two questions – one about what is the best CD/M2 to calibrate to (not a professional question)but I understand 120 maybe too low) The IMAC is set very high and there is as someone noted less than an Fstop of difference betwenn the highest and lowest setting.
Second question – while I agree there may also be a printer problem its a brand new model epson with brand new profiles and ink – I am going to discount that only because of Epson’s reputation for quality. But it maybe that using a gamma of 1.8 (heresy) might just bring out more shadows naturally. Is it worth trying?
Finally let me himbly say how impressed I am by the expertise here and I agree fully I and my eyes have a lot to learn. The pictures that disturbed me were taken at a music festival and on screen I could see lights and shadows that were not showing up in prints while the foreground was almost perfect. Shooting as I said Raw 14bit.
On the bright side this learning experince may be frustrating but its not boring and the end result will be very worthwhile.
I find it hard to believe a hardware-profiled 24" iMac panel is not good enough for professional Photoshop work in a darker viewing environment.
And from what you said you observed, the Epson is behaving as expected.
Most curious people will need to ask all questions and make all the mistakes to get it — at the end of the process this is a good thing — I still have the bumps on my forehead…
I too find it hard to believe Apple would put out a machine that is impossible to profile. I was in two stores who sell or sold IMACS today – both said not for photogrpahy. In all other regards the IMAC is the perfect machine. I am somewhere on the road between hope, prayer, disppointment and solution:)
Jeez, you go and walk seven or eight miles and look what happens.
Victor – you need to really slow down and not go trying different "solutions" willy nilly. Take it one step at a time slowly and make sure that each step is completed correctly. I’ll mail you a print and file on Monday. That in itself will go a long way in determining whether your monitor is off or not. Personally, unless you are in a very bright ambient lighting environment, I would not go above 120 cd/m2 and, as much as I like Lundy, I would completely disregard his suggestions. He’s found a workaround for himself and himself only. I would, while my package is in transit, order yourself a Solux light from www.solux.net. I use the clip-on version so I can take it wherever I go.
Only after you get the front end sorted out should you think about the output profiles. Use the Epson canned profiles for the 7880 for now. They’re pretty good for canned profiles. In this process of sorting out the entire digital workflow, it’s important not to change too many variables at once otherwise it gets really difficult to know where the problems lie. Patience is a real virtue here. Hell, I remember when I got my first drum scanner, it took over a month just to figure out the software at its most basic level. What you’re doing here is building fundamentals and you want to get it right and have a solid foundation. If the output profiles are not up to snuff, we can address that after. Them’s is easy.
Peter is the real expert. He’s right, I have found my Rosetta Stone for my setup. You should do the hardware cal, make sure your color management is Photoshop, Use the Adobe Engine, rely on the Epson printer profile, etc if you’re doing raw to print. I am simply reproducing what’s on my LCD on my Epson, from whatever source. I am not generally printing from Pshop. I found that using SuperCal my LCD needs 9300 instead of the native 6500 because the 3/4 tones are brown in 6500. I use 1.8 because it’s more like paper as the original intent of the Mac was. I have done a IT8 cal on my scanner and printer using VueScan and am happy with the results. I just don’t think you’ll ever get what you want with a glossy monitor because those tools were not intended for it. So why not do an ad hoc and see what happens. No biggie if you don’t, but you can drive nails with a Vise Grip if you have to. Absolutely get a Solux light. I have north light just right in the daytime but I need to get a Solux because I’m not able to critique at night and I’m going to get Painter X soon, my Painter is too old. I don’t have a RAW camera yet, just an F2, but I may find that I need technically correct tools when i do get one and start using CS3 or 4( I have CS2 but don’t have a need, I generally use Elements 4 for quick fixes, but don’t print from it).
Five out of six users I have personally helped with their machines and who were still having alleged problems after accurate calibration had their "problem" with "dark prints" resolved after viewing their prints under Solux lamps and/or direct sunlight. In other words, their prints were fine but their viewing conditions were deplorable.
I confess I had similar perceived problems before converting to Solux.
The sixth user had an LCD monitor that was so bright that he was over correcting his images before sending them to the printer.
I’ve been making do with several Sylvania 3500K fluorescent bulb substitutes until I’m slightly less broke, but I haven’t seen the actual spectrum. It’s probably available somewhere.
Never meant to give the impression of running. I won’t get back to things until tonight, some of the suggestions like reviewing all of my settings make sense at this stage. I have a day light desk lamp, not being beside it I cannot recall the make. I got at an art store becuase it is supposed to replicate day light. Been using it for all my tests as well as taking prints out into daylight when practical.
Of course a hardware cal is superior to eyeball for normal monitors, but we’re talking about a weird glossy screen. It might be worth a shot to see what differs between the two methods when an artificial defect is introduced into the process. After all the eye is the final arbiter. He might be able to see what is happening, even though the final cal should be hardware but somehow compensated for the effects of the glossy screen. I haven’t looked this up, but I assume that photo prints were originally glossy because that’s what the process gave you. Maybe there’s a planet somewhere that reality is glossy, but even when I look out my window I see matte.
The desk lamp is from daylight company – portable lamp 13w- bought it to check prints under normal light – the way my room is configured all I have is artificial light. Cuts down on glare. The key issue for me are prints that pick up the shadows as shot which means differentiating subtle black. I can test with premium matte, semi-gloss and glossy.
But tonight the suggestion I am going to work is going through all the color management settings and make sure there is no problem there. I am going to use Real World Photoshop CS3 as a basis.
I also want to try coloreyes one more time at 2.2 and 6500. Then when the target arrives I will have a solid set up to check against.
Are you aware of the difference between shooting RAW and film? Because of the digitization there is a lack of black tones and an overabundance of whites. RAW is supposed to be shot slightly overexposed. Please see books on the subject. You may be able to overcome print limitations by improving your source images.
Get a different monitor. You still haven’t said whether the 24 iMac supports a second DVI interface display.
Yup digital has some limitations – just different from film 🙂
Yes i can attach another monitor – but that is a last resort. Its not just my space constraints, the heat generation eyc, and costs. I would like the IMAC to work.
Mr. Ballard,
Thanks,
North American pre-press set. I checked for new profiles for papers at Epson – using perceptual inten, black point checked, use dither no de-saturate – no blend colors using gamma. Just getting to my soft-proofing settings – right paper, perceptual intent – just looked up use RGB number and did not check that. Black point compensation and simulate paper checked.
Question about the Photoshop printer dialogue – I use photoshop manages color and the Epson driver is off by default (I check every time) – I was using proof rather than document in the print options. Is that an error it gives different options?
Sorry mys last question was not clear why would 255 on the PDI target show up as blown highlight in ACR. I am talking about the bottom row – farthest to the right.
using perceptual inten, black point checked, use dither no de-saturate
– no blend colors using gamma. Just getting to my soft-proofing settings – right paper, perceptual intent – just looked up use RGB number and did not check that. Black point compensation and simulate paper checked…I was using proof rather than document.
ALL THAT is just making it harder for you to figure out (and us to get on the same page) — Keep it Simple
I would keep Photoshop "Soft Proof" (View> Proof Setup) out of the soup (for now) because it tends to confuse
why are you taking PDI.jpg into Adobe Camera Raw simply open PDI.jpg in Photoshop and Honor the embedded profile
Thanks – it just opened in ACR I am de no changes. As for proofing – I agree its a secondary issue – just checked all my settings. I am doing pretty much as your web site said except I was using proof in print not document. Thanks
Try Relative Colorimetric instead of perceptual rendering intent. Once you are up and running and have thoroughly understood color management, you can decide when and where to use Perceptual. For the vast majority of images, you’ll do fine with Relative Colorimetric.
The IMAC has had good reviews and its a wonderful machine. Perfectly happy to admit the issue is the wetware and its imperfect programming:) I also note a lot of expensive monitors by third party manufacturers are either glossy or don’t mention matte.
I am not sure, but I recall that setting will give you a printed PROOF based on your working CMYK profile, in other words, it is printing your file as it will print on a printing press
you mean it will use there whatever profile is set in View>ProofSetUp
that is where the rest you wrote gets more confusing here in your ZEN explanation
I have never had a need to look into this, but I recall BF writing by selecting that PRINT OPTION to WorkingCMYK (where it is by default), the print proof will be based on WorkingCMYK.
sorry I can’t be more specific because I don’t know the nuts and bolts of how it uses the RGB SourceSpace, PrintSpace, WorkingCMYK to do that…
The last couple of messages is where soemtime neophytes get a bit confused. If in the print menu you chose proof over document and are using PS manages color does it have impact on output for ink jet printers>
By the way this is the Victor that started this thread, I just changed my name for this forum as it all turns up on Google.
Also google "the gamma of print media" if you want to be overwhelmed with sometimes conflicting information and/or justify doing it any way you want. It was a comfort to me.
You’ll also find out that gamma ray bursts have such enormous energies because the supernovas that produce them are going directly to black holes with an accompanying synchrotron radiation magnetic field that focuses and polarizes the gamma rays.
Unfortunately, the people who wrote that have no understanding of the relationship between monitor gamma and output. In the days before monitor profiles it was somewhat true, but today it just plain does not matter. It’s all taken care of within the profiles and compensated for automatically by Photoshop and other profile aware applications. That’s the reason for having a monitor profile. Among other things it tells you the gamma of the monitor. The ASMP document only further propogates the myth and confuses people trying to learn. I guess that’s why I belong to APA and not ASMP.
I’m Canadian neutral as they come. I have no idea what ASMP, or APA are. However the drycreek links at ASMP were interesting. We all agree a good monitor calibration is important. Lets just say that some calibration software makers admit that the IMAC luminescence poses challenges. Coloreyes is the only one that gives IMAC specific instructions and help. Having tried their demo I am impressed by the math the physics and the little aliens who visited me. I must admit to being baffled but i followed instructions. There were two tests on drycreek that interested me (Bruce Fraser’s name came up)one was luminescence and the other black point. on black point I can now with greta pleasure say I have matched and Eizo monitor (hey its there measurement not mine). That’s the good news, I still don’t do so well on Luminescence. My wife says I have to come back to the real world. I was struggling with a Kodak grayscale card (the white side) the measure reflected light from my lamp on the screen – higher math, contortion hat is next?) but matching the luminescence of the screen to my ambient light not done yet. I can see a about two to thee boxes on line 2 – this is however a vast improvement in calibration – or so I hope. I need to clarify some points in the coloreyes manual to move to the next step. But my guess is with Peter’s help and a more profession calibration I can get on with taking pictures and editing them to my satisfaction. Yes I am a bit tenacious, it normally pays off.
I wouldn’t pay too much attention to the absolute numbers for black point. That’s the weakest area of critical measurement and most of the consumer devices are not very accurate in that range. It’s pretty widely known that LCD screens cannot produces as deep a black as CRTs yet I often see black level numbers much lower than those that I use on the Artisan – a monitor that comes with a puck specifically designed for accurate blacks. It’s more important that you get to a black point on screen where a 0,0,0 RGB in Ps has the appearance and perception of being black, and still be able to distinguish the levels immediately above that 0,0,0 threshold. The further down you do in absolute brightness, and you only have one overall control on and LCD, the more apt you are to start clipping black levels. Now let’s see how long the U.S. mail takes to get from L.A. to Ottawa.
Agreed. The dry creek test showed I was in the artisan class on black point – the real advance is calibration that can lower the luminescence of the IMAC. My screen is no longer blazing white I just have to understand the options and check it against a hard target. Regards
Hey, Peter. I saw that the reffed article was dated 2008, so I assumed they knew what they were talking about without reading it. My bad.
VR8, good thing you went to drycreek as previously suggested. Why don’t you ask them about the glossy iMac. They’ll probably tell you no puck is designed to cal it.
Start thinking about gamma/ink density/dot gain of your printer.
"Start thinking about gamma/ink density/dot gain of your printer"
The best way to think about these are with a good ICC profile, which takes all of that into account but also includes gray balance and any slight anomalies or quirks in the printer’s response. Since you really need to send RGB data to these printers unless you’re using a RIP, there’d be no way to specify ink density or dot gain anyway.
Among other things the spectrometer proved there is a slight difference in brightness across the screen – I will never get this perfect. I have a few questions for coloreyes and dry creek can’t hurt; bit by bit.
I do not want to pre-judge the hard copy test that will be done when I have the hard target. But here is where I am today. Of all of the calibration systems, there were two that indicated they addressed the Luminescence issue – I chose coloreyes after reading a couple of articles and doing the trial – the drift is gone, there is no discernible difference I can make out in printing between D65 and D50, with D50 recommended for moderately low lighting conditions such as I have. I lowered the luminescence in the software. Using the dry creek black point test I in the range of majority of monitors in the luminescence test there it would appear to indicate my monitor 120cd.m2 is still too bright (could be fixed) what I see on the screen is little darker than the printed PDI, and the PDI has a very slight pink caste. I could try printing using the Epson driver and may do so. The PDI does not have the nuance that photos would have in shadows, the prints I have done on glossy show better gray scale than the screen does. I am not sure this adds anything or is grounds for advice – but it where I intend to leave things until I can test against a hard copy. Thanks again for the all the help. Regards,
the prints I have done on glossy show better gray scale than the screen
does.
Maybe that speaks for the quality of the Apple iMac panel (or maybe it is an indication of the profiles you are building). You still haven’t said what happens to the wedges if you set Displays> Color to sRGB or the OEM monitor profile for that screen…
My 30" ACD shows more distinct wedges than any PDI print I’ve looked at.
That monitor has a contrast ratio an order of magnitude larger than your glossy print. You have to be able to see more grey scale. The brightness problem is an indication that the procedure you are using is not optimum for your LCD. Call DryCreek or Monaco or somebody and get it right.The Monaco website has a pdf of of their manual that tells you how to start cal on an LCD.
Sorry to leave you hanging but there is one piece missing. After the reaction to my last posting I thought it best to get further along. I am amazed and grateful for all the advice I have had.
I have spent considerable tine testing or removing variables to a point where I understood them. Some of the advice web pages were hard to follow for my specific case and Color Management is rocket science. But I had a few epiphanies.
1. The original issue: drift in calibration seems to have stopped; but I will do a confirmation tonight just to make sure. Datacolor’s tip to calibrate under a dark cloth is still working.
2. Efforts to lower the luminescence under the lowest setting of the IMAC is possible with Coloreyes, the only tool I found to test that does not use a color cast to lower the brightness. Not sure that that software will help with other issues – I have only used the trial. And except for comfort I am not sure it is worth it. There is photographer who is posting his experiences but his objective is lowering the luminescence and not necessarily color management.
3. The comment in this thread were very helpful some excellent but simple points like starting with the OEM profile each time you calibrate if you think there is a problem I think made a huge difference.
4. I have spent a lot of time on ambient light issues – and will be buying an Ottlite goose neck for my desk soonest to replace my CFLs. While I now have a black out curtain over my window for consistent lighting painting my room neutral gray is a step too far. It is clear that in many cases my prints are coming out dark a theme in many postings on many forums I looked is due to issues with ambient light.
5 The most important thing to be proven when I have a hard target is the quality of the contrast and color from the screen to print – and to be frank – I have now printed a PDI that is indistinguishable to me and my wife from what is seen on the screen. I printed out my favourite photo and in daylight it looks like to does on the screen while I agree true WYSIWYG is impossible I may be close enough that is also no longer a problem.
6. I hope to see a professional studio guy who uses an IMAC in the next few weeks after he returns from holidays. But in advance of that I was at my local photo store that sells IMACs and where one pro who uses IMACs works. In spite of having sold me my calibrator, it was clear he has no idea what calibration is. His Monitor is as it was out of the box and his 13*19 Epson prints are incredible! Go figure.
If over the course of the next few days I prove there is no drift, and if the hard target shows what the PDI showed then I will have confirmed that I am in a comfort zone that works for me. Oh and I explored adding another monitor but space is a big concern; and it would add more steps to my workflow best to save up for a Mac Pro and a great monitor.
I will post again on the drift issue hopefully tomorrow and on the tests on the hard target as soon as I have it.
My sincere thanks for all the advice and good humour.
I will have to look at how to get a Solux that fits my circumstances – I want to replace one gooseneck lamp pointed at the ceiling just above and off to the side of my monitor – its the sole ambient light.
The latest news tis that there is no substantial drift less than .01 (within the limits that Datacolor told me were normal).
Solux web site shows several models, one of which will be suitable. Bounce light from the ceiling? If I remember correctly the Solux wattage isn’t high enough for one light to be adequate, and how could one gooseneck at 60 or 75 watts be aimed at the ceiling and provide enough light for viewing a print? What the heck are you doing?
Your print comparison results are interesting. You should spell out exactly what you have done to get there now. color space, rendering intent, paper choice, printer model, color mgmt settings, ambient, etc. Your viewing setup seems very odd.
Your monitor has a contrast ratio of more than 800:1 according to the specs link posted here. No printer paper in the world can do much better than 80:1. LCDs do not have contrast controls as such.
One question at a time. 1. 65w CFL bounced off wall pointed up provides me all the light I need. There is no other ambient light and its comfortable on the eyes. To view results I have this daylight lamp from daylight company. Nice lamp shows prints as they are on screen. What I wanted to do was make the ambient light the same so I don’t have to open a second light to proof my prints after printing. 2.Color space Adobe RGB. 3. Intent Perceptual 3. Epson Premium Glossy. 4. Epson R2880 – have yet to try printer driver manages color, but its worth a go. 5. Ambient light light is medium low. 6. CS3 settings – Adobe RGB – US Web Coated (swop) v2 – Dot Gain 20% – preserve embedded profiles for gray and spot – Adobe ACE – use black point compensation – Use dither 8-bit – Printing – I am not using proof – I amusing document (this is a setting that has confuses me as to the difference between document and proof in the printer set-up of CS3)- the paper is set as premium glossy – the rendering intent here is relative colormetric (I know this is a mismatch with the color dialogue but I am not sure it makes a difference). – Black Point Compensation – Simulate Black ink is ticked. I am not sure where I can check the contrast ratio of the monitor – as far as I know its set to whatever the factory set it at. But what I can say is I am seeing reasonable contrast on the drycreek tests. Some LCDS might do better. My profile is Gamma 2.2. at 6500K
Feel free to critic these settings and tell me what I am doing wrong. But it all seemed to work all of a sudden – I think the biggest change was understanding the affects of ambient light, the towel trick, and building my profile based on the OEM, not over the lousy profiles I built when I was more ignorant.
I would use Relative Colorimetric instead of Perceptual for most images, saving Perceptual only for images that need the gamut compression that Perceptual provides. Perceptual rendering intents vary from profile to profile vendor and one size does not fit all. Overall, for the majority of images, you’ll find Relative a close match that Perceptual.
The good profile is probably the key. Unless you somehow double color manage, your prints should look pretty good. I don’t know about the dither 8 bit. Where is that setting, in the printer driver? Doesn’t sound right. Something is being faked.
The 8 bit dither is in your Color Settings options. It adds a VERY small amount of noise to the file when you do a mode conversion and in most cases it’s a good thing – sort of a minor pre-emptive strike against possible banding. You can also find it in the Convert to Profile dialog. It is not available for 16 bit per channel files.
The one question I have not had a repsonse to is the difference between using proof or document in the CS3 printer dialogue. Does this have any impact, provide more options etc? Thanks
I found a discussion of lights that shows what was meant by spikes in the lighting and also spoke to an issue the kind of inks my printer uses. Makes the case for Solux. The lamp that looks best suited to me is the Task lamp and it comes with a 50 watt 4700K bulb. Now here is where I am lost. If the lamp is 4700k does the monitor need to be calibrated for that temperature as well, as opposed to 6500K?
The one question I have not had a repsonse to is the difference between using proof or document in the CS3 printer dialogue.
Use "Document" when your final destination is a photographic print, and you want to take advantage of the full gamut of your inkjet printer.
Use "Proof" when your final destination is another device, like an offset press. This setting allows you to create a simulation of what the offset press output will look like using your inkjet printer as a proofer. It’s the print equivalent of soft-proofing on your screen. Almost always, the gamut of the simulation space (CMYK) is smaller than the gamut of your inkjet, so the resulting proof print will probably have some of the saturation clipped in high saturation areas, but that’s what you want – to be able to see what the image will look like on an offset press.
If the lamp is 4700k does the monitor need to be calibrated for that temperature as well, as opposed to 6500K?
Not exactly, but you want to be a lot closer than 6500K. For reasons that escape me, I find that the best white point setting for my monitor is 5100K, and that’s using the exact 4700K Solux bulb you describe for print viewing. If you are using the Solux to view prints, and have your monitor set to 6500K, you’ll probably see a consistent yellow shift in your prints.
I use the Solux and calibrated my Artisan’s to 6500K and the matches are extremely close. It’s been known for years that there is an inconsistency in matching color temperatures across differing sources – like between a light emitting device and a light reflecting device, and that one often has to make adjustments to one or the other to obtain a closer match. It also helps to remove the frosted glass diffuser that comes attached to the Solux. I think they say that it makes about 300K difference in color temp.
VR8: Are you almost clear on what you’re doing now? There’s been a lot of useful information imparted here, and I’ve learned some myself. Apple certainly should not have released a glossy monitor without specific warnings about calibration. You had a steep learning curve. It’s just incomprehensible to me that you would have had both Perceptual and Relative settings at the same time, what were you thinking? I’m guessing that using Document is the right choice for you, and that you didn’t know why. You appear to be a serious user and I’m glad you could get good results.
Thanks for the compliment. There has been a lot of information here and I have read it and re-read it. There are so many suggestions and settings I am not surprised I missed something. I certainly made some assumptions and mistakes. The IMAC/Leopard are a vast improvement over the alternative and I suspect that sooner or later, given Aperture, there will be an easier path forward. There is only so much color management you can get into when your priority is taking the pictures! Not a hundred percent sure I am out of the woods, when the hard target arrives and I have time to do the test we will know. If it were not for the help I might have given up earlier, and if were not for the target coming, I would close the book now. The key problem as I see it is there is not an ideal way/easy way to measure whether you have it right that fits the equipment you have your settings. I remain grateful for this very long thread and all the help.
The pony pulled up. Package arrived in marvelous shape! I dropped everything and the picture is on my screen. My wife and I took a very hard and long look to see if we could distinguish any differences. They are marginal. 1. The first baby on the left is a bit pinker, the last baby touch darker. 2. Purple background beside the sunflower is a little darker.
The grayscale is just as hard to read in the whites on paper in sunlight as it is on the screen (for once we have a bright blue sky this afternoon and not torrential rains).
For me this is just quibbles – there is no soft proof on and the screen is showing the picture preety much as it is.
It sounds like you’re doing pretty well considering the screen in question. To get that last little bit, you probably need to invest in a high end screen with it’s own calibration, but the improvement will probably be small in comparison. I think this whole thread underscores how many variables there are on the way and having a calibrated hard copy with associated file is much better than having just the file itself. I’ve used something like this – a known image every time I’ve made any change in hardware, calibration, environment, etc. It was especially helpful in going from Ps 4 to 5 when the basic structure of Ps image viewing was radically revamped.
Victor – you should now also print that file on your own printer to see how it compares. That will be a good test of your printer/profile combination.
Victor – I’m glad we could all help you out. This will give you a degree of confidence going forward that will be invaluable. The USPS told it would take 7-10 days and I guess they were right. Who can complain for three almost worthless American dollars?
With three dollars you could buy a euro or a toothpick in Geneva.
You should at least look at the PROOF display before printing and compare the document display if you can have them both on screen, then compare them both to the image itself.
On the bright side the Canadian dollar is pretty much at par and everything is on sale!
I am going to print on premium lustre and on premium glossy. I do want to see the difference with print proof – my screen has been up for almost two hours and that is also important.
Proofed with simulate paper on what I see is what I get! The pink skin is on screen and on paper. So I can correct for it, if its a problem. Now before I move on from output issues to input issues (taking pictures) here are my lessons learned.
1. IMAC specific: calibrate with the screen covered so that no/no ambient light gets to the screen. 2. Calibrate from the OEM profile, not over the old profile. 3. Ambient light matters and its worth the time and effort to have a careful look at your specific circumstances in my case this meant cutting out all ambient light from in front of the screen. 4. Consistent settings are key. Intent is entered three times in CS3 – color space, proof set up and printer dialogues. 5. Using the document setting in the CS3 printer menu makes a difference; and is preferable to the proof setting in my case. 6. Pay attention to things you can really measure like grayscale and a target printed by a pro. 7. When in doubt ask the manufacturer a question they have tips they dont publish. 8. USE the forums I am a keen reader of Nikonians, Adobe Forums, and most recently the Strobist (I won an SB900 and I know nothing about flash photography)
In the end the IMAC is only a part of the problem once you get the rest right not perfect, not ideal but pretty darn adequate.
There are whole series of topics written by HP here under the support menu item. I like this rendering intent because it has an animation.
This site gives the impression that HP really knows what it’s doing. I suppose the fact that no one with good sense would ever use an HP printer with a Mac and Photoshop is not relevant.
I think the point was that for the typical 8.5"-13" wide inkjet printer categories, HP machines have been problematic to set up properly on (at least) Macs — as has been demonstrated over time by users in these forums.
I will also say that for black-and-white laser printers, my office has been very satisfied with the output quality, performance and reliability of HP LaserJets. I’ve still got a 9-year-old 4050N on my desktop that I have not yet been able to break.
It’s clearly the other way around: Epson forded HP into the 21st century. Until (very) recently, HP was not worthy of being taken seriously. They are improving, true.
In addition to what Neil says, HP software and support for the Mac has been abysmally poor.
Funny how things work in this industry. A lagger can become a leader overnight. Epson has been resting on their laurels for several years now while Canon and HP have beaten them to the punch with features like not having to swap black ink carts, and on the HP side, including a built in spectrophotometer and profiling software on their large format printers. As much as we love our Epson printers, one has to wonder why it’s taking them so long just to include slots for all the black inks at one time on all their current printers.
Epson implemented on two printers to date that I know of. The market will force them to upgrade the rest or they will lose market share. That’s the real cost – along with approximately $1500 per gallon of ink.
For the smaller user, aka like me, the choices are not great. The whole color management chain needs some more user friendly efforts by all. Look at how many messages there are on "dark prints". Adobe may be doing a service by their new camera profiling efforts. Ink cost and paper costs are another issue. With some LCDs coming with their own calibration tools, with camera profiling becoming more common, and with printers beginning to add better profiling technology the slow process has begun but so far at high cost. I know several accomplished amateurs that have simply decided that printing themselves is out of the question. I personally think they could do better themselves with a little effort but its the initial outlays of money, and the complexity of color management that puts them off. Some photo stores actively discourage people from taking the extra step. I have been trying to contact Epson to ask some questions about their technology with to date little success. In enjoy post processing so I want to learn much more – especially about Photoshop. But that is me and many others balk even at PSE. Using NX and CS3 is also teaching me a lot. In my case what is important is that I enjoy what I am doing be it solving problems or producing things I like. The technology for people like me continues to have its challenges.
Ease of use has always been one of the key issues for manufacturers, and balancing the one button requirements of the casual user with the complete control needed by working professionals seems to be a huge stumbling block. Right now it’s far far too confusing for the average user, illustrated by the sheer number of threads regarding printing, color etc. not only here but virtually everywhere else online. This is the very subject that I’ve been talking about with a friend who was recently hired in Epson’s marketing division. That and how to make Epson a greener, more environmentally friendly company.
This is priceless. My dad was in advertising and I know something about marketing. One of my pet peeves are supposed reviews of software and hardware that are just rehashs of the press release (score one for marketing). Photo-1 had a great review on the 2880. One button versus complete control is not a trade-off.
The way I see it in a an ideal world the machine is set at the factory – controls are there if needed. They can be reset to factory defaults. This way the user is not left without options if something goes awry.
Greener – tell me what to do with my empties – can I return them to the same store where I buy new ink for a small refund? Do this and third party refillers may have a harder time.
While I am an Epson owner, my pet peeve is their support – their web pages say nothing. I registered my product – I cannot send support an email because according to the error message I am in their database. Their webmaster responds to this web issue with a form message saying we cannot respond to support questions! I click on "new ICC profiles" in Canada – nothing there – its on the US site. They send me a coupon for 10% off inks], but when I go to use they don’t sell the printer I just bought or the inks! I phoned them and they told me that the printer was sold before its time… In short after sale web support, that many people check out before buying a product, needs fixing.
What really rocks for Epson is every time I go to post processing web site or look at a book on photoshop the example are from Epson, now that’s marketing!
There are no real hardware controls for Epsons. They’re all set at the factory. The closest thing you get to a hardware control is that choosing your media type changes the ink linearizations and densities to a different preset level. A third party RIP like ColorBurst will let you have more control over that. The professional printers do have a feature that will let you set the printer back to a factory default calibration.
I think the reason you don’t see more comprehensive reviews is that you have to actually use a printer for a month or more to really put it to a test, and Epson or anyone else just don’t let that many out for review. It sure seems like it’s only a couple beta testers like Joe Holmes or maybe Michael Reichmann and Holmes is the only one I would trust with any degree of objectivity.
Green. I’ve gone round and round with Epson on this. Recycling. They have their heads up their asses. They’ve been making these printers for close to ten years now and have been "studying" a recycling program for their carts. HP does it but Epson claims it would cost them too much money. Mind you, they’ve been studying this for over two years. They suggested I take the carts to my local recycling center. I suggest to them that they need to mark the type of plastic used or no recylcing center will accept it. And round and round it goes. I’m saving all my carts and waste tanks and will deliver them to Epson USA’s doorstep one day. I offered the suggestion that they should take the lead on all issues green no matter what it cost them now, as it would pay them back many fold in good publicity for years to come, but that fell on very deaf ears.
It does sound like support for consumer printer, at least your experience, completely sucks. Epson should pay particular attention to stories like yours and learn from them. Pissed off consumers are not repeat consumers and they need to keep selling ink because that’s their business model. The pro level service that comes with the large format roll printers, at least here in the U.S. is much better than what you’re getting. That may be part of what the cost of the printer is for, but you do have to pony up a good chunk for the extended warranties – about $600 per year for years two and three.
I take my carts to "Cartridge World" here. They refill them in a half hour or give you a few bucks credit for your next purchase. I have not yet used one of their refills, because Staples gives me 10% off on a quarterly refund deal, and the price comes out essentially the same. I only spend (only!) about 300/yr on Epson ink for two All-In Ones. Epson basically sells you a consumer printer at cost or less because they make so damn much money on ink, just like Kodak and the Brownie and film. The throwaway cameras are the same principle I guess. If I ever get through paying ^%$^%*%&^$ doctors, I would like to get a nice Nikon digital to supplant my F2, and then get a very good eight color Epson. I’m not too critical, but I love the prints I get on Photo matte. Canon could be a contender, definitely. I loved my old Apple with a Canon engine. Might even consider one of their cameras. You have to carry a crib sheet with you with a Nikon.
I’ll bite. Does this risk dumping part of your color management? or is it just a fallacy about inks and paper need matching and the ICC profiles are designed for a specific printer and ink.
While we are on the subject of printers – I have yet to try printer manages color – Epson materials that I have seen seem to suggest using CS3, but their promo touts abilities of the printer only available in the printer settings with the Epson color management on. I am wondering if I would see a significant difference (go with e.g. prophoto work space) and see if the printer has a wider gamut etc.
Disclaimer "after all the work why mess with something that works" is what is holding me back.
To my knowledge, you just don’t know what you’re getting with cartridge refills. Ink quality and consistency; longevity; clog-free running; interaction with specific papers…
I err on the side of caution and don’t use refills. Even with new Epson ink carts, you can get ink clogs that aren’t worth the 75 bucks to fix and you just get a replacement with more features for about the same money ait the consumer level. You have to use an inkjet at least once a week, and even then you will have to clean the nozzles occasionally. I use my credits at Cartridge World to buy other office supplies.
Welcome to another one of my pet peeves – I can go some time without using my printer for photos (I have a day job and I travel). Setting up an Ical appointment to clean the nozzles once a week, and then the inks have to be used within 6 months. Does this sound like a consumer product for amateurs? If Epson is listening expensive ink should holds it own longer than six month (like a fine wine).
I shudder to think what I’ll find when I get back home, probably just before Halloween, after being away since mid April and not using the printers all that time. 🙁
Took a break for a few days and went South to New England. I have ordered the Solux lamp – hopefully coming by mail as their shipper is not helpful where I live.
I also purchased Coloreyes that gives me more control over calibration nd brightness – therein lies a story. I found a gentleman who sells IMACs in a very large photo store – his advice mirrored the advice I followed here about ambient room light etc. His suggestion was that Coloreyes was a good idea because you have an idea what the controls do, better info at the and of the process, and more control of the process so that you can tame the IMAC brightness. Also the support is great. So one last set of fiddles, and I am there. Probably another ten days before the lamp arrives.
Moving onto some other complex issues like workflow with Raw to NX and CS3.
Oh it does have a control, but at its lowest setting its extremely bright. If it could be reduced another 10-15% it would be more comfortable. If here is a downside to reducing the brightness; I can live with it but its very bright. Technical pecs say: "Typical brightness: 385 cd/m2."
The catch with that is not just space – its the fact that the IMAC won’t sleep the monitor when the other one is on. You have to use a black black background and leave the IMAC on meaning more ambient light and glare – covering it over would lead to over heating. I will save up for a MacPro.
If there is no drawback to using software to limit the brightness then I will do it, if there is then, I can live with the brightness.
You have to clean the nozzles occasionally on an Epson even if you use it every day
BS – when you use it you are effectively cleaning the nozzles. All nozzle cleaning does is squirt more ink out knocking off any dried particles of ink. I suppose if you live in Phoenix or some place that averages 120 and you don’t have AC that statement may be true.
It’s definitely not BS and don’t shoot from the hip. The temperature this summer has never been over 93 outside or 75-80 where my two Epsons are, but the humidity is in the 5 to 30 range.
I have to clean the nozzles at least once every ten days and I print every day, almost always black, and the black is the one that gets clogged.
where my two Epsons are, but the humidity is in the 5 to 30 range.
That humidity is still on the low side. I believe 40% is considered the number that is neither "too dry" or "too humid". Below 10% is typical for deserts and heated homes in the winter.
I know it’s low, that’s what the problem is. Buko should know that. I always use Epson ink, even though I used to use third party on a previous cheapo Epson and never had a problem. It’s not worth the extra trouble and I can buy real Epson ink from Staples just as cheap essentially.
So far with coloreyes the lowest I can get luminescence without a bad profile – it has a validation tool – at D65 and Gamma of L* is 324 cd/m2 (no discernible change in the almost perfect match from screen to hard print)- I tried 120 but the validation showed this was not working- I may try some more tomorrow at 150 or 200 and see how they work out. Excruciatingly slow process.
Why not use your Monitor Profile as your working space like a hundred other people who have sought advice and ignored it? (I’m kidding you, just kidding, joking, got it?)
I wish someone would start a blog where the annoyances of tech could be addressed and people could share work arounds or at the very least educated facts.
Coloreyes allows adjustment to the video card/Luts. Next time I have a few hours: I will try 120. If that works then I can try to go lower. Most of the material I have seen, and coloreyes itself recommend 120 or less (drycreek suggesting 150). (e.g lots of views on this) I think Peter suggested 120. Now that I understand coloreyes better, it will be easier – each calibration and validation takes about a half an hour. When I tried 120 last night a bunch of things looked wrong in the results report and I got some advice on that today.
I think its finally over – integrated color – the makers of coloreyes confirmed my profile was good and that I hit 120 cd/m2 – this was only possible by changing from the apple monitor module to the LCD brightness module for laptops. Support also suggested it was not a good idea to go below 120. I also took their recommendation and my current calibration is Gamma L*. Not being a color scientist etc. I think this is a good as it gets. I may try for the more standard 2.2. I am not sure anyone will be interested in my next steps.
All I can say is that after much work and much help it is possible to tame the IMAC, and calibrate it; to what I hope is not wishful thinking but an acceptable standard. As noted I am a big fan of OSX; I get enough grief from PCs at work. If someone wants to donate a MacPro and LaCie Monitor – I would be thrilled – in the meantime that will the nature of my next computer a few years down the road. Not sure there is much else I can do or in fact should do. Regards, and thanks.
If you do a seach on adobe there is is a sort of explantion. The object in my case was not to go exotic but to go with the defaults (l* is the default gamma in Coloreyes). At one point trying to see the cd/m2 lower at 2,2, I ended up with a very strange validation of my calibration and I had to start over from the oem profile etc. So caution is now my motto, and I want to see if I even notivce a difference with L* – as I underdtand its halfway between/a curved melding of 1.8 and 2.2. Like all of this detail it is itself a subject of heated debate, support and disdain.
Since you put it that way, yes, of course. got a nearperfect print match to one of Peter Figen’s excellent shots using 1.8, 9300, on premium photo matte with a profiled printer. Got to admit , his sRGB stuff is so good it would be fine any old way.
Yes Peter’s stiff is great. The target he sent uses images from several sites and targets well known to you. My joke was not at his expense. I doubt that early on in this thread my match would have been as close; there has been significant improvements all around. By close I man there is minor difference in pink/lightness, marginal at best in the whitest skin tone.
You might want to check out the apple site at www.apple.com/pro/profiles/benhorton. I realize the definition pro is subject to definition – what is clear is that there is a debate over IMACs for photo-processing (and not all IMACs the 24 in particular). Type of paper (matte of glossy, ambient light, I have learned a lot about getting the results I want and "results" are by their very nature subjective. Indeed my own views of my results may vary as I get more expert.
My joke was about the final choices people have to make (although between 1.8 and 2.2 there seems little debate and until L* came along, that at least was settled). D50 and D65 still seem the subject of some discussion as are the cd/m2 of the screen and intents. At a certain point i have had to make choices. When my solux lamp arrives I will no doubt have to reassess, but now I think I have a better understanding of what is going on and more education about what if anything to do.
The solux task lamp arrived today. Its impressive the difference this makes – every other regular light look distinctly orange. My old daylight lamp is brighter, and apparently white. The task lamp is gentle enough light that placing it in front of or behind the monitor makes marginal difference. Placed above the monitor tilted away from me there is no glare, no reflections and bright white backgrounds are easier to read. Worth the expense, it will make it much easier to check prints and more comfortable to work. Thanks for the advice.
By the way the baby is till too pink on screen. So I will need to remind myself of that hen editing.
About a third down the page in the photodisk image. The target is key because all the other tones and colors seem perfect to my wife and I. Only the baby is pinker on screen.
What was requested of you is to make a screen shot of that image as it looks on your particular screen so we can understand exactly what you mean by "too pink".
Even with good calibration and calibrated and profiled hard copies for reference, there can still be discrepencies in what you see on screen and in print. It could very well be that that shade of pink skintone is one that this particular model of iMac screen just doesn’t deal with well. Even the most expensive high end monitor suffer from that to some degree. I think you’re right to just keep that in mind when you edit those types of images. The more you get used to your own screen, the more automatic your internal correction for that will become. The idea of all this calibration stuff is to eliminate as many surprises as possible, and, while it does that to a fairly high degree, it still isn’t perfect. I say, it’s time to go out and shoot picture and have fun with it all.
Told you I was having a bad night – photo humor who knew. I have the screen shot give me an email and I will send it along – or is there a way to post it here in this forum.
Make sure the screen shot has your monitor profile embedded in it. A lot of folks like to use www.pixentral.com to post images here. You have to upload you image and then copy the link from their site.
On my Mac when it opens in PS/CS3 it says there is a file mismatch – the monitor profile Coloryeyes and date is there and the working space it wants to change to is adobe RGB – the website stripped the data and changed it to srgb. I mailed a png to Ramon.
This thread has been an excellent in-depth survey of practical color management. I’ve bookmarked it and referred to it over on the Windows forum, and will do so again.
But it seems to me that you guys have chased this animal all the way home by now. This is as good as it gets.
As Peter said, time to go out and shoot some pictures.
Well, thank you. I’ve been chasing this stuff down since 1995 or so. I’m pretty sure that’s when I got my first hardware calibrated Radius PressView, which, then, in conjunction with the ICC versions of the old Linocolor drum scanner lookup tables, was giving me great prepress soft proofing. Of course, this was long before Photoshop knew anything about RGB work spaces, but you could, even then, load a monitor profile and even a CMYK ICC profile in PS4 to get very accurate CMYK soft proofing. The only application I remember that could do RGB soft proofing was ColorBlind Edit ( I think it was Edit) a module of the early ColorBlind color management suite, which could do things we had no hope of understanding back then. Believe or not, when we used to print on the Fujix printer at Paris Photo, and this was in the early days of PS 5, but before we had any RGB printer profiles, I used to tweak the primaries of the working space dialog to alter how Ps displayed RGB color to reflect more closely how it would render on the Fujix. It actually worked pretty well, but it seems so crude now.
BTW, here’s what I shot yesterday…a portrait of Robert Earl Keen, the reknown Texas singer songwriter. The background was shot a month ago on a trip in the Ca. desert.
Very nice shot(s)! The composite works well. What kind of neutral background did you photograph Keen against? I’m guessing that you collect and file a lot of scenic backgrounds when you find them for potential use this way.
Now…If I may nitpick a bit…
Check the way his hair meets the sky and guitar case meets the gravel, although his left foot looks solidly on the ground.
The fake background immediately jumps out at me. The cables would have to be more in focus as they approach the foreground (upper left-hand corner). Looks like a painted background. Just my personal impression.
Guitar cases, as least the better ones, and this is one of them that see a lot of air travel, have a metal lug or bulb on the bottom of the case (and three along the bottom long side) specifically to keep the case itself from touching the ground. That does leave the impression that the case is somewhat elevated – because it is. Looking into the deep shadows on the hi-res version you can clearly see his right foot firmly planted on the same ground. On the high res file, the hair is looking very good. I’m not completely done with it yet and will make sure that it’s all perfect before it’s finalized. The background in the studio was just the white cove and floor leading into it. I lit it down from white, more like a light gray, enough that I would have a clean contrasty edge all the way around. While I do have a large stock of potential background images, I did spend an entire day driving from Los Angeles to Victorville and Barstow on the old Pearblossom Highway and old Route 66 specifically to shoot for this. Then I shot tests of my girlfriend in the studio with her accordion to make sure that the whole idea was going to work.
Ramon – the focus is actually pretty much spot on. I shot the backgrounds at f/5.6 with a 200mm lens, focused at about the same distance as I shot Robert in the studio. If I had shot him at that location all in one shot, it would have looked almost exactly the same. I’ve done many outdoor portraits lit with studio lighting, forcing the background to go a bit underexposed just to get the look that I’m getting here. Now, I could have shot the background with the 200mm 1.8 and really pushed it out of focus, but the depth of field would have been so thin there would not been enough sharp foreground for him to stand on.
I guess that (for me, anyway), the nice modeling and highlighting at the bottom of the guitar case are reinforcing the "floating" guitar case look. I suspect that part of Ramón’s objection is your intentional underexposure of the background which gives it a bit of a "studio" feel, rather than pure outdoors.
As I said, I’ve been nitpicking. Wish I could shoot like that.
To be sure, there is some subjectivity in it, and I’m not done with it by a long shot. This was the result of an hour of Photoshop. I generally have to live with the images for at least a week or so before they really start to take shape. For instance, there is a color treatment that occurred to me while on my Saturday hike this afternoon. It will take it even further from reality, but may be just the ticket for this use. Or it might just suck. As for the guitar case, I guess I so used to seeing them raised up on their little nubbin, that this looks normal to me, which is exactly how it is. Start hanging with some folk musicians and you’ll start seeing the same thing too.
"Wish I could shoot like that."
Neil, you can. This was the most simple lighting setup. One umbrella lighting Robert and two bare strobe heads with seven inch refectors lighting the background. Not rocket science. Sometimes simple is the best.
Note to California travelers: from anywhere west of the 405, the Pearblossom exit from the 5 to Victorville via the 138 and 18 will save you an hour to Vegas and Salt Lake. It’s 746 miles from Camarillo, CA, to SLC, and I have made it in 10.5 hours using the shortcut. Many of the bottlenecks on 138 have been eliminated and it’s even faster now.
You climb a hill to the Pearblossom exit and it comes up fast.
I won’t be suiting up for this Cold War, coach. The young guys I helped bring along are running things at the missile factory now and I’ll not be running up and down the I-15 anymore.
So VR8, the baby is pink on screen? You’re not there yet, I don’t think. Can you see the R,G, and B gammas after you calibrate? Screen shot them and link.
Peter, I happen to love this composite… as it is. Who wants perfect reality? That’s both mundane and tedious. You have here a mythic figure and the style of photography and photo-composition both convey it and pay proper respect.
I can forward what ever is asked, but linking means a change from adobe to sRGB and losing the profile – still not sure what RGB gammas are, but once I know… in any event happy to share.
On Peter’s photo. I like it, its a great promo shot. My first question was about the flash ( I was hoping it was an easy set up not a studio rig) 🙂
The subject of that portrait may very well be a "mythical figure", but I’ve never heard his name before nor have I googled it yet. I still think it’s a magnificent portrait and I think it deserves an elegant background, but the photographer calls the shots, obviously.
VR8: each color has its own gamma and the calibration process is supposed to adjust them correctly. Yours isn’t right. Probably the R but not necessarily.
Of course, for commercial work, ultimately, it’s the client’s call."
George Lois, an ad guy once sold an ad to a gentleman. He opened the window of the guy’s office and threatened to jump, if he did not buy the ad. The poster is in the Museum of Modern Art in NY, and the company went broke – the poster is iconic – "you don;t have to be Jewish to love Levi’s bread". Cuts both ways.
You could take a screen shot of the gamma curves and put it on pixentral, but you should recalibrate . You should talk to ColorEyes tech support again and tell them your midtones are too red. You probably have set something wrong in the iMac OSD setup if there is one. Probably what ever they call "contrast" which is God knows what since LCDs don’t really have contrast controls.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
