In response to James, I’ll apologize here for being a bit clueless, here’s some replies:
1. What color space are your files in? I AM UNSURE WHAT THAT MEANS
2. How do you use your files in the end? PERSONAL PRINTS (4X6, 5X7 ETC)
3. Do you have a profile for your printer? ASIDE FROM ADDING THE PRINTER AND INSTALLING ITS DRIVER I DON’T BELIEVE I DID ANYTHING ELSE IN RE PROFILE
4. Do you send out to professional labs? NO.
I did recalibrate the monitor per recommendations in another posting (TOO PINK FLESHTONES) And I am referring to caucasian fleshtones in that instance. My apologies to other fleshtoned persons.
I also reset some print instructions per KODAK’s recommendations which improved earlier prints I was getting when I got the printer. I was getting vertical lines and such. Those changes improved the prints greatly but now the colors are off as I stated earlier. But I also noticed in general then and now that shots of people just weren’t right
I’m a little lost on the following too:
"Print Options:
Source Space>Document
Print Space Profile: BJ Color Printer Profile 2000
Intent: Perceptual.
You can find that profile in the drop down menu in Print Space Profile. "
Are these options accessed from Photoshop? And again I’m using the Canon i950. But I didn’t know where to make the changes mentioned.
Thanks
Robert that advice is for a pc. Here’s what I do with my i9100 in panther. Full color management on in the PE setting. Choose my monitor profile, intent=perceptual, black point compensation on in Print Preview. Colorsync is set to my monitor profile.
In the print driver–paper quality (with respect to Brent Epson paper gives me dreadful results with this printer) = what you are printing on. For me, if it’s an important photo, Canon photo paper plus, usually glossy because it’s what’s available locally. Highest quality photo setting (yours may be different) and then either Canon BJ profile or colorsync in the ‘color management’ setting. Leave all special effects alone till you get the basic color down. Then you can go back to noise reduction and so on.
Using those settings I get prints that are as close to what I’m seeing on the monitor as a print could possibly be. Your options may be a tad different, but you should be able to figure them out from there.
Paper makes a BIG difference.
The main thing is paper. If you are not using the correct paper, and Kodak paper unfortunately is not very good with many inkjet printers, you will get crummy results no matter how many hours you waste on tweaking your settings.
if those settings don’t work as well in jaguar (printing is very different between jaguar and panther), try this: color management off, same as source in print preview, select paper/quality in driver, try with bubblejet and then with colorsync and see what you get.
Barbara,
I don’t think it is fair to make such a blanket statement about any paper. I’m not defending Kodak, but I must say that I get stunning results from Kodak Ultima satin finish paper. A while back I read some comments in this forum and on the HP web site that I would likely get superior results from using HP photo paper because I use an HP printer. So I purchased a box of the HP Premium Plus photo paper, but I have yet to get a print from it that satisfies me. And I seem to be able to consistently get favorable results from the Kodak paper. I am going to try some Ilford paper soon to evaluate the results from it.
Hi, Jim. I didn’t say all inkjets, I said ‘many’ and I stand by that. The ink/paper relationship is pretty tightly orchestrated these days. I’m glad you had good results with it, but when someone says things look bad and they’re using a non-standard paper, that’s one of the first places to troubleshoot.
Personally, I got extremely good color with HP paper on my HP inkjet. Sorry it’s not working for you.
I, too, have had terrible results with Kodak paper on my Epson photo printers. The Kodak works well on my wife’s hp 1115, though, so its not money wasted. The basic rule should be to troubleshoot your printing on the mfg’s recommended paper. Once you perfect your technique there, then branch out and try other options if you need to.
🙂
Brent
Thanks, brent. It’s funny isn’t it, how some people get great results on anything, and other people can’t get a decent print to save their lives no matter what they do?
ya funny, color management OFF here…just printed an image of my kids…held it up next to the screen and they are near identical( I’d rather say totally identical but ya wouldn’t believe me anyways). My point of view…if it aint broke….
Epson printer…Epson paper…. 🙂
My point of view…if it aint broke….
Absolutely, Jodi! I’ve just been staggering through a 64 message thread about colorsync in another forum and I kept thinking "never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you." 😉
I can believe that Jodi. I never found a need for it until I started moving files between different computers(5) with different programs(8) and monitors and several different printers(5) and needed everything to match all the way around. To make it harder this is between three different people who see things differently at times. BTW, still waiting to see the new doo!
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
( I’d rather say totally identical but ya wouldn’t believe me anyways).
OK,
I got canon paper and tried various settings per suggestions. Photo Paper Plus Glossy, Detailed/Fine. BJ Standard in color management. Also tried Colorsync. In print preview it says document source: untagged RGB. I’m working from a tif.
I’m getting prints that are waaaay off. They are too bluish pink. Dark even to a degree.
In Photoshop I have a perfect looking photo. Absolutely perfect true to life colors. That should be my print but I’m getting this awful result
Help!
Robert, what does photoshop say for your color settings? Are they the same? Do you have CS? If they are identical and you are using CS and not 7, you probably need the ignore exif plug-in in PE.
Are all of your ink cartridges full and nozzles clean?
—
Have A Nice Day, 🙂
James Hutchinson
http://www.pbase.com/myeyesview http://www.myeyesviewstudio.com/ wrote in message
OK,
I got canon paper and tried various settings per suggestions. Photo
Paper Plus Glossy, Detailed/Fine. BJ Standard in color management. Also tried Colorsync. In print preview it says document source: untagged RGB. I’m working from a tif.
I’m getting prints that are waaaay off. They are too bluish pink. Dark
even to a degree.
In Photoshop I have a perfect looking photo. Absolutely perfect true
to life colors. That should be my print but I’m getting this awful result
Help!
Robert, also, tell us ALL your settings. What is your color prefs setting in PE? (and why "untagged rgb" in print preview?). Compare all of them with exactly what you are using in PS.
Robert, what does photoshop say for your color settings? Are they the same? Do you have CS? If they are identical and you are using CS and not 7, you probably need the ignore exif plug-in in PE
Do you mean color settings in the print dialogue Color Options? Those are all set at 0.
And if CS is Colorsync, yes I have that and tried it both ways. Both Bubble Jet and Colorsync.
I am unsure what you mean by 7 as opposed to CS.
As far as the exif-plug-in in PE. You’ll have to expand on that a bit.
And I just did a deep head cleaning on the nozzles. Same off results
Other than that I’m all over this. Thanks
Okay, Robert. You said:
In Photoshop I have a perfect looking photo.
I took that mean that you also have photoshop and things are hunky dory there. If you mean that as short for PE and that there is a difference between your monitor and output, that’s something else again.
Please tell me the following: What your color setting is for PE (press command + shift + k) and tell me what it says.
When you go to print preview in PE and check "show more options" and select "color management" from the pulldown menu, what do you see?
Also in colorsync utility (applications>utilities>colorsync utility) what is listed under "RGB"?
Yes. my aopolgies. It’s PE
The color settings says ‘full color management optimized for print’
In preview, in show morw options there’s 2 choices: output and color management
color management is selected and the box below says ‘document source profile – untagged RGB
Print space says: same as source
Okay, try changing "print space" to your monitor profile and see what happens.
EDIT I mean your calibrated profile, just to clarify.
OK, I changed the calibration in preview to match what is set in system preferences. I am still not getting what I am seeing. No change from what i was getting before.
I was unsure by what you meant bt ‘EDIT I mean your calibrated profile’
in preview it also says RELATIVE COLORIMETRIC for INTENT in the print space box and ‘black point compensation is checked.
I also checked the inks to make sure the photo cyan and magenta are mixed up with regular cyan and magenta. Everything looks OK there. I did a deep cleaning and a test print.
I just made a print from a different photo. This was from a jpg. And THAT looks good. Almost a perfect print. What I’m seeing is what I’m getting essentially.
Good it be a problem with something I did or are doing to TIF files? Could the TIF files be the problem? Still doesn’t explain that the TIF looks great in PE but lousy in print.
No, I doubt it’s tiff files generally. Try this. First print another photo and see if that looks okay. Then go back to the one you are having trouble with. Do a ‘save as" and see what it says next to "embed" in the save dialog and see if there is a check in the box already. Then do the same to one of the files that printed well.
Have you tried the "ignore exif" plug-in? Some digital cameras embed tags that confuse the color management in PE and you get that reddish cast as a result. If you don’t have it, someone will hopefully be along with a link for the download for you. It’s a plug-in.
I’m in the middle of a zero data reformat and system reinstall, so am not around much tonight, I’m afraid.
Thanks. I appreciate your help. I know you’re busy. Here’s where I’m at.
I downloaded the ignore-exif plugin and put the folder in PE’s extension folder in Plug-ins. I made a print of the problem (TIFF) photo and no change. Still looks the same, a definite bluish and pinkish cast. Mostly a bluish cast but you can see the skintones are too pink also. Again regardless, the print does not match the PE view
I opened the good photo (JPG) and did a ‘save as’ on both.
They both say EMBED COLOR PROFILE: ADOBE RGB 1998.
But is the embed checkbox already checked, or is there no checkmark in the box, Robert?
Also, does the other file that you said printed okay show the same thing? And have you tried printing any other files, too? If this is just a problem with this one file the solution is a lot easier than if it’s all of them.
The JPG looks great. The TIFF and others from that series all have the same problem essentially. The print color is just off.
But still, once I have the image properly corrected in PE, regardless of any source problems (eg: lighting variances, indoor/outdoor etc.) I should be able to get the image I see in PE when I print, by and large. At the least it should be much closer.
I’m not asking for an exact WYSIWYG but certainly the print should reflect PE work.
Count on me to submit a real stumper.
Does the jpg show something different in that embed box? And once again, are things prechecked in either case?
No they both say the same thing: EMBED COLOR PROFILE: ADOBE RGB (1998)
The box below that is empty for both. Both have the color box checked
And I tried a print of the TIFF with and without the color box checked. No difference.
When I open the TIFF a box opens that says MISSING PROFILE and my choices are: DON’T COLOR MANAGE; ASSIGN WORKING RGB; ASSIGN PROFILE
I think I’ve toyed with these options already to no avail. But that’s what pops up. My last print I used ‘don’t color manage’ just to see. No good.
I’m almost inclined to save all these as JPGs but I’ve already burned so much ink and paper I want to see if i can fix this problem when they are TIFF because there’s still a problem with the images not responding to whatever changes are made to the file info
If what I’m going to say is not relevant in your situation, I want to apologize in advance. But in these TIF images that you are having difficulty printing, have you done a lot of color modification or have you pushed the saturation on your colors? In the full version of Photoshop you can switch to CMYK mode and then turn on Gamut Warning which will highlight the colors that will not print properly. I was quite surprised when I first tried this. But it certainly helped me to understand why one of my nighttime Christmas pictures from last year would not print as vividly as it shows on the screen. If you have done a lot of color modification, and have pushed the color spectrum outside of what will print properly, that could be the problem.
I have Photoshop on my Windows machine. I can always transfer the shots there with a bit of work and look at them. What would CMYK tell me? Will it allow corrections? So if it says the blue is out of whack or something can I address that?
I had to lighten some of the prints up. But nothing excessive. Besides I am still seeing excellent photos in PE. Shouldn’t that be the info I am printing? That’s why there’s Photoshop.
Robert, CMYK mode is totally irrelevant here, unless you have a high end color laser postscript printer and have been holding out on us. CMYK is mostly for commercial printing.
Okay, let’s see if I understand where we are. Your photos look good onscreen, regardless of whether they are tagged sRGB IEC1966
or Adobe RGB. The sRGB files print fine. You have tried with both no color management and full color management selected in color prefs and with "same as source" and your monitor profile selected in print preview and none of those changes made any difference.
Your Adobe RGB files are too red and the sRGB files print well. Always.
You have calibrated your monitor, used canon paper, chosen the correct paper settings and high-quality photo in the print driver and also tried both BJ profile and colorsync in the color management section of the driver.
Is this all correct?
This posting has really helped.
I’m running Win98se, Dell P991 monitor, Canon i960 printer, and Adobe PSE2. My primary camera is a Canon 10d and occasionally I use Shutterfly.com for prints. Prior to reading through all of these posts I could not get consistent colors between monitor, my printer, or Shutterfly. I did a lot of experimenting with various color space settings, but setting everything (camera, monitor, my printer) to sRGB yielded consistent in-home results with the exception that I had to tweak the printers intensity settings for each of the various papers that I use to account for paper brightness and finish. The prints from Shutterfly also are very very close as they also use sRGB. I am now happy.
One note about the Ignore EXIF registry patch is that it does produce more natural skin colors for this particular setup.
< < < All outgoing e-mail scanned with NAV2004 > > >
Yes, the photos look great in PE.
Yes to the question of being tagged. Now I just went to open a bunch of shots to confirm how they are tagged by doing the ‘save as’ thing. They all say Adobe RGB (1998).
Before some of them open I am prompted about a missing profile. My choices are: don’t color manage; assigne working RGB: Adobe RGB; Choose a profile. I assigned the profile to match the monitor calibration. Made a print. Same problem.
I then changed the profile to Adobe RGB, same thing. Essentially what I see is in PE the backgrounds are warmer. In the print it’s cooler. The toanlity is cooler overall. My shots are warmer and truer. Should the profile match the monitor? If the photo says Adobe RGB should I choose that? Although here it doesn’t help.
I just printed an sRGB IE…. Matched the source etc. Perfect print. My print looks like what I se in PE
My monitor is calibrated, I calibrated and saved the settings and used that. Not a big change.
Canon paper, correct paper setting, colorsync is the choice.
One other difference that i see is that the good print comes from a JPG copy, while the other comes from a TIFF
i see is that the good print comes from a JPG copy, while the other comes from a TIFF
But how many files are we talking about here, Robert? One of each type? Two, more?
There should not be any difference because of the file type, but are your JPG files from a different source than your TIFF files? Do you have two different cameras? Are you shooting directly in TIFF in the camera or converting the files to tiff afterwards?
One camera. Canon D60. I shot them as large format I believe and transferred them to TIFF. I can also shoot them as RAW files. Usually I make JPGs when I download them but I made TIFF’s this time. They don’t record in camera as a certain file type. Just samll to large and RAW files.
The JPG’s producing good prints are from the same camera. I am quite certain I have printed other photos in TIFF format. And they printed as shown.
This particular group of shots for some reason is not making it to the printer. I downloaded that ignoreEXIF file and placed it in the Plugins folder in PE. No effect that I could see
Every shot in this group is printing much cooler than what I have edited. I have 26 shots and the problem seems the same for each one. I even tried a couple as grayscale. Took all the color out and made excellent looking B+W versions in PE. They print flat with a bluish cast.
Ah, okay, now we are getting somewhere, thanks. That means the problem is nothing to do with your global color settings, but something that happened to that group of files.
If you haven’t done this, try this: do a ‘save as" on one of the tiffs. It shows Adobe RGB, doesn’t it? Be sure that box is UNchecked before you save it. See if the new file prints any better. (You want to get rid of the Adobe RGB tag for now.)
I opened the TIFF and a JPG copy. A ‘missing profile’ box opened asking which profil:. none, Adobe RGB, assign a choice
For both I chose none. I did a save as and the embed color choice box is UNCHECKED. Both prints came out the same way. Same problem, no change. The 2 prints are identically bad. Neither matches my product in PE
So, any ideas? You’re my lifeline
What happens if you switch your color preferences in PE (command+shift+k) to "no color management" or "limited color management" before you print it?
No affect. Looks the same as the others. Too cool in tone.
I think I solved it. I revisited monitor calibration. While the photo was open in PE I tried every calibration option available until I got one that made the PE image look like the print.
sRGB made the PE image match the poor print. I then re-edited the picture from that calibration and BINGO.
You have been most helpful and patient. Thank you much.
Rob
James,
Funny you should mention clogged nozzles. Today I had a purple haze on my prints. Updated printer drivers, tried various color profile settings since I have both PSE and CS, the whole color setting routine only to do an ink nozzle test as a last resort after reading your post. Well, I had a clogged yellow ink jet! Problem solved. It hadn’t occurred to me since I had just put in new ink cartridges. Thanks for the timely suggestion!
Terri
Hi, Robert. I’m glad you got it working, but I would question whether that’s really the best way. I think you will find that now all your other photos that were okay are going to be a mess.
I would suggest using the sRGB as a starting point and running the calibration again and saving that as your profile for use. However, be aware that that is a pretty narrow colorspace and you will be ignoring a lot of useful info in your Adobe RGB photos.
Hi,
yes I thought it was completely solved but not really. What I got was just a bit more control as opposed to no change at all. But not a match.
Now when you say start with sRGB and running the calibration again does that mean in the display/color panel, select sRGB and recalibrate that?. When I hit CALIBRATE it seems I am just selecting a view that feels good to me and then I am asked to name this new calibration. But that didn’t seem to get me a closer monitor/print match. I guess I just want to start from scratch with the best starting point.
I am going to leave the problematic batch of shots for now as those required brigtening etc. and i may have changed them so much as to make them useless gauges.
Of all the various calibration choices, most of which I do not understand, you suggest that sRGB is very narrow. Is sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (why don’t they name these things so they make sense?) a better choice overall? Or since many of the jpgs I download from the camera seem to have the Adobe RGB profile. SHould that be the choice and leave it at that? Though when I select that I don’t see any change in the monitor.
If I select Adobe RGB and hit calibrate I am assuming that I am calibrating that choice. Should I then try to adjust it, if that’s the case, to match my print output and then go from there?
Okay, let’s start with the calibration. When you go to system prefs>displays>color you will see a list of all the profiles available on your computer with the one you are currently using highlighted.
Personally, I got better results by clicking the one called "imac" and then calibrating, but if you think you want to start from sRGB you can choose that option there. Whatever is highlighted in that list when you click the Calibrate button will be the starting point for the new profile. You want to be sure you give it a different name when you’re done so that you don’t lose the profile you started from by saving over it.
Yes, you are correct that if you select Adobe RGB as your starting point in system prefs you will be creating a profile based on that. As a general rule, it is considered preferable to use your own monitor’s profile (imac) and go from there.
Once you have done that, then you can go back to PE and press command + shift + K to bring up the color settings in PE. There you need to choose between No color management, sRGB (limited for web), or Adobe RGB (full color management.)
But do the monitor first. You may not actually see a difference after calibration. You are just trying to be sure that PE has an accurate undamaged profile to consult.
Hi,
Thanks, I’m doing that now and starting with the iMAc option. Question. What actually happens when choosing NO COLOR MANAGEMENT, sRGB, or FULL COLOR MANAGEMENT?
Do these options refer to things I am doing in PE or is it something that PE does internally?
As a follow-up. I opened a photo from a completly unrelated batch from the ones I had ‘problems’ with. I had printed it months ago. I opened it, didn’t make any adjustments from what was done back when I first opened it. And that just entailed some cropping and minimal color correction.
Using my recalibrated iMac setting I made prints with and without color management. And I’m back where I was, getting overly cool prints lacking any warm tonality and not looking like what I see. It’s not even a question of being slightly off. These are 2 different images.
The photo in question has the sRGBIEC61966 profile. So I went and changed the monitor calibration to that and printed. Virtually the same output as the others. And I used mangement and no management. No effect whatsoever.
So I went and changed the monitor calibration to that and printed.
Hi, Robert. No,you want to leave your monitor calibration alone usually and make your adjustments in other places. You have a canon printer, right? Go to system prefs>colorsync and tell me what it says for RGB there. It’s the top line, I think.
Hi – I’m in this discussion very late. However, have a look at reviews of the Canon i950 and S830D (which I have) on <
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/> this is one of the most objective review sites I’ve found.
Both reviews suggest that Photo Paper Plus Glossy is not the best to use. I’ve had good results with Glossy Photo Paper, which is cheaper than Photo Paper Plus Glossy (in the UK).
I’ve been trying Ilford Photo Printasia because it was very inexpensive in a local variety store, but the colours are impossible to get right and the prints emerge ‘sticky’. I hate to think how much ink I’ve used trying to get it OK.
Hi, davee. Well, I have the i9100 rather than one of those models and I’ve had really good results with the photo paper plus glossy. Also, in many parts of the US, like where I am, that is the only canon paper which is readily available, which is why I suggested trying that one.
I myself have had very poor results with any non-canon paper in this printer, although there are others here who say they have had good results with Epson.
In ColorSync it says the following:
RGB DEFAULT – GENERIC RGB PROFILE
CMYK DEFAULT – GENERIC CMYK PROFILE
GRAY DEFAULT – GENERIC GRAY PROFILE
Okay, Robert. Try changing the RGB setting to your monitor profile and see if that makes a difference when you print.
I don’t think it’s the paper at all. I’m sure it’s something dumb I did or didn’t do in regards to some settings which I am lost on..
I was using Kodak paper and when this current problem arose I switched to Canon Paper Plus Glossy.
This is another issue altogether. The tonality on these prints are so far off as to make them unrelated to the color corrected image in Photoshop. I’ve printed indoor shots with flash, Outdoor without etc. On occassion I get a fairly close print to what i see but the fact this overly cool tone and pinkish fleshtones is happening almost everytime makes the few good prints insignificant.
Take the situation where I tried a B&W print of one of the shots I was having difficulty with. I understnd it’s hard to get the very best B&W from digital prints (for B&W I’m going to stick with my 35mm Canon F1 film camera and the lab) but the B&W print I made comes out blue.
Whatever I am seeing on my monitor is not making it to the printer….or…what I am actually seeing is completely different from what the image actually is. And i don’t know how it can be so far off and still look great in PE and lousy in print.
And by the way I too like Ilford paper when having prints from film made. Agfa too, especially their pearl finish which i don’t think they make anymore.
Take the situation where I tried a B&W print of one of the shots I was having difficulty with. I understnd it’s hard to get the very best B&W from digital prints (for B&W I’m going to stick with my 35mm Canon F1 film camera and the lab) but the B&W print I made comes out blue.
Hi, Robert. B&W is very, very difficult with a standard inkjet printer, so I would leave that out of your calculations for right now, unless you mean that you were getting great B&W prints before.
OK, I changed the RGB setting in ColorSync to the monitor’s profile and printed with color options set to BJ Standard and Colorsync in Print. And with and without color management chosen.
No difference. At most the Colorsync setting produced a slightly darker print but overall they both have the same bad tone. The blue tone is obviously very evident where things should be white like curtains, white shirts, walls. And of course all the faces are pink
And yes, I am not concerned at this time with B&W. I merely point out how the overly cool tone is even more prevalent in the B&W. Perhaps that my indicate something to someone as to what the problem could be.
But anyway I am at your service to try anything. Thanks.
Barbara,
I tried printing from 2 other programs, Canon Image Browser and iPhoto. The Imagebrowser shot had the same problem BUT the iPhoto shot had truer color. Except here the print seemd to have much more saturation then the image I see in iPhoto. But again here the color was truer. Could that mean something Watson?
Not really, except that you are getting more saturation in iphoto because of changing your colorsync setting, most likely. If you put that back to generic rgb your prints there will go back to normal, probably.
Don’t know about image browser, but iphoto is not color-managed in the way that PE is, so it’s not the same thing.
Crappers.
I made a print on plain matte paper out of PE. This one wasn’t as cool. The colors were a bit truer though the print was much more saturated then the PE image.
Barbara hi,
Someone was kind enough to send me a test photo that shows color cards, gray scale, various skin tones, other colorful objects etc.
It’s labeled TAGGED/EMBEDDED: sRGB IE 61966-2.1
I printed it from OS 9 using Photoshop LE and from OS X using Elements. They both came out flawless. Exact matches to what I see on the monitor.
I went back to one of my photos and it came out crap. Same problems I cited before. I double checked using ‘save as’ and it has sRGB IE 61966-2.1 embedded. And that is also the monitor calibration choice.
So all things being equal one image printed great one completely off. Overly cool, too pinkish. In my image , there’s my niece in the background, back towards camera and she has her wedding dress on. In PE it’s white, in the print it’s almost powder blue.
Robert, it’s pretty clear at this point that the problem is the particular files and not your monitor. There’s really nothing to do but adjust the photos that don’t print right.
If you are getting correct prints some of the time, it’s nothing to do with your overall calibration/settings, probably, but you might check what you have set in print preview for color management in PE and see if there’s any difference there.
OK the bad one in Print Preview says DOCUMENT SOURCE PROFILE : UNTAGGED RGB PRINT SPACE: SAME AS SOURCE.
In print preview the test photo I got says the same thing.
