I had a Hewlett – Packard pigment ink printer and until it bit the dust, it printed very accurate, beautiful and to the display prints. I have a cheap Canon printer that puts out prints that can match the display too. I just purchased a new Epson Stylus 3800 printer and my prints are much too dark, too much contrast and ever so slightly posterized.
I am using Photoshop CS2. I have checked and I believe the drivers on my printer are current. I have tried letting the printer determine colors as well as letting Photoshop determine colors and turning off the printer controls in the print setting dialogue. The prints are OK – ish, but just not what’s on screen and not what I want them to be. My screen is calibrated well enough. It is not paramount that my prints be totally and completely like the display but close.
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.
Download and install the latest Epson driver (even if what you are using is current) and read Gary Ballard’s color management tutorials: <http://www.gballard.net/psd.html>
Yes, I have been to Gary Ballard’s website when I first got to wondering about color management and have read Color Management for Photographers by Andrew Rodney.
Yes, I am an amateur and so I DO need help.
I am used Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. I downloaded the paper profile from Hahnemuhle and used it when I "Let Photoshop Determine Colors" and shut off the printer controls. I used Hahnemuhle Photo Rag when printing with, "Let Photoshop Determine Colors" and got the same result. What is happening is the prints are to dark, with too much contrast and ever so fine lines (posterization) in the gradients.
I would buy and use the Epson papers but I did a test on Epson Matte Paper Heavyweight and the same thing happened, the prints were much too dark. I know this because I have other prints that ARE satisfactory and match my screen display.
I called the Epson support line and was told the printer will never be able to do what I want it to do and that I should return it. WHAT? I don’t want to return my printer I want it to work the way that your printer works. When I asked if I should get another they told me, no, that if I am printing from Photoshop CS2 and don’t like it, I will hate it if I got to CS3 or CS4. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
Call back until you get someone who understands the question. It may take you several calls, but it is pretty easy to excuse yourself early when you get another clueless person.
I am not sure what black ink comes with that printer (if it is optimized for matte or glossy paper), but take it back to basics with an Adobe RGB copy of the Photodisc PDI Target image and a matched Epson paper…I use these settings on an Intel Mac Pro, CS2, 10.4.11 <http://www.gballard.net/psd/epson_cs2.html>
I’ve printed from 10.5 good, but it’s easier to send my prints over to a 10.4 box…
We recently bought the Epson Stylus Pro 3800 and are very pleased with the prints it produces. We are, however, running it through third-party RIP software (ColorBurst) in order to get true postscript features.
Our previous printer was an Epson Stylus Pro 1280, and we did see similar issues to what you are describing whenever we used non-Epson papers, or when the paper selected in the software did not match the one used.
For g ballard: this printer actually switches between matte and gloss black ink depending on what paper was selected in the software.
Epson support has always been worse than useless. Don’t waste your time there. Try the paper I suggested.
If you absolutely cannot make it work after scrupulously following Gary’s directions using top end Epson papers you could call Epson back and have them provide another SP3800 to you, but odds are 100 to one that your setup is at fault.
If you call Epson in Long Beach and qualify for and request their Advanced Product Support (not sure if 3800 does, but my 7880 does) you will get a Long Beach tech and they have been excellent in my experience.
If your call gets dumped to their consumer lines overseas, that’s where Epson drops the ball (but who can blame them trying to help novices with a $100 printer trying to print on Staples glossy…)?
But again, you have some things to rule out before [I] would get too demanding…
Gary: I’m honored you replied to my inquiry. Yes, I am as clueless as the support person I talked to about my problem. Question: Imagine you are explaining the following to a clueless person such as myself, " . . . . take it back to basics with an Adobe RGB copy of the Phptotdisc PDI Target image and matched Epson paper." Adobe RGB copy of the Photodisc PDI Target image? I love your website but found it so daunting. Well, maybe not now since I understand a bit more. I will check it out again. I asked the support person where he was located and he said, Long Beach, CA. GULP! Eileen is correct, the 3800 switches back and forth between Matte and Glossy depending on the paper used and what the printer is instructed to do. I am working with Photoshop CS2 on a Power Mac G5, 10.4.11.
Eileen: I haven’t installed the RIP Server because when my HP printer ate it, I bought this Epson (which I have always wanted) and am trying to get ready for a show and fill other commitments. I’m falling behind and thought if I got the Epson 3800 up and running I could catch up and install the RIP at a later date when I have the time to learn about it. The Epson support person told me I didn’t need the RIP at all if I was printing from Photoshop. That didn’t make any sense to me. Thanks for your assistance.
Allen: Again, thank you for your response. I don’t doubt that my set up may be at fault. I have used over $100.00 in Hahnmeule Photo Rag paper trying to coordinate profiles with proper printing. This paper worked for me in the past in a class I took where we used the Epson 2200 and it worked on the HP I had before this one. I thought it would work here. I downloaded and installed the paper profiles from Hahnemuhle. You seem adamant about Epson papers and so I will get some and see what happens. I did use the glossy paper that came with the printer, Epson Premium Luster Photo Paper, for some of my tests and the same thing happened . . . . too dark, too much contrast and done both ways, printer control and Photoshop control. Regarding the drivers . . . . this is my fear, will I need to uninstall the current drivers before downloading new ones or will the new ones just upgrade the current ones? I once downloaded current drivers for a printer I had and it messed up the works. Doubled up the drivers and was a big mess to straighten out.
Thank you everyone for all your advice and help. I’m truly humbled.
YOU GUYS AREN’T GOING TO BELIEVE THIS! I just received a box of 50 sheets of Hahnmuhle Photo Rag paper from B&H Photo and the whole lot was bent in the corner and needs to be returned. What ever happened to quality control? Well, now I’ll have the chance to order and try the Epson papers.
Ramon, thanks for ringing in . . . . I have calibrated my monitor to a degree and have considered that as the culprit BUT, when I print on my $80.00 Canon printer, even tho’ the print is not very sophisticated, nevertheless it matches what I see on screen better then a print from the Epson 3800. Also, in the past I was printing on a HP B9100 and those prints matched my display.
I really want to get this printer working properly because the prints I am getting now are very sharp and clear . . . . just too dark.
To check monitor-to-print workflow, I like a combination of the Adobe RGB PDI file and a box of letter size Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster (available locally) using the Epson profile for that paper…
A calibrated monitor can nevertheless be too bright. It depends on what white luminance (in candelas/m2) you target in the calibration software.
Now that CRTs are not readily available, I find that most LCD monitors are set up way too bright.
If the monitor is too bright, the user will inevitable manipulate the images to look OK on screen by making them darker, and of course they print darker.
Two things, as already suggested, if you are running your display at or near total brightness settings, you’ll NEVER get a print to match the screen using advanced color management. Other printers (particularly consumer level printers) typically don’t bother with color management and tend to just print. And yes, with some printers, that’s ideal for consumers. But pro level printer can be made to print far better if you have control over the process.
The second thing is that given the state of computer displays, unless you know how to do soft proofing and use it to proof the dynamic range of the final print, there’s no way that your Adobe RGB (or ProPhoto RGB) image on a display that has a contrast range to 500-600/1 or more look like the results of the print that contrast range may be 150-200/1 contrast range.
This stuff isn’t "easy", it’s a craft. And if you want to excel at digital fine art printing, it’ll take time to learn and it takes experience. It’s doable, but it takes effort.
You’ve gotten some very sound advice above for this outstanding printer (which, by the way, does entitle you to the Support platform indicated by G. Ballard. Because Advanced Product Support is excellent, I’ve called them from France on the rare occasion that I needed help, and they did help).
Recapitulating some of the points adduced above: Is the 3800 set as your default printer in the OS system settings? Do you have the most recent driver? Have you done a hardware calibration of your monitor? Do you have your monitor set to moderate brightness? It may be worthwhile to indicate your step-by-step printing settings, as somewhere there is a minor problem that is having major deleterious consequences. The output from this printer is remarkable, and it certainly should be within your grasp. I use it with Epson and non-Epson papers, and I feel that the printer lives up to its reputation. Eric Chan’s website devoted to this printer offers invaluable information.
Thank you one and all for all of this valuable advice. I have a professional coming in to tutor me. I know I can love this printer and want it to work for me as it works for some of you.
Ralph: The 3800 IS set as my default printer. I think I have the most recent drivers but am not positive because I can’t find the driver folder to check the version. I know . . . . please bear with me, I try very hard. I have crashed three computers (crashed to the point of needing to be reformatted) and have learned the hard way, be careful when you download.
I used the in house (display calibration device) to calibrate my monitor. I feel it will do well enough for what I want to accomplish. The white point is set at 6000 and I set the tgarget gamma at 2.2 because I found the Mac Standard 1.8 made the display too bright.
My step by step printing settings are pretty basic: I use the embedded profile on one it is sRGBIEC61966-2.1 and on the other it is Duotone. Print With Preview, Let Photoshop Determine Colors, Black Point Compensation checked, and Rendering Intent set to Relative Colormetric. In the Printer Profile: I use the profile I downloaded from the paper’s site OR an Epson profile. In the printer driver dialogue I make sure the 3800 is the chosen. Printer Color Management: I check the radio button for Off (No Color Adjustment) In the Print Settings dialogue (I have tried many with the same results.) The closest I came to what I wanted is when I used the front manuel feeder setting, with Velvet Fine Art Paper and checked Advanced Setting, Superfine – 2880 dpi and unchecked High Speed.
For the Let Printer Determine Colors I used Relative Colormetric. In the Printer Color Management I checked Color Controls. In Print Settings I used the same as above, Velvet Fine, Advanced and 2880dpi with High Speed off. The results were similar to the Photoshop settings but both were still too dark with very faint posterization in the gradients.
I have tried many combinations and I always go back to be sure, if I am letting Photoshop do the colors, to check and see if Off (No Color Adjustment) is still checked.
Jeff: Again to all and to you Jeff, thank you for your input. I AM trying but it’s difficult. Around here there aren’t many with the kind of expertise you have and so I have tried to learn this on my own. All I want to do is print my things. Just get the printer to do my things . . . . one good print at a time.
Sorry this is so long. I am going to get booted now. My server is going off-line to do upgrades. I am receiving my internet through low frequency microwaves and the little start up wants to make it better.
Thank you all for this helpful advice. I will now try to digest it.
Mary Ellen
If anyone knows were I can find the driver folder (exactly) I will look for it. When I open the Epson Utility it says Epson Printer Utility2 3.57 . . . . when I go to the Epson download site it says the version of the driver offered is 3.57 and so I think that I’ve got the right version.
I think I have the most recent drivers but am not positive. When I open the Epson Utility it says Epson Printer Utility2 3.57 . . . . when I go to the Epson download site it says the version of the driver offered is 3.57 and so I think that I’ve got the right version.
It is not uncommon for an Epson driver to become corrupted. Back in post #1 I said: "Download and install the latest Epson driver (even if what you are using is current)." Note * * (even if what you are using is current). * *
Ramone: I’m not proud and if I don’t know something I admit it . . . . I DON’T KNOW what the brightness level on my monitor is and I don’t know where to find it, but I didn’t indicate the brightness level because it was an oversight. Sorry. I just went looking for it but can’t find it. The brightness level on a scale of 1 to 100 is set at about 75. Does that make sense?
Allen: I understand what you have said about a corruption in the printer driver’s. What I need to know is, will I have to uninstall the drivers that are now installed and then download the current ones from Epson OR will the new download override the drivers currently installed. I once downloaded current drivers for a printer I was using and it messed up the works royally because I hadn’t uninstalled the old drivers.
Gary: Again, thanks for ringing in . . . . I’m on your website, reading, reading, reading. At least now I understand it a little better then I did two years ago when I first stepped into your page and tried learning color management.
Ralph: Thanks for the lead to Eric Chan’s page. Will check it out.
Jeff: You’re absolutely correct . . . . this is a craft, it takes time and it is doable and I have been working diligently at perfecting my skills. I just want to get my stuff out of the camera, into the computer and out of the printer. I’m getting closer. I figured it’s either now or never. I’m trying to get my head around Medicare and what coverage I will need when I turn 65 . . . . in December. YIKES! Now you know how old I am. LOL
What I need to know is, will I have to uninstall the drivers that are now installed and then download the current ones from Epson OR will the new download override the drivers currently installed.
The new download will override the drivers currently installed.
So, where do I find the candle power or candelas of the display?
.. . . . and yes, still a kid and heading out to Trick or Treat in another hour. Will you give me a Snickers Bar if I come to your house? Afterward I’ll be off to the local watering hole for a bit of apple cider and a donut. ;oD
It’s hard when you are trying to learn on your own. This may come as a surprise but I have come a long way since I started trying to understand color management. I know it doesn’t sound like it here and that is why I come here to ask questions. The suggestions and the advice is so professional and I follow up and read everything offered. I’m suffering from information overload.
So, where do I find the candle power or candelas of the display?
The calibration software tells you, but you need something a little more sophisticated than Apple’s built-in eyeball calibrator, namely a hardware calibrator puck.
The brightness level on a scale of 1 to 100 is set at about 75. Does that make sense?
that’s at least part of the problem. If this is a relatively new LCD display, then you are driving the brightness too high. Odds are you would get a better image display at more like 50% output. The calibration software may (or may not depending on the maker) offer the ability to spec the output. About 140 cd. At 75% you’e prolly in the 160-180 range (or more) with a new LCD. Which is too bright and no print could EVER match it.
I think that the crux of the problem may lie here, i.e. your display brightness. Adjusting it to about 50% output (using the function keys on your keyboard intended to that effect so that half the bars or perhaps somewhat less are illuminated on the icon that appears on the screen at each key-press) may do the trick.
Also, if you do re-install the driver, there are a few points to go over. First, when you run the install program, there is a drop-down menu that allows you to uninstall the software. Do it. Then in your system prefs (if you are in 10.5.5) delete the printer. Then install the driver and then add your printer, specifying that it is the default printer. However, all this may be un-necessary if the adjustment of your display solves the problem.
The canned-generic profiles for the 3800 that are installed with the driver are really quite good and should allow you to do soft-proofing in PS which will help you save on inks and papers. Yes, Eric Chans website for the 3800 is very worthwhile. You might also find that the tutorials by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe ("From Camera to Print") that can be downloaded at the Luminous Landscape website will be useful to you (as they were to me).
I have taken all advice . . . . have lowered the brightness, looks strange but I suppose I can get used to it.
Only thing that confuses me is . . . . I printed (from the same file) in a printing class I took at the local community college to an Epson 2200. It was a trip I did of three photos on one letter sized sheet of Crane paper and let the printer control the job. I understand the media plays into the whole scheme. The result was exactly what I was looking for but when I printed here it was much too dark and it didn’t matter what paper I tested it on.
Anyway, you people are great and so patient. I am trying to read all that is offered.
Gary: Your website is a mind exploder, but I’m working on it.
Ralph and Allen: Yes, I think I should uninstall the driver, but will try everything else first. I hate having to mess with the system. Mess it up is more like it.
I’m not going for the calibration hardware just yet. If I can get close and keep my printing relatively consistent then that can work for me. I need to keep things as simple as possible. You guys are such brainiacs and so on the mark. Also, time to order some Epson paper. Have a little here but not much.
I’m not going for the calibration hardware just yet.
Trust that this is a VERY important first step for accurate printing. At the other end, printing onto the manufacturer’s own best grade paper with its profile is another.
Cutting your brightness by 50% is a starting point to get you looking (and thinking), it shouldn’t look weird or undesirable (viewing good files).
"prints are much too dark, too much contrast and ever so slightly posterized" is likely more than a bright monitor (I like my LCD monitors on the bright side at around 180) it is more likely a bad monitor profile, a bad file, and/or a bad printer profile (also do a nozzle check print so you rule out dirty nozzles).
The PDI file I linked should be able to help you adjust your brightness to your tastes just adjust brightness until it looks good.
At that point, Photoshop should print the PDI file effortlessly and it should look like a professional print (but you do need to get good Epson paper like Premium Luster to rule out your workflow)…
REMEMBER:
1) The printer can PROOF (print) the source file faithfully regardless of how right or wrong the monitor is set up, and
2) The monitor can PROOF (display) the source file faithfully regardless of how right or wrong the printer is set up.
Yes, I think I should uninstall the driver, but will try everything else first.
NO! FIRST download and install the latest Epson driver. It is easy and a FIRST STEP in Epson printer troubleshooting along with running a nozzle check and using a known good paper.
Allen: You’re scaring me. K . . . . I’ll do it. You have no idea how I’ve messed up computers. I’m the original jinx. I once installed flash drive software recommended by a salesman at Radio Shack and KAPUT! The blue screen of death. I love my Mac, I don’t want to hurt it, but I will do it. GULP!
Gary: I am truly honored you ring in to help. I am truly honored to everyone who has rung in to help. You are all right up there. You guys are so talented. Thanx again.
If you download the right driver, there is nothing to be afraid of. It should be click-to-install easy — but, as with any software — be sure to read any accompanying ReadMe or Install notes first. I promise, no pain here. No need for a fire extinguisher.
Each target profile is device dependent and valid only for one combination of printer, ink and paper. What you printed on another printer is utterly irrelevant.
YOU GUYS ARE SO GOOD! I DID IT! I DID IT! I DID IT! NO YOU DID IT! . . . . Sort of . . . at least I know I’m getting closer. I will need to check in the a.m. under daylight conditions. This is what I did: YES! I uninstalled the printer drivers and downloaded the latest drivers from Epson. PHEW! I was a wreck but all worked out fine. Then I downloaded the target suggested by Gary and did a simple display adjustment by clearing all display profiles and then starting from scratch with the in-house calibration tool and my weary scratchy eyeballs. I then used this target and soft proofed it in Photoshop. I have never done this before, I was always afraid to . . . . I added a curves adjustment layer and brought the target back to what I wanted and then printed, letting the printer control the colors on Epson Premium Luster Photo paper. IT WORKED! At least it looks like it worked. My lighting here is terrible so I usually do all my printing during the daytime.
Ramón: Yes, I know what you are saying . . . . but it is so frustrating when you see something on your display that you like and then print it and you are thrilled when you get what you saw and more AND THEN you buy a better printer and try the same thing and what you get isn’t acceptable. That is why I came here and that is why I took every bit of advice offered and let me add for the 10th time, I really appreciate everyone’s help and patience with me and most of all for taking me seriously.
I’m not sure if I’ve nailed the posterization . . . . I think I have by using a higher dpi. I don’t want to waste the ink and paper until I’ve nailed it. I use smaller paper and just test on portions of an image. That too for tomorrow.
Neil and Allen: Believe me my stomach was in a knot when I replaced the drivers. This is stuff you boys take for granted . . . . I don’t and you’re helping me gave me the confidence to go for it.
Thanx all, Mary Ellen
P.S. I may be back groveling for help if I find the larger print comes out posterized. Wish me luck.
I added a curves adjustment layer and brought the target back to what
I wanted
Sorry, the PDI target should not be adjusted — it is already good — if it doesn’t display correctly in Photoshop the monitor profile is off…if it doesn’t print correctly the print profile (or settings) are off…but don’t adjust the PDI file, when your print workflow is good it will print good
Ramón, Yes, I know . . . . I didn’t manipulate the target . . . . did I say that, yes that is what I said, sorry, I printed the target and it looks good. Then I opened my own file to a trip I have been having trouble with and soft proofed that one, added a curves adjustment layer and printed a print that looks like what I have on screen. Only problem is I had to convert it to RGB in order to soft proof it. It lost some of it’s tone . . . . not all but some.
Thank you for your patience and for coming back to clarify. You have been so helpful.
Ralph: Eric Chan’s website FAQ, "What is the native resolution of the Epson 3800?" has been very good in addressing the posterization "banding" I have been getting.
I’m getting there and hopefully my bytes will progress to megabytes and then gigabyte and so on and so forth until I absorb all this information.
"Only problem is I had to convert it to RGB in order to soft proof it. It lost some of it’s tone . . . . not all but some. "
Unless you are using a CMYK RIP you should only be sending RGB to your 3800. If you were sending straight CMYK, then that might have explained a lot of your problems to begin with. If you need to proof CMYK to your Epson, you also need to convert it to the RGB printer profile, not just an RGB working space – with Relative Colorimetric if your paper white is close to your press sheet or with Absolute Colorimetric if your Epson paper is much brighter than your press sheet.
Peter: No my trip was in Tritone and had slight variations with warm hues but for the most part looked black and white. I converted it to RGB by using Image>Mode>RGB. My sample printed out with some of the warmness but lost some too.
I’m confused, Andrew Rodney states in his book Color Management For Photographers, "It is important to examine the profile indicated in this area. (Regarding the print with preview dialogue.) You want to ensure that the document is actually in an RGB working space, not print/output space, doing this would produce a double application of the output profile and the color on the resulting print will be very poor."
The last word on the subject is: Had a tutor in . . . . went over everything . . . . seems CS has this problem with the Epson 3800 . . . . dark prints and noticeable separations in gradients . . . . got a good tech support person in CA . . . . sounds like a way of getting there but not from here. He had me assign the profile Adobe RGB (1998) to the print with no color management. In the printer driver color management dialogue, Mode: Adobe RGB. In Print Settings, choose your Media and activate Advanced Settings>Superfine 1440 dpi and disable Finest. At the end I get a print I can live with and very close to my display . . . . it’s a beautiful printer. I believe my trouble is in Photoshop. I just wanted to learn how to make it work for me and I’m not as discriminating as you people. I’m almost there. When I went to CS I ditched my copy of Photoshop 7. I’ve been told 7 doesn’t have the problem. The tutor told me she thought that my prints were wonderful and that I’m anal retentive . . . . I guess I’m a perfectionist. Sigh . . . . perhaps . . . . I don’t know . . . . I don’t think so. The way I see it is, if I wouldn’t buy what I print how can I expect anyone else to buy them.
I have read everything advised here. There wasn’t a whole lot they could tell me that you guys haven’t already told me. I’ve never tried the no color management. When I’ve worked so hard in Photoshop to create something I hate not using Photoshop to determine the colors. Guess I will need to get my head around this one.
hello ellen, i just read your msg about your prints printing too dark on the epson 3800.. im having that same problem and still.
can you tell me what you ended up having to do?
my monitor is callibrated, i’ve downloaded the profile to the paper i use… im in RGB mode etc etc.. when i print, i set to advanced.. superfine 1440dpi and de-select all the other options below… high speed, etc…. im not expecting an exact match – but like you, close – but they really are obviously dark.. i too work on CS2
if you can email me to [link deleted] that would be great.. as i rarely check msgs on here.
The point of this forum is for users to learn by sharing info. We do not generally do selective-individual solution sharing because it excludes lurkers as well as the rest of us that invested time in trying to solve the problem from the solution.
if you can email me to [link deleted] that would be great.. as i rarely check msgs on here.
As Allen says. The proven success of this community is in everyone’s ability to freely read, share, post and learn. There is a checkbox at the bottom of this page so you can easily subscribe to this topic and be pinged when there are new posts.
Eric Chen’s webpage was extremely helpful in solving my problem as was the advice I received here in this forum.
I don’t know what I was doing wrong but this is how I do it now and it works. On each experiment I kept notes. This is my formula using CS 2 on a Mac OS X Version 10.4.11 printing to the Epson 3800.
Photoshop: File>Color Settings: Settings: North America Prepress2 Working Spaces: RGB: Adobe RGB (1998) CMYK: U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 Gray: Dot Gain 20% Spot: Dot Gain 20% Color Management Policies: RGB: Preserve Embedded Profiles CMYK: Preserve Embedded Profiles Gray: Preserve Embedded Profiles Profile Mismatches: Check – Ask When Opening Check – Ask When Pasting Missing Profiles: Check – Ask When Opening Check – Use Black Point Compensation Check Use Dither (8-bit/channel images)
When I open my images I do not change the embedded profile but if the image has no profile I will assign the working profile Adobe RGB (1998) that I set up in the Color Settings.
Soft Proof your image: View>Proof Setup>Custom Device to Simulate: Put your paper profile here. Rendering Intent: Relative Colorimetric Check – Black Point Compensation Check – Simulate Paper Color
If the proof makes my photograph look bad, I will add an adjustment layer (usually I use curves or levels) and name it soft proof. You need to be VERY careful here so that you do not over compensate when you are trying to enhance your image for print. Then I turn off the soft proof by View>Proof Colors and uncheck by clicking Proof Colors. If I’ve corrected too much I may go back and adjust a little.
Now: File>Print With Preview Make sure the size of your page and the printer you are using is set up properly. In the drop down menu: Color Management Document Radio Button is checked and the profile displayed is a working space profile, the embedded profile but be sure it is NOT a paper profile. Color Handling: Let Photoshop Determine Colors Printer Profile: Your paper’s profile that came installed on you computer or you downloaded and installed from the paper manufacturer. Rendering Intent: Relative Colorimetric Check: Black Point Compensation Then click Print.
This is where it gets really tricky and you must be very careful:
Check again to be sure you are printing to the right printer. Then in the drop down Copies & Pages, go to print settings FIRST. When I’m using a large format fine quality paper I will use the Page Setup: Manual – Front which gives more paper choices. Media Type: Choose your paper type. Color: Make your choice. Mode: Check Advanced Settings – Print Quality: SuperFine – 1440dpi and disable High Speed.
Now I go to Printer Color Management and check Off (No Color Adjustment). I do this last because I have found if I make changes in Print Settings the Off (No Color Management) button can change back to Color Controls. BAD! BAD! BAD!
Before you do the above be sure to read Erick Chen’s advice on resolution, ppi, dpi and native resolution on the 3800 in the FAQ. A very clean and helpful website and printing aid.
I’m only telling you what has worked for me. I wanted Photoshop to manage my colors, giving me more control of the final product. Maybe something else would work better for you.
Only use Absolute Colorimetric if you want to put a massive color shift into your whites – generally about ten points of cyan or so. The difference between Relative and Absolute is how the whites are mapped, and you almost always want the whites in your original file mapped to paper white. Relative maps a 255 white directly to no ink coverage – to paper white.
Lund and Peter, Question: If I use Absolute Colorimetric will the printer lay down ink on my pure white areas of a print or a no image area (i.e. the border of the print)? This once happened and it looked horrible.
Yes, that’s exactly what happens, and when you use AbsColorimetric, with most RGB profiles, they tend to go Cyan-ish. All you have to do is read your Info Palette when doing your Convert to Profile while cycling through the rendering intents. About the only time you really want to use Absolute is when converting a CMYK file back to Epson RGB for proofing, and then only if your Epson paper is a lot brighter than your press sheet. If all you’re doing is printing pictures on your 3800, then stick with Relative for most of your images and possibly Perceptual for those super saturated images that might benefit from that rendering.
Beautiful printer is the 3800 , , , , love it you will Lund of 2. Forgotten are books read . . . . yet read must be done. Interestingly helpful the guys in this thread be. A very good day may you have. Yoda
I believe that absolute isn’r necessary in wide gamut if you can edit the white point not to put down any ink in white, and might give you more authentic color. N’est pas?
Why go to the trouble of editing the white point of AbCol when it’s done automatically for you in Relative. That will give you the best overall color for the vast majority of images. For the ones where Relative doesn’t work, you have Perceptual. You can use Saturation for some images that are comprised of bright colors, but you should really stay away from Abs for regular printing.
Hi folks, my general recommendation is to use the Perceptual or Relative Colorimetric intents with ICC printer profiles when printing to the Epson 3800 (unless you’re using the 3800 as a proofing printer for another printer on which you intend to make your final prints; in that case, Absolute Colorimetric might make sense). The technical background is that you generally need to translate the white of the source space to the white of the destination space (i.e., media-relative) because of the human visual system’s (frankly amazing) ability to adapt to different "whites". This is important if you makea print is made with an unprinted border (e.g., a 1" margin), so you see the actual paper white. It looks kinda funny if you have a "white" in the image that looks substantially different from the "white" of the paper.
Lundberg02, the rendering intent is generally independent of the gamut capabilities of the printer. The gamut is a fixed property of the driver configuration, the ink set, and the media, not on the profile.
Also, the 3800 is an 8-ink system that does not have the Green and Orange inks present on some of the other Epson systems; this is a tradeoff with the usual pros & cons.
I certainly appreciate the input from Eric Chan. Sure the gamut is a function of the printer parameters, but that’s my point. Perceptual and relative change the source numbers to fit the output space, but you wouldn’t need to if going from aRGB to the 3800 space. Why would this be crazy?
This whole "wide" gamut thing messes with the usual way of doing things, does it not? You need 16 bit files, ProPhoto, a 36 bit depth display, an aRGB printer,, 16 bit drivers, a digital camera, Camera RAW, excellent paper, an Ultralux light, I don;t know what all. The next gen LCDs will have or already do have five or six LED backlight colors.
ANY conversion changes the numbers to fit the output space. That’s by definition and design. Relative and Absolute are the same except how they map white point – both try to maintain color meaning between source and destination and clip out of gamut color without moving in gamut colors. Perceptual moves in gamut colors while bringing out of gamut colors within gamut – the moving of in gamut colors trying to maintain the "perceptual" relationship between the colors – hence the name.
Trust me, if you have Adobe RGB colors at the edge of that color space, they will not print on any Epson printer. You will get clipping. Most colors will print, but there will be a significant portion that are just to saturated. Using ProPhoto might solve some problems but introduces many others, especially for those pushing saturations and not paying attention to how they might fit or not fit into output spaces.
I think you just need to go get yourself a printer and start playing with it. You’ll soon see where things lie. Gamut isn’t everything. Tonality is. You’ll be pleased with the images you get from these printers. I’ll even make you a profile or three.
I want to beat this to death before I spend several thousand dollars. I don’t think there’s any point in moving up in technology unless every element of it is matched. I don’t need the best in pro stuff, just pieces that fit together in the wide gamut class. Good Nikon under a thousand, good monitor with cal, printer, maybe a scanner, CS4 (I have CS2) So D80, R2880 , NEC, I have 48 bit scanner,Ultralux, G5, what else.
I’m pleased with my prints already, but when I see that significant improvements in color are there for the taking at what are becoming reasonable prices I’m interested.
You have to go big or go home, though. One piece doesn’t help.
Perceptual and relative change the source numbers to fit the output space, but you wouldn’t need to if going from aRGB to the 3800 space. Why would this be crazy?
As Peter said, a conversion is always necessary. In color management, the whole point is to preserve color appearance (where possible), even if the underlying numbers change. To use a rough analogy, when communicating with another person who speaks another language, the goal is to preserve meaning (where possible), even though it requires translation of words (e.g., from French to German).
The native color space of a inkjet printer has a fundamentally different shape than Adobe RGB, sRGB, ProPhoto RGB, or any standard RGB working space with a well-defined set of primaries. Even if your standard RGB working space is Adobe RGB and you’re using an Epson 3800, you still need to perform a conversion of numbers from Adobe RGB to the 3800 driver’s "device space". This is normally done either by the software application (e.g., Photoshop) or the printer driver (the Epson driver in this example), through the use of an ICC printer profile.
Sending Adobe RGB numbers directly to the Epson 3800 device without the appropriate conversion is almost guaranteed to produce ghastly results. If you’re interested, with Photoshop you can get an on-screen preview of what this would look like, by following this little exercise. Open an RGB color image, choose "Assign Profile…" from the Edit menu, and choose an Epson 3800 printer profile such as Pro38 PLPP (or another printer profile of your choice); click ok. Eeew.
On many papers, even matte papers, the 3800 can print a range of colors that lie outside of the Adobe RGB gamut. Conversely, Adobe RGB contains colors that the 3800 cannot print. Thus, neither gamut is a subset of the other. Put another way, the size of a device’s gamut only tells part of the story. The shape of the gamut is more important and tells a more interesting story.
(You could replace the term "Adobe RGB" in the preceding paragraph with "sRGB" and the resulting paragraph would still be true.)
If you are really interested in this topic and would like some more examples, I invite you to read this brief article (with illustrations) that I wrote up a while ago:
This whole "wide" gamut thing messes with the usual way of doing things, does it not? You need 16 bit files, ProPhoto, a 36 bit depth display, an aRGB printer,, 16 bit drivers, a digital camera, Camera RAW, excellent paper, an Ultralux light, I don;t know what all. The next gen LCDs will have or already do have five or six LED backlight colors.
I believe you are overstating the requirements here, though I’m sure the exaggeration was done in good humor.
Yes, I do advise working with 16-bit files for the entire workflow from capture to print. I also generally recommend using ProPhoto RGB as your RGB working space (using Adobe RGB instead means that you cannot print the full range of colors that your printer is capable of printing). It is true that many modern inkjet printers (including, but not limited to, the 3800) has a gamut can print colors that lie well outside of sRGB and even outside of Adobe RGB; this is a nice thing to have, not a hindrance. 16-bit printer drivers are nice-to-have but not essential today.
Thank you Eric for making an appearance here. I’m truly honored. I found your site an enormous help while sifting through all the details of printing with this 3800. It’s minimalism at its best with clean and easy suggestions and explanations. Not that I understood everything, but I tried. My brain is exploding with details. You have a way of writing that helps those like me comprehend. I appreciate your input.
Thank you, Eric. I truly appreciate your expertise and forbearance. Great article. Would the 2880 be similar enough for government work? Or as we used to day in the biz, close enough for jazz.
You and Peter and Jeff Schewe should collaborate on a book, maybe call it "Go Wide Or Go Home".
Arthur C Clarke said " any technology sufficiently advanced will appear to be magic" and we’re getting there. I googled a whole bunch of stuff on wide gamut monitors and some outfit has an LED backlight system with five or six colors that does 117% of NTSC or aRGB, not sure which, but I’m not sure if it’s actually in a purchasable LCD monitor yet, got to go back and look. It seems like it would be useful to revisit this wide gamut topic in about a year. I’m guessing that there will always be some mismatch between devices and profiles, but it won’t matter much for great output. Peter can already make sRGB look like Rembrandt.
But then with Rembrandt his paintings are darker then when originally painted. Wonder if van Rijn would be happy with his paintings today? Probably and simply because they still exist. Hmmmm, wonder if the 3800 prints will be around and look as good in 350 years. Just a thought.
I’m actually not a big proponent of the ultra wide gamut work spaces, although I use L*a*b all the time – the largest of them all. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of why you might want to use a large gamut work space and an even greater misunderstanding of what some of the pitfalls are.
In the real world, gamut limitations of sRGB, Colormatch and even Adobe RGB are seldom the problem they’re advertised by the people who are pushing them. In the real world, better results are often had by not forcing yourself to deal with colors that are so far out of printer gamut that they cause a visual problem when they’re clipped or compressed into the output space.
For my own work, I tend to use Adobe RGB for most images, Ektaspace for a few, ProPhoto on an extremely rare occasion and work on a ton of images that come to me as sRGB jpegs. As you suggest, I just don’t have a problem with sRGB. It all depends on what you do with it. There is so much more to good tonal and color correction than having wide gamut. Emphasizing color contrast when you’re printing offset CMYK can often trick the viewer into thinking the colors are brighter than they are, saving you from having to make a touch plate for a fifth or sixth color.
You can also take sRGB, convert it to L*a*b and make small to moderate moves there that drastically increase color and saturation, then convert back to a larger RGB space for finishing.
If you are doing extremely fine adjustments – making very small and precise moves to color, ultra wide gamut spaces will make those moves more difficult, as the same move done in both sRGB and ProPhoto will have a much larger effect in ProPhoto than sRGB.
There are new LED screen out from HP that are wide gamut and getting pretty favorable reviews from the high end market. The trend is definitely toward wider gamut screens and printers, but there’s nothing wrong with what we’ve been using for years. Output to large gamut inkjet printers is just not an issue when using sRGB monitors. Yes, sometimes you get more saturation on the print, but that is normally a good thing.
If you’re thinking about a new printer, now is a great time to invest. They’re not all that expensive and the prints are better than ever. I think it’s time to get your feet really wet and take the plunge into Epsonland.
I don’t oppose it altogether. I use L*a*b on a daily basis. I only oppose people thinking that that’s what they need for the best quality without understanding all the ramifications. I find many of the arguments in favor of using it based on theory but not rooted in reality, especially the argument scaring people into not losing ANY of their precious gamut. That only serves to confuse people.
My attitude is that you have to take it on an individual basis and use what’s appropriate for the image and the output.
LAB is not the best place to edit images and I understand that, but what about gamuts above ProPhotoRGB, like near Epson printer space as far as color space head room…
Im not talking about the messy non uniform printer space, but a wide gamut space for working in.
Help . . . . This is what I do . . . . I never change the embedded profile. I work with only a few images at a time. My working space is Adobe RGB (1998). If I open an image with no embedded profile I may assign a profile and especially if I am going to paste it into another image that does have an embedded profile.
Question: Should I use a different working space because of the wide gamut of the 3800 or just leave my working space as Adobe RGB (1998)?
With a magnifying glass I can still see (ever so slightly in highly saturated areas of green and dark green) slight separations in gradients. It’s not something anyone else can see but I know now where to look and it happens only rarely.
Take me by the hand and tell me what to do in "layperson speak."
<If you are doing extremely fine adjustments – making very small and precise moves to color, ultra wide gamut spaces will make those moves more difficult, as the same move done in both sRGB and ProPhoto will have a much larger effect in ProPhoto than sRGB. >
I’m not printing for anyone but myself. Oh sure, I’d like to sell some in order to pick up expenses. I am going to hang them in a show soon and hope. If it looks good on screen I try to get it to come out of the printer the same way. I may do some color changes to match photos. For the most part I try to print what I saw when I took the photograph or what I remember seeing. I clean them up a little and enhance them slightly. That’s about it. I mean, I like what I’m getting but if I could eliminate those slight gradient separations then I’d try the ProPhoto working space, but only if you said it would work. Otherwise, I’ll just do what I’m doing.
"<If you are doing extremely fine adjustments – making very small and precise moves to color, ultra wide gamut spaces will make those moves more difficult, as the same move done in both sRGB and ProPhoto will have a much larger effect in ProPhoto than sRGB. >
Is this because of the 24 bit color depth? "
No, it’s a function of working in an ultrawide space. When you make a move of a certain percentage, it’s going to move farther in the larger gamut space. Whether it’s 24 or 48 bit just defines how many levels are possible between 0 and 255.
Mary Ellen,
I’m certain that if you continue using Adobe RGB, you’ll be more than happy. If you happen to make an image that is extremely colorful, process that raw image first into ProPhotoRGB and then convert a copy to Adobe RGB, print both and see how much difference there is. Then yo can decide from your own experience what works best for you.
If, as numerous sources suggest, the real use for Absolute Colorimetric is to soft proof another printer and its media on your own setup, why is it not also correct to soft proof your own printer and media on your own setup, given that you have a wide monitor and a wide printer? Particularly if your own printer and media are better than the others. And why would that necessarily put printer dots in white borders? I’m not getting the distinction and I don’t believe it shouldn’t be done in a wide gamut environment unless the image gamut and printer/paper gamut are wildly incongruent. I’m not stubborn, but I insist on logic.
I’m in total agreement that visual impact is paramount however it is achieved,in whatever color space. Reality is sometimes dull, depressing, low contrast, etc, and needs improvement, else why the implant industry?
I sorta think that not using Absolute is an artifact of ghastly clipping when people were shorter and lived near the water and had no wide gamuts available in mud, ochre, copper oxide, chromate, umber ( whatever that is and how the hell do you burn it?), and dried blood.
"If, as numerous sources suggest, the real use for Absolute Colorimetric is to soft proof another printer and its media on your own setup, why is it not also correct to soft proof your own printer and media on your own setup, given that you have a wide monitor and a wide printer? "
For one, using AbCol can be used when using one device (your inkjet printer) to simulate the output of another device (your press). AbCol can compensate for the difference in white point of the two papers, typically the inkjet paper is whiter, and that whiteness can influence the lighter colors as well.
When you’re printing to your own printer, and that’s the final output, you’re not really "proofing" anymore, you’re just printing. You’re not using it to simulate another device, which is the definition of proofing. And when you are using your inkjet to simulate another output device, it’s not "soft" proofing anymore, it’s "hard" proofing.
"Particularly if your own printer and media are better than the others. And why would that necessarily put printer dots in white borders? "
The reason that using AbCol puts color, generally cyanish, into the whites of your print when doing a straight print is that the white point of the working space (typically 6500K) and the white point of the paper do not match. The paper is almost always warmer than the synthetic white point of the working RGB, so AbCol is attempting to put that cooler color into the white of the print. If you like that for effect, fine, but most people want their whites to be white, both in their photos and in their laundry.
"I’m not getting the distinction and I don’t believe it shouldn’t be done in a wide gamut environment unless the image gamut and printer/paper gamut are wildly incongruent."
The gamut has nothing to do with it. The gamut is what it is. Relative and Absolute both map image colors directly from one space to another. Colors outside of the target space are moved (clipped) to the closest available color, often the same colors as some of the in gamut colors. The difference here is that Relative maps the white of the source to the white of the destination and Absolute doesn’t. That’s it.
I haven’t looked at Real World Color Management in a couple of years, but that might be a good reference for you, with more in depth descriptions and diagrams. You can order it and read it all before Christmas.
Peter, you are too funny. Hey, can you tell me how to get these socks really white. AbCo detergent? LOL Just kidding.
I’m not sure I ran my experiment properly. In the Color Settings I changed the Working Space to ProPhoto then opened an image and when I was asked I changed the embedded profile to the Working Space set up, ProPhoto. Then processed the image making small adjustments and Soft Proofed it to the output media. Fudged it a little more and then printed one. I then converted the image to Adobe RGB (1998) and printed again. Brought both prints into very good light on my porch. Yes, I see the difference and I guess it would be a choice change as both look good. I think the Adobe has a softer look whereas ProPhoto’s colors are slightly deeper and richer. I was expecting a big change and didn’t see one, so I guess it’s as you say, pick the poison that works best for me.
I have RWCM both editions. I am pondering your artful avoidance of calling me a dumbass, and must think with the left side of my other head, run some spearmints and report back after my pony has been fed and watered.
Your linked pages , Eric. The text background is very light grey with a blueish cast not white. All other whites on my web pages and files are normal. Safari 3.2
Lundberg02, that background should actually appear gray. All RGB values are equal. If it appears to have a blue cast to you, that’s probably a good indication that it’s time to recalibrate and reprofile your display …
Hi all– I’ve been following this discussion with great interest, and I’m having a similar problem (I know, well covered in many places, but I’ve done tons of research and reading and nothing I’ve tried has worked). I feel like I’m just missing something small, and was hoping I could get a little feedback.
My setup is: OSX 10.4.11 on an EyeOne calibrated 23" cinema display, set at half brightness, 2.2 gamma, 6500K, printing to a 2200 with the latest epson 1440_MK paper profile, epson enhanced matte paper, matte black ink, photoshop CS2 with the standard color settings referenced above and elsewhere. Printing from canon raw files converted to tiff either in acr or lightroom.
Following the no color management workflow from g.ballard’s site, I can’t for the life of me get a good print. They’re all way too dark and most have a pretty strong yellow/warm color shift. I downloaded the PDI_target_AdobeRGB.jpg file, again from Gary’s site, and boom! it displays and prints *perfectly*. What on earth could I be doing wrong? I feel like I’m really close, epecially after the PDI file printed so nicely, but I’m seriously stumped.
try desaturating one of your rgb files…does it look totally neutral in Ps…how does it print
tip:
if your test file and the PDI aRGB files display in Ps properly, and only one prints properly, then look very closely at your print settings…be very sure you are embedding profiles and honoring them…
the no color management workflow from g.ballard’s site
Oy! Trouble already. :/
"No color management", as you type, is a recipe for certain disaster!
Gary Ballard’s site is all about Color Management and a Color Managed workflow.
Don’t confuse "no color adjustment" in the Epson printer driver with "no color management". The latter would be insane.
First step: get a good monitor profile. (You seem to have done that.)
Second step: Honor the embedded profile in the file, i. e. the device-independent color workspace in which the file was created, such as Adobe RGB, sRGB or ProPhoto RGB, for example.
DO NOT under any circumstances apply either the monitor profile or the paper profile to your file.
Third step: Apply the target profile (specific to the combination of printer/ink/paper) in the Photoshop print dialog box:
It is only in the Color Management dialog box of the Epson printer driver that you select "No Color Adjustment".
That just means the you’re letting Photoshop do the management of the colors and not the printer.
Never, ever try to work with a "no color management workflow". That would be madness. Banish that expression from your vocabulary ASAP, please.
Ramon- thanks for your clarification. Obviously, I misspoke when I said "no color management". I was referring to the no color ADJUSTMENT workflow. Duly chastised.
All the settings I’ve used are as noted above. Believe me, posting here rather than googling for an answer is a last resort for me.
Gary– I desaturated a file as you suggested, and it definitely looks neutral on screen. Unfortunately I can’t print it at the moment, since I just ran out of paper. 🙂 But I can tell you I’ve looked at the print settings repeatedly, and while I’m 99.9% sure, I’ll try again tomorrow looking very carefully at the settings again. Thing is, I did the *exact* same thing with the PDI file that I’ve been doing with my files, and the PDI printed perfectly. The only difference I can see is the raw coversion process being an addition with my files.
I don’t know if this clarifies anything, but I shoot the RAW files in AdobeRGB (set in camera), and when opening the file in PS2, I’m never prompted to change anything about the profile, ACR says AdobeRGB, 8 bit, etc., and I’m assuming (based on the "Preserve Embedded Profiles" dialog box being checked) that the source space is being honored.
Well, Geoff, the problem is that you have not "noted" much above. :/ There’s a lot we don’t know about your settings.
You might try posting screen shots of your complete Color Settings in the Edit menu, showing your color working space, your print settings, etc.
When you convert your RAW files in ACR you are in full control of how you output your files. Click on what appear to be blue underlined links under the Preview panel in the ACR dialog box. They are really a radio button that will bring up your Camera Raw Output Options, where you can choose the color space for your file, the bit depth, even the size.
Raw files do not come with a color profile or a color space. In fact a raw file would be a very, very dark grayscale image. It does not become a color image until demosaiced and rendered by the ACR converter, and that’s where you have full control.
I shoot the RAW files in AdobeRGB (set in camera)
What you set in the camera applies only to images you shoot and record as JPEGs, and is utterly irrelevant to RAW files.
Since Adobe RGB worked for you with the PDI Target file, I suggest you stay in Adobe RGB for now.
Make sure that in your color settings in the Edit menu you are set to ACE, the Adobe Color Engine, not Apple’s Color Engine or Color Sync, which is broken.
I see that now. 🙂 My only point was that I checked and doublechecked my settings before wasting anyone’s time with a post, but it’s good to know people are so helpful here. 🙂
The one thing that could be happening is that your monitor is too bright for your ambient light, so you may unwittingly be darkening your images before sending them to the printer.
That’s a common occurrence. It would also explain why the image file you downloaded from GB’s site prints fine, since presumably you did not manipulate it or corrected it.
What measurement did you get from the calibrator hardware for the white point? How bright or dim is your ambient light around your monitor?
If the monitor is too bright, a dim working environment would compound the effect, and you’d be overcorrecting your images to look OK on screen, but they may be really too dark for the printer. As I said, it happens a lot.
Don’t be offended because I’m going to mention the obvious. I’ve made the same mistake myself, Make sure you’re not printing on the wrong side of the paper. 😉
No offense taken. 🙂 I’m pretty certain I’m printing on the correct side of the paper (smoother, brighter side), although with matte paper in certain light it takes a couple looks to be sure.
Lighting-wise, I’ve got a small halogen desk lamp completely behind the monitor for backlighting (nothing to do with printing, I just like it), and the ambient light is somewhat dim. I turn the lights all the way up to examine a print. all in all, the lighting is pretty warm, but regardless, I’m examining my prints and the reference print under the same conditions. The calibration software recommended 120 cd/m², which in my case, puts the apple cinema display just about exactly in the middle of it’s brightness setting. I’ll try lowering it to 100 (which I’ve seen recommended elsewhere) and give it another shot tomorrow.
I don’t get too caught up in monitor brightness (but do prefer daylight to evaluate prints) because I can train my eye to a bright (or dim) screen (and I prefer brighter, 180 on my LCDs).
If your files and the PDI file display properly, the PDI prints properly, but your files don’t (and your settings are nailed down consistent) — I am stumped.
You are not using saved printer Presets are you — try manually setting up the workflow for each test.
In the Print With Profile dialogue, Printer Profile: SP2200 EnhancedMatte 1440 etc. is this the profile of the paper? If so, okay, then forget my asking.
I notice in the Print dialogue for Presets, you have chosen 2200. I was advised to do as Gary advises above . . . . DO EVERYTHING MANUALLY until you have solved your problem. In the Preset drop down menu use STANDARD.
Those are the only two areas where you differ from what I am doing and I have solved my problem.
Yes, SP2200 EnhancedMatte 1440 is the paper profile, and I did indeed make a preset for the print settings called 2200, just to speed things up, but I hear what you (and Gary) are saying about doing everything manually. I’ll give that and the other suggestions a shot after work, and post a test file scan if I can get an accurate representation of what it looks like.
.. . . . AND, if you are letting Photoshop manage your colors, in Printer Color Management, check the radio button: Off (No Color Adjustment) last. In other words make that the last thing that you do before you send your work to the printer. I have found that if I work in the Printer Settings after I have checked the off button in Printer Color Management, it can change my color settings back in Printer Color Management. This is a very bad thing as it will make your prints look like dirt.
From what you write in the second paragraph of your post #132, you did not get the gist of the problem I was suggesting.
You write:
Lighting-wise, I’ve got a small halogen desk lamp completely behind the monitor for backlighting (nothing to do with printing, I just like it), and the ambient light is somewhat dim. I turn the lights all the way up to examine a print. all in all, the lighting is pretty warm, but regardless, I’m examining my prints and the reference print under the same conditions.
The dim lighting combines with a potentially overly bright monitor to influence the way you work with your images on screen, how you judge their brightness and how you correct them.
Leave the appearance of the prints out of the equation for a second. Your bringing that up makes it clear to me I did not make myself clear.
If you are viewing an overly bright monitor in dim ambient lighting, you are creating the problem yourself, because in that scenario you are bound to lower the brightness of your images on screen so they will look "right" to you. The inevitable results is that you’re sending dark images to your printer.
This fits perfectly well with the PDI Target image printing correctly, since you haven’t messed around with that image file on your monitor. I’m practically certain this is your problem, or 99.99% of it.
Sorry I didn’t mention presets before. Mary Ellen makes a good point. I never, ever use printer presets.
You haven’t mentioned soft proofing, and that is an essential step in Photoshop before sending the image to the printer. Use the correct paper profile to soft proof, i. e. the same target profile you’re sending to your printer.
I had very similar issues with the 3800, which replaced a 1800. Even with color proofing and all EPSON 3800 ICC profiles. (Not the first time on this train). The problem was more apparent on EPSON Single Weight Matte, but still visible on luster and gloss. I searched everywhere and found some Adobe Engineer’s who owned the 3800 and from that blog I found the solution. They all agreed that on the "Paper Configuration" setting, Changing the "Ink Density" setting to -10% (Minus 10 percent). I tried it and can report that it indeed "fixed" the problem. Before you ask, I did not bookmark the site and wish I had. I will make an effort to find it again and post, time permitting. I hope this helps, and wish you success. The Epson site was of very little use in reaching a solution or for any serious in depth answer’s. Come to think of it, similar to the Adobe forums that appear to be haunted by individuals that were not breast feed as babies.
I did not bookmark the site and wish I had. I will make an effort to find it again and post, time permitting.
Hmmm. The link below is to Eric Chan’s extensive site on printing with the Epson 3800, but I don’t think it’s consistent with the recommendation you describe:
Barry: I don’t have enough expertise or confidence when mucking with density settings, but I gave it a try just to see for myself. Each year the Crane paper company has a fabulous sale on their card stock. Bricks and mortar, not on-line. Last year I bought for this year’s Christmas cards. Guessing at profiles, I downloaded two profiles from the Museo (a Crane affiliate) website. One for the HP I had and one for the Epson 3800. Go figure! The HP profile works better then the Epson, even tho’ neither is matched perfectly, since the cards are not actually Museo but may be. It was a guess.
I have been able to achieve good rendition of my screen images on the Crane stock, but thought I would try what you have recommended, since my pine needles are still looking a bit too saturated. I did not see any difference by lowering the density to -10% AND/OR leaving it at the default settings. On the other hand, I have been able to achieve wonderful results on Epson Premium Presentation Matte AND an old Kodak Premium card stock I still have laying around here, by simply following the "chain of links" and do not need to change the ink density.
It sounds to me that lowing the ink density is a Band-aid approach. I may be wrong and if you are happy with the results you are now getting from your 3800, then who am I to say . . . . right? Each job needs to be evaluated individually.
Thank you for your input and I hope that you are not "inputing" me into your category of the frustrated post breast fed haunters. My mother once assured me I was breast fed and yet I can be one cranky old hag. So there ya go!
Both the SP2200 and the 3800 printed/print perfectly for me, CS2 and CS3. Epson paper nomenclature is ridiculous. Verify that the Epson paper and the profile are precise, exactly correct. Also the first step with Epson troubleshooting is to download and install the latest Epson driver even if that appears to be the driver currently installed.
Also the first step with Epson troubleshooting is to download and install the latest Epson driver even if that appears to be the driver currently installed.
Except in the case of the Epson 2200, for which the "latest" drivers available for download actually install an earlier version than that contained in the Tiger installation CD. :/ You also get an older version of the Epson Printer Utility from the Epson site. 🙁
Now that is a conundrum. It may be a science . . . . the "chain of links" but I think there are a ton of variables. I’m getting what I want for now . . . . which does surprise me. We shall see down the line.
Adjusting the ink density (via the driver) may be a reasonable thing to do with some third-party matte papers. However, it has its disadvantages: (1) it invalidates the color profile you’re using, and (2) it may adversely affect color gamut and dynamic range.
Ideally, when printing on third party papers, you want to find the optimum ink density laydown, and this is the only tool available in the Epson driver to adjust it. Not nearly as robust as you would be able to do in a good RIP program. If the ink density is off, then adjusting, either up or down, can actually improve the situation provided you reprofile with your new setting. In my testing, I’ve found that there is a fine balance between maximum d-max and not plugging shadow detail, but once you find the right balance, the results are worth it.
Now bare with me and don’t become impatient. I have another question, I have the ColorBurst RIP CD but have not installed it yet. If I installed it would I be forced to use it OR could I choose to print the way I am now . . . . straight from CS 2 to the printer. I know! I know! I told you I’m just graduating from kindergarten when it comes to all this techno babel. What I want to know is, what would I achieve if anything by going through a RIP? Meaning, that would be another learning step. I’ve never used one. I don’t even know why I have one. I guess I overbought.
You can have the CB RIP installed and use either that or the Epson driver. You make the choice. I think I would probably advise against complicating your printing life any more by doing that right now. Get one process fully understood and under control before mixing in more variables.
In order to get the most out of the CB RIP, you really need to have a good spectrophotometer and profiling software. You also have to know how to build good CMYK profiles, and while there are many canned profiles on the CB website, I still am not that crazy about them.
I’D BEEN HAVING THIS SAME PROBLEM BUT FINALLY GOT A RESOLUTION TO MY DELEMA. I CURRENTLY A STUDENT A HARRINGTON COLLEGE OF DESIGN IN CHICAGO. I’M IN A CLASS RIGHT NOW THAT DEALS WITH DIGITAL IMAGING (DIM 120) IN THIS CALSS WE HAVE BEEN TROUBLE SHOOTING BAD PRINTER PROFILES/COLOR MANAGEMENT AND ALSO HOW TO SET UP A PROFESSIONAL NO COLOR MANAGED WORKFLOW. HERE IS SOMETHING THAT WILL DYNAMICALLY HELP THE CURRENT PROBLEM THAT MANY ARE HAVING WITH PRINTING FROM EPSON PRINTERS <http://www.gballard.net/nca.html#redposterize>. THIS WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROCESS AND ALSO EDUCATES YOU TO WHY YOU ARE DOING WHAT YOU DO. WELL EVERYONE HAVE A GOOD DAY.
Your message is practically impossible to read onscreen, Christopher.
Using all caps is considered extremely rude, it’s the equivalent of shouting, it’s inexcusable coming from a design student, and virtually guarantees that most folks will just look away from your post without reading it, as I did.
I too have a serious problem printing to the Epson 3800 with PS CS4 on a Mac. I’m using a variety of Epson papers, Epson inks, and I am following the instructions. I’ve tried all the approaches mentioned here and many others including Russell Brown’s tutorial. I’ve updated drivers, programs, etc. I’ve calibrated with Spyder Pro. I’ve sent copies of the darkened photos and the image files to Epson but they were no help since I can get great prints using other programs. The only thing that seems to work comes from the suggestion above by Barry Ethridge (#138 of 152) assuming that his reference to "Ink Density" is the same as "Color Density" found on the "Advanced Media Control" panel. Whatever, setting "Color Density" to -10% gave me the great images I expected! Can anyone direct me to the help file explaining the settings for "Advanced Media Control?" How can so many get great prints from PS and the Epson 3800 using common instructions while others get miserable darkened images? It’s not the ink, nor paper, nor lack of following instructions.
I don’t have an "Advanced Media Control" panel, stated as such . . . . unless you are referring to Print Setting>Color>Advanced B&W Photo which, when used, makes available in Printer Color Management a dialogue box letting you control the output of a black and white photo.
I’m using CS2 on a Mac Os X Version 10.4.11. You can download the User’s Guide here but then it is also on the disk that came with the printer:
And last but not least, is a link to a page with a video of an ICC Profile Tutorial that I found informative. The link to the tutorial is on the left of the page.
I wish I could be more helpful. I talked to an Epson tech who told me if I didn’t like CS2 I was going to hate CS3 and CS4. I know an artist who is still using PS7 because she has had problems she can’t seem to overcome. So there you go!
I’m not as savvy as others who answer questions here. I just try to follow the chain.
For what it’s worth, I’ve had the same problem, and am now somewhat happier. I suggest recalibrating your Mac screen for a gamma of 1.8. This seemed counterintuitive at first, but the prints got much much lighter. Now some are fine, generally those whose values are medium to light. Others need some lightening, using the color density setting others have mentioned. But I use -15%, and make sure I’m not too light in the blacks — which has happened on those prints that turn out not to need any color density lightening. I agree that the light level of the environment around the screen is a huge factor. My current understanding is that human eyesight adapts unconsciously and as photographers (and nevertheless humans) we can make a conscious effort to counteract that, much as we have to do when judging exposure or color temperature without a meter. Experienced rational deduction counts more than perception in both cases.
I suggest you try setting the "Color Controls" radial button after you click print the first time when the window opens with the name Print at the top there is a button saying "Layout" click on that and it opens up a list of choices one being "Color Management" click the "Color Controls" choice (also pick the correct paper under the Print Settings choices. Below is my experience.
Color printing off when used with Epson driver and/or Apple Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5.6) when used color management with Adobe Photoshop (CS2 or CS4) or with Lightroom 2. All worked fine with Photoshop CS2 and Mac OS X 10.4 and possibly earlier Epson print driver for my Epson 2200. After upgrading to Mac OS X 10.5 my colors were off with CS2 so I upgraded to CS4 and that did not fix the problem.
Strange but true the problem started after upgrading to Mac OS X 10.5 and possibly down loading the latest Epson 2200 driver. Yes doubters I have calibrated my display using Spyder2Pro with little change in the display. Paper color profiles should not be affected by the operating system but I recalibrated two paper types and still did not get correct printing when printed as conventional wisdom dictates.
I checked the printer for clogged print head and got all nozzles working. I used the conventional color management: For CS4 told CS4 to let Photoshop control the color management (perceptual or relative both off) and picked the correct icc color profile, clicked on print then set up the correct paper and picked Color Management and the button for No Color Adjustment (since this is in the print window this should mean the printer should not try to also manage the color – right). Result is poor color and some what dark; note the equivalent of this with CS2 also did not work but back with OS X 10.4 and possibly earlier Epson driver I was getting good results.
What seems to be working after investing a lot of my time and money (in ink and paper): Basicly the same as the above but in the print window in color Management sub-window click on the radial button for Color Controls (Gamma 1.8) counter to most recomendations. This seems to be giving perfect results with two papers using two icc profiles I generated with the paper and printer.
I gave all the details as many guidelines (from experts in field) say to do what did not work for me. If someone else is having the same problem try go with the Color Controls selected. If you are getting good results with a different approach stick with it. — Ernie Graetz 1/1/2009
Printer profile gamma has NOTHING to do with display gamma. What gamma you calibrate and profile your monitor to, is utterly irrelevant to the printing process.
I doubt you have seen any recommendations for the printer profile gamma, as it’s in the color space profile anyway.
Adobe RGB and sRGB are gamma 2.2, ProPhoto RGB is gamma 1.8.
I continue to get excellent results with No Color Adjustment in the Epson printer driver. This applies to Photoshop 7.0.1, 8, 9.0.2, 10.0.1 and 11, all of which coexist and work happily on my machine.
I use the Epson 2200 printer driver that comes with the Panther and Tiger install media (extracted with Pacifist), as the one from the Epson site is an older version and also installs an older version of the Epson Printer Utility.
Recently, I’ve been experimenting with the 16-bit Gutenprint driver for the Epson 2200, as Epson does not provide a 16-bid driver for the Epson 2200, with superb results, albeit at the cost of a substantial performance hit in terms of overall printing speed. Too early to say for sure, but for now I am inclined to continue to print in 16 bits.
My dual monitors are very regularly and very often calibrated, with the calibration validated on a daily basis, to a display gamma of 2.2.
Dual bootable, DP MDD 1.25GHz G4 (2004), maxed out at 2GB of RAM, both Spotlight and Dashboard disabled, Photoshop primary scratch disk on dedicated 160GB internal drive, at least 100GB available on each of the four internal drives, up to 300GB on some. Counting external FW drives just over 1TB of drive space available. nVidia GeForce 7800 GS 425MHz 256 MB graphics display card. Processor napping enabled through CHUD 3.5.2. .
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
