Richard,
I am also working with Windows XP Pro, CS2 and Epson 2200. My prints come out fine, and I’ve noted no change from CS. The print with preview dialogs have changed considerably from CS and I would suggest reviewing your work flow here. Ian Lyons has a good tutorial on his web site.
<
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps9_print/ps9_print_1.htm>
Richard, I also use CS2,XP Pro SP2 and an Epson 2200. My prints, regardless of file type ( RAW, JPEG, DNG &c), have always printed about one stop underexposed. This procedure has worked fairly consistantly for me; after you have your image corrected, add one stop of "exposure." Your file will look over exposed on your monitor but should print closer to target. Good Luck.
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 06:51:00 -0700,
wrote:
I have both CS and CS2 installed. When I print from CS, the prints are right on. When I print from CS2 the prints come out very dark. I have recalibrated my monitor and have set my preferences the same in both versions. I am printing on an Epson 2200 and use the same work flow for both versions. I am working with Windows XP.
On the "print with preview" dialog, there is a "Color Handling" option that is set by default to "Let Printer Determine Color." Try changing that setting to "Let Photshop Determine Color." That solved the problem for me.
Leonard
Sitsa,
Your advice is BAD !
Richard,
use the same work flow for both versions.
That isn’t possible because both applications have totally different settings in the Print with Preview dialog.
While the strings might have changed, the functionality is the same between CS and CS2.
But do read Ian Lyons’ tutorial.
I don’t think it’s so much as BAD as it is inadvisable. Saying it’s BAD with no follow up is just not reasonable. Like telling your child he/she is bad and sending them to bed without supper.
I have been printing for, well, since 1959, and if the result you obtain is what you want, and provides the best print possible, it isn’t bad. I have files which provide (they all do, actually!) different results with different printers and papers, all of them profiled. An image that prints one way on say Ilford Pearl looks quite different on an Epson high end matte. For one, the paper color is different.
So, I do have "corrections", the nature of which are similar to "add one stop" or similar. So what? If there is another, preferred way that the cognoscenti deems right, I still have to learn it, implement it, and very likely, when I get to the next file, will no longer fit, forcing a new tweak to that file.
That’s not BAD. 🙂
You say it right on your website, Ian. You can get close to the monitor, but not exact. That’s the beauty of printing. You get to make new decisions based on what the image is informing you, and get to try something different. Much better than: "You push the button, we do the rest" approach.
Ooops. That’s a Kodak slogan! Sorry!
An image that prints one way on say Ilford Pearl looks quite different on an Epson high end matte. For one, the paper color is different.
That’s what soft proofing is for. Turn proofing on with the profile for the desired paper and make adjustments so the image looks good, and if your monitor is properly profiled the print (using the same profile) will be very close to the on-screen soft proof.
So, I do have "corrections", the nature of which are similar to "add one stop" or similar. So what? If there is another, preferred way that the cognoscenti deems right, I still have to learn it, implement it, and very likely, when I get to the next file, will no longer fit, forcing a new tweak to that file.
But if your monitor is properly profiled and you soft proof with the proper profile for the paper and ink, you won’t have to "add one stop" or anything like it as a general matter. You may need to tweak individual prints, but there shouldn’t be any general correction needed. That’s the whole reason for color management.
My dear Ian, your response is masterful, very intelligent, well thought out and concise. A fine example of your well deserved reputation; Except for the part where you offer your opinion of why it is bad.
Soft proof is mostly a joke. It gets a bit closer, but it mostly is wrong. For instance, checking paper white turns the screen bluish when the paper is actually warm toned.
It depends on the profile. Some work, most don’t.
The one place it does show up well is in shadow separation. If it isn’t going to separate, soft proof will show it. But as for final color, well, still, you tweak the final print.
One thing worth noting in soft proof. Do not judge at the moment it is invoked. Rather, walk away and come back a bit later to look. Before/after comparisons are misleading.
However, at least with my printer, by the time the eye can accommodate, a test print is pretty much finished.
I am talking rather minor shifts, but important shifts, like a gray moving from reddish to cyanish.
itchmite (aka sitsa),
If you’re going to use a new name to hide your previous identity the least you can do is have the wit not to use the same email address when creating your new account.
My dear Ian, as I said, your reputation is well deserved. My friend, you have yet to offer your opinion, however wrong it might be. You are clearly adept at using hot air to disguise your lack of knowledge and decorum. I am now withdrawing from this engagement. It is most unsporting of me, entering into a contest of wits with an inferior opponent such as yourself. Forgive me! Adieu!
Wow! A real writer. Can it be G.B Shaw re-incarnate?
Ian said: "your advice is bad" – and he is right.
The practise of under exposing may well be right for itchmitesitsa, but to offer that information as advice for others to follow is clearly wrong.
I have a similar problem – See my thread:
Durwood Edwards, "Printing color management" #, 31 Oct 2005 6:28 am </cgi-bin/webx?50>
The darkness problem improved somewhat when I made the settings described, but PS2 still consistently prints darker on my R800 than does any other program printing the same image.
If it works, why is it "wrong"? Is it illegal, immoral or what? Ostensibly, there are better ways, but wrong smacks of a particular attachment to a process. More like someone being offended rather than the other person wrong.
Starts sounding more like religion than art. How many great artists started "wrong" by contemporary standards then went on to be the standard. Stravinsky’s signature chord (C major and F# Major sounded simultaneously) sounds clearly wrong, but it is now quintessentially Stravinsky.
We would be much better educators if we would say something like "I see where you are going, and (not but!) here is a method which may be a better way to ______ "(fill in the blank).
Of course, try the offending concept first. Maybe there is a there there! Another fondly held rule well broken! 🙂
My work flow is the same for both CS versions: Proof to select paper/printer profile and intent, Print with preview to ensure profile and intent are the same, Print, Properties, Advanced, select paper, turn off high speed & edge smoothing, select ICM with no color adjustment, print.
PROBLEM SOLVED!!! In CS2 I was not selecting the Printer/Paper profile in the Print with Preview box after selecting Let PS determine colors. Now all prints, CS and CS2 are right on. Thanks for the spirited discussion to all. …. Dick ….
