Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Shadow area too dark in prints  (Read 4170 times)
emowake77
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« on: February 03, 2007, 12:32:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I am having trouble with darkness in my prints, manly in the shadow area, if I look at the print in direct bright light it looks great and matches my monitor, but in “normal” viewing conditions the shadow area is too dark. I am using a Monaco XR pro to calibrate my monitor, and Pulse ColorElite to make custom profile for my iPF5000 printer (printing on both Red River UltraPro Satin and Canon Satin)  

I am curious   if the white/black luminance settings I am using in my monitor calibration can cause this? I have heard to set white anywhere from 85cd to 120cd and black I am not really sure where to start. I am using D65 for my white point.

When making my custom profiles I select daylight D50 and wasn’t sure what effect choosing a different setting (D65, cool white, etc)would have on the “brightness” of my prints  

**my monitors are a Dell 2007 wfp and my laptop screen is a Dell D820 WXUGA
Logged
tandlh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2007, 11:15:39 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: emowake77,Feb 3 2007, 01:32 PM
I am having trouble with darkness in my prints, manly in the shadow area, if I look at the print in direct bright light it looks great and matches my monitor, but in “normal” viewing conditions the shadow area is too dark. I am using a Monaco XR pro to calibrate my monitor, and Pulse ColorElite to make custom profile for my iPF5000 printer (printing on both Red River UltraPro Satin and Canon Satin)  


Here's one source of that problem in case you haven't considered it yet.  The iPF5000 doesn't offer black point compensation as an option if you are using Relative Colorimetric as your rendering intent.  If you are using Relative Colorimetric on the iPF5000, make sure that Black Point Compensation is not checked in Photoshop (or your other image editing software).  Once I did that, I saw that I needed to raise the brightness considerably in Photoshop to get the shadows to come out.  Now my prints are matching my monitor exactly.  This may not be your issue, but it's a very simple fix if it is.

Ted
Logged
jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2007, 11:52:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Mt Eizo LCD display is set to a luminance value of 130 cd/m2. If you have a CRT, 85 cd/m2 is an average luminanve value.
Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
emowake77
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #3 on: February 05, 2007, 08:25:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: tandlh,Feb 4 2007, 09:15 AM
Quote from: emowake77,Feb 3 2007, 01:32 PM
I am having trouble with darkness in my prints, manly in the shadow area, if I look at the print in direct bright light it looks great and matches my monitor, but in “normal” viewing conditions the shadow area is too dark. I am using a Monaco XR pro to calibrate my monitor, and Pulse ColorElite to make custom profile for my iPF5000 printer (printing on both Red River UltraPro Satin and Canon Satin)  
Here's one source of that problem in case you haven't considered it yet.  The iPF5000 doesn't offer black point compensation as an option if you are using Relative Colorimetric as your rendering intent.  If you are using Relative Colorimetric on the iPF5000, make sure that Black Point Compensation is not checked in Photoshop (or your other image editing software).  Once I did that, I saw that I needed to raise the brightness considerably in Photoshop to get the shadows to come out.  Now my prints are matching my monitor exactly.  This may not be your issue, but it's a very simple fix if it is.

Ted
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99151\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Ted   I went through my soft proof process and unchecked black point compensation and it made my on screen pictures look just like my prints (a tad to dark in the shawdow area) so at least now i can adjust it  
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2007, 12:04:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Here's one source of that problem in case you haven't considered it yet. The iPF5000 doesn't offer black point compensation as an option if you are using Relative Colorimetric as your rendering intent. If you are using Relative Colorimetric on the iPF5000, make sure that Black Point Compensation is not checked in Photoshop (or your other image editing software). Once I did that, I saw that I needed to raise the brightness considerably in Photoshop to get the shadows to come out. Now my prints are matching my monitor exactly. This may not be your issue, but it's a very simple fix if it is.
That's a rather signficant limitation if true, fact flaw might be a better word because BPC is pertty crucial to getting consistent result with rel-col.

But shouldn't the profile conversion be happening in Photoshop anyway, not the print driver? If so I don't see how this could be an issue.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2007, 12:04:45 PM by JeffKohn » Logged

JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 08, 2007, 12:07:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
am curious  if the white/black luminance settings I am using in my monitor calibration can cause this? I have heard to set white anywhere from 85cd to 120cd and black I am not really sure where to start. I am using D65 for my white point.
120 is awfully bright, and could definitely cause consistency problems with prints unless you're viewing the prints in very bright lighting conditions. I have a CRT in a room with fairly subdued lighting, and my luminosity is set to 85dcm^2; but I understand a bit brighter may be optimal for an LCD but I would still recommend keeping it around 90-100cdm^2.
Logged

Doyle Yoder
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 500


« Reply #6 on: February 08, 2007, 12:34:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's a rather signficant limitation if true, fact flaw might be a better word because BPC is pertty crucial to getting consistent result with rel-col.

But shouldn't the profile conversion be happening in Photoshop anyway, not the print driver? If so I don't see how this could be an issue.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I am sure we are talking about the 16-bit export/printing plug here. I big, big oversight not puting in BPC.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2007, 12:34:47 PM by DYP » Logged
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


« Reply #7 on: February 08, 2007, 01:24:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am sure we are talking about the 16-bit export/printing plug here. I big, big oversight not puting in BPC.

Yes, this bug is for the 16 bit export plugin in Photoshop.  Confirmed by Canon  support tech, who opined that it "might be fixed in 3-6 months".  Completely unacceptable in my opinion.  The driver doesn't have this limitation.  There is a workaround that I think SHOULD work, but I haven't tried it yet:  

1) Convert to the proper printer profile in Photoshop using Relative Rendering intent with Black Point Compensation
2) Open the Export plugin and print using "No Color Adjustment"

--John
Logged
emowake77
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #8 on: February 09, 2007, 08:08:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
120 is awfully bright, and could definitely cause consistency problems with prints unless you're viewing the prints in very bright lighting conditions. I have a CRT in a room with fairly subdued lighting, and my luminosity is set to 85dcm^2; but I understand a bit brighter may be optimal for an LCD but I would still recommend keeping it around 90-100cdm^2.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99886\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for the help Jeff  

Quote
Yes, this bug is for the 16 bit export plugin in Photoshop.  Confirmed by Canon  support tech, who opined that it "might be fixed in 3-6 months".  Completely unacceptable in my opinion.  The driver doesn't have this limitation.  There is a workaround that I think SHOULD work, but I haven't tried it yet: 

1) Convert to the proper printer profile in Photoshop using Relative Rendering intent with Black Point Compensation
2) Open the Export plugin and print using "No Color Adjustment"

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well your workaround sounds like it should work to me as well. After learning about the back point/plugin bug i have been making a curve mask (set to luminousity) to lighten up the shawdos. Are most people then using the other rendering modes? or does Balck point not work in them as well?
Logged
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 09, 2007, 10:27:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, this bug is for the 16 bit export plugin in Photoshop.  Confirmed by Canon  support tech, who opined that it "might be fixed in 3-6 months".  Completely unacceptable in my opinion.  The driver doesn't have this limitation.  There is a workaround that I think SHOULD work, but I haven't tried it yet: 

1) Convert to the proper printer profile in Photoshop using Relative Rendering intent with Black Point Compensation
2) Open the Export plugin and print using "No Color Adjustment"

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=99907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well that's the way I would do it regardless of which driver/plugin was actually being used for printing, hence my confusion.   I'd never trust profile conversions and color management to the print driver...
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2007, 05:00:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Any printing system that disallows BPC with RELCOL is fundamentally flawed from the get-go, and the fact that Canon will take 3~6 months to fix it and sees no problem with this is also fundamentally flawed. Shame on them.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
John Hollenberg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 762


« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2007, 06:07:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Any printing system that disallows BPC with RELCOL is fundamentally flawed from the get-go, and the fact that Canon will take 3~6 months to fix it and sees no problem with this is also fundamentally flawed. Shame on them.

Agree 100%.  That said, since you can convert in Photoshop with BPC and print from the plugin with "No Color Adjustment" it isn't that big of a deal from a practical point of view.  The real problem is that a lot of people won't know about it (although there is the Wiki) and will waste a lot of time.

Also, how such a fundamental flaw could be in place for all this time is kind of a mystery.  The testers never noticed it???

--John
Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2007, 06:25:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The testers never noticed it???

They had testers?  

Eric
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2007, 06:47:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Agree 100%.  That said, since you can convert in Photoshop with BPC and print from the plugin with "No Color Adjustment" it isn't that big of a deal from a practical point of view.  The real problem is that a lot of people won't know about it (although there is the Wiki) and will waste a lot of time.

Also, how such a fundamental flaw could be in place for all this time is kind of a mystery.  The testers never noticed it???

--John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=100736\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For all we know, there could have been some weird and wonderful logic behind it (faulty as it could have turned out to be), but we won't be told about that. You are trying to penetrate the impenetrable to find out the whys and wherefores. This with Canon is a no-no. It will continue to be a mystery until they just fix it - in their own sweet time - like so much else that needs to be fixed on that printer. I was really keen on buying this printer and had one on order. Then all the issues started to surface, so I cancelled - not because I didn't believe that any of it was basically monumental or unfixable, but only because the issues are huge time-consuming nuissance factors and I have no confidence in how they view the urgency of responding.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad