Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Another "My print doesn't match what's on the screen.."  (Read 6861 times)
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5500


WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 22, 2013, 01:30:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Learning is a better goal.

Anyone wanting to learn should certainly read what you have to say, and should pay attention to the discussion it generates.  But they should also pay particular attention to more credible sources, such as Jim Perkiins, and weight their thoughts on the subject too.

So, Jim is "more credible"? Ok, well I think we can stop talking right there...

BTW, I'm more that "credible" source about the subject Jim is writing about and have perhaps written a bit more about the subject than Jim. Peer review is peer review...
Logged
D Fosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



« Reply #41 on: October 22, 2013, 01:52:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Again, the article makes no mention of proper color management. In a color managed workflow, the gamma setting makes no difference to what displays on screen. Whatever the setting is compensated in the profile.

What does matter, however, is that forcing a display into non-native behavior is never a good idea. And it's not even necessary, unless you care how it looks without color management (I don't).

For color management purposes, monitor calibration doesn't require a colorimeter. What you need to do is set the white point luminance and temperature, and this should be done in the monitor's hardware anyway. A hardware calibrator will do it of course, but it can also be done in the monitor's OSD menu. This is the user defined part. Luminance is critical, but temperature can be left at native if desired. Gamma should be left at native (it just happens to be close to 2.2).

Then you need to make a profile, a full description of the monitor in whatever state the calibration leaves it, using a colorimeter. That's the color management part (which the article ignores). A color managed application doesn't even know about the calibration, it doesn't need to. It just uses the profile.

  
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 02:01:38 AM by D Fosse » Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 22, 2013, 02:33:25 AM »
ReplyReply

The profile changes the monitor to make it look like the printer output.
No. It's a printer profile used to make sure the printer delivers the best colours.
It can be used for soft proofing the printer's output, but it doesn't change the monitor in itself.

Logged
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #43 on: October 22, 2013, 05:14:05 AM »
ReplyReply

No. It's a printer profile used to make sure the printer delivers the best colours.
It can be used for soft proofing the printer's output, but it doesn't change the monitor in itself.

When soft proofing, it changes what the monitor displays in order to accurately reflect what
the printer will produce.
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #44 on: October 22, 2013, 05:32:42 AM »
ReplyReply

When soft proofing, it changes what the monitor displays in order to accurately reflect what
the printer will produce.
"Accurately" ? NO.
It's just an approximation and restricted by the gamut of the monitor and the fundamental differences between a transmissive and reflected image.
Logged
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 22, 2013, 05:44:15 AM »
ReplyReply

"Accurately" ? NO.
It's just an approximation and restricted by the gamut of the monitor and the fundamental differences between a transmissive and reflected image.

Why deny, and then repeat the essence using more words?

Don't you think the meaning was clear?  I do.
Logged

D Fosse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 343



« Reply #46 on: October 22, 2013, 06:34:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Proofing to a printer profile doesn't change what the monitor displays - it just limits the gamut to the proof profile. But anything within gamut is unchanged.

Think of it like this: source/document profile <convert to> proof profile <convert to> monitor profile. It's a standard color management chain, but with an extra link. The final result is the same, but with gamut limitations imposed first by proof and then by monitor.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1965


WWW
« Reply #47 on: October 22, 2013, 07:38:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Don't you think the meaning was clear?  I do.
No, it's not clear, it's misleading and wrong.

You've given poor advice already in this thread, maybe it's time to just stop and go away and learn more about the subject.
Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 392


WWW
« Reply #48 on: October 22, 2013, 07:46:13 AM »
ReplyReply

NEC PA301W running SV and trying to print from Lightroom 5 -  The print is sooooo much darker that the display, tried both options under "Color Management" section in Lightroom meaning tried both profiles, etc and still the same dark prints -

Printer is Epson 3880 and paper is Ultra Premium Photo Paper Luster.

What am I doing wrong?

Did you get it resolved? I use a Nec PA271W with SV2 and have my luminance set to around 90 to match with prints illuminated with a Solux4700k (actually measured around 4500-4600k) and get a good match. (gamma L (native) with contrast at default, or 2.2 with contrast range at around 250-300, depending on the paper used,)
If nothing else in your pipeline is "broken", bringing the luminance down or increasing the illumination of the print in the viewing setup should provide a resolution to the issue.
Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #49 on: October 22, 2013, 08:05:24 AM »
ReplyReply

No, it's not clear, it's misleading and wrong.

You've given poor advice already in this thread, maybe it's time to just stop and go away and learn more about the subject.

Gee, that's how I would have described what you said!  Small world, eh...
Logged

John Rodriguez
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #50 on: October 22, 2013, 05:00:50 PM »
ReplyReply



Modern thoughts are to calibrate to a standard: which I suggest be in the D65, gamma 2.2 with luminance output at about 150 cd/m and match your viewing environment to match your display environment so the print can match your display (not the other way around. Oh, for these of you with NEC displays, I also suggest using a 250/1 contrast range which more closely matches the contrast range you can get off a glossy print.


What viewing illumination assumptions are you using?  I've found 150 cd/m2 doesn't get my prints bright enough (confirmed when I went to a Charles Cramer workshop - prints too dark), 100 cd/m2 and 6500 gets me there.
Logged
hugowolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 636


« Reply #51 on: October 22, 2013, 05:18:22 PM »
ReplyReply

What viewing illumination assumptions are you using?  I've found 150 cd/m2 doesn't get my prints bright enough (confirmed when I went to a Charles Cramer workshop - prints too dark), 100 cd/m2 and 6500 gets me there.

It isn't just the print viewing conditions, it is also ambient light for the monitor. I use D65, 2.2 and 140 cd/mand it works for me. I have huge (shaded) north facing windows in my print studio, and I rarely work in the evenings.

Brian A
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2825



« Reply #52 on: October 22, 2013, 05:28:59 PM »
ReplyReply

No, it's not clear, it's misleading and wrong.

You've given poor advice already in this thread, maybe it's time to just stop and go away and learn more about the subject.

+1

Bill
Logged
tived
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 691


WWW
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2013, 11:11:16 PM »
ReplyReply

The whole point of an ICC color management workflow is so that images can be reproduced device independent, therefore we calibrate to a standard, so that when I make color corrections for a book in Perth, I will Print as expected in Hong Kong.

I follow the standard, the printer follow the standard - it takes all the guess work out of it. well 90% of the time :-)

6500k 2.2G and 100cd/m2 seems to do the trick - I am using SpectraView II on a 2690v2

I hope the OP got his print right in the end - definitely need to use the right profile for the right device.

All the best

Henrik






Logged
Andrew Makiejewski
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 66


WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 05, 2013, 08:36:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Both Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney have tons more real world experience and understanding on this matter then the person to whom you are referring. Carefully look at Andrew's and Jeff's credentials.


Gee, that's how I would have described what you said!  Small world, eh...
Logged

Capture the moment.
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad