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 6268 times)
Texas308
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« on: October 20, 2013, 04:35:13 PM »
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?
Logged
Mac Mahon
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2013, 04:41:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Does your print look tolerably good if you take it away from the computer to a 'normal' lighting situation?  If so, I suggest looking at Andrew Rodney's advice here.

Cheers

Tim
Logged
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 562


« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2013, 05:41:37 PM »
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?


Assuming your print evaluation area/parameters are adequate, and consistent, the most typical reason for this it that the luminance of your display is too bright.  When you profile your monitor, what luminance value are you using?  Have you experimented with lowering the luminance value in the profile run in SVII?  Andrew Rodney (The Digital Dog) has been of great help to me in understanding color management.  The link above is well worth your time.

Rand
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 05:54:47 PM by Rand47 » Logged
Texas308
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2013, 06:34:34 PM »
ReplyReply

My current SV "Target Settings" shows this information:

White Point: D65

Gamma: 2.20

Intensity: 140.0 cd/m2

Contrast Ratio:  Monitor Default

Color Gamut:  Native (Full)
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2793



« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2013, 07:26:05 PM »
ReplyReply

My current SV "Target Settings" shows this information:

White Point: D65

Gamma: 2.20

Intensity: 140.0 cd/m2

Contrast Ratio:  Monitor Default

Color Gamut:  Native (Full)

The other half of the equation is the luminance of the viewing booth or whatever you are using to view the print. For the brightness of the monitor and the print to be equal, the illumination incident on the print should be 140 x Pi or about 440 lux.

Bill
Logged
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2013, 07:54:14 PM »
ReplyReply

White Point: D65
Gamma: 2.20
Intensity: 140.0 cd/m2

Your monitor is setup fine for viewing the web, and not appropriately for previewing a print.

First though, consider finding a "test image" of known character on the web, and print it.  Adjust your print driver to make that print look right.

Then calibrate/adjust your monitor to make the same image displayed on the monitor appear as close as possible to your print.  You probably want a color temperature closer to D50 rather than D64, a gamma closer to 2.4 than 2.2, and you absolutely want the intensity to be between 80 and 100 cd/m2 (the exact brightness depends on the ambient light).

The essential point to get here is that the printer is adjusted to get the right print, and the monitor is adjusted to display that image as close to what the print looks like as possible.
Logged

Texas308
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2013, 09:53:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Adjusted to the following:

White Point : D50

Gamma: 2.40

Contrast Ratio:  Monitor Default

Color Gamut:  Native (Full)

Same exact results!!!   Ugh!!!   

I turned off all the lights in my study/office so super dark and only lighting is off the display...

Guidance please...
Logged
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2013, 10:15:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Adjusted to the following:

White Point : D50

Gamma: 2.40

Contrast Ratio:  Monitor Default

Color Gamut:  Native (Full)

Same exact results!!!   Ugh!!!   

I turned off all the lights in my study/office so super dark and only lighting is off the display...

Guidance please...


1) restore the ambient light to a "comfortable level" for looking at everything other than the monitor.

2) find a "standard test image" on the web and print it.
    A.  Adjust the printer or print driver to get a correct print.
    B.  Do not change the monitor again until the print is correct.

3) when you can get a correct print, than and only then, you can worry about adjusting the monitor.

4) the monitor should be adjusted to display the image as closely as possible to what the print looks like.


Most significantly you have to realize that monitor adjustment has nothing to do with what the print looks like, and no change to the monitor configuration or calibration is going to change a print.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5471


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2013, 10:18:11 PM »
ReplyReply

First though, consider finding a "test image" of known character on the web, and print it.  Adjust your print driver to make that print look right.

Then calibrate/adjust your monitor to make the same image displayed on the monitor appear as close as possible to your print.  You probably want a color temperature closer to D50 rather than D64, a gamma closer to 2.4 than 2.2, and you absolutely want the intensity to be between 80 and 100 cd/m2 (the exact brightness depends on the ambient light).

This is wrong...it is foolish to try to screw up your display to match your print. That's completely backwards as the the OP has indicated...

As for the OP, you haven't stated what OS you are running and what driver version you have for the 3880. Two important pieces of info. Also, you haven't indicated anything about the color of the prints: dark and greenish indicates no color management while light and magenta'ish means double color management. If your prints are dark and greenish, somewhere in your pipeline color management has failed.
Logged
Texas308
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7


« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2013, 10:24:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Hardware Overview:

System Software Overview:

  System Version:   OS X 10.8.5 (12F45)
  Kernel Version:   Darwin 12.5.0


  Model Name:   Mac Pro
  Model Identifier:   MacPro5,1
  Processor Name:   6-Core Intel Xeon
  Processor Speed:   3.33 GHz
  Number of Processors:   1
  Total Number of Cores:   6
  L2 Cache (per Core):   256 KB
  L3 Cache:   12 MB
  Memory:   32 GB
  Processor Interconnect Speed:   6.4 GT/s
  Boot ROM Version:   MP51.007F.B03
  SMC Version (system):   1.39f11
  SMC Version (processor tray):   1.39f11
  Serial Number (system):   C07J900FF4MG
  Serial Number (processor tray):   J5232011CCZJC     
  Hardware UUID:   17FA3041-794A-5838-9BB6-27C71C0A5BC4

Status:   Idle
  Print Server:   Local
  Driver Version:   8.64
  Default:   Yes
  Shared:   No
  URI:   dnssd://EpsonStylusPro3880-1F4B8D._printer._tcp.local./
  PPD:   EPSON SPro 3880
  PPD File Version:   8.64
  PostScript Version:   (3011.106) 0
  CUPS Version:   1.6.2 (cups-327.7)
  Scanning support:   No
  Printer Commands:   Clean PrintSelfTestPage ReportLevels
  CUPS filters:
rastertoescpII:
  Path:   /Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Filter/rastertoescpII.app/Contents/MacOS/rastertoescpII
  Permissions:   rwxr-xr-x
  Version:   8.64
commandtoescp:
  Path:   /Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Filter/commandtoescp.app/Contents/MacOS/commandtoescp
  Permissions:   rwxr-xr-x
  Version:   8.64
  Fax support:   No
  Low ink tool:   /Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Utility/UT4/EpsonSuppliesTool4.app/Contents/MacOS/EpsonSuppliesTool4
  Low ink tool version:   8.64
  Printer utility:   /Library/Printers/EPSON/InkjetPrinter2/Utility/UT4/Epson Printer Utility 4.app
  Printer utility version:   8.64
  PDEs:
PDECPlugin01.plugin:
  Sandbox compliant:   No
Logged
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2013, 10:46:27 PM »
ReplyReply

This is wrong...it is foolish to try to screw up your display to match your print.

That is in fact the standard method.

Changing the monitor display does not change how an image is printed.  A standard image should be used to adjust the printer and/or print driver to provide whatever one decides a "correct" print is.  That has nothing at all to do with the monitor, and changing the monitor's configuration/calibration will not change the correctness of the standard image print.  (Actually, a correct print can obviously be made without ever even viewing it on a monitor.)

The entire point of calibrating a monitor is to make it display a standard image as close as possible to the desired print from your intended printer.

Typically one does not use the print itself to make these comparisons because people have a very difficult time judging the characteristics of a print, if for no other reason than not having a standard light box for illumination. Instead they use monitor calibration tools that have the same standard characteristics build in, and because of that the monitor can be calibrated first, and quite separate from the printer.  But make no mistake the monitor is calibrated to show what the printer will produce, not the other way around.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 11:13:29 PM by Floyd Davidson » Logged

Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2013, 11:07:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Here are a few URL's where "standard" test images can be found

 http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/index.shtml
 http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/test_images.html
 http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1916&page=5

The first URL is recommended by Norman Koren <http://www.normankoren.com/printer_calibration.html> and from the page this is the specific test image that I've been using for several years:

 http://digitaldog.net/files/Printer%20Test%20file.jpg
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 03:22:09 AM by Floyd Davidson » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5471


WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2013, 11:55:40 PM »
ReplyReply

That is in fact the standard method.

Changing the monitor display does not change how an image is printed.  A standard image should be used to adjust the printer and/or print driver to provide whatever one decides a "correct" print is.  That has nothing at all to do with the monitor, and changing the monitor's configuration/calibration will not change the correctness of the standard image print.  (Actually, a correct print can obviously be made without ever even viewing it on a monitor.)

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but not mine. The OP has a NEC PA301W. The recommended display luminance (from NEC) is 150 cd/m2. The ISO standard for graphic arts viewing displays is between 80 cd/m2 but suggested (by the ISO) is 160 cd/m2. NEC (and I) recommend D65 and a gamma 2.2 (or native gamma).

The weak point in your argument is assuming you have a "standard print file", without an accurately calibrated and profiled display, how are you supposed to know what the image is supposed to look like? If you have an accurately calibrated and profiled display and the print doesn't match the image (in LR or PS) then you have a breakdown in your color managed print workflow...simple as that.

In terms of the OP. I suspect that an Apple update may have overwritten the Epson print striver with a generic Gutenprint driver. The way to get rid of that is to download the current Epson driver and install it over the Gutenprint driver. It's possible that the OP may need to reset the system Print and Faxes system. The way to do that is to hold down the control key while clicking in the print list of Print & Faxes to reset, then re-install the most recent driver from Epson.

If that doesn't do it, the OP may need to go to greater lengths...Wayne Fox has written about resetting the Print & Faxes and deleting all Epson components before reinstalling the proper driver.

But as the OP has found, simply re-calibrating and re-profiling won't fix a problem with the print driver/OS system.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1925


WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2013, 12:41:49 AM »
ReplyReply

That is in fact the standard method.
Really ? says who ? Care to post a reference to it ?
Logged
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2013, 03:21:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe in your neck of the woods, but not mine. The OP has a NEC PA301W. The recommended display luminance (from NEC) is 150 cd/m2. The ISO standard for graphic arts viewing displays is between 80 cd/m2 but suggested (by the ISO) is 160 cd/m2. NEC (and I) recommend D65 and a gamma 2.2 (or native gamma).

So which one is right then?  They can't all be...

Quote
The weak point in your argument is assuming you have a "standard print file", without an accurately calibrated and profiled display, how are you supposed to know what the image is supposed to look like?
A standard image file does not assume either your printer or your monitor is correct in order to calibrate the other.

I've given URL's were such files can be downloaded.  Calibration devices, whether for a monitor or a printer, generate their own "standard image file".  The colors produced by the display device are then measured to determine when the display is correctly configured.  An accurately calibrated and profiled monitor has virtually nothing to do with calibrating and profiling a printer.

Quote
If you have an accurately calibrated and profiled display and the print doesn't match the image (in LR or PS) then you have a breakdown in your color managed print workflow...simple as that.

Yes, and it is just as likely as anything else that the problem is your "accurately calibrated and profiled display" is not in fact accurately calibrated.

Quote
In terms of the OP. I suspect that an Apple update may have overwritten the Epson print striver with a generic Gutenprint driver. The way to get rid of that is to download the current Epson driver and install it over the Gutenprint driver. It's possible that the OP may need to reset the system Print and Faxes system. The way to do that is to hold down the control key while clicking in the print list of Print & Faxes to reset, then re-install the most recent driver from Epson.

If that doesn't do it, the OP may need to go to greater lengths...Wayne Fox has written about resetting the Print & Faxes and deleting all Epson components before reinstalling the proper driver.

But as the OP has found, simply re-calibrating and re-profiling won't fix a problem with the print driver/OS system.

That all might well be useful to the OP (I have zero familarity with his equipment).

But recalibrating his monitor cannot change the print.
Logged

Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2013, 04:13:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Really ? says who ? Care to post a reference to it ?

Here is a very good authoritative article.  Note that monitor brightness, contrast, and color temperature are all set manually.  The choices made are intended to provide a monitor calibrated to match a well calibrated printer.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/2012/01/17/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor/

As to why it is done this way, that's fairly simple.  Generally we have one monitor, but may use many variations of papers and printers, some of which we do not own and cannot control.  Which is to say we can't necessarily change the printer's configuration.  So instead we get a profile for every printer/paper combination that we use, and adjust out monitor by applying that profile to cause the "print preview" to emulate whatever the printer and paper combination will produce.

But once again let me repeat that changing the monitor calibration cannot ever change the way an image prints!  The print is only going to change if the image is edited.  How you edit an image might change due to monitor calibration...

Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2793



« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2013, 07:05:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Here is a very good authoritative article.  Note that monitor brightness, contrast, and color temperature are all set manually.  The choices made are intended to provide a monitor calibrated to match a well calibrated printer.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/2012/01/17/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor/

I looked at the Scientific American blog article. It is well written by an expert in digital imaging. The author does not adjust the monitor to match the print, but rather uses hardware calibration just like Mr. Schewe and most other experts. BTW, do you know who you are arguing with--Schewe is a recognized well published expert who also shares his expertise on LuLa. Your advice appears off target and I wonder what are your qualifications?
 
The SciAm author uses gamma 1.8 and a white point of D50 (5000K), whereas Schewe uses D65 and gamma 2.2. Otherwise their approaches are similar.

But once again let me repeat that changing the monitor calibration cannot ever change the way an image prints!  The print is only going to change if the image is edited.  How you edit an image might change due to monitor calibration...

The image is almost always edited, either by the rendering software or by the artist. See Karl Lang.

Bill
Logged
Floyd Davidson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 174



WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2013, 08:30:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I looked at the Scientific American blog article. It is well written by an expert in digital imaging. The author does not adjust the monitor to match the print, [...]

The author not only does adjust the monitor to match the print, he repeatedly states that is the purpose of the calibration he is discussing.

The author says exactly what I've said:  contrast (gamma) and color temperature recommendations are for "If you do mostly print work".   The brightness of the monitor is a matter of ambient light, but the recommendations for that are also geared towards grading displayed images for printing.

The article repeatedly makes the point that calibration is specific to matching printer output.

Quote
[...] but rather uses hardware calibration just like Mr. Schewe and most other experts.

The hardware calibration equipment does not determine what brightness, contrast, and color temperature settings should be. Those are set manually and the hardware measures how closely they can be matched.

The OP has not indicated being equipped to do a proper hardware calibration.  It's wonderful that you and I and everyone who claims to have expertize can and does, but that doesn't help the OP.  His need for such equipment is a different discussion.

And lacking hardware to measure how close the printer is to standard and how close the monitor is the the selected parameters, the OP has little choice but to obtain a standard print to use for manual comparisons.  He  absolutely will not get the more accurate results that proper hardware can produce, but he can at least get close enough to get on with his work.

Quote
The SciAm author uses gamma 1.8 and a white point of D50 (5000K), whereas Schewe uses D65 and gamma 2.2. Otherwise their approaches are similar.

Rather clearly those settings calibrate the monitor to match the way a print will look!  That is, he is doing exactly what I described.  And what he has said is exactly what I said. 

The hardware device used to calibrate the monitor doesn't choose the parameters for those characteristics, they are set manually.  The hardware device then measures the linearity and therefore the color accuracy, and provides a look up table to maintain correct colors.  (And I'm sure you are aware of that, as is Schewe.)

The disagreement isn't on what is being done, it's on what perspective to put it in for someone to best learn how it works and how to manipulate it for effect.  Note for example that I recommended the OP start with a gamma of 2.4, which would darken the monitor display.  His complaint is that the print is darker than his monitor, and that is a compensation for that.  He might well find that with a lower brightness, something like the gamma 1.8 recommended in the cited article will be more appropriate for his needs

Quote
The image is almost always edited, either by the rendering software or by the artist. See Karl Lang.

But not the "standard test image".  That is accepted as correct to start with (and is usually generated on the fly by the hardware calibration equipment), and the question is how to get the display device to correctly display a correct image.  We don't need to look at it on a monitor when calibrating a printer, nor do we need to print it when calibrating a monitor...  except as is noted in the article I cited, and you clearly agreed above, that when calibrating a monitor it is necessary to set the brightness, the contrast, and the color temperature manually to match the desired output characteristics which in this case is specifically to match prints.

What Schewe specified is very commonly used to view web pages targeted at sRGB.  Note that the cited article specifically says that is not the correct choice to calibrate when editing for a printer.  Note also that I did discuss exactly that earlier too, and while the values I suggested to the OP are different than those specified in the article, they are very close (and different due to what the OP stated plus they were intended to be a starting point to see if that helped his situation).

Logged

D Fosse
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 336



« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2013, 11:14:06 AM »
ReplyReply

I take the simple approach. The calibration white point targets are set to match the paper - the perception of which obviously varies with the ambient light. I usually end up in the neighborhood of 6200K and 110 cd/m, but that's just me.

But from there on in, the display is king. That's my reference for what the file should look like.

Gamma doesn't really matter in a color managed workflow, the file is remapped into monitor gamma by the two profiles anyway. So my philosophy is just to stay close to the monitor's native gamma (2.2).
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 11:19:11 AM by D Fosse » Logged
EricV
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130


« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2013, 01:57:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Here is a very good authoritative article.  Note that monitor brightness, contrast, and color temperature are all set manually.  The choices made are intended to provide a monitor calibrated to match a well calibrated printer.  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/2012/01/17/how-to-calibrate-your-monitor/

Interesting article.  The author does indeed advocate choosing some basic settings {brightness, gamma, color temperature} to make the monitor match an eventual print.  However, he also states in the very first paragraph that the purpose of monitor calibration is to match a digital reference, not an eventual print: "Proper calibration guarantees that the image shown on screen matches the numerical color data saved in the digital file." 

When the author later says that the choice of a low gamma "produces noticeably lighter images on screen" that seems contradictory.  It seems he is ignoring the whole concept of a color space, which specifies the desired conversion of digital values into brightness or color.

Does monitor calibration preserve the white point defined by monitor brightness and color temperature settings?  Will a monitor profile ever result in a display of pure white (RGB=255,255,255) with some pixels not at maximum brightness?  How does the chosen color space enter into this? 

If monitor calibration preserves this white point, it makes sense that you want to set monitor brightness and color temperature to match an eventual print, under whatever normal lighting conditions you choose for print display. 

Monitor calibration will then take care of displaying non-white colors and gray levels correctly, relative to this white point.  This requires a digital reference (and color space) and has nothing to do with a print.  Similarly, printer calibration matches printer output to a digital reference (and color space) and has nothing to do with a monitor.  The way monitor calibration influences the final print is by inducing the user to edit the image until the monitor image looks good. 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad