Thoughts and questions after my first calibration

<p>For a long time I would calibrate my monitor by printing a test target and playing with the monitor controls until it was a close match. This worked surprisingly well for most photographs. However, certain photographs would prove to be very difficult to print, and with these problem images soft proofing never seemed to give me any kind of idea what to expect.</p>

<p>I finally got a Spyder 3 Pro and calibrated my monitor (Acer x233H). Although there are still small differences between what I see on screen with soft proofing and what I print (Epson R800, local Costco), the improvement has been dramatic. I feel like I can now consistently predict and better control what's going to come out of my printer. I opened one recent picture that I know would have been difficult to print before, probably requiring 2-4 prints, and nailed it on the first try.</p>

<p>My only question surrounds this: the Spyder 3 Pro got my monitor to the point where I can Proof Colors in Photoshop and know what's going to come out of the printer even with very difficult images. But I am still kind of surprised at how different the printer's view of the world can be. In other words the soft proof on screen matches the printer very well, but the pair can be very different from the monitor with Proof Colors off. With the photograph mentioned above, I added two adjustment layers (brightness/contrast, saturation) and played with their values, switching between the "print" version with Proof Colors, and the "original" version without, until I had a print version that I felt faithfully reproduced the original. Granted, the first print out matched what I saw on screen with Proof Colors and that's great. Before I would have been test printing and guessing. But before calibration I always assumed prints didn't match my monitor because the monitor's calibration wasn't perfect. I guess it was a surprise to find that part of the problem is that the printer has trouble faithfully reproducing the screen. (If that makes sense.)</p>

<p>Is there a second step I should perform? Or do some images just need to be hand edited to look their best on paper? (I suspect the latter, but wanted feedback and suggestions.)</p>

<p>This Luminous Landscape thread:</p>

<p>http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40713</p>

<p>about the unique proprietary characteristics of minilabs can make Soft Proofing pretty much worthless.</p>

<p>So when in doubt always trust the hardware calibrated display. It's all we digital imaging folks have to go by.</p>

<p>Daniel, You've only calibrated half of your system. The printer should be calibrated too.</p>

<p>How are the images difficult to print different from those that print well? Knowing and keeping that in mind will go a long way in helping you get the best prints from your printer.<br>

As I mentioned in the following thread, some images do print better than others. Some have learned to capture and edit their files NOT necessarily JUST to display well on their monitors, but with the intent to produce the optimal prints from their printers. The film shooters had to work within the technology/media limits, so do the digital shooters. Nothing new.<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00VfXV</p>

<p><em>Daniel, You've only calibrated half of your system. The printer should be calibrated too.</em></p>

<p>Proof Colors does show me what will come out of my printer. So the profiles I've downloaded from Epson do match the printer. Are you saying that if I also calibrate the printer that there will be less difference between Proof Colors being on/off, that the printer will do a better job of matching the screen to begin with?</p>

<p>Robert - I suspect what you're saying is right. I've printed another difficult image on the R800. Right away Proof Colors showed me that I would not be happy with the print, which would lack contrast, saturation, and shadow detail. In this case I did a Save As and had the screen version in a tab with Proof Colors off, and the print version in another tab with Proof Colors on.</p>

<p>This one took more work. Local contrast enhancement, brightness / contrast, saturation, and a touch of color balancing. I ended up making two prints because I thought the first one was too dark. The second print is good, though in this case I do not like the print as much as viewing on screen. I think it's the nature of the image in this case though. Sort of like when people say they prefer viewing certain slides on a light table or projected in a dark room. Still, I'm happy with the print, which I'm sure is higher quality with less effort (and wasted material) than it would have been before screen calibration.</p>

<p>How is this image different? It's an exposure blend that compresses a very wide luminance range. There's lots of shadow detail in foreground rocks and a bright, glowing sky which the monitor has no trouble rendering, but which the printer really struggles with. Initially the shadow region looked posterized, and the sky was dull. It took a lot of work to bring out the shadow detail in the Soft Proof.</p>

<p>I definitely feel like I've taken a step forward. I guess I just didn't expect that after calibration I would still be producing screen and printer versions of files.</p>

<p>I think I have been your way - and I am still struggling with prints. I am sure you need a printer profile and either one will be available or you may have to get one made. The profile will have to fit your paper and inks. Changes in these would need another profile!<br>

What I have always wanted is that the prints I get from my Canon i9950 look exactly like the image I had on the monitor - after I had 'fiddled' with it. Not easy</p>

<p>"I ended up making two prints..."<br>

In the traditional darkroom, it is a common practice to make multiple test prints until the final print is achieved. To save time, effort and cost through the iterations, printers would make smaller size prints, or vary exposures/filters across different areas of the entire image on the same print, or vary exposures/filters on one selected critical area of an image on the same print, etc.<br>

In the digital darkroom, creating such a single sheet test print can easily be automated and implemented with a PS action/plugin, and would greatly improve the printing workflow, with or without color management. But surprisingly, there does not seem to be any on the market.</p>