Color calibration: 2200 prints still darker than onscreen

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

What can I do or buy to make what I see on my NEC 1960NXi LCD match

what I get out of my Epson 2200?

 

I print ProPhoto, Adobe RGB and sRGB tagged files to the Epson, using

the Epson ICC printer profiles I downloaded from the Epson web site.

 

Before buying the NEC, I used Adobe gamma with an elderly CRT. The

2200 prints always looked darker than what was onscreen.

 

I bought the NEC LCD and then the ColorVision ColorPlus calibrator.

No help at all from the ColorPlus, plus several compatability

problems. With the ColorPlus monitor ICC profiles, the 2200 prints

are still darker than what's onscreen.

 

An unpleasant temporary workaround: doing final edits on the photo

with the monitor brightness turned waaay down, to 15 or 10%. The

prints still aren't dead on, but they're closer to what's on screen

than with any other set up I've tried.

 

Suggestions? Did I err in getting an LCD? (I know that some have

written that they still don't cut the mustard for precise color work.)

Do I need to spend more money for profiling equipment, so I can

calibrate both the monitor and the printer, and dump the Epson profiles?

 

Or am I expecting too much in wanting what's onscreen to be an almost

exact match with the print?

[jmw__]

You might be expecting too much if you were hoping to get a perfect match between your

monitor and your print. It is possible, however, to get reasonably close.

 

I've used both CRTs and LCDs, with better profiling luck with the latter. These days I'm

mostly doing black and white, with my new LCD, I proof onscreen with the Dot Gain 30%

profile, which is significantly darker than my calibrated monitor profile. It's admittedly a

kludge, but it gets me closer to the look of my printout.

[beauh44]

Hi Tim, My .02 cent's worth is this: No, you didn't err in getting an LCD - I use one with my 2200 all the time and the prints are spot-on. I think it might be a bit backwards to get your monitor to look like your 2200's prints; instead, you want your 2200's prints to look like your monitor. I bought a Gretag-Macbeth Eye One colorimeter - somewhere around $300 I think - and have had smooth sailing ever since. Good luck!

[zhi_da_zhong]

There are limits to how close a print can match a screen display. How does "pure" white on

your monitor compare to the color of the paper base? If monitor white is brighter than

your paper, you need to either view the prints under a brighter light source or perhaps use

a brighter paper. Maybe a glossier paper. For the closest possible match, custom printer

profiles may be needed. But I don't think you need to go that far to just match the overall

brightness.

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

Thanks to those who responded. I'm not a pro and don't have design shop type experience to go by, but after reading Fraser's _Real World Color Management_ I had hoped -- and still hope, I suppose -- that I could calibrate my equipment so that what's on the monitor comes ver-ree close to what comes out of the Epson.

 

Maybe I'll have to spend more money to get what I want, if I want it badly enough. Gretag Macbeth has several different Eye One products; Eye One Design calibrates monitors and printers, and sells for around $1,000. Colorvision sells the PrintFIX suite, which calibrates the monitor and the printer, for a much more affordable $400.

 

Does anyone have experience with either of those two products? Does it sound like I'm sniffing around the right tree this time, in terms of a WYSIWYG solution?

[mattholmes]

There is a lot of fundamental physics you're fighting here:

 

Your monitor is actually producing light, while the print is reflecting light. This is why you

generally find your monitor to be so much brighter. The brightness of the print is entirely

dependent on how strong a light you shine on it--and no paper no matter how white is

even close to 100% reflective.

 

Good LCD monitors are designed to be bright: the higher the maximum brightness of the

monitor, the larger the dynamic range it can display. We want the screen to have this

dynamic range, so that we can more precisely process our images.

 

The problem is in mapping the brightness values of your monitor to a print. If you are

holding your print next to your monitor to make this comparison, the print will always

always look dark--because it will be darker! Unless, of course, you either keep a big

spotlight next to your desk (which will naturally run into all sort of color

temperature mis-match issues), or you discard all monitor contrast by turning it way

down.

 

So if you want the *absolute* brightness of the two to match, you can either turn down

your

monitor or shine a brighter light on your print.

 

But what is the end goal? Generally, the actual brightness is not the important part. The

viewer doesn't generally hold the photo next to a bright lcd screen when they examine it.

The important thing is how bright the paper seems in context. Even in a gallery, the best

prints on display

are "dimmer" than your LCD monitor. But our eyes adapt to the lighting, and interpret the

print to be bright white.

 

Unfortunately, I only have one practical suggestion: a viewing booth will up the brightness

of your print with a higher wattage light, allowing you to better compare your monitor and

print side-by-side.

[melresnick]

Is the obvious being left unmentioned? Under the View menu, go to Proof Setup > Custom, and in the Proof Setup dialog box set the profile to the same profile you are using for the print, e.g., SP2200 - Enhanced Matte_MK. Set Intent to Perceptual and check Use Black Point Compression. I also check Use Paper White.

 

When that's done, go back to the View menu and be sure Proof Colors is checked. All other things being correct, that will give you the closest screen approximation to the print that Photoshop and your monitor are capable of.

[twmeyer]

did you disable Adobe Gamma? And if you want a close match, custom profiles are the way to go, but be prepared for yet another expensive hobby (profiling every-damn-thing-in-your-life once a month). You can always pretend you enjoy it :^)... t

[rhaytana__tim_adams_]

Thank you for the new input.

 

Adobe gamma is definitely out of there now; I knew that much. However, I did not know Mel Resnick's tip about setting proof colors. I feel foolish; that must have been in one of my Photoshop books, but I overlooked it.

 

Choosing the Epson profile I use for the print and setting paper white made a difference. I then followed Matt Holmes' advice and stopped looking at the print next to the bright LCD. I had remembered the importance of ambient light from the Photoshop tomes -- one includes a RHEM light indicator, after all, for gauging ambient light -- but had underestimated the impact that ambient light has on my impression of the print.

 

Well, I won't underestimate it anymore. After setting proof colors and after looking at the print under a good light, I finally have a much closer match between what's onscreen and what's on the paper. Not an exact match. I'm sure a viewing booth would help, and profiling both the LCD and the Epson. But a much closer match.

 

Thanks once again to all who contributed here.