Nikon 5000 ED color management issues

[steve_ege]

Using Nikon Scan I have been able to derive what appear to be excellent images that open

in 16 bit in Photoshop Elements 3.0 for Mac. When I attempt to print, however, I seem

unable to print with anything like the colors seen on screen. Regular digital photos print

fine, and my monitor and printer have been calibrated. When I print, the Source Space

shows as "Nikon Apple_CPS 4.0.0.3000" I have tried using "Same as Source", an

individually profiled paper setting, and printer color management for Printer Space, all

with or without color management. I have also converted to 8 bit and tried saving the

image in Adobe RGB 1998. All to no avail. In each case, my prints have a heavy green

caste to them.

 

Did I select the wrong color space when I scanned in Nikon Scan? As I say, the images on

the monitor are clear, well balanced and saturated.

 

Help from you experts would be appreciated.

 

Steve

[ilkka_nissila]

It may be that some of the colors on the slide are out of gamut of the display. I get good results using most slide films when I scan them, but E100VS is a lot subdued in the greens when scanned. The print however appears a bit better.

 

Slide film can have amazing colours which are hard to reproduce. You can still look at your prints and adjust the image on screen to compensate for the errors in the print. Also, although it may not help with this problem, you may want to calibrate the scanner using film-specific targets and software for profile-making. I've found this to be helpful in general.

 

Unfortunately color reproduction may require subjective judgment sometimes. :-)

[ellis_vener_photography]

1.) You can't calibrate a printer. You can have a profile for a printer/paper/ink

combination but you can't calibrate the printer -- or the scanner for that matter.

 

I would choose Adobe RGB (1998) i nthe scanenr CMS insted of what you have now.

[Ed_Ingold]

If the print doesn't look like the image on your screen, the problem is with your monitor (profile) or printer profile, or simply how you have the CMS set up, not the scanner.

 

The key element is to calibrate/profile your monitor. That way, you know if the scanner and printer are working properly. Then if you scan or print something and it doesn't look right, you find or create a profile that makes it so. Accurate profiles are widely available from various paper manufacturers for photo inkjet printers, especially Epson Ultrachrome printers. Printer profiles are specific for a particular paper, printer, printer resolution and inkset.

 

Rather than use the old "poke and hope" poolroom method, you need to learn the talk and learn the walk of Color Management. Spend a little time at the library or with "Photoshop CS2 for Photographers" by Martin Evening (or another book).

 

[Ellis, I must disagree with your narrow definition of calibration. Calibration is not turning a screw nor any adjustment at all, but a COMPARISON between an unknown property and a standard which has known properties. Adjustments can be made physically, using software sliders, or by a conversion table or profile. The latter is the usual way precision weights, spectrophotometers and chromatographs are "adjusted" in a laboratory. Respectfully, Ed Ingold, senior calibration engineer (ret).]

[steve_ege]

I should add that the image was a Kodacolor negative. In response to earlier comments, I

have calibrated the monitor using a Spyder attachment, and calibrated the printer using a

product available from Pantone.

 

If I load digital images from my Canon 10D into Photoshop Elements 3.0 for Mac, they

print without a problem.

 

I think there is something wrong with the colorspace from the NiKon scanner, which is not

being adequately dealt with by Photoshop Elements 3.0.

 

Steve

[ilkka_nissila]

Ellis, generating a profile generated from measurements of a screen, of a print or of a digital file produced by scanning from a known target <i>is</i> calibration. It's done in software but it's calibration nevertheless.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Ellis, generating a profile generated from measurements of a screen, of a print or of a

digital file produced by scanning from a known target is calibration. It's done in software

but it's calibration nevertheless.</I><P>no it isn't . You aren't ghaning the way the device

behaves, you are making acorrection in the output. That you don't understand the

difference underlies your oft stated problems.

[ellis_vener_photography]

Illka, my post reads as a personal rebuffto you. Actually i was thinking of mendel Lisk and

NOT YOU. sorry for the unwarranted tone in that post. I still stand by my definition.

proling does change the results but doesn't adjust the actual performance characteristics

of the device. maybe in the end it does matter , but somewhere in the back of my mind I

have the feeling that this "hair splitting' it does.

[ellis_vener_photography]

If you are working with color negative film, forget all talk of profiling the scanner. Scan

using the widest colorspace in nikon Scan -- it is the one at the bottom of the list in the

CMS dialog.

[ilkka_nissila]

Ellis, thanks for the clarification; I started already wondering what problems you're talking about ... ;-)

 

I don't know if calibration and profiling are distinguished as different things in photography literature, but in scientific instrumentation, calibration is an established term and it can constitute physical adjustments in instruments that are relatively simple. But much instrumentation nowadays is computer-controlled and in this case all calibration is generally done in software. It's established terminology, trust me.

 

I do understand that if bit depth is not high enough, if there is noise, or if the dynamic range of the system is insufficient, calibration using software only may yield compromised results relative to methods of calibration in which hardware as well as software are adjusted. But software based compensation is really called calibration in the scientific literature that I've come across.

[bruce_rubenstein]

"If I load digital images from my Canon 10D into Photoshop Elements 3.0 for Mac, they print without a problem."

 

How is the 10D set? Is the color space sRGB or Adobe RGB? RAW or JPG? I would start by setting the Nikon's color space to the same that the camera is. Another sanity check is to save a file as a JPG and open it in a program other than Elements, and see if it looks the same as it does in Elements. If they don't look the same, there is a configuration problem with Elements.

[steve_ege]

Bruce, thanks for your suggestion. I will try iPhoto, for example, and see how the files look.

 

As to choice of color space suggested by one of the commenters above, the choice at the bottom of the list in the Nikon Scanner dialogue IS the one that I used and whose designation is quoted in my original post. I suspect that is the culprit.

 

I did not see a choice for Adobe RGB 1998 which would have been my choice. I am using the OS X version of Nikon Scan 4.02

 

I will scan a color negative using all three color space choices and then try printing again. I know my monitor is properly calibrated, because my prints turn out just fine from my Canon and Panasonic LX1 digital files.

 

I think I also may have the choice to save in Nikon's proprietary .NEF RAW format, and perhaps I can then open Nikon View and save that file as a TIFF file in Adobe color space.

 

There must be an easier way. Again, thanks for all the input.

 

Steve

[steve_ege]

There WAS an easier way. Clean the print heads! I was about to reformat my hard drive

and reload OS X from scratch, figuring there was some corruption in the color

management program, when I tried the Epson utility program that does test prints. Sure

enough two print sources were clogged. After using cleaning program several times, I was

able to print normally, including the Nikon prints. I had mistakenly reported earlier that

10D prints were printing normally, they were not, and had the same green cast.

 

My apologies for posting on something I should have trouble shot a little more before

seeking expert help.

 

Steve