NEC P221W and Epson 3880, argh!

[steve_t.1]

<p><em>(For Sale: everything I own that has to do with photography- Pentax K20D and a mess of lenses, Panasonic LX3, Monfrotto tripod and monopod, 2 Metz flashes, several gear bags, and the above mentioned monitor and printer. Giving up on photography and taking up stick whittling instead. All reasonable offers will be entertained. Thanks.)</em></p>

<p>Okay, the above "for sale" was written in jest, and frustration; I'm not selling any of my gear. But no matter what I do, I cannot get this monitor and this printer to speak the same language. Others go on and on about how perfect everything was right out of the box for them. No matter what I do, the image on the screen is not represented by the image on the photo paper. Yes, I know perfection is not possible, but I'm not even getting to the point where I can say, "Yep, that's close enough, looks good."</p>

<p>Yes, I'm calibrated, using the NEC Spectraview system that came with the monitor. I've calibrated and calibrated and calibrated. The "target setting" I'm using is for "Photo Editing", with white point at D65 (6500K), gamma 2.2, intensity 140. Results of calibration gives a white point of 6521K, Delta E of 0.42, calibrated black level of 0.16cd/m2, intensity of 138.5, gamma 2.2, and a calibrated contrast ratio is "monitor default" of 860:1.</p>

<p>Looking at the graphs after calibrating the monitor, Adobe RBG color gamut is nearly 100% represented on the triangular color graph, input/output curve graph shows all lines right on top of each other, and the color tracking Delta E graph is on the money with an average reading of .51 and a max. of .96. The calibration system seems to be very happy with the performance of the monitor.</p>

<p>Is the printer not capable of producing a near-perfect representation of what is shown on the screen?</p>

<p>I've printed with color management off, with printer color management on, with color management run by the editing program (Elements 6, which is where I run the print commands). I've printed to sRBG and Adobe RBG. I've been printing with Epson and Premier brand papers, using the paper profiles recommended for each paper. I view the prints in lousy and good artificial light and in indirect but bright daylight. I've even played with the custom color controls in the printer dialog boxes (in Elements) when telling the program to print, adjusting brightness, contrast, gamma, and color space. I've referred to the Epson manual and the Spectraview manual.</p>

<p>On my screen right now is a photo a friend took of his wife lounging in a flower garden. Bold pink flowers. Vibrant orange flowers. Rich, medium to deep green leaves. Fair skin and strawberry blond hair. Some prints have her flesh looking dull to darn near cadaver-like. The pink flowers are more dull pinkish-red. The orange flowers look brownish-orange to light metal rust orange. Greens turn dark and dull. ARRRRRGH!</p>

<p>With an image just before that, the actual captured coloring was nearly monotone BW- it was of a heavy fog on a calm river that had an anchored sailboat about half obscured in the fog. That print ended up showing the fog color much darker than how the image appeared on the screen, on screen was (an arbitrary) light-ish gray fog, on the print it was much darker, more "medium" (forgive the subject terms there). In the short time I've had the printer and monitor, these represent the results I've been getting since day 1.</p>

<p>Loss of lightness and dulling/darkening of color seem to be my problems when I tell the computer to tell the printer to put ink to paper. This simply cannot be a process where every time I want to make a print I have to make 4-5 copies and chose that misrepresents the image on the screen the least. The economics of such a proposal simply do not work. If that's the case, I may just go ahead and run that opening advertisement.</p>

<p>I've looked through archives on the digital darkroom board until my eyes and brain are goofy. Please, please, someone give me the magic bullet. The miracle pill. Some genie in a bottle to grant me a wish. What can I do?</p>

<p>I'm a simpleton with this stuff- I'm not a techie. I didn't go to photography school or computer school or graphic arts school. That said, I am comfortably computer and camera literate, I've been shooting pics for several years and only using them on the computer (web, etc) up until very recently when I upgraded the monitor and bought my first photo printer. But, sometimes with stuff like this I need it explained to my like I'm a 6-year old.</p>

<p>Please, help me love my gear! Otherwise $1800 worth of computer equipment is for nothing. Thanks!</p>

[nutmeg-42]

<p>I print with an Epson R2880 and love it so I'm sure there should be a solution for the 3880 as they use the same inks. I had a look at my online print paper supplier as I know they sell the NEC monitors as well as Eizo and I found this page. Towards the end of the page under the title of 'Taking it a step further - defining better calibration targets for print work'<strong> </strong>it talks about the contrast ratio for prints. As I use a Mac and don't have an NEC monitor, I'm not too sure if this is a solution. Hope it helps anyway. <br>

http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/142/How+To+Calibrate+An+NEC+Monitor+With+SpectraView+II</p>

[nutmeg-42]

<p>Duplicated post, sorry.</p>

[photomark]

It won't account for the misserable results that you are describing, but I've found having the luminance at

140 is way to bright for my workspace and would result in dark prints. I've got mine set at 108 cd/m2 and

it's giving me good match.

 

You didn't mention what OS you are using. If you are on a Mac you should double check that you are

printing to the real Epson profile rather than the Gutenprint drivers that come with the OS. Also are you

comparing print results with the soft-proof?

[steveg]

<p>You don't mention printer profiles - monitor calibration is only half the equation, if you don't use the right profile for the paper / printer settings you're using you'll get weard results.<br>

Custom profiles are by far the best, but the ones provided by the paper manufacturer are usually pretty good.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm using is for "Photo Editing", with white point at D65 (6500K), gamma 2.2, <strong>intensity 140.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Way too high! Its Ok if you look at your print under a 200watt lamp, but normally the best result under normal viewing condition will be 110-120 (i use 110) and my epson print, my commercial print and print i make via a external lab (not often) are close match.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><strong>I've even played with the custom color controls in the printer dialog boxes (in Elements) when telling the program to print, adjusting brightness, contrast, gamma, and color space</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bad thing to do, but i understand... there only 2 good way of printing with a epson; you let photoshop managed color and you turn color management off in the epson control OR you trun photoshop off and let epson control the color.</p>

<p><strong>option 1_ </strong><em>let photoshop determine color </em>by selecting the correct icc profile for your paper type. ex; PRO38_PLPP stand for Premium Luster Photo Paper. rendering intent relative colorimetric, black point check.</p>

<p>in the epson driver, you reselect your paper choice, speed and quality and turn the icc off or no color management. dont touch anything else.</p>

<p>Using this method will give you acces to icc profile from third partie.</p>

<p><strong>option 2_</strong><em>let printer managed color</em>, press OK, then in the epson driver select carrefully your paper type, speed quality etc.. and let epson color selected without touching anything else. <em><strong>The worst thing to do is to start playing with all the slider.. dont touch them at all you ahve no reason do to so ever.</strong></em></p>

<p>using this method you wont be able to use third partie profile, custom profile and therefore non epson paper.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Loss of lightness and dulling/darkening of color seem to be my problems</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>1_monitor luminance too high 2_bad profile or color management done</p>

<p>let us know that all work now and that you get back your smile.. and if you want to sell everything, i have a 100$ ready for you LOL</p>

<p>im 200% sure that my answer will fix your problem... i know i know it sound arrogant, but it is always the same problem and the same fix for the past years... im saving this problem / answer in my email to post it next week in another similar post.. believe me, that will append : )</p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>I'm at work right now, not in front of my equipment, but thank you very, very much for the suggestions. In the next day or two I will print this thread and follow through with the suggestions offered. Dialing down that luminance level from 140, that is making sense to me.</p>

<p>As for printer/paper profiles, every time I print I'm careful to choose the proper paper profile for the paper I'm using. I even emailed Premier last week describing my printer and which profile(s) I should use for their paper type I'm using and they got me squared away with what to use (they told me to choose one of the Epson paper choices from the default list). As I sit here, I can't exactly quote the paper types I'm using, but some is the same paper that came as a sample pack with the Epson printer, and then the Premier paper. The Premier is reasonably priced for my learning period and came highly recommended by local photographers I trust. That does not mean I'm married to Premier, but if I'm going to throw away some cash learning this stuff, I may as well not drain my wallet on high buck paper.</p>

<p>As for the computer itself, it's an older Dell/Windows XP machine but 2 years ago I upgraded to a separate Nvidia (sp?) graphics card, additional RAM and a bigger hard drive before I really started getting into photo editing. Elements 6 is my editing program, and I print straight from the Elements print commands.</p>

<p>Any other thoughts or ideas are welcomed and appreciated, and I will report back my results soon, even tonight if I have the time. Thanks again Everyone!</p>

[chas_frady]

<p>Maybe your calibration method is off.<br>

http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/142/How+To+Calibrate+An+NEC+Monitor+With+SpectraView+II</p>

[brad_smith8]

<p>For print-perfect results I had to reduce my luminance down to 90cd/m^2 in a very dark room. The resulting prints are spot-on (2880) when viewing the prints in a well lit environment.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>reduce my luminance down to 90cd/m^2</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>With a LCD type monitor?.. kind of low.. if so, on many monitor (new one) that can yield to bad gradient and color shift problem on screen.. i dont suggest going that low.. but if it work, well, it work ; )</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Chas- thank you for that link, I'll study that site as well.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p> The "target setting" I'm using is for "Photo Editing", with white point at D65 (6500K), gamma 2.2, intensity 140. </p>

<p>Way too high! Its Ok if you look at your print under a 200watt lamp, but normally the best result under normal viewing condition will be 110-120 (i use 110) and my epson print, my commercial print and print i make via a external lab (not often) are close match.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Back up guys. This entire cd/m2 target is <strong>totally</strong> based on the <strong>viewing conditions</strong> of the print next to the display. YMMV! You have to adjust either or both (if possible) display and viewing booth to result in a visual match. <br>

http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>I don't know if this helps, since I have a different setup than you, but I found that if I print my pics directly from Lightroom, they look terrible, but if I open the printer software to print the images, they come out perfect. I did have to set the software to use the ICC profile I set with my monitor, but that was it.</p>

[markus maurer]

<p>I think it is really critical to disable any kind of color management in the printer driver and only let Adobe handle that like Patrick wrote.. You may have to control that with every print, sometimes the driver does not keep the settings. Did you have a look at this, your answer does not make it clear? If yes, search for newer Epson drivers as well.</p>

[brad_smith8]

<blockquote>

<p>With a LCD type monitor?.. kind of low.. if so, on many monitor (new one) that can yield to bad gradient and color shift problem on screen.. i dont suggest going that low.. but if it work, well, it work ; )</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey Patrick, we've actually chatted about this before. The monitors that this method has worked for me are the IPS panels NEC 20WMGX2 and now a Dell U2711 (not LED). From what I've read the Dell uses the same panel as the 27" iMac, different electronics and inputs though.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why it works - it is a very dim room. There are no gradient or color shift issues.</p>

<p>For lights I use halogen track lighting that tops out at 50W for each print, which is very bright. The lighting units are 'portable' tracks, meaning they have a regular plug and a dimmer (they shine up from atop furniture). With the dimmer I leave low light on the prints at night. With no other light it's quite dramatic and plenty enough to see (or edit photos in).</p>

<p>But the prints look great in the full range of the dimmer, as well as in daylight. I'm just a 90cdm^2 guy. With 27" of light coming at me, a low luminance also puts much less strain on my eyes, and lets me edit longer.</p>

[benbangerter]

<p>Another vote for 90 cd/m^2. This works well for me with a NEC LCD2690WUXi, calibrated with SpectraView and the Eye-One Display2, with prints made on an Epson SP3800. Andrew's point about adjusting monitor luminance and print illumination for the best match is of course correct. BUT - the problem is, prints are ordinarily viewed under a variety of illumination conditions that may depart greatly from the illumination provided by a carefully controlled viewing booth environment. If I use a monitor luminance higher than 90-100 cd/m^2, my prints look "too dark" under the variety of lighting conditions in which I view them. YMMV, of course.</p>

<p>I think your use of default contrast might pose a problem as well - ~800:1 seems much too high to me. A typical print might have a contrast range in the area of 200-300:1. Are you comparing your prints to the soft-proof representation on-screen?</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>Andrew's point about adjusting monitor luminance and print illumination for the best match is of course correct. BUT - the problem is, prints are ordinarily viewed under a variety of illumination conditions that may depart greatly from the illumination provided by a carefully controlled viewing booth environment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn’t matter. The goal is screen to print matching. That means you have to have the print viewing conditions and the display in play here. As soon as you move the print elsewhere, the display and the environment are moot. Your eye adapts to the new viewing conditions. The only way to get the display and print to match is setup a controlled viewing environment next to the display and calibrate the display for those conditions. Now having a viewing booth that is close to other viewing conditions (like a gallery) are ideal but not a necessity. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If I use a monitor luminance higher than 90-100 cd/m^2, my prints look "too dark" under the variety of lighting conditions in which I view them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not if the viewing booth is producing a decent LUX value as seen in my illustration where the GTI booth is set to 50% yet I need 150cd/m2 to produce a visual match. That booth has a dimmer so I can in theory get it higher and run the NEC at maybe 200 cd/m2. But why? All I gain is more heat and electric bills and less time between replacing the Fluorescent bulbs and the display. <br>

The other issue with really low luminance values like 90cd/m2 is its hard for many newer LCDs to hit that value. Its often well below their physical limitations of the backlight so now a curve in the LUT has to be used which is less than ideal, especially with lower end panels. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> A typical print might have a contrast range in the area of 200-300:1. Are you comparing your prints to the soft-proof representation on-screen?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Another area that some but not all display and calibration products can hit. With my NEC, I can again physically adjust the black level and white luminance for varying contrast ratio’s based on the paper/ink combo. Then switch on the fly in the SpectraView II software which updates the calibration and loads the correct associated ICC profile. I can build one for matt papers using say 175:1 and another for Luster at say 200:1. Much more effective soft proofing than forcing an 800:1 contrast ratio display using the simulate check boxes in Photoshop (hence the nickname, <em>make my images look like crap</em> button). </p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>"I even emailed Premier last week describing my printer and which profile(s) I should use for their paper type I'm using and they got me squared away with what to use (they told me to choose one of the Epson paper choices from the default list)."</p>

<p>When you say they got you "squared away" for the correct Epson paper selection for the paper you're using, it sounds like you maybe weren't "squared away" before that. If not then everything you' did before you got "squared away" was pretty much meaningless. If you start with the wrong Epson paper selection for the paper you're actually using then you'll have problems no matter how correctly you do everything else.<br>

FWIW, I have an NEC P221W monitor calibrated with SpectraView II and I print on an Epson 3800 (essentially the same printer you're using). My prints are excellent matches for what's on the monitor. Not perfect, they never will be because of the difference in the light sources, but very close in my normal viewing conditions. Have you read the detailed owner's manual for your NEC that is on the NEC web site? I printed it out and studied it pretty carefully before I calibrated the monitor for the first time. It contained some useful information and you might check it out if you haven't already.</p>

<p>Also, you might try using an Epson paper just to get to a point where you're happy with your prints. This would simplify things and keep variables to a minimum because you wouldn't have to worry about third-pary profiles, getting them properly loaded, etc. Then when you know you can make prints with an Epson paper that you're happy with, move on to using Premium or other non-Epson papers.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Steve,</p>

<p>It's clear that you don't understand the role of a print profile nor how to use it when printing. The "profiles" in the print driver are merely generic collections of settings for the speed, resolution, the amount and type of ink to lay down (e.g., glossy, semi-gloss, matte and plain paper). A print profile is designed to balance color for a particular brand/model of paper and printer (e.g., Epson Premium Luster/Epson 3880).</p>

<p>A print profile adjusts each "color" sent from the computer to the printer over the entire range of densities - a complex correction factor or LUT* (look-up-table). It is completely independent of the color space (sRGB, Adobe RGB, etc) or monitor profile. To use it properly, you must disable any color adjustments made by the print driver itself and enable that profile in the Photoshop (or PE) print dialog.</p>

<p>There are several ways to obtain a print profile. Paper manufacturers often have them for (free) download for popular printers. The 3880 is the gold-standard. In a pinch, you can use a profile for any other Epson printer using the same Ultrachrome inkset. You can purchase custom profiles from a variety of sources. Finally, you can make your own if you have a reflective color photometer (e.g., X-Rite Pro) device.</p>

<p>If the monitor is too bright for your room ambience, your prints will tend to be too dark. LCD displays can be very bright (> 300 cd), and most people like to work with the display set at 100-120 cd. I work at the high end of that range because I prefer to have the room light at a moderate level. A very dark room would require less, etc. Only the brightness of the print is affected, not its color balance.</p>

<p>6500K is a good white balance setting for most people. Too low and your prints will tend to be blue, and vice versa.</p>

<p>* An LUT can be a table like a spreadsheet or, more likely, a set of polynomial equations.</p>

[steve_t.1]

<p>Well folks, it's late and I've only had a few minutes to play around. I dropped the luminance to an arbitrary 100 and dropped the contrast ratio from 860:1 (default) to an arbitrary 300:1 and calibrated. Actual numbers after calibrating gave a luminance of 95.9 and a contrast ratio of 280:1. Compared my prints to the screen and other than a bit more warmth in the print vs. a bit more cool on the screen, we're darn close now. More tweaking when I get time in the coming days and I think I'll be much closer to where I want to be.</p>

<p>Brian- with contacting Premier about their paper and what profile to use, I did this before I ever put the first sheet of Premier paper in the printer. For the Premier Premium Photo Micropore Luster 10.4 Mil photo paper I bought, their response was to choose the profile for Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, so that's what I've done. (Yes, I wondered too as to why they want me to use Epson's glossy paper profile for their luster paper, maybe I'll experiment.)</p>

<p>Edward- you are dead on, I don't understand, hence my frustration and search for the magic bullet, genie/lantern, etc. (I want to know what time it is, not how to build a wristwatch.) I am admittedly a weak "book learner", I learn much better by doing than by reading, so as I struggle through the manuals from Epson and NEC and "Dummies" books and this message board, etc, it only adds to my frustration. The ideal situation would be to have someone authoritative and knowledgeable (a teacher) stand right behind me and say, "Push this button for this result and that button for that result", and then I could achieve the result I desire. Reading and comprehending "Insert tab A into slot B" for me is easy. Reading "Grasp the polygon shaped extension of the cellulose mat material between the thumb and forefinger of your left hand and manipulate it to engagement with the through-scored opening of the second cellulose mat material while orienting the second cellulose mat material with your right hand just below and parallel to the polygon shaped extension of the first cellulose mat material..." is difficult for me to comprehend. (Cripes, I had to re-read my own word there 3 times!) Yes, an obscene comparison for me to draw, but that's just the way my brain works. Reading "drop the luminance level to ### and maybe the contrast level ratio to ### and see if that works" makes fast and perfect sense to me, and that is what I've done. Not perfect yet, but much better. Now I feel I'm heading in the right direction. I am willing to bet that more "photographer wannabees" are in the same boat with me than would want to admit, so questions like this get asked from time to time and a ton of possible answers and speculation are provided and hopefully in the end more than the original poster learned a little something.</p>

<p>Polynomial equation? I stopped listening to the math teacher long before I was force-fed that kind of information. Or rather he lost me long before getting to that sort of thing.</p>

<p>And what is a "soft proof" that someone asked me about? "Did I compare my print to my soft proof?" Is the soft proof the image on the screen I just told the computer to send to the printer to print? Where/how do I see a soft proof and what does it do for me? (Isn't learning fun?) Anyway...</p>

<p>Thanks again everyone. I'll give an update in the coming days.</p>

[photomark]

Steve, I don't think Elements will give you a soft proof. In Photoshop, the soft proof tried to simulate how

the colors will look on a different device like a printer by using the device's profile. It can be helpful at

times.