Should prints be darker than a calibrated monitor?

[david_lee2]

Hello -

 

How close should I be able to get in terms of matching my prints from

my Epson 1270 to what I see on my monitor?

 

I bought a printer profile for my printer/paper (1270/Epson Premium

Gloss) combination from inkjetmall.com. After I installed that, I

used the ColorVision Spyder to calibrate my monitor (a Trinitron).

 

After I made some test prints, I noticed that the prints turned out

darker than what showed on the monitor. The prints weren't

unsatisfactorily dark, but noticeably. Is this normal, or should I

be expecting pretty much WYSIWYG?

 

 

Thanks,

[ellis_vener_photography]

have you profiled your monitor? with something better than Adobe Gamma?

[steven_clark]

Yes he has, a spyder, he said so already.

 

Were the lights on or off when you did the calibration?

[scott_garfield]

Are you using Photoshop 7? If so, did you Soft Proof first with simulate Paper White box checked? If not then you will not get WYSIWYG. You can't expect to see the same brightness from a piece of paper as you do from a monitor...hence the Soft Proof feature.

[graphicjoe]

Even with soft proofing and correct calibration throughout the system the monitor will be capable of showing a greater range of brightness than will paper, particularly papers that are not glossy or luster finish.

 

You should get the same (nearly) colors, but the appearance can still vary owing to the difference of brightness and range of luminosity.

cheers,

 

Joe

[jorge]

David,

 

While prints are naturally darker than a monitor -reflected vs. transmitted light, they should fairly match perceptually. At least both my 1270 and my 2200 prints do to my Viewsonic E90 monitor adjusted visually by means of the Viewsonic supplied utility (only a bit more sophisticated than Adobe Gamma) and factory calibrated card that came with the monitor. I guess you might be doing a double profile correction. Are you using Photoshop 7?

[qtluong]

Maybe try a better light source for viewing your prints, one that

is bright and has a controled color temperature ? If your screen is

calibrated/profiled, but the light source for viewing the prints is

not, how can you make comparisons ?

There are excellent print viewers made by Just Normlicht, but if you don't want

to spend too much, an Ott-Lite is decent, and most likely better than

what you have. <a href = "http://www.terragalleria.com">Terra Galleria stock photography</a>

[sk_arts]

Are you viewing the print in normal viewing conditions? I'd suggest installing

an overhead flourescent light and using daylight corrected bulbs.

 

You don't need to spend thousands on a viewing booth, but if you can find

one in your price range it would be useful. You can also make them, I made

one and found it better than nothing.

 

Still this is likely the least of your problems. And there is prob some other hole

in your loop. I havn't quite figured out the whole modern color management

circus yet, so i can't help you as much as I'd like.

 

Make sure your profile matches the inkset you are using.

[Spearhead]

You should try the Epson profile rather than the one from inkjetmall.com. The Epson ones are free and may be better than the ones you bought. You can get the Epson profiles from <a href="http://www.computer-darkroom.com/media_profiles/media_print_1.htm">this page.</a><p>

 

I'd recommend taking the prints outside before installing expensive lighting.

[david_lee2]

I admittedly didn't do the calibration (nor am I viewing) under controlled conditions - just my room which was lit by daylight. I also have tungsten bulbs in the room, so I realize my setup is not ideal for calibration.

 

I am using PS 7, and did turn on Proof Colors.

 

The print doesn't look bad by any means, it just looks darker than what was on my screen.

 

I take it from the answers that the print should match with what the monitor shows, then?

 

I'll try the Epson profiles as well.

 

Thanks for your help.

[sk_arts]

David-

 

Also, the paper matters a lot, esp in over all tone. Different papers have different dot gain. That will most certainly affect the dullness of a print. Not really a solution, but perhaps a reason.

[cliff_rames]

I am guessing that you view your monitor in a room with dim lighting. If I am right, then the differences you see in tonality might have to do with the differences in viewing environment of monitor and print.

 

When a monitor is viewed in a dim or dark surround or environment, simultaneous contrast effects reduce the perceived contrast compared to what you would see in an average or bright print-viewing environment.

 

Since Photoshop has no compensation for a dim or dark monitor viewing environent, what happens while editing is that you tend to compensate for the lower contrast seen in the monitor by building more contrast into the image. This extra contrast looks good on the monitor but then becomes more than needed when the image is printed, so you get a darker print.

 

To get the monitor and print to match under those viewing conditions, you would need to increase the gamma of the monitor image to about 1.25 for a dim surround, or more for a dark surround. With a dim surround, try adjusting the middle slider in Levels to .8 and see if you get a better match to the unadjusted print. (Photoshop's middle slider in Levels gives you 1/gamma). Or try lightening the image for printing with the middle slider set to 1.15 or 1.25 and compare the print to the unlightened monitor image.

 

The other way to get monitor and print to match is to view the monitor in an average surround environment, where the surround is as bright as the monitor. This is actually what Adobe recommends for Photoshop. The problem with this approach is avoiding reflections and glare off the screen that have the effect of nullifying the gain in contrast from the brighter environment. Isn't it because of glare that most people edit under subdued illumination?

 

Most color management experts and standards organizations recommend a fairly dark editing environment. The problem is, it is apparent that Photoshop will not give an optimal preview in such an environment, especially if your monitor is calibrated and profiled in the standard way with a Spyder or other instrument. If instead you were to do a visual calibration with Adobe Gamma you could achieve increased monitor contrast by lowering the monitor brightness (black level) or playing around with the gamma settings to improve the match to the print. Ironically, since this visual compensation doesn't occur with an instrument calibration, you're more likely to see the contrast/surround mismatch after calibrating with a Spyder. At least, that's what happened to me.

 

I tried to work around this by changing the gamma of the monitor LUT without changing the gamma of the monitor profile (you can do this with Optical). This can fix the tone reproduction but throws the colors off a little. There won't be a good solution until features of "color appearance models" such as CIECAM02 become part of the workflow.

 

Regards,

[steve_hovland]

Does it make sense to develop some kind of adjustment factor to be applied to any file before you print it?

[sk_arts]

Yes steve- that is a super common prepress thing to do and is the major reason why the "save curves" button exists.

 

In fact, I cannot really imagine not having some predefined correction in even the more perfectly calibrated situation. "Perfect" and "Calibration" are oxymorons.

[steve_hovland]

So why not skip the expense of calibration altogether?

 

The lab that prints my digital files wants a guide print anyway, with an indication of what to match.

[imaginator]

In my opinion, it is pointless unless you know what light will be used to view the print when it's displayed. Because of this, I've decided to make two versions of my files for printing: daylight and tungsten. The daylight version is basically close to screen version, but the tungsten version is the tricky one. There is very little blue and green in this type of light. If I give a print as a gift, I won't know how it will end up being displayed, so I'm considering giving one of each version and letting them deicde which looks best. If I am selling prints, I will offer a choice of either, and also suggest halogen bulbs to bring out the best of the tungsten versions. For T-shirt transfers, I'll use the daylight version, or maybe a "midway" version. You could create an "all-environment" version, but it will never look as good as one matched to the lighting used. Unfortunately, a common scenario might be a room with natural light during the day, and tungsten light after dark. This is a good test, and by giving sets of prints as a gift(one daylight, on tungsten) I hope to get some feedback about what looks best. It's all subjective anyway. Too bad everyone doesn't use Chroma50 (a daylight fluorescent bulb) to light their homes. Skylights are getting very popular, but unfortunately, the compact fluorescent bulbs that are also very popular are mostly made in "warm white" (specifically to mimic tungsten) I've found daylight ones on the net, but haven't seen them in the stores yet. One last thought: when you view your prints (regardless of what light you use) give your eyes a moment to adjust... close them after looking the screen and wait a minute before looking at the print.

[ethan hansen]

David,

 

If the prints were much darker than the screen, the profile is hosed. Was this a profile made for *your* printer, or one made for Inkjetmall's? If the latter, the profile will only be accurate if your printer, ink, and paper are exact clones of the combination the profile was made for.

 

Next, however, evaluate your monitor and viewing environment. If you use OptiCal, you have the option of dialing down the maximum contrast (white level) of the display. Get this in the 85-90 cd/m^2 range for a normal viewing environment. Go up to 95 if you work in a brightly lit space (but consider dimming the lights!).

 

Let's compare on-screen white to your paper white. Make a white document in Photoshop. Soft proof to your printer profile using Absolute Colorimetric rendering and Simulate Paper White. Go into full screen mode with all menues and palettes hidden (F and TAB keys). Dandy. Plop a blank sheet of your paper in whatever you are using to evaluate the prints. Compare brightness levels. Most light boxes are too bright and need either a dimmer or creative use of scrims to knock the intensity down. You may have the opposite problem, where you need brighter light in your print evaluation area. A small Solux task light can do wonders.