Ok... What am I doing wrong

[argos33]

I have been printing on several Epson printers, a 4000, 4880, and 9800. Basically all have issues with printing correct colors and I can't seem to figure out what I am doing wrong here. These are the steps I've taken for color calibrating each printer/computer but the colors are still off, most noticeably a little bit desaturated, or slight color shifts, including the B&W images:

1. Calibrated monitors using Spyder3 Elite system.
2. Calibrated paper type using "expert target" as well as adding the "extended grays target"
3. Working and image color spaces are Adobe RGB 1998
4. When printing, photoshop manages colors, I then select the profile I created for that paper (using the spyder3), relative colormetric with black point compensation. I then choose the appropriate media (recommended by paper manufacturer) and turn off printer color correction.
5. I print the image and....it sucks. It is usually somewhat close to the image on the monitor only desaturated and often with a slight to moderate color shift.

NOTE:
-The inks in the printers are all new
-I get the same results after cleaning and making sure the heads are aligned and nozzles cleaned.
-One computer is an imac, the other is a new G5 with cinema display
-The room is clean, stays at a constant 68ish, and has a humidifier (it is dry here in Colorado)

SUSPICIONS:
-One of the only things I can think of is that I am not waiting long enough for the printed targets to dry before reading them. Since I am printing on Epson Premium Luster paper, which advertises "instant dry" I only waited an hour or 2 before reading the target. Could this make such a difference? Should I let it sit overnight?
-The lighting in the room is fairly bright, overhead florescents. Perhaps the lighting is affecting the calibrating and/or viewing process?

Or perhaps the moons are not perfectly aligned for printing tonight....

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

Evan

[Greg Lockrey]

Or perhaps the moons are not perfectly aligned for printing tonight.

That sounds like it to me. :rolleyes:

Seriously, without actually seeing what you are talking about it would be very hard to decern accurately what you need to do. There are just too many things to mess things up.

[neil poulsen]

Tell us more about how you created your profile with the Spyder 3. I'm not that familiar with this unit. What's a brief description of the process? I suspect this is your point of vulnerability.

[Brian Ellis]

I agree with both Greg and Neil. Printing problems are difficult to diagnose without seeing the image, preferably a "before" and "after," and even then it's hard because monitors aren't all the same and there's so many things that can go wrong. But if you're creating your own profiles my guess is that's where the problem lies. Like Neil, I'm not familiar with using Sypder 3 to create paper profiles. Have you tried just using the paper manufacturers' profiles?

[Charles Carstensen]

Have your tried printing with paper manufacturer ColorSync paper profile? Under Print Settings/media settings use the OEM recommendation for media type and turn high speed off. Under Color Management be sure to save after setting the radio button to NCA. Just a suggestion to give yourself a base for tweaking you own media profile.

[Joanna Carter]

Like Neil, I'm not familiar with using Sypder 3 to create paper profiles.
Likewise, I would not expect anyone to make paper profiles with the Spyder3Elite; I use the Spyder3Print and never have any problems.

[keith english]

Like Greg said, difficult to know what you mean by "sucks" and "slight to moderate" without seeing them. I use the Spyder system and have been generally happy with it. My guess would be the monitor calibration since their is still a lot of subjective settings in the brightness, saturation etc. I had to turn the brightness down a bit to match prints and go back to factory defaults on everything else, then let the spyder calibrate from there.

[Lenny Eiger]

I have been printing on several Epson printers, a 4000, 4880, and 9800. Basically all have issues with printing correct colors and I can't seem to figure out what I am doing wrong here. These are the steps I've taken for color calibrating each printer/computer but the colors are still off, most noticeably a little bit desaturated, or slight color shifts, including the B&W images:

1. Calibrated monitors using Spyder3 Elite system.
2. Calibrated paper type using "expert target" as well as adding the "extended grays target"
3. Working and image color spaces are Adobe RGB 1998
4. When printing, photoshop manages colors, I then select the profile I created for that paper (using the spyder3), relative colormetric with black point compensation. I then choose the appropriate media (recommended by paper manufacturer) and turn off printer color correction.
5. I print the image and....it sucks. It is usually somewhat close to the image on the monitor only desaturated and often with a slight to moderate color shift.

NOTE:Evan

There are a few things I would say. the first and most important is that you may have your expectations too high. Printer calibration is far from perfect in today's technology - there is a lot of marketing hype. There really isn't a way to print exactly what you see on the monitor, and it doesn't matter. The print is the final product. It's like looking at a darkroom print in the dark - and imagining what it will look like in the light, dry. Over time, many photographers get good at estimating this. However, the estimation isn't the product, the print is. It's either too dark or it isn't.

You seem to want to move things to a more professional level. I may be reading in to this, but thats what it sounds like to me.

A Spyder3 Elite system is ok. It isn't the same as a EyeOne or other more expensive systems. The paper you are using is also ok, that would be kind. The are many better papers. Hahnemuhle and Crane both have baryta coated papers that are excellent. Black and White doesn't come out properly unless you use black and white inks. These factors all contribute... To move to another level, Eizo monitors, your own profiling equipment, learning how to use it all is usually an expensive and long journey.

But it all comes down to this.. You can fix what's wrong, especially if it is slight as you say, by tuning your brain to see a slightly undersaturated, color shifted (the other way) image when you are looking at the screen. Use your Curves and Hue/Saturation to get the print right. Only half look at the monitor, and don't expect it to all happen on the first print. Then it should work out fine...

Just my 2cents

Lenny

[PenGun]

There are a few things I would say. the first and most important is that you may have your expectations too high. Printer calibration is far from perfect in today's technology - there is a lot of marketing hype. There really isn't a way to print exactly what you see on the monitor, and it doesn't matter. The print is the final product. It's like looking at a darkroom print in the dark - and imagining what it will look like in the light, dry. Over time, many photographers get good at estimating this. However, the estimation isn't the product, the print is. It's either too dark or it isn't.

You seem to want to move things to a more professional level. I may be reading in to this, but thats what it sounds like to me.

A Spyder3 Elite system is ok. It isn't the same as a EyeOne or other more expensive systems. The paper you are using is also ok, that would be kind. The are many better papers. Hahnemuhle and Crane both have baryta coated papers that are excellent. Black and White doesn't come out properly unless you use black and white inks. These factors all contribute... To move to another level, Eizo monitors, your own profiling equipment, learning how to use it all is usually an expensive and long journey.

But it all comes down to this.. You can fix what's wrong, especially if it is slight as you say, by tuning your brain to see a slightly undersaturated, color shifted (the other way) image when you are looking at the screen. Use your Curves and Hue/Saturation to get the print right. Only half look at the monitor, and don't expect it to all happen on the first print. Then it should work out fine...

Just my 2cents

Lenny

I think you need to keep in mind the difference between reflected and transmitted light. That is why I don't bother getting the monitor more than fairly close as it will never show you what you actually print.

So that's your secret. White ink .... why didn't I think of that. ;)

[Joanna Carter]

Printer calibration is far from perfect in today's technology - there is a lot of marketing hype. There really isn't a way to print exactly what you see on the monitor...
Sorry Lenny, I would disagree. It took a while to get to grips with it but now I do get pretty darned close.

[argos33]

Thanks everyone for your replies, I will try some of your suggestions. Overall I am quite happy with the results I get, even just using the paper manufacturer's profiles. I realize that the system is far from perfect, it is just that some of the calibrated papers seemed spot on, so I was wondering if they should all be as close. However, I am realizing that I get much better results with the nicer papers like Gold Fibre Silk, so I am going to print more on those in the future.

[Bob McCarthy]

what does the image look like when you soft proof?

In Photoshop

view > proof setup > custom > navigate to profile > save profile and label

<apple> Y will toggle back and forth

that may give you a clue.

bob

[mandoman7]

There are a few things I would say. the first and most important is that you may have your expectations too high. Printer calibration is far from perfect in today's technology - there is a lot of marketing hype. There really isn't a way to print exactly what you see on the monitor, and it doesn't matter. The print is the final product. It's like looking at a darkroom print in the dark - and imagining what it will look like in the light, dry. Over time, many photographers get good at estimating this. However, the estimation isn't the product, the print is. It's either too dark or it isn't.

You seem to want to move things to a more professional level. I may be reading in to this, but thats what it sounds like to me.

A Spyder3 Elite system is ok. It isn't the same as a EyeOne or other more expensive systems. The paper you are using is also ok, that would be kind. The are many better papers. Hahnemuhle and Crane both have baryta coated papers that are excellent. Black and White doesn't come out properly unless you use black and white inks. These factors all contribute... To move to another level, Eizo monitors, your own profiling equipment, learning how to use it all is usually an expensive and long journey.

But it all comes down to this.. You can fix what's wrong, especially if it is slight as you say, by tuning your brain to see a slightly undersaturated, color shifted (the other way) image when you are looking at the screen. Use your Curves and Hue/Saturation to get the print right. Only half look at the monitor, and don't expect it to all happen on the first print. Then it should work out fine...

Just my 2cents

Lenny


Lenny's point is one that won't be popular. People like to spend money in hopes of avoiding the trial and error tedium of fine printing. Like Lenny, I've had many occasions of volume printing where you get to the point that you are intuitively making adjustments for what you're seeing on the monitor. You get to that point after maybe 4 hours of printing, and then you're ready to print the show for real.

I spent about $400 for calibration a few years ago and it didn't help my workflow, really. No matter what you do there are still things happening in the process that require judgement and a critical eye. In that sense, I find the digital workflow not all that different from the old darkroom days. You don't get it in the first and probably not the second print. That truth will persist I will predict.

JY

[Lenny Eiger]

Sorry Lenny, I would disagree. It took a while to get to grips with it but now I do get pretty darned close.

I'm happy for you. It's all good. No facetiousness intended...

Unfortunately, it's very hard to quantify. I've matched things with a viewing booth, and turning down the lights in the room until I was ready to go to sleep. I choose not to do it this way. I don't like low lighting, and I don't find that anyone to whom I sell my work has a viewing booth that they want to show it in.

Then there is the issue of what you call a good print. Please don't take this in the wrong way - I am not trying to suggest you are less than a great printer - I mean no disrespect. However, how would I know, without seeing your prints if you are interested in the same critical level? What is the level of tolerance? I don't think we have the words to describe tolerance in this context.

I have all the stuff, EyeOne, iOTable, 10K worth of calibration and RIP software. I have talked it over with some of the finest minds in the calibration world, some people who in invented part of what we use... It isn't what I call a match. Once I matched up the curves in ColorThink so they were all perfectly aligned. The test print was awful. I called the guy who wrote the program and we had a nice conversation... what he said was "Well, its just a guide." $400 program... A month of trying to get those right with the profiling software.... Now I make a few moves and look at the print.

Maybe you just got lucky and everything fell into place. I have no reason to doubt it. However, I know a lot of people struggle with this, hopefully some of them will appreciate that pros struggle with it too.

Lenny

[Greg Lockrey]

Lenny's point is one that won't be popular. People like to spend money in hopes of avoiding the trial and error tedium of fine printing. Like Lenny, I've had many occasions of volume printing where you get to the point that you are intuitively making adjustments for what you're seeing on the monitor. You get to that point after maybe 4 hours of printing, and then you're ready to print the show for real.

I spent about $400 for calibration a few years ago and it didn't help my workflow, really. No matter what you do there are still things happening in the process that require judgement and a critical eye. In that sense, I find the digital workflow not all that different from the old darkroom days. You don't get it in the first and probably not the second print. That truth will persist I will predict.

JY

I dittoes this statement also. I get "close" with the monitor but the proof is still on the "proof" like I did it in the good old wet days.

[Ken Allen]

I have several stations, some with mid level monitors, some with Eizo. I use the EyeOne pro for monitor calibration, and sometimes I calibrate manually (Mac). I outsource the printer calibration to Eric Chan. Since I print for many different people I have different experiences. The more average (talking technically, think full tone, standard colors) an image is, the better everything matches. But when you have difficult images, dark, or unique color ranges, or difficult gradations, the less of a match. And the difficult images are the ones that need the precise control.

In short it's all relative. Having better equipment and processes does improve your chance to match, but the more challenging a situation the less you can expect from the system and the more you have to rely on printing tests.