Help with printing

[Greg Gibbons]

I'm sure this is another pretty obvious question, but it's vexed me for several prints and a couple days, so...

I'm printing a photo on an Epson 4880, and the color is way off. I'm not talking an artistic nuance, this is like I've saturated things to the point of cartoonishness.
I've tried having the printer manage color, photoshop manage color, color management off. I've made sure the paper type is correct, and it's printing on the correct side, but it looks terrible. It looks great on the screen (iMac OS X for what it's worth). Suggestions?

[Greg Gibbons]

Uh, ok, nevermind. Print head cleaning seems to have fixed it.
See? I knew it was something dumb.

[onnect17]

Greg, allow me to suggest to always do a "Nozzle Check" before you start the printing session.
It will save you a lot of time and paper.

[Greg Gibbons]

I have a new problem, but similar, so I'm posting in the same thread:

My prints look much darker on the printer than on the screen.
I've done a nozzle check - it's fine. I've gone through the simple calibrations on the monitor. I've tried printing with the printer managing color, and with photoshop managing the color, and they all come out the same. Again, this isn't a subtle taste thing (I know it's never exact) - it's really dark and muddy. I can correct (mostly) by making the screen version really really bright, but that's a bad solution.

I'm just positive if someone who knew what they were doing saw this, they'd know exactly what I'm doing wrong, but I can't find it for the life of me.

Help?

[SteveKarr]

Hey,
Inkjetart.com will do a profile for like $25 bucks. It is the bast money you will ever spend. OF SHo!

[alex from holland]

I have a new problem, but similar, so I'm posting in the same thread:

My prints look much darker on the printer than on the screen.
I've done a nozzle check - it's fine. I've gone through the simple calibrations on the monitor. I've tried printing with the printer managing color, and with photoshop managing the color, and they all come out the same. Again, this isn't a subtle taste thing (I know it's never exact) - it's really dark and muddy. I can correct (mostly) by making the screen version really really bright, but that's a bad solution.

I'm just positive if someone who knew what they were doing saw this, they'd know exactly what I'm doing wrong, but I can't find it for the life of me.

Help?

Mostly this is caused by 2 things.

your screen is way of

or you are using a wrong setup in your driver.

do you have any ICC profiles ?
Did this happened before or is this the first time using your printer

alex

[Greg Miller]

First things first, is your monitor calibrated and profiled? If not then you can do everything else correctly and still end up with a print that looks very different than what you see on your monitor.

If it is, use Photoshop Manages Color and Color Management Off. Assuming you do not have a custom printer profile for the paper you are using, point to the printer profile provided by the paper manufacturer for your printer/paper combination, and set the paper type based on what the paper manufacturer indicated for the printer profile. Rendering intent will usually be Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual.
If you do all this your print should be pretty close to what you see on your monitor, although it isn't uncommon for people to perceive that their print is slightly darker than the image on the monitor.

[PAllen]

I agree with Greg Miller's advice. Also, what kind of monitor are you using?

You can also do a soft proof in Photoshop which will at least give you an idea of how the image is going to look when printed on the specific paper you are using. To do this go to View>Proof Setup>Custom. In the dialog box select the paper profile for the specific paper you will be using. If you do not have a custom profile use the profile from the paper manufacturer, usually downloaded from their site. Select "Perceptual" or "Relative" for the rendering intent; Black point compensation; And Simulate paper color. Save this so that you can easily select it in the future.

Go to View>Proof Setup and select the saved profile you just made. To toggle the soft proof on and off, press command+Y. The resulting view is how the monitor is interpreting how the image will look on that specific paper. Of course it is not exact, after all, you are viewing an illuminated monitor which is very different from a photographic print, but it can certainly help in your print workflow, and help to identify problems you are having with print accuracy.

Best,
Patrick Allen
www.KenAllenDigital.com

[Greg Gibbons]

Great help everyone, I can't thank you all enough. I really couldn't solve it without you.

Following Greg Miller's advice, I re-calibrated my monitor, and that did the trick. I don't know how it got un-calibrated, but my son plays WoW on my computer so who knows? :p

I have an iMac, and I just used the Mac calibration routine. It seems to have done a pretty good job. Anyone think I should pop for calibration hardware?

Also, thanks Patrick! I'd have saved a lot of printing if I'd known about soft proofs before.

[Brian Ellis]

I have a new problem, but similar, so I'm posting in the same thread:

My prints look much darker on the printer than on the screen.
I've done a nozzle check - it's fine. I've gone through the simple calibrations on the monitor. I've tried printing with the printer managing color, and with photoshop managing the color, and they all come out the same. Again, this isn't a subtle taste thing (I know it's never exact) - it's really dark and muddy. I can correct (mostly) by making the screen version really really bright, but that's a bad solution.

I'm just positive if someone who knew what they were doing saw this, they'd know exactly what I'm doing wrong, but I can't find it for the life of me.

Help?

What paper/printer profile are you using? What does "simple" calibration mean?

When prints are off it's often because your monitor isn't properly calibrated using a good calibration system such as Spyder III Pro or EyeOne or because you aren't using a color profile that's matched to your paper and printer. The manufacturer of your paper may have a profile for your printer on its web site that you can download.

If your monitor is properly calibrated and you're using the paper manufacturer's profile (or have had a custom profile made) then you probably have some setting wrong in your color software or in Photoshop. You should let Photoshop manage color and turn color management off in the printer.

You do need tor realize that your monitor is back-lit and your prints are lit by reflective light. So there's never going to be a 100% exact match between monitor and printer. But it should be very very close, like maybe 95%, certainly close enough so that by viewing the monitor you know what the print will look like.

[jim kitchen]

I have an iMac, and I just used the Mac calibration routine. It seems to have done a pretty good job. Anyone think I should pop for calibration hardware?

Dear Greg,

The answer depends upon your absolute needs, where I would try to recommend that you incorporate a calibration software package that adds value to your image making process, but that economic decision will be answered by yourself. There are a few good packages available, where I do however recommend ColorEyes Display Pro calibration software for your iMac. Their url is located here: http://www.integrated-color.com/cedpro/coloreyesdisplay.html

It is the best software to address your iMac's screen brightness and colour balance properly. I would suggest too that your review their forum group for further assistance. Although they recommend the Spyder 3, and now package the Spyder 3 with their software, I found that the older "DTP-64" calibration puck addresses the "White Balance" better. The authors of the software do acknowledge within their forum that the "DTP-64" is better, and many folks request the Spyder 3 calibration tool because they are told that they require a calibration tool that can accommodate the latest wide gamut screens. Unfortunately, I do not accept the Spyder 3 marketing hype nor did I see any improvement while using this calibration tool, matter of fact I do not have a desire to use the Spyder 3 calibration tool. I too find the "DTP-64" better with the monitor's white balance.

If you have access to a "DTP-64" through an associate, I would recommend that you try each calibration tool, and then make your own decision, based upon your results. My dissatisfaction with the Spyder 3 should not influence your decision. That said, each calibration tool has a distinct personality, and a properly calibrated monitor will add value to your long term image making routine.

Just my two pennies... :)

jim k

[Jim Burk]

I had the same problem when I started using the Color Munki. I calibrated my monitor during the day when the ambient light was stronger. The iMac screen was then fairly bright. My prints came out darker than the screen. I did another calibration with little or no ambient light, and the screen was darker, and matched the print almost exactly. Now when I do the final editing I make sure the screen is using the right color setup.

I get the closest match using soft proofing and letting PS manage the colors.

[pherold]

Just a little PS for Jim's post there: He's referring to the "DTP-94" puck (not 64).

For those still following this thread, we wrote a newsletter article that rolls together a lot of the things mentioned here (like soft-proofing, monitor brightness, nozzle checking, etc.) This tries to cover all the bases for why a printer would not match a monitor and what to do about it.

http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Printer_to_Match_my_Screen

[Jim Burk]

Pat,

I checked my Color Munki hardware and software, and could find no reference to "DTP-94" or "64". Do these have anything to do with the Color Munki, or with the Spyder 3, or something else. I assume that "puck" refers to the calibration hardware in general? The web site referenced three entries above never mentions the Color Munki.

Thanks,

Jim

[pherold]

I'm sorry Jim - I was actually referring to Jim Kitchen's post about the DTP-94 (which is a colorimeter and sometimes called an "optix" or "coloreye".) This is a particular kind of measurement hardware, like the Spyder or the i1Display 2. Your Munki is a slightly different device that is able to measure emissive light (from a computer screen) as well as reflective light (off the surface of paper).

The ColorEyes Display Pro software mentioned in the post above does not work with the ColorMunki device. This is unfortunate because it's otherwise a very good software for reducing the overly-bright iMacs during profiling. It works with just about every other device; just not the ColorMunki. But it sounds like you are able to get a good profile by calibrating in low ambient light, so you should be all set.

[Jim Burk]

Pat,

Thanks, I was getting confused there. I am fairly new to all this, so often confuse easily!

Jim