Monitor-Print Matching: Please Verify This Solution

[jim kitchen]

Jim, I get the same results as you: what I see on my monitor, is what I get in the print.

Dear Ken,

I forgot about that test image. I used one a few years back to test the different master printers abilities...

jim k

[jim kitchen]

No one on the planet knows more about color management, it's strengths, weaknesses, and how make it work than Steve Upton and his people at Chromix. I would take anything they say very seriously. I'm not sure about the particular quote, out of context.
A monitor to print match is not particularly enhanced by the use of a RIP. I would suspect that things are working well for Jim because of adherence to good color management practices, a good monitor, and the well made profiles that preview successfully for him supplied by ColorByte for use with the RIP. I'd bet money that the same setup, sans RIP, but with output profiles for the OEM driver of equal quality injected into the same environment would also be successful for him.
LCD monitors, and the popularity of laptops in particular, have complicated this entire issue...
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

Dear Tyler,

I do not doubt Steve's abilities...

That said, I understand you are an exceptional printer too, where you can create a full range black and white image that are very luminous because of your diligent blending process, and your choice of ink set. I do have an appreciation for your rip-less statement because I understand what you must do to achieve an excellent image in this manner. I tried the independent rip-less avenue without success, matter of fact I failed miserably at that process, because I did not have the resources to continually tinker with the multitude of changing papers, and the available inks, nor was I prepared to pay the relentless overhead to maintain the digital printing equipment going forward. I realized quickly that master printers such as Phil Bard and Jon Cone should handle that interest for me, when Cone inks were requested within my final image. Their work, their requirements, and their process are exceptional, and I do not regret that decision either. I can only believe that your finished images present the same quality.

Would I pursue that independent rip-less avenue on my own again? I do not think so...

I use the ImagePrint RIP through a local master printer, because that RIP's success ratio happens to be excellent with my paper choice. I use Phil Bard and the Cone Ink process too, because Phil can print a fabulous image. I use my ancient darkroom skills to present information that happens to be embedded within the original negative's digital file, and when I am ready to print the file, I pass this file to the expert printers to print without any adjustment.

jim k

[pherold]

Good questions in this thread. Let me clarify some things that were brought up:

Using a computer with a built-in monitor - like a laptop or an iMac - there can be a problem: The calibration software will turn the brightness all the way up, even if we have it turned down to match the level of paper.

Different software packages might have you turn the brightness up and then down, with the ultimate goal of getting you to hit the proper contrast level and your desired brightness level. Usually you are adjusting your on screen controls to bring your brightness down to whatever luminance value you set in the software's settings. Some software, like i1 Match's "Easy Mode" will not ask you what luminance you want to end up with, so it will leave your brightness completely alone. People going through this process can go through the steps of calibrating their display and end up with a screen that's really too bright - but think "I've calibrated my screen so I know it's right - why does everything still look wrong?"

Even with the advanced mode (and this is true for almost all monitor profiling software) they depend on you adjusting your own screen backlight until the 'pointer-thing is in the middle of the range'. If you don't or can't get the pointer thing in the middle (to good, or green, or zero) then your monitor will not be at your aim point for brightness even if you go through the rest of the calibration. Most of these software packages depend on you getting the brightness right with your own adjustment of the backlight.

So with a laptop or iMac, there is a viable solution.

I would not say the problem lies with monitors with built in computers.

Laptops are notoriously dim compared to their desktop cousins, and at the same time do not have as wide a color gamut than even the cheapest desktop model. So laptops are generally going to have this limitation after you calibrate it. A decent laptop can usually get to a luminance of 110 or 120 or so if necessary.

iMacs for whatever reason have a brightness range that bottoms out around 200 cd/m2. So if you turn down the brightness as far as the F1 button will take it, it is still quite a bit brighter than most home viewing environments - which are going to want something around 100 - 120 or so. Note that I have also seen this on some desktop displays too, even some of the well known ones. Turn them all the way down, and they're still too bright.

This article could be better if they explained what they meant by comments such as this: "ColorEyes Display Pro is available as software-only, which is handy for those who already have a colorimeter device - although still a bit of a shock for someone who thought they had this color stuff all figured out until they bought their latest new LCD display." That statement is misleading, because there are no issues.

Here is what I hear from people who have issues. A typical scenario is that they have bought a new iMac. They know they need to calibrate their monitor so they buy a Spyder or an i1 or an Optix or a Munki. They calibrate their display but their prints are still too dark compared to their display that is still too light. I am in the unenviable situation of having to tell them they bought the wrong software package for their display. (Or worse, that they might have to buy something MORE!) ColorEyes Display Pro makes use of the computer graphics card to bring down the brightness of the display. And it works with most of the devices already out there, so at least you don't have to buy it bundled with another colorimeter.

Finally, as Ken aluded to - this My Printer is too Dark is actually a followup to a previous article called How Do I Get My Printer To Match My Screen? which is also available at www.colorwiki.com

[Tyler Boley]

Jim, I did not mean to take issue with your post, was just hoping to make a bit more sense of it, I don't think I explained myself well. First of all, I actually became involved in color management even before monochromatic ink printing. The very first mono inkset available, from MIS for the old 3000, was not yet available when I first began trying to make a print that looked anything like my monitor. It's been an adventure, my hair is grayer. Since my first darkroom love was B&W, I then quickly glommed onto special ink processes as they came along. Anyway, along with the black and white work, I do a great deal of color as well. I make use of a RIP for all of that work, color or B&W.
The point I was really trying to make, is that your current success is due to ColorByte's mastery of color management for you to make use of with their product, not the simple fact that a RIP is part of the workflow..
They do all the work for you that you admit was overwhelming (I wholeheartedly agree, for the vast majority of artists). My suspicion is that the same degree of color management mastery applied to a non-RIP workflow would also be successful in terms of this specific thread- monitor to print match. That was really my only point. But then since there is really no comparable workflow package available with all that great work done for you, sans RIP, it's moot.
Phil is an old friend, even though we are only a few hours away, we both work too much to stay in contact as much as we should. Please say hello to him.

Back to monitors... my dilemma is that CRT technology was replaced with something that can barely approach the previous standard at an absurdly increased cost. More "progress". My old Diamond Pro is still limping along. It was $900, a new tech monitor that can equal it's performance is maybe an Eizo, for much much more. Someday I'll have to take the plunge, along with newer generation printers, Macs, and OSs and Adobe versions. Yikes.
But also I have a powerbook, an iMac at home, and a Samsung LCD in the other room, none of them seem to calibrate/profile well, but they were affordable. I'd just hate to have to count on them for softproofing. It all seems like several steps backwards.
Maybe Pat has some input on that "state of the art" and where things may be going.
Also, in a forum with this level of workers, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying there's nothing like a work print, made out of the final materials, that hasn't changed.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

[jim kitchen]

Dear Tyler,

I did not believe that you took an issue with my post, nor did I take issue with yours...

So, please excuse me, as I take liberty adding my words to your comment to complete a phrase, where I agree that "ColorByte's mastery of color management" allows me to use "ImagePrint's masterful RIP" to print images that happen to be "what I see is what I get." I believe that a powerful effective RIP must be used within the digital image maker's process flow, where the RIP must be an invisible function, complete with zero artifacts, allowing the image maker the opportunity to lay an image down on their paper choice without effort.

I also believe that the RIP could be replaced by a talented craftsperson and, or a craftsperson that wants to explore their own creative methods. Would I like to do that? No I would not...

As a side note, I knew that if I abandoned my darkroom, I would be forced to find a process that would allow me to control the finished print from the time I saw the image through my viewing card to the moment I signed, and dated the matted image. I must confess I was not overwhelmed by the thought of the newer printing process, but I was totally unprepared and totally overwhelmed by the quality control maintenance issues, the outrageous cost of the materials, the print head's periodic decision to take a five-minute mental break, and the cost of a get-by-mindset. My day is naturally consumed with many engineering type adventures and I did not want a friggin printer running interference patterns at the end of a very long day, so I decided to make a decision...

I could continue to use the printer and work with the presented nuances and, or I could relinquish that bed bug process to a master printer. I chose the latter, where I will say hello to Phil shortly. That said, and finally chatting about monitors, there are a few choices that a user can make, regarding "calibration" monitors. Calibration monitors are a different breed driven by different engines, and their cost can reflect that difference, where consumer LCD and the newer LED monitors can be priced within a wide dynamic range also. My current monitor will point its pixels skyward within the year, and I expect that I will make a decision to replace the monitor before that event occurs.

Thank you for taking the time to respond...


jim k

[Big Fish]

To all of the above in this thread...

Any experience and thoughts on Colormunki For PC.

Thanks.

Big Fish

[Ken Lee]

I tested ImagePrint RIP on my Epson 2400, and found it no better than the custom profile I had made for my printer/paper combination, by CHROMiX. It doesn't offer anything special in the WYSIWYG department, once you learn how to get the monitor brightness down to match the paper.

So for me, at this time, the RIP has no special advantage.

However... if I were batch-printing a lot of images with special orientation - a variety of sizes at the same time, to economize on paper and labor - I am sure that the RIP would pay for itself in quick time. Similarly, if I used a large format printer, where every sheet is a substantial expense, a RIP would be a necessity.