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.

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.