Strange parameters to get print screen match... 11000K

[gary alan]

Hoping to get some advise about something from you fine folk. Learning colour management and trying to get my workflow in good order, I am experiencing something which I think is quite wrong, going from everything I have learnt so far.

I am using an Eizo CG277, on board calibration device, calibrated with Color Navigator. Using quite generic parameters on 80 cm2 - minmum black point - gamut 2.2 - white point of 6500, everything on screen looks great, these are the setting I use to edit my images as a photographer.

So when I send to the printer, an Epson 9800 using Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl, I am getting a very different result back to what I would expect, also using correct custom icc profiles from a reputable dealer, and softproofing correctly. My prints are coming back extremely cool.

To get a side by side, screen to print match I need adjust my screen white point to over 10000K???

I have tried everything I can think of, do you think this is normal or should I be looking at something in particular?

To me it just seems strange to need to put my white point this high, I mean the screen to print is really good at a white point of 10000 but i know its not right, should I leave it and use it like that or is there a problem somewhere.

Any help getting me through, or even helping me understand where it is going wrong would be so helpfull. Thanks..

Should also add I have good ink levels, clear nozzels ect..

I have attached an image with my calibration.

 

[Puch]

There are many stages where this workflow might get derailed. First, check that you hand off images with profiles embedded, and the printing company use this profile (doesn't ignore it) when they open up your images. Ignoring profiles is still very common in many organizations, where the team's background lies predominantly in prepress. Try using very generic profiles first, like sRGB. If the image gets through reasonably well using sRGB then you can be sure that there is a phase when images lose their profiles.

Another check might be to ask for the printer's custom profile (you mentioned that they use something like that). You can softproof your images against this output profile right in Photoshop with reasonable accuracy.

Just as a sidenote: the very low screen brightness you use is only practical if you work in a total darkroom. Try using something higher (eg. 120 cd or 160 cd) to get a better match to the printed piece.

 

[pacart]

Have you calibrated the printer with the exact paper?

Assuming I have already calibrated my monitor to my requirements. I then calibrate my printer for the specific paper.

I have an Epson 9900, I print out the color patterns on the paper I need to use. I use my Xrite Colormunkie to measure each block on the print out. This will then create the correct settings within the icc profile for the paper.

When using the paper calibration, i turn off color management within the epson print dialogue. I don't use a rip.

 

[gary alan]

There are many stages where this workflow might get derailed. First, check that you hand off images with profiles embedded, and the printing company use this profile (doesn't ignore it) when they open up your images. Ignoring profiles is still very common in many organizations, where the team's background lies predominantly in prepress. Try using very generic profiles first, like sRGB. If the image gets through reasonably well using sRGB then you can be sure that there is a phase when images lose their profiles.

Another check might be to ask for the printer's custom profile (you mentioned that they use something like that). You can softproof your images against this output profile right in Photoshop with reasonable accuracy.

Just as a sidenote: the very low screen brightness you use is only practical if you work in a total darkroom. Try using something higher (eg. 120 cd or 160 cd) to get a better match to the printed piece.

Thanks Puch

I didn't state it directly but I do the printing myself, using my own 9800. I am very careful right from the raw file, I edit in 16 bit using the adobe RGB working space which is where it remains, embedded in the image. When I send it to the 9800 I am also as equally careful in selecting the right printer profiles usually using perceptual , the profiles of which are custom for the paper on the same printer, not this exact printer but another 9800. I have also tried the canned profiles from the paper manufacturer with the same result.

The low screen brightness serves the purpose of getting my contrast ratio down to meet the papers dynamic range. For example a 60cdm2 white / a 0.2 black = 300:1. If I were to use a setting of 120cdm2 / 0.2 black my contast ratio would be 600:1 ect ect. You can see from the attached image above my screens contrast ratio using those parameters is 460:1, high but low enough for the paper type. Using the monitors hardware calibration to get my screen brightness down (white point, not luminance) to match the dynamic range of the paper is by far a better option than using the simulate paper option in softproofing.

I should also note I use a different setting for my general editing, only switching to this calibration to softproof. Also I do in fact work in a very dark room with low ambient light.

From where I am looking I see all my ducks in a row (far be it from to say), still I cant see why I return such a different result. I am contemplating perhaps its my screen but it seems unlikely.

 

[pacart]

Well i think your prints are blue because of the 11k color temp, it isn't a normal environment to be working in.. I would look at your print settings and paper profiles next.

 

[Puch]

I see your points, Gary. That leaves two choices as far as I know. The first is to make a new custom profile using a chart which goes through the exact same way as your images. The ugly conversion somewhere in the process wil stay in place, but the resulting profile will compensate for it (mostly). The other way is to fiddle with operating systems/versions. I work with Macs, where updating/upgrading the OS happen to break parts of the color managements mechanism, sometime. I don't know what about this issue on Windows, though. I would try printing to the same engine from a laptop of a different breed, using the same profile.

Also, you may try using some RIPs to drive the engine, to pinpoint the problem. Most of the RIPs I know employ their own isolated color management sandbox, not relying on the host OS. Try this, for example:

http://www.shiraz-software.com/products/

 

[Correct Color]

First thing to remember is that unless you're doing something totally wrong -- using your monitor profile as your RGB working space -- then how your monitor is profiled won't affect how your printer prints your images at all. Set up correctly, your monitor is just a window on what you're doing, and a monitor profile is just an attempt to wash the window.

So if you're getting an image that is that too blue, the issue is most likely somewhere in your print path, and has nothing to do with your monitor.

However, I would note that if you want your monitor to match what you print, first and foremost, your monitor white point needs to match the media on which you're printing. If you're serious, you can actually have a monitor white point for every media. Then you don't have to worry about dynamic range; it's built into your printer profiles when you soft proof.

But you've got one of two issues here: Either you've whacked out your monitor so badly in profiling it that you're editing to a really bizarre viewing condition, or there's something broken in your print path. And the best way to answer that I'd say is just to ask yourself what your images look like when you first bring them in. If you're making routine huge edits just to get skies blue and concrete grey and etc. then you're probably editing in your problem. If, on the other hand, your images initially look pretty much as you expect and you're just fine tuning, then it's probably in your print path.


Mike Adams
Correct Color