«

Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.

I own a:
-Epson stylus dx4000
-Mac os 10.6
-Preview (to print images)
-Gimp, fewer Photoshop

I used to use:
Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
compared to the firmware profile)
Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
to display images within a image processor)
image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors

my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
the values are absolute less saturated

Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
or not.

On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
>
> I own a:
> -Epson stylus dx4000
> -Mac os 10.6
> -Preview (to print images)
> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
>
> I used to use:
> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
> compared to the firmware profile)
> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
> to display images within a image processor)
> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
>
> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
> the values are absolute less saturated
>
> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
> or not.



Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.

each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
compare the difference.

Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you may
like to read.

called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win & MAC (PDF) thats the same for
CS5.

On 24/05/2012 7:26 p.m., Rob wrote:
> On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
>> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
>> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
>> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
>> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
>>
>> I own a:
>> -Epson stylus dx4000
>> -Mac os 10.6
>> -Preview (to print images)
>> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
>>
>> I used to use:
>> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
>> compared to the firmware profile)
>> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
>> to display images within a image processor)
>> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
>>
>> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
>> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
>> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
>> the values are absolute less saturated
>>
>> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
>> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
>> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
>> or not.
>
>
>
> Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.
>
> each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
> download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
> compare the difference.
>
> Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you may
> like to read.
>
> called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win & MAC (PDF) thats the same for
> CS5.
>
Missing piece of equipment is /calibrated/ display if you want accurate
sceenrint matches. That probably means investing in a hardware
colorimeter package. The software calibration methods on MAc and
Windows are pretty useless, but you can check the state of your display
here:
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
The mis-match mentioned by the OP is probably because of a poorly
calibrated display, as using the printer driver to manage colour,
(rather than a colour managed process using ICC profiles) usually gives
a pretty decent result with Epson printers/papers. Another possibility
is incorrect paper or printer driver settings.
Part of the coloiur managed process is to allow soft-proofing, viewing
the image on screen with the ICC profile for the printer/paper
combination loaded, and making minor pre-print adjustments from there,
But you need to get the monitor calibration nailed for there to be any
real point in doing this.

On 24/05/2012 10:46 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Rob<> wrote:
>> On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
>>> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
>>> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
>>> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
>>> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
>>>
>>> I own a:
>>> -Epson stylus dx4000
>>> -Mac os 10.6
>>> -Preview (to print images)
>>> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
>>>
>>> I used to use:
>>> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
>>> compared to the firmware profile)
>>> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
>>> to display images within a image processor)
>>> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
>>>
>>> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
>>> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
>>> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
>>> the values are absolute less saturated
>>>
>>> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
>>> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
>>> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
>>> or not.
>>
>> Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.
>>
>> each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
>> download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
>> compare the difference.
>>
>> Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you may
>> like to read.
>>
>> called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win& MAC (PDF) thats the same for
>> CS5.
>
> In addition to all that, saturated orange is nearly impossible to
> print. A good profile will be acurate, but it can't help the printer
> to print out of gamut colours.
>
> Andrew.

Orange and green are easy to print on the Epson 7900

On 25/05/2012 6:28 p.m., isw wrote:
> In article<jpl35q$ajj$>, Me<>
> wrote:
>
>> On 24/05/2012 7:26 p.m., Rob wrote:
>>> On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
>>>> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
>>>> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
>>>> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
>>>> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
>>>>
>>>> I own a:
>>>> -Epson stylus dx4000
>>>> -Mac os 10.6
>>>> -Preview (to print images)
>>>> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
>>>>
>>>> I used to use:
>>>> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
>>>> compared to the firmware profile)
>>>> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
>>>> to display images within a image processor)
>>>> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
>>>>
>>>> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
>>>> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
>>>> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
>>>> the values are absolute less saturated
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
>>>> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
>>>> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
>>>> or not.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.
>>>
>>> each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
>>> download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
>>> compare the difference.
>>>
>>> Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you may
>>> like to read.
>>>
>>> called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win& MAC (PDF) thats the same for
>>> CS5.
>>>
>> Missing piece of equipment is /calibrated/ display if you want accurate
>> sceenrint matches. That probably means investing in a hardware
>> colorimeter package. The software calibration methods on MAc and
>> Windows are pretty useless, but you can check the state of your display
>> here:
>> http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
>
> My Dell 2407WFPHC monitor is calibrated using the built-in Mac method
> you call "pretty useless". A visit to the site you reference (I've been
> there before) shows that everything looks just as the author says it
> should, for a properly adjusted display.
>
> So could you please elaborate on precisely which ways Apple's
> calibration method is "useless"? I'm sincerely curious as to what that
> method's faults are, and how much better my monitor's calibration could
> be.
>
> Isaac

For general use, software calibration is fine. However, where you need
accurate colour match between output devices, it's useless.
An example is using the software gamma charts, where sharpness setting
on the display has a massive effect on perceived sharpness. So you can
use a sharpening chart to set that - as on the lagom site - but that's
useless because (conversely) the gamma setting will affect the perceived
sharpness on that chart. On this basis, which should you set first "by
eye". The answer is neither - you need to use hardware calibration, or
you are running around in circles. You could think that by looking at
the lagom images for sharpness and gamma that you've got both right, but
chances are you've got both wrong. You won't get it right, because the
gamma setting in the software usually has only one slider to adjust a
curve, and takes no account of likely non-linear response of the
display, so you're basically stuffed if setting gamma for different
luminance levels - then throw in R,G, & B, and it's a big pile of worms.
It's almost completely futile using a colour managed printing process
with a screen display that isn't properly hardware calibrated. At best
you could load ICC profiles in to PS, check gamut warnings etc, but if
you don't get a perfect screenrint match, then you're none the wiser
as to whether the printer is the cause, the ICC profile is wrong (not
totally unlikely), or the monitor is wrong.
This (I hope) isn't a mac vs windows discussion. Macs and windows are
about the same for colour management, and typical mac hardware is not
anything special - nor bad - for graphics.

On 25/05/2012 7:27 p.m., Me wrote:
> On 25/05/2012 6:28 p.m., isw wrote:
>> In article<jpl35q$ajj$>, Me<>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 24/05/2012 7:26 p.m., Rob wrote:
>>>> On 24/05/2012 5:12 PM, Jo_y wrote:
>>>>> Hm, i'm confused about Color Profiles. And i'm for sure not the first
>>>>> one with this topic. (Its always a mess between different devices)
>>>>> Till today I used a relative good color balance while printing, but
>>>>> now, I want to improve the quality of my prints.
>>>>>
>>>>> I own a:
>>>>> -Epson stylus dx4000
>>>>> -Mac os 10.6
>>>>> -Preview (to print images)
>>>>> -Gimp, fewer Photoshop
>>>>>
>>>>> I used to use:
>>>>> Screen: Apple RGB (it seems cold, but it has a really nice balance
>>>>> compared to the firmware profile)
>>>>> Painting/ photo retouching: Generic RGB (should be the common profile
>>>>> to display images within a image processor)
>>>>> image-file-profile: sRGB to reinforce colors
>>>>>
>>>>> my prints (on normal write paper, 297 x 210 mm) look instead:
>>>>> a saturated orange changes in a yellowish tone
>>>>> a dark blue changes in a lilla-like tone
>>>>> the values are absolute less saturated
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I've to print my pictures from Scribus to get clear results ?
>>>>> At last, I need to know if values like perceptual, saturation,
>>>>> absolute/relative colorimetric do influence heavily the output print,
>>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also you could post to comp.periphs.printers newsgroup.
>>>>
>>>> each type of paper and ink has its own profile combination. you should
>>>> download and try the profile for that paper which you are using and
>>>> compare the difference.
>>>>
>>>> Epson have a setup PDF document to download, for photoshop which you
>>>> may
>>>> like to read.
>>>>
>>>> called RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS4 / Win& MAC (PDF) thats the same for
>>>> CS5.
>>>>
>>> Missing piece of equipment is /calibrated/ display if you want accurate
>>> sceenrint matches. That probably means investing in a hardware
>>> colorimeter package. The software calibration methods on MAc and
>>> Windows are pretty useless, but you can check the state of your display
>>> here:
>>> http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
>>
>> My Dell 2407WFPHC monitor is calibrated using the built-in Mac method
>> you call "pretty useless". A visit to the site you reference (I've been
>> there before) shows that everything looks just as the author says it
>> should, for a properly adjusted display.
>>
>> So could you please elaborate on precisely which ways Apple's
>> calibration method is "useless"? I'm sincerely curious as to what that
>> method's faults are, and how much better my monitor's calibration could
>> be.
>>
>> Isaac
>
> For general use, software calibration is fine. However, where you need
> accurate colour match between output devices, it's useless.
> An example is using the software gamma charts, where sharpness setting
> on the display has a massive effect on perceived <correction> - "gamma". So you can
> use a sharpening chart to set that - as on the lagom site - but that's
> useless because (conversely) the gamma setting will affect the perceived
> sharpness on that chart. On this basis, which should you set first "by
> eye". The answer is neither - you need to use hardware calibration, or
> you are running around in circles. You could think that by looking at
> the lagom images for sharpness and gamma that you've got both right, but
> chances are you've got both wrong. You won't get it right, because the
> gamma setting in the software usually has only one slider to adjust a
> curve, and takes no account of likely non-linear response of the
> display, so you're basically stuffed if setting gamma for different
> luminance levels - then throw in R,G, & B, and it's a big pile of worms.
> It's almost completely futile using a colour managed printing process
> with a screen display that isn't properly hardware calibrated. At best
> you could load ICC profiles in to PS, check gamut warnings etc, but if
> you don't get a perfect screenrint match, then you're none the wiser
> as to whether the printer is the cause, the ICC profile is wrong (not
> totally unlikely), or the monitor is wrong.
> This (I hope) isn't a mac vs windows discussion. Macs and windows are
> about the same for colour management, and typical mac hardware is not
> anything special - nor bad - for graphics.

In article <isw-00CC64.23284324052012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
<> wrote:

> > Missing piece of equipment is /calibrated/ display if you want accurate
> > sceenrint matches. That probably means investing in a hardware
> > colorimeter package. The software calibration methods on MAc and
> > Windows are pretty useless, but you can check the state of your display
> > here:
> > http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
>
> My Dell 2407WFPHC monitor is calibrated using the built-in Mac method
> you call "pretty useless". A visit to the site you reference (I've been
> there before) shows that everything looks just as the author says it
> should, for a properly adjusted display.
>
> So could you please elaborate on precisely which ways Apple's
> calibration method is "useless"? I'm sincerely curious as to what that
> method's faults are, and how much better my monitor's calibration could
> be.

because it's done by eye, not hardware. the eye is not accurate enough.

In article <isw-773AD4.09292225052012@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
<> wrote:

> > > So could you please elaborate on precisely which ways Apple's
> > > calibration method is "useless"? I'm sincerely curious as to what that
> > > method's faults are, and how much better my monitor's calibration could
> > > be.
> >
> > because it's done by eye, not hardware. the eye is not accurate enough.
>
> So then why does my display look just like that site says it should? How
> far off is an "eyeball" calibration, compared to an instrumented one?

it can potentially be quite a bit, but on the other hand, you could be
lucky and hit it close enough. your eye is not accurate and easily
fooled.

<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba.../the-blue-and-
the-green/>

run the software calibrator and move your head and see how much it
varies. change the ambient lighting too. a hardware puck is immune to
that.

> (IOW, how much better will it be if I lay out a couple hundred bucks for
> a calibrator -- 2%, or 20%?)

they're under $100 and you might even be able to rent one for even less.

On 26/05/2012 4:37 a.m., isw wrote:

> It's not, but the Mac is all I know about. Have you ever used the Apple
> "eyball" calibration (recently; it was a lot less capable in the
> "Classic" days)? Because it sure doesn't seem to me to adjust gamma with
> "one slider", as you claim. Each of the calibration points (maybe six or
> seven; it's been a while) provides both brightness and color information.
>
No, I haven't used it for a while. But you need to understand that we
cannot trust our eyes.
Here are some examples from the web:
Chromatic adaptation:
http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item...ic-adaptation/
Visual spatial clues throw out luminance perception:
http://www.planetperplex.com/en/item/checker-shadow/#
Similar image to above, but luminance perception also throws out colour
perception:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ange_brown.svg

These "tricks" are probably showing human evolutionary adaptation to
colour perception, colour perception apparently being important to us
for some reason (judging whether food is good and fresh etc?) as natural
light varies so much during the day.

So if you're trying to set a monitor "by eye", then you've got no
reference point on that screen from which to make adjustments.

If you've got a TV set with "scene modes", then if you change that scene
mode from default to "movie" mode, the screen image is usually shown
with noticeably much warmer white balance. But if you watch it for a
few minutes, then it starts to look normal, and if you reset the TV to
default, the standard white balance will seem to be too cool - at least
for a short while until your eyes adjust again.

When using a hardware calibration device (spyder etc) to calibrate a
screen, it's typical when first doing the calibration to disbelieve the
result that the calibration system is showing - as your eyes are used to
how it was, and despite being much more colour accurate after
calibration, it can look very wrong until your eyes adjust.

That's why, within reason, unless you need to be able to match colours
precisely across display devices - including between matching screen and
print - then within reason, colour accuracy isn't as important as many
people seem to think.

On Sat, 26 May 2012 03:00:14 -0500, Andrew Haley
<> wrote:
: Me <> wrote:
: > On 26/05/2012 4:37 a.m., isw wrote:
:
: > When using a hardware calibration device (spyder etc) to calibrate a
: > screen, it's typical when first doing the calibration to disbelieve
: > the result that the calibration system is showing - as your eyes are
: > used to how it was, and despite being much more colour accurate
: > after calibration, it can look very wrong until your eyes adjust.
: >
: > That's why, within reason, unless you need to be able to match
: > colours precisely across display devices - including between
: > matching screen and print - then within reason, colour accuracy
: > isn't as important as many people seem to think.
:
: Well, it saves a lot of paper; all that printing of test images gets
: tedious before very long. And also, if someone else is doing the
: printing, there's a lot to be said for having a good idea of how the
: print might come out. I suppose there are some photographers who
: don't print, but even then I don't suppose they look at only one monitor.

They don't, and my laptop displays colors in a way that's annoyingly different
from my monitors at home and at work. So when I edit images on the train to or
from work, I have to remind myself to stick to brightness and composition
issues and not get too finicky about color values, which I'd just have to
re-jigger later.

Bob