Matching print colors to Monitor screen

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Chien, Jan 23, 2004.

  1. David Chien

    David Chien Guest

    Cross-posting here FYI so nobody spends 6+ months trying to find a
    'solution', only to realize what I found.

    =======================================================
    Subject: Matching print colors to Monitor screen

    Ive acquired an Epson C82 which I plan to use primarily for printing
    of Duotone images and some color. When I print in color, the color of
    the print varies considerably from the monitor image. I've run Adobe
    Gamma, as well as being careful to match the paper choice in the
    driver with the paper I'm using, but not much help. After printing,
    I can match the print fairly close to the monitor by adjusting it
    with "Color Balance", cyan slider to -10, magenta and yellow each to -
    50. The same problem and "correction" is evident with duotone
    printing. Using the uncorrected monitor image, I can get the print I
    want by adjusting those colors in the printer driver just prior to
    printing. Is there a more "global" solution to this problem, rather
    than my tedious procedure? I'm aware of the ColorVision/Spyder, etc.
    approach, but that's a little tough on my budget. I'd appreciate any
    help. Thanks

    ==========================

    1) Realize that the color gamut of the monitor will =never= match the
    color gamut of the printer!!!

    Sorry!

    This is the most crucial mistake most people make when they start
    looking into color matching, and most don't realize until after spending
    $$$ that the two will never match. You can stop now if you don't
    understand this point.
    The reason for this is that the two technologies produce mostly the
    same colors, but at the outer edge of their color gamuts, they differ.

    2) Realize that viewing the prints under various lights of different
    color temperatures will make them look different!!!

    This is another big mistake people make. If you print everything as
    good as can be, but view the prints under, let's say, standard indoor
    nightime tungsten lighting (soft white bulbs), you'll see something
    very, very different than if you view the exact same print outdoors in
    daytime, under a fluorescent bulb, etc.

    The only way to ensure you're getting the 'best' color matching is
    to view the prints under a standard color temperature light source (in
    most cases, 5000k/5500k are common, graphics arts viewing temperatures).
    You will need to get a light bulb that'll produce this light
    temperature, install it, and only use this light source to view your
    prints. (yes, there's what they call viewing booths used in print
    presses and graphic arts that are super-duper calibrated, stable and
    accurate, but well outside your budget. Besides, only the light really
    needs to be fixed to a standard color temperature - so swapping out
    light bulbs is the cheapest way to get almost there.)

    Here, it's easiest to buy a fluorescent bulb from bulbs.com and
    install it into a desktop fluorescent lamp.
    Remember, == you must == turn off all other light sources (block off
    daylight if you're viewing prints in daytime) and only use this standard
    color temperature light source to view prints for the best evaluation of
    prints.

    3) Keep in mind that print colors will look different under different
    light sources!!! Just because the prints look stunning under that 5000k
    light source doesn't mean they'll look as good under tungsten lighting!!!

    That said, you have to make a choice here - do I make prints that
    look great under a standard color light temperature (just about all of
    the books, magazines, prints published today are done so) but not
    perfect under other lights? Or, let's say I only view and hang my
    prints to view indoors under tungsten lighting, do I make them look
    great under the tungsten lighting, but terrible under a standard color
    light temperature or even outdoors in daylight?

    This is a ====huge==== point that people fail to realize!
    Just because you can print something that's 'correct and accurate'
    according to 'standard practices and lighting temperatures' doesn't mean
    you can't throw that out the door and print something that looks great
    =under your specific display lighting conditions=!

    Almost always, people will try and try and try to print an image so
    that it looks perfect under 5000k lamps, then stick it on their hallway
    walls that are only lit indoors by tungsten. Well, then, if you know a
    bit about colors, you know that those pictures will have a strong yellow
    cast over them due to the tungsten lights (you'll see this in 35mm
    photographs at night indoors w/o flash; your eyes automatically adjust
    after a few minutes to correct for the excessive yellow and make it seem
    white). Does this make for a perfect print?!? No! Even after your
    eyes have adjusted for the tungsten yellow cast, the prints still won't
    look as good vs. under 5000k lamps because the print colors aren't
    optimized for that lighting.
    Here, you'll have to hand-tweak prints to get the very best colors
    as nobody's done any real work on making prints that look great under
    these conditions.

    4) A locked down sRGB workflow is one easy step to perfection, and a
    good one to try first.

    If you have a CRT monitor, you may just have to use Adobe Gamma (if
    you're using Photoshop, etc.) or a color calibration tool just to get
    the monitor to look right - CRTs are terrible at giving you accurate
    colors right out of the box.

    Let's assume you have a LCD monitor - you'll likely be able to get
    90%+ match to sRGB easily. Why? Most LCD gamuts practically sit on top
    of the sRGB gamut - if you get an Apple with their Apple LCD Displays,
    the color match is almost perfect.
    Most of these monitors can be set to sRGB mode. If that's not
    present, usually you can set it to factory default, then press an AUTO
    button to get it mostly there matching wise. Look for color temperature
    and sRGB mode...it helps to buy a LCD panel that already has these.

    (That said, my Winbook 15" was that easy - press factory default,
    press auto, and I'm 95% matched to sRGB right away according to my
    ColorVision Spyder.)

    * Next, you'll want to set your color workspace (if you're using a
    program that handles this - most windows programs simply assume sRGB;
    Adobe products should be set for sRGB), and your printer mode to sRGB
    (eg. most Epson printers have this option; other printers, well, suck
    because they often don't have this option), and your scanner as well
    (eg. Epson, you can set in advanced mode the scanning target color space
    to sRGB).

    There, now that everything's locked to sRGB, what you see on screen
    will generally match what you scan in, and what you print.
    PLEASE!!! Keep in mind still that what you see =will never
    perfectly match= what you print (point #1 above). So even now that
    everything's working just peachy, prints still won't look just 100% like
    the screen. Sorry!

    5) So what to do? Take a test target image like the Photodisc Test
    Target (free, search for it), open it up on screen, print a copy in your
    locked down sRGB workflow, and compare the print to monitor -- this is,
    for the most part w/o tweaking, about as good as you'll get even after
    some heavy duty color calibration/management tools.
    Now, what you want on print will have to be adjusted for on screen
    based on what you see, experience, and what you've seen printed. But,
    because you have this standard test target on screen and on paper, you
    will know that when your own picture looks good vs. the test target,
    it'll look good in print - you will use the test target as a standard
    reference point for rapid image adjustments and tweaks ot make it look
    right.

    That's right! If you adjust =your= images while viewing a =standard=
    test target image that prints great, you can make great prints faster
    because you have something to adjust your own images to! If you only
    tweak an image by itself, you'll soon find yourself wondering is that
    blue really this blue or so so blue? It's because when your eyes look
    at certain colors too long, they lose any objectivity and reference as
    to what's neutral, good, and correct -- and it's very difficult to
    adjust correctly without some reference image (like driving at night
    without any points of reference - just pure darkness).

    6) You'll quickly find that with the above, you can easily reduce the
    process down to one or at least two tweak then print steps before
    achieveing a perfect print by using an onscreen reference image and a
    locked down sRGB workflow with a little practice and experience.
    What you'll do is simply adjust your image to look perfect next to
    that test target, print and move on to the next image.

    ==================================

    That said, what about the color management/calibration/correction tools
    that cost a bundle ala ColorVision Spyder, MonacoEZ, etc?

    They do have their place -- usually, the reason is for consistency --
    ie. no matter which monitor you drop in, or printer, or scanner, they'll
    all give you as close of a representation of color to what can be
    expected of them.
    It =does not= mean they won't look different after being
    managed/calibrated/corrected!!!! Only that they'll produce as true of a
    representation of color as possible.

    Why is this useful? If you're matching your red to CocaCola's special
    red, you'd naturally want the most exact match possible. But when
    printing images, that's totally different - you usually don' t care if
    that color or this is perfectly matched, but rather, only that they look
    stunning in combination with the rest of the picture. Here, you're an
    artist, and you can choose to make the colors a bit more dramatic to
    achieve the effect you want in a final print. Yes, if you're doing
    catalogs for clothing, you'd want the colors of that dress to match as
    close as possible to the real thing - good for the $$$ tools, but most
    of the time, you can do without these tools in a sRGB workflow.

    ---

    Q: But isn't color m/c/c supposed to give you stunning prints?!?
    A: NO!!!!
    Color m/c/c/ only gives you the most accurate production of colors
    possible, not the best image possible -- this is why we still have
    humans running all of the print machines, to double check what's coming
    out and to make 'subjective' adjustments to make a nice print into a
    stunning print.

    What does this mean?!?

    =No matter how much you spend= on a color m/c/c/ setup, your
    'average' images will still print 'dull and flat', your 'poor' images
    will print 'poorly', and rarely will your 'great' images print
    'stunningly' well.

    ( You can run right over to any press shop today and ask them, can
    you print my book of 'stunningly' perfect images I've taken w/o doing a
    test run, trial print, or tweak? They'll all laugh at you when they
    ship you some poor looking books!
    Every press on the planet has to adjust and tweak even though
    they're all color m/c/c to produce the best looking prints! )

    ---

    Of course, you don't want the monitor to change colors from one day to
    the next -- makes it very difficult to know what colors look good, so
    that's why you'd want to lock it down to an sRGB 5000k/5500k state, and
    just don't touch it (here, a LCD panel will do this 100% better than a CRT).

    ======================

    That said, is the Colorvision Spyder useful? I though so, bought one,
    used it on my PC, and took it right off after weeks of use and never
    looked back.

    Why?

    My LCD panel, like most sRGB gamut LCDs, was already 90%+ there matched
    to the sRGB gamut. What little difference I saw on screen was like the
    choice between cool white and warm white - something I can easily do
    with my head, and a good test target on screen. Otherwise, what I saw
    was basically just like I saw before, only a touch warmer overall.
    (Don't even need to use Adobe Gamma here - a very subjective and 'bad'
    tool IMO on a sRGB LCD monitor that's already accurate enough.)

    Did the colorvision make better prints? No! I still had to tweak each
    image for the best 'subjective' print - it didn't make better prints all
    by itself.

    I also have Epson everything - Epson 1200/925 printer in sRGB mode,
    Epson 1200S scanner in sRGB mode, and the whole input to output pipeline
    simply gave me pretty good base colors from one end to the other w/o
    having to touch anything.

    That said, I can firmly state today that these silly color m/c/c devices
    perhaps are of use to a CRT monitor user (where most CRTs vary greatly
    and aren't locked to sRGB gamuts), and to professionals wanting exacting
    color matching, but for the most part, most consumers today wanting a
    great print will 1) still have to hand-tweak 2) can use a sRGB workflow
    to produce generally accurate colors 3) not have to spend $$$ on these
    color m/c/c/ tools at all.

    You can also easily reduce the cycle of tweak & print down to one or two
    prints by simply having a standard test target visible on screen as a
    reference to adjust your image to in a locked down sRGB workflow.

    Whew!

    =)

    ps. that said, I've happily wasted 6+ months researching this whole
    silly color m/c/c/ thing, spent $$$ more than I should, and found that
    I'm back to where I began - hand-tweaking images for the best prints,
    but now, in only one or two tweak & print cycles - and thrown the
    Colorvision Spyder and Adobe Gamma out the door for a locked down, free
    sRGB workflow.

    honestly! Never once produced a better looking print with those color
    m/c/c/ tools vs. those made without. As good, yes. Better, never.
    David Chien, Jan 23, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Thanks for the GREAT post, David.
    Stanley Krute, Jan 23, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Chien

    Terry D Guest

    David Chien wrote:
    > Cross-posting here FYI so nobody spends 6+ months trying to find a
    > 'solution', only to realize what I found.
    >
    > =======================================================
    > Subject: Matching print colors to Monitor screen
    >
    > Ive acquired an Epson C82 which I plan to use primarily for printing
    > of Duotone images and some color. When I print in color, the color of
    > the print varies considerably from the monitor image. I've run Adobe
    > Gamma, as well as being careful to match the paper choice in the
    > driver with the paper I'm using, but not much help. After printing,
    > I can match the print fairly close to the monitor by adjusting it
    > with "Color Balance", cyan slider to -10, magenta and yellow each to -
    > 50. The same problem and "correction" is evident with duotone
    > printing. Using the uncorrected monitor image, I can get the print I
    > want by adjusting those colors in the printer driver just prior to
    > printing. Is there a more "global" solution to this problem, rather
    > than my tedious procedure? I'm aware of the ColorVision/Spyder, etc.
    > approach, but that's a little tough on my budget. I'd appreciate any
    > help. Thanks
    >
    > ==========================
    >
    > 1) Realize that the color gamut of the monitor will =never= match the
    > color gamut of the printer!!!
    >
    > Sorry!
    >
    > This is the most crucial mistake most people make when they start
    > looking into color matching, and most don't realize until after
    > spending $$$ that the two will never match. You can stop now if you
    > don't understand this point.
    > The reason for this is that the two technologies produce mostly
    > the same colors, but at the outer edge of their color gamuts, they
    > differ.
    >
    > 2) Realize that viewing the prints under various lights of different
    > color temperatures will make them look different!!!
    >
    > This is another big mistake people make. If you print everything
    > as good as can be, but view the prints under, let's say, standard
    > indoor nightime tungsten lighting (soft white bulbs), you'll see
    > something
    > very, very different than if you view the exact same print outdoors in
    > daytime, under a fluorescent bulb, etc.
    >
    > The only way to ensure you're getting the 'best' color matching is
    > to view the prints under a standard color temperature light source (in
    > most cases, 5000k/5500k are common, graphics arts viewing
    > temperatures). You will need to get a light bulb that'll produce
    > this light
    > temperature, install it, and only use this light source to view your
    > prints. (yes, there's what they call viewing booths used in print
    > presses and graphic arts that are super-duper calibrated, stable and
    > accurate, but well outside your budget. Besides, only the light
    > really needs to be fixed to a standard color temperature - so
    > swapping out
    > light bulbs is the cheapest way to get almost there.)
    >
    > Here, it's easiest to buy a fluorescent bulb from bulbs.com and
    > install it into a desktop fluorescent lamp.
    > Remember, == you must == turn off all other light sources (block
    > off daylight if you're viewing prints in daytime) and only use this
    > standard color temperature light source to view prints for the best
    > evaluation of prints.
    >
    > 3) Keep in mind that print colors will look different under different
    > light sources!!! Just because the prints look stunning under that
    > 5000k light source doesn't mean they'll look as good under tungsten
    > lighting!!!
    >
    > That said, you have to make a choice here - do I make prints that
    > look great under a standard color light temperature (just about all of
    > the books, magazines, prints published today are done so) but not
    > perfect under other lights? Or, let's say I only view and hang my
    > prints to view indoors under tungsten lighting, do I make them look
    > great under the tungsten lighting, but terrible under a standard color
    > light temperature or even outdoors in daylight?
    >
    > This is a ====huge==== point that people fail to realize!
    > Just because you can print something that's 'correct and accurate'
    > according to 'standard practices and lighting temperatures' doesn't
    > mean you can't throw that out the door and print something that looks
    > great =under your specific display lighting conditions=!
    >
    > Almost always, people will try and try and try to print an image
    > so that it looks perfect under 5000k lamps, then stick it on their
    > hallway walls that are only lit indoors by tungsten. Well, then, if
    > you know a
    > bit about colors, you know that those pictures will have a strong
    > yellow cast over them due to the tungsten lights (you'll see this in
    > 35mm photographs at night indoors w/o flash; your eyes automatically
    > adjust after a few minutes to correct for the excessive yellow and
    > make it seem white). Does this make for a perfect print?!? No!
    > Even after your
    > eyes have adjusted for the tungsten yellow cast, the prints still
    > won't look as good vs. under 5000k lamps because the print colors
    > aren't optimized for that lighting.
    > Here, you'll have to hand-tweak prints to get the very best colors
    > as nobody's done any real work on making prints that look great under
    > these conditions.
    >
    > 4) A locked down sRGB workflow is one easy step to perfection, and a
    > good one to try first.
    >
    > If you have a CRT monitor, you may just have to use Adobe Gamma
    > (if you're using Photoshop, etc.) or a color calibration tool just to
    > get
    > the monitor to look right - CRTs are terrible at giving you accurate
    > colors right out of the box.
    >
    > Let's assume you have a LCD monitor - you'll likely be able to get
    > 90%+ match to sRGB easily. Why? Most LCD gamuts practically sit on
    > top
    > of the sRGB gamut - if you get an Apple with their Apple LCD Displays,
    > the color match is almost perfect.
    > Most of these monitors can be set to sRGB mode. If that's not
    > present, usually you can set it to factory default, then press an AUTO
    > button to get it mostly there matching wise. Look for color
    > temperature and sRGB mode...it helps to buy a LCD panel that already
    > has these.
    >
    > (That said, my Winbook 15" was that easy - press factory default,
    > press auto, and I'm 95% matched to sRGB right away according to my
    > ColorVision Spyder.)
    >
    > * Next, you'll want to set your color workspace (if you're using a
    > program that handles this - most windows programs simply assume sRGB;
    > Adobe products should be set for sRGB), and your printer mode to sRGB
    > (eg. most Epson printers have this option; other printers, well, suck
    > because they often don't have this option), and your scanner as well
    > (eg. Epson, you can set in advanced mode the scanning target color
    > space
    > to sRGB).
    >
    > There, now that everything's locked to sRGB, what you see on
    > screen will generally match what you scan in, and what you print.
    > PLEASE!!! Keep in mind still that what you see =will never
    > perfectly match= what you print (point #1 above). So even now that
    > everything's working just peachy, prints still won't look just 100%
    > like the screen. Sorry!
    >
    > 5) So what to do? Take a test target image like the Photodisc Test
    > Target (free, search for it), open it up on screen, print a copy in
    > your locked down sRGB workflow, and compare the print to monitor --
    > this is,
    > for the most part w/o tweaking, about as good as you'll get even after
    > some heavy duty color calibration/management tools.
    > Now, what you want on print will have to be adjusted for on screen
    > based on what you see, experience, and what you've seen printed. But,
    > because you have this standard test target on screen and on paper, you
    > will know that when your own picture looks good vs. the test target,
    > it'll look good in print - you will use the test target as a standard
    > reference point for rapid image adjustments and tweaks ot make it look
    > right.
    >
    > That's right! If you adjust =your= images while viewing a
    > =standard= test target image that prints great, you can make great
    > prints faster because you have something to adjust your own images
    > to! If you only
    > tweak an image by itself, you'll soon find yourself wondering is that
    > blue really this blue or so so blue? It's because when your eyes look
    > at certain colors too long, they lose any objectivity and reference as
    > to what's neutral, good, and correct -- and it's very difficult to
    > adjust correctly without some reference image (like driving at night
    > without any points of reference - just pure darkness).
    >
    > 6) You'll quickly find that with the above, you can easily reduce the
    > process down to one or at least two tweak then print steps before
    > achieveing a perfect print by using an onscreen reference image and a
    > locked down sRGB workflow with a little practice and experience.
    > What you'll do is simply adjust your image to look perfect next to
    > that test target, print and move on to the next image.
    >
    > ==================================
    >
    > That said, what about the color management/calibration/correction
    > tools that cost a bundle ala ColorVision Spyder, MonacoEZ, etc?
    >
    > They do have their place -- usually, the reason is for consistency --
    > ie. no matter which monitor you drop in, or printer, or scanner,
    > they'll all give you as close of a representation of color to what
    > can be
    > expected of them.
    > It =does not= mean they won't look different after being
    > managed/calibrated/corrected!!!! Only that they'll produce as true
    > of a representation of color as possible.
    >
    > Why is this useful? If you're matching your red to CocaCola's special
    > red, you'd naturally want the most exact match possible. But when
    > printing images, that's totally different - you usually don' t care if
    > that color or this is perfectly matched, but rather, only that they
    > look stunning in combination with the rest of the picture. Here,
    > you're an artist, and you can choose to make the colors a bit more
    > dramatic to achieve the effect you want in a final print. Yes, if
    > you're doing catalogs for clothing, you'd want the colors of that
    > dress to match as close as possible to the real thing - good for the
    > $$$ tools, but most
    > of the time, you can do without these tools in a sRGB workflow.
    >
    > ---
    >
    > Q: But isn't color m/c/c supposed to give you stunning prints?!?
    > A: NO!!!!
    > Color m/c/c/ only gives you the most accurate production of
    > colors possible, not the best image possible -- this is why we still
    > have
    > humans running all of the print machines, to double check what's
    > coming
    > out and to make 'subjective' adjustments to make a nice print into a
    > stunning print.
    >
    > What does this mean?!?
    >
    > =No matter how much you spend= on a color m/c/c/ setup, your
    > 'average' images will still print 'dull and flat', your 'poor' images
    > will print 'poorly', and rarely will your 'great' images print
    > 'stunningly' well.
    >
    > ( You can run right over to any press shop today and ask them, can
    > you print my book of 'stunningly' perfect images I've taken w/o doing
    > a test run, trial print, or tweak? They'll all laugh at you when they
    > ship you some poor looking books!
    > Every press on the planet has to adjust and tweak even though
    > they're all color m/c/c to produce the best looking prints! )
    >
    > ---
    >
    > Of course, you don't want the monitor to change colors from one day
    > to the next -- makes it very difficult to know what colors look good,
    > so that's why you'd want to lock it down to an sRGB 5000k/5500k
    > state, and just don't touch it (here, a LCD panel will do this 100%
    > better than a CRT).
    >
    > ======================
    >
    > That said, is the Colorvision Spyder useful? I though so, bought one,
    > used it on my PC, and took it right off after weeks of use and never
    > looked back.
    >
    > Why?
    >
    > My LCD panel, like most sRGB gamut LCDs, was already 90%+ there
    > matched
    > to the sRGB gamut. What little difference I saw on screen was like
    > the choice between cool white and warm white - something I can easily
    > do
    > with my head, and a good test target on screen. Otherwise, what I saw
    > was basically just like I saw before, only a touch warmer overall.
    > (Don't even need to use Adobe Gamma here - a very subjective and 'bad'
    > tool IMO on a sRGB LCD monitor that's already accurate enough.)
    >
    > Did the colorvision make better prints? No! I still had to tweak
    > each image for the best 'subjective' print - it didn't make better
    > prints all
    > by itself.
    >
    > I also have Epson everything - Epson 1200/925 printer in sRGB mode,
    > Epson 1200S scanner in sRGB mode, and the whole input to output
    > pipeline simply gave me pretty good base colors from one end to the
    > other w/o
    > having to touch anything.
    >
    > That said, I can firmly state today that these silly color m/c/c
    > devices perhaps are of use to a CRT monitor user (where most CRTs
    > vary greatly
    > and aren't locked to sRGB gamuts), and to professionals wanting
    > exacting color matching, but for the most part, most consumers today
    > wanting a
    > great print will 1) still have to hand-tweak 2) can use a sRGB
    > workflow
    > to produce generally accurate colors 3) not have to spend $$$ on these
    > color m/c/c/ tools at all.
    >
    > You can also easily reduce the cycle of tweak & print down to one or
    > two prints by simply having a standard test target visible on screen
    > as a reference to adjust your image to in a locked down sRGB workflow.
    >
    > Whew!
    >
    > =)
    >
    > ps. that said, I've happily wasted 6+ months researching this whole
    > silly color m/c/c/ thing, spent $$$ more than I should, and found that
    > I'm back to where I began - hand-tweaking images for the best prints,
    > but now, in only one or two tweak & print cycles - and thrown the
    > Colorvision Spyder and Adobe Gamma out the door for a locked down,
    > free sRGB workflow.
    >
    > honestly! Never once produced a better looking print with those color
    > m/c/c/ tools vs. those made without. As good, yes. Better, never.


    I've never heard such a load of garbage. My advice is to get a life and
    preferably go back to film photography. It was always a surprise what you
    would get back in those good old days
    Terry D, Jan 23, 2004
    #3
  4. David Chien

    Flycaster Guest

    "Terry D" <> wrote in message
    news:e3gQb.9490$...
    > David Chien wrote:

    [big, big snip]

    > I've never heard such a load of garbage. My advice is to get a life and
    > preferably go back to film photography. It was always a surprise what you
    > would get back in those good old days


    Some of it (the proof lighting, for example) is actually good, but...where
    to begin with the rest? Color matching using a *notebook*, a spyder that
    "knows" a working color space, "locking down sRGB", yada, yada, yada. Wow.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
    Flycaster, Jan 23, 2004
    #4
  5. David Chien

    MXP Guest

    I have switched to Adobe color space for both scanner and PhotoShop. I was
    advised to do that from af person who work every day with PhotoShop and has
    done this
    in many years. The sRGB color space is for web work ect. and not for high
    quality color prints (I was told).
    What I have done until now for adjusting monitor/printer is to use the Epson
    Gray Balancer (Epson 2100 printer). I use primary the Premium Semigloss
    paper. So I printed the test gray chart on this paper. Then I used the gray
    scale paper sheet which is part of the gray balancer kit to find 20%, 45%,
    70% and 90% grays and typed the numers into the Gray Balancer program and
    saved the profile and set it to be active.
    Then I choosed a gray scale test image and loaded it into photoshop. To my
    eye the image had no color errors on my monitor. Then I printed it in the
    mode where it is possible to adjust the printed colors using CMY sliders
    (the Epson 2100 uses all color when printing B/W). The first test print
    looked at bit magenta. Then I took some magenta out. Then it looked a little
    to green. Then I choosed a value in between. Then the print looked quite
    perfekt.

    After this adjustment the color print also looked quite similar to what I
    have on the screen. 100% match is never possible. But it is possible to come
    very close.

    Max

    "David Chien" <> skrev i en meddelelse
    news:buru7q$c7$...
    > Cross-posting here FYI so nobody spends 6+ months trying to find a
    > 'solution', only to realize what I found.
    >
    > =======================================================
    > Subject: Matching print colors to Monitor screen
    >
    > Ive acquired an Epson C82 which I plan to use primarily for printing
    > of Duotone images and some color. When I print in color, the color of
    > the print varies considerably from the monitor image. I've run Adobe
    > Gamma, as well as being careful to match the paper choice in the
    > driver with the paper I'm using, but not much help. After printing,
    > I can match the print fairly close to the monitor by adjusting it
    > with "Color Balance", cyan slider to -10, magenta and yellow each to -
    > 50. The same problem and "correction" is evident with duotone
    > printing. Using the uncorrected monitor image, I can get the print I
    > want by adjusting those colors in the printer driver just prior to
    > printing. Is there a more "global" solution to this problem, rather
    > than my tedious procedure? I'm aware of the ColorVision/Spyder, etc.
    > approach, but that's a little tough on my budget. I'd appreciate any
    > help. Thanks
    >
    > ==========================
    >
    > 1) Realize that the color gamut of the monitor will =never= match the
    > color gamut of the printer!!!
    >
    > Sorry!
    >
    > This is the most crucial mistake most people make when they start
    > looking into color matching, and most don't realize until after spending
    > $$$ that the two will never match. You can stop now if you don't
    > understand this point.
    > The reason for this is that the two technologies produce mostly the
    > same colors, but at the outer edge of their color gamuts, they differ.
    >
    > 2) Realize that viewing the prints under various lights of different
    > color temperatures will make them look different!!!
    >
    > This is another big mistake people make. If you print everything as
    > good as can be, but view the prints under, let's say, standard indoor
    > nightime tungsten lighting (soft white bulbs), you'll see something
    > very, very different than if you view the exact same print outdoors in
    > daytime, under a fluorescent bulb, etc.
    >
    > The only way to ensure you're getting the 'best' color matching is
    > to view the prints under a standard color temperature light source (in
    > most cases, 5000k/5500k are common, graphics arts viewing temperatures).
    > You will need to get a light bulb that'll produce this light
    > temperature, install it, and only use this light source to view your
    > prints. (yes, there's what they call viewing booths used in print
    > presses and graphic arts that are super-duper calibrated, stable and
    > accurate, but well outside your budget. Besides, only the light really
    > needs to be fixed to a standard color temperature - so swapping out
    > light bulbs is the cheapest way to get almost there.)
    >
    > Here, it's easiest to buy a fluorescent bulb from bulbs.com and
    > install it into a desktop fluorescent lamp.
    > Remember, == you must == turn off all other light sources (block off
    > daylight if you're viewing prints in daytime) and only use this standard
    > color temperature light source to view prints for the best evaluation of
    > prints.
    >
    > 3) Keep in mind that print colors will look different under different
    > light sources!!! Just because the prints look stunning under that 5000k
    > light source doesn't mean they'll look as good under tungsten lighting!!!
    >
    > That said, you have to make a choice here - do I make prints that
    > look great under a standard color light temperature (just about all of
    > the books, magazines, prints published today are done so) but not
    > perfect under other lights? Or, let's say I only view and hang my
    > prints to view indoors under tungsten lighting, do I make them look
    > great under the tungsten lighting, but terrible under a standard color
    > light temperature or even outdoors in daylight?
    >
    > This is a ====huge==== point that people fail to realize!
    > Just because you can print something that's 'correct and accurate'
    > according to 'standard practices and lighting temperatures' doesn't mean
    > you can't throw that out the door and print something that looks great
    > =under your specific display lighting conditions=!
    >
    > Almost always, people will try and try and try to print an image so
    > that it looks perfect under 5000k lamps, then stick it on their hallway
    > walls that are only lit indoors by tungsten. Well, then, if you know a
    > bit about colors, you know that those pictures will have a strong yellow
    > cast over them due to the tungsten lights (you'll see this in 35mm
    > photographs at night indoors w/o flash; your eyes automatically adjust
    > after a few minutes to correct for the excessive yellow and make it seem
    > white). Does this make for a perfect print?!? No! Even after your
    > eyes have adjusted for the tungsten yellow cast, the prints still won't
    > look as good vs. under 5000k lamps because the print colors aren't
    > optimized for that lighting.
    > Here, you'll have to hand-tweak prints to get the very best colors
    > as nobody's done any real work on making prints that look great under
    > these conditions.
    >
    > 4) A locked down sRGB workflow is one easy step to perfection, and a
    > good one to try first.
    >
    > If you have a CRT monitor, you may just have to use Adobe Gamma (if
    > you're using Photoshop, etc.) or a color calibration tool just to get
    > the monitor to look right - CRTs are terrible at giving you accurate
    > colors right out of the box.
    >
    > Let's assume you have a LCD monitor - you'll likely be able to get
    > 90%+ match to sRGB easily. Why? Most LCD gamuts practically sit on top
    > of the sRGB gamut - if you get an Apple with their Apple LCD Displays,
    > the color match is almost perfect.
    > Most of these monitors can be set to sRGB mode. If that's not
    > present, usually you can set it to factory default, then press an AUTO
    > button to get it mostly there matching wise. Look for color temperature
    > and sRGB mode...it helps to buy a LCD panel that already has these.
    >
    > (That said, my Winbook 15" was that easy - press factory default,
    > press auto, and I'm 95% matched to sRGB right away according to my
    > ColorVision Spyder.)
    >
    > * Next, you'll want to set your color workspace (if you're using a
    > program that handles this - most windows programs simply assume sRGB;
    > Adobe products should be set for sRGB), and your printer mode to sRGB
    > (eg. most Epson printers have this option; other printers, well, suck
    > because they often don't have this option), and your scanner as well
    > (eg. Epson, you can set in advanced mode the scanning target color space
    > to sRGB).
    >
    > There, now that everything's locked to sRGB, what you see on screen
    > will generally match what you scan in, and what you print.
    > PLEASE!!! Keep in mind still that what you see =will never
    > perfectly match= what you print (point #1 above). So even now that
    > everything's working just peachy, prints still won't look just 100% like
    > the screen. Sorry!
    >
    > 5) So what to do? Take a test target image like the Photodisc Test
    > Target (free, search for it), open it up on screen, print a copy in your
    > locked down sRGB workflow, and compare the print to monitor -- this is,
    > for the most part w/o tweaking, about as good as you'll get even after
    > some heavy duty color calibration/management tools.
    > Now, what you want on print will have to be adjusted for on screen
    > based on what you see, experience, and what you've seen printed. But,
    > because you have this standard test target on screen and on paper, you
    > will know that when your own picture looks good vs. the test target,
    > it'll look good in print - you will use the test target as a standard
    > reference point for rapid image adjustments and tweaks ot make it look
    > right.
    >
    > That's right! If you adjust =your= images while viewing a =standard=
    > test target image that prints great, you can make great prints faster
    > because you have something to adjust your own images to! If you only
    > tweak an image by itself, you'll soon find yourself wondering is that
    > blue really this blue or so so blue? It's because when your eyes look
    > at certain colors too long, they lose any objectivity and reference as
    > to what's neutral, good, and correct -- and it's very difficult to
    > adjust correctly without some reference image (like driving at night
    > without any points of reference - just pure darkness).
    >
    > 6) You'll quickly find that with the above, you can easily reduce the
    > process down to one or at least two tweak then print steps before
    > achieveing a perfect print by using an onscreen reference image and a
    > locked down sRGB workflow with a little practice and experience.
    > What you'll do is simply adjust your image to look perfect next to
    > that test target, print and move on to the next image.
    >
    > ==================================
    >
    > That said, what about the color management/calibration/correction tools
    > that cost a bundle ala ColorVision Spyder, MonacoEZ, etc?
    >
    > They do have their place -- usually, the reason is for consistency --
    > ie. no matter which monitor you drop in, or printer, or scanner, they'll
    > all give you as close of a representation of color to what can be
    > expected of them.
    > It =does not= mean they won't look different after being
    > managed/calibrated/corrected!!!! Only that they'll produce as true of a
    > representation of color as possible.
    >
    > Why is this useful? If you're matching your red to CocaCola's special
    > red, you'd naturally want the most exact match possible. But when
    > printing images, that's totally different - you usually don' t care if
    > that color or this is perfectly matched, but rather, only that they look
    > stunning in combination with the rest of the picture. Here, you're an
    > artist, and you can choose to make the colors a bit more dramatic to
    > achieve the effect you want in a final print. Yes, if you're doing
    > catalogs for clothing, you'd want the colors of that dress to match as
    > close as possible to the real thing - good for the $$$ tools, but most
    > of the time, you can do without these tools in a sRGB workflow.
    >
    > ---
    >
    > Q: But isn't color m/c/c supposed to give you stunning prints?!?
    > A: NO!!!!
    > Color m/c/c/ only gives you the most accurate production of colors
    > possible, not the best image possible -- this is why we still have
    > humans running all of the print machines, to double check what's coming
    > out and to make 'subjective' adjustments to make a nice print into a
    > stunning print.
    >
    > What does this mean?!?
    >
    > =No matter how much you spend= on a color m/c/c/ setup, your
    > 'average' images will still print 'dull and flat', your 'poor' images
    > will print 'poorly', and rarely will your 'great' images print
    > 'stunningly' well.
    >
    > ( You can run right over to any press shop today and ask them, can
    > you print my book of 'stunningly' perfect images I've taken w/o doing a
    > test run, trial print, or tweak? They'll all laugh at you when they
    > ship you some poor looking books!
    > Every press on the planet has to adjust and tweak even though
    > they're all color m/c/c to produce the best looking prints! )
    >
    > ---
    >
    > Of course, you don't want the monitor to change colors from one day to
    > the next -- makes it very difficult to know what colors look good, so
    > that's why you'd want to lock it down to an sRGB 5000k/5500k state, and
    > just don't touch it (here, a LCD panel will do this 100% better than a

    CRT).
    >
    > ======================
    >
    > That said, is the Colorvision Spyder useful? I though so, bought one,
    > used it on my PC, and took it right off after weeks of use and never
    > looked back.
    >
    > Why?
    >
    > My LCD panel, like most sRGB gamut LCDs, was already 90%+ there matched
    > to the sRGB gamut. What little difference I saw on screen was like the
    > choice between cool white and warm white - something I can easily do
    > with my head, and a good test target on screen. Otherwise, what I saw
    > was basically just like I saw before, only a touch warmer overall.
    > (Don't even need to use Adobe Gamma here - a very subjective and 'bad'
    > tool IMO on a sRGB LCD monitor that's already accurate enough.)
    >
    > Did the colorvision make better prints? No! I still had to tweak each
    > image for the best 'subjective' print - it didn't make better prints all
    > by itself.
    >
    > I also have Epson everything - Epson 1200/925 printer in sRGB mode,
    > Epson 1200S scanner in sRGB mode, and the whole input to output pipeline
    > simply gave me pretty good base colors from one end to the other w/o
    > having to touch anything.
    >
    > That said, I can firmly state today that these silly color m/c/c devices
    > perhaps are of use to a CRT monitor user (where most CRTs vary greatly
    > and aren't locked to sRGB gamuts), and to professionals wanting exacting
    > color matching, but for the most part, most consumers today wanting a
    > great print will 1) still have to hand-tweak 2) can use a sRGB workflow
    > to produce generally accurate colors 3) not have to spend $$$ on these
    > color m/c/c/ tools at all.
    >
    > You can also easily reduce the cycle of tweak & print down to one or two
    > prints by simply having a standard test target visible on screen as a
    > reference to adjust your image to in a locked down sRGB workflow.
    >
    > Whew!
    >
    > =)
    >
    > ps. that said, I've happily wasted 6+ months researching this whole
    > silly color m/c/c/ thing, spent $$$ more than I should, and found that
    > I'm back to where I began - hand-tweaking images for the best prints,
    > but now, in only one or two tweak & print cycles - and thrown the
    > Colorvision Spyder and Adobe Gamma out the door for a locked down, free
    > sRGB workflow.
    >
    > honestly! Never once produced a better looking print with those color
    > m/c/c/ tools vs. those made without. As good, yes. Better, never.
    MXP, Jan 23, 2004
    #5
  6. David Chien <> wrote in
    news:buru7q$c7$:

    > Cross-posting here FYI so nobody spends 6+ months trying to find a
    > 'solution', only to realize what I found.
    >
    > =======================================================
    > Subject: Matching print colors to Monitor screen
    >
    > Ive acquired an Epson C82 which I plan to use primarily for
    > printing of Duotone images and some color. When I print in color,
    > the color of the print varies considerably from the monitor image.
    > I've run Adobe Gamma, as well as being careful to match the paper
    > choice in the driver with the paper I'm using, but not much help.
    > After printing, I can match the print fairly close to the monitor
    > by adjusting it with "Color Balance", cyan slider to -10, magenta
    > and yellow each to - 50. The same problem and "correction" is
    > evident with duotone printing. Using the uncorrected monitor
    > image, I can get the print I want by adjusting those colors in the
    > printer driver just prior to printing.


    I would suggest that if there are colour adjustments tools working in
    the printer driver you may not be using PS as your (sole) colour
    manager and have a conflict between PS and the printer manager. My
    Canon printer driver greys out all adjustments when I manage colours
    from PS only allowing me to identify the paper type which you have to
    do to control ink flow parameters.
    Mike Latondresse, Jan 24, 2004
    #6
  7. David Chien

    jbuch Guest

    David Chien wrote:

    > Cross-posting here FYI so nobody spends 6+ months trying to find a
    > 'solution', only to realize what I found.
    >
    > =======================================================
    > Subject: Matching print colors to Monitor screen


    Great post.

    Reminds me of something from artist Georgia Okeefe on color reproduction.

    She drove the printers nuts on her first books because she was
    attempting to get an exact match between her original art work and the
    printed copy.

    After a few years, she dropped the silly crazy making stuff about trying
    to get an *exact* match with the original, and would instruct the
    printers to give the best looking prints instead. She and the buyers
    wanted the best looking prints anyway, and few would have the
    opportunity to place the original and the print side by side anyway.

    I think, in the end, that inkjet color printing users should learn to
    settle for getting the best looking prints that they can, and stop with
    the silliness of trying to get an exact match with the monitor (which
    could be kind of screwed up anyway).

    Great post.

    Jim
    jbuch, Jan 24, 2004
    #7
  8. David Chien

    mark_digital Guest


    > I think, in the end, that inkjet color printing users should learn to
    > settle for getting the best looking prints that they can, and stop with
    > the silliness of trying to get an exact match with the monitor (which
    > could be kind of screwed up anyway).


    The best poor man's calibration is to settle for proper skin tones even if
    landscapes and nature are the intentions. This can be rather difficult in a
    group image but the sad fact is not everyone's skin tone in a group image is
    pleasing, but it's real due to the relative health of all those involved.
    Non-smokers may have a brilliant healthy pigmentation while smokers may have
    a slight magenta look to their profile. Others, due to their genetics, may
    have a slight greenish pigmentation, while the person standing next to them
    has a nice realistic tan. All in all, the printer's cymk inks being
    subtractive do pretty well with skin tone. One can narrow down the
    calibration by zooming in on blue eyes and make further adjustments. More
    times than not cheat by over exposing abit so each person's complexion
    differences aren't as noticeable. Now print a landscape or sunset at the
    settings obtained by complexion shots and leave it at that.
    Mark
    mark_digital, Jan 24, 2004
    #8
  9. David Chien

    muks Guest

    > I have switched to Adobe color space for both scanner and PhotoShop. I was
    > advised to do that from af person who work every day with PhotoShop and has
    > done this
    > in many years. The sRGB color space is for web work ect. and not for high
    > quality color prints (I was told).


    I calibrated my monitor to adobe rgb color space instead of sRGB with
    gamma 2.2 and set grey to grey gamma 2.2. I then set print space to cmyk
    profile for my printer and intent to relative colorimetric. I get pretty
    accurate color match :)

    -----
    muks
    muks, Jan 25, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bun Mui
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    787
    Phantom
    Sep 13, 2004
  2. Andrew Brooks

    Print Image Matching

    Andrew Brooks, Aug 28, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    363
    Andrew Brooks
    Aug 28, 2003
  3. pjruiz(nospaam)

    Why don't colors print right?

    pjruiz(nospaam), Feb 13, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    309
    Dave R knows who
    Feb 14, 2005
  4. Piemanlager

    r300/r1800 print matching

    Piemanlager, May 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    330
    Dave R knows who
    May 12, 2005
  5. Picasa colors do not print correctly

    , Jan 6, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    608
Loading...

Share This Page