There are many reasons why prints are not going to look exactly like the monitor, even when using a good calibrated display like a NEC SpectraView and a color managed printing workflow with decent printer profiles.
First off, the color temperature of the monitor may not match the Ott-Lite. If you've calibrated the NEC with more or less normal settings, you've got it running around 6500K. The Ott-Lite ranges somewhere from 5200K - 5900K according to Ott-Lite specs; you'd have to measure it to know for sure where it is.
Now, if the Ott-Lite was say 5200K, that's a warmer color temperature than the monitor at 6500K. So you might expect the prints to look a bit warmer. But another factor with the Ott-Lite is that it's not really a full spectrum illuminant. Fluourescents generally speaking are not smooth, full-spectrum light emitters matching natural sunlight, even if they're billed that way in marketing materials. Ott-Lites, like most others, have some strong spectral spikes in blue and/or green wavelengths that might lead to a slight cool shifted appearance in a print, even though the Ott-Lite's color temperature on the whole might be slightly warmer than the monitor backlight.
There are other lighting concerns that mix into the equation of course. Your monitor and the Ott-Lite viewing lamp are probably in a room that has some ambient lighting that doesn't have the same color temperature as either the monitor or the Ott-Lite. The mix of color temperatures will add further variables, along with the relative strength of the different lighting sources.
Yet another consideration is the printer profiles. I'll take it as a given that your monitor is probably in tip-top shape, but the printer profiles may not be as good. Generic vendor paper profiles vary in quality, and some of them may introduce color casts. Also some of them may have been created based on calibration criteria that don't match your viewing conditions. If you're seeing a consistent cool tone shift in your prints, it's less likely the fault of one specific profile, but it could be a systemic thing with them. Most printer profiles are created with calibration settings geared for print viewing in 5000K color temperature light. Different reflectance properties of the paper itself (often triggered by the inclusion of optical brightening agents) combined with possible jaggy spectral response curves of the viewing light (especially fluourescents) may contribute to print metamerism in ways that could be corrected by more advanced print calibration procedures than what is typically done for generic downloadable profiles.
So essentially all of this demonstrates one of the key truisms about calibration -- it's not about making one device or medium "look the same as" another, because that's difficult (if not impossible) due to the reality of emitted vs. reflected light, different device color gamuts (e.g. monitor vs. printer, or Epson 3880 vs. 9900), and ambient light sources that don't match each other. What calibration really is about is benchmarking each specific device to a relatively consistent standard in its own right. Devices may not match, but they should differ post-calibration in a somewhat consistent fashion that can be compensated for in a more predictable and less random way.
But you still need to account for the ambient lighting conditions under which each device or print medium is viewed, and that's not typically something that's dealt with inside the calibration workflow itself. Instead you'd either measure or eye-ball the differences between the original working file on-screen, and the final print, both viewed under the appropriate lighting conditions. And then if you saw differences you prefer not to let slide, you'd adjust things accordingly, either by adjusting the calibration of one or more devices to get a closer match, or by specific adjustments to a given print that's going to be view under certain lighting conditions...
Royce Howland
|