Calibrated monitor and profiled pinter....prints are dark

Okay, this seems to be a common problem for LCD monitors. I got a Spyder 2 for Christmas and calibrated my monitor yesterday. To me, it looks a bit dark and the grays seem to have a slight green-ish tint to them...but maybe I'm just used to my monitor being off.

Anyways, In the Spyder 2 package was the PrintFIX Plus software. I installed it and was not sure what adjustments to make, so I left them at the defaults and printed their test sheet. It looked good, but maybe just a little bit on the light sided. Happy with the test print, I opened up PS CS2 and changed my Proof Condition to Simulate the Spyder calibration I just made. I printed one of my photos and it came out pretty dark. I then switched PS CS2 back to the Epson profile I downloaded from their site (R2400 Premium glossy photo paper) and tried printing again. Same dark print...as in exactly the same.

I did some research here on NS and saw that someone printed from Windows fax viewer and got a good print...pointing the problem to a setting in PS. I tried this and still got the dark print. Now I'm not sure where to look.

Anyone have any ideas that I could try? Below is my equipment used and PS CS2 settings.

Dell 24" LCD monitor, Spyder 2 calibrated
Epson R2400 printer

Looks like you're soft proofing to the monitor calibration (Spyder Cal) instead of the paper to which you'll be printing. (Unless, of course, Spyder Cal, is the name you gave to the Printfix printer profile you made--it's hard to tell from your description)

rod

Keith, you have at least a couple of config settings you'll need to change. Thanks for posting all your screen shots, it makes it easier to key in on things.

First, in CS2's File > Print with Preview dialog, you have Options - Color Handling set to "No Color Management". This is not where you want to be. You should select "Let Photoshop Determine Colors". This will then permit you to select your custom printer profile (or the Epson generic profile) for Options - Printer Profile. (I assume "Spyder Cal" is your custom printer profile. You'll want to name it more descriptively because you need a separate profile for each different paper, and possibly even for different printing settings that you may commonly use.) IMO, you should also try Options - Rendering Intent of "Relative Colorimetric" rather than "Perceptual" and check the Black Point Compensation checkbox.

Finally, on that same panel, select the "Document" radio button for what to print, not "Proof". You would use "Proof" if you are making a "hard proof" to simulate what your image would look like on some other device such as a print service's printer. Since you are printing the image in its final form directly on your own printer with your profile(s), you don't need to simulate anything... you need to actually print the real thing, i.e. "Document".

The other thing that may need to be adjusted is your custom printer profile itself. Creating a custom profile, especially with the lower-end printer profiling packages like PrintFix Pro or Monaco EZColor (which I use) is based on scanning targets through a desktop scanner. These devices are not nearly as accurate as would be a colorimeter or spectrophotometer, used by high-end printer profiling systems. So the initial custom profile may need to be adjusted before it is really dialed in to your satisfaction. For example my custom printer profiles created with the Monaco system needed to be adjusted to remove a slight magenta cast introduced by my Epson scanner, as well as tweaked a bit for brightness. A slight green cast is another common issue with scanner-based printer profiles.

To get your initial color management settings locked in, and your display profile as well (since that's also new-ish), you may want to use the generic Epson printer profile instead. The idea is to eliminate any possible issues with your custom printer profile that may be throwing off your attempts to stablize your setup. The generic profile is produced on a high-end profiling system and should not produce any casts, for example, as well as being very close to a standard level of brightness & contrast for your printer & ink set on the matching paper. If it doesn't look right at first, it may in fact mean that your display profile is off.

In terms of brightness matching between display & print, we've had some long threads on this topic recently. In short try to calibrate your Dell 24" around 125 cd/m2 if the Spyder software tells you the white point. The Dell display runs bright; I have one so I've dealt with that. You can't get it down to the more desirable level (100 cd/m2), so prints will appear darker -- I think paper white is around 60 cd/m2 or so under reference lighting. You just have to judge what's "too bright" for the display, or "too dark" for the print. The software will guide you but there is a grey zone. When evaluating print brightness, be sure you examine it in good, bright, clean light, not a dark room under dim flourescent lights for example.

Once you've cranked through these suggestions, post back how it went...

Keith,

I cannot offer you technical advice as others have, but maybe some practical advice that works well for me.

I have the Dell 24" as you have. I profile it with the original Spyder with very good results. My prints match closely to what I see on my monitor. Before calibrating, I always turn down the brightness of the monitor to around 10%, from the adjustment button on the monitor. I also calibrate using individual colors, versus telling the software that the monitor has presets. I get far better results this way.

Contrary to what "howlandr" suggested, (it appears that he knows more than I do) I select "no color management" both in the Photoshop dialogue box and the Epson box. I don't know why it works, but it does.

After converting my file to the appropriate paper profile, and doing the above, my prints look great, at least to me. I am printing with an Epson 2200.

Good luck.

I think Royce summed it up well. The biggest problem is on the Print Preview Screen where you have No Color Management Selected. This needs to say Let Photoshop Determine Colors.

I made those two changes Royce pointed out. The prints are still dark and the colors are slightly off.

But, I think I might have found my issue. Adobe Gamma is still installed on my computer. I've removed it from my startup folder, but it's still in the Adobe Common files. If I go to Add/Remove Programs, it does not show up. Can I just delete it from the Common's folder? Another thing, if I double click on the Adobe Gamma Loader, nothing happens...it links for a second but nothing opens. The Readme file says to launch the Adobe Gamma control panel, but I don't have an icon for that.

As long as its out of the start-up and you have rebooted, you are fine.

The other thing that is weird about your setup is the Spyder Cal in the properties menu - usually that should have the type of paper you are using in it.

Keith, it is sufficient to simply remove Adobe Gamma from your startup folder. You won't be able to remove it via Add/Remove programs because it's not a separately installed application, simply a minor utility that comes in with the main Photoshop installation. No need to delete the .exe file either. While it may not harm anything to delete it, a future Adobe update installer may just put it back. All you really need to do is just make sure it isn't running when you boot, which you have done by removing it from the startup folder.

Mark Robinson wrote:Contrary to what "howlandr" suggested, (it appears that he knows more than I do) I select "no color management" both in the Photoshop dialogue box and the Epson box. I don't know why it works, but it does.

After converting my file to the appropriate paper profile, and doing the above, my prints look great, at least to me. I am printing with an Epson 2200.

Mark, not to be argumentative since whatever works for you is your call , but selecting "no color management" in both Photoshop and printer driver is definitely not a correct/intended manner for getting reasonable display-to-print matching. The whole point of color management is to translate image data via device-specific profiles so that image fidelity is relatively well preserved as the image moves from device to device. By setting "no color management" as you've done, you have completely disabled the CM system in respect to printing.

Your final paragraph indicates why this appears to work for you -- you are apparently manually converting your images to the printer/paper specific profile, prior to printing them. Hopefully you are doing this on a copy of your final TIFF image rather than converting your master file, which would be an unfortunate "destructive" step.

If you simply configure the CM settings as we've been discussing in this thread and elsewhere, you will not need to have a separate copy of your image converted into the output profile. There's no need to do manually in an image copy what the CM system is designed to do for you as part of the normal workings of the software. In addition, by allowing the CM system to operate, you will be able to select from several paper-specific profiles if you wish to work in different media, as well as occasionally alter other output parameters including rendering intent, as may be required for certain images.

Alright, then that's not what is causing my print issues. This morning I tried printing out a family portrait I took over Christmas. It also came out dark and has a definite lack of magenta to it.

I'm reluctant to turn my screen's brightness down any more...it's already hard to see detail in some of my other, non imaging, programs that are naturally dark.

Some additional info...

Comparing the test prints of the family, there is not a difference between the prints using the Spyder Cal profile I made, the Epson profile setup the way I had it, or the Epson profile changed to Royce's settings. Another photographer can see no differences as well.

howlandr wrote:

Mark Robinson wrote:Contrary to what "howlandr" suggested, (it appears that he knows more than I do) I select "no color management" both in the Photoshop dialogue box and the Epson box. I don't know why it works, but it does.

After converting my file to the appropriate paper profile, and doing the above, my prints look great, at least to me. I am printing with an Epson 2200.

Mark, not to be argumentative since whatever works for you is your call , but selecting "no color management" in both Photoshop and printer driver is definitely not a correct/intended manner for getting reasonable display-to-print matching. The whole point of color management is to translate image data via device-specific profiles so that image fidelity is relatively well preserved as the image moves from device to device. By setting "no color management" as you've done, you have completely disabled the CM system in respect to printing.

Your final paragraph indicates why this appears to work for you -- you are apparently manually converting your images to the printer/paper specific profile, prior to printing them. Hopefully you are doing this on a copy of your final TIFF image rather than converting your master file, which would be an unfortunate "destructive" step.

If you simply configure the CM settings as we've been discussing in this thread and elsewhere, you will not need to have a separate copy of your image converted into the output profile. There's no need to do manually in an image copy what the CM system is designed to do for you as part of the normal workings of the software. In addition, by allowing the CM system to operate, you will be able to select from several paper-specific profiles if you wish to work in different media, as well as occasionally alter other output parameters including rendering intent, as may be required for certain images.

Royce,

Not argumentative at all. Thank you for the explanation.

I think I have been getting good results the incorrect way. The outcome appears to be the same, with unnecessary steps involved. And no, I never make permanent changes to my original files, only to TIFF images.

Thanks again. Your's is a better way.

Mark: That's a good way to sum it up. Sometimes an "incorrect" series of steps can produce a good looking result.

Keith: There should be some differences apparent in the different output methods, even if they are minor. But let's set that aside for the moment and concentrate on getting one stable scenario that works as it "should". I'd recommend sticking with a generic Epson profile until things are sorted out, because it removes a whole set of variables introduced by the PrintFix custom profile. Once things are in decent shape with the Epson profile, you can then add the custom profile back into the mix and be reasonably assured that any new output variation is something to adjust in the printer profile, not anywhere else.

• - Display sanity checks: Do you know what the calibrated white point of your display is? Is it around 125 cd/m2, and is the profile also set for 6500K and gamma 2.2? This should be a reasonable baseline for your display. Although it will mean images adjusted to look good on the display will be somewhat brighter than a generic profiled print.
  - You have an image in CS2 that looks good on screen, in the Adobe RGB color space. Perhaps post an example image here (converted to sRGB of course), so we can see what you're considering a decently toned shot. If it looks good then presumably your display profile is a decent match for our display profiles, which rules out another potential issue.
  - Try soft-proofing the image in CS2, based on proof conditions set up for the generic Epson profile as the Device to Simulate. Also select Relative Colorimetric as the rendering intent for starters, check Black Point Compensation and Simulate Paper Color (which should also check Simulate Black Ink). Does the soft proofed image look: a) reasonably close to the display image, or b) much darker as is the case with the printed image? If a), then we'll look more at the printing part of the pipeline. If b) then it may mean: b1) the display profile needs adjusting, or b2) the image simply is not optimally adjusted for printing & needs to be toned up via output-specific adjustments in order to get a better print. (B2 can happen; profiling everything is not a guarantee it will all match exactly, only that each device is operating accurately within a known range and any differences will be stable, consistent & fairly predictable over time.)
  - Print sanity checks: When you print, you are printing Document (not Proof), letting Photoshop handle CM with the Epson R2400 premium glossy profile selected, as well as Relative Colorimetric and Black Point Compensation. Is the PK black ink installed, not MK?
  - Note there are several versions of the Epson generic profile. On my system I see "SPR2400 PremiumGlossy" (which I think installed with the printer driver), as well as "SPR2400 PremGlsy BstPhoto", "SPR2400 PremGlsy Photo" and "SPR2400 PremGlsy PhotoRPM". The latter 3 are newer profiles that can be downloaded from the Espon web site & installed. I suspect "SPR2400 PremGlsy BstPhoto" is the best match for your situation, but any difference from the older profile is bound to be very minimal at most.

Let's start with that.

For grins, I just tried printing two copies of a dark-toned image I most recently posted in EHK ("Sodium Vapor Night Life"), using the Epson "SPR2400 PremiumGlossy" and "SPR2400 PremGlsy BstPhoto" profiles. Normally I use luster paper rather than glossy, but these two test prints were extremely close to each other and to my own custom luster paper profile. I know from experience that means they are very close to the generic Epson luster profile(s), the Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl profile, etc. In turn all of these are pretty well matched to my Dell 24" display, given the moderate brightness differential.

I normally print with Qimage, not CS2, so I also tried a test print of the same image from CS2 with the configuration discussed here and the "SPR2400 PremGlsy BstPhoto" profile. Again it was a good match for all the others.

I'll post answers to your latest questions when I get back home tonight from work and verify all of this. Thank you again for the continued and detailed help.

Royce, I re-calibrated my monitor again tonight as that is the only way I know to find out what the white point is. With this new calibration, I was able to get the following settings...

Target 0.314, 0.324xy
Current 0.314, 0.323xy
Difference .14 Dab

Target 6500 K
Current 6472 K

Target N/A
Current 125.3 cd/m2

Gamma is 2.2

If I turn the brightness all the way down, I can get into the 114.x cd/m2 range. Also, the Spyder software came with a profile chooser that allows me to hot swap between calibrations. I'm thinking that I could setup a 114 cd/m2 cal for image work and a much brighter one for daily use.

I'm not sure what you mean by soft proof...are you talking about proofing by print preview?

All of the print settings are correct and "pass" your print sanity checks. I'm also using the "SPR2400 PremGlsy BstPhoto" profile downloaded from Epson.

I'll post a test image in a few minutes.

Here is two of the images I'm using as a test print...

With this new monitor cal and the PS profiles set, my print preview image now looks like crap. I've read that is is kind of common and not really and issue?? This is a screen shot of it now...

Keith, the print preview box is not color managed (i.e., it does not take into account your monitor profile). This issue is fixed in the upcoming version of PS (CS 3) but in earlier versions (CS 2 and older) you should ignore what you see in the print preview box.

Eric

My prints are a pretty close match to my screen... about as close as a print can get to a monitor anyway and I'd say your "print preview" looks pretty close to mine.... always has that magenta cast to it although your preview looks a bit lighter than the original which I don't recall seeing on mine. I only use the print preview to make sure I have selected the proper size paper and orientation so I don't waste the paper and ink if I have.

Jim, that's all I use print preview for as well...just to confirm I've got the layout correct. It's just never looked like that before last night.

KeithUpton wrote:Royce, I re-calibrated my monitor again tonight [...]

Okay, those settings all look good.

If I turn the brightness all the way down, I can get into the 114.x cd/m2 range. Also, the Spyder software came with a profile chooser that allows me to hot swap between calibrations. I'm thinking that I could setup a 114 cd/m2 cal for image work and a much brighter one for daily use.

The profile swapper sounds like a good utility, but I don't advise running the brightness that low. While in the ideal world it's desirable to have the display around 100 cd/m2, the vast majority of desktop LCD's are designed to run very bright for office work, gaming, watching DVD's, etc. -- usually in marginal lighting conditions, not reference lighting designed for image processing work.

Turning the brightness on the display all the way to minimum may compromise image quality in terms of contrast and color accuracy. The display isn't designed or intended to run at min brightness. The extra reduction from 125 cd/m2 to 114 cd/m2 won't make that noticeable a difference, and is certainly not a good trade-off if display quality is harmed in other ways. So I'd recommend leaving it around 125 cd/m2.

I'm not sure what you mean by soft proof...are you talking about proofing by print preview?

No, soft proofing is something different, and uses the custom proof conditions that you set up (see the 2nd from the top in your screen shots). When you have a custom proof condition selected in the View > Proof Setup menu, you can activate the proof profile on your display using View > Proof Colors. You can visually check if any colors in the image are out of the printer's gamut using View > Gamut Warning. This is a way of visually checking the effects of your output profile before actually printing the image.

This has been discussed in some other threads, see this one in particular:
http://www.naturescapes.net/phpBB3/view ... hp?t=83052

All of the print settings are correct and "pass" your print sanity checks. I'm also using the "SPR2400 PremGlsy BstPhoto" profile downloaded from Epson.

I'll post a test image in a few minutes.

That all sounds good, and your test images look fine for tonality, so I can't see that you've got a monitor calibration issue lurking now that Adobe Gamma is out of there.

Don't worry about the weird look in the print preview. As mentioned it is not a color managed window and definitely will look "off". If it actually looked normal before, that's surprising and probably related to why your prints were coming out wrong. For properly adjusted image data, the print preview normally looks light for me, and often has a magenta cast.