Dialing in your printer - SpyderPrint and Spyder5

digidog · May 23, 2015

J Mountford said:
The only part of Lightroom that I am using to produce my final print (other then the normal flow of development) is in the print module of LM where the brightness is increased to 45. All my print values are done through the ICC profile I set up with SpyderPrint with that final increase to 45 in the print module of LM.

The SpyderPrint profile is either correct or producing too dark output. Use the reference image to figure out if that's the case or not. There's zero reason to be using the 45 setting in LR. That's my point. Either the print IS too dark (bad profile or other settings) or there's no need for the plus 45 setting.

J Mountford said:
That increase to 45, as far as I know, does not ship with the photo if I were to send it to a lab.

Correct. So see the issue here? You have RGB values. They are either correct or they are not by the time that data goes to the printer. If the values are correct, sending to the lab will produce acceptable results. If the values are too dark, they will not.

J Mountford said:
Why is this happening, to be so far out of "specs" that I would need to do that? I have been very careful in setting up my ICC profiles so am I looking at a hardware problem?

That's what you have to figure out. Again, use the reference test image I provided. It's RGB values are not too dark. There's zero reason why you'd apply the plus 45 settings if the output profile, for your printer or the one your lab uses is a good profile.

J Mountford said:
Perhaps what I should do it take the file into a lab and have them print it up, telling them not to manipulate the photo whatsoever. I would assume the lab would have their printer at least in the ballpark as far as calibration goes.

Yes! But again, use a reference image.

J Mountford said:
The final part, should it really matter? I am getting good prints, the color values are very close (as close as could be expected with a 6 ink system) so should I just move on and forget the rest? Hmmmmmmmm, conundrum.

It matters if you ever intend to print those RGB values outside your own closed loop system that uses the plus 45 setting.

The RGB master file should be output agnostic. With good RGB values, you could send that file to a dozen printers with a dozen different profiles and get good results. But we don't know if your RGB values are too dark and that's why you have to resort to the plus 45 setting OR if the values are fine and it's a mismatch to the display that makes your print appear too dark (compared to the display).

digidog · May 23, 2015

J Mountford said:
Yes, I looked at that first output under various lighting conditions, inside, fluorescent lights, reg lights (getting hard to find those now), daylight from clouds to bright sunlight. The prints were noticeably dark. For instance, in the test print you pointed too, the girl on the far left was very dark, the black baby, the blacks on the right side of her face swallowed up detail, etc. The gray scales on the bottom, in the dark print the first two steps were not distinguishable from each other while the light print (45 bright output on LM) were. The colors were darker too, even the sunset one on the bottom right had introduced some green in the dark photo while in the light one that was gone.

Good, then it's the profile or perhaps some setting elsewhere in the driver? Probably the profile.

J Mountford said:
So, now that I have good output, should I go back to square one and continue till I get output that does not involve boosting the light up to 45 in the LM print module?

Again, if your only output is a closed loop system, you could stick with the plus 45 setting but it's not a good fix if you ever output to other processes. Something's wrong, you shouldn't be seeing dark prints from the reference image.

J Mountford said:
Paper, that is another problem, I am stuck with Kodak, Canon and a variety of cheap Chinese brands.

Shouldn't be a factor with a good custom profile, that's why you have the Spyder system. That said, had you asked what product to use prior to this investment, I'd not advise this product!

Didn't you say you also have a ColorMunki? Did you try making a profile with that product? Even though it only uses 100 patches (50 plus 50), it does a surprisingly good job with so few patches. I've done comparisons with thousands of patches and a $5K iSis Spectrophotometer and while that profile is better, it's shocking how good the Munki profile is based on the small number of patches and a rather inexpensive Spectrophotometer.

Spyder has all kinds of tweaking in the software because (presumably) the darn product can't make a good profile out of the box or by default. There should be zero reasons you should have to tune or edit a profile.

gscotten · May 24, 2015

J Mountford said:
My first step was my monitor and found out it was way to bright. Also found that when I adjusted it to where the Spyder5 said it should be was to dim.

When you calibrated your monitor and found it was too dim, did you leave it where the Spyder5 had it, or did you set it back to where you liked it. If so, I bet your prints are gonna be dark.

digidog · May 24, 2015

gscotten said:
When you calibrated your monitor and found it was too dim, did you leave it where the Spyder5 had it, or did you set it back to where you liked it. If so, I bet your prints are gonna be dark.

How does altering the display calibration have any effect on the print being then darker or lighter?

The key is to understand how editing the RGB values based on the display backlight could affect the printed output. That's why using a reference image to test this is key. The RGB values will not produce a dark print per se. A bad profile, a mistake in setting the driver etc, will.

IF the display is too bright and someone alters the RGB values in the reference image to look good, then the print will be too dark because the user altered the RGB values when no editing was necessary. There's a direct cause and effect.

J Mountford · May 24, 2015

gscotten said:
J Mountford said:

My first step was my monitor and found out it was way to bright. Also found that when I adjusted it to where the Spyder5 said it should be was to dim.

Click to expand...

When you calibrated your monitor and found it was too dim, did you leave it where the Spyder5 had it, or did you set it back to where you liked it. If so, I bet your prints are gonna be dark.

J Mountford · May 24, 2015

digidog said:
gscotten said:

When you calibrated your monitor and found it was too dim, did you leave it where the Spyder5 had it, or did you set it back to where you liked it. If so, I bet your prints are gonna be dark.

Click to expand...

How does altering the display calibration have any effect on the print being then darker or lighter?

The key is to understand how editing the RGB values based on the display backlight could affect the printed output. That's why using a reference image to test this is key. The RGB values will not produce a dark print per se. A bad profile, a mistake in setting the driver etc, will.

IF the display is too bright and someone alters the RGB values in the reference image to look good, then the print will be too dark because the user altered the RGB values when no editing was necessary. There's a direct cause and effect.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Then why is it, when I dimmed my monitor as what the spyder5 said, that my prints became lighter. I am not talking about the target, that is not manipulated, I am talking about my print output after working them up in LR. I didn't change my workflow, I did the same basic things I have always done, yet now my prints are lighter, the only problem, as you know, is my prints need to be lightened (bright) in the LR print module to 45. (Pre Spyder5 and SpyderPrint it was set at 90 and it still wasn't enough) Which you said is fine, as long as I only publish in my world, but take it to another computer and printer, there could be a problem.

When I worked for the newspaper in the USA, for a year I worked in the photo department working up photos to be put in the paper. I was given a set of instructions on what to do, not the reasons why, just do A, look for B, when you get B, then do C and so on. All the monitors were calibrated with, what looked like, a Spyder, and the room was dim with no windows.

Therefor, if a whole set of experts are saying to do one thing, and you, an individual are saying it is not necessary, who am I to believe? Or am I missing a step or two? You obviously know what you are talking about, but, one thing I did notice, once I got the Spyder5 and worked up some photos, that my brightness slider was set down to about 75 (or was it 65?) and the output was getting closer. Then I got the SpyderPrint and after some frustration and failures, my prints are now popping, which didn't happen before, all that while I have the bright slider in the print module set to 45.

Regards

Jim

PS No, I don't have a color Munki too, someone else in this thread does. I wish I did, then I could do more comparative studies that could point me in the right direction as to why my bright slider needs to be on 45, when it shouldn't have to be manipulated at all.

--
"Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated"
Confucius

Hugowolf · May 24, 2015

J Mountford said:
gscotten said:

J Mountford said:

My first step was my monitor and found out it was way to bright. Also found that when I adjusted it to where the Spyder5 said it should be was to dim.

Click to expand...

When you calibrated your monitor and found it was too dim, did you leave it where the Spyder5 had it, or did you set it back to where you liked it. If so, I bet your prints are gonna be dark.

--
George

Click to expand...

I left it where the Spyder5 said it should be, covered the windows and dimmed the lights in my computer room.

So basically, when correctly calibrated, you lowered the ambient lighting to make images appear relatively brighter again.

Brian A

digidog · May 24, 2015

J Mountford said:
Then why is it, when I dimmed my monitor as what the spyder5 said, that my prints became lighter.

I have no idea. I have no idea how Spyder 5 could possibly link the two, it seems impossible.

You've got two profiles. One is for the printer, the other is for the display based on it's calibration. There's no link between the two. If you alter the display calibration, the print profile hasn't changed a lick. Your display may appear differently and you may now edit the data which could alter the output. But unless you do so, the same RGB values should not change at all by altering the display calibration and profile. IF somehow DataColor is doing this behind the scenes, their products are more screwed up than I understood in the first place.

J Mountford said:
I am not talking about the target, that is not manipulated, I am talking about my print output after working them up in LR. I didn't change my workflow, I did the same basic things I have always done, yet now my prints are lighter, the only problem, as you know, is my prints need to be lightened (bright) in the LR print module to 45. (Pre Spyder5 and SpyderPrint it was set at 90 and it still wasn't enough)

Assuming the display calibration/profile and output profile operate as they should in every other product I've ever used in the last 20 years, there's no reason to use the plus 45 settings, just apply that 'edit' if you will to the display calibration so the prints match the RGB values and thus the print.

J Mountford said:
Which you said is fine, as long as I only publish in my world, but take it to another computer and printer, there could be a problem.

Yes. It's far from ideal. The sliders are intended for users who don't have the ability to alter the calibration of their displays which are too bright and produce a visual disconnect between that display and the resulting print. You've got the tools to calibrate the display, so just alter the calibration to in effect, apply the plus 45 where it belongs, in display calibration (it would be the opposite of course, minus 45 although the values don't translate).

J Mountford said:
Therefor, if a whole set of experts are saying to do one thing, and you, an individual are saying it is not necessary, who am I to believe?

Believe whoever you wish or whoever you think understands the solution of your problem properly.

J Mountford said:
Or am I missing a step or two? You obviously know what you are talking about, but, one thing I did notice, once I got the Spyder5 and worked up some photos, that my brightness slider was set down to about 75 (or was it 65?) and the output was getting closer.

That would be the setting for display, not print profile? If so, go farther down that path such you do not need the sliders in LR set to anything but zero!

J Mountford · May 24, 2015

Hugowolf said:
J Mountford said:

gscotten said:

J Mountford said:

My first step was my monitor and found out it was way to bright. Also found that when I adjusted it to where the Spyder5 said it should be was to dim.

Click to expand...

When you calibrated your monitor and found it was too dim, did you leave it where the Spyder5 had it, or did you set it back to where you liked it. If so, I bet your prints are gonna be dark.

--
George

Click to expand...

I left it where the Spyder5 said it should be, covered the windows and dimmed the lights in my computer room.

Click to expand...

So basically, when correctly calibrated, you lowered the ambient lighting to make images appear relatively brighter again.

Brian A

Of course I did, but by recalibrating my monitor to that known value, seemed to increase the brightness of my final print after manipulating photos in LR. It did not fix my problem, but it took me in the right direction and instead of having to put my LR print module brightness to 90 as before, I then set it on 65 or 75, which indicates to me that monitor brightness, working up the photos, has a baring on the final output. keep in mind, that brightness slider does not have any affect on the brightness of the photo on the monitor, only in the final output.

My point is, regardless of all the other things that some are pointing out, what I got was positive results which said I was headed in the right direction.

Now that I have my printer dialed in and my photos are popping like what I wanted, what I need to figure out is why I have to have my brightness slider in the print module of LR up to 45 instead of at zero, which some have pointed out where it should be, because making everything equal, if I take my photo to another computer and printer, that 45 increase in brightness could have a negative affect on their output if they don't do the same. In another words, my final print should not need any manipulation going from one computer to another.

Regards

Jim

--
"Life is so simple, but we insist on making it complicated"
Confucius

tucson0159 · May 24, 2015

digidog said:
tucson0159 said:

I find the Spyder package to be very good for its price class compared to others. Colormunki is mindlessly simple, but you end up having to accept the what you get.

Click to expand...

Which is a very good output profile. Editing isn't necessary nor should it be.

Member said:

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Click to expand...

I decided to profile the same paper with both devices to see what created the "better" profile. For a quick visual test, I printed out a more demanding reference test photo on the Internet. The profiles ended up being very close. Comparing the two, the Colormunki had more accurate skin tones and coloration, but the Spyder4Perint has a bit better resolution of a color scale that goes from dark to white. The difference is about one shade in the color of the scales I used. I think either product can work.

The Colormunki gave surprising results with their automated approach to the software and the number of patches scanned. One thing I noticed is Spyder4Print gives slightly variable results. Perhaps this is due to not being able to get completely accurate readings of each patch. So I think that I will profile a paper with both approaches. Then I will choose the best one that suites my purposes. I suspect the Syder4Print can be made to print better black and white photos. Otherwise, I think I will go with the Colormunki.

FWIW

Does this sound similar to any of the results that all of you found with both devices?

--
With sincere regards, Bob

digidog · May 24, 2015

J Mountford said:
My point is, regardless of all the other things that some are pointing out, what I got was positive results which said I was headed in the right direction.

Do you see how much a kludge this really is based on that observation? You're not getting what color management aims for: WYSIWYG. That's what is so lame about these sliders. You get a lighter print than the display shows you. Wouldn't you rather see the image on-screen with a soft proof that matches the print in LR and EVERY application that supports color management? The LR slider ensures that's not going to happen. Not only is the print lighter, the display doesn't match and only in LR. It can work in a closed loop workflow and it's intended to aid users who don't have a clue about how to properly calibrate their displays but otherwise, it's a huge hurt me button.

Just translate the 'edit' from the LR sliders to the calibration of the display and every ICC aware app will work the same AND you'll see on screen what the print looks like. With the solution you're using, you've got a product that should be able to apply this to the display calibration but you're not using the product correctly or fully. The display is too bright.

Now if you take a reference image and end up with a dark print, the display having no bearing here, you've got another problem as I stated in the past. It's a poor profile or some other setting when printing. If the reference image doesn't print too dark as it should but doesn't match the display, fix the display mismatch by recalibrating to proper target aim points.

Doesn't this make more sense in the grand scheme of things? If you had no way to produce a display calibration to match your prints, the LR sliders would be helpful even if they only operate in LR. That isn't the case. You do have tools to presumably calibrate your display.

Or maybe the new Spyder products are garbage. Don't know. Had you asked, I'd have steered you to X-rite products, those solutions absolutely can work.

J Mountford · May 25, 2015

digidog said:
Member said:

Or am I missing a step or two? You obviously know what you are talking about, but, one thing I did notice, once I got the Spyder5 and worked up some photos, that my brightness slider was set down to about 75 (or was it 65?) and the output was getting closer.

Click to expand...

That would be the setting for display, not print profile? If so, go farther down that path such you do not need the sliders in LR set to anything but zero!

Howard Moftich · May 25, 2015

the point is that you shouldn't need to use that brightness slider in the Print module if the brightness of the monitor is 'correct' (ie. set to match the print in the desired viewing condition). that slider is a major kludge-er-ama since it's 100% 'blind'

digidog · May 25, 2015

J Mountford said:
It seems you misunderstood something of what I said. The brightness slider in the print module has absolutely no affect with the display of the monitor. It is the final output where the difference is noticed.

It seems you misunderstood something I wrote. That's not a good idea, it files in the face of sound color management and it's goal (WYSIWYG). Just apply that "correction" to the display and you'll be in sync. IF the print is INDEED TOO DARK, you've got another problem, with the profile or some other print setting. The reference image should not print dark and it should match the display!

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

J Mountford · May 25, 2015

digidog said:
J Mountford said:

My point is, regardless of all the other things that some are pointing out, what I got was positive results which said I was headed in the right direction.

Click to expand...

Do you see how much a kludge this really is based on that observation? You're not getting what color management aims for: WYSIWYG. That's what is so lame about these sliders. You get a lighter print than the display shows you. Wouldn't you rather see the image on-screen with a soft proof that matches the print in LR and EVERY application that supports color management? The LR slider ensures that's not going to happen. Not only is the print lighter, the display doesn't match and only in LR. It can work in a closed loop workflow and it's intended to aid users who don't have a clue about how to properly calibrate their displays but otherwise, it's a huge hurt me button.

Just translate the 'edit' from the LR sliders to the calibration of the display and every ICC aware app will work the same AND you'll see on screen what the print looks like. With the solution you're using, you've got a product that should be able to apply this to the display calibration but you're not using the product correctly or fully. The display is too bright.

Now if you take a reference image and end up with a dark print, the display having no bearing here, you've got another problem as I stated in the past. It's a poor profile or some other setting when printing. If the reference image doesn't print too dark as it should but doesn't match the display, fix the display mismatch by recalibrating to proper target aim points.

Doesn't this make more sense in the grand scheme of things? If you had no way to produce a display calibration to match your prints, the LR sliders would be helpful even if they only operate in LR. That isn't the case. You do have tools to presumably calibrate your display.

Or maybe the new Spyder products are garbage. Don't know. Had you asked, I'd have steered you to X-rite products, those solutions absolutely can work.

digidog · May 25, 2015

J Mountford said:
#1 I live in a third world country

#2 I live on a fixed income

I don't see how that's pertinent. You have two products that presumably allow you to calibrate and profile your display as well as create a custom profile for your printer, right?

IF so, use them correctly, that's my advise. I've tried to steer you that direction. I'm kind of done now. Move forward as you please.

J Mountford said:
Again, I am getting what I am seeing on the monitor by sliding up the brightness slider in the print module to 45 which does not affect the image on the monitor, only the final output. When comparing the final output to what is on my monitor it is a match.

Fine, continue to do that, I really don't care. I've attempted to explain using sound color management workflow why what you're doing is sub optimal. After that, do as you please.

Didn't you come here asking how to fix a problem? The title is Dialing in your printer - SpyderPrint and Spyder5. I told you the proper way to dial (something you shouldn't even have to do with the part that deals with the printer profile). Your display isn't properly dialed in or as I and other's have repeatedly written, you'd have ZERO need to futz with the LR print sliders!

J Mountford said:
So, if I print without manipulating the Print module slider, the print is to dark, but not to dark on my monitor. If I put the slider up to 45, then my output matches what is on my monitor even though that slider had no affect whatsoever on what I was seeing on my monitor, it lightened my print up to match my monitor.

I've explained the issue with the LR sliders.

J Mountford said:
Again, the brightness slider in the print module of Lightroom does not affect what I am seeing on my monitor, but it does lighten the output from my printer which then matches my monitor.

And it should affect what you're seeing otherwise, you're not getting what color management aims for: WYSIWYG.

J Mountford · May 25, 2015

Member said:
And it should affect what you're seeing otherwise, you're not getting what color management aims for: WYSIWYG.

digidog · May 25, 2015

J Mountford said:
I only have the Spyder line of products and nothing else.

But you have a product that deals with the printer profile and a 2nd that handles the display right?

J Mountford said:
I will continue to print out color patches and try to get it to the point where I don't have to use the brightness slider while I continue to use the ICC profile I have right now till I have a match.

But the issue is I believe not the printer profile but the display calibration.

Did you print out the color reference image I referenced? IF the print is too dark, it's your printer profile.

J Mountford said:
Back when I was working for the newspaper, part of my job was taking readings, with an X-Rite of ten printer patches and emailing the results off. Each patch I had to read 6 times, each reading varied, so I took the average of those 6 readings to come up with an average for each patch. The same thing is happening with the SpyderPrint, each reading of the same patch varies, not a lot, but varies nevertheless. Is this a problem with the reader, or just the nature of the beast?

Could be, it's not a great instrument for making output profiles, it's not a true Spectrophotometer. That's why they make you jump thorough hoops to 'edit' the profile. That should be unnecessary.

J Mountford said:
--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog

Home

J Mountford · May 25, 2015

digidog said:
J Mountford said:

I only have the Spyder line of products and nothing else.

Click to expand...

But you have a product that deals with the printer profile and a 2nd that handles the display right?

Yes, I have the Spyder5 (monitor) and SpyderPrint (printer)

Member said:
Member said:

I will continue to print out color patches and try to get it to the point where I don't have to use the brightness slider while I continue to use the ICC profile I have right now till I have a match.

Click to expand...

But the issue is I believe not the printer profile but the display calibration.

Did you print out the color reference image I referenced? IF the print is too dark, it's your printer profile.

Yes, I downloaded it and printed it out without any manipulation of the print module bright slider, it was too dark. I then set it on 45 and it is a match to my monitor.

Member said:
Member said:

Back when I was working for the newspaper, part of my job was taking readings, with an X-Rite of ten printer patches and emailing the results off. Each patch I had to read 6 times, each reading varied, so I took the average of those 6 readings to come up with an average for each patch. The same thing is happening with the SpyderPrint, each reading of the same patch varies, not a lot, but varies nevertheless. Is this a problem with the reader, or just the nature of the beast?

Click to expand...

Could be, it's not a great instrument for making output profiles, it's not a true Spectrophotometer. That's why they make you jump thorough hoops to 'edit' the profile. That should be unnecessary.

Doesn't that depend on which model you get? The X-Rite was supplied by Epson, along with the rip and the computer. I would assume Epson has things like that down to a science. The results were sent to Epson daily so they could remotely adjust the printer. Now keep in mind, this was nine years ago. I lived in China for 7 years since then then the Philippines for the last 2.

digidog · May 25, 2015

J Mountford said:
Yes, I downloaded it and printed it out without any manipulation of the print module bright slider, it was too dark.

Do you have a canned profile for that paper to try? It really sounds like you have a poor printer profile if the reference image prints too dark no matter how you view it.

J Mountford said:
Doesn't that depend on which model you get?

Not really, the instrument isn't ideal as it's not producing spectral data. I'm not saying it can't work! The reason they make you edit the profile is because it needs it often which is a due to it's design, it's really a colorimeter with a fancy name.

J Mountford said:
The X-Rite was supplied by Epson, along with the rip and the computer. I would assume Epson has things like that down to a science.

If you're referring to the product built inside some Epson printers, that's an X-Rite i1Pro Spectrophotometer, a much better instrument for this task. But X-rite also makes densitometers which are totally different and not the tool for producing print profiles.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

Dialing in your printer - SpyderPrint and Spyder5

digidog

Guest

digidog

Guest

Senior Member

digidog

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

digidog

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

digidog

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

digidog

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

digidog

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

digidog

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

digidog

Guest

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts