Colour matching,..Is this good?

Dear all,

I must apologise in advance at the length of this post, and if I don't make
myself too clear.

Since I've been into digital photography about 3yrs, I've been moaning on
about poor colour matching, and I see that many post about similar things.
There are those, that claim to get it exactly right, and others claim of
huge colour shifts,...I wondered whether most of us were all looking at the
same thing, but just had different expectations of what was right. I've
often wondered, esp with my 890 printer ,whether I'm just being too fussy.

I recently contacted photobox, that did a basic monitor checking service.
They sent me a target, which was meant to be the GOLD standard. I could
download the reference file, and compare on screen to the target.

I then printed out with Epson inks, on prem gloss paper, the image, under
various settings, and found at 1440 photoenhance 'normal' matched best,
comparing to the target viewed under subdued daylight.

Below is the ref file, I've scanned the 'GOLD' standard, and my
printout,...I know there are many variables, but I've adjusted the scanned
images to look as close the the paper copies viewed under daylight. I hope
all this makes sense.

See what you think?

Here is the ref.Target :



Here is what the monitor displayed, note how the greens have changed hue, and all the colours seem very vivid.



Here is the Epson printout, the greens again don't work right, the colours in general are not as vivid as the monitor. The blue is more intense, and the water, has less green, and the little girl has lost some of her rosiness, although not quite as much as is seen here.



I'm not sure if these examples will work on your systems,when viewed on your display.,I'm now at work, and the examples work well on the siemens monitor here I suppose some will say, so what!, if some people are happy, and others are not then that's the way it is. However, if this is likely to be as good as I can get, then I'll carry on with the enjoyment of the photos, and try and stop being so critical.

Joe

Hi, Joe.

I bought a 890 two weeks ago, and I've had similar experience with colour shift betwwen scanner, digital camera, monitor and printer.
My monitor seems to saturated, my scanner gives a slight green tint.....

To get similar colour betwwen our equipment, we need to calibrate it.
There are software available to do this, but I'm not willing to pay $400 for it.

Have a look at http://www.charm.net/~mchaney/imaging/icc.htm

Geir Solvik

Thankyou,

I've got Qimage pro, but not been able to do much better, but maybe it will take time to try it out. I will be using photoshop soon for a while, and I may do better with that.

That's a fascinating link, it'll take time to read!

Joe

GEIR said:

Hi, Joe.

I bought a 890 two weeks ago, and I've had similar experience with
colour shift betwwen scanner, digital camera, monitor and printer.
My monitor seems to saturated, my scanner gives a slight green
tint.....

To get similar colour betwwen our equipment, we need to calibrate it.
There are software available to do this, but I'm not willing to pay
$400 for it.

Have a look at http://www.charm.net/~mchaney/imaging/icc.htm

Geir Solvik

Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that my pictures taken with my olympus 990 comes out of the printer just like I remembered the scene. Very natural.

If I redused the saturation of my monitor slightly, and reduced the green channel on my scanner I would be there.(almost)

Bu as long as the pro's are preaching about calibration, I really want to find out how accurate its possible to get, with custom ICC profiles.

I plan to find a cheaper paper than Epson utlra glossy, and I'll probably need a custom profile for that as well.

Are you guys really paying that much ($400 for Monacosystem) for this?

It might have been useful to have taken a photo of the original target, and see how that compares, I may try and do that. I've done comparisons with my Fuji 4900z lcd screen and the monitor, and find the lcd is oversaturated ,with higher contrast than the original. Its always difficult to know otherwsie whether the print is being faithful to the original, because
a) its often some time before I view the image

b) the differences can be subtle, and the mind can play 'tricks', for example, was it 'really' that sunny that day!

How I view my prints can make a difference, all these were done under subdued daylight, and viewing prints under different lighting can of course make huge differences to what is perceived.

Joe

GEIR said:

I forgot to mention that my pictures taken with my olympus 990
comes out of the printer just like I remembered the scene. Very
natural.

If I redused the saturation of my monitor slightly, and reduced the
green channel on my scanner I would be there.(almost)

Bu as long as the pro's are preaching about calibration, I really
want to find out how accurate its possible to get, with custom ICC
profiles.

I plan to find a cheaper paper than Epson utlra glossy, and I'll
probably need a custom profile for that as well.

Are you guys really paying that much ($400 for Monacosystem) for this?

Click to expand...