Monitor Calibration?

[grsnovi]

Recently I've had the urge to print. I purchased some Red River sample packets containing 2 sheets each of some of their various papers. I also downloaded their ICC profiles.

My hope was that my WF-7510 (with a 13" x 19" sheet feed capacity and pigment inks) would get me started.

My first two attempts were OK using the Epson generic Photo Glossy and Photo Matte settings (no ICC) with the RR papers. I figured with actual ICC's for specific papers and a calibrated monitor I'd be golden.

Not so - at least not yet.

I received a Calibrite Display 123 (which I think is a brand of X-Rite) today and went through the calibration process. It did change my screen color some. So I tried a print from a RAW file that I processed with the calibrated screen and submitted it to the printer with the paper's ICC profile. The results were nothing like what I saw on the screen. They were heavily on the yellow side of things.

So, I reset the monitor and reprinted using the generic printer ICC and the generic Epson Photo Glossy paper selection and I got a very dark print that looked more like what I saw on screen although darker.

Not sure where to go next...

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Recently I've had the urge to print. I purchased some Red River sample packets containing 2 sheets each of some of their various papers. I also downloaded their ICC profiles.

My hope was that my WF-7510 (with a 13" x 19" sheet feed capacity and pigment inks) would get me started.

My first two attempts were OK using the Epson generic Photo Glossy and Photo Matte settings (no ICC) with the RR papers. I figured with actual ICC's for specific papers and a calibrated monitor I'd be golden.

Not so - at least not yet.

I received a Calibrite Display 123 (which I think is a brand of X-Rite) today and went through the calibration process. It did change my screen color some. So I tried a print from a RAW file that I processed with the calibrated screen and submitted it to the printer with the paper's ICC profile.

IMO, instead of doing that, eliminate one frequent source of issues and use a professionally-prepared test image file. My favorites are Bill Atkinson's printer test composite, a moderate-size sRGB JPEG of which you can download / save from my post at:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61518002

and Andrew Rodney's Gamut Test File, which you can download / save from:

http://www.digitaldog.net/tips-and-tricks.html

The results were nothing like what I saw on the screen. They were heavily on the yellow side of things.

When you print with an ICC profile, you also have to turn off all printer driver color controls. How to do that differs between Windows and Mac OS, and printer to printer, but e.g. on my little old Epson, in Windows, I set Color Management to ICM and then check Off (No Color Adjustment). Also, make sure you don't have any other driver-side color controls like PhotoEnhance enabled.

So, I reset the monitor and reprinted using the generic printer ICC and the generic Epson Photo Glossy paper selection and I got a very dark print that looked more like what I saw on screen although darker.

That may well be because your screen is too bright. When you used the Calibrite Display 123, what brightness level did you calibrate to? I suggest starting at 100 cd/m^2, and see how that corresponds.

 

[grsnovi]

Thanks for your help...

Using a standard image makes sense.

I thought that the Red River pdf they sent did indeed explain how I was supposed to disengage the printer driver controls.

As far as my screen being too bright...

...during the calibration process I was unable to get the screen cd/m^2 to the value that was suggested.

Part of me wonders if I ought to just shell out for a new screen - this one is a good 15 years old and there is a distinct color temperature difference between the external 24" Acer V233H and the adjacent 17" screen on the Toshiba Satellite laptop.

 

[BobKnDP]

(snip)

As far as my screen being too bright...

...during the calibration process I was unable to get the screen cd/m^2 to the value that was suggested.

(snip)

You weren't able to get the luminance down to 100 nits by using the monitor's brightness adjustment? I've used some monitors where you had to choose the correct mode. Some modes disabled some adjustments. (But I'd expect brightness to be adjustable in most modes.)

Did you run the verification on the profile afterwards? I've screwed things up badly in the past, and the verification showed it clearly.

 

[grsnovi]

(snip)

As far as my screen being too bright...

...during the calibration process I was unable to get the screen cd/m^2 to the value that was suggested.

(snip)

You weren't able to get the luminance down to 100 nits by using the monitor's brightness adjustment?

I assumed that I needed to increase the brightness which was showing around 88 as I recall.

Did you run the verification on the profile afterwards?

No.

Thanks for your input Bob!

 

[BobKnDP]

(snip)

As far as my screen being too bright...

...during the calibration process I was unable to get the screen cd/m^2 to the value that was suggested.

(snip)

You weren't able to get the luminance down to 100 nits by using the monitor's brightness adjustment?

I assumed that I needed to increase the brightness which was showing around 88 as I recall.

Did you run the verification on the profile afterwards?

No.

Thanks for your input Bob!

88 nits is OK, but I've generally gone a bit higher (100 or 120). Is 88 the highest the monitor would go? It's spec'd at 300 nits, and it appears to have an LED backlight (which I wouldn't expect to dim much).

I hope I haven't presented myself as an expert. I'm far from it.

I believe that the Calibrite colorimeters and spectrophotometers were originally rebranded X-Rite models. They've since introduced new variants. The Display 123 looks entirely new.

 

[grsnovi]

I've since done a reset back to how it was previously.

I believe that the Display 123 is new. It's less than half the price of the Calibrite Display Pro HL. I assume the technology and s/w are similar.

Calibrite does seem to have been derived from X-Rite.

I'm working with a couple of folks to converge on getting good prints from my WF-7510.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

Thanks for your help.

You're welcome.

I thought that the Red River pdf they sent did indeed explain how I was supposed to disengage the printer driver controls.

There are a bunch of permutations, and I don't know about how to correctly set the WF-7510's driver for 'application manages color' and printing with ICC profiles. If you want to screen-capture (Ctrl-Alt-Print Screen, past into Paint, crop, save as a JPEG, and upload) the printer driver settings as accessed from within whatever software you're using to print photos and past them here, there may be some issue somebody can identify.

As far as my screen being too bright...

...during the calibration process I was unable to get the screen cd/m^2 to the value that was suggested.

Part of me wonders if I ought to just shell out for a new screen - this one is a good 15 years old and there is a distinct color temperature difference between the external 24" Acer V233H and the adjacent 17" screen on the Toshiba Satellite laptop.

I'm finding it difficult to believe that even a fifteen-year-old monitor cannot get to as bright as 100 cd/m^2. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that that makes me suspect that there's some other mis-setting or misunderstanding. FWIW, I'm using a Dell U2415 that must be six or seven years old now, and to get it right when calibrating the last time (maybe two weeks ago), I've got it set to brightness 27 out of 100 and contrast 83 out of 100.

 

[grsnovi]

Here is the link that Red River support sent me:

https://www.redrivercatalog.com/pro...-printer-profiles-affinity-photo-windows.html

 

[grsnovi]

I pulled the image from:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61518002
and printed it on RR 68lb. UltraPro Gloss using the RR ICC profile. There are significant differences. In the image below I have a scan of my print done at 1200dpi which I then adjusted to the size of the test image (which was small 455 x 560) and opened them side by side in FastStone. Maybe you can download the test image and compare the colors shown for my "original" (on the left) and see if anything springs to mind. I did run a head test and the printer heads seem to be OK but it almost looks like the black isn't dark enough. The colors rendered in the scan are pretty close to the colors of the print.



--
Gary
https://www.flickr.com/photos/193735606@N03/

 

[Marceppy]

You’re not alone. Ive struggle with this myself. I used to print a lot and think I would make my own icc profiles based on the paper I was using. This might be a consideration. Perhaps a YouTube tutorial or if there is another reader who can explain this better, please jump in, as it’s been a while. As I recall, it wasn’t difficult. I was using an X-right calibrator.

 

[BobKnDP]

I pulled the image from:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61518002
and printed it on RR 68lb. UltraPro Gloss using the RR ICC profile. There are significant differences. In the image below I have a scan of my print done at 1200dpi which I then adjusted to the size of the test image (which was small 455 x 560) and opened them side by side in FastStone. Maybe you can download the test image and compare the colors shown for my "original" (on the left) and see if anything springs to mind. I did run a head test and the printer heads seem to be OK but it almost looks like the black isn't dark enough. The colors rendered in the scan are pretty close to the colors of the print.

This is a scan of a print on 4X6 Canon Photo Glossy Paper II, using a Canon Pro-200 (8 dye inks). From Photoshop, using the profile for the paper.





The scan crushed the blacks a bit.

I don't know why you're getting a yellow cast.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I pulled the image from:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61518002
and printed it on RR 68lb. UltraPro Gloss using the RR ICC profile. There are significant differences. In the image below I have a scan of my print done at 1200dpi which I then adjusted to the size of the test image (which was small 455 x 560) and opened them side by side in FastStone. Maybe you can download the test image and compare the colors shown for my "original" (on the left) and see if anything springs to mind. I did run a head test and the printer heads seem to be OK but it almost looks like the black isn't dark enough. The colors rendered in the scan are pretty close to the colors of the print.

The first thing that occurs to me, looking at that obviously bad print, is that maybe the black ink is not be printing, at least fully / correctly. The darker tones look very washed out in a number of areas. So, I suggest you print a nozzle check and make sure you don't have some physical problem with the printer.

 

[grsnovi]

The first thing that occurs to me, looking at that obviously bad print, is that maybe the black ink is not be printing, at least fully / correctly. The darker tones look very washed out in a number of areas. So, I suggest you print a nozzle check and make sure you don't have some physical problem with the printer.

The printer prints a daily sheet (in color) that is primarily black text...

I did a nozzle check and the results suggest they're fine but I agree that it looks like the black isn't printing correctly. It also looks like there's a saturation problem.

A print that I had made after doing the calibration was really yellow.

--
Gary
https://www.flickr.com/photos/193735606@N03/

 

[grsnovi]

I printed the test image by inserting it into a Word doc and printing from Word using the Photo Glossy default setting.

It looks better. At least the black seems correct.

The scan (on the left) is a 300dpi scan of a print which has been denoised and size adjusted to the same size as the original (on the right).



--
Gary
https://www.flickr.com/photos/193735606@N03/

 

[Fishman Dan]

I was guided to use the free Palette Master Elements to configure my screen (BenQ SW270PT) for my Calibrite (X-Rite labelled) Pro Plus.

Alternatively there is the Calibrite software which is around $40US I think.

But it sounds like your printer driver could also use some attention. Head to Red River and check their paper profiles, you might find there is a compatibility/spec sheet which will direct you to the correct Epson Paper to base a new ICC profile from.

 

[grsnovi]

Thanks for your input however I suspect that you haven't followed the whole thread.

I started with the RR ICC profiles after purchasing their sample packs.

I purchased the Calibrite Display 123 and followed their procedure.

I've verified that my printer is working correctly.

I've loaded a new driver for the WF-7510. I suspect the driver that I had been using was what was restored when I had the system rebuilt following a drive crash 4 years ago. The driver I just loaded looks better.

I'll re-try monitor calibration and printing tomorrow with paper-specific ICC.

--
Gary
https://www.flickr.com/photos/193735606@N03/

 

[BobKnDP]

I was guided to use the free Palette Master Elements to configure my screen (BenQ SW270PT) for my Calibrite (X-Rite labelled) Pro Plus.

Alternatively there is the Calibrite software which is around $40US I think.

But it sounds like your printer driver could also use some attention. Head to Red River and check their paper profiles, you might find there is a compatibility/spec sheet which will direct you to the correct Epson Paper to base a new ICC profile from.

Is Palette Master Element limited to Benq monitors? That's what I'd expect.

I presume that "grsnovi" is already using Calibrite's Profiler software. It's free with the Calibrite branded colorimeters. There's a fee to enable it with the older X-Rite colorimeters. It was $10US initially, but it's $40 now. (See "Step 3".) I haven't been able to find the current price on Calibrite's Web site. (They call it an "upgrade", but it just enables Profiler to run with your X-Rite unit's serial number.)

I like DisplayCal/Argyll CMS, but I don't see the Display 123 on its list of supported devices.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I printed the test image by inserting it into a Word doc and printing from Word using the Photo Glossy default setting.

It looks better. At least the black seems correct.

The scan (on the left) is a 300dpi scan of a print which has been denoised and size adjusted to the same size as the original (on the right).

The fact that you can print much closer to correct color from Word, which AFAIK is totally non-color-managed, pretty much tells us that there is some setting error in whatever program you were using to print photos, and/or in the printer driver. Did you tell us what program you were using, and show us what settings you'd used?

 

[grsnovi]

Just below your 2nd reply I included a link to the instructions that Red River sent me for printing from Affinity.

Looks like I need to engage some more with those guys?

In any case, I did pull a newer driver for the FW-7510.

Thanks for your help (and everyone's) pointing me towards a solution...

...I'll get there eventually.