Monitor profiling - Should I see difference in PS and Picasa?

[Ednaz]

The best example of this that I know of is the ProPhoto RGB color space. It's really big, and if I don't convert it down to adobe RGB before printing, it's not at all unusual for me to discover weird things happening with color when I print. That's the image. Then there's what the monitor shows, which is a lot smaller than Adobe RGB with older monitors, but close with new ones. (Of course it's perfectly on Adobe RGB if you shell out $5,000 for the really exotic monitors...)

Then there's the print, and the gamut there is a combo of ink and paper interactions, along with the aggressiveness of the profile. It used to take me a couple months of fiddling to finally get a profile that I didn't have to adjust for some of my photos. (Three or four prints in a week, with dry time, and then looking under three different color temp environments.) I'm a cross-processing deep saturation kind of guy, and find that I can't get decent prints of my stuff with any of the "public" profiles, which are very, very conservative to allow for variations between printers and batches of ink. For awhile I had two Epson 4000s and I had very, very different profiles for each for any given paper.

Now I have 10 images that I know push the corners of what any printer can produce, and it takes me only a few tries to get dialed in with a new paper. I profile with the colorvision hardware and software tools, then print my 10 images, tweak, and print one more confirming set.

So I think the statement you found is confusion between image, image on monitor, image on paper.

"Note: The printer's color space will generally be smaller then the
image's color space, often resulting in colors that can't be
reproduced. The rendering intent you choose attempts to compensate
for these out-of-gamut colors."

Are they talking about extended gamut color spaces?

 

[Ednaz]

I can get better gamut on that paper with my 4000 than I can with an 1800 on any normal glossy or satin. It's really good, although the profiles they give you to download are really awful, there's another 10-20% in any direction available if you tweak the profile. It's also significantly better with the 4000 vs other papers than it is on other printers - in other words, with my 2400, the gap between CSR and other papers isn't as big as with the 4000. Maybe it won't be so awesome on a 4800?

It also gets significantly richer with a post-coat, something I haven't found to be true (or at least not true without causing colors to shift) with other papers. If you like the satin look and rich colors, its performance will take away some of the sting of the cost...

I've had four 4000s - three were sequential replacements for various weird failures, and I had a second one for awhile courtesy of a parter in a gallery I used to own. I found really big differences between them, and the last one I got seemed to perform way better than any of the others. This is the only printer I've ever had where variations between printers were big enough to actually ruin some prints. I've heard the 4800 is better, more consistent in gamut between printers, but from your experience it sounds like it's not much better in QA.

 

[John down under]

I can get better gamut on that paper with my 4000 than I can with an
1800 on any normal glossy or satin. It's really good, although the
profiles they give you to download are really awful, there's another
10-20% in any direction available if you tweak the profile.

Hi Ed. How do you go about tweaking the profile? I guess that's with some kind of printer profiling software? One reason I chose the paper I did was that I like the profile provided by the paper supplier more than other profiles for other papers I've tried.

It's
also significantly better with the 4000 vs other papers than it is on
other printers - in other words, with my 2400, the gap between CSR
and other papers isn't as big as with the 4000. Maybe it won't be so
awesome on a 4800?

Dunno. Sounds like a pretty nice paper. :^) Thanks for your suggestion.

It also gets significantly richer with a post-coat, something I
haven't found to be true (or at least not true without causing colors
to shift) with other papers. If you like the satin look and rich
colors, its performance will take away some of the sting of the
cost...

The paper I already use is more expensive than Epson PLPP and I'm not sure I want to pay more again, especially as the prints I'm making already look great, even if I can't print a fluoro green.

I've had four 4000s - three were sequential replacements for various
weird failures, and I had a second one for awhile courtesy of a
parter in a gallery I used to own. I found really big differences
between them, and the last one I got seemed to perform way better
than any of the others. This is the only printer I've ever had where
variations between printers were big enough to actually ruin some
prints. I've heard the 4800 is better, more consistent in gamut
between printers, but from your experience it sounds like it's not
much better in QA.

Yes, 4800s and other pro printers are supposedly all hand calibrated to perform quite similarly to each other, so that a profile that works on one should work equally well on another. Like any product, there's scope for things to go wrong, no matter how good the product is. Maybe I was unlucky with my first printer. My warranty replacement printer is doing better then my original printer and, among other things, doesn't use as much ink for head cleans as my first one did.

--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10

 

[Ednaz]

What profiling software do you use? Most of them give you an ability to tweak the profile you create with either a scanner or devoted color patch reader. Don't know how the prices work in Oz, but in the US the colorvision screen and paper profiling suite is the most reasonable. (I used Monaco before too, works fine with a normal scanner.) All of them give you a sample picture to print once you've done the first pass on the profile, but I've found the sample pix to be less demanding than some of the images I print, which is why I came up with my list of "10 toughest images to print." After printing, and giving the image time to properly dry (I've found fine art papers need at least a day, and glossy or matte papers nearly that) you open up the profile adjustment tool and follow the directions. No magic, I can't do much without an instruction manual.

Even the Epson paper profiles are ultra-conservative. I really like the look of Epson UltraSmooth, but the first time I printed with it, it had a gamut about equal to Epson Enhanced Matte. Once I got done futzing with the profile, it was equal to Arches Infinity (most of my photo income is from fine art prints) which is only a hair off of what Epson's downloadable satin paper profile will get you. Basically Epson UltraSmooth can get you within a hair of the satin papers, if you work at it.

Have you looked at the offering from Qimage ( http://www.ddisoftware.com/printerprofiles/ ) His approach works pretty well, and doesn't hook you into a specific system.

Full disclosure, I did a couple different "how to" book chapters on using Qimage for printing - not profiling but printing. Still, only fair to own up to bias.

Because a lot of what I do is sell prints to offices and interior designers, the paper cost isn't a big factor. I print on aluminum, japanese rice paper, handmade papers from lots of other sources, and just plain old uncoated watercolor paper, so learning to push my colors was a necessity. (funny the cheapest surface I print on is stainless steel, which everyone thinks must cost a fortune compared to paper.)

I'd upgrade my 4000 to something else if I thought that I could cut my head cleaning costs. I think the 4000 is the worst Epson I've ever owned for that. My printing tends to happen in big chunks (somebody buys pictures for their lobby) every few weeks, and the head cleaning costs are pretty significant.

John, I can't tell you how much seeing Adelaide in your sig made me nostalgic and ache-y to get on a plane. Back when I was not so interested in photography but still shooting (in the 1980s, when I taught acting in Sydney), I spent two weeks on Kangaroo Island (way off season, the best time to go anyplace) and a week in Adelaide, probably 100 rolls of film, much of which simply showed how far I had to go as a photographer. You live in one of the loveliest places on this planet. Now that I think I know what I'm doing, I often dream of spending a couple weeks in winter down there. I now know exactly how I'd shoot Remarkable Rocks. Hope I get to do that again.

It's
also significantly better with the 4000 vs other papers than it is on
other printers - in other words, with my 2400, the gap between CSR
and other papers isn't as big as with the 4000. Maybe it won't be so
awesome on a 4800?

Dunno. Sounds like a pretty nice paper. :^) Thanks for your
suggestion.

I've had four 4000s - three were sequential replacements for various
weird failures, and I had a second one for awhile courtesy of a
parter in a gallery I used to own. I found really big differences
between them, and the last one I got seemed to perform way better
than any of the others. This is the only printer I've ever had where
variations between printers were big enough to actually ruin some
prints. I've heard the 4800 is better, more consistent in gamut
between printers, but from your experience it sounds like it's not
much better in QA.

Yes, 4800s and other pro printers are supposedly all hand calibrated
to perform quite similarly to each other, so that a profile that
works on one should work equally well on another. Like any product,
there's scope for things to go wrong, no matter how good the product
is. Maybe I was unlucky with my first printer. My warranty
replacement printer is doing better then my original printer and,
among other things, doesn't use as much ink for head cleans as my
first one did.

--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10

 

[John down under]

What profiling software do you use?

Hi Ed. That's just it. I don't have anything for printer profiling. My question was in the hope that there was a readily available (and cheap) utility I could use on existing profiles.

Most of them give you an ability
to tweak the profile you create with either a scanner or devoted
color patch reader. Don't know how the prices work in Oz, but in the
US the colorvision screen and paper profiling suite is the most
reasonable. (I used Monaco before too, works fine with a normal
scanner.) All of them give you a sample picture to print once you've
done the first pass on the profile, but I've found the sample pix to
be less demanding than some of the images I print, which is why I
came up with my list of "10 toughest images to print."

Fair enough. I'm sure a scanner would be better than nothing, but I assume it won't be as good as a dedicated spectrophotometer that you'd get with a better profiling package.

After
printing, and giving the image time to properly dry (I've found fine
art papers need at least a day, and glossy or matte papers nearly
that)

Yes, good point.

you open up the profile adjustment tool and follow the
directions. No magic, I can't do much without an instruction manual.

Even the Epson paper profiles are ultra-conservative. I really like
the look of Epson UltraSmooth, but the first time I printed with it,
it had a gamut about equal to Epson Enhanced Matte. Once I got done
futzing with the profile, it was equal to Arches Infinity (most of my
photo income is from fine art prints) which is only a hair off of
what Epson's downloadable satin paper profile will get you.
Basically Epson UltraSmooth can get you within a hair of the satin
papers, if you work at it.

OK.

Have you looked at the offering from Qimage
( http://www.ddisoftware.com/printerprofiles/ ) His approach works
pretty well, and doesn't hook you into a specific system.

I have QImage, but hadn't looked at Mike Chaney's profiles page beyond a superficial look at that page. Good suggestion. I'll have a closer look.

Full disclosure, I did a couple different "how to" book chapters on
using Qimage for printing - not profiling but printing. Still, only
fair to own up to bias.

Cool! I use QImage for pretty much all my printing. PS and LR aren't starters as I print on roll paper and I want to be able to easily place images where I want them on the page, which QImage lets me do quite easily. With the quick look I had at LR printing, I didn't even see where to select rendering intent or even printer profile (maybe I just didn't look closely enough).

Because a lot of what I do is sell prints to offices and interior
designers, the paper cost isn't a big factor. I print on aluminum,
japanese rice paper, handmade papers from lots of other sources, and
just plain old uncoated watercolor paper, so learning to push my
colors was a necessity. (funny the cheapest surface I print on is
stainless steel, which everyone thinks must cost a fortune compared
to paper.)

Also cool!

I'd upgrade my 4000 to something else if I thought that I could cut
my head cleaning costs. I think the 4000 is the worst Epson I've
ever owned for that. My printing tends to happen in big chunks
(somebody buys pictures for their lobby) every few weeks, and the
head cleaning costs are pretty significant.

Same here, except my volume is also low, so my head cleaning costs are even more significant per print with my 4800. I still like to be able to print what I want when I want and that has been invaluable as part of my learning process, which is hard to put a value on.

John, I can't tell you how much seeing Adelaide in your sig made me
nostalgic and ache-y to get on a plane. Back when I was not so
interested in photography but still shooting (in the 1980s, when I
taught acting in Sydney), I spent two weeks on Kangaroo Island (way
off season, the best time to go anyplace) and a week in Adelaide,
probably 100 rolls of film, much of which simply showed how far I had
to go as a photographer. You live in one of the loveliest places on
this planet. Now that I think I know what I'm doing, I often dream
of spending a couple weeks in winter down there. I now know exactly
how I'd shoot Remarkable Rocks. Hope I get to do that again.

I hope you do too, but I also hope it's not too wet for you as winter is when we get more rain, at least when we're not suffering from drought as we have been for the last while. I think it doesn't matter where you are, there's still plenty to see if you look closely enough.

--
Cheers from John from Adelaide, South Australia
John Harvey Photography http://johnharvey.com.au
Canon 40D, Canon 20D & Fuji F10