|
Post by Barry on Nov 17, 2011 19:42:41 GMT
Do you use any sort of Monitor Calibration kit. I have never used anything so far, as all of my printing is done on-line (DSCL) using their paper profiles which I have loaded into Photoshop, I just occasionally compare the results that come back from the printers and maybe do a slight adjusted to my monitor so that the image tones and colours look somewhere near. For my monochrome work this is just about spot on, but sometimes some of my colour prints can be a bit off colour (especially reds). So would it be worth looking at one of these calibration kits considering that I do not own a printer, but do all of mine printing on-line.
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Nov 17, 2011 19:59:37 GMT
I calibrated my monitor when I first got it, but I've changed printers at least 4 times since the initial calibration. Using my 9 color Epson, I get studio quality prints up to 13x19 inches. However, I recently sent some work in for printing at a larger size and the prints were crappy. When I sent in a print from my printer, they cheerfully refunded me but insisted their equipment was printing perfectly.
I guess, I will have to send it off to another printer before making further judgement as to my printer's calibration compared to my monitor.
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Nov 17, 2011 21:18:57 GMT
Hi Chris, well that is why I was really asking the question. I can understand people needing a calibrated monitor and printer set up if you do your own printing at home, but as I use someone else's printer (on-line) with quite good results, not 100% but close. Is if worth the time and effort of getting my own monitor calibrated.
|
|
|
Post by nickjohnson on Nov 17, 2011 21:25:58 GMT
Hello Barry, I use a (rather old now) Spyder 2, monitor calibration kit. I do my own printing, and make my own colour printer profiles with PrintFIX PRO. The only commercial printing I have done for me is for a small number of large canvas wraps. That all said, I can't say if you should use monitor calibration or not. Essentially you already have a colour management system that works for you. Changing that system (or rather a part of it) will cause some – well – change. The results may not be want you want – at least to start with. What monitor calibration should help with is consistency. By that I mean you look at an image – tweak it – and see the tweaks accurately reflected in the printed results. (gross simplification). All I can do is suggest a process to try. Hopefully the results will help you make an informed choice. 1)Get yourself a blank piece of the paper you prints are made with. Arrange a viewing environment such that you have D50 (ish) light for the blank paper – near to your monitor – but not too close as to impact the screen image. 2)Display a blank white document – full screen – on your monitor. Compare it to the blank paper. Adjust your monitor's brightness to be close to that of the blank paper. Chances are you will have to turn the brightness sway down from factory default. Equally making the monitor exactly the same as the paper will make it too dim and unusable. Compromise is needed. 3)Get yourself a copy of one of the Bill Atkinson test images – ensure it has a nice big grey tone ramp. Now view it on screen using the DSCL paper profiles and Photoshop soft proofing. How is it looking? First – is that grey ramp smooth without a trace of banding? If not – your need calibration for your monitor. Ramp as smooth as a smooth thing – not a band in sight? Good – now look at all the colours. At lest five shades of green in the jungle? No problem seeing the difference between the baby skin tones? ….look look look again..... If all is good congratulations, you have the only totally perfect monitor In the world! 4)Seriously, the degree of dissatisfaction – or not – with the test image, will inform a potential purchase decision. Oh … please don't be tempted to use your own work for the assessment. It is vital not to have an emotional investment in the image used. Use these - homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.htmlor www.outbackprint.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.htmlHTH
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Nov 17, 2011 21:55:51 GMT
Thanks Nick, I have downloaded the test print from www.outbackprint.com whilst viewing it in Photoshop using the original profile of ProPhotoRGB it looks great and all the colours and tones work as described on the website, but when I apply the sRGB or the DSCL profile the colour parts of the image does go very flat whilst the monochrome section seems ok.
|
|
|
Post by robmarshall on Nov 17, 2011 22:23:53 GMT
Barry I have a Spyder (3) and I've trained it to crawl into my wife's wellies... The main thing you notice after calibration is that whenever you reboot your PC the monitor goes from a very bright (at least in my case) state to a considerably less bright view. Before I calibrated I used to edit in PS and the prints would come out too dark because I was seeing a screen that was too bright and I'd mistakenly reduce the brightness in Photoshop. But of course when they were printed they would come out too dark. It's worth doing it, but it may cost you about £100. Most monitors are set way too bright. It's not just a problem for editing photos - it can also give you a headache and vision strain looking at a monitor that is too bright. www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=spyder+3&tag=googhydr-21&index=aps&hvadid=6748400096&ref=pd_sl_7wux0me3wo_espyder.datacolor.com/product-mc.php
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Nov 17, 2011 22:35:03 GMT
The Spyder 3 does get good reviews and I don't mind spending the money, but I'm still struggling with getting colours right after I have applied the printer profile (colours seem to go flat).
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Nov 17, 2011 22:45:32 GMT
Are you having the printer manage the colors, or Photoshop? And, what kind of printer is it?
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Nov 17, 2011 22:56:17 GMT
Are you having the printer manage the colors, or Photoshop? And, what kind of printer is it? I edit my photos in Photoshop and save as a TIFF file using the original sRGB profile, then when I want it printed I open the image up in Photoshop and Assign the DSCL profile www.dscolourlabs.co.uk/paperprofiles.cfm it is at this point that the image will go a bit flat, so I will adjust Levels and/or Saturation, then resize and save as a Jpeg to upload for printing.
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Nov 17, 2011 23:03:04 GMT
This is how my printer options are set up...note that I use perceptual instead of colormetric and Photoshop manages colors. I should have shown this with the paper profile I normally use.
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Nov 17, 2011 23:05:35 GMT
As I don't use the Print Command, I don't get this option, once my photo is ready to print I use the 'Save As' then upload.
|
|
|
Post by chrisc on Nov 17, 2011 23:08:18 GMT
Ahso, grasshopper.
|
|
|
Post by nickjohnson on Nov 17, 2011 23:08:58 GMT
Barry, that's a fairly predictable result. I assume that you are sending your output file to the printers using a jpg file? Whatever – try this. I optimise my work to look good on my screen and then save that as a master file. I make a copy of the master file and use the copy for printing. I set up the soft proofing on the print copy. I then display both side by side – or switch back and forth. I adjust the print copy so that it looks like the master. If you are forced to use sRGB / jpg there is bound to be colour shifts – unless your using sRGB from the start of your pp. The degree of colour shift caused by converting colour spaces is highly variable – image to image. Saving to jpg adds another layer of FUD. Hopefully the method I described above will enable you to minimise the delta.
|
|
|
Post by Barry on Nov 18, 2011 16:11:26 GMT
Thanks Nick, Yes I do have to use Jpeg as my final copy for printing, and I use sRGB in camera and throughout photoshop (although sometimes I forget that some plug-ins convert it to RGB), finally before printing I need to assign the DSCL profile and do my final levels etc to composite.
|
|
|
Post by nickjohnson on Nov 18, 2011 16:42:25 GMT
Barry, at the risk of confusing things ….. If you “..... use sRGB in camera...” that implies that either your using camera generated jpegs for your work – which is very bad news indeed, or that you are using RAW files and belive that the camera colour space setting is relevant.
Not to labour the point but ….. jpeg is engineered as a final output file format. Any and all manipulation of a jpeg file will reduce image quality – period.
On the other hand, RAW files are just that – they have no colour spaces assigned to them and as such the camera colour space assignment has no direct affect.
Just for completeness – Where the camera colour space assignment has an indirect potential influence on you RAW file is in regard to the post shot image, histogram, and blinkies displayed on the back of your camera. That is a jpeg – it is influenced by camera image settings – like colour space, and it is saved as an embedded part of every RAW file.
|
|