Hi there
I've spent all day trying to figure out what's wrong with my system and I'd really appreciate some help.
Basically, I'm trying to make my prints resemble what's on my monitor (or rather the other way round), and after following Manuals my prints come out way lighter than screen.
My system looks like this: EIZO LCD monitor (L568) on a PC with Radeon 9000 card, calibrated with Spyder and OptiCal 3.7.8, printer - HP DeskJet 5652 (photo inks on HP Premium Glossy paper), and Photoshop CS. It's definitely not state of art config, but surely capable of producing decent results... Thing is, monitor really looks allllmost like the print, but only when I set Gamma 1.8 in OptiCal !!!
Is this normal? I's written on the stone that PC gamma i supposed to be 2.2 and 1.8 reserved for Macs... Or maybe that's why PROS work on Macs, or maybe just forget all rules and regs and stick with settings that give the closest results? It's all a little confusing...
Thanks a lot for all help
-Tom-
#1
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 21:51:31 +0200, "Tomasz Szulczewski" wrote:
Hi there
I've spent all day trying to figure out what's wrong with my system and I'd really appreciate some help.
Basically, I'm trying to make my prints resemble what's on my monitor (or rather the other way round), and after following Manuals my prints come out way lighter than screen.
My system looks like this: EIZO LCD monitor (L568) on a PC with Radeon 9000 card, calibrated with Spyder and OptiCal 3.7.8, printer - HP DeskJet 5652 (photo inks on HP Premium Glossy paper), and Photoshop CS. It's definitely not state of art config, but surely capable of producing decent results... Thing is, monitor really looks allllmost like the print, but only when I set Gamma 1.8 in OptiCal !!!
Is this normal? I's written on the stone that PC gamma i supposed to be 2.2 and 1.8 reserved for Macs... Or maybe that's why PROS work on Macs, or maybe just forget all rules and regs and stick with settings that give the closest results? It's all a little confusing...
What colour spaces are you working in?
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
#2
....cut..
Is this normal? I's written on the stone that PC gamma i supposed to be
2.2
and 1.8 reserved for Macs... Or maybe that's why PROS work on Macs, or
maybe
just forget all rules and regs and stick with settings that give the
closest
results? It's all a little confusing...
What colour spaces are you working in?
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
----------------------------------------------------------
Working space in PS is Adobe RGB and printer's software allows me to choose between sRGB and Adobe RGB - in this case print was made using Adobe RGB. Tried with sRGB and sure, there is a lack of tonal range visible but the whole thing remains the same - printed thing is much lighter than the monitor. Funny thing is, that even if I switch off the calibration in OptiCal the monitor will look far more like the print. I mean, monitor is set to custom settings - white point 6500
#3
Try to do this:
Go to ATI's control panel. And find the Color Tab. Set gamma to 1.80 and make sure "All Colors" is checked. (At least that's how it's done in a 9600XT control panel.)
Then calibrate your display as it were gamma 1.80. Usually you'd only need to adjust brightness.
The
http://www.unleash.com/mikec/color/ has some nice GIFs you can use to calibrate your display.
"Tomasz Szulczewski" wrote in message
Hi there
I've spent all day trying to figure out what's wrong with my system and I'd
really appreciate some help.
Basically, I'm trying to make my prints resemble what's on my monitor (or rather the other way round), and after following Manuals my prints come out
way lighter than screen.
My system looks like this: EIZO LCD monitor (L568) on a PC with Radeon 9000
card, calibrated with Spyder and OptiCal 3.7.8, printer - HP DeskJet 5652 (photo inks on HP Premium Glossy paper), and Photoshop CS. It's definitely not state of art config, but surely capable of producing decent results... Thing is, monitor really looks allllmost like the print, but only when I set
Gamma 1.8 in OptiCal !!!
Is this normal? I's written on the stone that PC gamma i supposed to be
2.2
and 1.8 reserved for Macs... Or maybe that's why PROS work on Macs, or maybe
just forget all rules and regs and stick with settings that give the closest
results? It's all a little confusing...
Thanks a lot for all help
-Tom-
#4
the site www.aim-dtp.net may help you. It did me
BD
"Tomasz Szulczewski" wrote in message
Hi there
I've spent all day trying to figure out what's wrong with my system and
I'd
really appreciate some help.
Basically, I'm trying to make my prints resemble what's on my monitor (or rather the other way round), and after following Manuals my prints come
out
way lighter than screen.
My system looks like this: EIZO LCD monitor (L568) on a PC with Radeon
9000
card, calibrated with Spyder and OptiCal 3.7.8, printer - HP DeskJet 5652 (photo inks on HP Premium Glossy paper), and Photoshop CS. It's definitely not state of art config, but surely capable of producing decent results... Thing is, monitor really looks allllmost like the print, but only when I
set
Gamma 1.8 in OptiCal !!!
Is this normal? I's written on the stone that PC gamma i supposed to be
2.2
and 1.8 reserved for Macs... Or maybe that's why PROS work on Macs, or
maybe
just forget all rules and regs and stick with settings that give the
closest
results? It's all a little confusing...
Thanks a lot for all help
-Tom-
#5
Sorted! (or so I think... :-)
Just returned from my prepress office with cromalin proof - screen is OK with gamma 2.2, it's my printer that gives wrong colours. Basically I just need now a good colour profile for my printer...
Thanks a lot guys for your help!
-Tom-
#6
Turning the calibration back on darkens the screen considerably. I've never
seen
anything like this but it's the first "decent" LCD I'm working on - I've only worked on CRT's before but I don't want to go back to CRT...>
This is the most common issue with LCDs. I fopught one in a G4 Mac until I gave up and went back to CRT.
#7
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 09:58:01 +0200, "Tomasz Szulczewski" wrote:
...cut..
Is this normal? I's written on the stone that PC gamma i supposed to be
2.2
and 1.8 reserved for Macs... Or maybe that's why PROS work on Macs, or
maybe
just forget all rules and regs and stick with settings that give the
closest
results? It's all a little confusing...
What colour spaces are you working in?
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
----------------------------------------------------------
Working space in PS is Adobe RGB and printer's software allows me to choose between sRGB and Adobe RGB - in this case print was made using Adobe RGB. Tried with sRGB and sure, there is a lack of tonal range visible but the whole thing remains the same - printed thing is much lighter than the monitor. Funny thing is, that even if I switch off the calibration in OptiCal the monitor will look far more like the print. I mean, monitor is set to custom settings - white point 6500°K and gamma 2.2. Turning the calibration back on darkens the screen considerably. I've never seen anything like this but it's the first "decent" LCD I'm working on - I've only worked on CRT's before but I don't want to go back to CRT...
Quick guess - from what you've said you're colour managing in both Photoshop and with the printer. That's a recipe for getting things wrong.
You'll always get a smaller tonal range with sRGB. It's essentially a display space for screens and has a narrower gamut than AdobeRGB.
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
#8
Quick guess - from what you've said you're colour managing in both Photoshop and with the printer. That's a recipe for getting things wrong.
You'll always get a smaller tonal range with sRGB. It's essentially a display space for screens and has a narrower gamut than AdobeRGB.
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
That's right, my first try was colour managed in both of them. After that I changed PS print settings to Printer Colour Management and it did improve tonal range. It didn't solve the problem though - I need to make profile for my printer... Another good reason pfo buying PrintFix :-)
Thanx
-Tom-
#9
On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 12:00:16 +0200, "Tomasz Szulczewski" wrote:
Quick guess - from what you've said you're colour managing in both Photoshop and with the printer. That's a recipe for getting things wrong.
You'll always get a smaller tonal range with sRGB. It's essentially a display space for screens and has a narrower gamut than AdobeRGB.
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
That's right, my first try was colour managed in both of them. After that I changed PS print settings to Printer Colour Management and it did improve tonal range. It didn't solve the problem though - I need to make profile for my printer... Another good reason pfo buying PrintFix :-)
Thanx
Hi Tom,
You can calibrate to death and profile everything within an inch of it's life, but if you get the colour management wrong, you'll still get a colour cast. Profiling and calibration does *not* equal colour management, it is only *part* of the process. If you still get a colour cast then there is most likely something wrong with the colour management you are suing.
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
#10
Hecate ...
....... then there is most likely something wrong with the colour management you are suing.
Yep, it does feel like that sometimes doesn't it?
Brian
(the other one)
#11
On 8 Jul 2004 02:03:40 -0700, (mono) wrote:
Hecate ...
....... then there is most likely something wrong with the colour management you are suing.
Yep, it does feel like that sometimes doesn't it?
Brian
(the other one)
Ooops! ;-)
--
Hecate
veni, vidi, reliqui
#12