wrote:
Well, I have been working on this for a while and cannot get what I want as printer output. I have a Pantone Eye-One Match3 terminal calibrator and I am set to luminosity of 120, Gamma of 32 and WP of 6500. My monitor is a Dell 2408WFP,24 inch. My printer is a HP Photosmart 8750. When I bring up a photo in Photoshop is looks great. I take my shots in raw, but my workspace is set up for RGB. If I open the same photo up in Nikon Capture 4, it looks the same as Photoshop. The problem is Windows and printing. If I look at the picture in Windows picture and fax viewer, it is too saturated. I get the same result when printing on the HP printer, even though I manage the print with Photoshop and use an HP printer profile for the paper that I am using.
Any thoughts as to why the mismatch between Windows/printer and Photoshop/Nikon Capture? Thanks
Bob
Windows is not colour managed hence the difference
Windows picture and fax viewer is not color managed.
It sounds like your only real problem is getting correct print output.
For that you need to set "Photoshop manage color", select the desired conversion options, and make sure your printer is set to NOT manage color at all.
Chris,
Thanks for your reply. I understand the procedure for printing from Photoshop and do set "Photoshop manage color" and make sure that my printer interface is also set to "application manages color". I still do not get a good print. It is very dark and too saturated compared to what Photoshop is showing. Should I be using my calibrated screen profile for Photoshop instead of sRGB or RGB?
Bob
No, your display should be set to use your display profile, and the document profiles should have no relation to your display profile.
If the print doesn’t look right, then either you haven’t selected the correct printer profile, or the printer driver settings are not correct.
But still, why the saturated image in Windows picture and fax viewer?
If the working space is sRGB there should be little difference, and if the working space is Adobe RGB or Prophoto it should be less saturated.
Could it be the OpenGL "Color Matching" setting?
Thanks Chris and Freeagent. I was only "reaching" for ideas when I stated using the display profile. I am selecting the correct printer profile and the printer driver settings are correct. I have checked that many times – each time I print. Could it be that the printer profiles are messed up? Though, that would not account for the Windows display issue.
Bob
I don’t have a web site to download a picture or I would show you what I am using for a test. Bob Rutan
Freeagent – again, because Windows picture and fax viewer is not color managed, and the display is not the same as the document colorspace.
Though, that would not account for the Windows display issue.
Bob, you have a Dell 2408WFP and you know it is a wide-gamut monitor. Right? It’s gamut approximates that of AdobeRGB. What that means is any image tagged with AdobeRGB will appear "normal" in a non-colour managed application. However, an image tagged with sRGB (or untagged) will appear over-saturated on your monitor in a non-colour managed application.
Also, most Windows applications are either colour ignorant or only partially support colour management. For example, the popular IrfanView (or FastStone) have only partial colour management support. They honour the ICC profile of the image but ignore the monitor profile. Photoshop, of course, is fully colour managed.
A free viewer called Fast Picture Viewer is also fully colour managed. Get it quick. And Firefox 3 (with it’s hidden option setting) is also able to be fully colour managed.
I’m hoping Windows 7 will get on board with complete colour management (but I aint holding my breathe.)
Wolf,
Great info and I understand more of why I am seeing the picture in Windows so saturated. I a still having trouble, though, getting my printer to look like Photoshop. It is overly saturated and looks more like Windows -which is why I jumped to that conclusion in error it appears. I will look for Fast Picture Viewer and download it. I did find a site by PhotoDisc that offers freeware and had a photo that is color managed and is used for monitor-profiling and printing profile testing. It looks great in Photoshop, but is still over saturated when printed. <
http://www.gballard.net/nca.html>
I’m sure most will say that I need to do a printer profile, but I do not have the software to do that ($$$). I appreciate all the feedback, but I am lost as to how to proceed from this point.
One more thing – I have tried different photos in sRGB and RGB format. Both appear over saturated on the monitor when viewing with Windows.
Thanks
Bob Rutan
I cannot give specific advice with respect to your printing issues. I do not use HP printers (Epson only). However, are the ICC printer profiles you use built specifically for your paper, printer, and ink? Or are they generic profiles that often come with printers?
Ah…wide-gamut monitor, get it. I tend to forget that complication as I don’t have one myself.
Thanks Freeagent and Wolf.
I am using the printer profiles that were provided by HP. There are several and they correspond to the type of paper that you use as well as the type of ink loaded. I have an HP 8750. I am using HP paper as well so that I don’t add another wrinkle to this issue. It seems whether I tagged the image as sRGB or RGB, they print the same way.
You have all provided valuable information and know that you cannot do more without being here. I appreciate that. I will see if I can borrow another printer from someone and give that a try.
Thanks and if you have any other ideas, please throw them this way. Bob Rutan
Very interesting results and this may tell you something. I downloaded FSViewer36 as you suggested Walt and viewed the one picture with it. The photo image in FSV looks very similar to the Windows Fax and File Viewer. Both are more saturated then Bridge, Photoshop and Nikon View image and are closer to what the print looks like. This confuses me even more since it now points back to Photoshop as possibly not really showing me what the actual print will look like.
If I take a photo and edit it to reduce the saturation significantly and then bring up a duplicate and use "View Proof" with a work area equal to my printer profile, I can eventually get a photo that prints good. However, the photo within Photoshop at that time looks really bad and you would never guess that the print would be acceptable.
Does this tell you anything?
Thanks
Bob Rutan
Well, I decided to de-install the printer drivers and reinstall them. I did that and placed new ink cartridges in the printer. Now, things are worse and I cannot test anymore until I figure this out – OR go get an Epson printer. Any suggestions as to what printers work well with Photoshop and are not extreme in price for printer or ink cartridges? I have never been too happy with the HP printer and profiles are difficult to find for this printer when using paper other then HP, such as Kodak, Ilford or Epson paper.
Thanks
Bob
Any suggestions as to what printers work well with Photoshop and are not extreme in price for printer or ink cartridges?
Doing your own printing is alway one of convenience (and control) and never one of economics. It will in the long run typically be cheaper to print commercially.
The photo image in FSV looks very similar to the Windows Fax and File Viewer.
FastStone is not fully colour managed. I recommended Fast Picture Viewer. Ensure that the options are enabled correctly.
<
http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=117PMSz4T3xI1d7JI8 UMZiGnt44Wr>
Bob,
I need to do a printer profile, but I do not have the software to do that ($$$).
I would suggest to try a printer profiling service.
I went to <
http://www.rhdigital.co.uk/html/printer_profiling.html> but I’m sure there are many others too.
Anyway I am very pleased with the results on my Epson 1290 and HP Color Laserjet 3600. The profiles are much better than the ones I made myself with the software that came with my Spider.
Ronald
Thanks Wolf and Ronald. I have brought all my patches for XP up to date and have installed SP3. I don’t think that will change things, but I also don’t want to leave anything in doubt. I will see if I need any patches for the print driver since I reinstalled it and will then start this over again. I did install Fast Picture Viewer and the photos look the same as the Photoshop display. That’s a relief! I also have a friend with a Canon Pro 9000 and I will attach that and see if I get better results. I still think that Windows XP is interferring some way that I have not been able to decipher since the color is not off by a little, but extreme.
Thanks
Bob
Interesting results. If I print a photo from FSViewer, the results are close to what I want. So, what does FSViewer do different in its printing then Photoshop?
Bob
Bob,
It sounds like your screen calibration is fine, and you’re printing properly (check the rendering intent though, relative colormetric or perceptual are best).
However, using the vendor profile for the printer is a lottery – how well it works depends entirely on the tolerances of your particular printer. I’ve had some printers that work well with manufacturers profiles and some that don’t. Your best option is to get a custom profile – it’s well worth it and is pretty cheap.
The only other consideration is the printer gamut, but if you’re getting more saturation that’s unlikely to be the problem. You can check by using the soft proof feature in photoshop.
You can check by using the soft proof feature in photoshop.
But only if the profile for both the monitor and paper are accurate.
Thanks Rofertpoll and Wolf,
I have used the soft proof feature in Photoshop and it does not look as bad as the actual print. Since I have reinstalled the printer, the print is terrible, even from Windows. I really think that this is a Windows issue, but will need to check further. I have a buddy bringing over a Canon Pro 9000 today and will check this out further. It would not surprise me if a patch somewhere along the line screwed this up.
Bob
Bob, I was wondering if you are also doing a "proof setup". In PS go to view>proof setup>custom and in the device to simulate window, drill down to your paper profile that you are using in your printer. Do not check preserve CMYK colors (or DO check it so you can see what it does to your picture and know what is wrong if you see that problem at another printing session). I don’t have an HP printer and am not familiar with the print dialog but I know you are selecting your paper profile and have PS manage color in the printer driver by earlier comments.
Just thought of this. I have the same monitor as you. I color manage with Gretag Macbeth Eye One. After lots of trys, I finally just picked the automatic calibration feature of that program instead of manually doing it at each step of the calibration program. The end result was a great profile that was better, ie more accurate than I did on my own. Screen luminance and Gamma were a bear to get right on my own, probably because LCD screens are so bright naturally.
So, there are some thoughts, sorry if it was too elementary, you probably do all this any way but I know how frustrating it is when screen and print don’t match. Oh, how about your video card driver. Some (my Nvidia allows it) drivers let you put an ICC profile for color management into the driver. That will mess things up too.
<It would not surprise me if a patch somewhere along the line screwed this up.>
You got it! Many problems here with HP printer subsequent to Windows SP3 update. Apparently, HP does a better job updating drivers on some models than others.
Thanks G.B. and Les.
I use the proof set and things look OK. My problem just really appears to be the final print. My monitor looks good as does Photoshop. I suspect that this printer driver is suspect or the profiles are suspect. When I print a test page from the printer itself, that looks great. So, I know the ink and printer are OK based on that.
My 2408WFP LCD is set to Brightness of 7, Contrast 58 and RGB 79,87,80. This gives a good look, doesn’t burn out my eyeballs and allows the iOne calibrator to calibrate with a delta of only .47 with a target of Luminance 120, Gamma 22 and White Balance 6500. I’m about read to go to Apple and Canon!!
Bob
posted
Well, I decided to de-install the printer drivers and reinstall them. I did that and placed new ink cartridges in the printer. Now, things are worse and I cannot test anymore until I figure this out – OR go get an Epson printer. Any suggestions as to what printers work well with Photoshop and are not extreme in price for printer or ink cartridges? I have never been too happy with the HP printer and profiles are difficult to find for this printer when using paper other then HP, such as Kodak, Ilford or Epson paper.
Thanks
Bob
I have not followed the whole thread – but – I had a lot of problems when trying to print to my Epson R1800. I use CS2 and CS3 for photo work. And have many different ICC profiles for my printer. (paper) But, once I shut off my Printer Color control . . . the photo’s printed from CS3 perfect.
It seems a shame I had to disable my expensive printer color control. But it solved everything. My .02 worlth.
Ken
