In color management hell!! Please help.

net1994

At first I didn't want this post to be long/rambling. But then again, I want to include all detail in the hopes someone can see a flaw in my color management process. I am in HELL kids, HELL. For over two years I have wasted hundreds of $$ on sending prints out to Adorama and others. Sometimes the prints were 'close enough' but usually a huge miss. So I recently bought the Canon Pro9000 Mk II printer. At first I thought I saw an improvement over files I got back from Adorama which were duds. But now I'm even more lost. My main problem is shadow detail and colors. Usually the photo's shadows are too dark and sometimes completely black. There also seems to be decreased brightness, but the shadow issue is the biggest. I also have colors that sometimes come close, but not so much when printed on the new printer. My equipment:

-HP LP2475w LCD 24"
-Nvidia Geforce 9800 GT video card with 12-10-09 drivers
-Photoshop CS4 and Bridge. Fully patched.
-Windows 7 64-Bit fully patched
-Canon Pro9000 Mk II Printer w/ latest drivers and Canon paper profiles.
-Spyder 3 Pro calibration device

Monitor settings:
-Brightness: 0 (yes, that's right-ZERO!)
-Contrast: 65
RGB Custom color settings:
-Red 254
-Green 219
-Blue 232
Calibrated with Spyder 3 pro, I get the following values:
Taget K = 6540K
Lum: 63.5

(Before getting my canon printer I had MUCH better color/brightness but 'flat' shadows with the following settings:
Bri 8, Con 80, Red 236 Green 210 Blue 210. Spyder 3 values: Target K= 6499k, Lum 93)

In Photoshop, I am using RGB workspace. Under the Color Settings Menu, I have:
Settings: North American General Purpose 2
-Working Space: sRGB IEC........
-Color Management polices are all default.

File Workflow:

I will open a Nikon NEF file in Camera Raw as a 16Bit RGB file. In PSP, I do my edits and then save as a 16Bit Tiff. Then use soft proofing with the Canon paper profiles. There is usually quite a shift in shadows, so I correct. Then I send straight to the printer. I DO NOT convert to the printer profile. In the canon printer menu, I use the following settings:
-Color Handling: Photoshop Manages Colors.
-Printer Profile: Working RGB - sRGB IEC.....
-Rendering Intent: Perceptual
-No Black Point Compensation
Under 'Manual Color Adjustment' for the printer, I set it to:
-Color Correction: None

Then off it goes and then 10 minutes later I am cursing, dejected and wondering where it all went wrong. It seems like there could be two dozen points of failure. Is my monitor calibrated wrong? I have used 3 different brightness settings (Bri 0, 8, 15) and it does not change how bright the pic is? Some horrible setting mishap in PSP? Should I be converting to the Canon paper profile when done soft proofing? In the past, I don't remember the PSP 'Color Settings' preferences of 'Settings' set to North American General Purpose 2. I think it was always set to 'custom.'

Thoughts. Can you see something obvious I'm missing. Man, I'm really loosing it....

Newsy

net1994 wrote:

At first I didn't want this post to be long/rambling. But then again, I want to include all detail in the hopes someone can see a flaw in my color management process. I am in HELL kids, HELL. For over two years I have wasted hundreds of $$ on sending prints out to Adorama and others. Sometimes the prints were 'close enough' but usually a huge miss. So I recently bought the Canon Pro9000 Mk II printer. At first I thought I saw an improvement over files I got back from Adorama which were duds. But now I'm even more lost. My main problem is shadow detail and colors. Usually the photo's shadows are too dark and sometimes completely black. There also seems to be decreased brightness, but the shadow issue is the biggest. I also have colors that sometimes come close, but not so much when printed on the new printer. My equipment:

-HP LP2475w LCD 24"
-Nvidia Geforce 9800 GT video card with 12-10-09 drivers
-Photoshop CS4 and Bridge. Fully patched.
-Windows 7 64-Bit fully patched
-Canon Pro9000 Mk II Printer w/ latest drivers and Canon paper profiles.
-Spyder 3 Pro calibration device

"-Spyder 3 Pro calibration device"

The Spyder3 Pro, as I read the feature sheet, does not allow for measured calibration to a custom white luminance value. The Elite does. Some people have told me recently that the newest version of Pro software available off the Datacolor web site, allows for measured calibration. Others have told me... "no, it does not". See my next comment for why this may be relevant.

Monitor settings:
-Brightness: 0 (yes, that's right-ZERO!)
-Contrast: 65
RGB Custom color settings:
-Red 254
-Green 219
-Blue 232
Calibrated with Spyder 3 pro, I get the following values:
Taget K = 6540K
Lum: 63.5

(Before getting my canon printer I had MUCH better color/brightness but 'flat' shadows with the following settings:
Bri 8, Con 80, Red 236 Green 210 Blue 210. Spyder 3 values: Target K= 6499k, Lum 93)

A white luminance value of 63.5 cd/m2 is extremely low for your monitor. That value is only useful for editing in a pitch black room and is probably even too low for that. In fact I know of no one in a couple of other forums who has ever been able to get the LP2475w below 90. I'm thinking it is so low that it is skewing the shadow detail you can see on screen. Most users of the LP2475w are using a value close to 120 cd/m2 and have some degree of lighting in the room, usually not too bright.

The Spyder3 Pro has an ambient light sensor feature which may suggest a luminance value and color temperature to calibrate to - I'm not sure how it works as the custom luminance is supposed to be crippled on the Pro. On the Elite it will definitely suggest values for those parameters and then accept them as targets to calibrate to.

As to RGB values, what is the maximum value in the HP menu for a color?

i.e.
-Red 254 / ? max 255? max 500? max 999?
-Green 219 / ?
-Blue 232 / ?

I'm trying to sort out if your RGB values are set too low.

In Photoshop, I am using RGB workspace. Under the Color Settings Menu, I have:
Settings: North American General Purpose 2
-Working Space: sRGB IEC........
-Color Management polices are all default.

File Workflow:

I will open a Nikon NEF file in Camera Raw as a 16Bit RGB file. In PSP, I do my edits and then save as a 16Bit Tiff. Then use soft proofing with the Canon paper profiles. There is usually quite a shift in shadows, so I correct. Then I send straight to the printer. I DO NOT convert to the printer profile.

"I DO NOT convert to the printer profile."

Hmmmmmm ???

In the canon printer menu, I use the following settings:
-Color Handling: Photoshop Manages Colors.
-Printer Profile: Working RGB - sRGB IEC.....
-Rendering Intent: Perceptual
-No Black Point Compensation
Under 'Manual Color Adjustment' for the printer, I set it to:
-Color Correction: None

"-Printer Profile: Working RGB - sRGB IEC....."

hmmmmm ????

Then off it goes and then 10 minutes later I am cursing, dejected and wondering where it all went wrong. It seems like there could be two dozen points of failure. Is my monitor calibrated wrong? I have used 3 different brightness settings (Bri 0, 8, 15) and it does not change how bright the pic is? Some horrible setting mishap in PSP? Should I be converting to the Canon paper profile when done soft proofing? In the past, I don't remember the PSP 'Color Settings' preferences of 'Settings' set to North American General Purpose 2. I think it was always set to 'custom.'

Thoughts. Can you see something obvious I'm missing. Man, I'm really loosing it....

net1994

Thanks for the reply newsy... For the 3 channels on the HP monitor, the max value is 255 per channel. For the Spyder3, there is a way it will display the lumince value during calibration. It doesn't stop me, or warn me its too low. It just proceeds. Yes, I know the Brigthness is WAAAY off. I am in a completly dark room when I work on photos. As you can guess, I'm not really trying settings based on good info. Though when I set Bri to 15 I get about 93 lum, which I hear is the very bootom target Lum value. And it should not go above 120. The pro version of Spyder 3 does not recommend the lum value based on ambient light. As far as I know...

Newsy

net1994 wrote:

Thanks for the reply newsy... For the 3 channels on the HP monitor, the max value is 255 per channel. For the Spyder3, there is a way it will display the lumince value during calibration. It doesn't stop me, or warn me its too low. It just proceeds. Yes, I know the Brigthness is WAAAY off. I am in a completly dark room when I work on photos. As you can guess, I'm not really trying settings based on good info. Though when I set Bri to 15 I get about 93 lum, which I hear is the very bootom target Lum value. And it should not go above 120. The pro version of Spyder 3 does not recommend the lum value based on ambient light. As far as I know...

It can go above 120 but not in a pitch black room. You have to have some lights on so that the ambient lighting balances against the monitor backlit brightness. It is a perceptual issue of your eyes when editing images and adjusting levels in images.

A monitor with a white luminance value of 100 cd/m2 may be too bright for adjusting brightness levels of an image in a pitch black room. However, it may be just right for a room with a 60w bulb but it may be too dark for the lighting found in a business office where they have to meet WCB standards for lighting in the workplace.

If you read enough reviews you'll find that quite a number of the best results for contrast ratio are found when tested with white luminance at 140 cd/m2.

I've very surprised that the Spyder3 is reporting 63 cd/m2. I had asked about the RGB levels because for many LCD's a method to get the luminance down to 100 or 90 is by reducing the RGB values after you have already set Brightness to "0". But your RGB levels are quite high.

Have you had your monitor long? Maybe the CCFL backlight is fading.

In any case, I think this is a side issue. Your real issue is with the printer paper profiles.

.

sara505

For starters, you need to upgrade to Spyder3 Elite. Pro is not, in fact, pro. It's a misnomer.

zoomer

Just popped in to say I feel for you.
Went through the same stuff a couple years ago only to decide all the calibration devices were crap because they never exactly get you where you need to be....in my experience.
In the end I chucked it all and just adjusted my monitor to match the prints I got from the lab....problem solved.
Best of luck to you...hope it all works out

Kinkajou

* sigh * I know how you feel. I'm in the same boat... Got the Spyder 3 Pro as well, and I'm not sure that it has actually helped. I've tried everything I know how to do and more (including zoomer's technique), and I'm just not making any progress.

On top of that, the colors/tones/etc of the images change dramatically based on what program they're displayed in. I use a mac, and in Finder it looks one way (and I know I shouldn't rely on that, but that's displaying what my "calibrated" monitor says is correct, right?), in Preview it looks different (and won't always let me select the profile I'd like it to use), and then in Gimp it looks different from both of them (though I am always able to select the profile I want)... and even if I can use the same profile for all three, they're still all different... and then my prints look different from each of those as well, even if I use the color profile from the printing lab! Which all makes me wonder... am I insane? What the heck is going on here? What is the truth and what is a lie? Liiiieeeesss!!!! :bash

Anyway, I don't mean to threadjack or anything, but I'm just trying to say that I feel for you. Color management sucks. I'm (clearly) a little frustrated with it at the moment myself.

angevin1

I've had and used the Spyder 3 pro for some time. The only thing I like about it, is it's ability to get me close. I then just use color calibration prints and compare with my monitor, and only worry over light/dark, relying on the Spyder to get me there on RGB.

In dgrin/SM this link is a helper ~

I have used the ICC profiles, et al, but have found calibrating then adjusting by sight and compare is closest.

ICC profiles and printing from differing labs across the globe is a bag 'o worms.

I've gotten to where I use Auto color correction if I am really worried...otherwise, I let the Histogram in LR2 be my guide.

angevin1

Another interesting link: http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/choosing_an_LCD_monitor/

Reeka

I would like to second the advice provided by Zoomer in Post #6. I found that calibrating with a system like Spyder got me close .... but not close enough. Matching your monitor to a lab print gets you where you need to be. In fact, I used the "Calibration Kit" offered by MPIX. It includes a JPEG file on a CD and a corresponding print of that file. The procedure involves loading the jpeg and then adjusting the monitor until your print matches theirs. I found that all I really needed to do was tweak the RED and then turn down the brightness. Spot on. Reeka

net1994

Ok well tonight I will scrap everything and recalibrate. I will start with Bri 15, Con 65. Instead of sitting in a pitch black room like I do now, I will turn on a 40watt light lamp and place to the far right hand side of where I'm sitting.

Question: But I consistently seem to have shadow issues. If I'm getting dark shadows in my pics before calibration should I go higher or lower than 'Contrast=65?'

Is a luminance target of 120 too high? Or should I shoot for 90?

kdlanejr

net1994 wrote:

Ok well tonight I will scrap everything and recalibrate. I will start with Bri 15, Con 65. Instead of sitting in a pitch black room like I do now, I will turn on a 40watt light lamp and place to the far right hand side of where I'm sitting.

Question: But I consistently seem to have shadow issues. If I'm getting dark shadows in my pics before calibration should I go higher or lower than 'Contrast=65?'

Is a luminance target of 120 too high? Or should I shoot for 90?

What is your aversion to having a normal amount of light in the room? Light the room the same way the light is when you look at the print. If you only look at your prints in a room with no light or the light from 40 watt bulb, what's the point of printing in the first place?

net1994

Just recalibrated and its still a mixed bag. I set my monitor to Bri 15 Con 66. Luminance is 97.3. I now use a 40-Watt lamp in my room to the far, far right of my LCD. After calibration the color accuracy has gotten much, much better. I'd almost say its 95% of what it looks like on screen. Shadow definition has improved, but barely. But the picture still is a bit dull, in the sense its not as bright as it should be. The brightness of the printed photos seems to be not much better than when I had my screen brightness set to ZERO and with a luminance of 65.

I tried printing my photos using 'Relative Cometric' and used Black Point Compensation. These looked fine, but I had better shadows when printing with Perceptual & Black Point Compensation.

Things seem to of improved somewhat, but now I'm getting into the ever so much fun 'prints to dark' zone. Should I go up on te Brightness/Contrast even more? Any suggestions?

(kdlanejr: In response to your question about brightness, I work in a dim room as I hear/feel it improves accuracy. But I don't look or hang my pics in a room of this brightness at all.)

kdlanejr

I've never heard that working in a dark or dimly lit room enhances your color accuracy in regard to digital workflow. My calibration device asks me about the brightness of the room I'm working in and even has a mode to measure the brightness of the ambient light before I start calibrating my monitor.

I'm not into printing B&W's so I don't often look for shadow detail. That said, I'm printing on an Epson 7900 that handled the B&W test prints I did, printed on epson ultra premium presentation matte paper and on exhibition fiber paper, with ease.

Some of the calibration tricks for retaining your shadows are actually applied in photoshop. Example, limiting your blacks to 5, 10 or even as bright as 15. Limit whites to 245 or 250 to retain white detail.

Pre-print at home on a quality printer before sending to a lab. If you can't get the shadow detail you seek on todays photo printers, you most likely will not get it from a lab either.

There is a reason many B&W enthusiasts try many different manufacturers paper offerings before picking one or two favorites.

I also buck the "normal" workflow for printing.., in that I don't let photoshop manage my colors. I let my printer manage my colors. At the moment, it is what works for me.

net1994

You say,

kdlanejr wrote:

limiting your blacks to 5, 10 or even as bright as 15. Limit whites to 245 or 250 to retain white detail.

5, 10, 15 of what value? Brigthness or Constrast? Where/what do I adjust for '245 or 250?'

kdlanejr

color picker settings for R,G,B for black and white.

mr mojo

color managment
I am not an expert in color managment but was having problems with what i was seeing on my monitor and what came out of the printer i tried the spyder series calibrators but had no luck i then switched to a color monkiee and it allows you to calibrate your monltor and your printer giving you a custom profile for each paper you use.I was still not happy with the color and happened to stumble across an article on which monitors were best for photography and found out manufacturers use different panels there are 3 types ips being the best most manufacturers dont specify what type of panels they use althought dell does after i searched for awhile i found one and the difference was amazing after calibration what ever i saw in the camera and what i saw on the screen is what came out of the printer.
IPS LCD Panel


MVA LCD Panel


TN LCD Panel

Newsy

mr mojo wrote:

.... are 3 types ips being the best most manufacturers dont specify what type of panels they use althought dell does after i searched for awhile i found one and the difference was amazing after calibration what ever i saw in the camera and what i saw on the screen is what came out of the printer.

4 basic types actually with variants of. You missed PVA which is neck and neck with IPS as the best TFT panel for image work - Eizo and Lacie have both used PVA panels extensively in their products which speaks to it being noted as such.

If you research my posts here you'll find a number on TFT monitor technology.

............................................

In terms of image quality for photo editing, these are the TFT LCD panel types from best to worst:

IPS (newer variants are S-IPS, AS-IPS, H-IPS, e-IPS, UH-IPS, etc)
PVA (newer variants are S-PVA, c-PVA)
MVA (newer variants are A-MVA, P-MVA, S-MVA, etc)
TN


If you would like some background on these panels, read this article:
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/panel_technologies.htm

............................................

But.... just because they have a "good" panel type is not going to ensure you of a top quality image. A lot depends on the electronics used in the monitor. TN paneled monitors, in general, are more problematic to calibrate because in addition to the lower quality electronics/processing, they are 6bit and have issues with off angle viewing.

An excellent monitor review site is:

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/reviews.html

also...

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm
http://www.flatpanelshd.com/reviews.php

.

SittingElf

Better solution than Spyder...

X-Rite ColorMunki. Profiles for your monitors AND printers. It Puts Spyder's to shame.

I use with both my Pro9000II and Pro9500II along with my monitors on desktop, macbook pro, and Macbook Air. When utilized as designed, prints on both printers match monitors virtually perfectly. Awesome!

I didn't read ALL of the posts here, but are you turning off "Printer Manages Color" when printing. Do it!

racer

SittingElf wrote: »

Better solution than Spyder...

X-Rite ColorMunki. Profiles for your monitors AND printers. It Puts Spyder's to shame.

Went to look at this, and wow, what a bargain at $450 :eek1 I bet the Eye One extreme is even way more accurate

arodney

First off, any display calibration product that does not give FULL control over setting display luminance first and to a lesser but important degree, white point (with custom Kelvin values or similar) is totally useless! Period. You’ll probably never get a screen to print match without having full control over luminance values and white point. The reasons for this, and how to fix such issues is described here:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

arodney

kdlanejr wrote: »

I've never heard that working in a dark or dimly lit room enhances your color accuracy in regard to digital workflow.

The ambient light conditions where you edit your images can be too bright but not too dark. The darker the environment, the less light strikes the display. That affects your perception of black (there is only so black a black the display can produce, light striking it affects this perception). You do not need to work in a pitch black room. And at some point, you’ll want to view the display and print at the same time, so you have to illuminate (properly) that print so there goes the pitch black room idea. But again, lower is better if possible.

My calibration device asks me about the brightness of the room I'm working in and even has a mode to measure the brightness of the ambient light before I start calibrating my monitor.

Which is almost close to a useless process. It tells you if the ambient light is too bright. But if your display is the brightest image in view, you are fine. What would be useful is if when it measured the room ambient light, it would measure the print viewing conditions and assist you in setting the correct cd/m2 for display luminance to result in a visual match. That’s not happening.

SittingElf

racer wrote: »

Went to look at this, and wow, what a bargain at $450 :eek1 I bet the Eye One extreme is even way more accurate

I got mine on sale at Amazon when it was one of the deals of the day for $360. But having said that, it is still a bargain at $450!

I 'could' go up to the Eye One Extreme, but it is virtually overkill except for the most needy of our peers. The ColorMunki is seriously awesome!

arodney

The ColorMunki is actually a newer design and hardware compared to the EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer and should produce fine quality measurements. Big difference is with the EyeOne Pro, you can move up to an automated measuring system with the i0 table. The Munki has no upgrade path. There is also a lot more software options outside of X-Rite for use with the EyeOne (its been around so much longer).

SittingElf

arodney wrote: »

The ColorMunki is actually a newer design and hardware compared to the EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer and should produce fine quality measurements. Big difference is with the EyeOne Pro, you can move up to an automated measuring system with the i0 table. The Munki has no upgrade path. There is also a lot more software options outside of X-Rite for use with the EyeOne (its been around so much longer).

But.... much much MUCH more expensive. The automated measuring system by itself is over $2200.00, plus another $1495 for the i1Extreme system.

Yikes! $450 for the ColorMunki sounds downright cheap in comparison!!

arodney

SittingElf wrote: »

Yikes! $450 for the ColorMunki sounds downright cheap in comparison!!

Yes, it is. But they are quite different devices for a different market. Both are Spectrophotometers, but in terms of the audience and the flexibility within software products out there today, big difference.

cowlishaw

You know what I say when it comes to color management? Screw it! I even distort my colors and try to make my digital prints look like expired film. The only part where all this would make me angry is if I couldn't get the needed shadow details in my prints. That would drive me absolutely mad! Anyways, there's my two cents.

Newsy

cowlishaw wrote: »

You know what I say when it comes to color management? Screw it! I even distort my colors and try to make my digital prints look like expired film. The only part where all this would make me angry is if I couldn't get the needed shadow details in my prints. That would drive me absolutely mad! Anyways, there's my two cents.

... well.... in southern Utah the only landscape colors are red, yellow, orange, burnt orange, and deep sky blue so what does it matter.

arodney

Newsy wrote: »

... well.... in southern Utah the only landscape colors are red, yellow, orange, burnt orange, and deep sky blue so what does it matter.

True, but computers treat everything, I mean everything as sets of numbers.

What number is deep sky blue?

Color management is number management.