calibrated, received prints, now what?

Elaine

I recently calibrated my monitor with the eye-one display 2. I was pleased with the brightness but not with the overall color. It just seemed a twinge warm to me. So, I set it back on the Native setting which looked much more neutral to me. (I have the NEC MultiSync 20WMGX2.)

Yesterday I received my 5-8x10 test prints from WHCC (in record speed, BTW!). The prints are slightly darker and a bit more saturated than what I think my monitor is showing.

So what should I do next? Is the aim to make my monitor reflect my prints? If so, are there any tips or tricks on how to do that?

CatOne

Elaine wrote:

I recently calibrated my monitor with the eye-one display 2. I was pleased with the brightness but not with the overall color. It just seemed a twinge warm to me. So, I set it back on the Native setting which looked much more neutral to me. (I have the NEC MultiSync 20WMGX2.)

Yesterday I received my 5-8x10 test prints from WHCC (in record speed, BTW!). The prints are slightly darker and a bit more saturated than what I think my monitor is showing.

So what should I do next? Is the aim to make my monitor reflect my prints? If so, are there any tips or tricks on how to do that?

Do you have a profile from the printer? You need to view through that profile to ensure you adjust your images so they look like you want them to look. Recall the printer doesn't know how your monitor is calibrated, so they can typically give you an ICC profile for their equipment and you can use soft proofing to ensure what you generate looks like what they'll print.

LiquidAir

By default, the Eye-One software uses a target brightness of 120 Lumens for LCDs which is pretty bright. 120 lumens is nice for general use of the display, but it is quite bright compared to typical interior lighting. I find that setting the target brightness to 90 lumens gives me a better brightness match to print.

Rene`

Dark prints
Could you please explain soft proofing? I have also encountered prints that were a little dark from WHCC. I use Photoshop 6.

CatOne wrote:

Do you have a profile from the printer? You need to view through that profile to ensure you adjust your images so they look like you want them to look. Recall the printer doesn't know how your monitor is calibrated, so they can typically give you an ICC profile for their equipment and you can use soft proofing to ensure what you generate looks like what they'll print.

arodney

Rene` wrote:

Could you please explain soft proofing? I have also encountered prints that were a little dark from WHCC. I use Photoshop 6.

You must soft proof to get a match and that means getting the WHCC profile and using it properly.

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200409_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200411_rodneycm.pdf

Cason

Elaine wrote:

So what should I do next? Is the aim to make my monitor reflect my prints? If so, are there any tips or tricks on how to do that?

I assume you saw pages 4 and 5 of http://www.whcc.com/pricing/whcc_2008_pricing_0308.pdf

The goal is for you to calibrate your monitor to a standard. Their goal is to calibrate their printers to the same standard.

When I calibrated my monitor the first time, I too thought it was warm. However, I let it be. I figured why pay $200+ for the device just to ignore it? I sent off for the (5) 8x10s and they were spot on.

If I were you, I would follow their instructions and recalibrate. Make sure you are set to 6500k and gamma 2.2.

arodney

RTP wrote:

I assume you saw pages 4 and 5 of http://www.whcc.com/pricing/whcc_2008_pricing_0308.pdf

The goal is for you to calibrate your monitor to a standard. Their goal is to calibrate their printers to the same standard.

There really is no such standard. How the prints are viewed makes a big difference (are you really using D50 lighting?). The luminance has to match the luminance of the print viewing conditions too (totally separate from the color of the light).

Elaine

Thanks for all the responses here!

I've learned that I can not soft proof because I have Photoshop Elements 5.0. I'm getting closer to CS3...this may just push me over the edge.

I'll try recalibrating and chosing 90 lumens instead of 120.

I still have a lot to learn about profiles, etc... Thanks for the links and tips!

LiquidAir

Elaine wrote:

Thanks for all the responses here!

I've learned that I can not soft proof because I have Photoshop Elements 5.0. I'm getting closer to CS3...this may just push me over the edge.

I'll try recalibrating and chosing 90 lumens instead of 120.

I still have a lot to learn about profiles, etc... Thanks for the links and tips!

Try this:

Hold up a white sheet of paper next to a white patch on your monitor. To get a good match match between screen and print the white of your monitor should match the white of the paper. If the paper looks dark next to the monitor, then your prints will look dark too. You can fix the problem either by turning down the brightness of your monitor or by using brighter lights in your viewing environment.

Elaine

I'm baaaack!

I recalibrated tonight (i1 display2) and pushed my lumens down to 92. I think that will be a better brightness match for prints (I hope). But, everything seems to have a twinge of magenta, once again. Very frustrating. No one has told me my pics are too magenta when viewing them online, but the current state of my monitor makes it look like I need to tweak everything down a bit. My other monitor is of very poor quality and even after calibrating appears too blue, so perhaps this one (NEC) appears pinkish only by comparison? But even when just looking at the gray pages here on DGrin, I see a pinkish hue, albeit slight.

I edited a couple pics pre and post calibration, from RAW, through ACR and PSE 5. I would really appreciate it if some folks with calibrated/trusted monitors could tell me which set looks best/most neutral. If this is a completely bogus exercise, I'd love to learn why and how to better tell if I'm on the right track. Thanks!

PS - Posting these next to each other doesn't seem to show the differences as much as I could see when editing. But I'm curious to know if anyone can tell a difference and which looks better and more neutral, colorwise.


1A


2A


1B


2B

arodney

I do see a slight magenta cast in the cement (note, that doesn't mean the rest of the rendering is at fault, its your call).

92cd/m2 seems a bit on the low end if indeed this is a modern LCD. Its hard to drive them that low. Can you up the luminance of the prints (without affecting the color temp of the light source) then try something along the lines of 120cd/m2?

Elaine

arodney wrote:

I do see a slight magenta cast in the cement (note, that doesn't mean the rest of the rendering is at fault, its your call).

92cd/m2 seems a bit on the low end if indeed this is a modern LCD. Its hard to drive them that low. Can you up the luminance of the prints (without affecting the color temp of the light source) then try something along the lines of 120cd/m2?

The cement of the first one is more magenta than the second one, to me anyway. Are they both magenta to you? The ground and skin tones on 1B looks more magenta (than 2B) to me as well.

My monitor is an NEC MultiSync 20 WMGX2. To get the 92 lumens, my brightness was turned down to around 11%. I originally had 120, but my prints looked kinda dark and muddy in comparison. How do I "up the luminance of the prints"? Is it just a matter of viewing them in a brighter environment?

Thanks.

arodney

Elaine wrote:

The cement of the first one is more magenta than the second one, to me anyway.

Yes but who says that cement has to be gray? Maybe gray cement under midday sun. Anyway yes, one is more than the other, never bothers me too much, I prefer the 2nd. I suspect if you gray balance the cement, the rest of the image may suffer. You'll just have to try.

What are you using to view the prints?

Elaine

arodney wrote:

Yes but who says that cement has to be gray? Maybe gray cement under midday sun. Anyway yes, one is more than the other, never bothers me too much, I prefer the 2nd. I suspect if you gray balance the cement, the rest of the image may suffer. You'll just have to try.

What are you using to view the prints?

If I'm looking at prints directly next to my monitor, I'm in a room with no direct sunlight (window faces north and blinds are not often open while I'm working at the computer), a regular tungsten ceiling light and I have a couple little halogen bulbs above my desk top that I only turn on when I need more light on my desk area or when looking at prints. Halogen gives a more golden light, right? The pics I ordered from WHCC (before current calibration) have a more golden hue, rather than a pinkish hue, especially under the halogens. But even up in my natural light living room, the skin/hair tones seem to have more yellow than magenta. Seeing those same prints on the monitor makes the monitor appear even more magenta.

I guess I'm trying to determine if my monitor is actually correct and I need to just adjust myself to it. Looks like I need to order some more prints.

arodney

You are calibrating the display to a D50 or D65 white point, the lighting you're using to view the prints isn’t' ideal (even close) to what would correlate to the display. You're going to have to find a better viewing system for prints (lightbooth, Solux Bulbs etc).

Elaine

arodney wrote:

You are calibrating the display to a D50 or D65 white point, the lighting you're using to view the prints isn’t' ideal (even close) to what would correlate to the display. You're going to have to find a better viewing system for prints (lightbooth, Solux Bulbs etc).

Hmmm...this is getting more complicated by the minute! I can understand that unless I view prints under similar conditions to how my monitor is calibrated that I can't expect them to completely match. But, I can't expect any customers to own a lightbooth to view their prints. And I want to display prints on my walls, not under a special light source. I just want my prints to look great and reasonably resemble what I edited them to be. I don't know what my next step should be to reach this goal. Any more pointers?

arodney

The old argument is "But what will the customer see" and its valid but not appropriate since our goal here is to have the print and display match, match under a standard illuminant. That's why any color lab or print shop worth it's salt will have a viewing light booth. There are standards, at the very least, you conform to viewing conditions others are conforming to (and you can always show the client the print under proper lighting and when they approve, you're done).

http://www.gtilite.com/why-gti.htm

http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/index.html

Elaine

arodney wrote:

The old argument is "But what will the customer see" and its valid but not appropriate since our goal here is to have the print and display match, match under a standard illuminant. That's why any color lab or print shop worth it's salt will have a viewing light booth. There are standards, at the very least, you conform to viewing conditions others are conforming to (and you can always show the client the print under proper lighting and when they approve, you're done).

http://www.gtilite.com/why-gti.htm

http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/index.html

Bear with me a little longer please...I'm trying to wrap my brain around all this! I'm not quite sure I understand your last sentence. Are you saying that I should conform to standard viewing conditions that other pros are conforming to, and then I can show the client, "See here...it's all good"?

arodney

Elaine wrote:

Bear with me a little longer please...I'm trying to wrap my brain around all this! I'm not quite sure I understand your last sentence. Are you saying that I should conform to standard viewing conditions that other pros are conforming to, and then I can show the client, "See here...it's all good"?

Among other reasons, yes.

Elaine

arodney wrote:

Among other reasons, yes.

Is checking prints in a particular viewing environment the only way to cross check if my monitor is calibrated correctly?

arodney

Elaine wrote:

Is checking prints in a particular viewing environment the only way to cross check if my monitor is calibrated correctly?

Yup.

Elaine

arodney wrote:

Yup.

Thanks.

I think.

Every time I think I do something right (buy a calibrator and use it, in this case) I find something else I need to do or buy.

Sorry...just having a little woe-is-me moment.

Elaine

Mr. Rodney,

Thanks for all your help!

Would it be worthwhile to try a calibration set at 5000K rather than 6500K, and then view the prints in natural light? Would that be a closer matching scenario than what I've been doing?

LiquidAir

Elaine wrote:

Mr. Rodney,

Thanks for all your help!

Would it be worthwhile to try a calibration set at 5000K rather than 6500K, and then view the prints in natural light? Would that be a closer matching scenario than what I've been doing?

I my brief experimentation I have found the the most important thing to match the ambient light in the envoriment near my motitor to the white point on the monitor itself so that when I am viewing images on the screen I have a single reference white point to judge what I see on the display. The simple thing to do is to measure the color temperature of the abmient light near your monitor and white balance the display to match. I am trying now to take the next step which is to control the lighting around my desk to match how I'd like to calibrate my display.

There are really two things to look for in a light source: Color Temperature and Color Rendering Index (CRI). CRI is a measure of how smooth the spectrum is and higher is better. For color matching I'd consider 80 a minimum and 90+ is better. I have been researching light sources a bit and it appears that the bulbs with the highest CRI tend to run around 5500K; to get a bulb with a higher color temperature you have to sacrifice a bit in the CRI department.

Right now I am leaning toward a 5500K work environment because the bulbs are much easier to find. 5500K bulbs with a CRI of 91 are the standard for Ott-Lites and maufactured by Vita-Lite among others. It may not be ideal but the bulbs are easily available, not too expensive and come in a wide variety of form factors so I can transition my entire office without having to buy new fixtures. I can only be better that what I have now; if it turns out not be good enough, well, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it.

Elaine

Thanks, Ken! I appreciate the further input. I need to spend some more time with this subject, I think!

arodney

Elaine wrote:

So what should I do next? Is the aim to make my monitor reflect my prints? If so, are there any tips or tricks on how to do that?

Get the profile for the printer, setup a soft proof. That's the only way Photoshop can simulate on screen what you got from the print. You'd also need a controlled lighting booth or area to view the prints such that the luminance of the print and the white point match the display to produce a match.

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200409_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200411_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200604_rodneycm.pdf