Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I have a question. Why would my monitor calibration be always more accurate than my custom made printer profiles? 
> 
> I can't afford my own spectro for my printer, so have to get custom profiles.
> 
> My prints are invariably darker than my monitor when *I* print them, but when a commercial printer does them (eg for a commercial print run), the results seem to be more accurate re brightness, vis a vis my screen.
> 
> If it was just a problem with ambient light in my work room, the print results should be consistent whether I print them or someone else does it.
> 
> thanks,
> Richard
> 
Richard,

In my opinion, monitor profiles are NOT necessarily more accurate than printer profiles.  In fact, you have a lot more variables to play with when calibrating a monitor than you do a printer (white and black luminance, color temp, gamma, etc).  

In the monitor to print matching game, the usual reason prints look muddy and dark (when using ICC profiles) is that the monitor is calibrated to be too bright.  This leads one to "darken" the image when editing, and those darker numbers are then reliably sent to the printer.  So, assuming you have an accurate profile for your given printer/paper/ink combo, your prints aren't too dark.....you monitor is probably too bright.  

It's the overall "system" that needs to be taken into account and balanced, ie, monitor, video card, ambient lighting, viewing lights, display environment, etc.  I calibrate my monitor to 5200K, 90 cd/m2 and 2.2 gamma and get a very close match from monitor to print.  Your values may be somewhat different, but IMO, many people set their monitor luminance too high.  

I wrote an article on the subject, if you are interested.  

http://www.dinagraphics.com/color_management.php

Click on the link "Monitor & Printer Profiling".  

Lou