Datacolor User to User Support Group.

can't reply to all of this from an iPhone, but here are a few items.

Glad to hear you will be getting a Pro9500; after the initial dye-to- 
pigment trauma, I expect you will Luke it very much. But you are  
clearly a gloss printer, a d Ian clearly a matte printer, so our views  
may differ.

Glad to hear you are getting a proofing light. Even if it dies nothing  
for this issue, I suspect you'll be glad to have it.

And finally, I suspect, if you had an Ott-Lite and a Pro9500 to start  
with, we might not be having this discussion at all...

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@...

On Sep 3, 2009, at 3:09 PM, Bob Petruska <petruska@...>  
wrote:

>
>
> David,
>
> Thanks for the reply!
>
> Some answers.....
>
> 1.  I feel that the monitor is not too bright or too dim in a  dim  
> lit room with light blocking window blinds closed all the time.
>
> 2.  Nikon Capture NX2 converts the RAW to SRGB space.  It does a  
> much better RAW conversion than Adobe Camera Raw and this is a known  
> fact.  Most users convert the RAW with NX2 to TIF and then import to  
> Photoshop.
>
> 3.  I should clarify that the monitor calibration test photo that I  
> shot was not used to perform the Spyder printer profiling.  I used  
> the Spyder3Print supplied test photo, the one with 16 smaller photos  
> embedded (4 B/W prints in lower right quadrant).
>
> 4.  I used Canon Photo Paper Pro Gloss for this test.  I also have  
> Kodak Ultima Gloss/Luster, Kodak Ultra Gloss/Luster, Kodak  
> Professional Luster, Illford Gallerie Gloss, Epson Premium Gloss  
> Photo.  Any recommendations on a good gloss paper type?
>
> 5.  I will try different intents to see what happens.
>
> 6.  To clarify on the print out B/Ws "leaning towards dark gray and  
> not black" .  Those 4 B/W prints in the test photo look more overall  
> mid gray than darker gray.  There are definitely ink black areas  
> printed ink black.  It just sort of looks like the gray scale if  
> off.  In the city skyline photo the sky is a very pitch black, ink  
> black.  I think we are ok when printing ink black.
>
> 7.  Setting my L* value to 1 make my softproof blacks match my  
> printed blacks.  My NEC  produces a very deep black.  I normally use  
> gloss papers so I think we are ok here with that L* value.
>
> 8.  I will buy an OTT-LITE for viewing prints and see how it affects  
> the printed results.
>
> I would like to further discuss the softproof image. The softproof  
> image is dependent on my Spyder profile edit adjustments or any  
> adjustments made with my photo editing software.  In other words, it  
> "tracks" any color adjustments.  Right now the softproof image does  
> no match my printout color wise.  I understand that I can change the  
> hazy softproof look by changing the black L* value and did so.  If I  
> reduce color saturation or tint with profile  editing adjustments or  
> photo editing software, to make the printout match my non-softproof  
> image, the softproof image changes accordingly and will never match  
> the printout.  I always thought that the main purpose of profiling  
> is to have your softproof image match your non-softproof image and  
> also the printout.  Am I wrong in stating this?
>
> I only purchased the Canon Pro 9000 to make sure that my I950 was  
> not at fault.  I paid $250 for it and will sell it shortly for $250  
> with no problem as they are going for $300 or more.  I really don't  
> see any differences in printout colors even though it has the  
> additional red and green inks.  Canon should have added a gray and  
> vivid magenta instead.
>
> I plan on getting the Canon Pro 9500 MK II shortly but wanted to  
> resolve this color management issue before doing so.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Bob P.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:04 PM 9/3/2009, you wrote:
>>
>> [Attachment(s) from C D Tobie included below]
>>
>>
>> On Sep 2, 2009, at 11:19 PM, Bob Petruska wrote:
>>
>> > 1. Windows Vista Home Premium.
>> > 2. NEC P221 LCD monitor calibrated using NEC's SpectraView II with
>> > a NEC supplied I1 Display 2 calibrator that is special calibrated
>> > for their wide gamut monitors. This calibration is performed in the
>> > monitor's hardware and stored in the LUTs.
>>
>> Not a Datacolor product, but it certainly should produce a reasonably
>> calibrated display... just be sure its not too bright or too dim for
>> your viewing environment.
>>
>> > 3. Canon 6 ink I950 printer. Using Canon Photo Paper Pro paper for
>> > this test.
>>
>> Not the latest and greatest printer, and not anything I'd use for  
>> long
>> life prints, or for black and white, but it should produce reasonable
>> color photo prints...
>> >
>> > Test....
>> >
>> > 1. I set up a simple test target of objects with various colors,
>> > bright whites, deep blacks, shades, etc. in a totally dark room
>> > illuminated by tungsten lights.
>>
>> Then you are not testing display to print, you are interjecting all
>> sorts of complex scene and space conversion issue up front...
>>
>> > Using my Nikon D700 I manually measured/adjusted white balance and
>> > shot in the SRGB space.
>>
>> There is no sRGB in RAW, RAW is RAW, at gamma 1.0 (not sRGB's 2.2)  
>> and
>> without gamut clipping at the edges of the sRGB gamut.
>>
>> > The Nikon RAW file displayed on my NEC monitor in Nikon Capture
>> > NX2 looks identical to what I see in real life.
>>
>> Can't comment on propietary RAW import software, except to reccommend
>> against it, in favor of industry standard methods, like Camera RAW  
>> and
>> Lightroom...
>>
>> > I saved the file in NX2 as a TFF and viewed it Photoshop CS4 and
>> > it matches identically to what I see in NX2. So we can say that the
>> > monitor is well calibrated and both applications display the proper
>> > image.
>>
>> Not sure that process guarantee's your display is appropriately
>> calibrated, but you seem to come through a whole set of front end
>> stuff and be happy with the result. So lets view it as a mountain,
>> where all the source stuff is on the "up" side of the hill, and the
>> corrected image in a Photoshop working space is at the summit, and
>> what we really want to focus on is the "down" side, where we take a
>> precorrected, tagged RGB image, and print it.
>>
>> But of course there are still papers and inks and gamut limits in the
>> file and gamut limits on the screen, and display black versus file
>> black versus ink black, and display white, versus paper white, versus
>> file white, and viewing light color, quality and brightness, and
>> universal file view versus softproof view etc... so we aren't without
>> complications, they are just complications on the appropriate side of
>> the hill now...
>> >
>> > 2. I ran the Spyder3Print calibration again using the Canon I950 I
>> > turned off all color management in the Canon I950 driver, color
>> > adjustment is set to manual, not much else to change there. Printed
>> > the Spyder3 test patterns, colors plus grays, scanned them in.
>> > Printed the Spyder3 test photo and it had slightly more saturated
>> > colors, slight red hue than what I see on the monitor, the B/W
>> > sections were leaning more to a very dark gray tint than black.
>>
>> Okay, this is in terms we can work with now. You are viewing the  
>> image
>> on screen, in Spyder3Print, so its softproofed for you. You are
>> printing it on some type of paper (would be handy to know what type),
>> and seeing some visual differences between screen and print. Here are
>> factors, causes, and reccommendations on that:
>>
>> Display black is weak enough that softproofed black on screen looks
>> weak, can be described as "lack of punch" (a matte paper issue,
>> mostly). This can be improved by running your LCD at a higher
>> brightness level, since choking it down to prepress levels drops the
>> dynamic range a lot. Or it could be improved, inversely, but dimming
>> your display, as running it lower produces a darker black. Sorry for
>> the two inverse suggestions. Its not our display calibration product,
>> so I can't say much more than that.
>>
>> Next, most users are THRILLED with more color saturation in prints.
>> They can always reduce it, but if its not there, there's no way to
>> increase it. This is mostly on gloss and luster media, since matte  
>> has
>> a smaller color gamut. No mention of your proofing light, but using  
>> an
>> incandescent Solux bulb is the most common cause of "popped" prints.
>> Other recommendations would be to change your intent from Saturation
>> to Perceptual, and if its stll too punchy, to Relative Colorimeteric.
>> Thats part of what the intents are there for.
>>
>> On to your blacks. I can't interpret "leaning towards dark gray not
>> black" but there is always going to be a color of black in any ink/
>> paper combination, and we can't really change that. So either you are
>> speaking of the near blacks having a tint (tint means color), or you
>> mean blacks aren't black enough to suit you, which isn't typically a
>> profile issue, its a paper/ink/media setting issue. But the match of
>> the softproof to the print is a printer profile issue, best adjusted
>> at SooftProof black, by reducing the L* value.
>>
>> > I looked at the soft-proof . The Spyder3 soft-proof colors
>> > matched the monitor test photo but were slightly washed out, so I
>> > lowered the black level in the soft-proof down to 1 as suggested by
>> > David T. and the soft-proof matched the non-soft-proof test image
>> > identically for color and contrast.
>>
>> Matching softproof to nonsoftproof isn't the goal here. By zeroing  
>> out
>> the L* value you have entirely removed the function that emulates
>> paper black on screen. If your printed blacks are as dark as your
>> display, that would be appropriate (likely with a dimmed LCD, and
>> gloss/luster paper), but if you are printing on matte, removing this
>> correction entirely will lie about your prints, and promise darker
>> blacks than the paper and ink can manage. So adjust appropriately for
>> your display and your media...
>>
>> > Now this is nice that I have the test image and soft-proof image
>> > matching, but neither match the printed photo. If I edit the
>> > profile to reduce the saturation I can get the printed photo to
>> > match closer to the original test photo, but then the soft-proof
>> > image doesn't match since any slider edits to the profile is also
>> > going to change the soft-proof image in a negative way. I did a lot
>> > of profile editing and the printout still does not match the
>> > original image as well as printing using the Canon Standard Driver.
>>
>> No one, even a Canon fan like myself, has ever suggested that the
>> "Canon standard driver" is a highly accurate color solution... good,
>> but certainly not excellent.
>>
>> First, you are adjusting in the wrong order. If you wish to edit the
>> print output, do that first ( you may be the first person I even knew
>> to edit in the direction of reducing the printers color gamut, but if
>> thats what you want, then do it, but do it carefully). Then, after
>> that is done, make your softproof adjustments. But that may not solve
>> the issue you are describing, which is sounding more and more like
>> "metamerism" (AKA: color constancy)
>> >
>> > 3. Now I went one extreme step further and found a new in factory
>> > sealed box Canon Pro9000 MKII for $250 and bought that to compare  
>> in
>> > this test. That is an 8 ink printer (additional red and green inks
>> > with the 6 of the I950).
>>
>> I've never been impressed with that printer, though I love the  
>> pigment
>> ink version, the Pro 9500. But I'm beginning to suspect that your
>> issues lie in the dye ink/gloss paper end of things. That would be
>> about the only way I could conceive of exceeding the desired gamut...
>>
>> > Ran the same as 2 above, got the same results; printout is slightly
>> > color saturated, towards red tint, soft-proof slightly washed out
>> > and fixed it with the soft-proof black level. Canon Standard Driver
>> > matches the original image very well. I would like to say that this
>> > printer is one huge printer and I really can't see any printout
>> > detail differences against the I950.
>>
>> As for color tint, we really can't talk about that without discussing
>> what lighting is involved. I would certainly expect any profile  
>> (since
>> they are targeted for 5000k) to look off color under incandescent
>> light, and in fact my biggest complaint about the Canon Pro 9000, is
>> that is a "pro" printer with all the metamerism issues that "amateur"
>> dye printers have, the most obvious being ugly color tones and non-
>> neutral grays under incandescent light. So perhaps the first thing to
>> do here is to get a high CRI fluorescent light with about a 5000k
>> color temperature (an Ott-Lite would do), and view your prints under
>> that. If the neutrality, perceived color cast, saturation etc... are
>> different under that light, then we've found the source of the
>> problem: Canon dye inks "metamerising" (technically "showing color
>> inconstancy") under non-5000k, low CRI light sources. No real color
>> management solution for that one, other than trading your Pro 9000 in
>> for a Pro 9500 with pigment inks.
>> >
>> > 4. Now believing that something is not set correctly in Windows
>> > Vista or my system that I just couldn't finger. I pulled out my old
>> > Windows XP system, ran the monitor calibration, attached both
>> > printers, printed out the test sheets, scanned, adjusted the soft-
>> > proof, and the printouts still show slight over saturation, red
>> > tint, etc. Again the Canon Standard Drivers match the monitor image
>> > almost exactly.
>> >
>> > 5. Put a very good SONY CRT monitor on the system, calibrated it
>> > and the same results as 4 above.
>>
>> You have certainly done your homework...
>> >
>> > I realize that there are many sliders to edit the profile but after
>> > a few boxes of paper and many ink cartridges it is difficult to get
>> > close to matching the printout to the display. I do realize gamut
>> > limitations but the Canon Standard Driver does a great job.
>>
>> I refer to such results as "Eden"; lovely if you are there, but you
>> can't go back again. If your color only matches by accident, there is
>> no tool to make it match again later, when something changes...
>> Thinking back to the days of Canon dye printers, I do seem to recall
>> that the canned results tended to lean towards an incandescent  
>> match...
>> >
>> > I was expecting that the Spyder3Pint was going to make it painless
>> > for me to generate profiles with different papers, I assumed you
>> > just printed the charts, scanned, and bingo the as perfect as
>> > possible ICC profile would be generated that would beat the Canon
>> > Standard Driver every time.
>>
>> Many users would describe their experience as being roughly what you
>> expected. But lets see what a 5000k High CRI fluorescent proofing
>> light does for the results. If it magically makes the prints look
>> right, then I'd say you may simply not be happy until you get a
>> pigment printer (or may simply give up an use canned profiles, if you
>> can't afford a less problematic printer).
>> >
>> > I really don't know where to go from here. I must be missing
>> > something somewhere.
>> >
>> > I can use all the help and suggestions that anyone can give me!
>>
>> Many comments, but only a couple suggestions, above... let us know  
>> how
>> things turn out!
>>
>> C. David Tobie
>> Global Product Technology Manager
>> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
>> CDTobie@...
>>
>>
>>
>> Datacolor
>> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>>
>
>
> 
>