Datacolor User to User Support Group.

I have made a few profiles now with Frintfix Pro 2.0.  Each time, I 
ensure that the ICM is turned off when making the print targets, and 
I have been reading in both the 729 patch chart and the B/W chart.

Each time, I review the readings to make sure that all the boxes 
look right (no out of place colors using the Measured View).

The good news...  In all 3 cases the print matchewd what I saw on 
the monitor when doing a Proof in CS2.

The bad news...  The profile someitmes drastically changes my 
image.  

On a glossy paper, I viewed the proof and it was noticibly darker 
than the image without the proof.  The Print did match the proof 
though.

On a FineArt paper, I viewed the proof and it was very close to the 
image without the proof.

I did a Rag paper last night and I viewed the proof and it was 
noticibly brighter than the image without the proof.

Why am I seeing this variance?  The Rag paper profile from the 
vendor has its issues, but it is not way too light like the Printfix 
profile.

Regards,
Darrell

That sounds like the same type of problem I had back when I used to try and
print from PhotoShop with my 2200. I solved it by using QImage for my prints
and will NEVER go back, so I've not experienced it with the 3800. Another
option, of course, is just to lighten up the profiles in the slider section
of PFP, but that doesn't really address the issue.


pjs
kansas "the flat & happy state"
"the better the photographer,
the bigger the wastebasket"
pjs 1972

------------------original message (or parts thereof-----------------
On Behalf Of darrellmccombs
Subject: [colorvision_group] Print and Monitor match, but....
<<<<The bad news...  The profile someitmes drastically changes my
image.>>>>

WHY?
Because each paper is going to have variations and characteristics of
it's own. 

Also, did you do a nozzle check before printing out the targets? Did
you try different paper settings, to find the best one for that media?
I would encourage you to experiment with these settings.

There are a lot of variables involved. Once you get more experienced
with profile building, you will know the routine, and will have
profiles that behave the way you want them to.

Also, it would not hurt to try printing out the target again and
reading, to see how the new version compares with the older one. It
could be you had a "mis-read" of a patch or two which could account
for the differences you are seeing.

Also, maybe your expectations are that everything should "just match".
On some papers that does work, on others, you will have to "fine" tune
with the sliders. I however, prefer to use an "adjustment layer" on my
print file to do the fine tuning, since invariably, each image will
tend to have a "mind of it's own".

John Nollendorfs
--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "darrellmccombs"
<darrell@...> wrote:

>
> I have made a few profiles now with Frintfix Pro 2.0.  Each time, I 
> ensure that the ICM is turned off when making the print targets, and 
> I have been reading in both the 729 patch chart and the B/W chart.
> 
> Each time, I review the readings to make sure that all the boxes 
> look right (no out of place colors using the Measured View).
> 
> The good news...  In all 3 cases the print matchewd what I saw on 
> the monitor when doing a Proof in CS2.
> 
> The bad news...  The profile someitmes drastically changes my 
> image.  
> 
> On a glossy paper, I viewed the proof and it was noticibly darker 
> than the image without the proof.  The Print did match the proof 
> though.
> 
> On a FineArt paper, I viewed the proof and it was very close to the 
> image without the proof.
> 
> I did a Rag paper last night and I viewed the proof and it was 
> noticibly brighter than the image without the proof.
> 
> Why am I seeing this variance?  The Rag paper profile from the 
> vendor has its issues, but it is not way too light like the Printfix 
> profile.
> 
> Regards,
> Darrell
>

John,

   Actually it is my expectation that they match pretty well.  I 
didn't buy a Profiling product to still do significant tweaks for 
each type of type of paper I use for every different print.

   I also don't expect to have to print and reprint targets and 
measure and remeasure targets (unless I set a stting incorrectly).  
I don't want to spend a majority of my life hunched over color 
tiles.  I know, I am wierd that way.

   I know this isn't fully automatic, but I don't want a product if 
it requires the time you are suggesting.  Printing, measuring, 
tweaking the print, reprinting, remeausuring, tweak the print again.

   A profile tool should get me much closer than I am now.  I 
understand that if I am really picky, that fine tuning the profile 
will be necessary.  This is not what I am talking about though.  The 
proof and print are coming out noticibly bright.

   I am hoping that I did something wrong.  I don't mind changing my 
process.  But spending the time you suggest is rediculous (IMO).  
It's like buying a car, but then having to walk to work for some 
reason.  ;-)

   I did do a nozzle check.  I made sure the ICM was off in the 
printer driver.  I used the paper setting the vendor (Hahnemuhle) 
recommends (Hahn Rag Bright - Velvet setting).

   When I printed from CS2, I used the Perceptual Rendering with BPC 
on.  

Regards,
Darrell


--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "sinar001" <jnolly@...> 
wrote:
>
> WHY?
> Because each paper is going to have variations and characteristics 
of
> it's own. 
> 
> Also, did you do a nozzle check before printing out the targets? 
Did
> you try different paper settings, to find the best one for that 
media?
> I would encourage you to experiment with these settings.
> 
> There are a lot of variables involved. Once you get more 
experienced
> with profile building, you will know the routine, and will have
> profiles that behave the way you want them to.
> 
> Also, it would not hurt to try printing out the target again and
> reading, to see how the new version compares with the older one. It
> could be you had a "mis-read" of a patch or two which could account
> for the differences you are seeing.
> 
> Also, maybe your expectations are that everything should "just 
match".
> On some papers that does work, on others, you will have to "fine" 
tune
> with the sliders. I however, prefer to use an "adjustment layer" 
on my

> print file to do the fine tuning, since invariably, each image will
> tend to have a "mind of it's own".
> 
> John Nollendorfs

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "darrellmccombs" <darrell@...> wrote:
>
>  Actually it is my expectation that they match pretty well.  I 
> didn't buy a Profiling product to still do significant tweaks for 
> each type of type of paper I use for every different print.
......
>  I know this isn't fully automatic, but I don't want a product if 
> it requires the time you are suggesting.  Printing, measuring, 
> tweaking the print, reprinting, remeausuring, tweak the print again.
> Darrell

Hi Darrell,

You might want to give different Rendering Intents a try...ColorVision recommends 
Saturation in the Help guide.

As much as you don't like to experiment I think you need to test the best Media Type for 
Hahn Rag Bright. Even though Hahnemuhle recommends Velvet Fine Art media setting I 
have found, along with many others, that VFA media type is not the best combo with 
Epson's x800 series printers, as the shadows are blocked up big time with Hahnemuhle 
papers.

Here's a copy and paste of a test I did last year....

"I too have found media settings are fairly close to each other but I wanted to explore a 
little more. Epson's black usually comes in hard and fast, less so with the newest printers 
but I wanted to find the media setting that has smoothest black from 100% to 90%.

So I recently tested to find the "best" media setting for William Turner paper on my Epson 
4800.

I printed a ten patch gray ramp from 100% to 90% with five media settings.

My Excel results are below for William Turner on an Epson 4800:

http://homepage.mac.com/johnvito/WilliamTurnerMediaSettings.png

From 100% to 90% only two media settings show desirable linear density loss albeit 
stepped at times. While the other three actually have spiked increases in density called 
"reversals" on some patches. For example Epson's Enhanced has the same density at the 
following patches: 100%, 99% and 
97%. As you can see the 98% patch has a lower density. Another reversal at 94%.

My choice is the UltraSmooth media setting, as it has the most linear path in the shadows."

As you can tell by the chart Enhance Matte and Velvet Fine Art media settings were the 
worse offenders of blocked shadows...I'm not sure why Hahnemuhle recommended the 
VFA setting...maybe just for more deep blacks? Also note that with the VelvetFineArt media 
setting the 96% patch is darker than the 97% patch....any profiler will have a difficult time 
fixing that.

Even before a profile is built, test a little to find the best settings so the profile doesn't 
have to do any heavy or impossible lifting. Use PFP Media Setting check is my 
recommendation.

Testing prior to building a profile would have to be done with any profiler package, not 
just PFP.

Best,

John V.

>I have made a few profiles now with Frintfix Pro 2.0. Each time, I
>ensure that the ICM is turned off when making the print targets, and
>I have been reading in both the 729 patch chart and the B/W chart.
>
>Each time, I review the readings to make sure that all the boxes
>look right (no out of place colors using the Measured View).
>
>The good news... In all 3 cases the print matchewd what I saw on
>the monitor when doing a Proof in CS2.
>
>The bad news... The profile someitmes drastically changes my
>image.
>
>On a glossy paper, I viewed the proof and it was noticibly darker
>than the image without the proof. The Print did match the proof
>though.
>
>On a FineArt paper, I viewed the proof and it was very close to the
>image without the proof.
>
>I did a Rag paper last night and I viewed the proof and it was
>noticibly brighter than the image without the proof.
>
>Why am I seeing this variance? The Rag paper profile from the
>vendor has its issues, but it is not way too light like the Printfix
>profile.
>

There's no guarantee when you build the profile that printing through the
profile is going to be an indistinguishably close match to Photoshop's
-non soft proofed- version of the image. It's normal for the image window to
visibly change (overall) when you turn soft proofing on through the profile.

What's most important is that the print will be a close match to the
-soft proof- on the calibrated display, and this -is- what you're already
telling us that you're experiencing.

If calibrated-screen-to-calibrated-print matching is important, then you're
always going to turn soft proof on through the profile as you're editing the
image, before you print; and then make your final adjustment tweaks when
looking at the image that way.

This is the purpose of soft proof: not only to see the effect of printer
gamut on the colors in the image, but also any other effects that the profile
might have on the image while printing. ICC profiles, if done well, are supposed
to create pleasing output on a printer and, along with that, render a good
soft proof; but there's no requirement that in addition to doing this, that
they would also transform colors so that the print will match your preview
on a non-soft-proofed display.

This isn't unique to PFP-created profiles; depending on the profiling package
you're using, you may see more or less of this effect. For example: I have
an HP B9180 installed on my system, so I have a full set of the HP profiles
for the printer available. If I go into Photoshop:Proof Setup:Custom, choose
one of the canned HP profile and toggle soft proof on/off through it, I see
noticeable changes in Photoshop's image window when I do so. If I do
the same with Epson profiles, I see less brightness shift but more color shift, and this is looking at images which are completely in-gamut for the
printers. Some manufacturer or 3rd party profiles show more of shift in
brightness, plus or minus; others more of a shift in color; but in general,
you're always going to see a certain amount of shift in brightness and/or color
in a Photoshop image window when you soft proof, and that's normal.


Best regards,

-- 
David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
ColorVision

I'm a Luddite. I don't do soft-proofing. I print with Qimage, as someone 
else wrote. My printer profiles, made with PFP, produce "perfect" matches 
between monitor and print (yes, no monitor-print match can never be totally 
exact, never truly perfect - but as close as anyone can tell). The 
monitor-profile match is sometimes "perfect" right from the start, but more 
often I need to tweak the printer profile (the one I just made in PFP) 
once, twice, three times. That is not a time-consuming or tedious chore. 
If, after making your initial profile, you leave PFP open and do your test 
print, just click the Back button on PFP, make your adjustment (maybe tweak 
Brightness by 1 or 2 slider positions, etc), make your "new" profile, do 
another test print, and you're done in 4-5 minutes at the most. Yes, if you 
want to make 3 or 4 little tweaks, then the time will be 15 or 20 minutes. 
But then you have an excellent profile which will last you for a long, long 
time - for that particular paper.

Incidentally, a few months ago I had to insert several new ink carts in my 
1800 (almost ran out of ink from those tiny little carts - what a great 
surprise!!) and found that the new inks required a new set of profiles. 
Epson used to have that trouble all the time, but I thought in recent years 
they'd tightened up their quality control. I guess not.

Bill Hansen

John V.,

   Thanks for the suggestion to use Ultrasmooth as the paper type.  
It sounds like this will yeild a better profile (although I don't 
think it will fix the issue I have of the proof and print being way 
brighter).

   I will check out hte Ultrasmooth settng as you suggested.

Regards,
Darrell


--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "John Vitollo" 
<jvlist@...> wrote:
>
> --- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "darrellmccombs" 
<darrell@> wrote:
> >
> >  Actually it is my expectation that they match pretty well.  I 
> > didn't buy a Profiling product to still do significant tweaks 
for 
> > each type of type of paper I use for every different print.
> ......
> >  I know this isn't fully automatic, but I don't want a product 
if 
> > it requires the time you are suggesting.  Printing, measuring, 
> > tweaking the print, reprinting, remeausuring, tweak the print 
again.
> > Darrell
> 
> Hi Darrell,
> 
> You might want to give different Rendering Intents a 
try...ColorVision recommends 
> Saturation in the Help guide.
> 
> As much as you don't like to experiment I think you need to test 
the best Media Type for 
> Hahn Rag Bright. Even though Hahnemuhle recommends Velvet Fine Art 
media setting I 
> have found, along with many others, that VFA media type is not the 
best combo with 
> Epson's x800 series printers, as the shadows are blocked up big 
time with Hahnemuhle 
> papers.
> 
> Here's a copy and paste of a test I did last year....
> 
> "I too have found media settings are fairly close to each other 
but I wanted to explore a 
> little more. Epson's black usually comes in hard and fast, less so 
with the newest printers 
> but I wanted to find the media setting that has smoothest black 
from 100% to 90%.
> 
> So I recently tested to find the "best" media setting for William 
Turner paper on my Epson 
> 4800.
> 
> I printed a ten patch gray ramp from 100% to 90% with five media 
settings.
> 
> My Excel results are below for William Turner on an Epson 4800:
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/johnvito/WilliamTurnerMediaSettings.png
> 
> From 100% to 90% only two media settings show desirable linear 
density loss albeit 
> stepped at times. While the other three actually have spiked 
increases in density called 
> "reversals" on some patches. For example Epson's Enhanced has the 
same density at the 
> following patches: 100%, 99% and 
> 97%. As you can see the 98% patch has a lower density. Another 
reversal at 94%.
> 
> My choice is the UltraSmooth media setting, as it has the most 
linear path in the shadows."
> 
> As you can tell by the chart Enhance Matte and Velvet Fine Art 
media settings were the 
> worse offenders of blocked shadows...I'm not sure why Hahnemuhle 
recommended the 
> VFA setting...maybe just for more deep blacks? Also note that with 
the VelvetFineArt media 
> setting the 96% patch is darker than the 97% patch....any profiler 
will have a difficult time 
> fixing that.
> 
> Even before a profile is built, test a little to find the best 
settings so the profile doesn't 
> have to do any heavy or impossible lifting. Use PFP Media Setting 
check is my 
> recommendation.
> 
> Testing prior to building a profile would have to be done with any 
profiler package, not 

> just PFP.
> 
> Best,
> 
> John V.
>

David,

    Thanks for the reply.  It is appreciated.

    I must not be conveying correctly the amount of brightness I am 
seeing in the proof and print.  It is far outside the range 
of "viewing light" differences and a much greater variance (proof 
non-proof) than I have seen on any commerially available profile.

    I dont think the issue I am seeing is paper related as the 
bright profile lightens things MUCH more than the vendors profile.

    I will try to adjust the Ref White and Ref Black.  I hope this 
will work as I don't think my expectations are out of line.

    I don't expect a perfect match, but I do expect the variance 
between proof and non-proof to be similar to commercial profiles.  
If I have to make large adjustments by eye, then I see little use 
for buying and making profiles.  The profiling software should get 
me very close.

Regards,
Darrell

> > The bad news...  The profile someitmes drastically changes my
> > image. 
> > 
> This has mostly to do with expectations...
> > 

> > I did a Rag paper last night and I viewed the proof and it was
> > noticibly brighter than the image without the proof.
> > 
> That would probably be proofing light brightness. Make sure your 
proofing 
> light is in line with your monitor white luminance first. Then 
adjust the Ref 
> White and Ref Black in your printer profile to get the best match 
possible.
> > 
> > Why am I seeing this variance?
> > 
> Various reasons noted above could be factors. We make this as easy 
as 
> possible, but the level of matching you are asking for is not 
pushbutton...
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  Check out free AOL 
> at http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp.  Most comprehensive 
set of free 
> safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos 
from across the 
> web, free AOL Mail and much more.
>

Please elaborate on this sentence:

"Make sure your proofing light is in line with your monitor white
luminance first."

Thanks,
Pierre

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 2/19/07 10:58:41 AM, darrell@... writes:
> 
> 
> > The good news...  In all 3 cases the print matchewd what I saw on
> > the monitor when doing a Proof in CS2.
> > 
> Right, definately good news.
> > 
> > The bad news...  The profile someitmes drastically changes my
> > image. 
> > 
> This has mostly to do with expectations...
> > 
> > On a glossy paper, I viewed the proof and it was noticibly darker
> > than the image without the proof.  The Print did match the proof
> > though.
> > 
> Thats what its supposed to match. You don't really want us to limit
your 
> prints to what your monitor can represent, just to make them match
do you? With a 
> gloss media, the print is darker than the monitor. Similarly, if
your printer 
> can print brighter Cyans than your monitor can print, you won't see
those 
> tones on screen either...
> > 
> > On a FineArt paper, I viewed the proof and it was very close to the
> > image without the proof.
> > 
> Because fine art paper is within the monitor's gamut... so there is
little 
> proof/nonproof variation.
> > 
> > I did a Rag paper last night and I viewed the proof and it was
> > noticibly brighter than the image without the proof.
> > 
> That would probably be proofing light brightness. Make sure your
proofing 
> light is in line with your monitor white luminance first. Then
adjust the Ref 
> White and Ref Black in your printer profile to get the best match
possible.
> > 
> > Why am I seeing this variance?
> > 
> Various reasons noted above could be factors. We make this as easy as 
> possible, but the level of matching you are asking for is not
pushbutton...
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Unit
> Datacolor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
> 
> 
> **************************************
>  Check out free AOL 
> at http://free.aol.com/thenewaol/index.adp.  Most comprehensive set
of free 
> safety and security tools, millions of free high-quality videos from
across the 
> web, free AOL Mail and much more.
>

Does anyone have a PDF version of the comprehensive help that comes with the
printfix pro2 program? I find it annoying to read these hyperlinked
documents, especially when it's a complicated subject as profiling. Spyder
has a PDF users guide, so why not printfix pro?

 

Regards,

Peter

http://www.colorvision.com/dl_manuals.php

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Oksen" <oksen@...> 
wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a PDF version of the comprehensive help that comes 
with the
> printfix pro2 program? I find it annoying to read these hyperlinked
> documents, especially when it's a complicated subject as profiling. 
Spyder

> has a PDF users guide, so why not printfix pro?
> 
>  
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
>