Datacolor User to User Support Group.

I just purchased Spyder 3 Studio and when I printed the Media Setting Test images the colors seemed very dark and the four small pictures matched the "Clogged Shadows" example in the Help Screen (actually my printed sample seem even darker than the Clogged Shadow example).  I tried various printer driver settings (yes, I properly turned off all color management in the print driver) but they didn't seem to make any noticable change.
I went ahead and printed the 225 sample page, let it dry for an hour  and read the samples (a great many of the little color squares were extermely dark - they looked black).  I created a profile from the sample and printed a photo from Adobe CS4 (again properly turning off color managment on the printer, letting CS4 manage color and selected the profile newly created.  The resulting printed image was darker and a little more contrasty than the same photo printed using the enhanced Epson profile - which already seemed too dark.
Is there any likely mistakes I might be making?  I purchased the Spyder 3 Studio in hopes of getting better prints from my R1800 but so far it has been a step backward.
In the past I would have to adjust the exposure (brighter) in CS4 about 3/4 of a stop to make the printed image have about the same as the calibrated screen (I previously used the Spyder 2 Suite).
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Rick

On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Rick Ryan wrote:

> I just purchased Spyder 3 Studio and when I printed the Media  
> Setting Test images the colors seemed very dark and the four small  
> pictures matched the "Clogged Shadows" example in the Help Screen  
> (actually my printed sample seem even darker than the Clogged Shadow  
> example). I tried various printer driver settings (yes, I properly  
> turned off all color management in the print driver) but they didn't  
> seem to make any noticable change.
> I went ahead and printed the 225 sample page, let it dry for an hour  
> and read the samples (a great many of the little color squares were  
> extermely dark - they looked black). I created a profile from the  
> sample and printed a photo from Adobe CS4 (again properly turning  
> off color managment on the printer, letting CS4 manage color and  
> selected the profile newly created. The resulting printed image was  
> darker and a little more contrasty than the same photo printed using  
> the enhanced Epson profile - which already seemed too dark.
> Is there any likely mistakes I might be making? I purchased the  
> Spyder 3 Studio in hopes of getting better prints from my R1800 but  
> so far it has been a step backward.
> In the past I would have to adjust the exposure (brighter) in CS4  
> about 3/4 of a stop to make the printed image have about the same as  
> the calibrated screen (I previously used the Spyder 2 Suite).
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks,
> Rick
>
>


Hi Rick:

You're misunderstanding the purpose of the Media Setting Check image,
and how it's intended to be used.

You -are- printing it correctly, with color management turned off;
and yes, that means the colors will be dark. You're not supposed to
be able to make it look "better" by changing driver settings; it
will look slightly different based on the driver settings, since
these will affect how much ink is put down by the driver based
on your choice of paper type, etc. but the differences can be
subtle. The more important part of that image to look at is
the color squares, rather than the faces at the bottom.

I think you're doing everything correctly, from the sound of it;
but if you'll go to our web site, open a support ticket, and put
"ATTN David Miller" in the title, we can go back and forth a bit
more there and I can look at your measurements in the process.

David Miller
Senior Software Developer, Digital Color Solutions
Datacolor

On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Rick Ryan wrote:

> I just purchased Spyder 3 Studio and when I printed the Media  
> Setting Test images the colors seemed very dark and the four small  
> pictures matched the "Clogged Shadows" example in the Help Screen  
> (actually my printed sample seem even darker than the Clogged Shadow  
> example).  I tried various printer driver settings (yes, I properly  
> turned off all color management in the print driver) but they didn't  
> seem to make any noticable change.
> I went ahead and printed the 225 sample page, let it dry for an  
> hour  and read the samples (a great many of the little color squares  
> were extermely dark - they looked black).  I created a profile from  
> the sample and printed a photo from Adobe CS4 (again properly  
> turning off color managment on the printer, letting CS4 manage color  
> and selected the profile newly created.  The resulting printed image  
> was darker and a little more contrasty than the same photo printed  
> using the enhanced Epson profile - which already seemed too dark


What type of paper are you using, and which black ink? What media  
settings have you tried? Have you printed the SpyderProof images  
directly from Spyder3Print? If so, do they show similar result to  
Phothoshop?

Have you made brightness and contrast adjustments to your measurement  
set, and made test prints with these profile adjustments?

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 2:39 AM, Rick Ryan wrote:
> 
> > I just purchased Spyder 3 Studio and when I printed the Media  
> > Setting Test images the colors seemed very dark and the four small  
> > pictures matched the "Clogged Shadows" example in the Help Screen  
> > (actually my printed sample seem even darker than the Clogged Shadow  
> > example).  I tried various printer driver settings (yes, I properly  
> > turned off all color management in the print driver) but they didn't  
> > seem to make any noticable change.
> > I went ahead and printed the 225 sample page, let it dry for an  
> > hour  and read the samples (a great many of the little color squares  
> > were extermely dark - they looked black).  I created a profile from  
> > the sample and printed a photo from Adobe CS4 (again properly  
> > turning off color managment on the printer, letting CS4 manage color  
> > and selected the profile newly created.  The resulting printed image  
> > was darker and a little more contrasty than the same photo printed  
> > using the enhanced Epson profile - which already seemed too dark
> 
> 
> What type of paper are you using, and which black ink? What media  
> settings have you tried? Have you printed the SpyderProof images  
> directly from Spyder3Print? If so, do they show similar result to  
> Phothoshop?
> 
> Have you made brightness and contrast adjustments to your measurement  
> set, and made test prints with these profile adjustments?
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
> 
> 
> 
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>
David,
I am using Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and the standard Epson R1800 Inks. 
When I printed the 225 sample page all of the colors seemed much darker than the image on the screen and when in the sampling screen the "Measured" colors also looked much darker than the "Pure".
I have not yet tried printing the Softproof images from SpyderPrint3, but will try that today once I buy some more paper.  I suspect the results will be the same from SpyderPrint3 as from CS4, but I will give it a try. Is there any way to print the SpyderProof image from CS4 (is there a file(s) for the image(s) on the install disk?)?
I am trying to be methodical and based on the info in the Help on the Media Setting Quality, it seemed to imply there was something to adjust in the print driver first before making the 225 sample print.  I tried "Best Photo" and "Best Photo RPM", but didn't see much difference. I also tried reinstalling the latest R1800 drivers from Epson, just in case there was some problem there, but noticed no change.  I also tried Ultra Premium Luster as a paper type to see if that would lighten the image, but didn't see much change with that either.
I haven't tried any of the post sampling adjustments to the profile (e.g. Brightness & Contrast) yet, but will give that a try (I have to go out this morning and buy some more paper :-))
I will give that a try when I return.
Rick

On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Rick Ryan wrote:

> I am using Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and the standard Epson  
> R1800 Inks.

Thats a very deep combination, you should expect raw results to be  
very dark; even profiled results may be deeper than you want, if you  
aren't displaying under bright lighting...

> When I printed the 225 sample page all of the colors seemed much  
> darker than the image on the screen and when in the sampling screen  
> the "Measured" colors also looked much darker than the "Pure".

Correct...

> I have not yet tried printing the Softproof images from  
> SpyderPrint3, but will try that today once I buy some more paper.  I  
> suspect the results will be the same from SpyderPrint3 as from CS4,  
> but I will give it a try.

Its a crosscheck of your Photoshop settings...

> Is there any way to print the SpyderProof image from CS4 (is there a  
> file(s) for the image(s) on the install disk?)?

In the Spyder3Print folder is a Test Image folder, with a copy of the  
matrix of test images, tagged AdobeRGB, for cross testing from other  
apps...

> I am trying to be methodical and based on the info in the Help on  
> the Media Setting Quality, it seemed to imply there was something to  
> adjust in the print driver first before making the 225 sample print.

Yes, but with that printer, those inks, and that paper, as you have  
seen, ALL media settings are pretty heavy. If one offers a bit better  
shadow detail than the others, I'd chose it, otherwise they may all be  
about the same.

>  I tried "Best Photo" and "Best Photo RPM", but didn't see much  
> difference. I also tried reinstalling the latest R1800 drivers from  
> Epson, just in case there was some problem there, but noticed no  
> change.  I also tried Ultra Premium Luster as a paper type to see if  
> that would lighten the image, but didn't see much change with that  
> either.

No, all the gloss/luster papers will be fairly similar that way. If  
you try a good art matte media, then you'll see some differences!

> I haven't tried any of the post sampling adjustments to the profile  
> (e.g. Brightness & Contrast) yet, but will give that a try (I have  
> to go out this morning and buy some more paper :-))
> I will give that a try when I return.

Definitely the next step. And remember to view images under bright  
proofing light as well; if you only view under dim light, they will  
look dark and clogged, by definition!

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...

This is very similar to my question (as yet unanswered #4161) 
where I profiled and the results were too dark.
(When a "virtual" gretag color chart was output as test print)

Epson 4880, Ilford Classic Pearl paper.
This was corrected by the "suck it and see" adjustments of brightness and contrast.

Is there some scientific reason for this brightness issue?
Is there an iterative process where we could print out a patch chart using our first profile and use this as a basis for an "adjustment" profile?

BTW I have an Eizo CG242W monitor profiled with Spyder...the "virtual" gretag image is stunningly accurate...almost spooky.

Thanks,
Dave Sainsbury

On Aug 13, 2009, at 6:35 PM, dsainsbu wrote:

> Is there some scientific reason for this brightness issue?

One reason is the relative nature of output; the viewing light  
determines the d-max, the d-min, and the densities... another is the  
extreme gamut of such papers and inks: do you want us to limit your  
blacks and whites to what a color checker black can manage? That can  
be done through press-proofing type emulation prints, but most  
photographers want the deepest blacks possible, and the whitest whites  
possible, not intentionally limited blacks and whites.


> Is there an iterative process where we could print out a patch chart  
> using our first profile and use this as a basis for an "adjustment"  
> profile?

Iterative processes don't tend to work well for this. Thats not really  
the issue, it lies elsewhere, with expectations and processes.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...

--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Aug 13, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Rick Ryan wrote:
> 
> > I am using Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper and the standard Epson  
> > R1800 Inks.
> 
> Thats a very deep combination, you should expect raw results to be  
> very dark; even profiled results may be deeper than you want, if you  
> aren't displaying under bright lighting...
> 
> > When I printed the 225 sample page all of the colors seemed much  
> > darker than the image on the screen and when in the sampling screen  
> > the "Measured" colors also looked much darker than the "Pure".
> 
> Correct...
> 
> > I have not yet tried printing the Softproof images from  
> > SpyderPrint3, but will try that today once I buy some more paper.  I  
> > suspect the results will be the same from SpyderPrint3 as from CS4,  
> > but I will give it a try.
> 
> Its a crosscheck of your Photoshop settings...
> 
> > Is there any way to print the SpyderProof image from CS4 (is there a  
> > file(s) for the image(s) on the install disk?)?
> 
> In the Spyder3Print folder is a Test Image folder, with a copy of the  
> matrix of test images, tagged AdobeRGB, for cross testing from other  
> apps...
> 
> > I am trying to be methodical and based on the info in the Help on  
> > the Media Setting Quality, it seemed to imply there was something to  
> > adjust in the print driver first before making the 225 sample print.
> 
> Yes, but with that printer, those inks, and that paper, as you have  
> seen, ALL media settings are pretty heavy. If one offers a bit better  
> shadow detail than the others, I'd chose it, otherwise they may all be  
> about the same.
> 
> >  I tried "Best Photo" and "Best Photo RPM", but didn't see much  
> > difference. I also tried reinstalling the latest R1800 drivers from  
> > Epson, just in case there was some problem there, but noticed no  
> > change.  I also tried Ultra Premium Luster as a paper type to see if  
> > that would lighten the image, but didn't see much change with that  
> > either.
> 
> No, all the gloss/luster papers will be fairly similar that way. If  
> you try a good art matte media, then you'll see some differences!
> 
> > I haven't tried any of the post sampling adjustments to the profile  
> > (e.g. Brightness & Contrast) yet, but will give that a try (I have  
> > to go out this morning and buy some more paper :-))
> > I will give that a try when I return.
> 
> Definitely the next step. And remember to view images under bright  
> proofing light as well; if you only view under dim light, they will  
> look dark and clogged, by definition!
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
> 
> 
> 
> Datacolor
> www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
>
David,
I spent quite a bit of time with SpyderProof and my base measurement file and incrementally tweaked and built profiles that I then Spyderproofed until it looked pretty good.  Increasing the Brightness to +4 gave the best view in SpyderProof.  But when I printed out one of the "Matrix" images (the little girl with the flowers) I had used to tweak the profile, it was still too dark.  I increased the Brightness to +10 and printed and it looked pretty good.  The contrast seems a bit lacking.  I tried playing with the Contrast amount when tweaking the profile but didn't like the effect it had on light to dark transitions.
I tried, as you suggested, printing a "Matrix" image both from SpyderProof and from CS4 with the new profile and they both appeared to be the same.  So I am printing via CS4 OK apparently.
So, other than the contrast issue I think I have created a better profile than the one that Epson provided.
I am going to try the 729 patch target next to see if that improves it a bit more.
Thanks for your help.
Rick

This is very similar to my experience.
Clearly there is some point at which science gives way to art.
I am assuming that the hue representation is accurate and all we are looking at is tonal range (If that means grading from light to dark)

David T is right about blacks. I have included a picture of the excellent spydercube under my album "color cast".
The black trap drops away to 0,0,0 and the specular highlight is 255,255,255.
The virtual gretag card's black of 50,50,50 is very weak by comparison.
where possible a color rgb value of the image in the computer would be the same as the value measured by the spectro when printed on the paper.
On reflection this may not be the case, with deliberate distortions introduced to "take advantage" of the sensitivities of the paper/ink combinations at different parts of the tonal range. (To bring out detail in that range)

And I presume these distortions change with rendering intent!

Dave Sainsbury

> David,
> I spent quite a bit of time with SpyderProof and my base measurement file and incrementally tweaked and built profiles that I then Spyderproofed until it looked pretty good.  Increasing the Brightness to +4 gave the best view in SpyderProof.  But when I printed out one of the "Matrix" images (the little girl with the flowers) I had used to tweak the profile, it was still too dark.  I increased the Brightness to +10 and printed and it looked pretty good.  The contrast seems a bit lacking.  I tried playing with the Contrast amount when tweaking the profile but didn't like the effect it had on light to dark transitions.
> I tried, as you suggested, printing a "Matrix" image both from SpyderProof and from CS4 with the new profile and they both appeared to be the same.  So I am printing via CS4 OK apparently.
> So, other than the contrast issue I think I have created a better profile than the one that Epson provided.
> I am going to try the 729 patch target next to see if that improves it a bit more.
> Thanks for your help.
> Rick
>

All good observations. But color on the screen has fewer properties  
than color in the real world; a measured Lab value must be simplified  
into an RGB value... So the comparison is between two different  
conditions.

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

On Aug 14, 2009, at 11:33 PM, "dsainsbu" <david.sainsbury@... 

 > wrote:

> This is very similar to my experience.
> Clearly there is some point at which science gives way to art.
> I am assuming that the hue representation is accurate and all we are  
> looking at is tonal range (If that means grading from light to dark)
>
> David T is right about blacks. I have included a picture of the  
> excellent spydercube under my album "color cast".
> The black trap drops away to 0,0,0 and the specular highlight is  
> 255,255,255.
> The virtual gretag card's black of 50,50,50 is very weak by  
> comparison.
> where possible a color rgb value of the image in the computer would  
> be the same as the value measured by the spectro when printed on the  
> paper.
> On reflection this may not be the case, with deliberate distortions  
> introduced to "take advantage" of the sensitivities of the paper/ink  
> combinations at different parts of the tonal range. (To bring out  
> detail in that range)
>
> And I presume these distortions change with rendering intent!
>
> Dave Sainsbury
>
>
>
>
>
>> David,
>> I spent quite a bit of time with SpyderProof and my base  
>> measurement file and incrementally tweaked and built profiles that  
>> I then Spyderproofed until it looked pretty good.  Increasing the  
>> Brightness to +4 gave the best view in SpyderProof.  But when I  
>> printed out one of the "Matrix" images (the little girl with the  
>> flowers) I had used to tweak the profile, it was still too dark.  I  
>> increased the Brightness to +10 and printed and it looked pretty  
>> good.  The contrast seems a bit lacking.  I tried playing with the  
>> Contrast amount when tweaking the profile but didn't like the  
>> effect it had on light to dark transitions.
>> I tried, as you suggested, printing a "Matrix" image both from  
>> SpyderProof and from CS4 with the new profile and they both  
>> appeared to be the same.  So I am printing via CS4 OK apparently.
>> So, other than the contrast issue I think I have created a better  
>> profile than the one that Epson provided.
>> I am going to try the 729 patch target next to see if that improves  
>> it a bit more.
>> Thanks for your help.
>> Rick
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>