Printer profiles, screen matching and making better photo prints. Colour management and ICC profiles
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 июл 2021
- How the right ICC printer profiles help you make better and more consistent prints of your photos. Why printer profiles don't make all papers look the same and why your choice of paper has so much bearing on the final look of the print.
Colour management gives you more consistent and repeatable results, but you still need to appreciate how different papers will change the look of your images.
This and understanding that a print will never match a screen give a greater freedom to decide on how your final photo will loo - one of the advantages of thinking of the screen view as just an intermediate step.
The art scanning is covered in this video
• Epson ET-8550 scanning...
-----------------
My articles and videos are always free to access.
Any help with running this channel is gratefully received.
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page:
"Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keithcooper
-----------------
I also have some affiliate links which earn me a commission if used.
US Amazon photo/print gear: amzn.to/3l9vJC6
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=2008...
Adorama: www.adorama.com/?... 
Кино
I love that ending "it does not have to look like the screen, it's about the print" . As I work with clients I will keep this is mind. Every time I work with photographers or Artist, they want the exact color rendition on the print. Going forward I too will start to detach myself from religiously getting the colors to look like the screen and just let the print be a print with a variety of factors. Thank you
Glad to help...
Great stuff! A very practical way of understanding color management and printing images. Thank you for sharing.
Thanks
"It's about the print" - that should be carved in stone somewhere. The best video I have ever seen on understanding what profiles and printing are all about. Thanks Keith.
(As with your Albertan followers, I do like Jose's videos for a technical understanding of my printer the Canon Pro100s).
Thanks - I still have to thank someone at Canon for twisting my arm into making videos - I've been really pleased that they have been so well received.
You have the gift of relaying information without becoming boring. Very well done.
Thanks - I appreciate that!
4:04 - Thank you so much for explaining this crucial detail. I thought I was just doing something wrong in printing or calibration, but it's simply the paper choices. I now understand how valuable it is to pick the right papers for the prints you want to make and the emotions you want to evoke.
Thanks - glad it was of help!
Hi Keith,,,northern Alberta here,,,you and Jose Rodriguez are our "go to" resource as we transition our product line to include wall art. We have a Canon ProGraf 1000 & 100. Thank you for the time you spend producing these RUclips tutorials and your willingness to share your knowledge and experience.
Thanks - glad they are of help!
Thanks Keith - you are a master at demystifying! I have been (ignorantly) battling with profiles over the past few days. Your explanation is an enormous help.
Thanks - glad to know it's helped.
Brilliant, and what a way to finish "oh yeah that's good , but can I have a look at the screen as well?" classic. Thanks a million Keith
Thanks!
Your comment on being Free from constraints by understanding where the monitor view sits wuthin the process was an ipiphany for me... I can now move on and concentrate on getting the best Print.. Enjoying your videos Keith - Thank you.
Thanks for that - it's always great to know when something I've produced has helped
A few months ago I was astonished to knoy my son was a litle depressed because une of his favorite youtubers said he will not to be able on youtube anymore. Folloing you and learning from you I discovered there is a kind of personal feelings about you, I think I care about you although I do not know you, because in the distance you have helped me. So, thank you very much for your videos and I wish you a happy and unperturbable life. Greetings from Colombia.
Thanks
Thank you Keith you have just saved my sanity!! Just spent 3 days trying to get a watercolor scan printed like it looked on the screen 🤣🤣🤣 makes perfect sense how you explained it thank you so so much 😘
Glad I could help - I know this causes a lot of trouble for people printing artwork.
Thank you so much. I’ve learned more watching this tan from the 20 other videos I’ve watched
Thanks - glad it's been of help
Hello, Keith. Excellent presentation (lecture). Those who -care- about their photography -and- print photographs ought to have this video in their library. Thank you,
Thanks - much appreciated.
I do miss doing my talks for camera clubs and conferences - it's been a while and I do like doing this sort of stuff with a 'live' audience ;-)
@@KeithCooper I hope for you and them you will get back to it.
Excellent series Keith, I’m learning a lot about colour management your a very good teacher and very easy to follow. This is a subject I’ve always struggled with but things are starting to fall into place.👍
Thanks - if there are ever any issues you want to know more about, just let me know, since I'm always looking for short topics to cover in articles and videos
Another great video Keith - the whole set of recent videos are an invaluable resource.
Thanks - now, if only I can get the web site working properly I can make sure the write-ups (with more detail and references) are there to go with them.
you are so right. worked in an ad agency, from the begining of digi, and it has been an uphill battle.
Thanks - I've tried to help people with this for years.
But it's the ones who pointedly refuse to make any effort, but still complain, who tax me and my ability to be polite, the most ;-)
Very good video! Thank you.
Thanks
This is so enlightening! I was struggling with this since I'm new to printing. Thaks a lot.
Thanks - if you've any specific questions, let me know, since they are often where I get ideas for new video topics..
Great video with really common sense but often misunderstood ideas about prints.
Thanks - partly based on questions I've had here about the videos.
No words, just Amazing 🙏. Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. In your channel your hardwork and experience speak to us. You are Master in your work, its my pleasure to see your experiences here. Thank you again 🙏
Thanks - much appreciated!
Thank you Keith, now I understand little bit more, have to watch again :-)
See the written reviews/articles as well - videos are more overviews.
I have quite a bit of stuff (video and written) that cover aspects of colour management
i am so fortunate to have stumbled upon your informative videos, thank you Keith for sharing your incredible wealth of knowledge. Happily sub'd. I've got an art teacher, print professional, paper performer and honest to goodness friend on my screen helping me wade through the turbulent waters of colour management.
Thanks - glad to help!
Excellent, informative video. So well presented. Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Another master class Keith, thanks.
Thanks - glad it was of interest!
Thanks, Keith. Well done.
Thanks
genious! super clear and well explained! thanks a lot!! Great quality content!
Thanks - glad it helped
Hi Keith, I've watched several of your videos now and want to say thanks and ask some questions. So first, thanks for making these. I come from a graphic design and photography background, but always left the printing to others (and further blindly followed any print setting requests made by print houses without question, so I never even learned why I was doing what I was doing beyond RGB = screens, CMYK = print - and that isn't much to know, is it!). These days, I'm in IT but keep my Canon 5D close as a hobby. During Covid, I got really into "super" macro shots (macro to the point of being nearly unidentifiable and abstract), and I love it dearly. I've wanted to make my own gallery of sorts at home, and, long story long, I now have an Epson ET-8500, a 2023 Macbook Pro, and am shooting with my Canon 5D MKIV.
I suppose to make it somewhat concise I could just say: I know just enough to understand everything you're saying, but not enough to know how to then implement it myself, or troubleshoot any successes or failures when printing. In one of your videos, you mentioned asking for some of your ICC profiles; if you have any for the ET-8500, could you send those my way along with the suggested paper types? Perhaps I can start there. I currently have an Epson and Hahnemuhle sampler pack but even those aren't cheap and I don't want to waste time or money aimlessly guessing when I know the learning I need to do is out there - I just don't know where to find it. There is so so much information online, often contradictory, and so far you have made the most logical sense given my own currently knowledge base. Any leads you could provide would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks - See the main [written] reviews for profile info and contact details
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8500-printer-review/
Both printers are identical apart from size - see both
@@KeithCooper You are an angel for sharing this info so often on request; I do see it now that I've started reading the comments and am now on your site! I'll follow up with more questions via email if I have them. Thank you again!
thank you
Glad to help
Very informative and much appreciated information!
Glad it was of help!
Excellent teaching!
Thanks!
An excellent tutorial - thank you
Glad it was helpful!
So true. If the print looks good, it’s good!
Yes - pretty much ;-)
I'm going to have to do better color management. Thanks for this great perspective
Glad to help!
@@KeithCooper ps. you almost got to 10 minutes before you said, "It depends."
"Can I have a look at your screen to see how good the print is?" lol! 14min to get to that punchline. worth it.
Thanks ;-)
Hello. Thanks alot :)
Thanks
Really good advice Keith! A few things for me to think about there. :-)
Thanks!
Ah, creating printer ICC. Hate doing it since my first one, the Datacolor ColorVision PrintFix Pro some 15 years ago. 🙂 As with the variable factors such as paper, it reminds me of the color analyzer days in the darkroom, that we bought films & papers in bulk from the same batch, in order to keep a consistent look.
This would be one reason I use an i1iSis automated patch reader - load up a sheet, make a cup of tea and 3000 patches on an A3+ sheet have been read... ;-)
My first one was the original PrintFix - the little USB scanner
@@KeithCooper 👍You just spoiled my day. :(
Brilliant advice. Folk would make more difference to their photography following your advice than worrying about camera specs and gear.
Thanks
looks like I do all I can with the electronics to maintain consistency. Then have each photo printer poster card size on all the papers I have interest in. Good information thankyou. I will finish by saying I asume that the ICC helps me when I view the image in photoshop. Less paper in the round storage file under the desk.
Yes - the colour management is about getting things right first time more often, and when it isn't having a better idea of where the problem lies.
@@KeithCooper thankyou. Do you use 80 cd/m2 for luminosity. I use to use 120. Any advice helps. All good stuff. Much respect.
Very good video explaining evrything a "newbie" should now. It would have been interesting to compare generic vs custom made profiles as I saw an I-Photo on your desktop. And even the I-Photo is miles away from a professional tool it should produce profiles wich could make huge differences to the generic profiles wich came with the printer driver.
Thanks - any kit I use in the videos is generally at 'consumer/prosumer' level, since having a £4000 X-Rite iSisXL sitting on the desk might look impressive, but is not that relevant to most people ;-) All the expensive 'pro kit' lives up in my office, not the kitchen ;-)
I'm minded to suggest that the i1Studio is not 'miles away' unless you do colour management for a living - I know of many pro photographers happily using them. It's actually of most use with cheaper printers, but with better printer consistency not the clear benefit it might have been 10 years ago.
Comparing generic/custom is (IMHO) somewhat meaningless on a video - you just wouldn't see anything of note - Also the quality of generic profiles varies widely, but has improved over the years as printer unit to unit variation and manufacturing processes have improved.
Actual measurements of profiles and their characteristics is probably well beyond what I'd ever include in a video, and even as a written article I'd question its relevance to most people? Without a lot of explanation and background detail it would just be charts, numbers and pretty graphs. There are so many printers, so many papers, so many profiles that I'd not expect any clear cut results?
Thanks, I appreciate the differences in paper and image feel or nuance -that's all well and good but I want my screen to look as close as possible to what the printer will produce to increase my odds of liking the result and saving lots of time and money! One problem I frequently have is is overall brightness, even with a calibrated monitor and manufacturers printer profile. CC1 studio defaults to 120. Is there a better default calibration brightness? Also, do you suggest adjusting the temperature of your monitor to echo as much as possible the light temperature the print will be viewed under?
Thanks again for your videos they are very informative.
My main suggestion is always to get away from an overly strong fixation on matching screens - it is not 'all well and good' but integral to understanding that a screen is NOT a print. Sorry to labour the point but appreciating how prints really look and differ is the key to seeing the print as the final result, and the look of the screen just a step along the way... This includes perfecting the printing of known good test images.
100 may be better - the room needs to be dim enough though. Matching room lighting temperature is rarely much use - just get a good consistent lighting setup to view prints.
So apprieciate this video. My hubby has been telling me this, but wow, now it makes sense. Thankyou very much. I assume you use photo shop to do that adjustment?
Thanks - I use photoshop for image editing, but it could be any good photo editor.
The print profiles are just selected at print time depending on what software you are printing with
@@KeithCooper thanks so much. I have yet to print a photo that is a qualify print either the 8850. Have you used the same with painted or art mediums?
@@nphibbs4487 Sorry - don't know what you mean?
Hi Keith - Thank you for your amazingly informative and easy-to-understand explanations. I recently purchased an Epson XP15000 and am struggling with print color “accuracy”. I know that it’s a great printer, especially for its price point, and know that this is most likely user error and not the printer. The prints that I am getting are dull and just not close to being as vibrant as what I see on my monitor. The files I work with are mostly digital prints that I purchased online. I’m hoping a spectrophotometer will solve my problem, but the few that I found online are >$1k. Do you have any recommendations that are more affordable and performs somewhat in the range of the one you used in this video? If doesn’t have to be perfect as I won’t take a magnifying glass to it; just something a naked eye could detect, something better than not using one. I’m absolutely impressed by your results!
Well, I have some profiles, listed in the main [written] review, along with lots more about how I printed (with links to videos too)
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-xp-15000-printer-review/
If you've any specific questions - drop me an email via Northlight...
Hi Keith - I think I understand most of what you are saying in this video. I would summarize the discussion along the following lines: Given a camera image (for example) it is up to the person to process that image and print it on whatever type of paper makes it look good, a very subjective measure. What I'm left wondering is whether there are any absolute measures of image rendering quality. For instance, if one believed that their camera was calibrated such that it recorded the colors in a scene accurately (if even possible) then I could imagine wanting to reproduce that captured image on a piece of paper such that it matched the original as closely as possible (i.e., no longer a subjective measure but rather an absolute one where calibrations of every step of the process matter). Are there such measures in your line of work or is it pretty much an artistic field where one is free to modify an image as desired. To be clear, I'm just starting to learn about this subject and I don't mean to come off as some sort of know-it-all but I'm a retired engineer and have spent my career dealing, for the most part, with absolute measurements, calibrations, etc. Thanks for any insights you can provide and thanks for taking the time to share your expertise with the rest of us. - Take care! - Jim
Thanks for mentioning your background, since this makes all the difference.
I too come from a technical/scientific background [geophysics and electronics design for a while] so have two ways of approaching things... One is technical, as in understanding the multitude of processes which go on in a camera in converting a bunch of photons into an image file, and then how these digital numbers are converted to photons coming out of a screen or ink dot placements on a sheet of paper.
Wearing my other hat I'm interested in making photos which look good, and in my case get paid for and liked enough for us to get more more work...
So for colour management, I can appreciate why profiles are used, how they work.
My own description of colour management is that it helps me get things right first time far more often, and that good looking colour does not always equate with accurate colour.
This book is my go-to reminder about what colour management does and why - it lets me comfortably wear both hats
"Real World Color Management " Fraser et al
ISBN-10 : 0321267222
ISBN-13 : 978-0321267221
it's the one mentioned in
ruclips.net/video/a1O__CFXKxE/видео.html
@@KeithCooper : Thank you , Keith. I’m a retired electrical engineer and spent most of my career working in the area of underwater acoustic signal processing including array processing, something you no doubt understand given your background in geophysics. Since retiring (mostly) in 2019 I’ve been doing some simple circuit design and have learned how to design and build printed circuit boards, things I studied in college in the 1970’s but never needed to do as part of my job. Mostly I’ve been having a lot of fun. I recently purchased a new ink jet printer (Canon pixma G6020) mostly to be able to scan, crop and enlarge knitting patterns for my wife. She’s an expert knitter and often finds herself wanting to knit complicated patterns from books. More often than not the patterns in the books are ridiculously small, often filling just a small fraction of a printed page. Anyway, as I’m inclined to do, I started watching youtube videos on scanning, cropping and printing and have started to learn the how to manipulate images using the free software package GIMP which runs well on my linux computers. I’m having lots of fun learning about image manipulation, scanning, printing, color, etc. and I really appreciate the efforts of people like you in making such informative videos. Finally, thanks very much for providing the citation to a technical reference. I’m looking forward to watching more of your excellent videos. Best regards - Jim
Best printing videos. May I ask what’s the daily printer of your choose. Canon or Epson? Thanks
It depends - I have a 17" P5000 for smaller prints, but I've owned both Canon and Epson 24" and 44" large format printers.
Hi Keith, what scanner did you use to scan the water colour painting? Can one calibrate a scanner? Thanks.
It's the scanner on the ET-8550 - I have a video covering this in more detail.
Yes, you can profile a scanner - I used a ColorChecker SG card, but there are a variety of targets that will suffice. See also articles related to scanning on the Northlight images web site (apols - it's a bit slow at the moment)
Can the capabilities of photo paper change over time if its been stored flat in it's original box? I have some old and sealed Epson A3+ and Lyson A3, and wonder if they have a "use by date" like inks.
Should be fine - I've some paper I use [only] for testing, in boxes I was sent in 2008, and some Epson paper in a pack, which is marked as suitable for a printer model which was discontinued in 2004
Hello Keith do you I have the same color profiler that you use and I made some profiles. I found it to be some way different from the profiles published by paper producer for my printer when examined with colorthink . Do you think they are more accurates the profiles from paper manufactiurer of the ones that you can produce with a tool like IProfiler?
Accuracy and how prints look are two different things.
The i1Studio in the video is only for 'demonstration' - I use an i1iSis with ~3000 patches and my profiles are usually more accurate than the OEM ones but not necessarily better looking. Companies build profiles for their own products and the perceived needs/preferences of that product's customers. Every profiling tool builds different Perceptual renderings for example.
Heresy I know, but ignore what colorthink says and decide mainly by looking at real test images printed out. The software can give useful info, but be very wary of reading too much into the numbers it returns. Any printer/paper review that mentions gamut volumes get an automatic down mark in my estimation ;-)
I make profiles for great prints, not charts of good looking numbers ;-)
As you see I'm catching up with your clips and of course have got a question: when hitting print: what should I choose: "let the printer manage colour" or let the PS manage colour. Monitor is calibrated. And doing my first prints lots of them go to dust bin (learning my printer). The problem is my paper is value photo glossy (why buying more expensive when you start?) - cannot find any profile for that. Any tips would be appreciated.
From PS you set an icc profile and PS manages for colour
If using B&W mode, printer manages colour and set media etc in the driver settings
Use the Epson [or Canon] premium glossy profile to test.
@@KeithCooper thank you very much :)
Hi Keith, I just got my Canon Pro 200, I printed the test print as you recommended, all was good. but then I realized when I print with lightroom color management it askes me to turn off the printer color management. which on pro 200 I cannot do in the menu. I accidently printed with the lightroom and the printer set to the same color management setting and the print was bad. how do you set the profile in lightroom and disable the printer color management? Thanks a lot. great content btw!
Thanks
Unfortunately I never use Lightroom. I'd suggest asking on the Printers forum at DPReview. Be sure to mention exactly what computer system you are using (we only test on Macs)
If you install the canon professional print and layout software you can then get Lightroom or Photoshop to launch that instead when printing. You will then have full control of your colour profiles.
Love your videos and follow you regularly.
I have a
- BenQ 27 in. 2K monitor
- Canon G620 printer
- Color Checker Studio
- Canon semi gloss SG-201 paper
I color calibrated, created a paper profile (.icc) and seem to still have my prints shifted slightly toward purple in the sky and with blue shirts.
I have Lightroom print adjustment set to
BRIGHTNESS +25
CONTRAST 0
Can you please give any advice on what I’m doing wrong?
Thank you.
Ron.
Thanks - Can't say much on this since colour management is broken on Macs, and I've not used a winpc for many years.
Might be some info in my main [written] G550 review
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-g550-printer-review/
hello friend, if I recalibrate my monitor thus creating a new ICC profile do I need to change all my customs printer ICC profiles to match this new monitor profile?
No...
Monitor calibration is a thing of itself - nothing to do with printer profiles.
Keith, the building picture that you often print when testing printers, is I presume printed without soft proofing or any adjustments made for each test and just uses the specific printer/paper profile. If in “real life” you had to print on the paper you show with the more muted colours, how far could you push the adjustments to more match the other more colourful paper?
I would like to see you make some videos specifically about soft proofing, concentrating on how to judge what adjustments need to be made for each paper. There are too many videos available explaining how to set up soft proofing and what buttons to press, which I understand, but not enough on what adjustments are relevant.
Thanks.
The test images are unadjusted - others are typically got to a point editing on screen where I'm happy with the look. I will check some numbers but I very rarely use soft proofing, other than to decide if a different choice of rendering intent works for a particular image.
I could push the saturation and lightness of some colours a bit that and mask in a little extra contrast sharpening, but the real answer would be that I probably wouldn't use that paper for that image in the 'colourful' style.
From my personal POV I regard the widespread use of soft proofing as a bit of a fashion that has become popular partly because it's easy to include in instructional videos. It's become a 'feature' of editing packages that is way over used.
I've long regarded its habitual use as a sort of crutch that's not needed nearly so much if people would take more time actually looking at prints and ditching the "matching the screen" mantra (which soft proofing, in it's own way, can reinforce). It is much more difficult to show how experience of printing means your prints largely come out as you expect, and when they don't, that experience quickly lets you back up and have another go ;-)
So my video would be more along the lines of:
"Soft proofing - why you need it far less than some would suggest"
I've had lots of people ask about printing workshops, but I've not the facilities to do such things - even more with the problems of the last year. That said if anyone is doing a conference and wants me to promote my heresy I'd be happy to! :-) :-)
Keith, thanks for that interesting and comprehensive reply. What has always concerned me is that I get a paper profiled and and print one of your test images and think WOW that looks good, why do I need to soft proof anything!
I am intrigued by the story of the wheat field color. I asume the print could not render the yellow on the screen (which is probably closer to the yellow in the image file), mapped the color to something within the gamut of the paper, and you liked the result better.
If you printed the photo on a paper with a wider gamut, would the yellow be closer to the screen? Since you liked the yellow in the print more, would you now edit the image to make the yellow look more like the print, to make sure you get the same result if you print to a wider-gamut paper?
An interesting one that. My main concern with this image is keeping the hue of the blue sky realistic, and avoiding significant purple shift in the cloud. These are areas where profiles, working space choices and rendering intents can affect things. This image is not particularly difficult to print, although dark colour in the tree is pushing things a bit.
With respect to the print here, there are no OBAs in the board, which can be a problem with light areas of cloud/sky if there is any UV, since the OBA emission can be enough to give a slight purple tinge. If you look at clouds like this then there can be a violet feel, but it needs real care in handling well - my aim for my colour managed workflow is a pleasing looking print - not necessarily 'accurate'. The yellow of the wheat can be warmed a bit but needs to keep a 'real' look.
I'd personally print this image using pigment inks and have a 36" x 24" version on a smooth cotton paper.
Do note as well that the screen you are seeing in the video is only a vaguely accurate look. It's calibrated to 4000K, which is very low and looks distinctly warm to my eyes. However it's cool looking on the video, which probably has a whitepoint below that.
On my 'work' monitor the image is closer to the print - the image is not out of gamut, however
Given the number of papers and printers I test stuff with, I'm always curious to see how inks/profiles/papers look different. The variations with some images are strong, but others can be quite subtle.
Can you adjust the colour profiles without a computer? I only have an iPad and iPhone.
No, I'm afraid not
With phones/ipads, good colour is a bit of a lottery - they essentially have no functional colour management in this respect
Such an excellent video. I'm going to watch it again and again. Your common sense, practical explanations are so appreciated. I do have one question, Keith. Not sure if there is an answer to account for the differences or if the differences are simply characteristics unique to each software/driver, but to get to my question . . . I was given a Canon iP8750 to test for a friend who just bought one and is tying to learn print making. I have noticed that if I select "Driver Manages" color, or ICM, the print comes out lighter in tone than if I select Photoshop manages color -- not "bad" or unpleasant, but lighter than if I select "Photoshop manages" color. With Photoshop selected the prints always look a little dark, but they do not look dark letting the driver manage color. The image being printed is a good, well exposed and well edited image. I'm just trying to understand what might account for these differences in the overall light/dark quality of the print depending upon whether the driver or Photoshop manages color. Would appreciate your thoughts on this. Thank you!
Thanks!
If you use photoshop manages, then you need to choose the correct profile and ensure colour management is not being applied elsewhere. Your mention of icm suggests you are using windows - I've not used a win PC for 20+ years so don't know the intricacies.
However, I'd suggest never to rely on an image of your own for testing - see my coverage of using known good test images.
Prints too dark is often a symptom of having a screen set too bright - I have far more in my written articles than I can cover in my videos. See here for lots more articles/videos:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/photography-articles-and-reviews/printing-paper-reviews-articles/
@@KeithCooper Thanks very much for responding, Keith. I believe I correctly followed all the steps you mentioned. I used the standard Datacolor test image (as well as the other print I mentioned -- same results with both). Made sure color management was turned OFF in printer when Photoshop was selected to manage color. In Photoshop selected the ICC for the Canon Pro Luster paper i was using. My monitor brightness is always turned way down. The Datacolor test image prints are at least 1/2 to 1 full stop darker when Photoshop manages color. Should the results be the same regardless of which driver is selected to manage color, or are these differences to be expected? I'm bumbling along and constantly learning. Thanks for your help!
The results will usually be different with the plain driver - almost always poorer ;-)
However - is you monitor calibrated? if so to what luminance?
@@KeithCooper Yes. Calibrated with i1 Display. Luminance 80
Thanks - at which point, I'm afraid my lack of knowledge of windows PCs causes me to run dry on meanigful suggestions - I'd suggest asking on the printing forum at dpreview.com
What if I want to export the image with Adobe RGB for printing using a monitor that only supports Srgb? Does this workflow require looking into the print result to test if the outcome is close to the real image? Because the proof profile in an image editor wont show the exact result of an Adobe RGB print because the monitor only can support Srgb?
Yes, one of the fundamental issues of screens never matching prints - amplified by the smaller gamut monitor.
It's perfectly usable, just 'soft proofing' is even less useful than usual. This is where test images and prints can be even more helpful.
Just to note that I'm not quite sure what you mean by export in this instance though - it has a variety of meanings in different applications/contexts
@@KeithCooper Thank you again for your time, I have learned a lot. I will be reading more about how the proof profiles work.
Hi Keith I just started printing and I’m having big problems in calibrating my et-14000. My monitor is calibrated but I can’t find any icc profile online, no official epson and not even fogra. Do you have any suggestions? Pictures always have the wrong tint or wrong contrast and I don’t want to spend money on another tool to calibrate the printer.
The 14000 absolutely needs profiling for reasonable photo printing (it has a somewhat limited ink set)
However, apart from some Epson ones which may (I've not tested this printer) be installed on setup, or profiling it yourself (you profile printer/paper combinations and calibrate+profile monitors), the only other way is to get paper from a supplier who will make profiles (there are several here in the UK).
I'm also curious as to why you mention fogra here?
@@KeithCooper I have calibrated the monitor but I only have the generic epson profile. Unfortunately I can’t find any specific icc for the et14000, this is why I wanted to try a fogra for it instead of the generic and really bad epson profile. Anyway I can’t find anywhere to download neither the fogra or the epson. I’m actually using a generic paper with no profile for testing since the results are too bad to use an expensive one.
Thank you and sorry for the slow replay.
Ah, you won't find profiles for a printer like that I'm afraid - they either need making yourself or from a paper supplier which makes them.
Fogra has no real relevance to a printer like this? - it's more for commercial print with RIPs. It's also associated with CMYK, something that in normal use has nothing to do with a printer like this? Am I missing something - why do you mention Fogra??
@@KeithCooper actually teachers at university told me that fogra is the most generic profile for printing. Now I know it’s not like that 😂.
I think that I’m trying to send a mail to hannemuhle. To see if they have any icc, otherwise I’ll return it to Amazon and save some money for a better one. Thank you a lot for your replies, you have been really helpful.
I see. I think this teacher perhaps needs to learn some more colour management! :-) :-)
I've lots of test profiles, but only for the printers I've reviewed.
I find my prints look a bit underexposed compared to my screen, I have calibrated with an spyder x elite. They are more contrast heavy, and Im not sure it that's just how it is, or if ive done something wrong during the setup. The P900 isset to prem glossy, the paper is prem glossy, everything seems to be as it should on that end. Your test print also looks a tad darker than whats on screen, so maybe thats just the way it is.
If the test print looks darker in good light than it is on screen but OK, then your screen is likely wrong ;-)
Remember that just calibrating doesn't 'fix' things - it's about choosing relevant settings
@@KeithCooperCheers Keith, Ill redo tomorrow. This will be solved! 😄 Overal the prints look fine, Im happy with the lighter areas and saturation, its just shadows look a few exposures too dark.
I'm awaiting delivery of the Canon 300 printer.. I've been looking into 32 bit processing and printing.. Is 32 bit printing part of your workflow? Are there settings on my printer I must be aware of before I begin printing 32 bit photos.. I'm a wildlife photographer..
Ah, what do you mean by 32 bit? In terms of processing the image - well it's a form of HDR
As for printing, even 16 bit make virtually no difference given the capabilities of paper and inks. HDR 'works' on screen not print. Of course you can get a print but you'll get nothing extra from the bit depth.
@@KeithCooper Thank you very much Keith.. Clearly I misunderstood the concept of bit depth.. Somehow I assumed 32 bit processed images would also improve printed images.. Thank you very much for your speedy reply.. It is very much appreciated..
For the water-painting, if the matching the prints directly to the painting is what you care, how can you make sure those two matches if they don't match with the intermediate screen?
Test prints
@@KeithCooper Thank you for your kind reply.
Hi Keith,
I have a Spyder X, which I use to calibrate my monitors. I work in a dimly lit room and when I calibrate my monitors, the software recommends 90 cd/m2 at 5000k. The screens look quite warm and when I calibrate the monitors to 120 cd/m2 at 6500k, the screens look quite different. Which is the right setting? I'm quite confused. I would have thought that regardless of the color temperature setting, the screens would look the same.
Ah - they will look distinctly different in similar locations. I treat that 'recommended' setting in the software as a 'marketing' feature ;-)
In a relatively dim location (like my office, not the kitchen, where the videos are set) I work at D65 (~6500K) and 100cd/m2
5000K is a low temperature, and unless you've a hardware calibrated monitor often starts to make rather too many compromises.
I've a video coming up which looks at monitor settings when including the monitor in a video - the one I'm using lets me go to 4000K. Now, if I just turn it on and use it, it seems fine, but if my MacBook (6000K) is nearby, the big monitor looks gloomy.
Monitors do look different - this is partly a problem with the how calibration is 'sold', suggesting that there is such a thing as 'correct' ...no more so with monitors than icc paper profiling making all prints look the same. The subtleties of colour management are too easily lost in the simplified messages over its efficacy ;-)
@@KeithCooper Then how do I know which color temp to use? How do I know that the pictures I edit with on a 6500k monitor will look ok on a 5000k calibrated monitor? How did you come up with 100 cd/m2 at 6500k? What criteria do you use to make these decisions? What's the reference?
Actually you pick a common value and 6500K is just that.
The brightness comes from past experience and printmaking. Too bright and prints come out too dark. However, there is nothing set in stone about this. Some people find that 6000 fits their surroundings and perception better. The key here is to realise that all the calibration and profiling is sitting on top of our perceptions and the way our visual system works. Choices in room lighting and work environment can have a considerable impact as well.
Now there are ISO standards for the graphic arts, and if you work in an environment where such standards and traceability are important, then follow them.
However, even as a working pro photographer I simply don't need to go to these lengths (they cover lighting levels as well).
@@KeithCooper Are you saying that setting the monitor to pretty much any temperature and calibrating it will yield the same results or are you saying that calibration is relative to other calibrated devices?
In a way, both, depending on what you're doing.
Calibration is setting to a known (consistent) state - profiling is characterising the display (the two are different and this is important).
Yes, for most people the precise choice of temperature is probably not that important - the profile is the bit doing the hard work.
Now in general, the range of calibration settings is given by the physical characteristics of the display. It's also dependent on surroundings, our visual system, and the sort of work you are doing.
The complexities are such that I'll frequently just tell people to pick 6500 and ~100 ;-)
However, since you have a Spyder X, have a read of the excellent advanced help files that come with it when installed - these contain a lot of stuff covering the 'why' for different aspects of profiling and settings
Not forgetting thar the camera also needs profiling.
Ah, an interesting question. Do they?
It very much depends on the sort of work you do and level.
For most people, full ICC profiling is a complete waste of time and has numerous aspects that can catch the unwary. I do sometimes make DNG profiles for unusual lighting in some of my industrial photography, but once again only specialist uses.
Camera profiling comes at the bottom of my list of essentials, below scanner profiling
Maybe for someone doing product photography where corporate colors need to be accurate. I have virtually no concern about color "accuracy". I have little interest in enhancing colors to the extreme, but I believe what I see is often no where near what the camera records.
Sorry, but color management is primarily knowing what you will get in a print, BEFORE you print it--you've flipped the definition on its head by trying to make it all about what the print looks like, regardless of what the screen looks like. Prints SHOULD look like the screen, not something different. No one wants to waste time, paper and ink guessing what they are going to get.
I suspect we mean broadly similar things, but from different points of view.
My point is that the screen is a version of the underlying data, as is a print.
Both are different and it's this difference that I try to convey, also the importance of colour management in understanding and dealing with the differences and why a print will never match a screen. Yes, prints should certainly look like what you see on the screen, but not the same.
It's why I regard 'soft proofing' as an occasionally useful tool, not the habitual final step before printing that some might suggest.
My point about making test prints is that it and the experience it builds gives you a better feel for what prints with a particular profile/ink/printer/paper setting will look like. It is about getting the print you want as a result, and seeing the print as a work in of itself, and the view on the screen as just an intermediate step. Obviously - that's in a print workflow. If I'm producing images for web or display then what I see on the screen is much closer to what I want - however I still need to allow for the difference in gamut/display brightness and where the image will be viewed.
Colour management gives you a better chance of not being surprised by the print. It is about getting things right first time more often.
Now, when it comes to press management and proofing, we move into a whole different area. The approach I discuss here is aimed at photographers wanting to make prints.