Gentlemen,
I have upgraded to Windows 7 x64 and I am trying to get Qimage to operate, as it used to, under Vista 32.
My setup is as follows:
- Monitor calibrated using the simple calibration feature available in Windows Color Management which generates a Display Profile.
- Display Profile obtained above set as default profile for Windows and Monitor Profile for Qimage.
- Printer profile in Windows Color Management - none selected
- Printer profile for Qimage - Canon Printer Profile same as before
- Using Hybrid SE as the interpolation method
- Sharpen at level 15, maximum output resolution (615 PPI)

My printed images have the following characteristics:
- Colors do not have a significant variation from the images on screen.
- Printed images are much darker and have more contrast.

Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Thank you,
Persio.

I'm sure the "native" brightness setting of most monitors is far too bright.
I'm not sure about the ColorMunki, but my Eye One Display 2 allows you to set the brightness to a specific value of Cd/M2. I use the recommended value of 120Cd/M2 and, since buying an Eizo monitor, get good correlation monitor to print. For some papers I do need a print filter that gives a tiny amount of Fill to lift the shadows on prints.
Another technique that others use is to calibrate the Brightness setting from an actual print.
For me, with a technical/quality control background, I like to use the numbers 
Terry.

Thanks for the feedback.
I get the impression that people have more problems with  prints being too dark than with the actual colour. So whatever works for anyone wrt calibration, stick with it and be consistent.
Terry.

I am led to believe that the 'prints too dark syndrome' is mainly caused by the viewing conditions. If both the screen and printer profiles are good  and no printer driver settings are interfering, then this is probably a viewing condition effect. This is what I have found, it is too easy to view the print in ambient light, before the ink has cured. Entirely different result if you use a daylight view. Also, if your vdu profiling software allows it, you may get some success by adjusting the display white point to match the white of the paper when you are profiling the display.

Also, in particular, with the smaller print profiles for matt paper and the like, if you transform from an RGB image in, say, AdobeRGB to your printer's profile, then I reckon in most images you'll be better off using perceptual intent (if the profile supports it) or relative with black-point-compensation, otherwise clipping could  occur which could also explain prints too dark prints or lost shadow detail. The accuracy/quality of the colour transform then depends on how much gamut compression is needed to go from one colour-space to the other, and how that is calculated.

Of course, if you are in control of all of the process, then eventually your eye will be trained to make the allowances - e.g. if the print is too dark, just allow it to be much brighter than it should be on the screen  . You can often reduce the amount of ink laid down in the driver, or as Terry says, apply a print filter.

Everything is a compromise


Best wishes,

Ray
 

Hi Terry,

If you go a good pet shop, you can buy small, or large, fluorescent tubes for aquariums and similar, with various colour temperatures. They will fit standard sized holders. There are also relatively low cost daylight? lamps intended for craft work. I have one of the OTT folding units too, but it was borrowed  . However, if the final image is displayed in a normal domestic lighting situation, then I guess prints are better optimised for that lighting situation. If the intended destination of the print is under personal control, e.g. hanging on our own wall, then I guess if it looks right, then it is right.

Best wishes,

Ray