Mike Chaney's Tech Corner
November 13, 2024, 03:26:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Windows 7 Color Management and Qimage  (Read 25424 times)
Persio
Newbie
*
Posts: 20


Email
« on: January 16, 2010, 07:45:49 PM »

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.
Logged

QImage user since May/04.
billterrance
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


Email
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2010, 11:23:16 AM »

Hi Persio,
I am no expert but I have experienced a similar problem when I used XP. I purchased a color monkie and the thing I noticed most about the difference between the windows calibration and the color monkie was the screen brightness. I think that the widows calibration tell you to set the screen at its default brightness. I found this to be far too bright. When I set the screen brightness to 10% instead of 100% and then calibrated I got a much better corelation between screen and printer. My screen is a Dell 19 inch Ultra Sharp.
I have recently upgraded to Windows7 and after running with my XP Colour Management settings I found no great difference between XP and Windows 7 print output.
I Know this issue it is a source of much frustration, so I hope this helps.
regards
Bill
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3251



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2010, 11:34:34 AM »

Quote
I think that the windows calibration tell you to set the screen at its default brightness. I found this to be far too bright. When I set the screen brightness to 10% instead of 100% and then calibrated I got a much better correlation between screen and printer.
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  Wink
Terry.
Logged
billterrance
Newbie
*
Posts: 16


Email
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2010, 11:42:04 AM »

Yes Terry you can set the brightness to a specific number with the color monkie. I tried 120 but this still gave a slightly dark print. For my Dell monitor I found that 100 worked best which was equivalent to 10% brightness on the screen adjustment.
regards
Bill
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3251



WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2010, 11:48:34 AM »

Quote
Yes Terry you can set the brightness to a specific number with the color monkie. I tried 120 but this still gave a slightly dark print. For my Dell monitor I found that 100 worked best which was equivalent to 10% brightness on the screen adjustment.
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.
Logged
weidmic
Newbie
*
Posts: 5


Email
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2010, 04:49:54 PM »

The same with me, I do not have problems with the color - it is really more that the prints are a bit to dark.
I own the colormunki and I will give the 100 setting a try. Right now I use a print-filter that is lifting the brightness a bit.

I was also thinking about sending a few images to a professional photo lab to see the result and then being able to check if it is the printer or the monitor...

Best Regards,
Michael
Logged

SW: IDimager, NX2, Qimage Studio | HW: Athlon X2 4400+, 4GB memory, ATI Radeon 4800 |OS: Win7 (64 Bits)
Picolo-Photography | Facebook
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2010, 07:44:45 PM »

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  Smiley. 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 Huh?


Best wishes,

Ray
 
Logged
Terry-M
The Honourable Metric Mann
Forum Superhero
*****
Posts: 3251



WWW
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2010, 08:11:43 PM »

Quote
I am led to believe that the 'prints too dark syndrome' is mainly caused by the viewing conditions.
I solved this problem by buying an Ott-Lite. It's just the small one that covers an A4 print but is specified to give a colour temperature of 5400K and the "standard" illumination level of 2000 lux. The lamp is designed to give full spectrum daylight. I checked the illumination level with my Eye One 2 Display device and got a number close to 2000 lux.
This is not as good as a proper viewing booth but a very good and inexpensive compromise. I can now print after dark and get an immediate check (disregarding any long drying time obviously) a short while after printing.
Quote
or as Terry says, apply a print filter.
In the cases where I have used a print filter, it's one with a small amount of FILL rather than Brightness; this lifts the shadows without affecting anything above the mid-tones. It's a good pragmatic solution.
Terry.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2010, 08:26:33 PM by Terry-M » Logged
rayw
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 440


« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2010, 01:23:21 AM »

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  Lips Sealed. 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
Logged
Owen Glendower
Full Member
***
Posts: 185


« Reply #9 on: June 09, 2010, 04:22:39 PM »

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  Lips Sealed. 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

Good post, Ray.  I started using these so-called "daylight" tubes like the GE Chroma 50, 5000°K, several years ago and must say I've been pretty happy with them.  A 48" standard fluorescent tube was around $5 then.  They've certainly come down in price and are much more readily available now, although most "daylight" tubes seem to be spec'd at 6500°K these days.  They of course do not produce full-spectrum light, but for the price, I find them a bargain.  I've done some informal product photography in this lighting and the color rendition is surprisingly good.

Somewhere on the internet I once saw some guaranteed-full-spectrum fluorescent tubes, but nearly had a coronary at the price.  I'm going to keep using the ones I can get at the big-box store.  Also, I've completely switched to daylight tubes in the tax & accounting office where my wife & I make our living.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Security updates 2022 by ddisoftware, Inc.