mukherjeeprem
Newbie
Posts: 42
|
 |
« on: May 18, 2011, 05:10:51 PM » |
|
When I print in Photoshop to my ipf8300, i set it to "Photoshop manages color" and then put the icc profile of the canvas I'm printing on for my printer profile and everything looks great.
In Qimage, when I pick the same icc profile, the color looks horrendous.
Please help.
Thx!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2011, 05:27:49 PM » |
|
Qimage Ultimate will produce identical color to PhotoShop when both the program settings and driver settings are the same between Qimage Ultimate and PhotoShop. Take care to ensure that you've selected exactly the same driver settings in Qimage Ultimate as you do PhotoShop (like paper type, quality, turning color adjustment off, etc.). Then select the same output (printer) profile in PhotoShop and Qimage Ultimate so that the software manages color and not the driver and select the same rendering intent and profile settings in both programs, for example, "Perceptual" intent with black point compensation "on".
If you do that, you'll get identical color in your prints. If you ensure that both the program and driver settings are identical in Qimage Ultimate and PhotoShop, the only time you won't get identical color is when the printer profile is corrupted. We see some badly formed printer profiles from time to time, especially when users are using custom profiles. If you believe you've found a printer profile that produces different results, it likely has bad data in the profile. You can send us that profile if you like and also let us know what color space you are using for your images that you are printing and we'll see if we can replicate the problem.
Regards,
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #2 on: May 18, 2011, 05:39:26 PM » |
|
In Qimage, when I pick the same icc profile, the color looks horrendous.
When using Qimage, and you wish to use a printer profile, the driver gets set to NO COLOR ADJUSTMENT, or COLOR OFF, whatever the designation is for your printer. The correct printer profile goes in the slot marked Prtr Icc on the main QU screen. See screen snaps. Of course, the profile I show in the snap is just an example. You use the correct one for the paper. I see that Mike has posted already, so just use my post to find the location in the driver to shut off intereference by the driver with your color. Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mukherjeeprem
Newbie
Posts: 42
|
|
« Reply #3 on: May 18, 2011, 05:39:49 PM » |
|
Thanks Mike. One of the main differences is that when I print through photoshop I am using the ipf8300 export plugin which is different then the main printer driver from what i can tell.
When I print from photoshops main print window, the color looks equally awful.
I had to revert to printing from their driver.
I'm not sure what to set in qimage to get the color to match what comes out of their print driver.
Any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mukherjeeprem
Newbie
Posts: 42
|
|
« Reply #4 on: May 18, 2011, 05:58:24 PM » |
|
Thanks Fred...the color matching might have been the problem.
That option doesn't show up in the export dialogue for the ipf8300.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mukherjeeprem
Newbie
Posts: 42
|
|
« Reply #5 on: May 18, 2011, 06:04:51 PM » |
|
Thanks Fred, that did it.
Ok...so now that it's printing much better...now I need to figure out how to get it to print totally accurate.
Although the color is looking good now, Everything is still coming out a bit dark and it does that when I print through PS as well.
Is there something I can do to get that part accurate too? does that mean the profile is not working properly?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #6 on: May 18, 2011, 06:42:07 PM » |
|
Is there something I can do to get that part accurate too? does that mean the profile is not working properly? Well, now we get into a delicate discussion. If the printer profile (as Mike alluded) was made by Canon and not by some other means, then we should assume it is correct. If the profile is correct, then we are left with just a couple of items to look at. Are you shooting in RAW mode with your camera? IF SO, a) you might want to use a raw camera profile for it b) You might want to let Qimage Ultimate decode and Auto Fill the image for you. Then you can be pretty sure it's correctly set exposure and fill, or close to it, and then print. c) Most likely, and most importantly, maybe your monitor is too bright, and the images look good, but in reality, the images are a tad dark if they were viewed on a properly calibrated (for Brightness and contrast) monitor. When I say this, I usually make someone angry, so don't get angry. If you are shooting in JPG, then c) is probably the answer. a, b, and c will fix your prints to be perfect. Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mukherjeeprem
Newbie
Posts: 42
|
|
« Reply #7 on: May 18, 2011, 08:17:30 PM » |
|
Thanks Fred.
I do shoot in RAW and everything is retouched on a monitor that is color calibrated with a spyder 3 elite.
Since all my images get raw processed in lightroom and then photoshop retouched, having qimage print straight from the raw is not an option.
My monitor is also calibrated and I don't have any issues getting prints back from WHCC or Black River Imaging which leads me to believe that my monitor IS calibrated correctly but something is printing incorrectly.
Any additional thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #8 on: May 18, 2011, 08:50:05 PM » |
|
Any additional thoughts? Two thoughts!! Usually when profiling a monitor, the first instruction is to set brightness and contrast as MAX, Then you profile colors. That "usually does not adjust the brightness or contrast. Most of us who have learned over the years how to match monitor and prints, have learned to reduce the contrast and brightness to match a test print made using a bonafide printer profile. After reducing the brightness and contrast, then we profile the colors. using Spyder. The answer is there.... I told you that most people dig their heels in. See from previous post. c) Most likely, and most importantly, maybe your monitor is too bright, and the images look good, but in reality, the images are a tad dark if they were viewed on a properly calibrated (for Brightness and contrast) monitor. Experiment! If you adjust your images in Lightroom or in CS5, you are using the monitor to judge what to do to the image. Then you accept the result as gospel, yet you say you have the same dark print regardless Qimage ot PS. Think this through! I simply asked that you take some images from your card and let Qimage Ultimate decode it with Auto Fill on. This doesn't sound too difficult to do. Images that have gone through a Nikon raw decoder or any other program might have been tampered with. I want images from the camera card in a folder, and read only by Qimage Ultimate. Now Qimage will decode and fill the image based on the image, and not based on the screen. Now print two of those. You will be printing from the raw image.... Fred |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #9 on: May 18, 2011, 10:50:17 PM » |
|
Let me ask you something. When you started, you said you were using an export plugin to print and you were using an ICC profile for your canvas. That tells me that the profile you are using was probably designed to be used with the export plugin and NOT the Windows driver. You said color was OK but a little dark now via the Windows driver, so the pertinent question now is: what profile are you using when you print through the Windows driver? You need an ICC profile designed to be used with the Windows printer driver for that particular canvas. Do you have one? If so, where did you get it? If you are using one designed to be used with the export plugin, you'll need a new one: one designed to be used with the Windows driver.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
rayw
|
|
« Reply #10 on: May 19, 2011, 01:38:28 AM » |
|
A simple test, quite basic. Take the print out into the daylight. Does it look dark then? 'Looking dark' is quite subjective, since the monitor transmits light, whereas the print reflects light. Set the white point of the monitor to match the white point of the canvas, if you want to view the print in similar lighting conditions as the monitor - judge it by eye, you don't need fancy gadgets to do that, (none are as clever as your eye, in any case  . It does not have to be that precise- simply hold a piece of unprinted canvas near the monitor, and glance from the screen to the canvas a few times, adjusting the screen controls (where you would be setting the white balance), until you get the same shade of white or cream or whatever. It may work better for you, it does for me. Of course, if you change to bright white gloss media, you may have to do it all again. Best wishes, Ray |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2011, 07:51:21 AM » |
|
Hi Ray, I'm never convinced that adjusting by eye is very good or consistent, you said it yourself: 'Looking dark' is quite subjective and none are as clever as your eye, are contrary statements  By using your calibration device to set the luminance to a target value, you'll get considerably more consistency and know where you are. You can then change the target value to fine tune. I believe using your eye introduces more "uncertainty" (a calibration technical term) into the process. If you are familiar with micrometers and vernier callipers, then judging the reading on a vernier is more user dependant than reading a micrometer. I use an Ott LIte for checking prints, useful on dark winter evenings when there's no sunshine. Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
admin
|
|
« Reply #12 on: May 19, 2011, 01:07:13 PM » |
|
Re the last two posts, I'm going to have to side with Terry on this one but it does open a can of worms: intended viewing light intensity for prints. The problem with Ray's post is that you never want to take a print out into the sun to judge brightness. You can take a print that is WAY too dark into the sun and it'll look OK. The usual viewing intensity for photographic prints is around 500 lux. Direct sunlight is 30,000 to over 100,000 lux. Not a good thing to take your dark print into the sun to declare it "ok". I know Ray said "in the daylight" so "daylight" can be debated (whether direct sun or not) but generally even daylight out of the sun is 10,000+ lux.
Mike
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 19, 2011, 01:09:09 PM by Mike Chaney »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mukherjeeprem
Newbie
Posts: 42
|
|
« Reply #13 on: May 19, 2011, 02:25:30 PM » |
|
Hi guys,
There's a lot of insightful info and questions on here.
The amount of light present while viewing does lead my brain down an interesting path because yes, when viewed in bright light the prints look fine.
Fred, my only problem or question with what you are proposing is that if I start changing the brightness on my monitor, then all my images from my lab will come back incorrect won't they?
For the record, I didn't change my brightness to match a print. I calibrated following the instructions when I ran the spyder 3 elite (don't remember what the steps were) and found that once I was calibrated properly, my prints from the lab were coming back spot on.
Mike, good question. They never indicated if the icc profile was for the export plug in or the main print driver. I was not aware that it would change. I thought the profile was specifically for the paper it's getting printed on. Is that not correct?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mukherjeeprem
Newbie
Posts: 42
|
|
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2011, 04:18:19 PM » |
|
I just confirmed that the profile IS meant for the export plugin so I'm not really sure where to go with that? To be really accurate, should I be getting a ColorMunki so I can create a profile for an image printed via Qimage on specific printer with specific paper? http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1115 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
