|
Terry-M
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: July 29, 2009, 01:11:15 PM » |
|
I don't believe you can select both "ICM" and "No Color Management" at the same time. Select ONLY "No Color Management" In Epson driver's it is ICM and then NCA, see attached. Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wingspar
Newbie
Posts: 31
|
|
« Reply #16 on: July 29, 2009, 04:43:00 PM » |
|
Sorry, Gary...
I meant what profile did you discard and replace with a custom profile.
If the setup I gave you using the \pRGB.icm profile and setting the driver to ICM produced unacceptable green prints, then I have to say printer problem; of some nature.
Have you printed from some other program? Do you get skewed results or excellent results?
Kathy makes wonderful profiles, so no argument there. That points yet another finger at the printer. I figured that’s what you meant. I was going to make a crack about how good of a driver my significant other is, and that I’ will keep her around for years to come, but decided against it.  It is the SP2200Prem.Semigloss 1440.icc profile I mentioned in reply #11. I didn’t discard it, just not using it since getting the custom profile made. I’ve tried printing from Photoshop with the same results. I supposed it’s possible I could have messed up somewhere else when I tried the \pRGB.icm profile and got green prints. If the printer is part of the problem, how would I go about troubleshooting that? The printer is at least 5 years old, but may sit for long periods of time without being used. I have no idea how many prints I’ve made over the years. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gary
Will Fly for Food
|
|
|
wingspar
Newbie
Posts: 31
|
|
« Reply #17 on: July 29, 2009, 04:46:00 PM » |
|
In Epson driver's it is ICM and then NCA, see attached.
Terry.
That is exactly how I have always had the driver set up. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gary
Will Fly for Food
|
|
|
|
Fred A
|
|
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2009, 05:02:38 PM » |
|
I’ve tried printing from Photoshop with the same results. I supposed it’s possible I could have messed up somewhere else when I tried the \pRGB.icm profile and got green prints. If the printer is part of the problem, how would I go about troubleshooting that? The printer is at least 5 years old, but may sit for long periods of time without being used. I have no idea how many prints I’ve made over the years.
Gary, you said it all in this post.
Sometimes, the best way to get a bandaid off of your hairy arm, is a quick yank/rip.
It is time!
We will each send condolence emails on your loss of the 2200, but it is time!
Investigate an R1900 or some other suitable replacement, and just remember your old friend 2200 and the good times.
Fred
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wingspar
Newbie
Posts: 31
|
|
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2009, 05:18:44 PM » |
|
Gary, you said it all in this post.
Sometimes, the best way to get a bandaid off of your hairy arm, is a quick yank/rip.
It is time!
We will each send condolence emails on your loss of the 2200, but it is time!
Investigate an R1900 or some other suitable replacement, and just remember your old friend 2200 and the good times. I did a tiny bit of research on printers a couple of months ago. First time I’d even heard of the 2880, which would probably be my first choice should I replace the 2200. I read up on the R1900, and that also looks like a good choice, specially for B&W, but I think I’ve printed 3 or 4 B&W prints over the years, so good B&W prints are nice, they aren’t critical for me. There are so many variables when printing B&W. Even a simple thing as a different paper can change the entire look of a B&W print. Of course, the 3800 looks very nice, but I’d have to knock out a wall to build a place to put it. As is, the 2200 rocks my table and monitor. To be honest, I’m not really sure if this is a printer problem, or an out of gamut red on this print, or a combination of both. I’d like to do a little more experimenting before deciding to replace the printer, but unfortunately, I’ve fallen down in my paper supply, and don’t have the paper to experiment with, but will have plenty when it gets delivered in a couple of days. I’ve never let my paper supply fall like this. Could it be a faulty ink cartridge that might be contributing to the orange/red problem? The nozzle check prints perfectly. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gary
Will Fly for Food
|
|
|
UltraChrome
Jr. Member
Posts: 56
|
|
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2009, 05:45:56 PM » |
|
Sorry for my mis-information on the driver. I was working from memory so I went back and uploaded the driver (verson 5.50 for XP). I do see that you can and should select !CM and No Color Management. My bad!
You might want to take the file and have it printed elsewhere (a friend? a drugstore?) to see if it is correct. If none of your programs are printing it correctly that would at least eliminate the file as a suspect. Are other prints still correct?
If you decide to go new, I'd highly recommend trying to fit the 3800. I've had mine since they were introduced (it replaced my 2200) and it has done nothing but print extrodinary images (more than 4500 at present) since I bought it. The 2880 is also a nice machine based on what I have read.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 29, 2009, 05:54:45 PM by UltraChrome »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Seth
|
|
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2009, 06:56:39 PM » |
|
Gary-
Download one of the color test charts. One that just has CYMRGB graduated bars and print the full sheet out of PS or QI. If those colors are okay, so is your printer.
If it's faster, I can e-mail one to you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
|
|
|
wingspar
Newbie
Posts: 31
|
|
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2009, 01:27:46 AM » |
|
Ok. An update. I was too low on paper to do any more experimenting, and just got a delivery of paper today. I posted this same question at FM, and that thread went off in another direction, but in the process, I learned some valuable things about Photoshop. The reds were seriously over saturated, and some of them were out of gamut. I fixed this by reducing the saturation, and now the jersey prints red. Not perfect, but no longer orange. I will say that the soft proof in Qimage still seems to show the red a tad bit towards orange, and not as red as the print came out, but quite close. I seemed to create the problem by over saturating the reds in an effort to obtain a striking print. The printer driver/profile was not capable of showing this, hence, my prints coming out orange. I think a new printer just got shoved back down the priority list for the second time in the last 3 months.  If you decide to go new, I'd highly recommend trying to fit the 3800. I've had mine since they were introduced (it replaced my 2200) and it has done nothing but print extrodinary images (more than 4500 at present) since I bought it. The 2880 is also a nice machine based on what I have read. The 3800 sounds very nice, and very tempting. I saw one in person a couple of months ago, and took measurements. I have no place to put one at all. If I was to replace the 2200, my first choice would probably be a 2880. It took a lot of work to fit the 2200 in here, and the 2880 would fit right in without any further construction/removal of walls. I have no walls I can remove. As I look around, I suppose there is a way to build a platform for a 3800 to sit on, but what a job that would be, and I also have to wonder how long you can make a USB cable work with the 3800? I’d probably need about a 20 to 25-foot long cable. Gary-
Download one of the color test charts. One that just has CYMRGB graduated bars and print the full sheet out of PS or QI. If those colors are okay, so is your printer.
If it's faster, I can e-mail one to you. Where can one fine a color test chart? I just upgraded from a 728kps DSL connection to a 5mb cable connection, so download speeds are fine. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gary
Will Fly for Food
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2009, 06:56:56 AM » |
|
Gary, you started this thread by saying I have recently purchased a new LaCie 324 LCD monitor, also The printer driver/profile was not capable of showing this, Your new monitor probably has a much wider gamut that your printer, look at the image on the thread here http://ddisoftware.com/tech/computer-software/colour-gamut-visualisation/I wondered what rendering intent you were using, changing that may help a little. Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wingspar
Newbie
Posts: 31
|
|
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2009, 05:57:08 PM » |
|
I saw that thread, but it was a little too technical for me, or at least, it is something I’ll have to look at more closely when I am in the correct frame of mind to digest some of the info. Gamut is just a word that I don’t really understand, but now I see I need to learn a tad bit more about it. You are most likely correct in that my monitor is capable of displaying a much wider gamut of colors than my printer is. It’s cool for processing for the web, but I have to watch it when processing for printing. One thing I learned this morning from the thread at FM was to try a different “Printer Profile Rendering Intent” in Qimage. The default in Qimage is Perceptual, and it is all I’ve ever used. It was suggested I try using Relative Colorimetric for this print. After making my changes to eliminate all out of gamut areas of the image, and even reduce the saturation a tad, I made a print using Perceptual, and one using Relative Colorimetric. The difference in the red showed up in the soft proof, and in the print between Perceptual, and Relative Colorimetric. I got much better reds printing with Relative Colorimetric. I have now fixed the red in the jerseys and in the process learned a lot about gamut and Photoshop, and even something about Qimage, and even a little bit about my monitor, which I already knew, but now make sense of it, and sinks the knowledge into a permanent crease in my brain. I also downloaded a Printer Test File (top left of page) http://www.digitaldog.net/tips/ and the colors printed perfect.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gary
Will Fly for Food
|
|
|
|
Seth
|
|
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2009, 07:11:30 PM » |
|
... try a different “Printer Profile Rendering Intent” in Qimage. The default in Qimage is Perceptual, and it is all I’ve ever used. It was suggested I try using Relative Colorimetric for this print... I got much better reds printing with Relative Colorimetric.... I went to Relative permanently in PS and QI. They say it's for critical colors. Most of mine are. Welllllllllllll, not that critical, but I like them right. I just went through the "red" ting with NASCAR. Always do with that and IRL drivers in red. They either have magenta in the mid-tones or go orange. I know it's from using auto white balance and having so much of one color in the pic, but it's fixable. That's where Selective Color and the History Brush come in. Especially when the unifrms through the red cast (or geen, etc.) into the faces. BTW- Also, I quit soft-proofing. There is just NO way an illuminated monitor can truly reproduced a reflective paper surface, IMO. I just got to the point that I know that to reproduce what I see (profiles aside) on--for example, Double-Sided Matte--I have to have QI do a +3 Contrast, +4 Gamma and +2 Blue. So I have a saved attachment called DSM fix. What the heck, it works. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Seth
<CWO4 (FMF) USN, Ret.>
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2009, 07:55:55 PM » |
|
I went to Relative permanently in PS and QI. They say it's for critical colors. Most of mine are. Welllllllllllll, not that critical, but I like them right. But if the colour is out of gamut wrt the printer/paper/ink combination, then it can never be "right", how it is converted is a compromise. I have found the following diagrams helpful. (With acknowledgement to the Colour Collective, Warwick UK) "A" is an out-of-gamut colour; "B" is within gamut. Perceptual: Scales large colour space into small. All colours are changed. Maintains balance of image.  Colorimetric Rendering: In gamut colours not changed. Out of gamut colours clipped to nearest. Balance of image lost. Relative Colorimetric adapts for differences in whitepoint.  Terry. PS. the full set of CM guides can be downloaded here: http://www.nativedigital.co.uk/shop/page.php/1ada23af7c69cf163b079c8a6325a004?xPage=support_general_cm.html |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 01, 2009, 08:00:53 PM by Terry-M »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Terry-M
|
|
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2009, 08:44:04 PM » |
|
I don't know if you want to drag your post above over there I'm sure how to do that  I think it's ok. here, hopefully it's of some help to Gary (wingspar) and you've put in a link Terry. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
wingspar
Newbie
Posts: 31
|
|
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2009, 05:20:51 PM » |
|
I went to Relative permanently in PS and QI. They say it's for critical colors. Most of mine are. Welllllllllllll, not that critical, but I like them right. I posted a question for Mike on that very subject in your gamut-and-color-space thread. It made me wonder why Perceptual is the default in Qimage. BTW- Also, I quit soft-proofing. There is just NO way an illuminated monitor can truly reproduced a reflective paper surface, IMO. I just got to the point that I know that to reproduce what I see (profiles aside) on--for example, Double-Sided Matte--I have to have QI do a +3 Contrast, +4 Gamma and +2 Blue. So I have a saved attachment called DSM fix.
What the heck, it works. Soft proofing in Qimage is still a valuable tool to me, even tho an illuminated monitor will never match exactly the reflective surface of a print, soft proofing can still give you a good picture on how your colors will print, such in my “Red prints Orange” thread. When I started that thread, the image on the monitor looked good, it looked good in the preview before printing, but Soft Proof in Qimage made them look orange, and they printed orange. Now after all I’ve learned on gamut and out of gamut colors, I’ve got the image so that it soft proofs red, and prints red even tho the Soft Proof on the screen looks washed out in comparison to the print, I can still tell that it is now red, and will print red. So I still see Soft Proofing in Qimage as a valuable tool. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Gary
Will Fly for Food
|
|
|
|
Qimage registration expired? New lifetime licenses are only $59.99!
