Hi Everyone,

New to this fourum, so if this topic has been covered, I apologise.
My system:
Mac G4 1.42 Dual
OS 10.3.9
Apple 23" LCD
Monaco EZColor & Monaco calibrator
ImagePrint RIP
Epson 4000

Up until now I've pretty much been pleased with WYSIWYG between my monitor and the print (on Ilford Smooth Pearl). Mostly people stuff.
But I've started printing some scans from 6x17 transparancies of landscapes. Scanned with an Imacon, 16 bit RGB

And I'm finding out that my monitor appears quite a bit more contrasty and cooler than the images I'm getting. The prints are flatter in contrast and warmer. My nice blue skies are coming out more cyan and I need to add an adjustment layer to pump the contrast up so it looks much deeper in the shadows than it ought to - in order for the print to come out right. Still a bit warm though.

For Ilford Smooth pearl Imageprint has 3 profiles - one for Day, one for Tungsten, one for Mixed light. Actually they may have a couple more. They told me to use the "R3" version and it may help with the blues - and it did a bit.

It is alos possible that the blues in the image I'm printing now are out of Gamut too. The sky mostly shows Out of Gamut when I check that preview in Photoshop.

Is there a way to Soft proof what it will look like using ImagePrint's profiles?
If PS shows it "Out of Gamut" is it possible that those colors are just not reproducible?
And what to do about the contrast difference? I love my LCD & hate to think about going back to a CRT monitor.

I'd post a small version of a couple images if anyone wants to test it out.

Jeff, I have two early model 20" ACD monitors attached to my PC, and until I had a good quality profile made for a new (and better) printer, thought the calibration was OK. Like you, I was finding the monitor was a little cool though I didn't have the contrast issue you mention. I also use the Monaco Optix XR puck, and I was using the XR Pro software. I view my prints under 6500k diffuse lighting.

After many unsuccessful recalibration attempts with the Monaco software (couldn't get it very much nearer the output) I switched the profiling software to basICColor display 4.0 (after also testing ColorEyes), profiled to 6500k rather than 'native' to a target luminance of 120. I now get a much more accurate match to my output. I don't have the measurements to hand, but I recall that my monitors' native white point was around 5700. The basICColor profiling software simply gave me a better profile almost straight away. Are you profiling to native? Have you tried switching the white point?

I'm at a loss to understand though why you're only seeing this issue with 6x17 scans - I'd have thought that if your monitor calibration is out, then it would be out for everything...?
Peter

ImagePrint actually provides a soft proof in the ImagePrint window when both correct profiles are chosen for your paper/ink/viewing light environment. I use a Mac System with the same monitor and get a very close match. The key is profiling your monitor meticulously, something which is not so easy and also matching your viewing light to your monitor.

Thanks both of you. I have been using Native WP as per suggestion of the Monaco people. I will try 6500 next.
My lighting in my office comes from Chroma 50 full spectrum flouro tubes - just like you'd put in a color correct lightbox for slides. If I shoot my D2x on "Day" WB it's nearly perfect. But I'm sure it's not the same as a 6500k viewing box, nor my monitor.

I'll bet that helps though - 6500K WP. As for contrast, not much I can do about that on the LCD. But I'll need to compensate either in PS or in ImagePrint. There are controls for color and curves & levels there, but I've been avoiding doing that. I didn't want to muck up ImagePrints settings.

Have you (anyone) played with ImagePrints settings ?

pobrien3 - it's not that those scans are the only things out. It's that I haven't noticed the differences as much. With people they look better if warmer. And the contrast issue wasn't as bothersome - or I would just bump it a bit without really studying the fact that it was different on the monitor. I chalked it up to the difference between a paper print and an illuminated image.

But on the landscapes it just was more apparent to me. And I was more critical.