I am having trouble with darkness in my prints, manly in the shadow area, if I look at the print in direct bright light it looks great and matches my monitor, but in “normal” viewing conditions the shadow area is too dark. I am using a Monaco XR pro to calibrate my monitor, and Pulse ColorElite to make custom profile for my iPF5000 printer (printing on both Red River UltraPro Satin and Canon Satin)

I am curious if the white/black luminance settings I am using in my monitor calibration can cause this? I have heard to set white anywhere from 85cd to 120cd and black I am not really sure where to start. I am using D65 for my white point.

When making my custom profiles I select daylight D50 and wasn’t sure what effect choosing a different setting (D65, cool white, etc)would have on the “brightness” of my prints

**my monitors are a Dell 2007 wfp and my laptop screen is a Dell D820 WXUGA

[quote=emowake77,Feb 3 2007, 01:32 PM]
I am having trouble with darkness in my prints, manly in the shadow area, if I look at the print in direct bright light it looks great and matches my monitor, but in “normal” viewing conditions the shadow area is too dark. I am using a Monaco XR pro to calibrate my monitor, and Pulse ColorElite to make custom profile for my iPF5000 printer (printing on both Red River UltraPro Satin and Canon Satin)


Here's one source of that problem in case you haven't considered it yet. The iPF5000 doesn't offer black point compensation as an option if you are using Relative Colorimetric as your rendering intent. If you are using Relative Colorimetric on the iPF5000, make sure that Black Point Compensation is not checked in Photoshop (or your other image editing software). Once I did that, I saw that I needed to raise the brightness considerably in Photoshop to get the shadows to come out. Now my prints are matching my monitor exactly. This may not be your issue, but it's a very simple fix if it is.

Ted

Mt Eizo LCD display is set to a luminance value of 130 cd/m2. If you have a CRT, 85 cd/m2 is an average luminanve value.

[quote=tandlh,Feb 4 2007, 09:15 AM]
[quote=emowake77,Feb 3 2007, 01:32 PM]
I am having trouble with darkness in my prints, manly in the shadow area, if I look at the print in direct bright light it looks great and matches my monitor, but in “normal” viewing conditions the shadow area is too dark. I am using a Monaco XR pro to calibrate my monitor, and Pulse ColorElite to make custom profile for my iPF5000 printer (printing on both Red River UltraPro Satin and Canon Satin)
Here's one source of that problem in case you haven't considered it yet. The iPF5000 doesn't offer black point compensation as an option if you are using Relative Colorimetric as your rendering intent. If you are using Relative Colorimetric on the iPF5000, make sure that Black Point Compensation is not checked in Photoshop (or your other image editing software). Once I did that, I saw that I needed to raise the brightness considerably in Photoshop to get the shadows to come out. Now my prints are matching my monitor exactly. This may not be your issue, but it's a very simple fix if it is.

Ted

[/quote]

Thanks Ted I went through my soft proof process and unchecked black point compensation and it made my on screen pictures look just like my prints (a tad to dark in the shawdow area) so at least now i can adjust it

That's a rather signficant limitation if true, fact flaw might be a better word because BPC is pertty crucial to getting consistent result with rel-col.

But shouldn't the profile conversion be happening in Photoshop anyway, not the print driver? If so I don't see how this could be an issue.

120 is awfully bright, and could definitely cause consistency problems with prints unless you're viewing the prints in very bright lighting conditions. I have a CRT in a room with fairly subdued lighting, and my luminosity is set to 85dcm^2; but I understand a bit brighter may be optimal for an LCD but I would still recommend keeping it around 90-100cdm^2.

I am sure we are talking about the 16-bit export/printing plug here. I big, big oversight not puting in BPC.

Yes, this bug is for the 16 bit export plugin in Photoshop. Confirmed by Canon support tech, who opined that it "might be fixed in 3-6 months". Completely unacceptable in my opinion. The driver doesn't have this limitation. There is a workaround that I think SHOULD work, but I haven't tried it yet:

1) Convert to the proper printer profile in Photoshop using Relative Rendering intent with Black Point Compensation
2) Open the Export plugin and print using "No Color Adjustment"

--John

Thanks for the help Jeff


Well your workaround sounds like it should work to me as well. After learning about the back point/plugin bug i have been making a curve mask (set to luminousity) to lighten up the shawdos. Are most people then using the other rendering modes? or does Balck point not work in them as well?

Well that's the way I would do it regardless of which driver/plugin was actually being used for printing, hence my confusion. I'd never trust profile conversions and color management to the print driver...

Any printing system that disallows BPC with RELCOL is fundamentally flawed from the get-go, and the fact that Canon will take 3~6 months to fix it and sees no problem with this is also fundamentally flawed. Shame on them.

Agree 100%. That said, since you can convert in Photoshop with BPC and print from the plugin with "No Color Adjustment" it isn't that big of a deal from a practical point of view. The real problem is that a lot of people won't know about it (although there is the Wiki) and will waste a lot of time.

Also, how such a fundamental flaw could be in place for all this time is kind of a mystery. The testers never noticed it???

--John

They had testers?

Eric

For all we know, there could have been some weird and wonderful logic behind it (faulty as it could have turned out to be), but we won't be told about that. You are trying to penetrate the impenetrable to find out the whys and wherefores. This with Canon is a no-no. It will continue to be a mystery until they just fix it - in their own sweet time - like so much else that needs to be fixed on that printer. I was really keen on buying this printer and had one on order. Then all the issues started to surface, so I cancelled - not because I didn't believe that any of it was basically monumental or unfixable, but only because the issues are huge time-consuming nuissance factors and I have no confidence in how they view the urgency of responding.