I processed several images using Photoshop CS4 and Adobe1998 color space on a Dell 2408 monitor calibrated with Spyder2express . Next I softproofed them with the appropriate profile from a print company called WHCC and then sent the image files to WHCC for printing. When I received the prints, the colors looked right, but the prints were darker than what the softproof shows on the monitor screen. When I talked to a rep at WHCC, she told me that I needed to turn the brightness on my monitor down so that what shows on the monitor will be the same as what the print looks like. I turned the brightness all the way down, but the print was still darker. Any thoughts? Thank you.

David Brooks wrote an article for Shutterbug on why prints tend to be too dark:
Prints Too Dark

Where you say you turned your display brightness "all the way down" - what specifically does that mean in CD/mm2? It could be that "all the way down" isn't down enough. Were the prints from the lab VASTLY darker than what you see on the display. Recall, there is some inherent additional luminosity apparent from the display relative to a print simply because the former is transmitted light and the latter reflected light. One never totally overcomes this divide, so you need to make some mental adjustment for it - but in today's calibrated and managed environments, not a whole lot, why I'm asking whethe the difference you see is very large. As well, it may be important to verify whether the profile the lab gave you provides a current and valid protrayal of their machines' actual behaviour. You also need to be sure you are softproofing with "Simulate Paper White" selected, so you can be sure to be capturing the effect of the paper white on the overall appearance of the softproof.

This can be quite true. On my friend's iMac, turning it all the way down still makes for a display that is 175cd/m2 using GMB i1 Pro and Match3. I calibrate my Eizo to 100cd/m2, I make my own custom profiles for my Epson 3800, and for outsource prints, use MPIX. Prints are a dead match to my monitor all the time.

Brooks hasn’t got a clue here (at least in terms of his original article on the subject). I’ve told him so but he’s in denial. He’d prefer to come up with some color management conspiracy theories rather than just use those tools properly.

The first issue is, do you have your display calibration luminance set to match the viewing conditions of the print next to the display? Prints too “dark”? Maybe but 99 times out of 100, its just the prints are darker than the display because either the viewing booth is too low (assuming it can be adjusted which many allow) OR the display calibration luminance is too high.

Some LCD displays provide little (not enough) provisions for dialing down luminance. jjlphoto’s post is spot on. That’s a problem. The alternative, other than getting a decent display system is to raise the viewing conditions of the print viewing booth. The idea is to produce a match at this location only. Moving the print outside this environment, using differing illuminants in terms of color and intensity isn’t an issue, you simply can’t run back into the digital darkroom and look at the display, hoping for a match. If you dial in the digital darkroom conditions to produce a match, I can assure you that short of viewing the prints under some really odd conditions, you’ll like what you see (you’ll adapt to the environment).

lastly, its super critical to have an output profile for the print conditions, one that’s not only being used properly for soft proofing (using full screen mode and the simulate check boxes for comparing print to screen) but also being used for output. A lot of labs use this silly, half baked “color management” workflow where they provide a profile for soft proofing but demand you send the document for output in sRGB. If you can’t use the profile for conversions, control the rendering intent, pre or post edit the data based on that exact conversion, you’re fooling yourself into getting the much desired screen to print match.

I don't want to hijack the thread but may I ask about the simulate check boxes...?
If, as you do it, the monitor already is set to paper white referring to the viewing booth... why then use the simualtion of anything (or: anything else than "black ink") if it spins the white point of the monitor then? The monitor already matches paper white... and this is why it is - IMO - not useful when softproofing spins the white point. If you handle a wide range of papers that's different but photographic papers often contain optical brighteners and therefore the measured white in the profiles is blueish. If paper simulation turns the screen blueish (in the case of perceptual and relcol RI) or yellowish (in the case of absolute colormetric RI) there must be something wrong as the monitor initially displayed the correct (paper-) white.

No - "the viewing conditions of the print" Andrew refers to is the illuminant hitting the paper, not the paper colour. You still need to select "Simulate Paper White" to get a reliable soft-proof.

here he referrs to the illuminant. If I remember correctly he also adjusts his white point visually to paper white in the viewing booth .. as I do.
And then... no, paper simulation doesn't help at all if the respective paper contains optical brighteners.

The simulate check boxes alter the dynamic range of the preview to match that of the print (assuming the profile is correctly defining this). It has nothing to do with the illuminant nor color of the viewing booth.

in this post I illustrated different softproof modes. Only the first 2 images match the luminance level (under respective viewing conditions), the paper white and the differentition of the actual print.
-> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=316182

In this post I showed a selection of paper profiles set to "paper simulation" (mode rel.col RI + BPC) -> http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....st&p=316544
With all these papers the white point in "paper simulation" is incorrect (either rel.col or absolut col.) as well as the differentiation of tonal values due to too high compression (resulting from a white that is measured as a blue and therefore at the same time darker than white).
Actually with all photographic papers this problem is present... as long as they do not contain optical brighteners (such as e.g. some Canson Infinity papers).

As to the dynamic range it is reflected if the monitor is adjusted to the luminance level of the paper (under resp. viewing conditions) and if you check simulation of "black ink" only in softproof mode. "Black ink" boosts the black point of the display so that the dynamic range of the print is matched on the display.

By its very nature, the paper simulation is an Absolute colorimetric intent with BPC off going to the display:

•Simulate Paper Color: Convert using the absolute colorimetric
intent (no Black Point Compensation).
•Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink Off: Convert using the
relative colorimetric intent with Black Point Compensation.
•Simulate Black Ink: Convert using the relative colorimetric intent
without Black Point Compensation.


Something “off” could be the profile itself of course, the quality of the AtoB and BtoA tables. It should be partially the display profile. OBA’s could affect what you’re actually seeing depending on the illuminant (Fluorescent lights can be problematic here). IOW, there are a number of things that could be “off” here.

In terms of the dynamic range and the display, unless you’ve got one of the rare “smart monitors” that provide full control over this (by adjusting black and white target calibration), you’re pretty much stuck altering this by using the simulate command (or sometimes called the Make my image look like crap buttons). If you’ve got a display that’s pumping out an 800:1 contrast ratio, the only way to show you what 300:1 looks like is to use the simulate options which isn’t as ideal as actually putting the display into a 300:1 ratio.

of course. But at the first stage the "as white" measured value is off. Optical brighteners reflect the light of the measurement device blueish. And the trouble starts from there.
In any case there is literally no photographic paper (profile) that produces an accurate paper simulation. At least I've seen none by now.

I for myself am working with something around 340:1. However even on a cheap monitor I'd prefer to use "black ink" simulation (or no simulation at all) over "paper simulation".
Color managment works really accurate in most of the cases. But when it comes to the simulation of print media it sucks (often), sadly.

Again, it depends on the Spectrophotometer used (does it have UV filtration or not), does the software compensate for this etc. OBA’s are by and large, not a good thing.

Actually, for me it doesn't. It's pretty good. And the paper I'm using most often has no OBAs (Baryta-base Ilford Gold Fibre Silk)

the de facto standard is the i1pro I think... as for standarized profiles AFAIK the measurement device must be without UV cut filter.

well, then yes, might be one of the rare cases where it is okay.

Still: if you adjust the white point and the luminance level of the display to match paper white in the viewing booth... then any color spin or darkening of the display in softproof mode set to simulate "paper" necessarily leads to a wrong representation. The display already matched paper white - so if the white representation changes it must be wrong. This is actually self evident. And this applies to the most photographic papers and as well to the standarized offset printer profiles (gracol, swop, ISOcoated ...).
So basically the recommendation should be: do not use paper simulation unless the actual print really matches the monitor preview better with paper simulation than without.
Why, as mentioned above, should I edit in fullscreen mode? All the whites on my monitor represent paper white so pallettes or menus doe not distract or hinder adaption.

Now I am becoming confused. I was under the impression that Black Point Compensation took care of the limited dynamic range of the print as compared to the monitor. The referenced white paper states: "Adobe Systems implemented BPC to address this conversion problem by adjusting for differences between the darkest level of black achievable on one device and the darkest level of black achievable on another [the print and the monitor]".

Black point compensation is usually used with the relative colorimetric rendering intent. It is not available with absolute colorimetric. With perceptual rendering, BPC should not be needed if one has a good profile, but is available for use with malformed profiles. If you have a good profile and use perceptual rendering with BPC is the black point mapped twice?

Also, if you are using relative colorimetric with BPC, what does simulate paper black do? Is it needed?

yes, it's confusing, but it's correct.
You have to think laterally here (I always forget about that as well): the softproof simulates a certain output (paper) profile. Now this paper profile is displayed WITH BPC to the monitor if "simulation" is deselected. I.e. the paper contrast range is displayed within the contrast range of the monitor - not within the contrast range of the paper itself. So from paper to monitor there is a BPC.

With "black ink" selected the (paper-) image is displayed without BPC on the monitor... i.e. without stretching the paper-contrast ratio to that of the monitor.
With "black ink" selected you actually have a relative colormetric view of the paper on the monitor.
So in short: "black ink" is boosting the black point of the display to that of the paper. The result is that you are viewing the contrast range of the paper itself not that of the monitor.
I use "black ink" all the time, I never use "paper simulation" (see above).

It may be less rare than you think.

And even with the display condition you propose, which may not be easy to achieve in practice - there is still the DR simulation you get activating <Simulate Paper White> which your procedure will not necessarily portray.

Ref post #18 - Chuck - whatever you intended to say did not reproduce. Suggest you re-post.

My prints were significantly darker than what the monitor shows. The Brightness control on my monitor is a slider with values 0 -100, so I don't think I can set it at a particular value in CD/mm2, which I assume is a value of brightness. Also, the software that came with the Spyder2 calibrator says I need to have the Brightness control on the monitor to be set at the factory default which is 50. Maybe I need a better calibrator software?

I don't want the DR of the monitor when I am trying to simulate the DR of the paper in a soft proof. Checking "Simulate Paper white" does this for me.

To keep this discussion dead-easy and grounded in reality - and my experience with thousands of prints using differnet papers over the years:

- to get as close a matching as possible between the display and my Epson 3800 output with Photoshop Managing Color, The Customize Proof Condition needs to have both BPC and SPC checked using RelCol or Saturation RI.

- with Perceptual RI BPC doesn't matter, but SPC does.

- with AbsCol RI BPC is greyed out, but SPC matters.

- under all RI, Simulate Black Ink is checked and greyed. All my images leave LR or ACR with ProPhoto RGB embedded.

(Preserve RGB Numbers is always unchecked).

Getting back to the OP's issue, I think Andrew Rodney's post (#5) is likely the most relevant factor and relates directly to the question I put to the OP about what "all the way down" means for his display. But the OP should get back to us on this.

What display calibration/profiling software are you using? Good software should allow you to set display luminance to a user-defined value in CD/mm2.

I am using a Spyder2express calibrator together with the software that came with it. Do you have a recommendation on software(Windows) that would allow me set the luminance? Thanks

me neither.

checking simulate "black ink" does it for me as white already matches paper white in the viewing booth.

Yes, download the demo of ColorEyes Dsplay Pro 1.5 for Windows and see whether it makes your life better (Integrated-Color.com Demo)

Fine. Different strokes for different folks. That's what makes all this so intriguing!

In a quick skim of this thread, I didn't notice anyone mentioning another issue that could be at play here: the print viewing conditions. Of course the print will look darker than the monitor if you're viewing it under typical indoor lighting conditions, which aren't very bright. Have you looked at the print under either direct sunlight, a controlled viewing light or viewing booth, or other bright and relatively controlled lighting conditions? I also thought my prints were too dark until I finally got one under a really good light, and realized that the lighting has a big effect on how it appears.

Indeed - really important. The whole problem could be as simple as that. It can make a huge difference. Ideally, the OP would want to view the prints under Solux D50 illumination. A print held a few feet from a Solux desk lamp is an inexpensive (but not perfect) substitute for a viewing booth Tailored LIghting.

For those of amateurs who can't afford all the bells and whistles, Solux offers a nice clamp on flexy light that can do just that (pretty inexpensive as well, though you will want to add the difusion filter to provide even illumination). Mine is mounted on the computer table right next to the Epson R2880. I can look at the prints after they come out and compare them to the monitor. Even to my "old" eyes, the match is spot on (NEC P221 SpectraView calibrated monitor).

See my first post above.

Read Brooks piece and see if there’s any mention of print viewing.

Alan, just so you'll know, there are those amateurs out there who can afford a lot more than many professionals. You see, some of them have made much more money in their various professions than many professional photographers will ever aspire to - though in the latter category there are also those who have done very well for themselves.

Anyhow, back to topic, I have exactly what you describe, and it's good.

Yes indeed, you did. Still worth emphasizing. Many people have either no room or no money for a viewing booth, so discussion of useable work-arounds is worthwhile.

This clears up things. Paper Black is essentially Black Point Compensation when going from the simulation black to the monitor black. If it is unchecked, the simulation black is displayed as monitor black, which would use the full DR of the monitor. The BPC box determines how the image black is mapped to the simulation black. Is this correct?

if I understand correctly, then yes, that's right.

Click to view attachment
the red part is related to the device/output you want to simulate = proof.
The BPC here refers to the conversion of the source profile to the device you want to simulate.

the green part is how the proof will be displayed on the way back to the monitor.
"black ink" deselected will display the proof within the (higher) contrast range of the monitor - so with BPC from paper to monitor.
"black ink" selected will display the proof within its own contrast range - not within that of the monitor - so without BPC from paper to monitor.

Now I know I need to be using better software. Is the Spyder2 puck good or should I be getting a better puck too? Thanks.

I personally have not used Spyder 2, but most of the advice I've heard suggests that the XRite DTP-94 and the Spyder 3 are much better. Integrated-Color has advised me that Spyder 3 is better for a wide-gamut monitor (one approaching ARGB (98) - which yours is not- than is the DTP-94. Spyder 3 is also more widely available. DTP-94 as far as I know is now only available from several providers of integrated hardware/software packages. Spyder 3 is also a much more recent product than DTP-94. Either should give you more accurate results than the Spyder 2 from all that I've heard. I'm using a DTP-94 with ColorEyes Display 1.5 and it has been serving me very well.

XRite no longer sells the DTP-94, but they do sell a unit called the i1Display2. Have you heard anything about that one?

Sorry, don't know it; but others who post here may well.

That is why I mentioned the DTP-94 is available from several vendors, but not in general circulation any longer.