On 3/25/2022 3:43 PM, Alan Goldhammer (agoldhammer) wrote:
Mine is a BenQ SW270C. I use both Palette master and DisplayCal.
Your monitor calibration values appear to be very close to mine. I have a NEC MuliSynch monitor and calibrate it with the NEC Spectraview II software using one of their branded X-Rite colorimeters. I agree with you that it is likely not the monitor. I’ve lost track of things regarding the problem you have. Can you provide me the following information:
What paper are you printing on where this happens? Canson Platine Fibre Rag
Do you see the same thing with other high quality inkjet papers? Yes but not as much
What setting in the print driver are you using? I always use the setting recommended by Canson or any other manufacturer
Do you see the dark issue when you are in soft proof mode in Lightroom or Photoshop? That's the main question, yes the soft proof is a bit different, almost always visualy a bit different but you must be attentive to notice. I'm always "shock" to see hoew different the print is.
What happens if you make a print with the printer managing the color? Is this too dark? I never tried that.
I agree with Ben that there might be something wrong with the workflow but it’s difficult to pinpoint. Not only the workflow, it's difficult for me to explain all of this in english, so maybe there is a bit of language barrier as well.
Alan
*From:* argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Yves Gauvreau
*Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 2:25 PM
*To:* argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [argyllcms] Re: Puzzled
Sorry for the delay Ben and Graeme
On 3/24/2022 5:07 PM, Ben Goren wrote:
On Mar 23, 2022, at 3:10 PM, Graeme Gill <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This hints at a systematic issue
with your workflow.
Agreed, of course. But one thing is nagging me … “prints too dark”
veryoften, in practice, correlate with “uncalibrated display set
to high brightness.” Or, sometimes, “prints viewed in dark viewing
conditions.” It can also be, “Editing environment has problematic
ambient lighting.” (And, of course, it can be a faulty measuring
device or a brazilian and one other things.)
Yes, nagging is the right word for me as well. But I don't think is with the display but again it could. I tend to calibrate between 90-120 cd/m2 and around 5750K, usually I give a good match for screen to print.
Currently, here is what I have
Current calibration response:
Black level = 0.3139 cd/m^2
50% level = 25.29 cd/m^2
White level = 107.81 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.09
Contrast ratio = 343:1
White chromaticity coordinates 0.3066, 0.3205
White Correlated Color Temperature = 6938K, DE 2K to locus = 2.9
White Correlated Daylight Temperature = 6943K, DE 2K to locus = 1.9
White Visual Color Temperature = 6814K, DE 2K to locus = 2.8
White Visual Daylight Temperature = 7027K, DE 2K to locus = 1.8
Don't know if these results could cause the problem I have but I'll do a bit of monitor calibration pretty soon.
Yves, this might sound like a vague and simplistic question … but
how are you determining that the prints are too dark? This isn’t
to suggest that your prints are satisfactory — they clearly
aren’t! Rather, the means by which you’re judging the prints might
help identify where in the overall camera-to-print system the flaw
is to be found.
I have a high CRI 5000k Led bulb I use for this. DisplayCal gives me 4791K and 959.58 cd/m2 @ about 2 feet from my I1 Display Pro II
When I do a comparison, I stand up near this bulb with the print about 2 feet under the bulb, by the way no other light comes in, I alternate from screen to print and I think I can objectively say the print is darker. I'd a know a way to measure this but I'm not sure how I would proceed.
One test that can help narrow things down … you have a
ColorChecker, no? You can find a Lab TIFF of a synthetic
ColorChecker at Bruce Lindbloom’s very aged but still excellent
site: http://www.brucelindbloom.com/. You’ll have to be careful
converting it to a suitable color space for printing. But you
should be able to hold the result at arm’s length in one hand with
your real ColorChecker at arm’s length in the other and instantly
think, “It’s a match.”
Ha! ColorChecker, yes, I have made one from Argyll reference ColorChecker.cie manually in Photoshop directly in Lab 16 bit, I didn't convert to any space, I used it directly. I use the profile I made for the paper in question to print it and the next morning I use at first the ColorChecker tool with the hole in the middle of the patch, it comes with the I1 Pro II. Again it's visually darker, I mean the print of the ColorChecker. So just to make sure, I measured the patches on the tool just in case and also the printed ColorChecker. here is the data.
The Delta L* average is -1.79 and the delta a* and b* values are much smaller. Seems to me just dark prints, color is more or less ok.
Thanks,
Yves
(It won’t be a perfect match for various reasons — not the least
of which is that Bruce made the file from measurements of his own
ColorChecker, not yours. But it should be really, really awfully
close.)
Good luck,
b&
