This has me puzzled... any Ideas?

[Anonymous]

Hi all -

Well, this one has me and the tech person at Colorvision stumped.


I bought the Colorvision Spyder and the Printfix scanner bundle. First, I calibrated the CRT with the Spyder. Then, I printed calibration patches for my Epson 2200 using their software. Next, I read the patches and created printer profiles using the Printfix scanner/reader and the accompanying software.

Using their supplied test image (a compilation of test targets, baby's faces, various objects, flowers, etc.), I printed 8x10's, which matched my monitor PERFECTLY. I was estatic.

The joy came to an end when I printed some of my own images... they looked terrible! All of them had a serious green hue to them, and all were over exposed by 1-2 stops compared to the monitor screen.

So, I quickly went back and printed the Colorvision test target using the newly created Colorvision printer profile again and, you guessed it, it was PEFECT!

Now I've tried portraits, landscapes, .jpgs, .tifs, you name it! I printed through PhotoShop and I printed through Qimage. Same result, everytime -the target looks great, my pictures look terrible.

So, I returned to the way I was printing before buying the colorvision bundle; using the Epson supplied profiles for my 2200 and viola, my prints look perfect again.

So, if anyone has any ideas why this is happening, please enlighten me, ok? Colorvision's tech support person acted as though no one had ever called with this problem before and basically had no solutions to offer. It didn't go a long way towards instilling confidence in me.

BTW, (in case you're wondering), the reason I bought the bundle in the first place, was so that I could create profiles for 3rd party papers that I would like to use. However, I can't even get a decent print using Epson's archival matte and Epson's 2200 printer with the Colorvision profiles.

Thanks for reading this!
--
Gary Shepard
Foreside PhotoGraphics
Maine, USA

[John_T]

Check what colorspace/ICC profile the test image has. Your own images will most likely be sRGB from the camera. If the test image is something else and you are profiling the printer/papers to the test image, obviously your own images will come out mud. Same same = good. Not same = bad.

[Anonymous]

According to the tech support person at Colorvision, it doesn't matter what colorspace the test image OR my images were saved in... when the image is open on the screen, and I send the image to my printer using the Colorvision profile the resulting print should look like the monitor image, period This is what she said.

When I open various images from my hard drive (which are saved in sRGB and Adobe RGB 1998), and then use the supplied Epson 2200 profiles instead of the Colorvision profiles, the resulting prints match the screen 90-95%.

Grrrr....

-zeldon

[John_T]

Zeldon, just for the moment set aside what Colorvision said because they can't see, I can't see and in some say you can't see precisely what you have done that has produced two separately successful processes but cannot make it become one successful process with a paper profile variable.

Somewhere you have a difference in processes which you have to locate. I would suspect that it is in the beginning with the original test image and how your editing software is set to handle it, or is not set to handle it.

If, for example, you were using one of your own images to profile, then using that profile it would print perfectly, and then if the test image was not handled properly it would be blown out and have a green cast.

It is very likely something very simple, so simple it is easily overlooked. Computers are absolutely logical and it will take absolute logic and process of elimination on your part to find the difference(s).

At least that's the way it looks to me...

[chris.bailey]

Zeldon, just for the moment set aside what Colorvision said because they can't see, I can't see and in some say you can't see precisely what you have done that has produced two separately successful processes but cannot make it become one successful process with a paper profile variable.

Somewhere you have a difference in processes which you have to locate. I would suspect that it is in the beginning with the original test image and how your editing software is set to handle it, or is not set to handle it.

If, for example, you were using one of your own images to profile, then using that profile it would print perfectly, and then if the test image was not handled properly it would be blown out and have a green cast.

It is very likely something very simple, so simple it is easily overlooked. Computers are absolutely logical and it will take absolute logic and process of elimination on your part to find the difference(s).

At least that's the way it looks to me...

Are you being consistent with the Gamma setting throughout, 1.8 or 2.0 makes a big difference and tends towards a green hue if not consistent. As Colourvision say, aRGB to sRGB should not make a huge difference, Gamma settings do.

I use a Spyder with my monitors but dropped Printfix as I could not get it as good to my eye as letting the 2200 manage colours for itself. Now it may have been accurate but not to my liking

[Anonymous]

Hi -

Just for clarification, here is what I do:

1. Open an existing image (.tif, .jpg, etc.) or convert an image from RAW in P'shop CS.

2.Adjust image until it looks good on the (calibrated) monitor screen.

3. Select "print with preview" from the file menu.

4. In the print with preview dialog box, I choose the Colorvision .icm profile (which I have created previously - the one that matches their calibration target perfectly.)

5. I then choose "print", which opens up the Epson 2200 print driver window.

6. Select "no color management" (which means that the Epson print driver will not attempt to color adjust ANYTHING); only the previously selected Colorvision profile will effect how the print looks.

That's it. If I then make a print of my own work, it comes out looking greenish and overexposed. However, if I apply to above procedure to Colorvision's calibration target, it comes out looking 99% like the image on my monitor. Go figure...

-zeldon

[chris.bailey]

Hi -

Just for clarification, here is what I do:

1. Open an existing image (.tif, .jpg, etc.) or convert an image from RAW in P'shop CS.

2.Adjust image until it looks good on the (calibrated) monitor screen.

3. Select "print with preview" from the file menu.

4. In the print with preview dialog box, I choose the Colorvision .icm profile (which I have created previously - the one that matches their calibration target perfectly.)

5. I then choose "print", which opens up the Epson 2200 print driver window.

6. Select "no color management" (which means that the Epson print driver will not attempt to color adjust ANYTHING); only the previously selected Colorvision profile will effect how the print looks.

That's it. If I then make a print of my own work, it comes out looking greenish and overexposed. However, if I apply to above procedure to Colorvision's calibration target, it comes out looking 99% like the image on my monitor. Go figure...

-zeldon

Yep that should give you a consistent colour managed output but only if everything is consistent. The fact that Colourvisions test target is printing ok it suggests that your monitor is not colour calibrated correctly i.e. though it makes your images look ok, they are not i.e. your monitor is telling you lies. do you have any generic profiles for you monitor to try the colourvision profile against?

[Gabriel_907]

I suspect one of the following:
- profiles mishandling when you open the images
- the color profile you created is actually a correct loop only for a certain RGB space, the one all Colorvision images a supplied with.
- are you sure that "no color management" in printer driver really means no color changes?
- some printer drivers always make the assumption that the RGB file received is in a certain color space, usually sRGB and if the color profile changes your RGB data to something else then you have problems.
Buy or borrow "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Fraser and...
It is the bible for these situations!