Monitor Calibration

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Sorry, I know I've asked this before, but I tried some of the options people provided and nothings working. All the images I print are significantly different from what they look like on my screen.

I'm editing with a UXGA LCD screen on my Dell Inspiron 5150 laptop that's 2 years old. Not sure if that's useful information, but oh well.

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong, but I've tried those manual programs where you adjust the levels until the two boxes merge or what ever. I re-did them over and over and over again trying to get it right, but it never works.

Is there some sort of fool proof solution? Are laptop screens just hard to calibrate in general?

[condyk]

I have an Epson R300 that produces great, sharp colourful prints. They do look a tad different to what I see on screen if I was being picky, but neither better nor worse so I'm not that fussed really. Are you saying the print outs are rubbish or just different? If the latter, then does it matter that much? If the former .... sorry, hope you find a solution.

[tim]

Have you tried calibration hardware? If so, what went wrong? If not... there's your answer.

[myth337]

Find some color test pattern images. there may be one in this forum somewhere, I had one.. but can't find it now.

Print it and tell us exactly what is different from the image on the screen. Are the reds too faded?? blues too green?? whites a bit yellow?? blacks a bit grey??

I have an Epson Stylus Photo 1270 A3 printer, and the prints that I get out of this, (of course depending on paper and print settings) look like they were peeled off my monitors. (two 17" Sony HS74P, on my iMac / PowerBook / PC with Win2k and Win98 )

if I am just using my PowerBook for example, I can get the colors to look good.. but when I plug in the LCD beside it.. they look totally diferent.. night and day. The Whites on my PowerBook look white when I am only using the built in monitor, but beside the Sony, they look yellow. Your eyes compensate for the colors, and if you don't have a comparison, your brain will adjust its perception.

There are three different computers with three different operating systems, and each of them have their own monitor color settings, and of course printer drivers. I went thru 5 different monitors to get two that looked close. The one has really black blacks, while the other has a background lighting level that I can't seem to reduce enough, but it works well.

Either way... once you can see where the differences are between the monitor image and the print out, you can see where you have to compensate. There are settings for the printer, the monitor, and for the image editing application.. (for PS Elements.. changing the Color Settings has a MAJOR impact on how the image looks, and will definitely have an effect on the printout.) I clicked around with this setting, and the picture that was vibrant red on the web browser looked faded in PS Elements. If you then pushed the saturation up to make it look good on screen, what would it look like on the printout??

.. Lee

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I printed out one of those color testing charts and basically all the colors appear far more vibrant on my LCD screen than they do in the print. The reds, greens, blues, they're just brighter or darker and more rich in color. On my screen the light blues are more light, the dark blues are darker, the blacks are pitch black and rich, the greys are a perfect vibrant light gray.

On the print, the greys seem a lot darker than they do on my LCD and the blacks seem a lot lighter than they do on my lcd.

I also printed out a picture of a bird with a lot of folliage around it and it over all seemed a lot lighter than it did on my LCD. The colors weren't as rich and vibrant. All the beautiful dark pink leafs were dulled down and a light pink more on the white side and the beautiful browns and blacks on the bird were also dulled down. The colors just didn't pop anymore.

Does this help anyway?

[robertwgross]

On the print, the greys seem a lot darker than they do on my LCD and the blacks seem a lot lighter than they do on my lcd.


That describes an error in gamma, which is the way that blacks, grays, and whites are represented. There is normally a big difference between the gamma on a CRT versus LCD.

---Bob Gross---

[myth337]

OK.. lets get a few specifics:
what operating system are you running?
what image program are you using?
what printer are you using?
what ink (original or 3rd party) are you printing with?
what paper are you printing on?
what printer settings are you using?

give me a link to a picture, maybe the bird, with the colors adjusted to your taste, and I'll see what it looks like on my (3 lcd, 1crt) monitors, and maybe a printout.

.. Lee

[KurtKuhn]

I suggest Real World Color Management, Second Edition, by Bruce Fraser, Chris Murphy, & Fred Bunting for truly understanding what it entails to get reasonably accurate color representation in your workflow. My post has it's roots in a suggestion on Norman Koren's web site.

-KK

[myth337]

Yes.. the Norman Koren website and this test print were what I was thinking of...

http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Printer%20Test%20file.jpg.zip

with this.. we can start from a common point, and see what happens. If you open this file, and it looks fine to you, make sure you use the embedded Color Profile, then you can print it... and see what kind of differences specifically there are.

I opened it in PhotoShop Elements 2, and used the embedded color profile. I then opened it in my Preview application, and the pink top the girl is wearing is much more saturated. Same image, same operating system, different color management settings.

If I were to print this image from these two applications, they would both produce different results.

Give me the info in my other post.. and we can see what you are working with.

.. Lee

[Sathi]

I would think the colours on a monitor would always be more rich and vibrant. Your talking about a device that emits light as opposed to a piece of paper that reflects light. Its kinda like looking at a picture of a neon sign...sure it might look cool, but its never going to glow like the real thing. Not to say that there isn't allot you can do with calibration.

[myth337]

but its never going to glow like the real thing.
hehe... you haven't checked out some of the results from the glow fan club ;)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I'm running windows XP home edition
For RAW's I use Digital Photo Professional and RawShooter essentials
For editing I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 2.0
Printer is an old HP psc 1210 all-in-on
Using HP ink black and color cartridges
Printing on some old Royal Brites high gloss photo paper
And printer settings.... I just tell it to print at "best" quality.

Here's the picture of the bird on my website;
http://rbrtptikleoseny.smugmug.com/gallery/602540

I'll remove the copy right protection until tonight so you can save as it and print it if you need too.

Thanks for the help!

[lancea]

Going back to your first post - I too tried to calibrate my monitor using the software methods and test charts on various web sites. I was pretty happy with my efforts, but not completely. Last week I got a X-Rite Monaco Optix XR Pro and was amazed how different things became once I'd properly profiled the monitor. At least if you start with known good colour on your LCD you can take it from there using test prints to get your printer results right.

There's lots of reasons why the software methods are difficult to use, and I found the web-based gamma test charts to be a waste of time.

Even if you don't buy a colorimeter, you might find the Optix XR support area of the x-rite site quite useful. See http://www.xrite.com/support_front.aspx?line=16&SearchPart=607. Under the top heading you'll find an "answer" for "Print does not match display" and under the "Monitor Calibration Queries" heading there's a similar one for the print being lighter or darker. Also interesting stuff about colour temperature and whitepoints.

[myth337]

I looked up a review on your printer, which said "sharp details and vivid colors", so this should work. Good paper and original ink should do as well.

DPP works for me on Mac OS X, don't know about RawShooter though.

Got the file.. I have PS Elements 2 as well... which says your file has an embedded color profile sRGB IEC61966-2.1... and it looks fine on my system.

Here is a composite..

Tell me which number looks like the one on your system...
and which one looks faded,
and which one looks too saturated.

oh.. almost forgot.. the shot of the bird is really great!!

.. Lee

[lancea]

Pleasure Hugh. I should also say that the Pro version is really overkill for me and it was considerably more expensive. The only difference is the software. You might also want to try the www.MeasureItRite.com (http://www.measureitrite.com/) link on that page. They have free slideshows with quizes. Most are about their products, but a couple are on colour theory. Not advanced, but anything's an education for me :)

[tim]

I've ordered the standard model of the Monaco thingy, "only" US$200. Was waiting until battery grips were in stock, and got me a 12-24 on the way too :)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Ouch! Monaco is expensive! I'm guessing it's pretty darn good though huh? Must be for that price.

Anyway, myth thanks for the help so far and to answer your questions;
#1 is pretty much an exact match to what it looks like on my screen.
#4 looks the most faded
#3 is the most saturated.

Thanks so far!

[lancea]

Ouch! Monaco is expensive!
Cheaper than most things I see discussed in these forums :) It does seem to work pretty well, although the "correct" colours take some getting used to - especially the yellowish whites.

[tim]

Does the screen look like prints? If your whites are near yellow that can't be right, surely?

[lancea]

I thought you read every post Tim ;) I was discussing a few days ago in the "Monaco thread" how the X-Rite site confirms that yellowish whites are correct for a monitor calibrated for a colour temperature of 6500K. Pretty much every monitor (as you buy it) is set for around 9300K. Makes your whites whiter than white, brighter than bright!

[tim]

I read every post, but I have a terrible memory ;) So if you hold a white piece of paper next to the monitor, it looks yellow?

It's probably not going to be an issue for an LCD, is it? I must learn some more about color some time.

[lancea]

That's all right then! Yeah. They'll look the same only if it's an old bit of paper ;) Not yellow yellow, but noticably less "white". The most common monitor white is described as being blue. That's the other funny thing (and was also explained on the X-Rite support site) - the white cursor arrow now looks a very light blue. I can't think why a calibrated LCD would be any different. The other standard temperature is 5000K, but I hate to think what that would look like to the unaccustomed eye.

[tim]

Do your prints and monitor match?

[myth337]

The eye / brain adjust automatically to the white. My PowerBook is right beside my Sony monitor, which has been calibrated (more or less) and there is a pronounced blue tint on the Sony, with a pronounced yellow tint on the PowerBook LCD. If I am just using the Sony, white appears normal. If I am just using the Powerbook, it also appears normal.

You can test this with a good pair of sunglasses I have 3 different pairs, one of which are Serengeti Drivers. When I first put these on, I see whites with a slight pinkish/brown color, but after a few minutes, the colors are back to normal, and white appears white. The brain adjusts the input from the eye to compensate for any external influences, and balances the colors to what it thinks is right.
(the other pairs, although not cheap.. are more dark lenses than filters... and just color everything grey / green, which is why I love my Serengeti's)

Anyway.. back to the original question... what would you other guys say to the colors here??

In the picture... #1 is the original setting, which although it has pretty colors, isn't what I would call vibrant or rich
#2 is + saturation, #3 is ++, and #4 is -, just to get a common visual opinion / reference.

.. Lee

[myth337]

I read every post, but I have a terrible memory ;) So if you hold a white piece of paper next to the monitor, it looks yellow?

It's probably not going to be an issue for an LCD, is it? I must learn some more about color some time.
the color of the paper would also depend on the lighting in the room.. incandescent.. flourescent.. halogen.. Osram white light... or whatever.

I have an Osram special light on my desk, and it has a totally different color temp than the other lights, and white is definitely white with this bulb.

... and there are several colors of white paper... but the photo paper should all be a good white. ;)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

o_o..... never knew there was so much to colors.....

[myth337]

o_o..... never knew there was so much to colors.....
Actually.. the colors are easy, once we get the White set properly.

Anyway.. if you printed the small picture, which number would match the original on your monitor?

As I said... #1 is not what I would call vibrant... and looks kind of subdued to me, with a kind of pastel pink color.

#2 had the saturation kicked up by 15 or 20, not sure now, and #3 was another 15 or 20 on top of that. (total of +30 to 40 from image #1) and #4 saturation is -15 or so from the original image.

I'm trying to figure out if your monitor has too much or your printer not enough. then we can see how to fix the color profile for the one that isn't right.

.. Lee

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

The print out appears to be somewhere inbetween 2 and 4.

[myth337]

hmm... if 1 was your original.. 2 and 4 were about 20 + saturation... and that is what was printed?? Hmmm...
have to think a bit...

[TxLerman]

I recently had the same issue, the color on the monitor and prints did not match. I was able to improve the situation alot with these three steps. The first thing I did was do research on this site a few others. The second thing I did was get a SpyderPro2 and calibrated my monitor. Really closed the gap between the monitor and the printer. Third thing I did was make sure I had the correct ICC profile for my printer/paper/ink combination. The gap between the monitor and the printer is really small now.

Other things to consider:

Is your printer produce photo quality prints? My canon i9900 has 8 separate ink tanks where my old HP only had red, green & blue. Really made a difference.

Do you have a good ICC Profile for your printer/ink/paper combination? That matters alot. You can obtain one by printing a standard test picture and sending it out for profiling.

Before you print, do you check your picture for gamut warnings? It is possible that you are producing a color on the monitor that your printer can not reproduce.

One thing I have learned from all of this is that color management is more a black art than a science!

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Woah... alright, my printer probably sucks. It has a black ink tank, and a color ink tank. That's it. I also have absolutely no clue what an ICC Profile is.... nore do I know what a gamut is.... I never thought getting good prints would be so difficult! Guess I should spend a good week or so researching the heck out of this......

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Ok, I've been wanting a new printer for a while anyway and I know this wont fix my monitor problem but I'd like to know what some of you would suggest as a good photo printer. The one I have now leaves streaks in the photos. It's annoying. Anyway, anything between $0-$600 is duable.

[myth337]

Read a review that said his printer did photos well..
I have been looking at the ICC profile for the printer he has as the probable culprit... trying to see how to check it...
.. and like most things in life.. I try to bring light into the darkness!! sometimes I do it, too!!

in one bright flash... ;)

[myth337]

replacing the printer is easy.. but it doesn't answer the question as to what doesn't fit.
give us a bit to track down the profile problem, and take your time looking for a way to spend more money on a new printer.

[lancea]

Do your prints and monitor match?
I don't do a heck of a lot of printing at the moment. Most have been for friends and family from my very neat little Selphy CP500. Colours look great without worrying whether they are an exact match - but looks pretty close anyway. Even the odd print I've done on my DeskJet 895Cxi looks good colour-wise. One day I might investigate printer profiles, but as others have said you have to do them for each type of paper. Inks will come into it too although you'd hope that the genuine cartidges are pretty well matched from batch to batch. Then you can buy a profile for the 20D, but really I imagine you should get a custom one ... My brain starts hurting when I think of all the variations, but for now I'm happy with just the monitor profiled. If I start noticing a problem with prints (once I buy a new inkjet) then I might start thinking about that side of things.

[tim]

I have a Canon pixma 5000, or something like that, it comes with profiles for the different types of Canon paper. Prints look pretty good, but I still use a commercial lab most of the time. I got it mainly for printing on CDs.

[myth337]

I really hate to say it.. but I print stuff from all kinds of sources from OS X on my iMac and PowerBook, to an Epson Photo 1270 A3 printer, and the only bad prints that I have ever made were when one of the ink jets was plugged. click the clean button on the tools program, and re-print.. perfect every time. (well.. so good that I never had to re-print anything.)
(and before I use any more A3 paper, I do a nozzle check to make sure they are all clear....)

The blacks that come out on heavy matte paper look like black velvet. I never really had to work to get things right. It just works.