Print Gamma not Matching Monitor?

Hello all,

For some time now one thing I have noticed is that in my pictures with a lot of shadow detail, I tend to get a much different gamma curve in my print than on my monitor.

My monitor is an NEC P221W and is calibrated with the I1 Display 3 and Spectraview II with good results. The monitor profile is loaded as the default in the color management in Windows. The calibrated gamma is 2.2...perhaps I should be using 1.8 for printing?

I just got a new print in and I am happy with the result but I can't get over the large different in the shadow areas that I can never seem to predict.

Here is the picture and the print picture. The picture of the picture is a tad more extreme than it actually is as the picture is not being hit with direct sunlight which makes a big difference.

What do you guys think?

From a commercial source? If so, do they have a printer profile on line? If not, maybe you should check some other sources.

Sometimes I'll send a print in on Monday, & then send it in again later in the week & check to see if they match.
Starting with a known standard is always a good idea just to be sure everything is on track: See the test files at the bottom of...
http://www.gballard.ne​t/psd/srgbforwww.html
Then you can be sure that what you're printing is really what you think you're printing. ; )

This print came from WHCC

whcc printer profiles

I'll have to recheck the profiles but I don't recall them changing the gamma curve significantly. I did talk to WHCC and they did say they recommend 1.8 gamma for printing purposes. I'll try that curve and see what that looks like and how it compares.

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #17664706
My monitor is an NEC P221W and is calibrated with the I1 Display 3 and Spectraview II with good results.

On what basis are you saying the results are good?

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #17664706
Hello all,

My monitor is an NEC P221W and is calibrated with the I1 Display 3 and Spectraview II with good results. The monitor profile is loaded as the default in the color management in Windows. The calibrated gamma is 2.2...perhaps I should be using 1.8 for printing?

When you open up the Information Window for SpectraView II what is the calibrated result for intensity and contrast ratio? For my room lighting and for a glossy print I'd be at 100 cd/m^2 and around 300:1. However, to get the desired contrast ratio I typically have to target something quite different ... for example to get a calibrated result of around 225-250:1, which is what I use for editing when creating a luster print, I need to target 350:1.

I use Gamma = 2.2 and D65 white point.

I home print using an Epson R3000 and my prints (when viewed under the correct lighting) match what I see on my monitor. I also got a consistently good match when I used EZPrints through SmugMug.

Damo77 wrote in post #17665224
On what basis are you saying the results are good?

^^This.

kirkt wrote in post #17665615
^^This.

I say the results are good because I've used multiple sensors and across multiple calibrations the results are very consistent and the delta E is always around .5 provided the monitor has warmed up sufficiently.

I'm going to try to reduce my brightness a bit and also try gamma 1.8 and see how it works. I took a look at the print in better lighting and its closer than the iphone picture shows above. It's still darker in the shadow areas though and that's mainly where I am trying to fix this issue.

This means that your sensors have been able to interact with your software to reach your target values. The question is: what are your target values and how do they relate to the output your are trying to match with your display? The software and hardware device may be able to adjust your display to get close matches to your targets, but if you do not choose the correct target values for your specific output device, then your display and prints will not match, no matter how small the delta-E report is for your display compared to the test pattern your puck measures.

kirk