Help! print to warm and dark

As long as they are expecting it, I would guess it wouldn't matter. Either you do it or they will do it.

I just send mine in sRGB since I do not want to be dependent on making sure I always have their most up to date printer profile.

I said I would post the report from my calibration reports. They are:-

Uncalibrated response:
Black level = 0.29 cd/m^2
White level = 98.84 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.36
Contrast ratio = 346:1

Calibrated response:
Black level = 0.08 cd/m^2
White level = 10.62 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.12
Contrast ratio = 138:1

These seem wildly different and different figures from the last calibration. It even seems that the uncalibrated settings are closer to correct, but I am not really sure what they should be.

I had a problem with the black point calibration and I remember reading that with an LCD there are no Black Point Offsets (what ever that means) and so it is almost impossible to set a black point with an LCD.

I am getting the feeling that there is some sort of conflict between the windows software, the ATI video software/driver and the calibration software. Since reformatting my Hard drive and installing Windows 7 and the latest ATI drivers I keep getting a warning about an ATI?????.exe screenlogger from my firewall. I recall that I couldn't just download the video card driver but had to install the full ATI software package including their colour management program. I am beginning to think this must be part of the problem. I wonder whether a new graphics card etc may be the only solution?

Just another thought?

Can anyone suggest how I test my calorimeter as huey already accepted that the first model was faulty?

Read this by the quintessential expert, IMHO, http://www.luminous-landscape.com …_my_prints_too_​dark.shtml

chauncey wrote in post #11818097
Read this by the quintessential expert, IMHO, http://www.luminous-landscape.com …_my_prints_too_​dark.shtml

Thanks Chauncy, The tutorial was interesting, but I have made a few tests this weekend and think that the problem lies with the monitor. I am not sure that it is something that I can overcome.

I tried linking up the monitor as a seperate display on another laptop. The images generated by both the desk top and laptop are identical. I am using the Fuji test print supplied by my print house and comparing it to the output on the screen of the same image. I have cranked the brightness down to its lowest setting and regardless of the calibration the greens and aquas are far too bright. I assume the other colours are out as well but it is more noticeable with the green tints.

The test print image is shown at http://i1233.photobuck​et.com …auled/monitor_c​al-web.jpg

A sreen shot of the best acheivable colurs is at http://i1233.photobuck​et.com …losehauled/Scre​enshot.jpg

I can only assume that as a number of people have intimated that the monitor is not up to the job. Unless anyone has any other suggestions.

Windward wrote in post #11835893
I can only assume that as a number of people have intimated that the monitor is not up to the job. Unless anyone has any other suggestions.

Re-read the very first reply to your original post. Many EXTREMELY afforadable 23" and 24" IPS monitors out there.

ChasP505 wrote in post #11836024
Re-read the very first reply to your original post. Many EXTREMELY afforadable 23" and 24" IPS monitors out there.

Not really sure that "told you so" is what I meant regarding other suggestions. I am sure that there are a large number of us who have had to struggle through the marketing hype. In so many circumstances when advice is asked for on choice of monitor, the standard elitist response is "go to apple". So I guess that I am not the first who has not got the equipment they have been led to believe they were getting. But thanks for your advice anyway!

Windward wrote in post #11835893
The test print image is shown at http://i1233.photobuck​et.com …auled/monitor_c​al-web.jpg

A sreen shot of the best acheivable colurs is at http://i1233.photobuck​et.com …losehauled/Scre​enshot.jpg

Neither image has an embedded profile.

The "screenshot" displays dark and with a magenta cast here.

René Damkot wrote in post #11839547
Neither image has an embedded profile.

The "screenshot" displays dark and with a magenta cast here.

I thought that both images had an sRGB profile embedded, don't know why they are missing. The test image is available here.

http://www.dscolourlab​s.co.uk/images/calibra​tion_image.jpg

I haven't edited the screenshot as I just wanted to give a rough view of what I am seeing. I will check that a profile is embedded and save it again in Photobucket.

When a print of the test image is viewed in daylight the green is a good solid green but, as you will hopefully see in the screen shot, on my monitors the colours are luminous as if "backlit" (which they obviously are)!

http://i1233.photobuck​et.com …losehauled/scre​enshot.jpg
http://i1233.photobuck​et.com …auled/monitor_c​al-web.jpg

Links to the images with sRGB profile embedded

Windward wrote in post #11839212
In so many circumstances when advice is asked for on choice of monitor, the standard elitist response is "go to apple". So I guess that I am not the first who has not got the equipment they have been led to believe they were getting. But thanks for your advice anyway!

I'm far from an elitist, using a $225 Dell monitor. And the words "go to Apple" would never come from my lips. I've been building my own PCs for nearly 15 years.

My good intentions were to suggest that you return the Acer while still new and spend the same amount of money on a more suitable monitor for color managed photo editing.

Windward wrote in post #11839626
Links to the images with sRGB profile embedded

Nope. I think Photobucket might strip the profile... Although the linked image also doesn't have a profile. So you should assign sRGB when opening it in PS.

Then again, I'm not surprised the patches of "solid" colors look different on the print: They are probably way out of the printers gamut. You should see a change when you softproof for (or convert to) the printers profile in that case.

Windward wrote in post #11817049
I said I would post the report from my calibration reports. They are:-

Uncalibrated response:
Black level = 0.29 cd/m^2
White level = 98.84 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.36
Contrast ratio = 346:1

Calibrated response:
Black level = 0.08 cd/m^2
White level = 10.62 cd/m^2
Aprox. gamma = 2.12
Contrast ratio = 138:1

Missed this post.
Must be a few typo's in there?
Black level of 0.08 is lower then any LCD I know will do at normal settings.
White level of 10.62 is almost black

For CRT, go for about 80-100 Cd/msq, for (cheaper) LCD 120 to 140Cd/msq

René Damkot wrote in post #11840663
Missed this post.
Must be a few typo's in there?
Black level of 0.08 is lower then any LCD I know will do at normal settings.
White level of 10.62 is almost black

I saw that too... But look at the contrast ratio. It seems to prove out these unbelievable numbers.

I have a cheap Acer monitor tied to a second computer, and as soon as I profiled it to D50 instead of D65, my problems were solved. It works great now.

I have tried calibrating and profiling using the dispcalgui/argyll software and used a range of settings, including a colour temp of 5000k and 6500k. The settings above were with the brightness cranked right down , contrast at about 80% and an ambient of 33lux.

I tried for the following settings:-

Display type is LCD
Target white = native white point
Target white brightness = 120.000000 cd/m^2
Target black brightness = 0.500000 cd/m^2
Target advertised gamma = 2.200000

With the software (for an LCD) you adjust the following:-

Display adjustment menu:
Press 1 .. 7
1) Black level (CRT: Offset/Brightness)
2) White point (Color temperature, R,G,B, Gain/Contrast)
3) White level (CRT: Gain/Contrast, LCD: Brightness/Backlight)
4) Black point (R,G,B, Offset/Brightness)

White level first (achieved), White point (achieved) and then black point (closest possible)

But when I compared the print and the image, the colours were still too bright and softproofing with the printshop profile, whilst it did change the colours dramatically,the colour was so washed out and no way dark enough. I couldn't look at a soft proof and say ok thats what I want the print to look like. "simulate paper colour" etc. was set to on, but when switched off the colours seemed further away, as they were brighter.

I then reset to all the factory settings and tried to reduce the brightness, RGB settings to the minimum brightness and fiddled with the individual gamma, brightness and contrast for each Red, Green and Blue channel using the ATI colour manager. There wasn't any way that I could get the colours as dark or saturated as the printed output. I just don't think the monitor is capable of it.

The reports from the dispcalgui/argyll software are so complex it is way over my head. I have experimented with various settings and I don't know if if I am just going round in circles. I suppose I had better just admit it's all a bit too complex for me and I don't know what I'm doing.