Save & earn with MPB this Christmas; trade-in and buy pre-loved

colour balance


steve21 19 6
3 Aug 2002 7:56PM
when i scan negs the colour on monitor looks fine
but when i print the colours are very deep
i use photoshop elaments
epson 890 printer
jessops 1800 scanner
i am new to this so any help is thankfuly received
PHD 19 116 United Kingdom
4 Aug 2002 1:27AM
This is probably the bigest problem in digital photography. What you see on the screen is not what you get in the print. Firstly you have got to balance your screen to the printer. To do this your first 'port of call' is 'Adobe Gamma' which you can find in 'Control Panels' Follow the instructions and then after setting up your screen, do a print. Compare your print to the screen image, it is unlikely that you have a perfect match. You then need to try and match the print to the screen, again using 'Adobe Gamma' If you have a high quality monitor you should be close to a match, but it won't be perfect.
Barrie Thomas has a CD that explains all of the above, which you might find useful. He goes in to a procedure called 'Ring around' and for me this is the best way to get a print matching what you see on the screen.
Good luck!
mad-dogs 19 2.2k England
10 Aug 2002 11:07PM
Steve,

Your monitor displays colours using red/green/blue ( RGB ) guns while your printer uses CYMK ( cyan/magenta/yellow/contant [black])

The RGB spectrum of colours will cover a greater range than CMYK. Sometimes when you visit the colour pickers, you will get an ' out of gamut' warning. This means that the colour will most likely display in RGB on the monitor but will not print in CMYK.

You can convert the image onscreen to CMYK mode Image>mode>CMYK colour and get a rough indication of what the image will look like.

Quite often, you will notice banding, which can to some extent be covered up by adding a little noise via the Filter menu.

I don't know what colour settings are available for Elements, but in Photoshop, you can change the settings for the CMYK output.
ie. Euroscale Coated V2 or set up your custom colour spaces .

regards

Dave
====
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
14 Aug 2002 4:54AM
I know everybody talks about using Adobe Gama to calibrate the monitor buts it's still quite subjective - trying to adjust boxes of colour so they merge with the background (unless you've tried it you won't know what I mean) is not exactly an exact science.

In frustration, I printed one of my images several times making a number of adjustments of until I was happy with the printed result.

I then used the printed version and made monitor adjustments (most good monitors allow you to change brightness, contrast, colour temp) until I got a good match. I think using this rather crude method with Adobe Gamma is the way forward.
absurd 19 228 United Kingdom
22 Sep 2002 2:24PM
I note that the magazine Digital Photo Art has an advert for a Digital Print Tuner (19.95). Has anyone got any views on it, such as, does it work and is it worth investing in a copy?
peterkent 19 117
22 Sep 2002 3:41PM
I would not agree that matching the monitor to the print output is the best way to go. Something needs to be constant in the equation and it's best if that is the monitor. At least you know that you are producing colours more or less the same as other people (particularly if used in emails or on the web). Getting the print output to match the monitor is the correct method.
Peter.
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
22 Sep 2002 4:31PM
Persoanlly, I wouldn't try matching the print to the monitor. It's the monitor that is most likely to vary. The printed output is obviously the most important thing to you as you wouldn't be trying to print the image and therefore it is crucial the printed result looks correct, not what it looks like on the screen. If the screen image is more important to you, then yes, the monitor MUST be correct. It depends entirely on what you are trying toachieve. As I say, you are trying to obtain a print you are happy with so I still believe you should calibrate the monitor so that it matches your print.

This works for me but the guy that comes up with the definitive foolproof method of doing this will be as rich as Croesus (or Mr Adobe)
peterkent 19 117
23 Sep 2002 6:40PM
Barrie's method works if you want to remain in a closed loop and keep your work to yourself. If, however, you want to share work with the outside world, it's vital that your monitor roughly equates with those of everybody else. Adobe gamma may not be perfect but monitors calibrated using this method have much less variation than the average printed output. If you don't calibrate your monitor, then Adobe's colour management system is fruitless and you can't get your work to print anywhere else either.
Peter.
BOB S 19 2.6k
23 Sep 2002 11:13PM
I have had this issue for years until I discovered Monaco EZ Colour profiling software. With this package you set up profiles for all the equipment that you use as well as the various paper types - hey presto - very very close to right first time. (certainly less prints than I would produce in the darkroom to get a good un !)
www.monacosys.com Be prepared for a price shock however !!!
BOB S 19 2.6k
23 Sep 2002 11:15PM
Sorry I forgot to say I use a Minolta Scan Elite II and a Epson 1290 printer
mpdragon 19 22
23 Nov 2002 5:42PM
Hi - just spotted this rather old thread. I've got the same as Steve21, Elements (though version 2)& an 890, plus an Olympus C700 camera. My other half has Photoshop 7, an Epson photo Ex & a Canon S30. We took an identical photo, standing side by side, both our monitors are calibrated with Adobe Gamma, & we use the same paper and identical print settings. We then printed both images on each system. On my set up, his photo is fine while mine is sort of reddish purple, but both are ok on his printer.

I've checked drivers for the 890, but it seems I have the latest one. Does this info pinpoint where the problem lies? I seem to get better results if I reduce the magenta by 20, but this doesn't explain why his prints are ok on my 890!

Thanks.
icctech 19 1
30 Nov 2002 10:48PM
Steve,

I have to agree with Bob S. A closed loop approach to correcting color is not the best way to go. The best way to get all of your devices communicating color effectively is to create a custom ICC profile for each device (with profiling software, not by eye), and in the case of your printer - a profile for every combination of paper and resolution setting you plan on using. Monaco EZcolor is the reigning champion on the low end and it works great for most inkjet printers unless they are wide format, dye sublimation or pigment based. Profiles can also be purchased from companies like ProfileCity, but that's a one shot deal and you basically throw your money down the drain if something goes wrong in the profiling process.

A note about the Gamut Warning in PS: gamut warning works off the default CMYK space chosen in your Photoshop color settings. Most print drivers convert RGB data to CMYK data, which means that your profile will be an RGB profile and your gamut warning will be ineffective. Even though your printer uses CMYK inks, the characteristics of those inks on your paper will be very different from those defined by the generic CMYK profiles supplied by Photoshop. You can use the soft proofing feature in Photoshop, however (by selecting your custom profile under View/Proof Setup/Custom) to see a very accurate preview of how your out-of-gamut colors will be remapped.

Cheers,
tech@icchelp.com

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.