As soon as photography hit the digital age, the expectations we have with regards to our prints has increased more than ever before. In the days of film, our expectations were tempered by the lack of a tangible basis to compare our prints to. We couldn't look at a negative and compare it to a print as the colors were opposing and the negatives were usually too small to look compare with. For many photographers, we judge our prints as against our memories of the subject we photographed. In many cases, most people would accept the prints they received from the lab as long as the colors were acceptable.

Once we started going digital (via scanning and digital cameras) we could see our captured images on monitors. We see the colors and tones they possess. We are even endowed with a new capability, to totally control how the colors should come out. This increased our expectation a hundred fold. We then expect the same colors and tones to come out when we have the image printed. Unfortunately, as many color-concerned photographers have encountered, what they see isn't often what they get.

There is a solution to the problem though. The science of color management! One can actually control his workflow so that he can achieve accurate colors from capture, to monitor, to print. This forum brings to the fore this technology that has recently began to be introduced into the Philippine photography scene.

Louie,

Excellent introduction and I cannot agree more. There is not enough information about color management in the Philippines. I'm only now beginning to understand color theory and management but have just touched the tip of the iceberg. I have loads of questions to ask and might be hanging around here more than the other categories. Hope you can make the learning curve shorter for all of us. Glad to have you on board!

Nick

I would like to ask how do we use those printer profiles for? Is it for soft proofing only? I think Noritsu machines doesn't accept those profiles.

I would like to ask how do we use those printer profiles for? Is it for soft proofing only? I think Noritsu machines doesn't accept those profiles.

There are basically two ways of using the printer profiles. One is for soft proofing, and another is through converting a file into the printer profile prior to printing.

Which method to use it for depends on what printer you will be using.

Ideally, if the photo lab is color managed (strictly using Color Management technology protocols) then you would only need to use the profiles to softproof. A color managed lab would be using custom made profiles and convert your image files into their profile prior to printing.

Now, if you were using your own desktop printer, then you would be converting your image to your printer profile prior to printing so that the printer could accurately render the colors of your source image.

Now, the Noritsu is a unique system. It is a closed system. Meaning, one cannot integrate a printer profile into the system. But there are ways to work around it. One is to convert your images to the noritsu printer profile yourself before sending it to be printed. This allows you to have print outs with accurate colors. Or you can just use the printer profile for softproofing. This works almost as well. Even though Noritsu's are a closed system, it has its own unique internal color matching mechanism that can give relatively accurate colors. But if you are after really strict color matching, then it would be best to convert to the profile.

One thing though you must bear in mind is that printer profiles are both paper and printer specific. In other words, there is no such thing as a Noritsu Profile - it has to be a Noritsu plus Paper profile. The colors of the Noritsu's output is largely conditioned by the paper it is using. Also, even same models of Noritsu printers do not render colors exactly the same. Thus each machine should have its own custom made profile if you are after the highest level of accuracy.

If you want to find out more information, check out the color management section of http://dpiphotocenter.com - there are instructions on how to use the profiles. And basics on how to get an image to print color match.

Hi Louie,

I'd like to know how important the monitor is in all of this. If what I see on my monitor is not the same as what DPI sees on their monitor, then I assume there is no chance for me to get the prints I want no matter how much I use the profiles. Am I correct in saying this?

For example, assume that I have a new photo of a landscape for a contest. I edit it in my computer to the way I like. I have the sky a nice blue. However, when I get the results from the lab, the sky now has a magenta cast. Assume the lab I went to was DPI which is a fully calibrated facility. What DPI sees on its monitors it gets on its prints. The icc profiles it uses are to characterize its own printers and paper. So what good is this profile to me? I can use it in soft proof in Photoshop but would it matter if DPI and I do not see the same thing?

Hi Louie,

I'd like to know how important the monitor is in all of this. If what I see on my monitor is not the same as what DPI sees on their monitor, then I assume there is no chance for me to get the prints I want no matter how much I use the profiles. Am I correct in saying this?

For example, assume that I have a new photo of a landscape for a contest. I edit it in my computer to the way I like. I have the sky a nice blue. However, when I get the results from the lab, the sky now has a magenta cast. Assume the lab I went to was DPI which is a fully calibrated facility. What DPI sees on its monitors it gets on its prints. The icc profiles it uses are to characterize its own printers and paper. So what good is this profile to me? I can use it in soft proof in Photoshop but would it matter if DPI and I do not see the same thing?


The monitor plays a major part in it. You are right, if the monitors differ then the process becomes quite ineffective. To solve the problem, the monitor should be calibrated and profiled.

In the past, monitor calibration meant adjusting the colors and tones of our monitor to match the output of a particular printer. The problem with that is that if you used a different printer at some point, it wouldn't match. In recent years, the color scientists have advanced technology such that calibration and profiling sets a monitor to a specific set of standards - the basis is human vision. So instead of your monitor's colors being adjusted to match some printer, it is now set to how human vision perceives colors.

Now with that situation, anyone who calibrates and profiles his monitor properly should be able to view an image and see its colors the way it was meant to be viewed. Also, if that image is viewed on someone else's calibrated and profiled monitor, then the colors would be relatively consistent.

I say relatively consistent because there is another factor here that comes into play - the white point or the color temperature we set our monitors to. Human vision sees color in a particular way, but the ambient light also affects the way we see color. The colors we see during the midday sun differs from the colors we see under a late afternoon sun. So, for consistency, it is ideal that all monitors are set to a common white point. The ideal is daylight. There are two options - 5000 degrees kelvin, which is the standard for presses, and 6500 degrees kelvin which is recommended by color management experts. So if your monitor is calibrated within these ranges, then the colors shouldn't be far off from another calibrated monitor.

Okay, so let me ask you this: I work off a iMac G5. I calibrated this monitor to Gamma 2.2 and 6500K but my screen to print match was at best fair when outputting to my Epson inkjet. However, after experimenting, I decided to calibrate to Native Gamma and Native White Point. After doing so, the match was very good.

Since I do my own printing, I work in a closed-loop environment and get a good screen to print match. But will a file edited on my monitor give me a good color match at DPI? I am not calibrated to the standard 5000K or 6500K. And why two standards in the first place? 5000K looks very yellow and I bet that if I edited under that environment, my prints would probably have a cool cast to them since I'd be trying to counter the warmth produced by the monitor.

So what should I calibrate to?

Okay, so let me ask you this: I work off a iMac G5. I calibrated this monitor to Gamma 2.2 and 6500K but my screen to print match was at best fair when outputting to my Epson inkjet. However, after experimenting, I decided to calibrate to Native Gamma and Native White Point. After doing so, the match was very good.

Since I do my own printing, I work in a closed-loop environment and get a good screen to print match. But will a file edited on my monitor give me a good color match at DPI? I am not calibrated to the standard 5000K or 6500K. And why two standards in the first place? 5000K looks very yellow and I bet that if I edited under that environment, my prints would probably have a cool cast to them since I'd be trying to counter the warmth produced by the monitor.

So what should I calibrate to?


First let me ask what tool and application are you using to calibrate your monitor?

Now, if we are working for a color match between monitor and print we have to consider the ambient light we will be viewing the images under. In color managed prepresses their monitors would be calibrated to 5000k and they would have critically controlled viewing booth wherein they have a 5000k light also. They are able to achieve a very high match because the color temperature of their viewing light and their monitor are the same.

In my previous post, I mentioned that many color management experts recommend calibrating to 6500k instead of 5000k precisely because of what you observed, 5000k has a general yellowish tone to it. Now if we have our monitor set to 6500k, we will be able to get a good print match if our viewing light is also 6500k. If not then we would not get a good match.

The seemingly simple solution would be to get a viewing light that is rated at 6500k. Unfortunately, it isn't that simple because there is no perfect 6500k lights. Sorry if this gets a bit technical, but white light is actually made from an even combination of 7 different light frequenciens - red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. The colors of the rainbow. In other words, pure white light has equal amounts of all these wavelengths of light. Unfortunately, since we can't have actual sunlight as a constant viewing light, we have to resort to artificial light sources. The problem is that artificial light sources have limitations.

Fluorescent lights, for example, appear to give white light. If you search for fluorescent bulbs, you could actually find some with a color temperature rated at 6500k. It would seem to solve the problem. Unfortunately, it is not like sunlight where in all wavelengths are equal. In a fluorescent light, though it averages a color temperature of 6500k, there is an imbalance in the levels of the different wavelenghts. The green component is much more dominant. That's why when we shoot with film under fluorescent light, it appears green.

Lights actually have another rating called CRI which stands for Color Rendering Index. The higher the CRI value is, the closer the light is to sunlight in terms of the different wavelenghts (colors) of light being even. Only sunlight is rated at a CRI of 100. Most flourescent bulbs have a CRI of around 60-70 - simply because the different wavenlengths are uneven.

So, if I get a 6500k fluorescent bulb as my viewing light and I calibrate my monitor to 6500k I would still notice a differenc in the colors. For example, if I view a print as against the image on a monitor, the skin tone would appear a little more reddish on the monitor as agains to a little more greenish on the print.

There are two solutions to this problem. First is to find a really good viewing light with the correct color temperature and a very high CRI. Unfortunately, they are hard to find and are quite expensive. Plus most of the high CRi viewing lights available are in the 5000k color temperature. You'd have to order abroad for good 6500k lights.

Now there is another solution, which is to calibrate your monitor to the actual color temperature of your viewing light. Some calibration devices, such as the Monaco Optix XR Pro allows you to measure the actual color values of your viewing light and set your monitor's white point to it. I have actually tried this and it works very very well. Even those that use adobe gamma for calibrating will notice that there is an option to adjust the whtie point to the ambient light.

You mentioned that the native white point of your monitor produced a better match than when set to 6500k. That's probably because the color temperature of your viewing light is closer to the native white point of your monitor.

Louie,

I use Gretag Eye One Photo - with Match 3.6 as the software. I have a GTI viewing booth set to 6500K. The booth is new but since my Mac had a defective part and is being serviced, I haven't had the chance to calibrate it to 6500k to see if I get a good screen to print match.

I would like to know what is your opinion as to the best monitor settings if you plan to have a digital lab print for you. Getting the lab's ICCs are useless unless your monitor is displaying colors correctly. But since there are so many standards around, what in your opinion should we follow?

From one school of thought, there is no definitve standard since the place where the print will be viewed isn't always constant. We might set a standard at 6500k and have a perfect viewing booth also at 6500k, get excellent color match, but then later the prints are viewed under varied lighting conditions.
So, there are some who have really advanced viewing booths wherein they have settings for different color temperatures and can compare how their print will look under 5000k, 6500k, flourescent, tungsten, etc.
For most purposes 6500k would be fine. The GTI viewing booth should work pretty well. The bulbs should have a pretty high CRI rating, although it being basically a flourescent bulb, there would still be a slight imbalance of some of the wavelengths. Still you should get relatively close match.
Now if you want to have a really good match from monitor to print, the best solution I have found was to set the monitor's white point during calibration to the ambient light. I believe your device can measure ambient light off a white card. Best way to do it, would be to use a Gretag Macbeth white card and measure the light of your viewing booth off the card with your calibration device and then set the white point to it. I have found that we can achieve the closest match this way. You might not get an exact color temperature value but a more precise value in terms of x and y coordinates.
Otherwise, if you have a 6500k viewing booth, then set your monitor to 6500k and you should get a relatively close match.

Now you might be wondering what if let's say your monitor is set at 6500k and you have a good match with your viewing light, and let's say the lab has its monitor set at 5000k - would that affect the color of your prints? The answer is no. If both monitors are accurately calibrated and profiled, they are set to display colors as how they are perceived by human vision. That is the standard. The variation would be the color temperature. So that means if it is set at 5000k, that's how human vision would see those colors if it was under 5000k lights. If your monitor is set at 6500k, your image will appear as how human vision would see it at 6500k. The monitors change, but the image remains the same. There is no change in the file itself.
So, if you have your system setup wherein your monitor is accurately calibrated, you have a viewing light that matches the white point of your monitor, plus you have the profiles of the printer installed for softproofing, you actually don't need to worry if the files appear differently on your lab's monitor. The monitor is only for viewing and would not affect the file itself. (Unless you ask the lab to adjust the colors for you). The file would then be converted to the profile prior to printing ( the same profile that you softproofed on your monitor) - the resulting print should then match your image when you view them in your color managed system.

Your comments are good Louie and things are starting to make more sense now.

This is the side of digital photography that most people will not understand. With an expert like you here, we hope the learning curve becomes shorter for all of us.

Thank you for your comments.

Hi Louie, Nick

Interesting opening discussion. Allow me to share my 2 centimos.

Let me start by asking: Would Toscanini or Stokowski play the same musical score in exactly the same way?

The answer will differ depending how initiatied your ears are and how well you know the score. IMV, the same applies to photography.

At the photographer's level, color management brings a certain level of control and consistency to the digital process. At least YOU KNOW that your equipment are showing you images WRT a KNOWN color/tone standard. This enables you to:

1) know the printer's machine bias wrt to tones/colors;

2) estimate the level of adjustments needed for the print;

3) decide if such adjustments are necessary.

In the analog days, fine art photographers preferred to either make their own prints or work exhaustively with a printer to exercise the needed control to create prints they are SATISFIED with. A lot of time/materials are wasted in the process. IMO, the same applies in the digital process today.

In practical terms, my experience suggests its best to convert the color space to srgb if sending the files to most labs in the Philippines. Most machines are calibrated to work in this color space as this is commonly used. The things to watch for are consistency of tones and believability of colors. You may be suprised by the capabilities of these machines.
Soft proofing using a lab's profile allows you to see their machine,s bias and adjust files accordingly. However, it is no guarantee you will get exactly the same colors/tones as shown on your monitor. At the end of the day, nothing beats the actual print to work with. But you already know that. :)

I hope this muddling helps clarify the discussion. ;)

Louie,

Excellent introduction and I cannot agree more. There is not enough information about color management in the Philippines. I'm only now beginning to understand color theory and management but have just touched the tip of the iceberg. I have loads of questions to ask and might be hanging around here more than the other categories. Hope you can make the learning curve shorter for all of us. Glad to have you on board!

Nick

amen to that

whew! this is very hard reading... but i'll reread and reread until i begin to get it... :)

Martin,

Color Management and Theory can be really deep. I am starting to get the hang of it but not in the same league as Louie. He is one of the better ones in the country. And I bet there are even other more intense color "geeks" out there (just joking Louie! ) The stuff is addicting though. Pilar thought I flipped my lid when I instructed our contractor to paint the walls of our new office to a medium gray. I don't want any color to throw off the colors on my monitor!

I suggest to start a new thread and ask whatever question you want. There is much to learn.

wow... very informative sir.

Re: Can I save on ink by resizing my image file(s) before printing?

The Image Size(s) of my jpeg file(s) are 3872 x 2592.

Would I be able to save on ink by resizng the images down to 639 x 428 (or 640 x 480) before printing , instead of printing them at their present size(s) of 3872 x 2592?

I am a newbie in the block and I hope that I have presented my question logically.

Your input in this regard would be highly appreciated.

Paper Size: 4 x 6
Printer(s): HP PhotoSmart 8250
Epson R280

Re: Can I save on ink by resizing my image file(s) before printing?

The Image Size(s) of my jpeg file(s) are 3872 x 2592.

Would I be able to save on ink by resizng the images down to 639 x 428 (or 640 x 480) before printing , instead of printing them at their present size(s) of 3872 x 2592?

I am a newbie in the block and I hope that I have presented my question logically.

Your input in this regard would be highly appreciated.

Paper Size: 4 x 6
Printer(s): HP PhotoSmart 8250
Epson R280

You are actually making the image harder to print since there is less info present.

What dictates inks consumption would basically be the surface area of the paper to be covered and the print quality setting (i.e. best photo quality vs. draft mode :D).

Cheers!

Jo Avila

You are actually making the image harder to print since there is less info present.

What dictates inks consumption would basically be the surface area of the paper to be covered and the print quality setting (i.e. best photo quality vs. draft mode :D).

Cheers!

Jo Avila


Thank you so much. Now I see the picture (no pun intended).

I'll try using the 'Normal' mode.

Marami pong salamat.

Ben Rose

Thank you so much. Now I see the picture (no pun intended).

I'll try using the 'Normal' mode.

Marami pong salamat.

Ben Rose

Just a minor nitpick :D

I print some of my images on Canon Pixma inkjet printers. The color profile you select for a Pixma varies according to the print quality level you have selected.

That's why the color profiles that come bundled with Canon Pixma inkjet printers have number suffixes that indicate print quality setting.

HTH.

Cheers!

Jo Avila