Help with printer colour matching

[PhilH04]

For example using the Colormunki, when you initially print the test chart it brings up the default printer dialogue where you pick the closest paper type. This is the default processing/hardware settings the custom profile is based on

Not as far as I am aware, the media type dictates how much ink is laid down, it has nothing to do with a 'default profile', when the chart is printed it needs to be printed with no colour management either by the application or the driver. I still do not understand where you are getting this 'default profile' from.

Bullet point #3 is basically saying that if you softproof using your custom profile and print using the same printer dialogue settings the results should be the same... they are the foundation of/part of the custom profile.

Eh? Bullet point 3 is simply saying to note the settings used in the print dialogue so that the same settings are used when printing using that profile, nothing to do with soft proofing....

To repeat:

In LR when you soft proof a virtual copy is created which gives you a simulation of how your file will print using that profile, you refine the soft proof to give the best result that you can, this may involve adjusting contrast, pulling some out of gamut colours into gamut etc. these refinements are carried out on the underlying file.

For that file to print correctly it needs to be fed to the printer driver via that same profile which you select in the print module.

I really am having difficulty understanding your interpretation on colour management and the use of profiles.

BTW did you know that the new software for the i1 Studio works with the ColourMunki Photo hardware...

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Having printed a few more a4 images I am finding strangely rewarding. The only issue now is that I want something that prints bigger! The Canon imagePro 1000 looks a beast

 

[gerry s]

A2 is a beautiful size.... but then you get used to it and want bigger

 

[gerry s]

I remember seeing the tom hunter exhibition at the npg I think they were 6ftx4ft inkjets and I wanted one immediately.... still do

 

[PhilH04]

Having printed a few more a4 images I am finding strangely rewarding. The only issue now is that I want something that prints bigger! The Canon imagePro 1000 looks a beast

Hehe... you must resist, you must resist I have to keep telling my self that I do not need A2 prints oh and I cannot afford the extension I would need to house one....

Printing can be addictive, glad you are finding it rewarding.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Hehe... you must resist, you must resist I have to keep telling my self that I do not need A2 prints oh and I cannot afford the extension I would need to house one....

Printing can be addictive, glad you are finding it rewarding.

Just seen the price of inks too, you
Can can get a Pro 100 for the same as a set of pro 1000 inks

 

[Bebop]

Having printed a few more a4 images I am finding strangely rewarding. The only issue now is that I want something that prints bigger! The Canon imagePro 1000 looks a beast

I am exactly the same. I'm fairly new to home printing and I am loving it

 

[sk66]

Not as far as I am aware, the media type dictates how much ink is laid down, it has nothing to do with a 'default profile'

When you print the test charts, the printer is interpreting/converting the data for a paper type, right? That is the default profile... the characteristics of that particular hardware system (printer/inks). And it must be included as part of the new profile. It serves the same purpose as a printer profile supplied from a print shop (why would there be a difference?)

Eh? Bullet point 3 is simply saying to note the settings used in the print dialogue so that the same settings are used when printing using that profile, nothing to do with soft proofing....

You're right, it says nothing about softproofing (but it is still part of it). It's saying you have to use the same print dialogue settings that were used to create the profile in order to get "accurate results" when using the profile.
But if you print using application manages color and your new paper profile from PS the printer dialogue never comes up. And if you print using printer manages w/ your new profile in the dialogue, the "settings" are apparently different... But it still works, because the settings in the new paper profile are the same as what was originally in the printer dialogue.

Look at it this way...
When you create the profile you have, RGB data to the printer, which interprets it with some adjustment for paper type. For the new profile to work it must also be "RGB data to the printer, which interprets it with some adjustment for paper type."
It cannot be RGB data, color modification (profile), then to the printer... that's what a monitor profile does (calibrates the hardware). If it did do that it would be RGB data, color modification (softproofing), color modification (profile), printer; which would be double color management.

 

[PhilH04]

When you print the test charts, the printer is interpreting/converting the data for a paper type, right? That is the default profile... the characteristics of that particular hardware system (printer/inks). And it must be included as part of the new profile. It serves the same purpose as a printer profile supplied from a print shop (why would there be a difference?)

No... Unless you have documentary evidence to the contrary that is incorrect... The test chart is printed using no application colour management and no colour management in the driver, when you print from the X-rite software or Datacolour software it prints with no colour management, no profile whatsoever. Adobe supply a print utility as they removed the ability to print with no colour management from PS. Selecting a media type dictates how much ink is laid down on the paper plus some details of media handling i.e. on some types of media Canon imposes a 30mm border.

The correct way is to soft proof, the soft proof is merely a simulation of what will be printed using that profile, you make any adjustments you think may be needed.

You have soft proved the image and now you want to print. When you print you select the same profile that you soft proofed with (it is obvious that the driver settings should be the same as when the profile was created, which is why X-rite stress noting down the settings used).

I think you have a misunderstanding of what is happening when you soft proof, when you soft proof you are not changing the profile, it is a simulation, when you send it to the printer it needs to go via the profile for the adjustments etc to match that simulation, it is not double profiling.

 

[PhilH04]

When you create the profile you have, RGB data to the printer, which interprets it with some adjustment for paper type. For the new profile to work it must also be "RGB data to the printer, which interprets it with some adjustment for paper type."
It cannot be RGB data, color modification (profile), then to the printer... that's what a monitor profile does (calibrates the hardware). If it did do that it would be RGB data, color modification (softproofing), color modification (profile), printer; which would be double color management.

Just been reading this over and over, it makes no sense.

Like I said I am having huge difficulty understanding your take on Colour Management and the use of various device profiles.

 

[sk66]

I don't know why I can't make sense of this for you...
The document you provided correctly states that the only thing using the custom profile does is send the data using the intent and BPC selected (either in the softproofing setup or print dialogue), and those settings are not part of the profile. And we both agree that a paper profile is not the same thing as a monitor profile, it does not profile the hardware (it does not convert the data for the printer).

The process for creating the custom profile is to select the right type of paper in the printer dialogue and turn color management off (if possible, it could be left on). By selecting a paper type there is some modification of the printer output (even if only ink qtty). And then, everything must be set exactly the same every time thereafter for the results to be accurate.

Say the profile is generated for Epson X on Premium Metallic w/ no color management... the results are the characteristics of the printer/setup (default profile) included in the new profile. And those are the output settings used by the profile.
The Colormunki directions tell you to always use the same settings in the printer dialogue. But it still works if you use the new profile w/ application manages color instead (no printer dialogue, or if used as the color management profile in the printer dialogue), because it *is the same settings.

If it translated the data (color managed/changed/etc) then there would be no need for softproofing. And there would be a difference in the way a shop provided profile and a user created profile was used (softproofing) if only one of them was "a characterization of how the particular hardware works."

I think you have a misunderstanding of what is happening when you soft proof, when you soft proof you are not changing the profile, it is a simulation, when you send it to the printer it needs to go via the profile for the adjustments etc to match that simulation, it is not double profiling.

No, it is a display modification. When you adjust the colors during softproofing *you are actually changing the colors, it is not "a simulation" of the color changes that will be made by the profile. You are changing the colors/gamut to suit the output/printer/paper/ink characteristics/profile (i.e. Epson X on Premium Metallic w/ no color management). The profile doesn't then change/convert/translate the colors you edited to suit... there's no need, you just did it. If the profile did change the colors, that would be bad (double management/color modifications). If you don't believe that it is not a simulation, check the before/after colors after doing softproofing using the PS info panel...

This is why softproofing edits should not be saved to the file, unless it is only ever going to be used with that printer/paper/ink setup (saved as a copy) or you save the edits as separate layers that can be disabled later... because softproofing changes the colors/gamut/output, not the profile. The custom profile you're hung up on is exactly the same one used to create it, i.e. Epson X, Premium Metallic, w/ no color management/changes.

 

[PhilH04]

Ok then. What is the correct procedure to print from LR in a colour managed workflow?

 

[sk66]

Ok then. What is the correct procedure to print from LR in a colour managed workflow?

Softproof using the same output settings that will be used when printed... that's all.
And you should create a "proof copy" when doing it as the edited colors will only be suitable for that output (printer/paper/ink).

The benefit of creating a custom profile is that it more accurately defines the color space (colors/gamut) of that particular paper w/ those output settings... which is then utilized when it is selected for softproofing.

If my custom profile was created using "Epson X, Premium Metallic, w/ no color management", I could use it for softproofing and then select "printer manage color" using those same settings and get the correct/expected results (instead of the custom profile). But that is convoluted/confusing... especially if you have a lot of custom profiles. However, that is exactly what happens when you send the file to a print shop after having used their profile for softproofing.

The obvious/simple/normal way when printing yourself is to use the same (custom) profile for softproofing and output... but that doesn't change how/why it works.

 

[PhilH04]

And you should create a "proof copy" when doing it as the edited colors will only be suitable for that output (printer/paper/ink).

Lightroom does that for you.

more accurately defines the color space

I think we can agree on that. But the profile does more than just define the colour space, by output settings do you mean rendering intent and BPC?

When soft proofing it IS a simulation of what the will be printed using that specific profile, that simulation allows you to adjust to refine that output.

I could use it for softproofing and then select "printer manage color" using those same settings and get the correct/expected results (instead of the custom profile).

No. I think this is where we disagree the most. you are saying that you use a specific profile to soft proof then use a generic for output, they are going to be different, no idea how you would use the same settings though.

The obvious/simple/normal way when printing yourself is to use the same (custom) profile for softproofing and output

I note you didn't mention 'correct'

No intention of falling out over this and I think some of the trouble I have understanding your writings here comes from your engineering background, or me being thick...

 

[ecoleman]

I could use it for softproofing and then select "printer manage color" using those same settings and get the correct/expected results (instead of the custom profile).

This is where you are wrong. What is the point of soft proofing with a specific profile and then telling the printer to do its own thing?

 

[sk66]

Lightroom does that for you.

If you let it.

I think we can agree on that. But the profile does more than just define the colour space, by output settings do you mean rendering intent and BPC?

When soft proofing it IS a simulation of what the will be printed using that specific profile, that simulation allows you to adjust to refine that output.

By output settings I mean those used to create the custom profile. Intent/BPC are options and not part of the profile.
We can call it a *monitor* simulation of the printer output based on the settings (i.e. Epson X, Premium Metallic, w/ no color management/changes), but not a simulation of the changes the paper profile will make. In essence they are the same thing, but the profile isn't making any additional translation/changes. Instead it ensures *the same* translations/changes are made that were made at the time the profile was created.

No. I think this is where we disagree the most. you are saying that you use a specific profile to soft proof then use a generic for output, they are going to be different, no idea how you would use the same settings though.

No, I am saying that if you use *different settings than those used to create the profile *then the results will be different. If I used Epson X, Premium Metallic, w/ no color management/changes to generate the profile, I can use those settings again and get the correct/anticipated results.
That's exactly what the Colormunki directions tell you to do (bullet #3), and it's what happens when you send a softproofed file to a print shop. That's because those settings *are* the output settings of the custom profile... they have to be. They are "the constants" that make the whole process work. "The variables" that modify the color/gamut/data to fit w/in "the constants" are the changes you make during softproofing. There has to be "a constant" or you would always be going in circles... the constants are the characteristics of the printer with that paper/inks and color management/style (typically turned off, but doesn't have to be).

I don't have an advanced printer any more, the printer dialogue options I get with my current printer are VERY limited. IIRC, using the same settings in the print dialogue (i.e. Epson X, Premium Metallic, w/ no color management/changes) is possible w/ a more advanced printer/driver. But I can't say I've ever done it... it's more convoluted/confusing and unnecessary.

 

[sk66]

This is where you are wrong. What is the point of soft proofing with a specific profile and then telling the printer to do its own thing?

You are not telling the printer "to do it's own thing." You are telling the printer to do "exactly the same thing" it did at the time the profile was created. That's what the custom profile does as well (and that's all it does in terms of data/color/gamut output).

 

[PhilH04]

You are not telling the printer "to do it's own thing." You are telling the printer to do "exactly the same thing" it did at the time the profile was created. That's what the custom profile does as well (and that's all it does in terms of color/gamut).

Sorry but no you cannot do that. You cannot soft proof using a specific profile and then print using printer manages colour because there is no way the driver setting can be the same for both.

That's because those settings *are* the output settings of the custom profile...

The Profile does not contain output settings... but yes you need to output through the profile using the same driver settings as when the profile was created.

but not a simulation of the changes the paper profile will make.

Yes it does, it is a simulation of how your file will print using that profile...

 

[gerry s]

I’ve created a profile and softproofed to that profile and if under colour handling I go ps or lr manage colours I can use that profile but you want me to go printer manage colours (sorry I keep adding the u ) I can’t use that profile any more but have to use one of the generics in printer management, why would I ever do that. I’m sorry but I really don’t understand the logic of creating a profile and softproofing to it then throwing it away which is what you are actually suggesting. I may be missing something but I don’t think I am. There is no way I could send that specific profile to the printer.

 

[sk66]

Ok, look at it this way.

When you create the profile you used Epson X, Premium Metallic, w/ no color management/changes as the settings in the print driver to create the custom profile. And the custom profile describes the gamut/color of that output. I think we should be able to agree on that.

If the custom profile changed the data from those settings based upon what it was fed it would be "variable." In that situation when you select the profile for softproofing it would change the display based upon the data it was fed. You would then make edits based upon the current view and they would update based upon the current changes made by the current profile/colors, and then the image would change again because the data was changed again/fed through the profile again (if that was possible).

 

[sk66]

I’ve created a profile and softproofed to that profile and if under colour handling I go ps or lr manage colours I can use that profile but you want me to go printer manage colours (sorry I keep adding the u ) I can’t use that profile any more but have to use one of the generics in printer management, why would I ever do that. I’m sorry but I really don’t understand the logic of creating a profile and softproofing to it then throwing it away which is what you are actually suggesting.

No, I am not suggesting you do that. It is unnecessary. But the fact is whatever "generic settings" were used to create the custom profile are the same settings used by the profile... the profile simply describes the results (color space/gamut) so that you can softproof for it.

There is no way I could send that specific profile to the printer.

You can, you can embed it into the file (incorrect color management for the file type). But the printer's system couldn't use it unless that profile was also installed (I suppose you could also send the profile file). But that is pointless, the profile is only showing you the characteristics of the printer/paper/ink/settings in the first place.

 

[sk66]

Sorry but no you cannot do that. You cannot soft proof using a specific profile and then print using printer manages colour because there is no way the driver setting can be the same for both.

The driver settings used to create the profile *are* the settings of the profile... why does that not make sense? The profile only *describes the results* of those settings so that you can softproof for them. It is not a hardware profile that changes the data to be suitable for the device... it does no additional translation/conversion.

The Profile does not contain output settings... but yes you need to output through the profile using the same driver settings as when the profile was created.

If the printer driver dialogue does not appear, then how do you use the same driver settings?

Because they are the settings of the profile!

 

[PhilH04]

Not really making any sense Steven.

One simple fact...You cannot soft proof with a specific profile and print using 'Printer Manages Colour'.

A device/Printer profile works in two directions...

Rendering direction:

> [Adobe RGB] > [CIE L*a*b] > [Printer profile.ICC] >

Takes the colour numbers from the L*a*b space and converts them to numbers the printer understands.

Proofing direction:

< [Monitor Profile] < [CIE L*a*b] < [Printer profile.ICC] <

The profile also includes rendering intent, white point, black point and tags for colour. It is far more than you are suggesting.

The profile can and does correct colour reproduction etc. it is a device profile and contains Look up tables for both printing and soft proofing.

 

[PhilH04]

It is not a hardware profile that changes the data to be suitable for the device

But it does....

 

[gerry s]

Let’s look at it a slightly different way... you calibrate your screen to create an icc profile. You photograph a neutral grey that has rgb values of 128:128:128..... when you print that to a specific paper it has maybe a slight green tinge which has rgb values of maybe 128:136:130 so you create a paper profile to correct this. When you print using ps manages colour you use this profile ( obviously having softproofed to it as well) send it to the printer, disable printer colour management and all is well. If you use printer manages colour then instead of using the corrected profile it defaults to the “normal” monitor profile and everything is buggered, your printer try’s to print 128:136:130 as 128:128:128, you end up making lots of alterations to try and get it right, complain about the cost of home printing, use your printer as a placemat for coffee and send all your prints to Costco or somebody else and just end up saying home printing is a mugs game.

 

[GREENGRASS]

I am printing at home for comps and commissioned work.
Benq sw2700pt monitor
Calibrated Spyder 5 pro
Epson R3000 printer

For A3 colour prints Photoshop used to control process. Ink and paper profile installed. In printer settings colour adjustment de-activated.
For B & W I let the printer run the process..

The two above I have found to produce the best results so far.

None OEM Ink & Carts.
Ink express Wolverhampton ( Lustre Paper ) they e mailed me the profile to suit the Ink and Paper I purchased from them.

Not to sure if any of the above helps but hopefully it has..

 

[ecoleman]

You are not telling the printer "to do it's own thing." You are telling the printer to do "exactly the same thing" it did at the time the profile was created. That's what the custom profile does as well (and that's all it does in terms of data/color/gamut output).

Sorry Steven. I’m not going to try an explain any further as I think that’s already been done. The fact is, if you’re letting the printer manage the colour after soft proofing with a profile, you’re doing it wrong.

 

[PhilH04]

If the printer driver dialogue does not appear, then how do you use the same driver settings?

Because they are the settings of the profile!

A printer profile does not contain any of the settings from the printer driver dialogue... How can it?

It is not a hardware profile that changes the data to be suitable for the device..

It does change the data, it will correct for any anomalies, errors that are unique to that printer/ink and paper.
That is the reason printer profiling printout contain many patches, that only changed with X-Rites iterative method of generating charts.

A good quality profile should need little optimising when soft proofing because of those corrections... as I said what you see when you soft proof is a simulation of how that file will print when that profile is used in Application Manages Colour.

The important bits when creating a profile and should be replicated each time you use that profile are;

Colour Management within the driver should be disabled.

Media type - As no colour management is active this setting is all about much ink is laid down.

Print Quality - again will have an effect on the laying down of the ink.

PS and LR make it impossible to print with no colour management, for this reason there is an Adobe Utility to print profiling charts, however the best way is to print directly from the profiling software.

The same with any profile, when these patches are read they are compared to the known values within the software and a correction, if needed, is written into the LUT along with paper white, paper max black etc. All profiles obviously contain lots of other information.

 

[sk66]

A printer profile does not contain any of the settings from the printer driver dialogue... How can it?

We are talking about the differences and benefits between a generic profile and a custom profile. RGB doesn't mean anything w/o a color space/profile attached, and a printer is not an adobeRGB device just like your monitor isn't, they have their own color spaces. That conversion/translation has to occur. There is always a change/conversion from document color (i.e. pro-photo) to CMYK (or printer RGB) to LAB (visual color). The device color space is defined when you select the printer and the paper type. That's because it is a characteristic of the printer w/ x paper.
The difference between a generic profile and a custom profile is that the output color space (result) is better defined (primarily the difference in the paper white/saturation/K aspect). And the benefit to us is primarily in the ability to softproof for that. It basically says if fed these RGB numbers you will get this LAB result (as measured w/ the colorimeter).

If you use a custom profile w/o softproofing would you expect to get the desired/viewed results? I wouldn't.
IME most of the differences encountered are not hue related, they are typically gamut/saturation related. And it requires softproofing edits to get the colors w/in the printer/paper capabilities (the profile doesn't do that for you).

If there was a significant difference in how a user generated profile worked and a lab provided profile worked, there would be a significant difference in how you utilize them. But there really isn't. The added variability the home printer has is in the ability to change the paper type (less so inks), so you have to specify that when sending to the printer.

 

[sk66]

Let’s look at it a slightly different way... you calibrate your screen to create an icc profile. You photograph a neutral grey that has rgb values of 128:128:128..... when you print that to a specific paper it has maybe a slight green tinge which has rgb values of maybe 128:136:130 so you create a paper profile to correct this.

This kind of thing happens when you use non-compatible inks, and it is a nightmare because the printer setup/configuration is wrong. The output values aren't really 128:136:130, that doesn't mean anything because a print doesn't have a color space associated with it (the values of concern in the output print are LAB/XYZ). And because the ink printer prints in CMYK, not RGB.
You can correct it with a custom profile for that one specific situation when that grey occurs and the profile will translate/convert the color, just as you can select to print in B&W and it will convert the colors. But as you said, you would not expect to get the desired results w/o softproofing with that profile.
IME, the profile that corrects for that error also introduces other errors. That's because the hardware side is wrong (incompatible inks) and we don't have the ability to calibrate the hardware (the RGB to CMYK conversion).

 

[PhilH04]

Whatever, I will carry on advocating and using my colour managed workflow, it works for me, it works for others and my views on printer output profiles seem to agree with others.

I have found no evidence in support of your views, and I am having difficulty understanding what you are advocating as the structure of a profile to the point that at times you seem to be re-writing the ICC profile specification.

No matter what I say you will produce a convoluted reply in support of your version and cannot even seem to accept matters when you have clearly been shown to be wrong.

I really have no desire to carry on this discussion as I can see it going nowhere....

 

[gerry s]

I haven’t mentioned incompatible inks at all.... all I will say is if doing it your way suits you then that is all that really matters isn’t it. Over the last 20 years of printing I’ve got my way from the likes of Epson, Jeff Schewe, Eric Chan and various others, if somebody came up with a better method than theirs I would no doubt consider it. I haven’t seen that anywhere yet.

 

[sk66]

Whatever, I will carry on advocating and using my colour managed workflow, it works for me, it works for others and my views on printer output profiles seem to agree with others.

I have found no evidence in support of your views, and I am having difficulty understanding what you are advocating as the structure of a profile to the point that at times you seem to be re-writing the ICC profile specification.

No matter what I say you will produce a convoluted reply in support of your version and cannot even seem to accept matters when you have clearly been shown to be wrong.

I really have no desire to carry on this discussion as I can see it going nowhere....

I am only trying to restate/answer in a way that will make sense to you.

I haven’t mentioned incompatible inks at all.... all I will say is if doing it your way suits you then that is all that really matters isn’t it. Over the last 20 years of printing I’ve got my way from the likes of Epson, Jeff Schewe, Eric Chan and various others, if somebody came up with a better method than theirs I would no doubt consider it. I haven’t seen that anywhere yet.

I have never seen an issue like the one you mentioned w/o there being an incompatible ink/hardware issue being the cause...
I have not *advocated* changing how anyone does anything... I use profiles the same way everyone else does (should).
I'm simply trying to explain why a shop provided profile works the same as a user generated profile. That is because they are both "characterizations" of the hardware (printer/paper/ink)... and the primary benefit to us as users is in the ability to softproof for that.