Tilting screen gives better colour matchingwith print why did I need spyder pro?

OK, that was not a serious comment but there is truth here, and it should not be?

Equipment:
Imac 10.4.11
Photoshop CS3
Canon printer
monitor callibrated with Spyder 3 Pro
Colour management policy accurate in theory,
Working space same as camera space same as embedded profiles from Raw.Adobe RGB1998,
working in 16 bit, minor adjustments in raw, and CS3.
paper used - Photo Paper Plus Glossy (PP101)
Printer profile set to SP2 (same as semi gloss unfortunatley)
Detailed setting used in apple print dialogue to highest which is 2 unfortunately, not 1.
Screen is set to Soft proof before print for above paper.

PROBLEM:
1. Blues and Greens always less saturated than screen
2. Prints generally slightly darker, This is problem with grays and shadows being darker than screen.
3. Oranges less saturated
4. Colours often, in general, are bland and lack the impact that I see even in the soft proof.

QUESTION:

What could be going wrong? I have used the channel mixer to compensate for colours, but this I was doing before i bought the spyder3 Pro. I should not have to do this. Does the printer convert on the fly a 16 bit data image to 8 bit, because I never convert before sending to the printer? In windows my printer shows the option to print using Adobe RGB 1998. But in my Mac I do not see this option, could it be that the printer is using s'RGB regardless of what CS3 sends to it?

I have been struggling with these issues for a few weeks now and can find no solution. EXCEPT, that when i tilt my LCD monitor upwards I get better colour accuracy, the darker parts of images are more in line with the photo. YET, i have profiled the monitor at least 15 times over the past 2 weeks.

I am Lost. Can anywhere help please?

thankyou, Chris.

try reading this
Lundberg02, "Specific Calibration Question" #1, 13 Jul 2008 7:36 pm </webx?14@@.59b5c857/0>

Hi. I read this actually about two days ago, apart from the need to adjust luminance I really was confused by all the chit chat. Sorry. But on the subject of luminance. When the spyder gives you the option to adjust luminance with a bar that must find its way to the middle oint - often adjusting this bar leaves it slightly under or over the desired target. I read on a tuturial that it was better to adjust it to slightly above. but this gave me too much brightness. have you comew accross this?

Chris.

I don't know what else to add than what I wrote on that thread except that when we buy glossy screens, laptops, we cannot expect them to display color like a quality reference monitor.

Regarding luminance, I will repeat that I like to set brightness by the monitor hardware setting and disregard it in the profiling routine...generally recommended at 140 for LCD, but I target 180, and some people prefer much lower (most dependent on ambient lighting brightness and personal preferences I suspect).

At some point we need to realize the limitation of our tool and train our eye to work with it through daily work experience over time...

G. Ballard wrote:

At some point we need to realize the limitation of our tool and train
our eye to work with it through daily work experience over time...




Those are wise words.

If we must have high-end performance, we need to buy and use high-end equipment. If not, we must deal with the limitations, and adapt our work procedures to them.

But as with marketing campaigns and advertising policies, maybe it is time for the "Teachers and lecturers" in this industry to make this point more clearly. It is only something that I am beginning to realise. for me a monitor was a monitor. The way that colour management hardware manufacturers talk is therefore un-balanced. The way that Pantone and makers of colour cards rant on about colour is also un-balanced. What they should be adding is ....with a proper monitor designed for photos these products will work??. Because that is what you guys are suggesting right?

I thought it polite to let you know what I have just posted on the camera raw forum because it relates to my original question on this forum. It seems that My problem was linked to the way that I edited a photo in raw. MMmmmm!

Having just posted problems I was having with printing that I thought were due to some aspect of my colour management policies and/or my LCD monitor when tilted, I traced back my editing to the original DNG image and discovered something. As a result i have a simple question:

1. I know that all adjustments in RAW are global - no problem. But what I want to know is this; When adjusting the luminance values of say in my case the Yellow slider, is this affecting even the yellow values in all the colours of the image? It appears so but I had assumed maybe wrongly that this particular slider and option would have only affected literally the yellow colour, and not the Yellow VALUES in the blues and greys and greens.

Have I now learned something or is this assumption also wrong.

the original problem had to do with a slightly darker print but also a slightly yellow colour cast which COULD NOT BE SEEN on my monitor even when proofing. The RGB values revealed otherwise by a lack of blue values in the RGB info palette, and its opposite, much higher Yellow values in the CMYK info palette.

Hallo G Ballard, Sorry I forgot to mention that I am unable to set luminance values with the spyder 3 pro, it does not do that. It simply lets you adjust a bar at a given point in its calibration, you have no way of knowing if this is 180 or 580?

Any suggestions would be appreciated though.

Thanks.

Chris wrote:

But as with marketing campaigns and advertising policies, maybe it is
time for the "Teachers and lecturers" in this industry to make this point
more clearly.




Yes, they certainly should emphasize how quality and the means to achieve it are also tied to better equipment. It's also necessary that the users become more competent, of course, but the quality of the materials and equipment is just as crucial in order to achieve quality results.

It is only something that I am beginning to realise. for me a monitor
was a monitor. The way that colour management hardware manufacturers talk
is therefore un-balanced.




They do their bit, which also includes the necessary evils of hype and marketing. It's *our* job not to fall for the inflated claims and the manufactured enthusiasm -- to ask around, read the reviews and understand how to interpret the specs. NEVER buy ANYTHING just based on the say-so of the manufacturer!

The way that Pantone and makers of colour cards rant on about colour is
also un-balanced. What they should be adding is ....with a proper monitor
designed for photos these products will work??




The matching of spot colors on a monitor display is a tricky business in itself. Of the 1100 or so colors in the Pantone Coated palette, about 140 are more than 3 DeltaE 2000 outside of the gamut of sRGB (using Relative Colorimetric) and about 185 are more than 2 DeltaE 2000 off. The peak color difference is at 13 DeltaE.

But many of the monitors out there don't even cover sRGB, which is a relatively small color space. My Apple Studio Display has a gamut 15% *smaller* than sRGB, for example: more than 200 of the Pantone coated colors are 3 DeltaE 2000 or more outside its gamut (with a peak at 11.4 DeltaE), and 265 are off by 2 DeltaE or more.

On the other hand, the newer higher-end displays from Eizo and NEC-Mitsubishi (and others too from Samsung and HP) cover gamuts that are far wider, enough to cover AdobeRGB or larger.

Only 35 Pantone coated colors are outside AdobeRGB by 3 DeltaE 2000 or more, and 65 by 2 DeltaE 2000 or more (the highest color difference is a much more moderate 6.2 DeltaE).

Not perfect, but a much better situation -- all due to using a better monitor (which, yes, is also more expensive).

I would suggest that you try an EyeOne Display 2 colorimeter instead, or, better still, an Optix XR (though it's no longer in production, there are still ways to purchase one online).

Borrow them from a friend, if they have one. See how they work for you.