how do I get "natural" looking prints?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am having constantly problems with getting natural looking color prints from my images.

The Leica M8 helps to get a "natural", "film like" look when viewing images on screen, but when I print (specially in smaller sizes when one views images from close distance) my prints look artificial.

I use Epson 7600, print directly from PS using the propper 7600-profiles from the paper-supplier (Rauch).

I print on Semigloss paper and on Hahnemühle photo rag.

The matte paper (Hahnemühle) works fine, but in film times I allways liked glossy prints.

The 7600 obviously cant do that in an acceptable way.

My prints on the Semiglossy Paper (Rauch PMC260) look flat and artifical. Skin tones look dead.

 

What can I improve?

Do I need a RIP?

Do I have to make my own profiles?

For those liking glossy prints (at least for smaller sized prints), which printer do you like best and why?

I am evaluating to add a Epson R2400 or a HP printer for glossy, and keep the 7600 for the big things only.

 

How, in your experience ,would glossy prints from a Fuji frontier compare to those from a Epson 2400?

 

thanks a lot, Tom

[Stevez4]

HI

I am using a 2400 same paper ps2. Mac.Don't yet have a good handle on output. I think is printer calibration

[mwilliamsphotography]

Tom, I'm using a Epson 2400, and the color prints pretty much match what I see on screen. They will never be 100% the same because a computer screen is transmitted light, and a print is reflected light. But that's splitting hairs.

 

First off, it's important that your screen be calibrated.

 

Secondly, if you use Photoshop to adjust your images, and use a color profile like Adobe 1998, you need to make sure your color spaces are all in sync. If you assign Adobe 1998 to an image, then the proofing space needs to be the same.

 

I simply use a closed loop system, since I do not print using outside labs. I do everything myself, including all my wedding album printing for my business.

 

Here's my printing workflow if you want to try it:

 

I calibrate my computer screen, and assign it as a color space when prompted. I then select that as my working color space. When an image opens in PS, I select "Working Color Space" in the dialog box. I then also select that as the proofing color space. When you click on show proof colors you'll see the image title bar add that proofing color space designation to the image name.

 

When I go to print, I select that same proofing color space and (IMPORTANT) I click the box that says "Let Photoshop determine colors". This last step is where many people go wrong and leave it for the printer to determine colors. By selecting the PS option the printer uses the same colors as you were adjusting in PS. You select the same paper designation as you normally would in the Epson dialog box.

 

There are many ways to approcah this, but I know this one works. My prints are very acurate, and have to be for consistancy when printing hundreds of photos from the same wedding.

[tom0511]

thank you for the workflow.

I have my monitor calibrated.

I use the profile from the paper manufacturer.

Its not so much that the colors look totally wrong in print, but more that they are just not that vivid. specially skin tones get a kind of muddy, dead look.

Do you give more contrast to the images when you print them vs when you show them in screen?

[j. borger]

After strugling with the epson 2100 for a couple of years ... (bronzing makes it unusable for anything else but matte prints imho) .... i am finaly a happy printer.

 

- Calibrate your screen

- R2400

- Hahnemuhle Fineart Pearl (GREAT paper) + profile from the Hahnemuhle site

 

B&W out of the box with the same setup is beter than anything i did before with Quadtonerip (and that was already very good with the 2100/ Quadtonerip & matte paper)

 

Good luck!

 

( yes and use Marcs workflow )

 

The muddy you refer to is exactly why i never liked the 2100/2200 (which is similar to the 7600 with ink etc )

[robsteve]

Tom:

 

This may not be the answer you want, but I have found I get much better looking prints by editing in Photoshop with a clibrated monitor, saving my images to a memory card and taking them to a minilab that prints on photographic paper. It is also a lot cheaper in the end than using my Epson. I only use the Epson for the larger scenic type prints, but still I am not completely happy with them. The inkjets still don't have the Gamut of a photographic print.

 

It may also be that we are lucky here with three or four good spots to get prints done. I go to a mini lab at a drug store, but the lab manager has a degree in fine art and colour theory. Prior to her, the manager came from a regional professional Kodak lab that closed in town a few years ago. The quality is out there in mini-labs, you just have to find it.

 

The prints are also cheap, with an 8x12 on Fuji Chrstal Archive costing $1.99. The smaller 4x6 are 15 cents. I can't do a head cleaning on my Epson that cheap. Plus, if I don't like the prints they make, they do them again. The redo's with inkjets can bring your cost up a lot.

 

Robert

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Usally some of the drug store type printing uses SRGB so you need to convert your files to SRGB for there printers. I do this with shutterfly.com and my prints are matching my monitor pretty darn good. Try this as a test and see what you get . But Marks workflow is very sound also for printing yourself which I don't do anymore but I do have my eye on that new Epson 3800

[hammam]

Just what Marc says: never let the printer driver adjust the colors when you print from PS. I guess the option is something like «No color adjustments» when you get in the final steps of «Print settings» and «Color management». If that's what they're called in the 7600 driver, that is. If the prints lack color, or the skin tones look muddy, I'd say the problem lies in the color space. It must be consistent throughout. You shouldn't have to adjust contrast and saturation to the finished image just for printing.

[heninger]

Tom, I'm using a Epson 2400, and the color prints pretty much match what I see on screen. They will never be 100% the same because a computer screen is transmitted light, and a print is reflected light. But that's splitting hairs.

 

First off, it's important that your screen be calibrated.

 

Secondly, if you use Photoshop to adjust your images, and use a color profile like Adobe 1998, you need to make sure your color spaces are all in sync. If you assign Adobe 1998 to an image, then the proofing space needs to be the same.

 

I simply use a closed loop system, since I do not print using outside labs. I do everything myself, including all my wedding album printing for my business.

 

Here's my printing workflow if you want to try it:

 

I calibrate my computer screen, and assign it as a color space when prompted. I then select that as my working color space. When an image opens in PS, I select "Working Color Space" in the dialog box. I then also select that as the proofing color space. When you click on show proof colors you'll see the image title bar add that proofing color space designation to the image name.

 

When I go to print, I select that same proofing color space and (IMPORTANT) I click the box that says "Let Photoshop determine colors". This last step is where many people go wrong and leave it for the printer to determine colors. By selecting the PS option the printer uses the same colors as you were adjusting in PS. You select the same paper designation as you normally would in the Epson dialog box.

 

There are many ways to approcah this, but I know this one works. My prints are very acurate, and have to be for consistancy when printing hundreds of photos from the same wedding.

 

I'm certainly no expert on color imaging, doing mostly black and white, but I've been spending alot of time learning color management recently, so here are my 2 cents.

 

The above workflow works great, or you can let the printer manage it all and turn it off in PS. I recommend doing it in Photoshop - the big deal is to just let one device manage the color i.e. make all the settings in PS and turn off printer management (or vise versa).

 

Also, are you using the soft-proofing process in Photoshop to preview what you'll get with a profile? This will give you a good idea of what the print will look like and save you lots of headache.

 

Here is a good overview of softproofing for CS2:

 

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/profiles.htm#SoftProofing

 

Along with the adice above, try softproofing and see what you get. You'll always have to muck with an image to get the right output, and softproofing shows you what you'll get with a good deal of accuracy.

[tom0511]

Tom:

 

This may not be the answer you want, but I have found I get much better looking prints by editing in Photoshop with a clibrated monitor, saving my images to a memory card and taking them to a minilab that prints on photographic paper. It is also a lot cheaper in the end than using my Epson. I only use the Epson for the larger scenic type prints, but still I am not completely happy with them. The inkjets still don't have the Gamut of a photographic print.

Robert

 

Robert, just yesterday I did the same and just get some glossy prints from a fuji frontier in the foto-store around the corner. They do indeed look better (and they are glossy). I wonder if the 2400 can do the same.

[robbegibson]

I am having constantly problems with getting natural looking color prints from my images.

The Leica M8 helps to get a "natural", "film like" look when viewing images on screen, but when I print (specially in smaller sizes when one views images from close distance) my prints look artificial.

I use Epson 7600, print directly from PS using the propper 7600-profiles from the paper-supplier (Rauch).

I print on Semigloss paper and on Hahnemühle photo rag.

The matte paper (Hahnemühle) works fine, but in film times I allways liked glossy prints.

The 7600 obviously cant do that in an acceptable way.

My prints on the Semiglossy Paper (Rauch PMC260) look flat and artifical. Skin tones look dead.

 

What can I improve?

Do I need a RIP?

Do I have to make my own profiles?

For those liking glossy prints (at least for smaller sized prints), which printer do you like best and why?

I am evaluating to add a Epson R2400 or a HP printer for glossy, and keep the 7600 for the big things only.

 

How, in your experience ,would glossy prints from a Fuji frontier compare to those from a Epson 2400?

 

thanks a lot, Tom

 

Hi,

Are you using matte or glossy black?

 

If you're used to a 7600, be aware the ink costs of a 2400 or 3800 are much higher.

 

A rip will make your life easier, at least it did mine.

 

The Canon ipf5000 is a good alternative to the Epson 3800 or 4800.

 

Robbe Gibson

[tom0511]

I use matte black since I gave up on glossy papers.

Should I use glossy black for pearl papers?

In which way did the rip make life easier?

thanks a lot !!

tom

[Jamie Roberts]

I use matte black since I gave up on glossy papers.

Should I use glossy black for pearl papers?

In which way did the rip make life easier?

thanks a lot !!

tom

 

Tom--

 

First, if you're using the Hahnemuhle (sp?) Fine Art Pearl--one of the finest papers I've ever seen for an inkjet--the best black is using the Photo black in the Epson ultrachrome inkset. I print using a 4000 for proofing and for larger, fine art prints.

 

Secondly, a RIP can do two things, especially for a 4000/ 7600/ 9600. It can give you dead neutral black and white prints (ImagePrint is excellent on this) with no metamerism. It can also let you print on difficult papers, like Arches Infinity natural, because you can actually control the linearization of the printer and the ink coverage per channel (Arches likes less black ink, thanks!)

[Jamie Roberts]

I calibrate my computer screen, and assign it as a color space when prompted. I then select that as my working color space. When an image opens in PS, I select "Working Color Space" in the dialog box. I then also select that as the proofing color space. When you click on show proof colors you'll see the image title bar add that proofing color space designation to the image name.

 

When I go to print, I select that same proofing color space and (IMPORTANT) I click the box that says "Let Photoshop determine colors". This last step is where many people go wrong and leave it for the printer to determine colors. By selecting the PS option the printer uses the same colors as you were adjusting in PS. You select the same paper designation as you normally would in the Epson dialog box.

 

There are many ways to approcah this, but I know this one works. My prints are very acurate, and have to be for consistancy when printing hundreds of photos from the same wedding.

 

Mark--I'm a bit confused by your workflow. Are you saying you set your monitor profile as your work space in PS? If you are doing that, aren't you sacrificing a lot of potential colour for consistency?

 

Where does Adobe RGB come into your print workflow?

 

I'm sure I'm misunderstanding how you're doing this...

 

The way I set this up for use with Epson ultrachrome printing, is as follows:

 

1) Calibrate and profile monitor every 4 weeks

2) RAW convert to the right color space (depends on content), but generally aRGB, ProPhoto or (preferred) J. Holmes D4 profile.

3) Now I have a TIFF with the widest colour response possible. Import into PS. If the profile is the *same* as your working space, the file will just import. If it isn't, then make sure you select "use the embedded working space"

 

There's a couple of key reasons for this. I don't want to lose a lot of colour by using my monitor's profile, which certainly isn't optimal.

 

Photoshop, however, will use my monitor's profile to translate what I'm doing in the working space to my monitor profile.

 

4) Now you want to use an OUTPUT profile from PS or your RIP to print. The best profiles are custom made ones for the paper and inkset you have (this is how I got into profiling in the first place).

 

In my experience, this is a key step for ultrachrome (4000/7600/9600) printers.

 

If you have the K3 insets, Epson provides excellent profiles for their papers.

 

5) In Photoshop, you can "soft proof" your colour by loading your paper profile into the "Proof Setup" dialog. If you turn on the "gamut warning" switch, it will mark in grey all the colours you can't print This is crucial for CMYK printing; not so crucial for Epson printers, but it still gives you an idea of what might change the most when you print (and it's usually saturated primary or secondary colours here)

 

6) When you print in Photoshop, you select "Print with Preview", and, as Marc said, you let Photoshop determine the colours. In the PRINTER PROFILE drop down, you select the paper profile.

 

7) As PS reminds you, go into your Epson driver and TURN OFF COLOR MANAGEMENT. You're letting PS do that, remember?

 

That's it. You're optimising colour by not clipping the colours captured, and then designing the output for a printer and a paper!

 

If you use a RIP, this gets a lot easier, because you don't use PS to print. You "hand off" the finished print from PS to the RIP, which has its own colour management (including ink management) to the printer. It also usually includes a way to batch print, auto print, or gang up loads of prints on a roll or on a single large page.

[c6gowin]

Jamie's workflow is the same as mine and it works great. Step 7 of Jamie's workflow is the most important and easiest to overlook because it is buried in the Epson driver not in Photoshop. To get there from Photoshop follow these steps: (assuming the 7600 driver is similar to the 4000 driver)

 

1. File - Print With Preview

2. Page Setup

3. Printer

4. Select your 7600

5. Properties (this will bring up the Epson driver)

6. in the "Main" tab, "Mode", Select "Custom", then "Advance"

7. in "Printer Color Managment" click "Off (No Color Adjustment)" --- Coincidentally, this is also Jamie's Step 7.

8. in "Media Type" select your paper profile, "Print Quality", etc. then "OK"

9. in the other tabs, e.g "Layout" select the appropriate settings for you prin

10. click "OK" several times until you get back to the Photoshop dialog box.

11. in "Print Space" / "Profile" select your paper profile

12. then "Print"

[markjames]

I too have spent countless hours and arrived at a workflow very similar to Jamie's above. This works especially well with some of the more consumer oriented Epson printers (R320 for example) when printing through Photoshop using 'print with preview'. However, I continue to get the best finish quality prints using my Epson 2200 and a RIP purchased from Colorbyte (Imageprint RIP). They have a really extensive list of printer profiles for most papers and resolution combinations. While somewhat expensive and only usable on one specific computer (there's a security dongle for your USB port), I have to say that on the 2200 Photoshop's print with preview, with all the proper settings and calibrations, is never quite the quality of printing with the Imageprint RIP on the same printer. If you're going to be doing a lot of higher quality printing, IMHO, the RIP is the way to go. You've never seen better neutral B&W and you even have the option of shadow and/or highlight suble toning.

Good stuff.

 

Mark

[carstenw]

I think it was David Adamson who responded to a similar question of mine, that he found that he got the best results with the 2200/7600/9600 with a RIP, but that the new Epson drivers were good enough that he used the 2400/4800/7800/9800 without. For those without the context, David is a professional printed who does work for some of the top photographers in the world. He was the one who started the 30"x40" M8 thread.

[tom0511]

thanks a LOT!!

Jamy: I exactly do what you describe, with one difference:I often used SRGB.

Therefore I have one question: If I convert to argb, and let PS use argb, and if I then let PS define colors for printing, using the proper profile for the printer and my paper (which I get from the paper supplier,in my case Rauch) would this be fine?

Or do I have to do anything else if I want to use argb instead of srgb?

 

By the way, my b&w prints do liek quit neutral. Its my color prints which have "no life" sometimes

 

I am evaluating now if I should get a rip.

 

Also, those of you who went from k2 to k3 inks - how much of a change did this make ?

[Jamie Roberts]

@ Mark-- I couldn't agree more about the RIP. Yeah, they're expensive, but when it comes to producing high quality prints on different paper types, they just rock.

 

I use ImagePrint, which actually doesn't let you linearize the ink; the 4000 / 7600 / 9600 are all pretty linear out of the factory, though, and ImagePrint does a great job handling ink output and BW too.

 

@ Carsten--yes, the newer Epson K3 drivers are supposed to be great. But ImagePrint for K3 also gives you all the abilities of a RIP for non-Epson papers, as well as something called "Phat black" which means, IIRC, you don't need to switch photo black and matte black anymore (and that saves a lot of ink on something like the 4800).

 

@ Tom--converting to aRGB doesn't do much if you've captured in sRGB (or output from RAW in sRGB). In fact, it does nothing at all; your file will look exactly the same as it did before, because sRGB essentially fits perfectly into aRGB.

 

So the trick is to convert from RAW into aRGB (or even something wider for the M8)--or set the camera to capture aRGB JPEGs--and *then* you output through PS or a RIP to your paper profile.

 

One wrinkle here is that for posterization reasons in translation from colour space to print colour space (printer paper profile) is that you shouldn't use a wider capture than you need for the colour, but in general practice aRGB will give you more saturated blue-greens and better reds than sRGB in Epson prints.

 

"Life" in colour prints is often related to the dynamic range of the print; the black ink is very important, as well as the paper surface. So on water-colour / fine art papers, you sacrifice some detail and "blackness" for texture and tonality (warmth etc...).

 

The K3 Epson inks have really noticeably better glossy blacks; this makes all the difference to me on glossy / semi-gloss media, and I thought of selling my 4000... BUT

 

I like printing on matte papers; the K3 inkset is virtually identical there and the 4000 uses less black ink switching to matte.

 

And newer papers make all the difference, I think...try the Fine Art Pearl and the Crane Museo Silver Rag; those are fabulous papers with the 4000.

 

Neither are cheap by any means, but colour and black and white (though they're designed, I guess, for black and white) is really outstanding on that stuff. I'm sure the K3 inks look even better, but those papers really made me more interested in semi-gloss printing on the 4000.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

Jamie,

thanks, I meant to say that I would directly convert to argb (in c1).

tom