A Problem With Printing a Sunset

[One4All]

With an Epson 1280, I'm trying to print an image of a sunset that has
a sunburst effect. That is, the sun is in the center, white, with
colors radiating outward from yellow to yellow/orange, to orange/red.
These are not the exact colors. I'm just giving you the idea. There's
some flare, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that when I print the image, instead of the smooth
gradation I see on my monitor, I see the colors separated with a
definite line between them, like concentric circles of color, like a
target with the sun as the bull's eye.

Is there something in the printer driver that's doing this? The
problem seems to be when the app hands off the file to the driver. Do
I have to do something in print settings? However, the problem also
shows up when I do a soft proof, before getting to the printing
stage.

This is not an issue of matching color, tonality, etc., to the
monitor. Earlier, I had the same file printed by a local lab, and
there was no problem. Now, I'm trying to print it, myself.

I'm using Photoshop CS on a Mac system with 2.5 GB RAM. The 1280 has
been custom profiled, and ColorSync Utility shows no problems with any
of my .icc profiles.

 

[ato_zee]

The issue is that when I print the image, instead of the smooth
gradation I see on my monitor, I see the colors separated with a
definite line between them, like concentric circles of color, like a
target with the sun as the bull's eye.

First thought is a color depth problem, Wikipedia provides
an intro to color depth.
In brief the more bits used to represent each color, the more
colors that can be reproduced, so 16 or 24 bit color is desirable
to reproduce fine color graduation and transitions.
Maybe the printer itself, or its driver is limiting the color depth.
You don't state the operating or image processing system,
or whether you are using MS generic drivers, or Epsons
drivers, or whether these are from the CD or downloaded
updated versions.
If using PS it's worth checking its color depth settings.

 

[One4All]

First thought is a color depth problem, Wikipedia provides
an intro to color depth.
In brief the more bits used to represent each color, the more
colors that can be reproduced, so 16 or 24 bit color is desirable
to reproduce fine color graduation and transitions.
Maybe the printer itself, or its driver is limiting the color depth.

I scanned the image at 48-bit depth (16 bits per channel), I then
reduced it to print at 24-bit depth (8 bits per channel), since the
printer driver would do that anyway & I didn't want that much
discretion to the driver. However, even if I soft proof the image at
its original 48-bit depth, the problem still occurs, altho I think you
have a point in how the driver is handling bit depth. I think I need
to ask Epson what's going on.

BTW, I haven't experienced this problem on other images, but, of
course, every image is different. I might experiment with another
image that also has a sunburst effect.

You don't state the operating or image processing system,
or whether you are using MS generic drivers, or Epsons
drivers, or whether these are from the CD or downloaded
updated versions.

My operating system is Mac OS 10.3.9. I'm using the Epson driver from
the CD that came with the 1280. I may have updated it with a download.

If using PS it's worth checking its color depth settings.

As I said, I'm using PS CS. PS uses the depth settings of the original
image until changed by the user. I'm very aware of whether the image
is in 8 bits per channel or 16 bits per channel, as I determine
(PS>Image>Mode).

Thank you for your suggestion. It's at least something to consider.

 

[frederick]

With an Epson 1280, I'm trying to print an image of a sunset that has
a sunburst effect. That is, the sun is in the center, white, with
colors radiating outward from yellow to yellow/orange, to orange/red.
These are not the exact colors. I'm just giving you the idea. There's
some flare, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that when I print the image, instead of the smooth
gradation I see on my monitor, I see the colors separated with a
definite line between them, like concentric circles of color, like a
target with the sun as the bull's eye.

Is there something in the printer driver that's doing this? The
problem seems to be when the app hands off the file to the driver. Do
I have to do something in print settings? However, the problem also
shows up when I do a soft proof, before getting to the printing
stage.

This is not an issue of matching color, tonality, etc., to the
monitor. Earlier, I had the same file printed by a local lab, and
there was no problem. Now, I'm trying to print it, myself.

I'm using Photoshop CS on a Mac system with 2.5 GB RAM. The 1280 has
been custom profiled, and ColorSync Utility shows no problems with any
of my .icc profiles.

Sounds possibly like posterisation from out of gamut colour.
What happens if you soft-proof in Photoshop and/or toggle
gamut warning on and off?

 

[One4All]

Sounds possibly like posterisation from out of gamut colour.
What happens if you soft-proof in Photoshop and/or toggle
gamut warning on and off?

The gamut warning shows everything outside of the sun and the initial
yellow close to it out of gamut: the yellow/orange, the orange/red,
etc. Other elements (darker) outside this affected part are ok.

In a post in another group, a suggestion was made of the limitations
of home desktop inkjets & maybe the 1280 has those limitations. I
think he picked up on my statement that the lab print was ok while
mine wasn't. Here's what he said, "Consumer inkjet printers can only
produce a small range of tones in any one color--particularly in light
colors. The banding you're seeing is the result."

You're right: I have an out-of-gamut problem, and a severe one, I
think. It's a huge part of the photo. I don't know what inkjet printer
the lab used; it's not a big lab, mostly serving the general public. I
suppose I could call and ask them what printers they use. The print
they did was an 11x14, so I don't think it was on a big machine. Maybe
I'll get educated.

The correction to get the image in gamut for the 1280 may be so
extreme that the image itself could be degraded in other ways. I'm not
very practiced in this sort of thing.

Thanks.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Lack of good gradients can be caused by a number of issues. For one
thing, your monitor screen provides a lower resolution image, but
actually has a wider bit depth, so it may hide things that the printer
shows. Also, make sure you aren't missing this "solarization" on the
screen image, by zooming into that area and studying it in an enlarged
form. Check if changes of contrast or brightness make this banding show
up. Finally, CRT monitors will hide these artifacts more than an LCD
screen will. Also, what method of printing did your local lab use when
they got no banding?

Where did the image start from? Is it a digital camera image or scanned
from film? Is the file stored as a jpeg or raw? Conversions can add
these artifacts, as can reduction of the big depth too early in the
image manipulation process.

If the problem is not showing up at all on the image on the monitor,
start with your original image and reduce contrast, minimize sharpness
added, and try to keep the image (if it starts that way) in 16 bit per
color while doing any manipulation.

If all else fails, you may be able to add judicious blurring to lessen
this problem. Even slight brightness, color correction, sharpening
differences, or ink densities can make things like this show up. Even
the printer mode selected, or the paper used can bring out these
artifacts, especially in colors like oranges.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

My old brain switched a word in the comment below... I meant
posterization rather than solarization. They sometimes provide similar
results, but the concept and practice is different.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Your assumption that the inkjet printer he is using is what is "fixing"
the problem, may or may not be correct. He may be using a RIP or
software that "corrects" out of gamut colors by moving them slightly
toward in gamut tones. Or the driver may be specialized enough to
adjust these tones by using a different dot algorithm.

There are a lot of tricks in the methods of printing that can correct
for lower gamut limitations which can "fix" certain defects where they
may not be successful with others. There are also filters that can
lessen posterization, as I mentioned in a previous posting. The
processing of the image before it reached the printer may have made all
the difference.

Art

 

[frederick]

The gamut warning shows everything outside of the sun and the initial
yellow close to it out of gamut: the yellow/orange, the orange/red,
etc. Other elements (darker) outside this affected part are ok.

In a post in another group, a suggestion was made of the limitations
of home desktop inkjets & maybe the 1280 has those limitations. I
think he picked up on my statement that the lab print was ok while
mine wasn't. Here's what he said, "Consumer inkjet printers can only
produce a small range of tones in any one color--particularly in light
colors. The banding you're seeing is the result."

You're right: I have an out-of-gamut problem, and a severe one, I
think. It's a huge part of the photo. I don't know what inkjet printer
the lab used; it's not a big lab, mostly serving the general public. I
suppose I could call and ask them what printers they use. The print
they did was an 11x14, so I don't think it was on a big machine. Maybe
I'll get educated.

The correction to get the image in gamut for the 1280 may be so
extreme that the image itself could be degraded in other ways. I'm not
very practiced in this sort of thing.

Thanks.

As far as a "lab" (presumably wet-process) print goes -
then I'd expect that the 1280 would have a wider gamut. But
out of gamut rendering may not produce the same banding
you've seen, depending how the machines are set up.
The statement that "consumer" inkjet printers are limited in
tones that they can produce might be correct with regard
to some, but IIRC the 1280 is a 6 colour dye ink printer,
and should be capable of reproducing the clean colours I'd
expect to see in a sunset/sunrise print with better fidelity
and vibrance of colour than any wet process method can produce.
I use (for R1800/Epson paper) Epson "canned" profiles, but
even then the original profiles that shipped with the
printer have been tweaked by Epson - newer profiles are
available from Epson's site. One result is that gamut has
been extended slightly on matte papers - where occasionally
I had problems with posterising vs tweaking the image
colour/saturation to clear gamut warnings. The new profiles
are better.

If you download a selection of profiles for papers that you
might consider using, or for wet-process labs that allow you
to manage colour, you can load the profiles in Photoshop to
soft-proof / see gamut warning. (You don't need the printer
installed to "use" the ICC profile).

Finally, it's really critical to know that you are using
identical printer quality settings as were used to produce
the ICC profile. It is no good at all - and defeats the
purpose of colour managed printing - to print using "best
photo" setting with a profile generated using "photo"
setting, or vice versa.

I'd be interested to see the photo - from there I might be
able to draw conclusions about what could be done.

 

[tomm42]

With an Epson 1280, I'm trying to print an image of a sunset that has
a sunburst effect. That is, the sun is in the center, white, with
colors radiating outward from yellow to yellow/orange, to orange/red.
These are not the exact colors. I'm just giving you the idea. There's
some flare, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that when I print the image, instead of the smooth
gradation I see on my monitor, I see the colors separated with a
definite line between them, like concentric circles of color, like a
target with the sun as the bull's eye.

Is there something in the printer driver that's doing this? The
problem seems to be when the app hands off the file to the driver. Do
I have to do something in print settings? However, the problem also
shows up when I do a soft proof, before getting to the printing
stage.

This is not an issue of matching color, tonality, etc., to the
monitor. Earlier, I had the same file printed by a local lab, and
there was no problem. Now, I'm trying to print it, myself.

I'm using Photoshop CS on a Mac system with 2.5 GB RAM. The 1280 has
been custom profiled, and ColorSync Utility shows no problems with any
of my .icc profiles.

Are you printing with a profile, if so what intent are you using,
perceptual would be best for this, absolute colormetric would give
posterization. Is the image aRGB, sRGB or prophotoRGB? If it is
prophoto or Adobe RGB you may want to convert it to sRGB.
The 1280 is an older printer design with only 6 colors, but should be
capable of this, I printer for 4 years with a 6 ink Epson 9000 and
some image would make me sweat but not many. My 12 ink Canon is
definitely a step up.

Tom

 

[One4All]

Are you printing with a profile, if so what intent are you using,
perceptual would be best for this, absolute colormetric would give
posterization.

I am printing with a custom profile I made, using Eye-One Match. I was
using relative colorimetric, so I soft-proofed the profile, using
perceptual intent. Some improvement, not much. I played around with
saturation and absolute colorimetric intents for the hell of it, and
saturation intent comes closest to the original, altho not exactly.
There's still a bit of banding between the outer colors.

This profile is for a 3d-party CFS system, installed on the 1280. I
have an earlier profile made for Epson inks, and in soft-proofing that
profile, there is some improvement, as well, using saturation intent,
but the catch is this: The 3d-party profile tends to band in the outer
colors, as I said, above, and the Epson profile shows some banding in
the inner colors (yellow, yellow/orange). I guess it's a wash between
the two profiles, altho banding in the outer, darker colors is less
noticeable than the banding in the inner, brighter, colors.

Both profiles include the same paper, Epson Premium Photo Glossy.

For $10 I might be farther ahead to just have the photolab do the
printing for that file and move on, altho I hate to admit defeat.

Is the image aRGB, sRGB or prophotoRGB? If it is
prophoto or Adobe RGB you may want to convert it to sRGB.

The image is Adobe RGB (1998). sRGB, with less gamut, may work out.
I'll give it a shot.

The 1280 is an older printer design with only 6 colors, but should be
capable of this,

I thought so, too. Thanks. You've been a help.

 

[One4All]

I am printing with a custom profile I made, using Eye-One Match. I was
using relative colorimetric, so I soft-proofed the profile, using
perceptual intent. Some improvement, not much. I played around with
saturation and absolute colorimetric intents for the hell of it, and
saturation intent comes closest to the original, altho not exactly.
There's still a bit of banding between the outer colors.

This profile is for a 3d-party CFS system, installed on the 1280. I
have an earlier profile made for Epson inks, and in soft-proofing that
profile, there is some improvement, as well, using saturation intent,
but the catch is this: The 3d-party profile tends to band in the outer
colors, as I said, above, and the Epson profile shows some banding in
the inner colors (yellow, yellow/orange). I guess it's a wash between
the two profiles, altho banding in the outer, darker colors is less
noticeable than the banding in the inner, brighter, colors.

Both profiles include the same paper, Epson Premium Photo Glossy.

For $10 I might be farther ahead to just have the photolab do the
printing for that file and move on, altho I hate to admit defeat.


The image is Adobe RGB (1998). sRGB, with less gamut, may work out.
I'll give it a shot.


I thought so, too. Thanks. You've been a help.

In saying that, I was not implying everyone else who has responded has
not been a help. All of you have offered help and I've learned a lot
reading & trying your suggestions.

David

 

[One4All]

Sounds possibly like posterisation from out of gamut colour.
What happens if you soft-proof in Photoshop and/or toggle
gamut warning on and off?

The only way I can get the image gamut within the parameters of the
gamut warning is thru desaturation, but when I do that, the colors,
vibrancy, etc., get near to monotone.

 

[One4All]

Lack of good gradients can be caused by a number of issues. For one
thing, your monitor screen provides a lower resolution image, but
actually has a wider bit depth, so it may hide things that the printer
shows. Also, make sure you aren't missing this "solarization" on the
screen image, by zooming into that area and studying it in an enlarged
form.

I zoomed into 100%, and the transition is smooth.

Check if changes of contrast or brightness make this banding show

up. Finally, CRT monitors will hide these artifacts more than an LCD
screen will.

I have an LCD monitor that I calibrated and profiled, using Eye-One
Match.

Also, what method of printing did your local lab use when
they got no banding?

"frederick" cited this issue, and it was also cited in a newsgroup on
Photoshop, where I cross-posted. My local photolab, altho serving
basic consumer needs, uses a traditional color-printing system so that
whether the input is from film or from a digital file, the image is
exposed by light on photographic paper and processed the "old" way.
The photolab did not use an inkjet printer. I'm getting educated.

Where did the image start from? Is it a digital camera image or scanned
from film?

Scanned on an Epson 4870 flatbed scanner from a 6x6 cm. medium format
transparency, at 48-bit color depth, at 3200 dpi, no scanner controls,
to produce a "raw" TIF file of 238.5 MB. All corrections, cropping,
etc., were done in PS CS in 16-bit mode.

If the problem is not showing up at all on the image on the monitor,
start with your original image and reduce contrast, minimize sharpness
added, and try to keep the image (if it starts that way) in 16 bit per
color while doing any manipulation.

That's something to try. Thanks.

If all else fails, you may be able to add judicious blurring to lessen
this problem. Even slight brightness, color correction, sharpening
differences, or ink densities can make things like this show up. Even
the printer mode selected, or the paper used can bring out these
artifacts, especially in colors like oranges.

Art

All valuable stuff. Thanks.

 

[frederick]

This might be of interest.
Sunrise image with soft-proof and gamut warnings comparing
original image with Epson "Canned" ICC profile for R1800 and
premium semigloss photo paper, and Fuji Frontier Crystal
Archive (type one).
I know that on my calibrated system that the soft-proof
gives a critically close match to print.
http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tmg/softproof/softproof.htm

IMO the out of gamut (oog) areas with the inkjet do show
more superficial tendency to "block up" than with frontier,
but OTOH the frontier print is massively desaturated to
the extent that a _much_ better result could be achieved by
slight (and selective) tweaking of the image before printing
on the inkjet.

 

[One4All]

This might be of interest.
Sunrise image with soft-proof and gamut warnings comparing
original image with Epson "Canned" ICC profile for R1800 and
premium semigloss photo paper, and Fuji Frontier Crystal
Archive (type one).
I know that on my calibrated system that the soft-proof
gives a critically close match to print.http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~tmg/softproof/softproof.htm

IMO the out of gamut (oog) areas with the inkjet do show
more superficial tendency to "block up" than with frontier,
but OTOH the frontier print is massively desaturated to
the extent that a _much_ better result could be achieved by
slight (and selective) tweaking of the image before printing
on the inkjet.

frederick,

I'm trying to send you the image and versions of the problem by e-
mail, but it gets kicked back to me. Can you send me your e-mail
address?

 

[frederick]

frederick,

I'm trying to send you the image and versions of the problem by e-
mail, but it gets kicked back to me. Can you send me your e-mail
address?

Oh okay - I can take a look.
You can email me at:
usenetfred AT slingshot.co.nz

 

[One4All]

With an Epson 1280, I'm trying to print an image of a sunset that has
a sunburst effect. That is, the sun is in the center, white, with
colors radiating outward from yellow to yellow/orange, to orange/red.
These are not the exact colors. I'm just giving you the idea. There's
some flare, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that when I print the image, instead of the smooth
gradation I see on my monitor, I see the colors separated with a
definite line between them, like concentric circles of color, like a
target with the sun as the bull's eye.

Is there something in the printer driver that's doing this? The
problem seems to be when the app hands off the file to the driver. Do
I have to do something in print settings? However, the problem also
shows up when I do a soft proof, before getting to the printing
stage.

This is not an issue of matching color, tonality, etc., to the
monitor. Earlier, I had the same file printed by a local lab, and
there was no problem. Now, I'm trying to print it, myself.

I'm using Photoshop CS on a Mac system with 2.5 GB RAM. The 1280 has
been custom profiled, and ColorSync Utility shows no problems with any
of my .icc profiles.

Apparently the problem is due to my printer profiles.

On advice in another newsgroup, I decided to eliminate my printer
profile, so with the image tagged as Adobe RGB, in Print With Preview
I entered Same as Source, thus eliminating other profiles. The print
got rid of the banding, but the colors were muted by a slight magenta
cast to the print. So, I guess I give the original a slight green bump
up to compensate for that magenta cast. Any comments?

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Sounds like the profile you were using isn't quite matching the
printer/ink/paper mix... Some images just bring out the worst in a
profile ;-) and sometimes some manual tweaking is required to get the
results you are after.

Art

One4All wrote: