Slightly OT: Colour Profiling on the cheap?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bastet
  • Start date Start date
B

Bastet

I guess the answer to the above's "no" but I thought I'd ask anyway. After
spending practically every penny I have on a printer and Photoshop spending
£100s on profiling hard/software. Adobe Gamma didn't do it - my prints have
an obvious yellow cast - on whatever media I choose to use...

Monitor: - Sony G520 (couldn't afford the model with the EyeOne kit)
Printer: - Canon i9100
Scanner: - Epson 1200P (yes, I know, but I can't afford to replace it)
OS: - Windows XP Pro
Graphics Card: Radeon 9700 Pro

I'm well aware that proper profiling costs mega-money, but there must be a
reasonable compromise. I use PS primarily for its art effects and the photo
of pink roses I finished working on today (it's a get well card for my
grandmother) printed out almost sepia on 210g/m² (sorry I don't know what
that is in Americanese) matte inkjet card (probably not a very good brand -
EuroJet - but it was the only company I could find selling something heavier
than 160g/m²). The leaves weren't a bad colour - but you wouldn't have known
that the flowers were pink!

I've wasted nearly half the cartridges on this and I really don't want to
print again unless I can be fairly sure of the results.

Could someone offer me some suggestions? If I can get this right, there
could be some money in it as Grandpa could get me commissions from the Rose
Society.

Thanks folks!
 
Bastet said:
I guess the answer to the above's "no" but I thought I'd ask anyway.
After spending practically every penny I have on a printer and
Photoshop spending £100s on profiling hard/software. Adobe Gamma
didn't do it - my prints have an obvious yellow cast - on whatever
media I choose to use...

Monitor: - Sony G520 (couldn't afford the model with the EyeOne kit)
Printer: - Canon i9100
Scanner: - Epson 1200P (yes, I know, but I can't afford to replace it)
OS: - Windows XP Pro
Graphics Card: Radeon 9700 Pro

I'm well aware that proper profiling costs mega-money, but there must
be a reasonable compromise. I use PS primarily for its art effects
and the photo of pink roses I finished working on today (it's a get
well card for my grandmother) printed out almost sepia on 210g/m²
(sorry I don't know what that is in Americanese) matte inkjet card
(probably not a very good brand - EuroJet - but it was the only
company I could find selling something heavier than 160g/m²). The
leaves weren't a bad colour - but you wouldn't have known that the
flowers were pink!

I've wasted nearly half the cartridges on this and I really don't
want to print again unless I can be fairly sure of the results.

Could someone offer me some suggestions? If I can get this right,
there could be some money in it as Grandpa could get me commissions
from the Rose Society.
Click to expand...

Bastet - more than likely the bottleneck is with your scanner. Set down a
baseline system, without profiles, as follows:

1) use Adobe Gamma as per instructions

2) set sRGB as your Photoshop working space, click on the gradient tool, and
verify that the black->white gradient appears neutral

3) set your printer up using the manufacturer's defaults, selecting sRGB if
it is available. Do not use a profile unless one is absolutely required

4) print a gradient using canon inks on canon paper, and verify that you
have no color cast. If you do, go back to step 3. A gradient image is
available here:
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/digital_test_strip.htm

Once you have your basic system set up and printing correctly, add your
profiles if you are still so inclined. Add your profiles one at a time -
starting with the printer, and compare your results systematically with what
you had before.

Keep in mind that you can get perfectly good results without using any 3rd
party profiling systems. However, since you've paid for your profiling
package, consider investing in a hi-bit color scanner, such as the
relatively inexpensive Microtek 5900 - look for deals on eBay. IMHO many
people waste time and money on unnecessary "over-profiling" of their
systems.

Assuming you do want to use profiles, Ian Lyons describes photoshop color
setup procedures here:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps7-colour/ps7_1.htm
--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net
 
Mike said:
Bastet - more than likely the bottleneck is with your scanner. Set
down a baseline system, without profiles, as follows:

1) use Adobe Gamma as per instructions

2) set sRGB as your Photoshop working space, click on the gradient
tool, and verify that the black->white gradient appears neutral

3) set your printer up using the manufacturer's defaults, selecting
sRGB if it is available. Do not use a profile unless one is
absolutely required

4) print a gradient using canon inks on canon paper, and verify that
you have no color cast. If you do, go back to step 3. A gradient
image is available here:
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr/DigitalPhoto/digital_test_strip.htm

Once you have your basic system set up and printing correctly, add
your profiles if you are still so inclined. Add your profiles one at
a time - starting with the printer, and compare your results
systematically with what you had before.

Keep in mind that you can get perfectly good results without using
any 3rd party profiling systems. However, since you've paid for your
profiling package, consider investing in a hi-bit color scanner, such
as the relatively inexpensive Microtek 5900 - look for deals on eBay.
IMHO many people waste time and money on unnecessary "over-profiling"
of their systems.

Assuming you do want to use profiles, Ian Lyons describes photoshop
color setup procedures here:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps7-colour/ps7_1.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike - but I've not paid for a profiling package - I can't afford
one!! I've just re-read my message and I left out the vital word "can't
afford"! D'OH!!
 
Mike Russell said:
Bastet - more than likely the bottleneck is with your scanner.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If the problem is the scanner, then the yellow cast should
also be visible on the monitor (unless the monitor settings are really
way too blue). So if the image looks good on the monitor and you have
used Adobe Gamma to calibrate the monitor, then it's more likely the
printer settings. Bastet, you use a lot of words, but you give very
little real information. How do you print? Some people convert to CMYK,
because they think that is needed as a printer uses CMYK inks. The Canon
printer driver expexts RGB data however, and converting to CMYK causes a
color cast. That could be the problem, for example.

Give information that matters, like settings of Photoshop and your
printer driver. The brand of your scanner or your graphics card isn't
your problem. With a Canon i900 you should be able to print something
that is close to what you see on your monitor, no matter what brand of
scanner you used.
 
Bastet said:
I guess the answer to the above's "no" but I thought I'd ask anyway. After
spending practically every penny I have on a printer and Photoshop spending
£100s on profiling hard/software. Adobe Gamma didn't do it - my prints have
an obvious yellow cast - on whatever media I choose to use...

Monitor: - Sony G520 (couldn't afford the model with the EyeOne kit)
Printer: - Canon i9100
Scanner: - Epson 1200P (yes, I know, but I can't afford to replace it)
OS: - Windows XP Pro
Graphics Card: Radeon 9700 Pro

I'm well aware that proper profiling costs mega-money, but there must be a
reasonable compromise.
Click to expand...

EFI makes a package called the EFI Color Profiler. It's the
Gretag-Macbeth Eye One spectrophotometer bundled with EFI's software.
It'll do both reflective and transmissive reading, so it's good for both
paper and monitor (and comes with the stuff to hang it on a monitor).
It's dirt simple. Costs about $2000 or so.

Gretag-Macbeth will also sell you a bundle, using the same hardware.
It's pretty good.

The other way to do it is to have someone else do it for you. Shops who
already have the equipment to do this will do it for you for about $200
or so per profile--and they're probably using very good equipment.
 
Johan said:
I disagree. If the problem is the scanner, then the yellow cast should
also be visible on the monitor (unless the monitor settings are really
way too blue). So if the image looks good on the monitor and you have
used Adobe Gamma to calibrate the monitor, then it's more likely the
printer settings. Bastet, you use a lot of words, but you give very
little real information. How do you print? Some people convert to
CMYK, because they think that is needed as a printer uses CMYK inks.
The Canon printer driver expexts RGB data however, and converting to
CMYK causes a color cast. That could be the problem, for example.

Give information that matters, like settings of Photoshop and your
printer driver. The brand of your scanner or your graphics card isn't
your problem. With a Canon i900 you should be able to print something
that is close to what you see on your monitor, no matter what brand of
scanner you used.
Click to expand...

Whoops - that's me all over - *FAR* too verbose! OK, I'm not sure if the
printer has an sRGB setting (I've not found one - my old ESP895 did) the
settings under 'advanced colour options' are 'manual colour balance',
'Intensity' and 'enable ICM' - the settings of which made very little
difference.

I am not using Canon paper - I've got too much Epson in the cupboard which I
cannot justify wasting. The brightness settings don't appear to do anything
either. I calibrated the monitor using AG, and am using the resulting
profile (the white point is 6500°K). The monitor has an sRGB setting, but
that hasn't made a difference either (it did with my old printer)

The picture in question hasn't been scanned (it was from a photo CD). One
other (maybe vital) piece of information is that I am *NOT* printing from
PS - the image is being exported to MS Publisher 2003. Would this make an
appreciable difference?

As you can tell I know next to nothing about colour and printing but I am
open to education.

There is one problem I've noticed (and I swear I was using it) is that the
settings I've saved are no longer in the RGB profile list and 'other' is
unavailable. Is this a problem with PS?

Any and all information will be most welcome!

Thanks!
 
Elmo said:
EFI makes a package called the EFI Color Profiler. It's the
Gretag-Macbeth Eye One spectrophotometer bundled with EFI's software.
It'll do both reflective and transmissive reading, so it's good for
both paper and monitor (and comes with the stuff to hang it on a
monitor). It's dirt simple. Costs about $2000 or so.
Click to expand...

I don't have that kind of money - at the moment I have £200 to my name in
the entire world - that's to last me a month - I have luxuries like food and
rent to cover!

Gretag-Macbeth will also sell you a bundle, using the same hardware.
It's pretty good.

The other way to do it is to have someone else do it for you. Shops
who already have the equipment to do this will do it for you for
about $200 or so per profile--and they're probably using very good
equipment.
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Bastet said:
Whoops - that's me all over - *FAR* too verbose! OK, I'm not sure if the
printer has an sRGB setting (I've not found one - my old ESP895 did) the
settings under 'advanced colour options' are 'manual colour balance',
'Intensity' and 'enable ICM' - the settings of which made very little
difference.

I am not using Canon paper - I've got too much Epson in the cupboard which I
cannot justify wasting.
Click to expand...

You make every effort to make life more complicated. Using Epson paper
in a Canon printer adds one more variable and makes it more difficult to
get the colors right. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it is better
to try to get a good result on Canon paper first, and THEN experiment
with other paper.
The brightness settings don't appear to do anything
either. I calibrated the monitor using AG, and am using the resulting
profile (the white point is 6500°K).
Click to expand...

Where do you use it? You should use it as your monitor profile (AG
automatically sets it that way), but you should NOT use it as your
working color space in Photoshop. Many people make that mistake. Choose
sRGB for your color space in Photoshop.
The monitor has an sRGB setting, but that hasn't made a difference either
(it did with my old printer)

The picture in question hasn't been scanned (it was from a photo CD).
Click to expand...

Well, that proves beyond any doubt that it isn't your scanner! ;-)
One other (maybe vital) piece of information is that I am *NOT* printing
from PS - the image is being exported to MS Publisher 2003. Would this
make an appreciable difference?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Photoshop 'tags' the image with a color profile, which
tells other programs which color space to use. However, not many other
programs understand color profiles. They open the image in sRGB (or
something close), no matter what the profile says. I don't know MS
Publisher, but it would not surprise me a bit if that program doesn't
work with color profiles. This can cause a serious color shift if the
profile wasn't sRGB. Try printing from Photoshop to see if the results
are better.

My suggestion: Follow the setup that Mike suggested. Then print
something from Photoshop first and print it on Canon paper. If that
looks OK, start experimenting with other papers and/or printing from
other programs.
 
Bastet said:
I guess the answer to the above's "no" but I thought I'd ask anyway. After
spending practically every penny I have on a printer and Photoshop spending
£100s on profiling hard/software. Adobe Gamma didn't do it - my prints have
an obvious yellow cast - on whatever media I choose to use...

Monitor: - Sony G520 (couldn't afford the model with the EyeOne kit)
Printer: - Canon i9100
Scanner: - Epson 1200P (yes, I know, but I can't afford to replace it)
OS: - Windows XP Pro
Graphics Card: Radeon 9700 Pro

I'm well aware that proper profiling costs mega-money, but there must be a
reasonable compromise. I use PS primarily for its art effects and the photo
of pink roses I finished working on today (it's a get well card for my
grandmother) printed out almost sepia on 210g/m² (sorry I don't know what
that is in Americanese) matte inkjet card (probably not a very good brand -
EuroJet - but it was the only company I could find selling something heavier
than 160g/m²). The leaves weren't a bad colour - but you wouldn't have known
that the flowers were pink!

I've wasted nearly half the cartridges on this and I really don't want to
print again unless I can be fairly sure of the results.

Could someone offer me some suggestions? If I can get this right, there
could be some money in it as Grandpa could get me commissions from the Rose
Society.

Thanks folks!
Click to expand...
This page may help you a lot:
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints.html

You can stick with the simple stuff that it explains. You will have to
make a couple of test prints. Once you have satisfactory results with
one type of paper in your printer save that printer profile. You'll
probably have to create different profiles for each different type of
paper you use, but you don't have to create them all at once. Get the
card for Grandma working first.

I'd suggest doing your test prints from Photoshop. I don't know if
Publisher is making things worse, but it won't make things better.

Bernie
 
Back
Top