[BarryE]

Staff note: This post may contain affiliate links, which means Pentax Forums may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. If you would like to support the forum directly, you may also make a donation here.

---

Sorry but the very purpose of ICC profiles IS to accurately describe a printer, ink and paper combination. A good profile will do this and give you a very good print to screen match in a properly colour managed system using soft proofing. This includes evaluation of the print under proper conditions of illumination - many miss this important step.

Initial print illumination for evaluation is probably best using Soloux 4700k or similar, however if you know the exact end viewing conditions you can mimic this
during print run.

There really should be no issue printing C type or inkjet in B&W, these are colour materials.

The biggest problem most face in trying to match screen to print is that they are not printing themselves and many labs pay lip service to colour management. A good lab will supply an ICC profile and also allow you to soft proof and embedded the paper profile and importantly select the rendering intent in you data file

So true. With a proper colour management (which takes time and money to set-up), a printer service that supplies accurate profiles for each paper chosen so soft proofing can be achieved (careful matching of rendering intent, black point etc as agreed with printer service), then an accurate screen/paper match can be achieved. Repeatedly. No guesses. Anything else is a lottery.

Ref the Dmax discussion and glossy/matt/contrast conversation(s)... It's a pity the subtly of tonal variations, rather than full on saturation impact, is so often forgotten. A quality matt paper holds tones beautifully. Print it. Put it aside. Don't compare with screen (when properly colour managed) and enjoy the print for what it is - a separate item with it's own qualities.

Viewing colour temp is critical too. No colour cast from room. No reflections. Viewing angle of paper. Proper CRI lighting to study print. So often the screen is way too bright for a fair comparison of print. Again, once set-up, this all becomes unnecessary per print when the process is properly locked-down and soft-proofed etc.

[biz-engineer]

Did they tell you to do this or just ask you to supply an sRGB JPEG?

I sent them an sRGB , color management on their side. They sent me a B&W print that looks blueish. I complained sending them a photo of the print in daylight with a X-rite gray card on top of it and the camera WB calibrated on the X-rite calibration card. They didn't dare to look into it. So I ordered the same print as a test print on the same paper at their competitor (without mentioning anything), the competitor sent me a print and it's perfectly B&W with not tone/cast. It's easy, my soft proofing doesn't show any blue cast, I sent the print to three companies and one of them returned me a B&W print that looks blue. I send them a B&W file (this means, RGB values are all the same for every pixel), it's their job to take my sRGB (black & white) and have a correction in the process for printer + paper biases.

---------- Post added 26-05-19 at 12:35 ----------

Display calibration of over 4 hours makes zero sense.

it made sense for me because my monitor is not a hardware calibrated monitor. After the calibration with data color, there is a check vs standards. The quick calibration wasn't sufficient to get "green" results at the verification. So, I used more color point to establish the calibration LUT for my monitor, this is how I was able to have all verification checks pass green.

---------- Post added 26-05-19 at 12:39 ----------

Anyway, when I send a digital B&W file (R, G, and B histograms are perfectly aligned), anything away from gray scale is due to printer unable to produce proportional color mixing, or enable to correct for paper whiteness.

[TonyW]

I sent them an sRGB , color management on their side. They sent me a B&W print that looks blueish. I complained sending them a photo of the print in daylight with a X-rite gray card on top of it and the camera WB calibrated on the X-rite calibration card. They didn't dare to look into it. So I ordered the same print as a test print on the same paper at their competitor (without mentioning anything), the competitor sent me a print and it's perfectly B&W with not tone/cast. It's easy, my soft proofing doesn't show any blue cast, I sent the print to three companies and one of them returned me a B&W print that looks blue. I send them a B&W file (this means, RGB values are all the same for every pixel), it's their job to take my sRGB (black & white) and have a correction in the process for printer + paper biases.

So you have effectively given up on colour management in its real sense. You sent them an sRGB and handed over to them the task of managing your data to make what to them would be a nice print. There is no way that they could possibly see what you see on your monitor that would represent your edits through their profile. The only way to get close is for you to make your edit using soft proofing through the ICC profile for the printer and hope that their colour management up to the task.

You cannot correct for paper base white differences. Paper white is just that the white of the paper and this may take on bluish or warmer casts. If a paper has OBA's then it is likely to appear more blueish than a non OBA paper.

What process, papers and equipment did each lab use? Were they the same?


The good thing for you is that you have at least identified where not to send for prints


---------- Post added 26-05-19 at 12:35 ----------

it made sense for me because my monitor is not a hardware calibrated monitor. After the calibration with data color, there is a check vs standards. The quick calibration wasn't sufficient to get "green" results at the verification. So, I used more color point to establish the calibration LUT for my monitor, this is how I was able to have all verification checks pass green.

And what standards did you settle on for:

White Point ?

Black Level ?

Gamma ?

Luminence ?

---------- Post added 26-05-19 at 12:39 ----------

Anyway, when I send a digital B&W file (R, G, and B histograms are perfectly aligned), anything away from gray scale is due to printer unable to produce proportional color mixing, or enable to correct for paper whiteness.

You cannot correct paper white it is fixed and no printer other than specialist uses white ink

[kaseki]

This is a fascinating discussion. The reference to Solux led to an informative paper http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/eyes-response.html#Daylight:...ing%20findings that I think is worth reading before deciding just what one wants an image to look like under its displayed conditions, whether embodied in printed (reflected) form or by monitor (radiant) form.

[biz-engineer]

You cannot correct for paper base white differences.

That's about right, actually I made an experiment, I went to a shop in my neighborhood where they do instant prints. I printed a B&W test chart (a gray scale JPEG) A4 size on two different instant printer station (one Kodak and the other one unknown brand), then I calibrated the WB of my K1 on the X-rite gray card, photographed the print next to it under the same light, imported the file, checked the X-rite values to make sure R,G,B are all aligned, and then applied auto-WB on the test chart area of the file to get the amount of WB correct for the print. Then I applied the same correction to the JPEG with test chart, exported the file again this time RGB to contain the reverted color cast of printer / paper. I reprinted the pre-corrected JPEG files and check the difference between the prints... and yes both prints looked almost identical, with a very small gap. So, it's possible to correct the file to correct the printer and paper to some extent but not fully correct for the paper alone.

Paper white is just that the white of the paper and this may take on bluish or warmer casts. If a paper has OBA's then it is likely to appear more blueish than a non OBA paper.

Yes, that's right, I wasn't prepared for that, because the soft proofing didn't show anything like that. But viewing the prints I had to adjust my understanding and expectations. Nevertheless, I had some doubt about the color management because I had never seen such tone on a pure B&W print, and printed on the same paper with another company showed that there was a problem with color management / printer setup. I've seen how they proceed with large printers to same time and paper, they layout the prints to avoid waste of paper as much as possible and then they prints all prints at once... so what could have happened is that they printed my B&W print together with other color prints, and so the printer may have not been set for pure B&W printing, saving them time and money but leading to sub-optimal B&W print.

What process, papers and equipment did each lab use? Were they the same?

The used the same paper, Hahnemuhle Baryta 325gr (103% white), although the paper may not be exactly the same (I compared the back of the prints and they one is more white than the other, but the surface and thickness look the same, different production batches, who knows...), but I have no idea what printer they used, the printers are unspecified.

And what standards did you settle on for:White Point ?Black Level ?Gamma ?Luminence ?

I did luminence and gamma manually based on the test squence provided with the graphic card / driver. The rest was handled but the calibration software of DataColor. The black and white looks good on my calibrated color monitor :-)

---------- Post added 26-05-19 at 21:24 ----------

The reference to Solux led to an informative paper http://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/infopages/eyes-response.html#Daylight:...ing%20findings that I think is worth reading before deciding just what one wants an image to look like under its displayed conditions, whether embodied in printed (reflected) form or by monitor (radiant) form.

Very good read, I can confirm the observation in this article, however, framed prints aren't supposed to be exposed outdoor to look right

[TonyW]

...The used the same paper, Hahnemuhle Baryta 325gr (103% white), although the paper may not be exactly the same (I compared the back of the prints and they one is more white than the other, but the surface and thickness look the same, different production batches, who knows...), but I have no idea what printer they used, the printers are unspecified.

This paper is not silver photo paper C type it is for inkjet printers.
No point comparing back of print the Baryta coating only on one surface.

The best advice I can offer you at this time is to do a little more study of colour management if you are keen to match print to screen. You could do worse than read one of these

https://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Color-Management-Bruce-Fraser/dp/0201773406/r...gateway&sr=8-2

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Color-Management-Photographers-Techniques-Photoshop...gateway&sr=8-2

[texandrews]

Of course testing specs, & etc are positive things. This post doesn't suggest otherwise.

But a very significant thing happened to me when I saw my first good inkjet prints on matte, rag paper: I loved them.

I was accustomed to using silver rich, graded papers (from the old Zone VI studios), and then another batch from some small Hungarian seller. But those disappeared and I was left with Oriental Seagull and Ilford, which were not as good by a lot. Obviously all this was B&W. I hated matte papers, didn't much care for lustre.


With inkjet, that all changed instantly. Because inkjet is...ink on paper. So, it was right in my wheelhouse as someone who has done etchings, aquatints, mezzotints, & etc. Now I don't care so much for glossy digital prints, and prefer matte. Not the least reason being the lack of reflections.


Personally, I feel that digital is a different medium than film, and one's expectations should not be couched in a comparison with film and wet prints. Just as one shouldn't understand Japanese whiskies as poor relatives of Scotch from Scotland. Each is its own thing.

In color, I always thought that most wet color prints were sort of ugly, except those that went the extra mile to actually be ugly, and so achieved "ugly beauty", jolie laide.
To me, color digital far exceeds most wet color prints I've ever seen, with very few exceptions---and I'm willing to bet that if these were reprinted digitally I'd like them better that way.

Again, this is not to take away from the fine research and writing above. It's just a cautionary note. Ultimately, the print needs to live as its own object. Get it to look the way you want it to look, or it needs to look.

[biz-engineer]

This paper is not silver photo paper C type it is for inkjet printers.

Yes I know, I never said I compared it to a C type paper of print. I compared baryta to baryta and c-type to c-type on different test runs and 3 different print companies. Looks like I'm not nuts yet

---------- Post added 27-05-19 at 18:14 ----------

The best advice I can offer you at this time is to do a little more study of colour management if you are keen to match print to screen. You could do worse than read one of thesehttps://www.amazon.co.uk/World-Color-Management-Bruce-Fraser/dp/0201773406/r...gateway&sr=8-2https://www.amazon.co.uk/Color-Management-Photographers-Techniques-Photoshop...gateway&sr=8-2

Thanks for the links. Interesting read, book from experts are often valuable.

You own a printer, I don't. So I can't color manage myself on the printer side, I have to rely on the print service to have profiled their printers correctly and to check for any drift on the regular basis. It's not because they've profiled their printers once that there was no change over time, and I have no guarantee how each company do control their output quality. There is no mention on their websites about how to monitor the quality of their printing process. Last but not least, with B&W there isn't any color management, for every pixel R = G = B, it should be on the printer side that manage to stick to black & white.

[biz-engineer]

Some prototype result after framing. The size of the initial test prints was reduced to allow adding a white mat and fitting with the already made frame. I've learn quite a bit by printing, making the frame and the assembly, so the result isn't perfect by I'm already quite happy. Next time I'll improve over what I've learned from the forum discussion and doing the craft.

Components used:

> Photo: Chiesa San Giorgio Maggiore photo captured in Venice, Pentax K1 and D-FA24-70 on tripod / IR remote, with a bit of burning and dodging to reduce a bit the dynamic range for inkjet printing, especially for the upper edge of the image when the printer may produce banding for near white tones. Printed on Hahnemuhle Baryta paper 325gsm, 60 x 80cm.

> Frame:
- 4 meters of canvas frame wood beams 10x45mm and 4 meters of additional 10x30mm for the back side of the frame.
- Box of 12mm and 16mm screw.
- Sandpaper and steel wool to smooth out the wood of the frame before painting
- 375mm wood pain lack mat finish for painting the raw wood frame to make the wide of the mat frame and b&w print pop more.

> Mounting of the print:
- Wood glue for the frame and wet mounting of the photo on the back board
- 2 units of 1.5mm MICA Finish card board paper sheet 70 x 100cm (1 unit for making the mat frame, and 1 unit for wet mounting of the print)
- 1 units of 0.85mm Hellweiss Hahnemule paper 70 x 100 cm for the mat frame (glue the whole sheet of paper on MICA card board sheet, then cutting the mat frame into it, cheaper than buying a 2mm mat paper)
- 1 units of 5mm foam board for backing of the print mounted on the backboard
- 1 unit of 3mm thick acrylic glass (plexiglass) at the front of the mat frame
(foam board and plexiglas where used instead of MDF and glass to reduce weight of the assembly)
- 150mm diameter PVC pipe normally used for toilets, used to deposit the print without creating air bubbles between the print and the mount board, and laminate the print after gluing to make it perfectly flat.
- 8 units spring clips to press the backboard edges at the back of the frame.

[biz-engineer]

Comparison of resolution of photo print processes, x15 magnification zoom on Seagull's head.

Inkjet , Canon paper 240gr, mat finish:



C-type on Fuji Crystal DPII, mat finish:




Inkjet looks a little sharper/more local contrast, C-type looks smooth.