Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (
More info?)
The issue of color temperature of the viewing situation is a bit of a
red herring. That's true of every image viewed in light. Your slide
projectors aren't color corrected for color temperature either.
Now, metamerism is one matter, and that's a big problem, but color
temperature of lighting is quite another. Our eyes (and our brain)
adapt to changes of color temperature all the time. That's why after a
short period of time, a sunset looks more muted than it did when you
first look at it. It's why your "red" light B&W darkroom doesn't look
red after several minutes, but when you leave everything looks green
outside. The cones of our eyes produce chemicals to adjust for color
temperature. Unless the lighting source is literally lacking a whole
part of the spectrum, the print will look "close" to the same in
differing lighting.
Certainly, there is value in printing to a known light source, if that
is the case, and it also makes sense to evaluate the output under as
close to natural daylight (about 5500 degree K, with a high CRI) but
let's not excuse poor color management due to the fact that we never
know what light source an image will be viewed.
Now, having said all this, I don't use color management in my closed
loop printing situation. I have a very trained eye for color. I've been
at it for all my life as a photographer, photo lab tech manager and
artist, and I've learned a lot of the quirks of the drivers, inks and
papers, but that's in a closed loop. I know damn well if I bring my
work to another printer I'll likely have trouble, unless they have a
calibrated system and a sense of what I'm after.
I will agree that working with a LCD screen one likely has so much
variation of color and or exposure just by moving one's head around that
all the calibration in the world won't fix it.
So, for closed loop systems were people are happen with "pretty close"
and don't mind having an occasional reprint, or an occasional print that
just can't be gotten "right" using just Adobe Gamma and playing with the
driver settings may be enough for 95% of the prints most people do,
without the cost of a calibration puck. If, however, you are sharing
files between one another and those need to be printed in differing
locations and have to match, then, a color calibration system is in order.
Art
Shooter wrote:
> "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <test@test.com> wrote in message
> news:1J_me.2949$C72.2499@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
>
>>Frederick wrote:
>>
>>>Miss Perspicacia Tick wrote:
>>>
>>>>Will in SF wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi, guys. Can someone tell me or help me change the settings on my
>>>>>Sony Vaio laptop so that when I edit pictures they print the same as
>>>>>what I see? I am using Adobe Photoshop Elements 3 with a Sony
>>>>>Cybershot camera. Currently, I am using a Canon S820 printer but
>>>>>will be changing that to a Canon IP 4000 or Epson 300.
>>>>>
>>>>>Also, any deals anyone knows of for those two printers?
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you wish accurate reproduction, then merely calibrating the
>>>>monitor is *NOT* enough - you need to calibrate every piece of
>>>>equipment in the chain. This means you need specialist calibration
>>>>equipment for your: - Monitor
>>>>Printer
>>>>Scanner (if using)
>>>>Camera
>>>>
>>>>Otherwise, it's completely pointless. In the case of the printer,
>>>>you need to perform a separate calibration for each of the different
>>>>types of media you might be using (including CDs). In my case that
>>>>meant I had to perform 12 separate calibrations for each of my three
>>>>printers. How much does that cost? Well, if you're doing it
>>>>professionally up
>>>>to £7,500. However, you can purchase the Monaco EZ Color 2 kit for
>>>>around £500. This will enable you to calibrate your monitor, printer
>>>>and scanner. For calibrating your camera, you will need a set of
>>>>Gretag Macbeth calibration plates, costing around £250.
>>>>
>>>>No one said it was going to be cheap.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL - for goodness sake...
>>>The sophisticated expensive solutions suggested are not necessary and
>>>ridiculously out of touch with your probable needs which are indicated
>>>by the equipment that you currently use, and intend purchasing.
>>>Your local photo processor set his gear on auto, and never gave a
>>>rat's poo about colour balance in context of each image on a roll of
>>>film they processed for you. You have a much better chance to get it
>>>right. There is plenty of free software available to help you to set
>>>grey-scale and basic colour balance.
>>>Your Viao monitor will probably never come within a hog's roar of
>>>representing accurate colour from a purist's point of view.
>>>Don't worry about it. Even if you had the expensive gear, and then
>>>spent a fortune calibrating it, the prints are not going to look the
>>>same as a screen image anyway.
>>
>>You're an idiot, aren't you? I have the following set up: -
>>
>>Lacie 321 21.3" LCD monitor
>>Pixma 8500
>>R800
>>i9950
>>Perfection 4990
>>EOS 350D
>>
>>I purchased the calibration suite I have recommended above and used it to
>>calibrate all my equipment (with the exception of the monitor which was
>>supplied with its own calibrator) and the prints match the screen
>
> *EXACTLY*
>
>>Those downloads rely on the human eye which is *NOT* an accurate judge of
>>colour.
>>
>>And why are you telling me that the suggestions "are not necessary and out
>>of touch with your probable needs" they aren't out of touch with my needs
>
> at
>
>>all or I wouldn't have purchased them. Tell the OP (not that you know what
>>his needs are, either...)
>>
>>Yes, you can use something like Adobe Gamma to approximately calibrate
>
> your
>
>>monitor. But, as I stated, a calibrated monitor is useless if the other
>>equipment isn't calibrated either.
>>
>>
>>--
>>In memory of MS MVP Alex Nichol: http://www.dts-l.org/
>>
>>
>
>
> You are talking out of a book or your arse. I will not waste my time pulling
> all of your words apart but will take you up on one single point. You talk
> about those downloads and the human eye not being able to see the correct
> colour. OK lets take an example, you have all your expensive gear set up
> for your printer to give you a colour perfect print, the print runs off and
> you view it under different lighting conditions, your perfect print is going
> to have a cast.
>
> Now if you view your print in the same light as processed it will look
> correct and to keep that correct you will always have to view in the same
> light. It's called Colour Temperature and Colour Temperature differs at
> different times of day and with different types of lighting. So, if digital
> photographic gear is set to auto, and that is the camera, the monitor and
> printer the chances are you will get good prints most of the time and save a
> fortune to spend on inks and paper and memory cards and enjoy digital
> photography all the more. I could send you prints printed on an Epson 2100
> with Epson photo paper and dye ink that would knock you out.
>
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram