Dark prints, again, w/ Mac. Image added.

Realizing this issue has been discussed in several threads recently, would like some suggestions specific to my particular setup as I am quite uncertain how to proceed to resolve this very frustrating issue. I am still on a steep learning curve with Photoshop and printing but feel I am starting to get somewhere but have not been able to resolve this issue. Have read all I can find on line from Luminous Landscape, NPN, and numerous other websites concerning this but am still stymied.

Equipment: Using MacPro with Cinema display (2 years old), Snow Leopard OS (updated from Leopard), Photoshop CS3.
Monitor calibration: Spyder 3 Elite
Printer: Epson 3800

Monitor is calibrated with the most recent version of the Spyder 3 software, using a monitor brightness setting of 75 CD/m2 (have tried settings of 90, 80, now 75 CD/m2). Have downloaded the latest printer driver for the 3800 from Epson that I thought was supposed to resolve the issues with Snow Leopard (ie. dark prints). Using Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 paper with Hahnemuhle's profile. Using printer settings that has Photoshop managing color, printer color management is set to 'off', relative colorimetric with black point compensation on.

I consistently get dark prints, even with the monitor brightness at 75CD/m2. To get even a print that is somewhat decent, I have to add a curve layer to essentially brighten the entire image, or brighten the midtones and higher values. The resulting print just doesn't work.

1. Is this all still due to the Snow Leopard OS? I assumed the latest printer driver from Epson had resolved the dark print issues. While I had this problem with the Leopard OS, it is definitely worse with Snow Leopard. Should I change back to Leopard?
2. Have read that many have gone to the NEC monitor with the Spectraview calibration software with great results. If I were to change to this monitor, if the issue is with the Snow Leopard, seems I would still be dealing with the same problems. Spending 800.00 on a new monitor and still having the same issues would be a waste of money.
3. Would custom profiles for the paper solve this issue? Have considered using Michael Gordon's paper profiling but not sure if the profiles are where the problem is.
4. Any other suggestions?

Would appreciate any ideas or suggestions.
Thank you.

I have always had to give my prints +15 brightness for every print no matter what I calibrate it with, spyder, colormunki, works ok.

Get M Gordon's custom profile and save yourself all the energy and effort to get it right for a nominal price

Vance, what is your monitor gamma setting? Apple recently changed the default gamma setting from 1.8 to 2.2. If your gamma is still set at 1.8 that might cause print matching problems.

I'm using a MacPro, Cinema display, Snow Leopard, and PSCS3 just as you are. I use Eye-One Match for calibration and print to a Canon iPF6100. My monitor is calibrated at about 90 CD/m2 and I set the gamma at about 2.5. This gives me very good print matching.

Before you spend a bunch of money on a new monitor try different gamma settings. It's free, except for the time and paper you'll waste.

From your description, I don't think you are attacking the problem in a way that is going to uncover the solution.

There are three elements to resolving these issues: printer, monitor and Photoshop.

The first thing are going to need to do is reset the monitor to a ballpark 90-110 CD/m2
(or whatever number your favorite website recommends). You shouldn't be down around 75 - that is too low and something is wrong.

Now recalibrate your monitor.

I know, you have already done this more times than you want to count. Trust, me. Do it again. This is to get things back to a base starting point that "should" be right.

Now we need to start figuring out what the issue is.

Pick an image that is well exposed, good, bright happy color with no casts, sharp, has some highlights and shadows and work that image up to your satisfaction. Post that image somewhere here, in this thread even and ask for very specific feedback: Is the tonality of this image right? If you have access to a second monitor, also view it there. If the image looks fine there in both places, we can eliminate the monitor.

We will be left with PS and monitor. That that image you just worked up and print it. Is the color right? Yes - we are done.

But from your description, it probably won't be.

Now we need to figure out what is going wrong. Can you print this image on another paper choice? If so, do it. Can you have one of your friends print the image. If so, do it. Last,take it to a local printer and have them make a print. Ideally, all three should be on a similar paper type - all glossy or all matte.

Now compare the three prints, plus the one from a couple of paragraphs up. If all four look very similar, the issue is in your viewing conditions and not in your printer or Photoshop.

Unless you are in very bright conditions, most matte papers will look darker than a monitor. How do you matte prints look under bright, noonday sunlight? If the color looks right there, then again it is your viewing conditions. Most home offices are dark enough that comparing a print to a monitor will result in the verdict of a dark print.

Can you get your hands on a file that you you did not work up on your system that you know prints well? If so, make a print and compare it to what the owner of the file has gotten.

Okay, let's start looking at the Photoshop settings. This is for Windows rather than a MAc so there may be some differences.

In CS5 (which is what I have):

Color Management set for document rather than proof
Color handling - Photoshop manages color
Printer Profile - choose the right color
Rendering intent - Perceptual or Relative Colormetric
I have blackpoint compensation checked

Under Printer settings

- Check if the correct media type is selected. For a third party paper, check the paper box or the company's website
Color: Color/ BWPhoto
Print Quality: Use a higher level, not the lowest level possible.
Mode: Custom, no color adjustment

Go through all of these settings a second time to be sure they are right.

Reprint. That should take Photoshop out of the picture.

Now you know the monitor and PS are not the issue.

Go out an buy a box of paper made by your manufacturer and which they have paper profiles available for your printer. Try printing your test shot and see what happens. Again, compare these to the above prints under bright noontime sun.

If the print is right,then the issue is probably in your original paper's profile because you now know that the monitor, PS and your printer is working correctly.

If it is still dark,then I am stumped, but I have never gotten to this point with all of the systems I have set up or trouble shooted.

What you really need to do is go through things one step at a time and NOT assume that anything is correct, gradually eliminating potential trouble spots along the way and when possible comparing them to other systems that you know are right.

Some other questions: Is your computer video card picking up the monitor profile?
Have you ever had a working system? What changed? The printer? PS? Computer?
What are your viewing conditions?
Does it print anything correctly? If so,what?

Colin, Arnab, Mark, Dan, thank you very much for the ideas and suggestions. I am printing out this page and will try your suggestions. Dan, sounds like I need to play detective in a very systematic manner as you have so well outlined. Thank you for taking the time to write out such a concise and logical plan. I think I will start there. Mark, will try a different gamma setting if this issues remains. Arnab, will definitely get the profiles as suggested once I feel I am ironing alot of this out. Colin, will try the brightness setting as well.
You folks are great and I am truly grateful.

Haven't seen all the posts on this one but Scott K. recommends switching to screen mode and setting it to 20% opacity for printing. Make a test print and if it's still too dark up the opacity until you get what you want. I was really interested to see that Apple switched it's gamma to 2.2 (in one of the responses above). Dan's systematic approach is the only way to go and it's important to take NOTES on the settings for each print - unless you have a super memory!

I don't see this key setting mentioned and I have to assume that everyone has missed the answer. Under Printer Profile you are NOT supposed to put in the color space like Adobe RGB but rather the correct profile of your paper, such as: SPR 2400 Premium Luster (if you are using that paper for an Epson 2400 printer for example). Scroll down that long list till you find the paper profiles and put your correct one in. This should do the trick in CS3. CS4 was a little problematic though.

As per Dan's suggestion, I have provided an image that I worked up yesterday and today with the monitor calibrated at 90CD/m2. A print on Epson Premium Photo Paper Luster still is a bit dark and the colors were not right with a slight green cast. Used the profile from Epson for PLPP, with PS managing color, printer color management off, relative colorimetric, black point compensation checked.
How does the attached image look as far as tones, color, etc?

Thanks again for all your help.

Vance, the image looks pretty good to my eye but it does have a green cast. The green is easily visible if you run Filter->Blur->Average in PS.

Try flattening the image, duplicate the background, run Filter->Blur->Average on the duplicated layer, add a levels or curves adjustment layer, use the gray eyedropper in that layer to set the gray point and then discard the averaged layer. See if that gives you a better print.

I see the cast, as well. Mark's procedure using Filter>Blur>Average works like a charm. You may need to do some minor tweaking of each of the individual color channels, using a another curves adjustment layer, to get things just right.

One question, Vance: Have you set up, and do you use soft proofing? Here's an older tutorial (for PS-6) but you can easily adapt for your version of PS.

Soft Proofing

Soft proofing will not take the place of running a real print, but it will get you close, and will save time, ink, and paper.

--P

Just take a good photograph, and cut out all this crap. you are way too technical and overloading yourselves with advanced technology. Get back to the basics of good images based on your camera settings and good composition. You are all driving yourselves crazy with too much post processing. Get back to basics, it always works.

Ely,

I believe I speak for all of us here when I say that we strive to obtain the best in terms of exposure and composition.

In terms of post-processing, doing such in Photoshop to obtain a fine print, which is what this discussion is about, is similar to the efforts made to make fine prints in a traditional darkroom. Things such as masking, tweaking development, dodging and burning are long established techiques for realizing a fine print. The only difference is the vast majority of photographers today use digital equipment to capture images, and digital tools to process images for print.

The issues that Vance has been having are due to some combination of software settings that he is trying to fix. To suggest we "...cut out all this crap" is counter-productive, and frankly a bit rude.

Whether one is using digital or traditional methods, the ideas and procedures discussed are somewhat technical, but they are 'basic' if one desires to make the best print possible with minimum waste of time and materials.

I have been making photographs since 1971. I have shot everything from 35mm, to my current 4x5. I also have spent many, many hours in a traditional darkroom making B&W prints from 4x5 negs, and (currently) I scan, post-process my files, and print them right here in my home. I am happy with the results I am getting, and am confident in my skills; but I am always learning.

As with any learning process, or in working with tools, there will be times when something crops up that we need help with. Discussions such as this one are meaningful to everyone who chooses to read them and learn from them. I humbly submit that you might do the same, rather than cast aspersions. Getting back to basics does work; "...cut out all this crap" does not.

Regards,

--P

Mark, Preston, thank you very very much for taking a look at the image and offering suggestions. While I have used the gray pt in the past, your method of using this with the Blur/average layer worked like a dream come true. Color cast is gone. Very little additional tweaking was needed to get all the colors in line. I then used your suggestion on soft proofing, Preston, for PLPP and bingo, the print turned out much much better than ever before.
So having gone through Dan's outline on troubleshooting this issue, I can be pretty sure that the monitor is calibrated properly, and now having made a print on a different paper with quite good results (closer than I've ever been), I believe the whole issue really boils down to the operator (me). I was so quick to blame the software somewhere in the workflow but do not think that the issue lies there. I plan on soft proofing every print. I am not certain how well the profile for the Photo Rag 308 is though as using that profile in soft proofing makes little change in the image; think I will get a profile for the Photo Rag 308 through Michael Gordon. Having gone through this process has really helped me tremendously. I feel more confident in all these gizmos. Just have to learn more, as always, a never ending process. While I have been serious about photography for over 30years, the last 20 or so with a 4x5, all this digital darkroom stuff can be pretty intimidating. Without your folks help, and numerous suggestions from other folks on NPN, I would still be lost in the vortex.

Forgot to mention that the image above was a scan of a 4x5 Velvia transparency that looks fantastic on the light table. Exposure, everything was right on fortunately. Making the image out in the woods of Alaska was a blast. Getting from the 4x5 to a print is the tricky part.

Thanks again for all your help.

Not real sure where Ely's comments are coming from. The technicals on the image look right and the primary issue here is hunting through your workflow after capture.

Vance, your image here, plus a lot of other images I am seeing posted by you on the gallery, strike me as being slightly flat and slightly dark. Not by much but possibly enough which when combined with a matte paper and indoor lighting might be enough to cause the dark print issues you are seeing.

With your permission, I'd like to take the image you have posted above and rework it slightly to repost.

I'm glad to hear it worked out. That image was worth the trouble. I imagine the chrome is stunning but I'm a sucker for waterfalls and cascades.

I wish I could take credit for inventing that technique but I didn't. I think I learned it here on NPN. Unfortunately, I don't remember who I learned it from. The only thing worse than getting old is not getting old.

I am happy to hear you got this sorted out, Vance! I didn't know you were an LFer; cool. I agree with Mark regarding the image you posted here, and, like him, I am sucker for waterfalls and cascades.

I agree that having a custom profile for your choice of paper is a good idea, especially if you're feeling comforatble with the canned profile. Micheal will do a great job for you.

--P

Dan, you are welcome to work with this image all you want. Would love to see and read further suggestions for improvement. I am very grateful for all your help.
Mark, Preston, again a big thank you for your suggestions and help.

The attached image is what I came up with and was able to make a pretty nice print. Dan, if this one would be better to rework, have at it.

All the best to you folks.

Vance -

You have gone in the same general direction I did with reworking the image. My version is a bit brighter and a bit more saturated, probably a step or two further than you went. I think I like what you did a bit better.

I'm glad you figured out the issue. There are so many little steps that can trip you up that sometimes it is best just to take a step back and start again. Sort of like your first bad experience with 4x5 movements - just how hard did you laugh on your first look at the camera afterwards? My Shen Hao comes out this weekend, finally!

I'll post what I did with your image - feel free to not like it!

Dan, I really like your rework. The rocks, ferns, moss, leaves, etc all are a bit brighter, which I like. I especially like the rocks. The rocks look wet, the way they are supposed to look. Yet you accomplished this without blowing out the higher white values in the water. May I ask how you accomplished this?
Thanks again for all your help. Really appreciate it. Enjoy your weekend with the Shen Hao. Perhaps some fall colors are beginning to show out your way.

Vaguely, from memory: Autocontrast (which had no visible effect on the image, but might in a larger file).

A slight curves adjustment, with the center anchored, 3/4;s of the way up anchored, about 1/10-1/8'th of the way up anchored but down very slightly and the curve pulled down slightly between the first anchor point and the halfway point.

Shadow/highlight tool, with shadows moved +4-+5

Vibrance at about +12

These are very rough numbers since I really wasn't keeping track of what I was doing. In retrospect, I probably should have as it would have helped you reproduce the steps.

The main thing I was after was to bring up the shadow areas without affecting the water highlights. I went too far a couple of times and had to undo.

I think the wetness comes from bringing up the tonality of the image. It also affected the highlights a bit so as long as I was careful not to blow out the whites, I could restore some of the reflective highlights that the eyes and brain interpret as wetness.

Your image also made it possible to do what I did since the highlights peak in the ballpark of 240-245 in each channel, and usually one one channel at a time. That gave me a lot of latitude to make adjustments.

The important thing in all of this is that the initial shot was correct. That makes everything else much easier to handle.

Fall color doesn't really start for another two weeks or so but it is beginning to smell like Fall. Not enough vacation time to travel this year but a couple of weekend trips are in store.

Happy shooting!

Dan, thanks again for all the help. Working on the adjustments you outlined above. Think I may upgrade to CS5 as I've heard a lot of good things about it.
All the best. Hope your weekend goes well.