Calibration, yeah I know, exciting as lint

01/27/2006 11:47:28 AM · #26

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Let me emphasise A colour cast on a b&w print has nothing to do with colour calibration.

Actually that isn't probably true.

A colour cast on a b&w print can certainly be a monitor calibration issue.

I agree with most of what you said in your post, especially that ink jet printers are lousy at printing black and white, but are you suggesting there is a physical connection between monitor calibration and a color caste printing problem?

Could you explain that, please? This is the first time I have ever heard of such a thing.

When I convert an image to B&W it displays B&W on my monitor screen yet still prints with a color caste unless I use the RIP. Is there some monitor calibration that makes it appear "more" black and white appearing on the screen that I can somehow relate to a color caste printing problem by appearance only? If so, what is it and how can I tell by looking?

Make no mistake, I'm saying your monitor should ALWAYS be properly calibrated properly and recalibrated frequently. That goes without saying.

I understand how monitor calibration relates to the appearance of grey tones matching the printed tones but not at all how a monitor calibration helps you either see or correct a color caste printing problem.

Monitors can have colour casts. You set a white point (basically a warmer or cooler colour cast) You adjust the R,G,B
values (again a colour cast)

If the monitor isn't neutral, then you might have a perfect printer, profiles, inks etc, and you introduce the cast during editing on your non-neutral monitor.

The internal representation of the document is translated to show on the monitor and translated to print on the printer. If you try to adjust the document using an uncalibrated monitor and are trying to judge it with your eye (and not pure numerical adjustment) then any monitor cast can and will screw up your print - because what you are seeing is not what the internal representation of the colour actually is.

Put simply, if your printer is +1 out in one colour and your monitor is -1 out in the same colour, those two incorrect calibrations or profiles will mask each other - you might get lucky. But say the monitor is right and the printer profile is +1 - then you get a colour cast in that colour channel.

But say the printer profile is right, but the monitor profile is -1. You adjust the on screen view to look neutral on the monitor, then print it (with that -1 screwup from the monitor) which effectively means you fix it on the screen with a +1, and print it with a +1 adjustment - making it look like there is a colour cast and that your printer is screwed up. Leading to long, frustrating and wasteful time trying to 'fix' the printer, paper or ink.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 11:50:13.

01/27/2006 12:22:01 PM · #27

I get great black and white prints from my hp 7660, loaded up with a grey ink cartridge for completely neutral prints. Gordon may find them boring but I really like the look, and if you do want to tone them slightly while maintaining the advantages from the grey ink cartridge there's a second slot for a colour cartridge. If an 8x10 or 8x12 is as large as you're planning to print, it's a good option.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/27/2006 12:27:00 PM · #28

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

I suspect they aren't totally neutral. I don't mean toned as in sepia or tinted purple or any stuff like that. I'm not meaning tinting by messing with the chemicals, like gold toning or the like.

I mean go and look at a really classic B&W print. You can even go and look at an Ansel Adams exhibit if you like. The midtones, highlights and shadow tones are all occasionally warmer, or cooler than a neutral tone. It's what gives life to a really great B&W.

What I'm talking about is more in line with the warmer or cooler ink sets available from the piezography people. The tone is important to the look of the final image. Most grey isn't really grey - and while we are at it, most paper isn't actually white either.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 12:29:04.

front_element

Nikon D700

01/27/2006 12:29:27 PM · #29

What software profiles do I need and what hardware. I have been to sites where they say you should be able to distinguish between certain boxes, and I can, so I don't want to trust my own eyes.

There are two ways to get rock solid, high quality monochrome output from a printer:

1. Buy a monochrome/restricted gamut inkset for the printer (can't use it for anything else but monochrome).

2. Use a printer that can be profiled to the inks AND paper that you use to produce monochrome images without colour casts using colour inks

This could get VERY dull if I went on for much longer but PM if you'd like to know more.

Artifacts

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/27/2006 12:29:40 PM · #30

Gordon... In reference to our long posts above... everything you say about monitor calibration related color printing is logical and correct assuming you are dealing with a color image.

Implicite to what you are saying is that when I desaturate all the color from an image in Photoshop it is NOT really neutral in PS itself. Is that true? That certainly explains how monitor calibration can come into play. No wonder people have so much trouble with B&W prints, give up and settle for non-neutral toned or sepia images.

Theory aside, I'm glad I got finally got the RIP. I get the grey tones I see on the screen without colors and that is all I care about!

Thanks for your insight.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 12:31:59.

01/27/2006 12:34:55 PM · #31

Originally posted by stdavidson:

Yes - if you do your B&Ws as pure greyscale images, (i.e, for each level Red=Blue=Green) then monitor colour casts wouldn't be an issue - as you wouldn't do anything to fix them.

I don't tend to do my B&Ws like that though, prefering to be able to bias the low, mid and high tones differently depending on the end result I want. I find the completely neutral approach uninteresting and lacking some expression.

For an example of what I'm wittering on about, look at the 'B&W' images in this gallery

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 12:36:21.

01/27/2006 12:35:11 PM · #32

The word you're looking for is metamerism, and there's no visible metamerism on my prints, I'll tell you that. That's what is meant by neutral prints, and there's a big advantage to that when you're printing for potentially different light sources. They look neutral in all situations. I've spent enough time looking at traditional black and white prints to know that, as a grad student who can't spend megabucks on printers or specialty inks, the results I get are outstanding for the price of the printer and ink.

//www.photo.net/mjohnston/column35/

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
I get great black and white prints from my hp 7660, loaded up with a grey ink cartridge for completely neutral prints. Gordon may find them boring but I really like the look, and if you do want to tone them slightly while maintaining the advantages from the grey ink cartridge there's a second slot for a colour cartridge. If an 8x10 or 8x12 is as large as you're planning to print, it's a good option.

I suspect they aren't totally neutral. I don't mean toned as in sepia or tinted purple or any stuff like that. I'm not meaning tinting by messing with the chemicals, like gold toning or the like.

I mean go and look at a really classic B&W print. You can even go and look at an Ansel Adams exhibit if you like. The midtones, highlights and shadow tones are all occasionally warmer, or cooler than a neutral tone. It's what gives life to a really great B&W.

What I'm talking about is more in line with the warmer or cooler ink sets available from the piezography people. The tone is important to the look of the final image. Most grey isn't really grey - and while we are at it, most paper isn't actually white either.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 12:36:49.

01/27/2006 12:37:50 PM · #33

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

No it isn't the word I'm looking for. I know what metamerism is and it isn't what I'm talking about.

Edit : This is what I'm talking about. As the linked article mentions, the problem isn't colour casts, it is uncontrolled, unrepeatable colour casts.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 12:46:47.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/27/2006 12:44:49 PM · #34

I am not arguing against proper calibration of monitor and printer.

In respect of lab prints, undesired colour castes occur in the exposure process when using the wrong paper. Given the facts of your story, this seems to me to be the most likely explanation to the teacher's comment. Desired colour casts may be acheived in b&w through choice of paper and exposure method (and recording medium). This has nothing to do with calibration.

In respect of home prints, you can avoid colour casts entirely by using black and grey inks instead of colour. You do not need your monitor or your printer to be colour calibrated in order to achieve a colourless print. It is probably all but impossible to get a true black and white print from a colour cartridge, no matter how well calibrated your system, as the inks are just not good enough.

You do need the printer and monitor calibrated for a b&w print to achieve the correct contrast and brightness.

If you want a desirable colour cast (eg imitating a silver print exposure process), you will effectively be printing a duotone image and you will need to use colour ink and have everything calibrated. Or get the pure b&w image printed onto a slide and have it enlarged onto the correct paper using that original process.

For colour photographs, it would be great to work on a totally calibrated system.

01/27/2006 12:47:38 PM · #35

We could swing on back to the OP's request of neutral prints and suggest a cost-effective solution. I agree that, for some, toning is critical. However, to solve a problem here, starting with something like the grey inks available at any old Best Buy might be a good idea, no?

01/27/2006 12:51:58 PM · #36

That's the whole point of the grey ink system, though. You don't get any uncontrollable colour cast because there's no colour to be had. Sure it may be TOO neutral, but neutral is what some of us want.

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
The word you're looking for is metamerism, and there's no visible metamerism on my prints, I'll tell you that. That's what is meant by neutral prints, and there's a big advantage to that when you're printing for potentially different light sources. They look neutral in all situations. I've spent enough time looking at traditional black and white prints to know that, as a grad student who can't spend megabucks on printers or specialty inks, the results I get are outstanding for the price of the printer and ink.

//www.photo.net/mjohnston/column35/

No it isn't the word I'm looking for. I know what metamerism is and it isn't what I'm talking about.

Edit : This is what I'm talking about. As the linked article mentions, the problem isn't colour casts, it is uncontrolled, unrepeatable colour casts.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/27/2006 12:54:30 PM · #37

I think that the best solution is to find a mini-lab that will print b&w files onto the right b&w paper at a reasonable price! You get all the benefits of film printing on the right paper to give a true b&w feel. This may be cheaper than in investing in all of the equipment and time necessary to achieve a sufficiently well calibrated system for exacting professors!

Grey inks (widely available on the Internet) would be an easy second.

Basic calibration would be important. But buying and performing the exacting calibration that would be necessary to mimic various b&w printing processes would be a headache and cost that I would try to avoid.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/27/2006 01:18:19 PM · #38

I'm getting ready to try out Mpix's true B&W paper printing. I'll be testin ghtem with my arch and aspens shot.

01/27/2006 02:57:36 PM · #39

But getting prints done at a lab is not an option. They require home-printed prints if you want to do it all-digital. Thanks for the help,
Now here's a few more questions. Is there a RIP for the Canon Pixma ip4000? And is there neutral-only inkset for the same?

01/27/2006 03:17:29 PM · #40

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

True, but most of the grey inksets are sold in particular colour casts. //www.piezography.com/site/carbon-black.html
You can actually go quite a bit beyond that with more careful tonal control.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 15:17:50.

Brent_Ward

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L USM

01/27/2006 03:24:44 PM · #41

Originally posted by pgatt:

Buy an Epson 2400. IT has awesome B&W printing.

RIP is going to costs a least $1K, but the epson deos a great job with out it.

th3ph17

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/27/2006 03:54:17 PM · #42

the best B&W prints i've seen used Colorbyte software...but that was on larger format printers. //www.colorbytesoftware.com/index.htm

From what i saw of it, it appeared to offer tight controls of how photoshop defines ink densities, etc...

If printing in b&w mode doesn't help, and finding a paper without a color cast doesn't help you are going to have to delve into the deep print and ink functions in photoshop--stuff no one except pre-press people ever seem to use.

01/27/2006 06:34:06 PM · #43

Please????

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/27/2006 07:02:48 PM · #44

Originally posted by pgatt:

Are you sure that getting prints done at a lab is not an option? Most labs that i know of use digital printing processes.

th3ph17

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/27/2006 07:16:51 PM · #45

this is from a review of your printer. I printed a number of black & white prints and the output was good but not the equal of the Epson 2200 or HP 7960, both of which have special photo gray and black inks. Using double-weight matte paper the B&W prints looked their best.

Message edited by author 2006-01-27 19:18:58.

01/27/2006 07:19:33 PM · #46

Are you sure that getting prints done at a lab is not an option? - yep. All the labs here do digital, that's not a problem, it is the course requirements, whether you do digital or film, to do the printing yourself.

01/27/2006 07:51:09 PM · #47

bump

Message edited by author 2006-01-28 08:49:00.

01/28/2006 08:52:18 AM · #48

any more info. I'm tempted to order the colorvision printfix and monitor spyder solution? any further advice? been helpful (if a little scattered) so far. If anyone knows of a tutorial go to finish, I'd love to read it

ksgant

Canon EOS-20D

01/28/2006 02:21:18 PM · #49

I was in the color pre-press industry for 15 years doing nothing but Photoshop color corrections, retouching etc etc.

We didn't calibrate any of our monitors...ever. Now, things may be different in the world, but back then we had to use brute force and actually learn the numbers of the colors and what we were doing to match a transparency...which was the main thing we were trying to achieve. The client would send in a trans...we would scan it to the size the layout needed...usually at 120 dots per cm. Right after the scan, we would then make a print...back in the old days this would mean running film through the imagesetter and making a Cromalin..which were a pain. We ran through different types of color proofs over the years from Cromalins to Matchprints to Kodak Approvals...it really came down to what the client was used to seeing in the light booth.

ANYWAY...after the scan of the trans, we would make a proof, check it in the light-booth against the original scan and make color corrections from that. All very subjective. It came down to the guy doing the color markup in the booth to make judgement calls. Like "-10m in leaf at the 3/4 tone" and "+15c mid tones in sky". That sort of thing. Then we would make the corrections along with the masks for the scan and output another proof. Then the client sees it, makes their own changes and proof again. The final proof the clients sees and approves is sent off to the press and they use that to match to.

Again, no calibrations in the monitors at all. All very subjective and we were all very good at it...but it took a LOT of training and that's why everything was so expensive back then.

Times have changed now. I personally haven't investigated color profiles or things of that nature because color has been beaten into me so much over the years...but having said that, one can always learn something new. From what I can tell, profiles and matching DO work for the most part and keeps the "test prints"...which cost money...down to a minimum. But just keep in mind that what you see on the screen...transmissive color...will always be a little different from the reflective color you're getting off the print. Though even this has changed quite a bit.

Anyway, that was a trip down memory lane...to let some that may not have known, know how it was back in the old days. I'm semi retired now and am just getting back into photography. I don't even have any equipment yet, so I'll be investigating all the printing and calibrations and things of this nature over the next few months. I'm looking forward for this old dog to learn some new tricks!

Brent_Ward