Can someone please help me with printing?

Jerry,
What are your printing settings, in more detail?

There's been a few thread on this sort of thing (I had one...) and if the "usual" checks of stuff like double-profiling all pan out okay, we resort to voodoo and delete and reinstall the printer (which, rather spookily, worked for me when nothing logical did).

I'm assuming for a start you have soft-proofing turned on for the proper paper type, and that your iMac screen is not excessively bright (ie you have, by one means or another, been able to reduce the brightness to below the level allowable by using the brightness slider alone).

Oh, and here's the link to a previous thread which also links to one earlier - enjoy!
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1711206&start=15&tstart=0

Regards,
Calx

Message was edited by: CalxOddity

I've already asked about in-camera color space settings and have been told by several people to go either sRGB or Adobe RGB because it won't matter since "Aperture takes care of all the color management." But still, I have these printing problems with both spaces.

Arrgggh ... photographers and prepress -:)

When you create a digital original for an archive of digital originals, you need to be careful of the colour space that defines the colours of your colourants (R,G,B values are colourants, CIE values are colours).

If you want to be able to to output a colour, say the CIE value of pure cyan in an ISO 12647 standard printing conditionfor offset on bright art paper, then you have to be able to input that colour into your colour matching session.

In order to be able to input that colour into your colour matching session, that colour has to be definable in the colour space of your source ICC profile. Open the Apple ColorSync Utility, go to Profiles, and select sRGB.

In the 3D plot to the left, open the Disclose icon, in the drop-down list select Hold for Comparison, and select a profile from the CMYK sublist on the left, say one from the pack of ISO 12647 profiles you may pick up from www.eci.org.

Note that in the gamut comparison, sRGB is too small to hold a whole lot of colours you can form in the larger offset gamuts, and if you change from comparing with large offset gamuts to comparing with large HP or Epson gamuts, you will never ever want sRGB as your source.

There are a number of ICC source colour spaces suitable for photographers. Joseph Holmes has defined a colour space the size and shape of EktaChrome. Dietmar Fuchs and others have defined the PhotogamutRGB source colour space (www.photogamut.org). Karl Koch has defined ECI-RGB.

But whatever you do, don't do sRGB.

/hh

I calibrated my monitor and then I'm given a profile to set it to. I use this calibrated profile for viewing, right?

Correct.

In a colour matching session irrespective of the ICC-enabled application, the ICC MNTR Monitor profile for the current condition of your digital colour display is the DESTINATION.

In the Apple ColorSync Utility, you will note that peripherals are registered and that registered peripherals have a factory fallback ICC device profile.

A digital colour device can have multiple conditions, for instance, your digital colour display can have different resolution settings and different gamma settings.

When you configure to a condition, you are able to characterise that condition in an ICC device colour profile. In other words, the same hardware is a different colour device for each colour condition.

The ICC colour device profiles for whatever conditions you configure are installed under the factory fallback ICC device profile (the same applies if you have more than one display, for instance).

Note: Your ICC MNTR Monitor profile captures the gamma of the video system in the VCGT Video Card Gamma Tag implemented for ColorSync 2.5 in 1998.

When you subsequently select one of your monitor profiles, the video system is reset to the gamma in that monitor profile.

The ColorSync Team wanted to end the war for the video system caused by conflicting gamma tools that fought for control in the system startup phase.

You are NOT supposed to repeat history by applying a gamma correction at print time in Aperture as in that case the colour appearance is not defined and delimited by your ICC device profiles.

If ten different photography studios using ten different runtime gamma corrections for the same digital original, they will wind up with ten incompatible colour appearances.

Apply a gamma correction atop the ICC colour management system is a lowend solution to the problem of studio lighting. The Profile Connection Space is D50 and a display-to-print viewing condition is supposed to be D50, but if the display is too bright or the lamp that lights the print is too dim then changing the gamma at print time is a lowend solution - but it chaotifies colour communication. A better solution is to learn to set up the studio viewing condition correctly. I posted a link to Joseph Holmes and Andrew Rodney on this forum previously. I don't remember if the Solux workflow recommended there is as per ISO recommendations for viewing conditions, but that's probably also discussed in the link.

If so I noticed in the ColorSync utility that when I compare this monitor's profile to the profiles in my HP ICC list, all the HP profiles are much out of the gamut and shaped significantly different. They barely match up.

Correct, but you've got the technical information I have you wrong. Which isn't really your problem, but rather a problem in the way things worked out in the International Color Consortium.

I told you not to select sRGB, but the sRGB colour space is expressed as an ICC MNTR Monitor profile and therefore appears in the Apple ColorSync Utility alongside your measured monitor profile.

You will find that your measured monitor profile and sRGB are about the same size and shape. The reason is that sRGB is the colour space of HDTV, i.e. a Sony cathode ray tube at 6500 Kelvin.

The difference between your measured monitor profile and sRGB as ICC profile is that sRGB has linearised gray i.e. R%=G%=B% defines gray throughout the colour space.

This is not the case with your measured monitor profile, and since your measured monitor profile is not linear you should not be using it as SOURCE for your digital originals - only for viewing them.

I thought a good calibration and matching the ICC profiles in soft proofing and in print setup is what it took to get a good match.

Correct, but you need to know enough that you can set up colour matching sessions using the right ICC profiles with the right rendering intents, and if you want side-by-side matching across applications you need to be able to configure application settings for compatible assumptions.

And as if that wasn't enough (... -:)) a colour measuring instrument is better than no colour measuring instrument, and a colour measuring instrument that makes fewer assumptions about the device is better than a colour measuring device that makes more device-dependent assumptions.

If memory serves, the Spyder is a colourimeter and not a spectrophotometer. This difference has caused considerable discussion, starting with the X-Rite Monitor Optimizer in the period 1996-2000. A colourimeter makes assumptions about the spectral power distributions.

Previously, colourimeters made assumptions based on cathode ray tubes that did not match the behaviour of red in liquid crystal displays. Presently, it appears that colourimeters are making assumptions about green based on liquid crystal displays that does not match light emitting diode displays (or was it that they carried over crt assumptions, offline flame wars, online flame wars, whatever) but the bottom line is that a spectophotometer is the safer solution.

/hh

I am understanding a lot of what you're saying, although your knowledge and discussion is making me reach into the depths of my brain. But I'm with you so far.

In general, it is practically impossible to make heads or tails of ICC-enabled applications if one does not have an independent idea of the ICC architecture.

If one has an independent idea of the ICC architecture, it is easier to extrapolate information on configuring different devices and different applications for compatible assumptions.

Take pictures in RAW.

RAW is a data model, not a colour space. The RAW data model preserves more image information, but and the imaging information is available for parametrisation.

Set my Nikon to Adobe RGB?

If your only choice is between sRGB and Adobe RGB(1998), then never ever choose sRGB unless you are capturing colour for the non-colour managed Web where it is assumed that all digital graphic devices have one and only one gamut, that is, the gamut of a Sony CRT at 6500 Kelvin with a gamma of 2 or thereabouts (I forget the figure). If you can capture more colours with a larger colour space, why in the world would you not want to do that? If your choice is a third or a fourth or a fifth colour space to capture into, then think carefully about your choice.

My monitor is set to my Calibrated profile...

Right, that's your VIEWING colour space and your VIEWING colour space is your DESTINATION colour space in a default ICC colour matching session.

Your DESTINATION colour space may also be the studio colour printer, whether for a full gamut presentation print or a clipped gamut colourimetric proof print.

For printing at home on my HP B9180:
Leave Black Point Compensation checked.

Black point compensation only applies to the Relative Colourimetric rendering intent and to no other rendering intent. It is an Adobe transform, intended for backward compatibility with Adobe PostScript Level 2, Adobe PostScript Level 3 and the Adobe Portable Document Format that defaults to Relative Colourmetric with black point compensation if no rendering intent is specified in ICCBased matching. By definition, the rendering intent for a display-to-print match is Perceptual and if the appearance matching is engineered well there should be no blocked shadows and no washed out highlights.

This is a color managed workflow, isn't it?? Then I get the print that isn't right

At this point, you are looking for the how-to for the precise display, the precise camera, the precise printer/paper, the precise ICC profiling package(s) involved, and the precise version of the application in the precise version of the operating system etc.

The idea is that the photographer is free to configure the studio colour devices as he choices, purchasing products from many manufacturers, calibrating them to their largest gamut, and tieing the colour communication together with ICC device profiles.

The problem with this is that it is very, very hard to troubleshoot as it is not simply necessary to know the ICC architecture, but also to know the nittygritty of the makes and models of digital devices and drivers and applications and whatnot.

We did this for HP printers on the ColorSync Users List in 1999 be challenging HP to defend its products against the claim that it was clipping the gamut of its graphic arts printers to the sRGB gamut - thus in effect not supplying the additional gamut to graphic arts customers.

HP actually took this kindly, I'm still surprised to say. I can try sending them a mail with a copy to this discussion, but I cannot promise that they will supply the information this time. That depends on considerations part courtesy and part commercial, I suppose.

/hh

Ok, so you have replayed without replay.
You know all very well, and you show this, but your knowledge in not useful for poor people like me!

Because I also have some problem with printing I use to export version and then I print with Preview, the result is good.

I know this is a work around, but this is.

I cannot understand why iPhoto, Preview and other softwares print well and Aperture does not.

Jerry,
Hi again and welcome back. I'll try to avoid word salad.

For the Nikon, it doesn't actually matter a great deal in practice whether you choose sRGB or AdobeRGB. Depending on your camera, you may have several versions of sRGB to choose from - for mine I use mode III, I think it's called. The other options are quite washed out and appear to lack both contrast and saturation. Mode III gives the closest match to what I see thru the viewfinder.

Unfortunately I'm at work so don't have access to the Mac right now, but off the top of my head, your settings appear to be good.

I can't for the life of me remember whether there's much difference between application managed and printer managed though. I recall with my HP it actually did make a difference and one of the options reduced the number of choices I had for mucking around with the actual printer settings.

Okay, what next? Make sure soft-proofing is on with the right target paper selected (HP Advanced photo, in your case). Now, find yourself a good test image such as this one: http://www.outbackprint.com/printing...048/essay.html

Changing only ONE setting at a time, print 6x4 prints on your usual paper, writing the settings on the back of the photo each time you print. Some of them will be totally off - muddy, magenta casts etc etc. You could safely assume these are wrong. Which ones look closest to your screen? What are the differences?

BTW - AdobeRGB as an output profile won't work - you want the right printer/paper profile.

Good luck - this takes a little time but if you're methodical it can narrow things down. More later on the screen brightness and soft-proofing, depending on how you go with the above.

Regards,
Calx

Almost right - with soft-proofing turned off, Aperture and any other application is using the monitor profile you've set up or selected up for your iMac in the System Preferences. On the iMac the default is "iMac", mine is called "iMac Calibrated" (three guesses for why!!).

When you turn soft-proofing on, you're saying to Aperture "show me what this photo is actually going to look like when I print it on this particular paper, so that I don't get annoyed when it looks different to the on-screen view". Yes, not a very scientific explanation, but that's it. 😉

Only the printer OR the application should be managing the colour - if you have both managing it, they both apply the adjustments without checking whether the other guy is doing it or not. Kinda like saying to 2 separate house painters "I want my house to be painted - just make it a little more red" and one follows the other around the house putting another coat on the previous one that is more red again. (sorry HH if if have caused you a brain explosion... 😉 )

So, in summary you're pretty much on track, noting the commentary above.

Good luck!

Regards,
Calx

Message was edited by: CalxOddity

(sorry HH if if have caused you a brain explosion... )

I'll survive -:)

Among the articles for the 75th anniversary yearbook of the CIE was one on configuring for compatible assumptions, and included in the discussion was accidental configuring of double conversions. Annoyingly, this problem is largely produced by inconsistent technical terminology and complications when carrying over configurations between applications and between applications and drivers. It is not a colour science problem but a human interface design problem.

/hh

Jerry Shankin wrote:

CalxOddity wrote:
Almost right - with soft-proofing turned off, Aperture and any other application is using the monitor profile you've set up or selected up for your iMac in the System Preferences. On the iMac the default is "iMac", mine is called "iMac Calibrated" (three guesses for why!!).

Here's where I'm getting mixed information. BTW, I have my calibrated profile selected in preferences. Anyway, I was told that Aperture provides a "large color gamut" that is the working space for raw files. My calibrated profile is about the same gamut as sRGB (I compared them in ColorSync Utility). If Aperture is using the monitor's color profile, isn't that a rather small space for raw files to be edited in? And then doesn't that make it even a smaller space than Adobe RGB?

No, you are confusing things. Aperture is not editing in the space of your monitor profile.

When you soft-proof Aperture is not editing in the space of the soft-proof profile.

The working space is never changed. The monitor profile makes it so that you can see image on your particular monitor correcting for all of the monitor's idiosyncrasies. The soft-proof then gives you sense of how the image will look when printed (or whatever device the soft-proof profile refers to.) The monitor profile is still in use.

With Onscreen Proof off: Aperture is using the monitor profile to accurately show you how the image looks.

With Onscreen Proof on and a printing profile selected: Aperture is showing you how the image will look when printed as seen through your particular monitor.

Here's where I'm getting mixed information. BTW, I have my calibrated profile selected in preferences. Anyway, I was told that Aperture provides a "large color gamut" that is the working space for raw files. My calibrated profile is about the same gamut as sRGB (I compared them in ColorSync Utility). If Aperture is using the monitor's color profile, isn't that a rather small space for raw files to be edited in? And then doesn't that make it even a smaller space than Adobe RGB?

Nope, you've got the wrong understanding, and because you've got the wrong understanding you aren't able to make heads or tails of the application interface.

In order to set up a colour matching session in the first place, you need minimum a source ICC profile and a destination ICC profile.

(If you don't have a source, what you will wind up with is technically termed deviceColor and trust me, you definitely don't want deviceColor -:).)

The first problem you have is to decide the size and shape of your SOURCE space, because if you fold your pixels into a source space the size of a teacup, you made yourself chessmate.

If you don't have a CIE colour in your source space, you can't get that CIE colour in the colour spaces you will be converting into - and whose size and shape you do not now know.

What you want is a fair size source colour space, and one that will let you create colours that are achievable on the largest gamut digital graphic devices you are likely to come across.

The beauty of ICC architecture is late binding, that is, you care about the colour exposure corrections and save into your selected source colour space.

When you in future select colour spaces to convert into, the source (intermediate) destination ICC profiles are concatenated into a ColorWorld and you get the best match given the media gamut.

There is plenty of rope around, and there are plenty of people who hang themselves right off the bat by selecting as their source colour working space sRGB or something as silly.

Adobe RGB(1998), ECI-RGB by Karl Koch or PhotogamutRGB by Dietmar Fuchs and others are colour working spaces that at least cover high gamut offset on art paper, if not high gamut inkjet on art paper (though I'm not sure if PhotogamutRGB is on the small side for inkjet, but see the website for the free colour working space yourself).

Your monitor profile has zip and zero to do with the above. It is simply your viewing space, the default destination space in a ColorWorld. What matters is the source colour working space, because it is the source colour working space that defines what colours you can and cannot have in your archive of colour exposure corrected digital originals.

Late binding, late binding, late binding .... someone should write it in ten meter tall type -:).

/hh