Monitor/printer differences...please help

[V6GTO]

I get happy with an image on the monitor, but when I print it the result looks a bit washed out. Please help by telling me which of the following shots looks right, re saturation, on [b]your[/b] monitor.

1 [pic]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/V6GTO/MG1.jpg[/pic]

2[pic]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/V6GTO/MG2.jpg[/pic]

3[pic]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/V6GTO/MG3.jpg[/pic]

4[pic]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/V6GTO/MG4.jpg[/pic]

5[pic]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v520/V6GTO/MG5.jpg[/pic]

Many thanks in advance...Martin.

[victormeldrew]

Well I am working here on a notbook attached to three other TFT's. My desktop is a different shade of blue on each one - its the same desktop extended over four screens, so they should be the same.

One is almost green, one sky blue, another bright blue, and the last one almost lilac.

Which one should I use?

[Tall_Paul]

1 & 2..too washed out
3..the paddles seem to too bright, but still a bit washed out
4..looks good to me!
5..too much

This will be interesting to see, as i don't think my moniter is calibrated correctly...

[Phil S]

Number 4 for me, ideally somewhere between 3 and 4 maybe..

[GetCarter]

three and a half.

[te51cle]

Not knowing the original scene, how pale or otherwise the oarsmen were I'd say that number four is the most attractive to look at. The yellow looks best, the water most liquid, and the blue shorts sufficiently bright in no. 4. However I suspect that the skin tones are more accurate in no. 3.

[simpo two]

I think 4 looks the most natural.

[anonymous-user]

I'd say 4 looks most natural, but would probably choose to go with 5. This is on a cheap 17" TFT profiled with a Spyder2PRO.

To get the screen and print matched, have you profiled your monitor and printer, or installed a profile for the printer/ink/paper combo? Epson have ICC profiles available for most of their papers on their own printers and some of the other paper manufacturers have the same.

Also, if you're shooting and post processing in AdobeRGB it could just be that the printer doesn't have the range to reproduce what you're seeing - Photoshop has a rendering intent option when printing the image (Print with Preview) that supposedly alters the colours to give an image that is perceived to be the same.

(Sorry if this is a Grandma/Eggs situation)

[Muncher]

4, if not 5.

[V6GTO]

I'm using a new Dell 17" monitor, CS and a Canon i9950 so I shouldn't have an equipment problem. The skin tones look right in 3&4 to me so I'm with Steve when he says 3 1/2. The trouble is the printer is giving me 1 1/2. Everything is set on Adobe RGB98 so that shouldn't cause a problem. I think I'm just going to have to find a profile that works through trial and error. At least now I know the monitor is giving me the same image(more or less) as everyone else. Thanks folks

Martin.

[anonymous-user]

Martin, have you got an ICC profile for the printer/paper combination setup in PS and colour management switched off in the printer driver?

[_dobbo_]

4 for me, my monitor is only calibrated with adobe gamma but I did spend ages getting it right.

[V6GTO]

LexSport said:

Martin, have you got an ICC profile for the printer/paper combination setup in PS and colour management switched off in the printer driver?

Mate, you're talking a foreign language, I speak better Spanish than 'puter.

Martin.

[agent006]

5, but then my monitor is completely shagged.

[anonymous-user]

V6GTO said:

Mate, you're talking a foreign language, I speak better Spanish than 'puter.

Only regurgitating what I've picked up from the Kelby book as so heartily recommended by yourself. Drop me a mail if you want me to try to explain it a bit better.

Basically, what I think is happening is that the range of colours that the monitor can show and those that the printer can reproduce differ. The purpose of colour management and ICC profiles is to enable Photoshop to translate the colours of an image on the monitor to the colours that will look the same when printed out. It looks to me as though this might be where the problem lies in your setup in that Photoshop doesn't know enough about the printer to be able to compensate adequately.

[simpo two]

Ed Hasler's your man. Search archives for his posts on this subject, but it gets technical!

I use Adobe Gamma and it seems pretty close to me. At least, the prints I get back from PhotoBox are just how I expected them. I don't do serious photo printing on my inkjet.