I have a hi-res calibrated monitor and an Epson 1430 printer. I use Epson Photo Luster and Metallic paper. Print from Lightroom using ICC profiles.
What I see on the screen is a beautiful backlit image. Even adding a little brightness in the Lightroom Print Module I get flat prints with not even close to the same POP I see on the monitor. Is my expectation unrealistic ?
Since your screen actually emits light and prints only reflect it, bright areas like the sunset shown will naturally be brighter on the screen. Contrast range is higher on the screen also. I think our brains adjust to compensate to some extent. Try displaying your print in a well lit area. I usually view my computer screen in somewhat subdued light and prints in bright light. I don't think this is a solution, but a little exploration of the problem. Whoops, almost forgot: Great Shot!
Calibrated monitor and presumably Epson ICC profiles, which generally seem to be highly regarded, so apparently you do not have the "prints too dark" problem. At least you did not mention it. That's good. You did not say whether you soft proof from the Develop Module. If you do not, my recommendation is to try it. You might want to generate a soft proof of the image you posted (very nice, BTW) and compare the soft proof (before editing) to the printed version. If they look to be more similar than the original monitor image and the print, you might have the solution at hand.
CS6 has soft proofing, and I actually have preferred it over LR4 because it "automatically" presents side-by-side views of the monitor and soft proof copies, so that the soft proof can be edited to match the monitor version. I didn't mention it because Gary said he's printing through LR, and I didn't see CS/CC in his profile. In anticipation of my NOT going to Adobe CC, I am switching to printing via LR (and forcing myself to try different approaches to PP trough LR rather than jumping to CS6). But that's really a different topic for a different thread.
>CS6 has soft proofing, and I actually have preferred it over >LR4 because it "automatically" presents side-by-side >views of the monitor and soft proof copies, so that the soft >proof can be edited to match the monitor version. I didn't >mention it because Gary said he's printing through LR, and I >didn't see CS/CC in his profile.
LR4 does the same, probably better, because you can have the edited copy that you view in side by side mode be a virtual copy rather than a duplicate of the file. You can make the same kind of adjustments (curve, vibrance, etc.) that you would make in Photoshop to roughly match the soft-proofed version to the original.
On some of my images I take the extra step to make a "print" version of the image. I start with soft proofing, then add some adjustment layers in CS6 and print small copies until I like what I see off the printer. I only do this for large prints from my Epson 7900. I have a calibrated monitor and use ImagePrint RIP software.
John Herrel Nikonian from South Carolina See the light, capture the essence!
You've recieved some good advice here, but I would like to build upon a comment by JimKing.
The best lighting to view your monitor is poor for print viewing, and the best lighting for print viewing is poor for viewing your monitor. I don't know if you're doing this already, but I'd ask how you are comparing the two. You should not be holding the print up along side the monitor, but instead have the print situated so that you have to turn your head to see it. The white point of your monitor and print will be different, and if held side by side your visual system will most likely adapt to the monitor making the print look dingy.
So a good viewing setup is to have the print at a 90 degree angle from the monitor under a sufficient light source similar to what it will be displayed under so you cannot see both at the same time. This way you are judging each image at its own white point.
So one question you might deal with is -- "can you make a print you like". Kick up the exposure, maybe a bit more contrast -- try a few prints.
If you get what you think you should have, then try backing up and seeing what the problem may be -- and "maybe" you just have to kick up the exposure and contrast a bit, I find that I do sometimes, even after all the calibration, soft-proofing etc.
Sat 08-Jun-13 01:49 AM | edited Sat 08-Jun-13 01:49 AM by JonK
You can be perfectly calibrated, use accurate profiles, and soft proof. The bottom line, as said before, is that a transmissive image will never match a reflective image.There is no substitute for test prints.
In my office, when prepping images for poster prints or offset press, we obviously do as much as we can on screen. And then we print a proof and possibly make corrections (when matching a provided original, we always make corrections, probably more than once).
If on a calibrated monitor you like your image, assume it is correct and assume that any output problems are caused by the process or substrate. Don't alter the image itself; make output corrections on additional layers.
Regarding your posted image: here's a high contrast, high dynamic range image that to my mind requires a high gloss, high brightness stock. The two stocks you mention should work fine (as best as possible).
Jon Kandel A New York City Nikonian and Team Member Please visit my website and critique the images!
I have a Dell High Res Monitor and cranked both brightness and contrast down to level 43. I also have a dimmer on the over-head light in my office that I can rotate to a specific setting every time I am editing....
Yes, I have the Spyder 3 Elite that I calibrate with.
I believe I set the monitor for 120 cd/m2 when I did the initial calibration. I also believe I had to adjust the gamma of each channel separately to get the color temperature and brightness correct. But it's been some time ago since the initial calibration so the memory is a bit foggy.
Sun 16-Jun-13 12:47 PM | edited Sun 16-Jun-13 01:05 PM by barrywesthead
>Try recalibrating with brightness set to 80 to 90 cd/m2. >Screen looks blah but much easier to match to print (as far as >possible)
Agreed -- 80-90cd/m2.
Anyone have a good method for measuring screen brightness? I have seen methods using a camera and a Sekonic L-408 light meter but do not get confirmative agreement and find a significant effect from horizontal vs vertical alignment of the light meter in front of the screen.
I have used as a calibration reference the value of 8,000 cd/m2 for the brightness of clear blue sky but have found slim pickin’s on the web to confirm this figure. Can anyone shed some light on this?
Sun 16-Jun-13 04:28 PM | edited Sun 16-Jun-13 04:29 PM by elec164
The cd/m2 stands for candela per square meter and is a standard measurement for light emitted per unit area.
I'm not sure if the Spyder Pro has the ability, but I know the Elite version does but by default is set to visual instead of measured. It took me some time and fussing around before I discovered how to switch it. Basically when at the current settings screen you choose "Change these settings".
When on the select target screen on the bottom choose advanced. You'll then find three successive screens to select the Gamma, White Point and Luminance Mode. At the Luminace Mode screen you change from Visual to Measured in which you'll be able to set your black level and white level. And when checking this to be able to relate it. I discovered that my white lumance level was set to 124 cd/m2.
Of course that level works for me and I am able to fairly accurately predict on screen what my output from my Printer will be. If 124 cd/m2 is to bright for you, then try a lower value.
Interesting that your software says to "adjust the contrast so that...". My Spyder4Elite software says to "adjust the brightness control until...". I have adjusted the brightness setting on my HP2475w and that has worked fine.
FYI, I usually set my luminance (brightness) to 120 cd/m2 and my monitor values are: brightness = 37, contrast = 80.