I understand that Perceptual rendering preserves the relationships between colors whereas relative colorimetric remaps only the out of gamut colors. In theory, I would think that many of my photographs would print better with the relative colorimetric setting, yet I always find that this setting has less contrast and grayer blacks and perhaps a little less saturation than the perceptual rendering. I am printing on an Epson 1280. Of course, when I am printing at home I use the perceptual rendering and all is good. The problem is when I need an archival print. I send these out (to WHCC) and the result is always a print with poor contrast and a not very deep black. I have used the soft proof and tried to adjust the files with only limited improvement. I think part of the problem may be that they are probably using a relative colorimetric rendering intent. I printed a black and white tonal range chart on the 1280 recently and saw little difference between the the two rendering intents (perhaps a little more graduation in the blacks with the relative colorimetric). I set the printer for color inks (which includes black), not black ink only. I was somewhat surprised that I could only barely observe the 2 level (0,2,4,6,8,etc.) graduation lines starting at about level 12, but really couldn't see them clearly until about level 24 or so. I always use black point compensation no matter which intent I use. I tried adding a levels adjustment with the output (not input) set at 12 for the shadows with no discernible difference. Is there some way to get a contrasty print with deep blacks when using the relative colorimetric setting? Any thoughts?
Have you talked to WHCC? I have spoken to them before and they usually put you on the phone with the tech guys who know their stuff. Very helpful bunch up there.
Yes, I've talked to WHCC about the quality of my prints before, but don't think that I was ever transfered to any of the tech guys. I also think my problem is not just limited to WHCC, but something inherent in my work flow. Although WHCC provides a good print at an excellent price, there is no comparison to the superior quality I get on my 1280. That being said, I have never used their fine art printing, only the thrifty. I don't find that the fine art printing is any more economical than my local printers, however, so I have had no reason to try it.
Edited by Bearmann on Sep 04, 2006 at 02:51 PM GMT
I always use Relative Colorimetric. Differences should be minimal unless you have a massive amount of Out-Of-Gamut colors.
Are you using a calibrated monitor?
Are you using a printer profile from WHCC when you soft proof?
What is your working color space?
If you use Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB, does your lab expect these? You will see a desaturation and ‘washed out colors’ when they expect sRGB, but you send something wider (Adobe RGB etc).
You get superior results from your printer, isn’t it?
Check your Monitor Black Point with this image. http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/monitor_black.htm
Use a bright white light for inspection. You can restrict your printer to exclude the tonal values that he can’t print with Levels and changing the ‘output levels’.
I always use Relative Colorimetric. Differences should be minimal unless you have a massive amount of Out-Of-Gamut colors.
Are you using a calibrated monitor? Yes, Monaco Optix XR
Are you using a printer profile from WHCC when you soft proof? Yes
What is your working color space? Adobe RGB 1998
If you use Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB, does your lab expect these? Yes.
You get superior results from your printer, isn’t it? Yes, the prints from the 1280 are more detailed with superior color and contrast (using percetual rendering).
Check your Monitor Black Point with this image. http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/Calibration/monitor_black.htm
Use a bright white light for inspection. Step 3 in a darkened room, step 4 in a bright room. You can restrict your printer to exclude the tonal values that he can’t print with Levels and changing the ‘output levels’. Yes, tried that at level 12 as noted above.
On the advanced Epson dialog box, I use "No color adjustment". Would "ICM" be better? What's the difference?
Since you get good results with your printer, let’s assume you have a good file. It seems WHCC does something with your file that’s not good. I would ask them for help. If they can’t give you a good explanation, try another printing service.
Maybe unnecessary, but you can send one of those print test files to WHCC and see how they handle these (e.g. http://www.inkjetart.com/custom/)
On the advanced Epson dialog box, I use "No color adjustment". Would "ICM" be better? What's the difference?
No, why would you change something that’s already good? If you let PS handle the colors, you must disable the ICM in your printer driver, else you’re doing it twice, giving incorrect results.
Well. I do think another printing service is in order, though WHCC seems to be well regarded on the various forums. (Perhaps I'm just pickier) I'm still not sure why my home prints look better with perceptual than relative colorimetric, though.
Here's what notice. Relative leaves the mid-point of the image unchanged while sort of clipping off out of gamut colors, so to speak. Perceptual, with all the compression going on, sometimes seems to move the mid-point of the image a bit.
