Datacolor User to User Support Group.

About 10% of my work is scaning pencil and oil art and printing.  In 
order to match the original I always must play with levels in Photoshop 
to add punch back to the image.  Is there a rule of thumb to doing this 
or should this always just be eyeballed?

The scanner is an epson and is profiled.  The printer is a Epson 
9600/4000 profiled with PFP on Hahnemuhle (spelling?) paper.

Any suggestions?

P.S. The other 90% of my work is done with images printed on canvas 
that are created in the computer by an artist that I print for.  He 
uses totally out of gamut colors and I 500th the request to get the 
blues away from the purples when they run out of gamut.  I think there 
is room here for someone to start a business tweaking PFP files for out 
of gamut blues.  Seriously if anyone can tweak my file I will pay.

-Jonathan Gentry
Potomac Media

I guess what I'm trying to say is... Is there a way to color manage so 
the "system" (scanner, computer, printer) will output what is on the 
original artists paper?  I feel that in a perfect world I shouldn't 
have to tweak at all if everything is calibrated correctly.  I end up 
needing quite a large levels adjustment to get something out of the 
printer that looks like the original.  Keep in mind I'm not trying to 
dress up the image, just reproduce it.  As far as PFP goes things are 
matching the monitor nicely but when introducing the step of scanning 
things go way off track.

Also you bring up rendering intent.  My intent with this 10% of my work 
is to reproduce exactly what is in the original.  Nothing is out of 
gamut with this type of art.  What do you suggest is introducing the 
need to tweak levels?  What rendering intent do you suggest for this?

-Jonathan

I really appreciate the time you've taken to respond but that one 
sailed over my head.  I wasn't referring the paper... I said what 
is "on the artists paper" meaning the ink, pencil or whatever the 
image is.  Not to say that that is part of the digital system, only 
that I want the digital system to recreate it accuratly.

I deal with B/W and color.  In both cases I need to adjust the levels 
to make the colors darker in order to even come close to the 
original.  I am just trying to identify the cause of this.  Where am 
I loosing the "punch" of the image in my digital process.  My guess  
is it's something with the scanner or color managment of it.

-Jonathan 


--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
>
> 
> In a message dated 10/31/06 6:50:21 PM, jpgentry@... writes:
> 
> 
> > I guess what I'm trying to say is... Is there a way to color 
manage so
> > the "system" (scanner, computer, printer) will output what is on 
the
> > original artists paper? 
> > 
> 
> The original artist's paper isn't really part of the digital 
system. But if 
> we are talking more or less B&W work, then getting the paper to be 
paper tint 
> and paper density, and the pencilwork to be very close to pencil 
density is 
> really quite easy, compared to many color management issues. And if 
paper white 
> is to be eliminated (meaning you aren't going to paint the whole 
page the color 
> of the original paper, as you might with a historic original) then 
its easier 
> still. All you really need is a Spyder, and a reasonable printer 
profile. 
> Now, trying that with out of gamut acrylic colors, challenging oil 
painting 
> shadow details etc, can be more difficult. Or photographic black 
and white, which 
> is, again, a lot harder than pencil black and white. The only thing 
you can't 
> nail fairly easily for graphite pencil work is the sheen of the 
original 

> graphite.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Product Technology Manager
> ColorVision Business Division
> DataColor Inc.
> CDTobie@...
> www.colorvision.com
>

hi Jonathan

i understand your problem. i'm in the same situation and would love a 
system that could create output similar to what i paint. what i have 
found is that this is never the case. color management is actually all 
about making the best of what you have available. there are plenty of 
color management software/hardware suites out there. the problem is 
that none of them, no matter how expensive and complex, and the can get 
darned expensive, can eliminate the endless tweaking to get the desired 
result. ColorVision PrintFix Pro is one of the most cost effective 
color management systems out there, for what it does. also it has to be 
understood that color management is about the creation of profiles to 
aid in effective monitor based proofing prior to printing. it's not 
about making the printed output look exactly like the painted original, 
instead it is about getting it as close as you can with the inks being 
used. this is why ink and paper combinations all have to be profiled to 
analyze the gamut weakness and generate a good soft proof to make the 
color corrections that are necessary within the scope of the ink/paper 
potential. i do digital painting, so i always paint with the proofing 
filters on in both Photoshop and Painter, which allows me to paint with 
predictability. the proofing filters help me paint only within the 
printer's color gamut. sometimes it's maddening to find out the red i 
want is NOT available, but i just use the next best red :)  ironically 
PrintFix doesn't give you more color, it only tells you how little you 
actually have :P

one thing that irks me is that i find the proofing display systems 
differ slightly between Photoshop and Painter. they tend to generate 
soft proofs different in color and saturation. it's close enough to 
make it usable but i'd love to see it appear the same at least. Corel's 
soft proofing doesn't make any sense. Photoshop's is the closest to 
output, yet it still tends to under-compensate for the actual 
saturation of the print at times ie. soft proofing will render an RGB 
black as a dark gray, yet the printed image is a jet black. i've come 
to compensate for that by adjusting the lab for the paper white, 
generating a brighter paper white in the soft proof. this helps kick up 
the overall contrast and i'm getting better soft proof results.

as for the accuracy of the Datacolor Spectrocolorimeter... i would 
assume it is great, since i am finding it doing an amazing analysis of 
my target swatches, though i find it seems to have troubles getting a 
particular purple swatch read correctly. it tends to render it as a 
taupe, sorta.

ghi

On 1-Nov-06, at 9:10 PM, potomacbassfisher wrote:

> I really appreciate the time you've taken to respond but that one
>  sailed over my head. I wasn't referring the paper... I said what
>  is "on the artists paper" meaning the ink, pencil or whatever the
>  image is. Not to say that that is part of the digital system, only
>  that I want the digital system to recreate it accuratly.
>
>  I deal with B/W and color. In both cases I need to adjust the levels
>  to make the colors darker in order to even come close to the
>  original. I am just trying to identify the cause of this. Where am
>  I loosing the "punch" of the image in my digital process. My guess
>  is it's something with the scanner or color managment of it.
>
>  -Jonathan
>

Ghi:
You could buy the most expensive profiling system, and still not be
much better off. 

I have been making art reproduction prints for almost 10 years. What I
can tell you, is that with the latest ColorVision products, I am
getting the best reproductions possible, with the fewest tweeks. 

Bottom line is, that it takes a good eye, and tweeks are the name of
the game in trying to get a good match for color.I mostly use global
adjustment layers utilizing Curves and Hue/Saturation. Sometimes I am
forced to do localized corrections also though.

The main problem, is that as a painter, you are of course using many
different tubes of paint, with all kinds of gamut. When trying to make
a print using the Epson system, you are basically limited to only 4
primary colors CMYK. (the Lt C & LM don't increase gamut)

John Nollendorfs

--- In colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com, Ghi Stecyk <ghiangelo@...>
wrote:
>
> hi Jonathan
> 
> i understand your problem. i'm in the same situation and would love a 
> system that could create output similar to what i paint. what i have 
> found is that this is never the case. color management is actually all 
> about making the best of what you have available. there are plenty of 
> color management software/hardware suites out there. the problem is 
> that none of them, no matter how expensive and complex, and the can get 
> darned expensive, can eliminate the endless tweaking to get the desired 
> result. ColorVision PrintFix Pro is one of the most cost effective 
> color management systems out there, for what it does. also it has to be 
> understood that color management is about the creation of profiles to 
> aid in effective monitor based proofing prior to printing. it's not 
> about making the printed output look exactly like the painted original, 
> instead it is about getting it as close as you can with the inks being 
> used. this is why ink and paper combinations all have to be profiled to 
> analyze the gamut weakness and generate a good soft proof to make the 
> color corrections that are necessary within the scope of the ink/paper 
> potential.
SNIP