This post originated because of what I’d call gross difference in the color of a (singular) print. I was especially annoyed having just obtained a new printer to use exclusively for photos and using what I thought was high quality photo paper along with having calibrated my monitor. I’d obtained a better result using my old all-in-one office printer.
This problem was basically resolved by learning, what I’d call the hard way, what I think Brianna said. At this point, I’d offer that the profiles Canon supplies and specifies for various types of Canon photo paper work pretty well. A big part of my problem was thinking they should only be used with Canon’s paper brands. I can now say that some HP paper I’d previously obtained is indistinguishable from comparable Canon types. It now looks to me like the other profiles supplied for my printer by Canon, presumably, for use with other other brands of paper are pretty worthless. I suppose it is possible that they work with some kind of paper but how one might figure that out comes down to plain blind luck for something that might be very unlikely.
There are many other worthy ideas presented herein, which have more or less caused me to stop struggling with this problem and accept the reality that even when we go to a great deal of trouble to try and optimize the color there is still no certainty that an image is going to look the way we want when viewed by others. Even if we figured out how to accommodate that wide variety of viewing devices and conditions we then have to deal with the reality that different eyeballs perceive color differently. In this case I use the term “eyeballs” recognizing that human color perception is probably even more complicated than the technical things we’re dealing with referred to as color management.
While all of the electronics we’ve come to depend on has many advantages, reliable color rendering is not among them. It is a little disconcerting to know that I have no control over what equipment might be used to view the images I’m diligently, even if incompetently, developing. While paper prints get rid of the electronic variation it also has a very limiting effect on audience.
When it comes to the electronics problem I’ve had another experience which I think demonstrates the extent of the problem and for which I foresee no solution. If interested, *** here is a link to an issue that I posted on Microsoft’s forum that, I think, demonstrates the severity of this problem. This involves the difference in appearance associated with side by side display of the exact same image (file) on the same electronic equipment. The only thing that is different is the software used for viewing. Take a look.
Sorry about the verbosity but have enjoyed it.
*** Note: Microsoft seems to have a problem supporting some Windows versions of the Firefox browser.
Regarding your questions -
a.) I have done lots of web searches. Whether or not I’ve used that exact phrase I couldn’t say but it certainly is possible. The article you reference has been added to my reading list but I must admit I haven’t yet completed it.
b.) No doubt! I think I’ve covered some of my experience with that.
c.) I use both Linux and Windows but, at present, depend primarily on Windows 7 for my image editing. However, the idea that Rawtherapee as well as GIMP are available on both is something I especially like.
d.) No! I did buy an X-rite i1 Display Pro for calibrating my monitor. I’ve also considered buying a comparable device for printer profiling. Open to suggestions.
e.) The default. I do use Firefox (a lot) but its’ color management is not something I’ve either messed with or learned about. Maybe I need a lesson?
I do have both Rawtherapee and GIMP set up for Soft Proofing!
I think I now grasp the significance of printer profiles but for the moment I have found a combination of printer profiles and paper that seem to be delivering satisfactory, but probably not perfect, results.
David …
Oops! Overlooked the question of print managers. Not sure how you differentiate between print manager and application used for printing. I’m very dependent on the driver for my Canon Pro-100. In addition, I’ve experimented with various software for invoking that driver but find that Google Picasa has the interface I like best.
If you’re going that route, better to buy used, those instruments are expensive new. Though since I’ve purchased my colormunki photo, all my prints have been spot on. Totally worth the $500 USD to avoid that frustration.
I think Colormunki is the X-rite product. The price did add some resistance. Datacolor sells something called SpyderPrint which I can find for under $300. Any idea how they compare?
A few years back I used the Spyder family, but I consider ColorMunki Photo more in line with what I need/want. If you are lucky to find one bundled with a Graflite, go for it!