1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Printing Differences

Discussion in 'Digital Image Editing & Printing' started by Roy5051, Sep 19, 2017.

  1. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Can anyone please explain why pictures printed direct from a memory card on my printer are different from prints from Photoshop. This especially refers to monochrome prints, where prints direct from the card to the printer are almost pure black and white, whereas the same file printed from Photoshop appears to have a blue cast.

    My printer is a new Epson XP-760, 6-colour, and my computer is a new desktop, Windows 10, running an old version of Photoshop (version 7) and/or FastStone Image Viewer, both with Colour Adjustment switched off in the printer properties screen.

    Any ideas, please?
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    You have to trace the steps for each printing route to see what was different. I don't use photoshop but I'd think there was plenty more scope to change things than putting the card directly in the printer (if that's what you mean by printing direct from the card).
  3. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Yes, there is scope for changing things in Photoshop and other programs, but printing a black and white print direct from the card to the printer gives a better print than using the printer default settings through an image editing program. I shall just have to play some more. I would have thought that printing a black and white picture through any image program, using just the black ink, would have given me a black and white print, but it doesn't, unless I switch the colour correction to off in printer properties. Perhaps even when you print in grayscale, the printer still uses colour inks, not just the black ink. More experimentation, I suppose.
  4. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

    When I used PS I found there were a 101 ways to screw up the printing. :( I'm sure it was my fault but it drove me nuts. I now use Gimp and have no problems.
  5. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    No need to experiment - this is just true. Otherwise you'd be using black ink to stipple or dither. Solid black sections should be printed in black, but grey sections are printed in a mix of colours to achieve the necessary grey value (for most printers, some have grey ink).
    RogerMac likes this.
  6. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Did the printer have to be installed or is it using a generic driver? Also is photoshop picking up the correct icc profile for the paper/ink? If the printer has its own "plug-in-printing" module (Canon printers do) try using that. If the colour cast persists, and you haven't inadvertently altered anything by importing the picture, you have two choices. One is to apply a printer correction - you need to have a very good eye for colour to do this* and the other is to calibrate the printer. Some third party companies offer free calibrations for their papers.

    Just to rule out the obvious - that you are comparing the same picture printed on the same paper under the same lighting conditions. I think some optical brighteners to make the paper 'white' can look blue under some conditions. Putting Permajet "oyster" next to Ilford Galerie makes the Ilford paper look positively jaundiced.

    *I'm sure I have seen somewhere an example of a contact-type sheet of a single image auto-generated with minute changes in colour balance so you can pick the "best", or in this case the most neutral, but I can't remember where.
  7. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    The printer was installed from the supplied CD, and I am printing using the Epson printer profile for the type of paper and Perceptual Intent. Black Point Compensation is ticked in the Photoshop dialogue box. The actual picture has Untagged RGB as its Source Space. I am using Epson paper but not Epson inks in both cases.
  8. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Should the space be sRGB?
  9. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    It seems that if you select "Don't Colour Manage" in Photoshop's Colour Settings, you have the opportunity to keep the image's embedded profile (set by the camera), convert it to the Working Space profile or Discard the embedded profile (don't colour manage) when opening the image. As I do not want to Colour Manage, I select the third option (Discard embedded profile); this then gives me the control I want, i.e. the image printed as if I was printing direct from the card on the printer with no adjustments. The print dialogue screen then shows Untagged RGB.

    I can then be sure (?) that if I print from the memory card or from Photoshop, the results will be the same.

    Does this make sense?
  10. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Unless things have changed (quite possible) cameras do not embed an ICC profile in their jpgs. Images are assumed sRGB. If you set the camera to adobe RGB the file name usually changes to start with an underscore as a reminder to you to attach a profile if you do anything with them.

    If the above process gave you what you wanted then that's job done. Using non-Epson inks means that the built in profiles are not optimal, it only matters if you can't live with the outcome.
    EightBitTony likes this.
  11. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Thanks everyone, I think I have it sorted to my satisfaction.

Share This Page