What a waste of a few weeks OR anyone want a cheap 27" iMac

Well guys here's a little interesting story about printing. My partner is a Pastel Artist and we have decided to set up a Print and Sublimation Business to sell copies of her work as well as taking in work from other sources. After a fair bit of research we purchased a used 27" Mac as my 24" died sometime ago and for printers we have bought a Ricoh SG 3110DN with Sawgrass Inks along with a flatbed press and a mini 3d vacuum press for sublimation work as well as a wide format (17") Canon IPF5100 for reproducing Fine Art Prints.

All has been going well with the iMac and Ricoh combination although I did have initial setup issues but the nice peeps at Sawgrass were very helpful and got me started with really good results, I did have a bad batch of 6 x 8 tiles from BMS which saw the start of many hair tearing out sessions over ICC profiles etc! again the nice man at BMS (Scott) sorted out a replacement batch so everything at the moment on the sublimation side is looking good.

I think I'm becoming a bit of an expert on ICC Profiles, setting up Photoshop and general colour management as working with the Canon 5100 has been a nightmare until tonight!!!! but more on that in a mo....

For my partners Pastel Artwork I've set up a temp Photo Studio so as to control the conditions as much as possible, I'm using a Nikon D3200 with a Nikon 35mm primary Lens. 2 x Continuos Softbox Lights, Good Tripod and a totally dark room. Shooting in Raw format and editing via Photoshop CS6. When checking the photos in the Raw plugin I'm getting a light reading of 5050 as shot which with a little tweak I can bring it up to 5500 which is what the bulbs are. The photos look great with a 45 - 50 mb file size but then I go to print oopppssy. now the problems start.

Whatever settings, calibration, profiles I'm using I seem to be getting prints that are tinted with yellow, tried al sorts, been surfing the web, checking forums, talking to people but nothing seems to work. I've run print after print after print on a variety of papers to no avail. Bear in mind some of the 17" paper works out at 6 -7 quid a metre, so some expense involved which one could do without.

So back to tonight, I cam across an old post on an Apple forum with a number of people having the same problem and not just with Canon printers but Epsom and HP. One guy even had a 2hr session at his local Apple Store with an Apple software genius using his equipment and failed to resolve the issue. So i dug out me old HP Laptop, loaded one of the photos into Photoshop using very basic colour management and produce a stunning 16" x 20" print with about a 97% colour accuracy to the original painting.

The sad thing is I've used Macs for years, there great for video editing and I always thought that they were the Bees Knees for graphics but I'm going to sling it on Ebay tomorrow and look to buying a decent quality PC with a graphics monitor and see where we go from there.

If anyone can recommend a good PC Monitor and or setup then please let me know as it could save me a whole heap of time.

Thanks for reading, Rant over

John (ICC Profile Master):mad:

I would be inclined to use a slightly longer lens if possible just to reduce possible issues of image distortion. The room does not need to be totally dark either - just avoid bright light that might overwhelm your softboxes output. Nothing so intense as to create its own shadows! Also, never assume the lamps will run at 5500º K just because they claim to. Lamps vary significantly with age and production so the use of standard grey and white reference in your setup shots as well is a good 'belt and braces' approach.

Regardless of whether you shoot in RAW format or not it is also always good practise to check white balance prior to starting if such an option is open to you. Finally, again regardless of whether you have MAC or PC it is good practice to always colour manage your monitor with something like the Spyder just to make sure that anything you see onscreen is really what you are supposed to be seeing.

As for MACs being the graphics must have - that idea died a long time ago when big changes were made inside and they began to look more like PC's!

Monitors vary in cost and quality but I would give serious consideration to some of the Dell monitors which give good value for money. NEC and Eizo offer high end quality but at a price. With monitor calibration systems such as the Spyder you will get a pretty good result from most modern monitors and unless you intend offering professional photo-retouching or graphics services that should be close enough.

Listen what that guy above said ^!
looks like you diid all but not most important thing. To reproduce fine art you need to calibrate your screen and printer. Not sure why you getting yellow tint but this also could be some option overseen in your editing software.
I use imac and macbook to print and i dont experience this problems.

Btw, what is you lighting gear? Branded lights or el cheapo of ebay??? As this could be your problem. 5500k is on th warmer side of day light. So your mac actually see it properly and put that warm light tint to your prints. If you want white, cool light try 6500k or higher for colder light.

I would be interested to know what the lights are too. C Temp is not really a critical issue if the RAW file is then balanced correctly. After all, it's a reasonably simple matter to shoot under tungsten and then correctly adjust or filter for neutral colours so the odd handful of ºK should be a doddle. K21John appears to be 'tweaking' the CT in CS6 so it should all work out PROVIDING the lamps are running at precisely 5500ºK - which is highly unlikely. I employ studio flash out of preference but appreciate the significant cost difference.

I'm old school - prefer more than one way of checking. White balancing under the chosen lighting should sort things out but I would always begin any copy work buy substitution of the artwork with my own array of reference cards - 18% grey, greyscales, colour wedges, white ref etc. Far more objective and far easier to sample if needed.

Of course, none of this will work if it is only being done by eye and the monitor shows incorrect colours!

It seems that, somewhere between the birth of digital cameras and the steady demise of film, colour management became the unmentioned topic. Perhaps manufacturers feared it would make digital imaging appear overly complex.

We could devote a whole thread to communicating with customers who view your images on an incorrectly adjusted monitor and blame you for the inaccurate colours!

Just dug about in one of my silver cases and found something that I have never used.... A strange screw on walking stick handle black/white/grey with a silver sphere on top with the text Spyder CUBE on it.

Thanks for the response guys, and I here what your saying, so I've a calibrated monitor, profiled paper and tried a 101 different combinations along with several paper types and the results all have this yellow tint. However as I said last night I have dug out my HP Laptop which is running Windows 7 and Photoshop CS3 and hey presto I've a print which is 97% colour correct, so for all the laptop screen is not great for graphics I will calibrate it later today and see what the results are with a few other prints.

This problem does not seem to effect all macs but some of them seem to have a problem that even has Apple scratching their heads, see the post on here https://discussions.apple.com/message/3684995#3684995 which looks like exactly the same problem as I'm getting.

With regards to photographing this artwork which is on coloured paper and it is soft pastels blended by hand, the work is stunning and I need to get close to 99% colour accuracy, I'm lucky though as I can do side by side comparisons (print to original) which is a great help.

Still going to sell the Mac as I don't do any video production these days and put the money to a reasonable PC setup....

Thanks again guys

John

Ahh silver cases with underused photography gadgets..check! Sublimation has a tiny colour space so you won't get all those colours reproduced. For my artistic stuff, I don't get too hung up on accurate colour, after all it is only me who knows what colour it should be. I send identical TFF files to one of the best labs in the country and the greys look slightly different each time using Adobe RGB 1998...must be those stupid macs.

Got a sublimated mug from one of the biggest print houses from before I got in to sublimation...... I wouldn't even show it in a coconut shy, I thought it was great at the time didn't even think about the extreme sunburn on the faces in the photo.

GoonerGary is absolutely right - the range of colour available via sublimation is far less than the Nikon D3200 will manage with ease. There will have to be a degree of trade-off somewhere along the line. Factor in the excitement of having to wait for the sublimated object to cook before discovering what colours you actually achieve and it looks like a few late night lay in store!

Good luck anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brixhamboy

GoonerGary is absolutely right - the range of colour available via sublimation is far less than the Nikon D3200 will manage with ease. There will have to be a degree of trade-off somewhere along the line. Factor in the excitement of having to wait for the sublimated object to cook before discovering what colours you actually achieve and it looks like a few late night lay in store!

Good luck anyway

---

Totally agree, not having too much trouble with sublimation of images onto tiles, mugs etc, this is a problem when producing 20" x 16" prints on textured and or coated fine art papers, think I'll stick to just subbing......

I didn't realise you were printing onto fine art papers. You should not be experiencing half of these problems then. I think moving to PC could be a very wise decision under the circumstances.

Sorry, busy day - ditto to above WRT making sure everything is calibrated with a Spyder or Munki (printer and monitors) as well as everything using Adobe RGB 1998 (camera, monitor and document profile in Photoshop)
Although you seem to be having more problems with the art prints, I don't know the printer you're using.

Our business is similar, and all based on my wife's artwork and designs. We gave up on trying to photograph her artwork, and bought a large format scanner - we get much better focus and detail than any photography we did in-house or subbed out to pro-togs. For sublimation we use an Epson Stylus Pro 9600 (42" wide, 7 colour, running InkTec's Sublinova ink) and for art prints the 7600 (24" version of the 9600, running InkTec's pigment inks) If you're reproducing art then you will need more than the Ricoh office printer and better ink than Sawgrass' consumer inks can offer, especially when it's only 4 colours.

In terms of monitors to look at, make sure they're IPS rather than TN based panels.

For calibration, we use a Datacolor Spyder, the version we have has calibration for screens and paper

The other little thing I have noticed and not had time to explore is that I needed to calibrate not just the screen and then the printer, I needed to use the calibrate screen to printer...still learning!

Janners

just quick question... is anything changed on your image when you moved it to your windows laptop? or is it exactly same image?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul

just quick question... is anything changed on your image when you moved it to your windows laptop? or is it exactly same image?

---

Hi Paul, I used the same Raw image from the camera card,trouble I have with the laptop though is the screen, nice and soft to the touch but far to small for image editing, so the mac is on Ebay and I'm looking at a twin monitor set up with HP Z series monitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMugs

The other little thing I have noticed and not had time to explore is that I needed to calibrate not just the screen and then the printer, I needed to use the calibrate screen to printer...still learning!

Janners

---

Hmmm thanks for that Janners, not something I've done before so will start surfing the net to see how to do it with my Canon IPF5100

Thanks

John

Yes but was image already edited on your mac or you edited it again on laptop before printing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Btw. How much you asking for your imac?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul

Btw. How much you asking for your imac?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Hi Paul, 650 with software left on, Adobe CS6 and Pro music stuff, targeted the ad towards a musician and or video user....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paul

Yes but was image already edited on your mac or you edited it again on laptop before printing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Hi Paul.

Actually was the same image as edited on the mac with no changes on the laptop which gave me the closest prints so far.

BTW have you used the datacolor spyderprint for printer profiles as wex photographic have it on offer at the moment so thinking of buying one...

So if image wasn't altered then its your printing software set up.
No never used datacolour so not sure how good it is.
Ps. Do not attempt profile laptop screen ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We use Spyder and like it, and did when we did most of our work on a laptop (dell precision with very high res screen) had good results ... It's better to profile than not, but as long as you know it may not be as good as proper dedicated monitors.

Get a good monitor like an EIZO or a NEC Spectraview these show a good colour range not like cheapo monitors and even the glass in macs isnt that great these days. Use a decent spectrophotometer like an i1 if doing many profiles an automated is even better, The camera use a 50mm prime and get a polarising filter.

I do this a lot for a local artist using a nIkon d7200 , dont try and capture larger than around 20 x 30 inch as the lens wont handle it and youll get weird bending of the edges of your images, it was explained to me by a pro photographer but went right over my head as its wasnt about colour.

Polarising filters shift colours like crazy. Two soft boxes either side, take light reading, set up tripod, spirit level and shoot. They were my first studio jobs when I was training.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mags1892

dont try and capture larger than around 20 x 30 inch as the lens wont handle it

---

The way round this is to treat the image as a panorama, capture sections with a 30% overlap and process in Photoshop, always use the camera in portrait orientation as the sides of the image will be less likely to be affected by lens distortion (think oblong in a circle). I use a Nikon 105 macro which has almost zero edge distortion. Continuous lighting is required to maintain consistent exposure and of course use a tripod. If your lens has noticeable distortion, and you need to use both two or more rows of images for a large picture, then crop top and bottom of each frame but not the sides. Allow additional overlap. I also use a Spectraview + i1, £1200 about 5 years ago but once calibrated it makes wysiwyg a reality.

Well I have heard some myths in my time as a professional photographer but this latest group of suggestions forces me to speak out.

You do not need to treat your image as a panorama - that is a bad idea and will lead to all sorts of issues if there is the slightest difference between adjacent slices. Also, you need to use a lens in excess of the 'standard' focal length of the camera. Ideally this should be a 'prime' lens - one of a fixed focal length. If this were full frame 35mm (or digital equivalent) then I would suggest 80mm to 135mm as being the sort of lens to use.

There are a number of issues to contend with when copying. First is lighting and the lighting must be even. This is the simplest thing to achieve using nothing more than a wooden ruler. Subject must be absolutely parallel to the camera so, lets say for now both are absolutely vertical (use a level). Camera must be absolutely central to the subject so spend good time ensuring this is so and place an X in the centre of the artboard to help both camera alignment and, later, artwork placement. The least error will lead to keystone distortion where one edge appears longer than its opposite.

The lights (2) should be set at 45º to the copy board far enough away to ensure full coverage of the artwork and even for A4 I would expect them to be at least 1 metre distant to ensure evenness of illumination. They should also be absolutely level with the centre of the artwork (and thus the camera). I will assume you are using continuous lighting - naked lamps, and not flash for now. Even if your artwork is massive you can always double up the lamps placing one higher than the other (as if on a single stand). What I am saying is this setup can be adapted to suit almost anything.

Now the ruler - place the ruler VERTICALLY in the centre of the copyboard but perpendicular to it - not laying flat. It will cast two vertical shadows - one each side of the ruler. Do not use a shiny ruler but other than that almost anything can be substituted that is similar in nature - a piece of card for instance. The object is to see both shadows at the same time. Shadows should be identical in tone and width. Any difficulties assessing this - use a sheet of white paper on the copyboard.


If the left shadow is darker then the left lamp is weaker (yes, yes, - or the right lamp stronger). Move the appropriate lamp nearer/further to adjust. When both shadows appear identical in tone the light output is matched - taking care of the fact output from lamps changes with age. Now check the shadow widths. Any difference means one lamp is not at the same angle as the other so swing the lamp forward/backward to achieve same widths. Whilst in the centre, move the ruler so the top end of it falls on the centre x of the artboard - the shadow will show you if your lamps are matching height because the double shadow should appear as a single horizontal line across the top of the ruler. If one side tilts up or down then the opposite lamp needs height adjustment.

Now move your ruler to the left side of the artboard. If one shadow becomes significantly darker than the other your lamps are too close. Move them away from the copyboard and repeat stage 1 with the ruler central before again checking at the edges. Perfectionists will say it will never be possible to get matching shadows at the edges and this is correct but you can get reasonably close and that is what we require. Significant differences will mean you get noticeably brighter illumination towards the edges and this will lead to uneven results possibly burning out edge details.

Spend a bit of time doing this - it is worth the effort.

So, having done this you should have camera square and central to artwork, lighting even and matched.

Your choice of lens is important - prime lenses are non-zoom lenses so they tend to introduce less image distortion since they are specifically designed to do a single job. If you must use a zoom then try to keep it away from the 'wide angle' end of its range. The wider the angle, the greater the barrel distortion for a start.

I think that is about it - exposure is critical too, but as with most photography there is a difficult way of doing it based on myths and mirrors or there is a simple way.

Before you all shout at me - I have been doing this work professionally for over 40 years

I omitted to say the ruler should also be moved to the right side after checking the left - just to ensure evenness of illumination across the full width of the copyboard.

Also, polarising filter comment: PL filters do not shift colours, they are the equivalent of an ND filter, plain grey, so the only have the effect of introducing density and reducing the amount of light entering the camera. The purpose of a polarising filter is to counter the effect of light being reflected from non-metallic surfaces and light that is already partially polarised such as skies. It does not have a place in copying under normal day to day circumstances and it is only when you get onto such things as schlieren photography that they are used to any extent.

Even when using glass in front of your artwork to hold it flat (yes, this is very common practise) you will not need a filter on your lens and you will not get any reflections providing you follow the basics above.

We all have our opinions which I respect. I am guessing you have never tried this but faced with capturing image detail from a large image it is worth a try.

I have used the panorama method on several occasions with excellent results, CC stitching has advanced a lot over the years and if the source images are captured properly there should be no sign of errors. The 105 is an excellent portrait lens and perfect for this application. My method involved sliding the artwork along a wall mounted shelf with the camera fixed. Markers were placed to show the center of each shot to ensure the correct overlap was achieved. For the second and subsequent rows the shelf was raised keeping the picture square. Lighting via two large softboxes. Another advantage of my method is that you end up with a much higher resolution image after stitching as each segment contributes say 50% of its capture size to be added to the overall size. Very useful if you want to print large format.

I like your method of setting the illumination and would not have thought of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brixhamboy

I omitted to say the ruler should also be moved to the right side after checking the left - just to ensure evenness of illumination across the full width of the copyboard.

Also, polarising filter comment: PL filters do not shift colours, they are the equivalent of an ND filter, plain grey, s.

---

No offence, but using rulers to check shadows sounds very 40 years ago. I used a very precise Minolta IVF digital light meter to check even illumination across the painting. Polarisers are probably the most extreme of camera filters; manipulating light, of course your contrast, saturation and colours will be affected. Just like polarising filters, ND filters are far from neutral either. It took me a lot of research to find filters will the least amount of colour casts. I haven't read this in any detail, but this guy spent a lot of hours trying to find an ND filter that doesn't shift in colour, nothing is just grey or neutral in photography. Anyway, polarisers are not used on the camera for copy work becuase they are used at an angle to remove reflections. It is polarised filters on lights and who is going to bother with all that unless you are working for the British Museum?

http://www.ryanewalters.com/Blog/blo...17295579746489

http://www.tiffen.com/camera_filters.htm

I have worked with panoramic capture/stitching software for the past ten years and would still never recommend using it for copy work - certainly never as a first choice.

By your own definition you require a space twice the width and twice the height of the original just to be able to slide the subject L-R into place each time. Then you raise the shelf to move the subject into the copy position for the next series of passes. That sounds like you need a special moveable shelf. How do you hold the artwork absolutely parallel to the film plane? Would you describe this as practical for the average Joe in this forum?

It seems like such a massive amount of work with so many opportunities for error. One single incorrect exposure or something not noticed could result in having to repeat the whole series of images. What if the original is rolled and needs to be held flat with glass? I would equate your method to producing photocopies of different sections of the original and then laying them all together to make one whole. Lots and lost of overlaps and joins to be attended to.

Ordinary panorama stitching software will not necessarily work either because of the tendency for it to try and introduce or correct perspective by adding barrel or pincushion distortion.

Of course, whilst it might appear to work well how can one be certain that the software has not tweaked something that you simply do not notice at the time. The software is making the decisions autocratically and that, to me, means you are not - so errors can creep in. Every single 'frame' will bear any lens distortion so this will be present at each and every stitch. A straight line could easily end up as a wavy line under these circumstances and software would be none the wiser. I work every day with images perhaps 16 metres wide by 5 metres high so a straight line has to be straight.

The sheer amount of time required to then check the image and all its overlaps making sure there are no ghosts or masked elements must make this cripplingly slow and arduous. I suspect most on here would not wish to spend so much time on the task when there are simpler means available.

In all, this is not a straight forward method for fast copying or for anyone who just needs a good copy with minimal fuss. I was stitching images using your method almost 20 years ago.

The 105 is indeed a useful focal length and falls within the range I would personally suggest to maintain a flat field. We are talking full frame sensors of course. A genuine test for your method would be a very large checkerboard which would fully challenge the software and the setup.

But I suspect the majority of people on this forum find copying something of a mystery and are seeking solutions where simplicity will be the key. My method is not 'my' method but one I know to have been used by thousands of professionals preceding me and one I have also handed on to thousands of trainees over the years. It is based simply on the industry standard Process Camera setup - tried and tested by every print studio for decades when lith film was the basic copy material. It does not require the purchase or use of softboxes and can be adapted to cope with images as big as a wall. At a push, two similar domestic lamps could produce reasonable results. You don't even need a tripod because you can rest your camera on a table and cellotape the artwork to the opposite wall!

It is always of interest to learn how others have adapted and evolved processes for copying so I wish you continued good luck with the results. I did not mean to offend you in any way and I too respect the opinions of others but I still stand by my statement - you do not need to treat your image as a panorama.

No offence taken !. I can only pass on my own experience and leave it for others to decide if it will work for them. The pictures I have been asked to copy ranged from posters to acrylic and were all done on a D200. Unfortunately I could not afford to go full frame which I agree would have given me a higher res file and better quality in the first place. I printed most at A2 on my 4900 and my customers were more than happy.

"I was stitching images using your method almost 20 years ago" was this for the same application ?.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoonerGary

No offence, but using rulers to check shadows sounds very 40 years ago.

---

It might sound "very 40 years ago" but you are speaking on a forum where the vast majority of people have little or no experience and even less expensive equipment. It is very much a matter of offering a solution that is available to all. This is a solution and not something mystical and difficult to achieve. Sometimes the simplest things are the best solutions and we don't need to turn to the very latest tech.

The use of polarising filters was implied by the writer as being used with the 50mm prime lens by the way. Use of cross polarising filters on lamps and another on the camera lens is not the exclusive domain of the British Museum either - it is a standard way of improving quality and maintaining saturation when copying subjects that are textured. Not generally needed and would require the lights to be set closer to 30º instead of 45º.

Nice meter by the way but it costs as much if not more than two lamps so for someone setting out which would you buy first?

I would love to hear your theories about colour casts from neutral density and other camera filters

I'd recommend the much cheaper Sekonic 308 light meter for anyone investing in studio lights, a necessary addition to any studio set up and cheaper than a budget mug press. Theory on colour casts, well they exist even amongst the best professional filters, a quick look on the largeformatphoto or maybe APUG forums I'm sure you'll find someone discussing it. I think shifting this thread to a physics debate will suck the life out of everyone in all of Laniakea.

I'm not getting drawn into a 'mine is bigger than yours' competition!

This thread was intended to help those who obviously are not that experienced. I

Whilst the 308 is a lovely meter and well worth recommending even though it is around 20 years old now, a meter is not necessary for this task nor is copy lighting a 'studio set up'. Horses for courses I say.

I can get you 100% accurate exposure on any copy set up using a digital camera and three bits of paper. For anyone who does copying once in a blue moon why waste money?

I know people discuss colour casts in theory. Nuf said on that. I'm more of a practical examples person myself - it's more tangible and less likely to just scare people.

And Wayupnorth, with great respect, I think you are making a rod for your own back because with things like posters you really do not need to go to all that trouble. I understand the desire to have a large image file and the D200 is not the largest of sensors at 10.2 meg but why not try a single frame passed through your RIP and just see whether the output might still be acceptable for your customer. I know how surprised I have been at just what customers actually expect! Very often it is our own aspirations (mine included) that cause us to create extra work where in fact the end user will never notice anyway.

I don't intend to comment further - I have described how to achieve perfectly good copies

I would still like to know what you were stitching together.

Wow guys, some great info and taking all comments on board, will take a few photos later / tomorrow to show the image I'm currently shooting and a view of my set up, as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. I will just cover a couple of points though...

1. Thanks Paul for stating the obvious which I had missed, but with hindsight....... The Canon IPF Printer drivers for OS 10.11 El Capitan have only recently been made available where the windows 7 ones have been around for awhile, so emailing Canon Support with my problem and see what they say.

2. Thanks Brixhamboy, could do with employing you on site for a couple of days. Will be setting up easle and lights later and will take your advice especially using a ruler.

3. Polarising filters etc!! - I am photographing 20" x 16" works of fine art created with Unison Chalk Pastels on Canson Mi-Tienes textured pastel paper. (the image I'm currently working on was painted on Black paper) The image appears totally matte so no need for any anti glare interference.

4. I'm using a Nikon D3200 with Nikon 35mm F1.8 sense, although there is some distortion I am able to correct this in post.... The file size is just shy of a hundred meg and prints high detail on A2 paper and on 17" roll, so I can reproduce 20" x 16" prints but still with this yellow tint.

As mentioned I'll put up some photos later so you can see what I'm talking about, will also let you know if I get any joy from Canon..

Thanks again guys for all of the info, it does help and hopefully will help others.

BTW, printing to my Ricoh SG 3110n produces good colour and good quality prints for sublimation work..... No yellow tint!!!!!