Does automated printer color correction software exist?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

My inkjet's color has always been off a bit (a little too dark, a little
too red). My attempts to correct it by eye with the stock printer
software have never been close enough. It's never been a problem with
most printing, but now that I'm getting into digital photography, it's
just not good enough. I'm wondering if any software exists that will
compare the original picture with the printed copy, scanned back into
the computer, yielding the necessary corrections. Starting with a
scanned image should eliminate any scanning errors. Any suggestions?
By the way, if it matters, the printer in question is a Lexmark Z11
(yeah, I know, what do I expect if I won't spend a couple of bucks on a
decent printer, but you can't blame a guy for trying! Besides, other
than the color calibration, it's worked fine for 5 years now - not bad
for a cheapie...)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 15:48:53 GMT, not really me <nospam@address.com>
wrote:

>My inkjet's color has always been off a bit (a little too dark, a little
>too red). My attempts to correct it by eye with the stock printer
>software have never been close enough. It's never been a problem with
>most printing, but now that I'm getting into digital photography, it's
>just not good enough. I'm wondering if any software exists that will
>compare the original picture with the printed copy, scanned back into
>the computer, yielding the necessary corrections. Starting with a
>scanned image should eliminate any scanning errors. Any suggestions?
>By the way, if it matters, the printer in question is a Lexmark Z11
>(yeah, I know, what do I expect if I won't spend a couple of bucks on a
>decent printer, but you can't blame a guy for trying! Besides, other
>than the color calibration, it's worked fine for 5 years now - not bad
>for a cheapie...)


You may have a target and it8 file laying around with your scanner?

Before you can compare a printout to match to your monitor you must
first setup your monitor workspace and calibrate your scanner..

Alot of times scanners will come with color targets. These are usually
pictures with very colorful items and a greyscale swatch usually at
the bottom. With that, you usually have a file associated with it on
disc. This tells the computer what the colors actually are and then it
will make corrections to the way the scanner sees them and then you
will have the opportunity to save that profile for your scanner.


With the scanner tuned, you basically do the same thing with your
printer.....

Here is a nice page to read about that stuff.

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/it8cal/it8_page_1.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

In article <4103D64C.500F5246@address.com>, nospam@address.com (not really
me) wrote:

> I'm wondering if any software exists that will compare the original
> picture with the printed copy, scanned back into the computer, yielding
> the necessary corrections.

http://www.ddisoftware.com/prism/

Jon.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

What you are speaking about is color management. It is an area which
many books have been written about, and it is a problem that is without
an easy answer.

The reasons are many. Things which alter color accuracy include: the
tolerances of the scanner hardware, the scanner software and how you
adjust it, the type and age of your monitor and graphics card, and how
you have them set, the imaging software you use, the printer type you
use, and it's hardware tolerances, the printer's software drivers, inks,
and finally the paper you use to print on.

Mac OS has tried to narrow down some of these issues within the OS, but
Windows is only now beginning to address this.

You can spend a minor fortune on special devices and software to help
you to adjust all these factors. Part of this consists of a device which
can read the colors off your monitor and build a custom set of color
tables to correct errors in the phosphors. This device needs to be used
every few weeks as your monitor ages. There are companies which will
sell you ink and paper profiles for the specific printer you own, as well.

However, there are some less costly ways of at least getting close.

Most scanners are relatively accurate and either have built in profiles
or other software to help you to get a reasonable result. To adjust
your monitor, use a tool such as Adobe Gamma, which comes with their
image processing software, which will set a basic standard for your
monitor. If you stick to a higher end printer and use their inks and
papers, the "canned" profiles they provide will give you fairly
reasonable color representation (I know that the newest Epson printers
and drivers are reported to do a good job in this area).

With those tools you can usually get quite acceptable print results, but
for the extra 10% you may have to pay more than several hundred dollars
on color management tools.

However, do recognize that translating images between media can prove
somewhat frustrating simply because they all cannot accurately produce
the same range of colors.

Art

not really me wrote:

> My inkjet's color has always been off a bit (a little too dark, a little
> too red). My attempts to correct it by eye with the stock printer
> software have never been close enough. It's never been a problem with
> most printing, but now that I'm getting into digital photography, it's
> just not good enough. I'm wondering if any software exists that will
> compare the original picture with the printed copy, scanned back into
> the computer, yielding the necessary corrections. Starting with a
> scanned image should eliminate any scanning errors. Any suggestions?
> By the way, if it matters, the printer in question is a Lexmark Z11
> (yeah, I know, what do I expect if I won't spend a couple of bucks on a
> decent printer, but you can't blame a guy for trying! Besides, other
> than the color calibration, it's worked fine for 5 years now - not bad
> for a cheapie...)
>