print photo from affinity on mac

[jportraits]

how do i print photo from affinity to make colors look the same as on screen? or if need how to export to file to be printed with colors same as on screen. on Mac

 

[mopperle]

The basic problem are the 2 different color spaces. While your monitor uses RGB, your printer uses CYMK, which is limited in Colors compaired to RGB.

So you have to see it the other way round. You have to make sure that what you see on your monitor should match your print.

A solution would be to have a printer profile of your printer and the paper you will print too. You can get profiles from yor paper manufacturer and/or the print service you use.

Also, a calibrated monitor is mandatory.

Here you see a very good video:

 

[jportraits]

i have my monitor calibrated. if i dont want to adjust my final photo, how do i force printing same colors?

on windows i had same problem but i found one working solution - some rubbish canon software for my canon printer - if i print from there colors are printed same as on screen. for mac i was not able to find this software, but it must be possible with some settings to print same colors.

[mopperle]

31 minutes ago, jportraits said:

if i dont want to adjust my final photo, how do i force printing same colors?

So reference for you is what you see on the the screen? I think this will not work. RGB is not the same as CYMK. That's why I linked to the video.

But maybe somebody else has more knowledge on this.

[jportraits]

if i would adjust my screen to match printer then i would have to adjust my image to look  as i wanted. so other way around it must be possible to force printer to print emulating srgb as close as it could.

[Old Bruce]

1 minute ago, jportraits said:

if i would adjust my screen to match printer then i would have to adjust my image to look  as i wanted. so other way around it must be possible to force printer to print emulating srgb as close as it could.

sRGB has more colours available than CMYK. It is just the nature of the beast(s)

[jportraits]

i understand cmyk vs srgb, it doesnt matter when i dont need perfect match. i will try printing from photoshop, i was told there is a setting there to make photoshop control colors for printing and it should work.

[v_kyr]

1 hour ago, jportraits said:

on windows i had same problem but i found one working solution - some rubbish canon software for my canon printer - if i print from there colors are printed same as on screen. for mac i was not able to find this software, but it must be possible with some settings to print same colors.

Which sort of software? - Usually the Canon printer driver for your printer should handle that in conjunction with APh. The printer driver is either way reused from APh.

Further what macOS & APh version do you use and which Canon printer model?

[nickbatz]

Right, which printer model?

Printing at the level you're after is a whole separate skill - not a difficult one, but there are things to learn.

If you have a good enough printer (and you're not trying to print directly from Affinity Photo, which just uses the system driver), you can download ICC profiles for the paper and printer you're using. Those are translation files.

Then there's the rendering intent to play with. 

Having said that, making good prints is never just a matter of pushing a button. You will never get paper to print all the colors you see on your screen (the term is that the colors are "out of gamut"), and paper doesn't have LEDs so it's not going to be as vibrant.

I use Canon Pro Print & Layout to print exported files on my Pro-1000 (which I use to make proof prints for the shop that does my real ones, since my pictures want to be larger than 17" wide). But you might try QImage One; everyone raves about it, but I bought a license and have been less enthusiastic - a separate story not worth going into here.

In any case, I'd suggest making very small proof prints, at least until you get a feel for how the screen translates. I make several, although what I do is quite different from standard photography.

[wonderings]

This sort of thing is not for the hobbyist or home user. You are entering a world of colour theory and calibrations. There is no auto print and match your screen to your printer. There are so many variables it is not even funny. Honestly 99% of the world is happy with pleasing colours that come off a printer, especially if you are using a home printer and not a digital press, or high end inkjet printer. Most print shops don't even bother trying to maintain this level of calibration. As others have mentioned you are using two different colour spaces, RGB and CMYK. You will never be able to hit the vibrancy of RGB with CMYK, it is just not possible. Whenever you print you are converting to CMYK, so it will inevitably be converted.

I have had clients want the same thing with certain colours and you will never get a match. Some colours you won't notice a big shift, others will be massive or will come out looking completely different. Again there is no magic software that can make CMYK hit what you can do with RGB. I would ask yourself if what you are printing really needs the level of colour accuracy to your monitor as you think you do. And if so, and it is really that important I would recommend going to a local print shop and see what they have to say about it, as well as price them out to print it for you.

[nickbatz]

59 minutes ago, wonderings said:

This sort of thing is not for the hobbyist or home user. You are entering a world of colour theory and calibrations

Well, you can use Affinity Photo to adjust colors (aka "colours" in English) so they're in gamut without being interested in theory or calibration. And actually I'll argue that you don't need to be a professional printer to make good prints yourself with a good printer. But it's not totally trivial, as I wrote.

While the color space is certainly important, in my opinion the bigger problem - as you'll see if you insert a soft proof layer - is that a whole lot of colors are likely be out of gamut*, which (if you trust the soft proofing) shows you that you either you need to tweak the whole image in detail or that the rendering intent will have to do a lot of work. Not all bets are off if you rely on rendering intent, because you can soft proof the different options, but some bets are going to be off.

* And my printer (and the same but larger one at the print shop I go to) has 12 colors.

[jportraits]

15 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Which sort of software? - Usually the Canon printer driver for your printer should handle that in conjunction with APh. The printer driver is either way reused from APh.

Further what macOS & APh version do you use and which Canon printer model?

canon easy photoprint - this software i was using to print on windows with very good results. no color changes

macos and aph - always newest

printer- canon pixma mg7750

[jportraits]

10 hours ago, wonderings said:

This sort of thing is not for the hobbyist or home user. You are entering a world of colour theory and calibrations. There is no auto print and match your screen to your printer. There are so many variables it is not even funny. Honestly 99% of the world is happy with pleasing colours that come off a printer, especially if you are using a home printer and not a digital press, or high end inkjet printer. Most print shops don't even bother trying to maintain this level of calibration. As others have mentioned you are using two different colour spaces, RGB and CMYK. You will never be able to hit the vibrancy of RGB with CMYK, it is just not possible. Whenever you print you are converting to CMYK, so it will inevitably be converted.

I have had clients want the same thing with certain colours and you will never get a match. Some colours you won't notice a big shift, others will be massive or will come out looking completely different. Again there is no magic software that can make CMYK hit what you can do with RGB. I would ask yourself if what you are printing really needs the level of colour accuracy to your monitor as you think you do. And if so, and it is really that important I would recommend going to a local print shop and see what they have to say about it, as well as price them out to print it for you.

i dont need accuracy - just around the same, and for now difference is big and photo looks bad. i print portraits. and i know it is about transaltions and it is possible to be done, as i did it on windows on my old laptop.

i wonder if converting to cmyk in affinitty could give better results.

[mopperle]

8 minutes ago, jportraits said:

i wonder if converting to cmyk in affinitty could give better results.

I think you need to take some lessons in color management.

A monitor is a RGB device, and when you convert a RGB picture into the CYMK color space, the monitor, will again display it in RGB color space. As several time mentioned in this topic by me and others, you should use a specific profile of your printer/paper when you want to proof your picture on the monitor. 

Example: I use Blurb as printservice and to proof my prints before sending to them I use a special icc profile they provide for the paper (and printer) my pictures will be printed on.

And I think that the Canon software you use does exactly this. It shows a preview of you picture based on the profile of your printer.

[jportraits]

53 minutes ago, mopperle said:

I think you need to take some lessons in color management.

A monitor is a RGB device, and when you convert a RGB picture into the CYMK color space, the monitor, will again display it in RGB color space. As several time mentioned in this topic by me and others, you should use a specific profile of your printer/paper when you want to proof your picture on the monitor. 

Example: I use Blurb as printservice and to proof my prints before sending to them I use a special icc profile they provide for the paper (and printer) my pictures will be printed on.

And I think that the Canon software you use does exactly this. It shows a preview of you picture based on the profile of your printer.

it is not about displaying picture as it will be printed. it is other way around. printing as displayed. and canon software was doing that, it was not displaying me preview with changed look on a photo, it was printing what i was seeing as srgb. not exactly but very close. as i probably mentioned several time.

[v_kyr]

1 hour ago, jportraits said:

canon easy photoprint - this software i was using to print on windows with very good results. no color changes

macos and aph - always newest

printer- canon pixma mg7700

I use that Canon software (CEP) sometimes too, though for a MX870 under Win & Mac and the printed results are nearly equal under both OS, but I run a much older macOS version. AFAI recall the Canon Easy Photoprint app has slightly changed over time UI wise etc. - Usually that software handles more the printing setup for specific paper sizes & image orientations and borderless printing etc. When images are in sRGB color space CEP handles the printing automatically together with the printer driver.

[jportraits]

the problem i have with CEP on mac is when i try to use it, it says it is no longer supported and send me to get new version - but there i get the message that there is no compatibile with my OS

[v_kyr]

8 minutes ago, jportraits said:

the problem i have with CEP on mac is when i try to use it, it says it is no longer supported and send me to get new version - but there i get the message that there is no compatibile with my OS

A common problem with Canon drivers and software for certain of their printer models, for older printers their drivers & software is not available for actual macOS systems. Meaning here, you then have try to use a much older version, as far as that then installs/works at all.

 

For CEP on the Canon download website I always see the same and ...

Quote

Easy PhotoPrint EX

Please note: Easy-PhotoPrint EX has been replaced by My Image Garden. All Easy-PhotoPrint EX features are available in My Image Garden.

... but I never tried that  My Image Garden software instead.

[jportraits]

afair i was trying to get that my image garden but was not possible to get that for my mac os

[v_kyr]

1 hour ago, jportraits said:

to get that for my mac os

Which namely is?
And your Mac hardware is Intel or Arm based?

• https://www.canon.de/support/consumer_products/software/my-image-garden.html?language=de&os=macos 12 (monterey)&productid=tcm:83-1173252#disclaimer

[jportraits]

5 hours ago, v_kyr said:

Which namely is?
And your Mac hardware is Intel or Arm based?

• https://www.canon.de/support/consumer_products/software/my-image-garden.html?language=de&os=macos 12 (monterey)&productid=tcm:83-1173252#disclaimer

newest mac os, M2

 

mac os sonoma if i remember correctly is the name

[v_kyr]

18 minutes ago, jportraits said:

newest mac os, M2

Try the above shown link, download the "My Image Garden v.3.6.8" DMG for macOS and try to install that, maybe it's a multiarchitecture "fat" binary.  If it installs you can afterwards check if the app is really a multiarchitecture "fat" binary via tools like ...

• Silicon v1.0.5
• https://apps.apple.com/de/app/silicon-info/id1542271266?mt=12   (not the same one as above)
• ... etc.

[jportraits]

btw - if choose correct printer mg7750, it says there is no available software for that model

[v_kyr]

19 minutes ago, jportraits said:

btw - if choose correct printer mg7750, it says there is no available software for that model

The Canon website behaves a little bit strange sometimes. See related my above shown screenshot of MIG, when downloaded it's size is ...

• https://www.canon-europe.com/support/consumer/products/printers/pixma/mg-series/pixma-mg7750.html?type=software&softwaredescriptionid=tcm:13-1330824&os=macOS 13 (Ventura)&language=en&productTcmUri=tcm:13-1294785

 

[nickbatz]

On 2/10/2024 at 1:21 AM, jportraits said:

it is not about displaying picture as it will be printed. it is other way around. printing as displayed. and canon software was doing that, it was not displaying me preview with changed look on a photo, it was printing what i was seeing as srgb. not exactly but very close. as i probably mentioned several time.

So what changed, leaving aside that this is a distinction without a difference?