Monitor calibration vs Printer?

[dlwjiang]

Is monitor calibration all that is needed in order for you photography prints to look the same as the on-screen version? Does the printer play a role?

I am currently using the macbook pro mid-2010 13', whose native calibration should be pretty close to real world results, but a recent set of prints came out with huge differences in color. I've gotten reasonable results before with the same printer so I don't know what the problem is. Perhaps lack of a certain type of ink?

The printer is an epson...something...with 6 color ink cartridges and seems to be suited for printing photographs.(not mine)

[nickbedford]

Originally Posted by dlwjiang

Is monitor calibration all that is needed in order for you photography prints to look the same as the on-screen version? Does the printer play a role?

I am currently using the macbook pro mid-2010 13', whose native calibration should be pretty close to real world results, but a recent set of prints came out with huge differences in color. I've gotten reasonable results before with the same printer so I don't know what the problem is. Perhaps lack of a certain type of ink?

The printer is an epson...something...with 6 color ink cartridges and seems to be suited for printing photographs.(not mine)

You native MacBook calibration is likely *not* close to a true calibration. You need to use a monitor calibrator to change it or use a desktop monitor that has been calibrated.

[ravncat]

Printer calibration is also a good thing...

The result of your prints is from software telling the printer how to print (Printer profiles) as well as the color profile information in your image file. The kind of paper and inks you use also matter. It is best to calibrate your printer and your monitor.

Should you really want to get as close as you can to matching print to monitor at home. Or print monochrome