One annoying downside to a good printer.
I had an old HP printer which would turn out acceptable prints. I now have a new Epson which is more modern and infinitely better.
It is so good that it shows up all my errors in the paintings.
My personal perception is that paintings done with the ArtRage lighting switched off look more like the original when printed.
It's something I have banged on about for several years.
ArtRage has a virtual light source in the top left area of the canvas. It makes paint look shiny and 3D. That light will often make no sense when the picture is placed on a wall. It is , of course, fabulous on screen!
Therefore I often paint with the virtual light switched off and use traditional techniques to give three dimensional effects. The light is then where I imagine, and decide, it will be. When exposed to typical room light the printed painting is still defined by the light that I painted.
If it were possible for me to light each print, from roughly the same assumed point that ArtRage provides, then I would do that and leave the inbuilt lighting on.
To me it then looks better when printed, but it's a very subjective thing.
I suspect that to get it more "right" I need a "screen spider" to synch the colour of the screen and the printer.
(When we've resolved this one we can move on to the simpler question of "What is ART?")