johnpolizzi wrote:
....I can't afford at this time an expensive calibration device...
Sorry, but calibration is BY FAR your best solution. In fact it will pay for itself over time, with less wasted ink, paper and time.
And a calibration device isn't necessarily "expensive". An X-Rite ColorMunki "Smile" costs less than $100. A Datacolor Spyder 5 EXPRESS costs about $130.
You still have a problem trying to work with a laptop, because the computer screen gets moved around and used in various lighting conditions that influence what you see on the screen. Opening and closing it to different angles also changes the perceived brightness of the screen. There are possible solutions: The most inconvenient is to use a device to re-calibrate the screen every time you set the computer up. Another is to use a "real time" calibration device that's constantly updating and correcting the display (NOTE: devices that automatically adjust tend to cost more). Some folks also make a simple guide that can be used to insure the screen is set to the same angle every time it's used and/or a "tent" to work within, to shade the screen from most ambient light (that still can't correct for your eyes being adapted to different lighting conditions).
The best and easiest, though, is probably to get a separate monitor to use specifically for image editing, set it up and maintain it in one location where lighting and viewing angles remain consistent. When you want to finish some images, plug in the laptop and only do your image finishing at that calibrated work station. (You can still do other things with your photos while "on the road" with your laptop.)
Almost certainly your screen is way too bright for image editing. They nearly always are and that's causing you to adjust the images too dark, which shows up in your prints. There are probably some subtle color shifts too. The only way to correct for this is proper calibration. And because screens lose brightness gradually and shift color rendition over time, occasional re-calibration is important. While it's possible to make adjustments "by eye", it's a really difficult thing and involves a lot of guessing, as well as a lot of time and waste. It's much more efficient and accurate to simply get a calibration device and use it.
As to the difference you are seeing between the color rendition of 8-bit JPEGs versus 16-bit TIFF.... Apparently your printer cannot handle the TIFF files. Simplest solution would be to only print JPEGs. Keep the TIFF if you wish, but convert to a JPEG for printing. While it's certainly good to "work" images in 16-bit (or sometimes even higher) formats... There's little to no benefit to print from that format. Many print services reject 16-bit files. And some inkjets just can't handle them...Or the printer will run a lot slower and use more ink to print a 16-bit file. And there's almost never any improvement in the appearance of standard photo prints from 16-bit versus 8-bit. (16-bit can be wanted for commercial printing processes or for image that will be seeing further work before printing.)
EDIT: I
DON'T AGREE with earlier response that you need a different printer. While it's not a "high end" photo printer... your Epxon XP-850 should be fine for a lot of things. It has 6 separate ink tanks (5 colors and black) which allows it to be more efficient, plus gives you the light magenta and light magenta that photos often require. Spend a little on proper calibration and perhaps a bit more on a dedicated, fixed monitor work-station and you should see major improvements in your prints.