Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Kevin Raber on July 10, 2017, 11:08:40 am
-
We just published a new article on the site by long-time contributor and friend Josh Holko, The Toughest Print (https://luminous-landscape.com/the-toughest-print/). Josh shares his experience trying to make a print that is composed of shades of white. If you are into printing this article is a must read.
-
The article is excellent - I would add - while the focus is on the whites, it's equally important to pay attention to what Joshua says about the deep dark tones too.
-
Yes, quite excellent and now I'm rethinking about how to print some of my 'Snowmagedon' images captured back during our 2010 blizzard here in the Washington DC area. Thanks to Joshua for this!!!
-
The print shown is considerably warmer than the digital image. Is that accurate to how the print actually looks or just from ondoor lighting? Btw, the print looks gorgeous.
-
The print shown is considerably warmer than the digital image. Is that accurate to how the print actually looks or just from ondoor lighting? Btw, the print looks gorgeous.
I think it's mostly the colour temp of the the posted image of the print. The museum rag is a bit warm (lower OBA levels compared to a "Bright" paper), however, if you white balance the image using the gray background of the gti booth, most of the warmth in the posted image is removed.
Beautiful photograph and print.
Mike
-
I think it's mostly the colour temp of the the posted image of the print. The museum rag is a bit warm (lower OBA levels compared to a "Bright" paper), however, if you white balance the image using the gray background of the gti booth, most of the warmth in the posted image is removed.
Beautiful photograph and print.
Mike
That's what I thought, too. But wondered how warm that paper was. It is very beautiful.
-
It is an interesting article but I am somewhat confused by the piece on modifying the profile. At the risk of showing my ignorance, surelythe paper white is known at the time of the profile build so why would you need to modify it?
-
It is an interesting article but I am somewhat confused by the piece on modifying the profile. At the risk of showing my ignorance, surelythe paper white is known at the time of the profile build so why would you need to modify it?
Yes, paper white is known, but in the levels immediately below that, it's how the profile handles fine distinctions of shades of light-light-grey and fine distinctions of hue in those extremely light tones. For the kind of photo that Joshua was working with, I can see how it may be important to modify how the profile helps to render those fine tonal distinctions just below paper white.
-
Thanks Mark. How would one go about modifying the profile with the new knowledge. Wouldn't it be better to build a new one that included patches for the top whites and blacks?
-
There is software for modifying profiles. I've never used it - those who have say it's rather demanding to get it right. One can vary profile performance by altering the profiling targets, but there is an element of unpredictability in doing that, whereas directly editing the profile data, from my understanding of what's involved, would be more controllable and predictable.
-
That's my understanding. Most folks that I have discussed this with make it sound like magic which leaves me very suspicious. I have yet to hear a clear description of the process. I have found that most 'CM' gurus always stop short of ever disclosing how to do such things. Funnily enough, B&W printing other than ABW does this as standard practice where you expect to see highlights and shadow detail to the full extent.
-
There are color management books providing general descriptions of profile editing, both input and output. Detailed instruction for current application versions I have yet to see. Heck, X-Rite hasn't even produced a basic manual for using i1Profiler's core functions, let alone anything as esoteric as editing.
-
There is software for modifying profiles. I've never used it - those who have say it's rather demanding to get it right. One can vary profile performance by altering the profiling targets, but there is an element of unpredictability in doing that, whereas directly editing the profile data, from my understanding of what's involved, would be more controllable and predictable.
I played the old GMB PM5 Profiler editor but found it only useful for aligning the L black point intercept to match the inked black point. Technically, profiles' BtoA1 should be constructed so that the XYZ tracks a linear scale from the media white point down to whatever the darkest printable color is. Then, as the requested Lab drops below what can be printed the norm is to output whatever RGB value results in the smallest dE from the request. Most often the darkest printable patch is some dE away from the darkest, printable, in gamut color and that generates the sudden color shift.
This results in the expected blocking of any darker colors (assuming no BPC in Rel Col.) but also a sudden shift in the color as well. Often sudden dEs changes of 1.5 to 3. Editing the profile was one way to change that behavior to eliminate the color shift. I abandoned this approach finding it easier to tweak things in Photoshop. I have not run into any problems at the high tone end. At least with patch counts of 1.5k or more.
-
Thanks Doug, that's insightful.
-
interesting article...
maybe it is me; i downloaded the grayscale chart but found the numbers incorrect ( measured in photoshop)
-
interesting article...
maybe it is me; i downloaded the grayscale chart but found the numbers incorrect ( measured in photoshop)
I did the same and found them to be perfect in Photoshop. Strange
-
It depends on your working profile.
-
It depends on your working profile.
Could be.
I put it down to the jpeg compression. I've never had a jpeg version that has been accurate.
Forum members are welcome to download my own prophoto tiff:
http://davidsutton.co.nz/resources/
David
-
Hi all,
Firstly, thank you for the comments about the article. I am glad it has been enjoyed. Printing is something very close to my heart!
Regarding the greyscale patch. You should not use this jpeg from the article for the purpose I describe in the print process. I included it just to illustrate what it looks like, not for download for critical print work. I use the original PSD file I created for this.
-
Regarding the greyscale patch. You should not use this jpeg from the article for the purpose I describe in the print process. I included it just to illustrate what it looks like, not for download for critical print work. I use the original PSD file I created for this.
OK Josh,
That might explain the difference- thanks! and for writing the article.
-
I have put the PSD test chart in a drop box here for those who would like to try it
PSD Test Chart (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fl1pdq3st8bhato/AABDn_VL7Jd3rjv4E3w-rShla?dl=0)
-
Zero bytes
-
Thanks for the article Josh. Lovely image, I bet the actual print looks fantastic.
-
Here's what Andrew Rodney has to say on editing profiles: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55605800
-
In the mean time i also made a grayscale chart suited especially for 60cm wide rolls of paper.
feel free to download it.
http://www.beeld.nu/LL/bw.zip
it is a 16 bit profoto psd file. only 1.5MB
-
File should be in the drop box now ... sorry about that.
-
I asked about the profile modification on the blog where the article was published a couple of days ago. I have not received a reply. From this I can conclude that it is either:
1 Secret sauce which isn't to be shared with mere mortals
2 A bit of puff to add gravitas
I am always interested in anything that can improve my prints. That is the only reason that I asked.
-
I asked about the profile modification on the blog where the article was published a couple of days ago. I have not received a reply. From this I can conclude that it is either:
1 Secret sauce which isn't to be shared with mere mortals
2 A bit of puff to add gravitas
I am always interested in anything that can improve my prints. That is the only reason that I asked.
Jeff, I did not see your question - sorry about that.
The article was not intended to be a step by step "how to" - it was rather a summary of the steps I went through to make the print without a deep dive on each aspect. An explanation of profile modification was well beyond the scope of the article. And its subsequently been covered by Mark in this thread in any case.
Secret sauce.. isn't that what goes on Hamburgers?
-
Thanks Josh. I agree that it may be beyond your scope but the words are dangerous nonetheless. Talking of modifying profiles flies in the face of commonly accepted wisdom is going to pique interest, mine anyway. I have been told of it many times but have never seen it done, and never had an explanation.
Regardless of this, thanks for the article. It's always good to see articles on printing.