Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: John.Murray on December 23, 2007, 06:18:30 pm
-
A nearby dealer, who I frequent, and does my Velvia Processing - recently aquired an Epson 11880 printer. The timing could not be more fortuitous for me as I have a large 7-shot panorama of the recent Chehalis, WA flood, that several clients have expressed interest in.
With a minimum stated charge of $200 for a 60x40" image on Epson Luster, I was very eager to aquire the same ICC profile that they are using, to include in the image file I would submit. I asked about aquiring the profile here (without the driver) and quickly found the answer, but the shop's refusal and or inability still bothered me - after all this *is* $200; I really want to use the *same* profile they are . . . .
I went in person and talked to the manager and explained that providing ICC profiles makes good marketing sense, especially to the more sophisticated audience they cater to. I mentioned that Costco's profiles are available from Dry Creek Photo, and in my experience have been generally excellant, with the particular location I use. The manager immediately pronounced the Dry Creek profiles "junk" and "outdated" and asked if I had seen the "overwhelming negative feedback" on the profiles. I politely mentioned that the Costco Tumwater #1 profiles are current, and very good. - and asked what this had to do with his refusal to supply me his printer's profiles? After a stern lecture about humidity, and paper variations, etc., I asked him why is he not using custom profiles as opposed to the "canned" epson profile, or even Bill Atkinsons? The short answer was "we find the Luster Profile to be very good" - fair enough - may I have a copy? After a $6 "research fee" I was promised that I would recieve the profile via email . . .
Is this the norm???? Anyone know of alternatives to this in the Seattle or even Portland area?
-John
-
John - can't help with a recommendation for an alternative, but I can add that if you download and install the driver you will have access to the canned profiles yourself. At least a starting point and if they're using the canned profiles then you'll have the same one (assuming they follow a standard workflow, should all be good).
Some of the print shops here (Australia) offer profiles with the white point damaged to make them unusable for actual printing. I guess they're protecting their time and effort in creating their own custom profiles.
-
I may not have the answer but I'd point out that the only reason for you to use the profile for their machine would be for soft proofing in photoshop -- they shouldn't need to have you convert your file to the printer's colour space and normally you should leave it in adobe or sRGB depending on the format they require. Personally I find that the display portion of the profiles only marginally helpfull and no substitute for a test print.
If the profile used was created by an outside outfit they probably would not be able to distribute it without permission. Even if they did their own profiles there seems to be some issues with copyrights or other legal issues as happened with the inkjetart generic profiles for example. If they are using a RIP other than the Epson driver the profile may be of no use to you anyway but I'm not really sure how this works.
Good luck....
Doug
-
John, I'm in Seattle but not after your business, just adding info to the thread. I stopped supplying the profiles made here to clients, for many reasons. Unfortunately this business has become brutal, and frankly my profiles would be used more for criticism of the output here for others to use as marketing fodder than anything else.
Additionally, with some papers, the profile becomes obsolete with each batch that comes in.
Provided with the print cost here is a proof on the actual paper, and within reason edits will be made if a disappointing departure from the monitor image.
I have yet to have to do that, though occassional edits and re-proofs have been done simply because the artists desired some changes.
All of this has been working perfectly, the exceptions being for people without calibrated monitors when they prepped their files.
I'd like to add, $200 for a 40x60 is a great price, jump on it, after approving a proof even if you have to pay a little for it.
Tyler
-
There's NO good reason a shop shouldn't provide the output profile. Leave em!
And supply a profile is far more than allowing you to soft proof (with what rendering intent?). You should control this and may very well wish to do minor editing of the document in the output color space to make it more closely resemble the original. You need the profile for that. Find another lab, service isn't their game.
-
I don't know -- I'm a photographer first, printer 2nd -- but editing an image in the output profile space for an outside lab's printer using a profile of unknown quality sounds like a hit or miss affair and an easy way to waste a lot of time and paper. If the profile is the generic epson supplied number than it isn't even specific to their printer.
$200 sounds high for an unmounted single 60x40 on premium luster. I'd expect to pay less than that for canvas in BC.
Doug
-
I don't know -- I'm a photographer first, printer 2nd -- but editing an image in the output profile space for an outside lab's printer using a profile of unknown quality sounds like a hit or miss affair and an easy way to waste a lot of time and paper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162874\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Only if you don't know how to work with Photoshop (and the profile sucks).
You open the original image in the original working space. You duplicate the image. You setup a soft proof on the dupe and have both it and the original at the same screen position and zoom (hold down space bar and shift key, you can pan around in sync).
Do minor edit on dupe (on adjustment layers). A slight curve perhaps, maybe a slight hue/sat adjustment. The goal is to make the soft proofed image appear a bit closer to original (gamut limitations not withstanding). Why settle on the default rendering using an output profile?
We show this technique in depth at the Epson Print Academy, I'm pretty sure Jeff shows it in his print video here.
-
Thanks for that Andrew!
The image *is* very wide DR, including filtered sun in the shot - I'm just barely able to get a decent print on my B9180 without blowing highlights. I'll keep looking for a shop that is willing to share profiles . . .
Happy Holidays - John
(http://washhome.com/chehalis_flood_small.jpg)
-
Digitaldog: Without the feedback from the actual printed image I don't see much value in this but I'm not the one paying the lab to print it.
John: I think your biggest problem is going to be banding, not color rendition. I would crop some test sections of the sky particularly on the right to print on your HP at the full size they would be in the final print (if that makes sense). There's no guarantee that the results will extrapolate between the HP driver and whatever the lab uses for a printer driver but it can at least locate problem areas in advance -- chances are banding will be worse on the HP.
You also might have a seam issue about 3/4 across in the sky as there appears to be some diagonal stripes going both directions though it could be only an artifact of downsizing the image.
I'm also not getting the 40x60 inches as it looks more like 8x60 unless you are putting multiple copies on one page. If that is the case $200 is way too high and you would be better off printing a couple at the real size. Premium luster comes in rolls as small as 10 inches wide so there is no need to print to a standard page size. PM if you want some more information about panorama printing as that is what I do.
Doug
-
Are Custom Digital in Seattle and Cirus in Portland too good for ya?
http://www.custom-digital.com (http://www.custom-digital.com)
http://www.cirrus-digital.com/Alfano.html (http://www.cirrus-digital.com/Alfano.html)
They are both some of the best in the business.
john
-
There's NO good reason a shop shouldn't provide the output profile. Leave em!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162856\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here's three:
1. Client may not have a display in optimum working condition AND recently AND correctly calibrated AND profiled
2. Even if client has #1, he/she may not be working in proper ambient lighting condition, which affects what they're seeing onscreen to make the edits.
3. The underlying assumption behind a soft-proof adjusted image is the hard copy will be viewed under consistent and specific luminence conditions.
People who print for actual paying customers deal with these scenarios every day. Does this mean they're used-car salesman looking to rip you off or just plain incompetent? No. High-end print shops work with proofs. THe shop does the work to make the proof resemble the file and sends this to the client so everyone is looking at the same thing. That's what service is, not some dogmatic adherence to whether or not to make profiles available. Some do, some don't because they've found it leads to worse, not better files from clients.
-
Here's three:
1. Client may not have a display in optimum working condition AND recently AND correctly calibrated AND profiled
The output profile then isn't going to be an issue.
2. Even if client has #1, he/she may not be working in proper ambient lighting condition, which affects what they're seeing onscreen to make the edits.
Same comment. The output profile, in terms of ambient lighting only assumes or can be told otherwise, D50. So there's still no harm done in supplying the profile.
3. The underlying assumption behind a soft-proof adjusted image is the hard copy will be viewed under consistent and specific luminence conditions.
That's part of what soft proofing accomplishes. And that any workflow may have less than ideal configuration, anyone with sense about ICC color management still provides the best descriptor they have of THEIR device and often advise customers to their best use.
Not supplying the profile thus has no excuse.
-
Here's three:
1. Client may not have a display in optimum working condition AND recently AND correctly calibrated AND profiled
2. Even if client has #1, he/she may not be working in proper ambient lighting condition, which affects what they're seeing onscreen to make the edits.
3. The underlying assumption behind a soft-proof adjusted image is the hard copy will be viewed under consistent and specific luminence conditions.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162939\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
1: Display profiled usding Eye-One Pro / Eye-One Match
2: Ambient K and intensity - optimal per Eye-One
3: Also - optimal
I'm currently getting excellent display / soft / proof results using my existing HP B9180, also profiled using Eye-One. In short my color workflow, to the best of my budget and ability is per "best practices" recommended in Andrew's book as well the LL Video Series.
These questions are *exactly* what I would expect, and appreciate from the print lab - unfortunately my experience was otherwise.
Regards - John
-
It is nothing but silly to suggest that a supplied "profile" and "soft proofing" technique is some kind of workable holy grail that gives anyone accurate linearization and balanced hue content for their specific unique printer. Epson, Canon, and HP, wish the tolerances were that close!
John
The output profile then isn't going to be an issue.
Same comment. The output profile, in terms of ambient lighting only assumes or can be told otherwise, D50. So there's still no harm done in supplying the profile.
That's part of what soft proofing accomplishes. And that any workflow may have less than ideal configuration, anyone with sense about ICC color management still provides the best descriptor they have of THEIR device and often advise customers to their best use.
Not supplying the profile thus has no excuse.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=162947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Deanwork: I think you have mis-understood, I'm not asking that the lab accept my profile, I'm merely asking them to supply theirs.
-John
-
I have to tell you Mr. Dog that your extremely weak response to Mr. Diallo's attempt to clarify this situation shows clearly that you are not a printer and have no real practical experience in this disipline.
I ran a service bureau with all nature of output devices for years (well before providing ICC profiles was even possible). I do have somewhat of an idea of this production workflow.
I also of course, print for myself.
That said, I think I have a fair idea of his "discipline."
-
It is nothing but silly to suggest that a supplied "profile" and "soft proofing" technique is some kind of workable holy grail that gives anyone accurate linearization and balanced hue content for their specific unique printer. Epson, Canon, and HP, wish the tolerances were that close!
John
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=163019\")
I can only speak of Epson and later models. I built the canned profiles for them for the new Premium Fiber Paper. I know how close the various printers behave from the K3 models and they are indirectly close in terms of average deltaE 2000 values. Even the 2400 showed this ability, so we built the profile for that as well.
[a href=\"http://pixelgenius.com/epson/profile-faq.html]http://pixelgenius.com/epson/profile-faq.html[/url]
-
Deanwork: I think you have mis-understood, I'm not asking that the lab accept my profile, I'm merely asking them to supply theirs.
-John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He most certainly did!
-
Which ever direction you are going to exhange this profile, lab to client or client to lab, it becomes a canned profile for all practical purposes on the other guy's machine. That is true even if the printer was made on the same day in the same factory. They have improved, but not that much.
If that were not the case we would never have to make our own profiles would we, except for exotic media? We could just all download perfectly engineered ones from Epson's website couldn't we, and it would one big happy world. A world in which we wouldn't need books about color management because Epson would do it all for us. I wish that were the case, but it isn't. Merry Christmas.
john
Deanwork: I think you have mis-understood, I'm not asking that the lab accept my profile, I'm merely asking them to supply theirs.
-John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163021\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Which ever direction you are going to exhange this profile, lab to client or client to lab, it becomes a canned profile for all practical purposes on the other guy's machine. That is true even if the printer was made on the same day in the same factory. They have improved, but not that much.
That's ridiculous and wrong.
The lab builds a profile of a stable device, provides it to customer, customer uses to convert output color space, lab prints the doc. What makes it canned?
What makes a canned profile no good? It doesn't describe the device. Good canned profiles work when the device they represent are fixed in that assumed behavior. The canned profiles from Epson K3 unit, when that unit is behaving as it should (and it will remain that way handled correctly) are excellent and in some ways, indistinguishable from a custom profile.
If that were not the case we would never have to make our own profiles would we, except for exotic media?
We don't (always). Sometimes you do. Depends on the device.
We could just all download perfectly engineered ones from Epson's website couldn't we, and it would one big happy world.
For Epson profiles, that's IS the case!
-
Assumed, behavior? Depends on the device?
I don't care what you convert it to, it's still generic on another printer.
Sometimes?
What if the lab is using a carefully linearized rip as most do or a different rip than the clinet? That doesn't effect the way ink is laid down? The way ink is laid down doesn't effect color content?
john
That's ridiculous and wrong.
The lab builds a profile of a stable device, provides it to customer, customer uses to convert output color space, lab prints the doc. What makes it canned?
What makes a canned profile no good? It doesn't describe the device. Good canned profiles work when the device they represent are fixed in that assumed behavior. The canned profiles from Epson K3 unit, when that unit is behaving as it should (and it will remain that way handled correctly) are excellent and in some ways, indistinguishable from a custom profile.
We don't (always). Sometimes you do. Depends on the device.
For Epson profiles, that's IS the case!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
-
While personally I agree mostly with deanwork I thought his first, original, message was not exactly as Jesus would put it and I see the christmas elves have cleaned it up.
My question would be what exactly are you correcting for by altering an image in soft-proof mode? In the end you are still trying to guess what an illuminated image on a monitor is going to look like printed on someone else's printer using a rip or driver (and most likely NOT photoshop) with all the details out of your control. There are so many variables in this that I think it's pointless -- monitor types, monitor profiles, viewing conditions, photoshop vs imageprint/colorbyte etc, etc, etc. If the profile is decent it will be reasonably close without "tweaking" and if it was perfect no tweaking should even be required. I would also let the printer do the colour space conversion and send the image tagged in aRGB or sRGB (as required by the printer) which would insure that the correct and most current profile is used. For an exhibition print a hard proof is going to be essential and often will need to be altered depending on both the finished mounting (I.E. glass, laminate, etc) and lighting -- none of which can be accommodated by softproofing in photoshop. But that is of course only my opinion and the christmas elves are telling me that ranting on xmas day gets the eggnog cut off.
At any rate I think that for the original poster having access to the profile is pretty much irrelevant and that there are other issues: he doesn't need to pay a premium to print this on a brand new 11880 -- any decent pro printer that takes roll paper will do fine -- Pay for postage and I'll print and send you one tomorrow as an xmas present. Banding and the mostly blown sections to the right are going to be bigger printing challenges than matching the subdued colors in the image.
Not to wreck the holiday spirit but I think another issue is that there is a belief in something magically image-enhancing about using a certain workflow (or printer, or paper, or ink) when for the majority of images this simply isn't true unless you want the viewer to admire the media rather than the message (to borrow a cliche).
Hope everyone is enjoying the holidays.......................
Doug
-
My question would be what exactly are you correcting for by altering an image in soft-proof mode?
Assuming good profiles for display and output, the soft proof can and often does look different when you properly set up the simulation (that means Paper White/Ink Black and preferred rendering intent). You want this to look as much like the original corrected master (in your RGB working space) as possible. You may find some small adjustments to layers will accomplish a lot of this as described already.
In the end you are still trying to guess what an illuminated image on a monitor is going to look like printed on someone else's printer using a rip or driver (and most likely NOT photoshop) with all the details out of your control.
The profile should account for everything going on to produce the print.
The soft proof with simulation accounts for the dynamic range of the print on a display that grossly over exceeds the print range, one reason some like to call it "make my image look ugly" button. But that's a closer reality using the technology we have at hand today.
An emissive display will never match a reflective print (for that matter, you could replace transparency in that sentence), it hasn't stopped us from making prints from non transmissive materials that we feel match.
The profile is the key in showing you what the service provider is supposed to give you. If they can't calibrate and profile their devices (or are too lazy), you've got bigger problems here than what is being used as an excuse for not providing profile.
-
Assuming is an interesting word. My biggest point is that you aren't going to know if you are correcting for inaccurate profiles -- monitor (yours or theirs) or printer -- or correcting for the actual printer/paper combination, not without an actual print in hand.
I'd also like to point out that anyone that is following this discussion should have a decent knowledge of photoshop. I'm sure we all know how layers work.
Doug
-
Right Doug,
He keeps saying things like "should" account for, which it probably will not.
And saying things like most devices respond this way, or that way, etc. just muddies the water. Life is not as simple as Epson would have you believe. I don't assume anything in this business. Especially with ink on paper.
j
quote=DougMorgan,Dec 25 2007, 02:12 PM]
Assuming is an interesting word. My biggest point is that you aren't going to know if you are correcting for inaccurate profiles -- monitor (yours or theirs) or printer -- or correcting for the actual printer/paper combination, not without an actual print in hand.
I'd also like to point out that anyone that is following this discussion should have a decent knowledge of photoshop. I'm sure we all know how layers work.
Doug
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
-
Why is this a contentious issue. The whole idea being discussed is about the rights and responsibilities of the artist. The artist needs to give to the printer the highest quality representation of their intent and the printer needs to make sure that the output matches that intent.
The profile the printer will use (regardless of quality) is therfore very important to the Artist trying to provide the best possible image to the printer.
The printer responsibilities do not include deciding the quality of the artist workflow or their intent for the image. Maybe the artist wants banding and blown highlights. Provide the profile and move on.
IMO
Tom
PS It is also the Artist responsibility not to complain when they have to pay for a reprint because they messed up.
-
He keeps saying things like "should" account for, which it probably will not.
And saying things like most devices respond this way, or that way, etc. just muddies the water. Life is not as simple as Epson would have you believe. I don't assume anything in this business. Especially with ink on paper.
I can tell you with empirical numbers how various sampling's of Epson pro printers respond and I can point to user experience with Epson canned profiles, both indicate that these are well behaved consistent devices that anyone willing can profile and supply to others to use.
Then there's the significant difference in these kinds of devices and offset presses (although modern, computer controlled presses can work in exactly the same consistent and repeatable way across a press sheet).
I say should because there are all kinds of ways to hose the proper use of profiles and output devices. Some don't have a clue about process control. There's no reason to even look at profiling such a situation.
If you've got a stable output device, as you should, you can profile it and you can supply that to anyone that finds that of use. Those that don't, great.
-
I don't work with empirical numbers I work with prints. Comparing this to offset printing is totally comparing apples to oranges and has no bearing on this discussion.
I'm sure in some cases one might get lucky and have a complete match when exchanging rgb profiles like that, occasionally, maybe. More often than not it is just going to waste my time when they send that file back to me and confuse the client.
The great thing about working for yourself is that you can set the rules. My rules, and vast majority of my colleagues who actually do this for a living now, say no, to exchanging profiles that would only complicate our work and encourage unrealistic expectations among clients. To tell you the truth in all the time I've been doing this, the topic has never come up. I'm certainly not worried about loosing work over it. That wouldn't happen.
John
quote=digitaldog,Dec 25 2007, 03:08 PM]
I can tell you with empirical numbers how various sampling's of Epson pro printers respond and I can point to user experience with Epson canned profiles, both indicate that these are well behaved consistent devices that anyone willing can profile and supply to others to use.
Then there's the significant difference in these kinds of devices and offset presses (although modern, computer controlled presses can work in exactly the same consistent and repeatable way across a press sheet).
I say should because there are all kinds of ways to hose the proper use of profiles and output devices. Some don't have a clue about process control. There's no reason to even look at profiling such a situation.
If you've got a stable output device, as you should, you can profile it and you can supply that to anyone that finds that of use. Those that don't, great.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
-
My rules, and vast majority of my colleagues who actually do this for a living now, say no, to exchanging profiles that would only complicate our work
Stop right there, we get that. Its all about YOUR workflow.
-
Gentlepeople: I've got two panos stitching and my computer has become unresponsive so I'll bid you all a merry xmas and bow out. I've got easter eggs to hide.
Doug
PS: it looks like the lawyers have shown up (this thread is about rights and responsibilities?) and, to paraphrase Bukowski: It's not that I hate lawyers: I just feel much better when they're not around.......just kidding
-
Oh, Mouy, Gowd,
You got that right. Yea. It took you awhile, but you finally got it. I'm the printer, I'm the decider, I make the rules and you abide by em. It's my way or the highway Mr. Dog. That is exactly why people come to me, because I'm the decider, and that is exactly what they pay me for.
john
Stop right there, we get that. Its all about YOUR workflow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Popcorn anyone
-
You got that right. Yea. It took you awhile, but you finally got it. I'm the printer, I'm the decider, I make the rules and you abide by em. It's my way or the highway Mr. Dog. That is exactly why people come to me, because I'm the decider, and that is exactly what they pay me for Mr. Dog.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow. . .that's a tough one to pass up.
So, who are you and what creds do YOU bring to the party? You don't have a personal profile or link to an atelier service, so I guess we're just supposed to believe your words? Well, about your words...
So far, what you've written has been a lot of things but useful. I guess you don't do a lot of soft proofing? But you claim to be using "custom profiles" (course, you don't mention how you made them) and that they are far better than Epson's canned profiles?
Well, for non-Epson papers, you would of course be correct. But for the 800 and 880 series printers and Epson papers, I think you are kidding yourself (or trying to kid us).
I used to make custom profiles for my printers with either ProfileMaker or Profiler whenever I got a new printer or paper. When the 800 series printers came out, I tested Epson's SP profiles vs my own and found there was very little difference nor benefit to making my own.
The Delta E difference between the 800 & 880 series printers is small enough to be within the scope of print to print variations(or measurement accuracy)...it's certainly possible to have a really screwed up printer that is out of control but very unlikely (unless it's been abused).
The OP didn't understand why the printer refused to freely give out a standard ICC profile for Luster on the 11880. I don't either and the way the printer responded makes me think that printer may not really understand the process. On the other hand, your attitude gives me EVERY reason think you may be in the same boat.
I sure hope you don't print for others or do this as a service cause your attitude would tend to drive away work...course, that's maybe why you don't post a link to your biz nor give any indication who, what or where you you are...prolly a good idea you remain anonymous.
:~)
-
First of all Schewe,
I don't need to post a link as to my client base and technology because my services are none of your business and we don't read your books. And, unlike you Epson and Adobe consultants, I don't need to advertise my services through user groups daily to chase up business becaue I have all the work I can do. Anyone who wants me to print on Epson media is going to have to look elsewhere regardless. The plastic crap I hate and the cotton papers and canvas are made much better by others. I don't need Epson media. My clients don't want it. Never have.
I'm sorry, but none of us out here need the Epson Print Academy to know which way the wind blows. Didn't they used to call it Epson Ultra-Giclee stamp of approval ( how embarrasing).
It's is kind of a shame that it would take two of you Photoshop mafia geniuses to take down one ordinary art printer like me.
john
quote=Schewe,Dec 25 2007, 08:00 PM]
Wow. . .that's a tough one to pass up.
So, who are you and what creds do YOU bring to the party? You don't have a personal profile or link to an atelier service, so I guess we're just supposed to believe your words? Well, about your words...
So far, what you've written has been a lot of things but useful. I guess you don't do a lot of soft proofing? But you claim to be using "custom profiles" (course, you don't mention how you made them) and that they are far better than Epson's canned profiles?
Well, for non-Epson papers, you would of course be correct. But for the 800 and 880 series printers and Epson papers, I think you are kidding yourself (or trying to kid us).
I used to make custom profiles for my printers with either ProfileMaker or Profiler whenever I got a new printer or paper. When the 800 series printers came out, I tested Epson's SP profiles vs my own and found there was very little difference nor benefit to making my own.
The Delta E difference between the 800 & 880 series printers is small enough to be within the scope of print to print variations(or measurement accuracy)...it's certainly possible to have a really screwed up printer that is out of control but very unlikely (unless it's been abused).
The OP didn't understand why the printer refused to freely give out a standard ICC profile for Luster on the 11880. I don't either and the way the printer responded makes me think that printer may not really understand the process. On the other hand, your attitude gives me EVERY reason think you may be in the same boat.
I sure hope you don't print for others or do this as a service cause your attitude would tend to drive away work...course, that's maybe why you don't post a link to your biz nor give any indication who, what or where you you are...prolly a good idea you remain anonymous.
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
-
Thanks! I got what I needed from this thread - go to a lab who *will* share their profiles *and* feel comfortable discussing possible profile issues / pitfalls with their clients.
The picture I posted is a HUGE reduction of the original image - the banding and blown highlites are a *perfect* example of converting the image to a lower gamut space - neither are present in the original. As I mentioned in my orginal post, I was barely able to get this to print on my B9180 with acceptable result. With MY workflow (thanks to Bruce, Jeff & Andrew's books & of course this site), softproofing was the only rational way to get that. I'm looking forward to seeing the result on a wider gamut device, like the Epson 11180
Cheers - John
-
John,
I agree with your final conclusion. Considering only what has been talked about on this forum. I would conclude that the printer you were talking to does not have custom profiles and is attempting to cover up that they just got this printer and frankly are trying to figure out how to get the most out of it. Not willing to share the prifiles they plan to use is bad busines in my view.
Either they open up and work with you or work with someone else.
good luck, John
-
We run an 11880. On Black Point's website we have been providing profiles for the last few months. Our luster profile is beta but working well. We are going to make a better x-rite profile soon (better shadow rendition) so take the one up there with a grain of salt. With the way the 11880 was calibrated in-factory, the canned one might still be better. (We can put that up too but then again, that might be illegal.) Our printer # is 47 if anyone needs to know.
I am a printer first and a photographer second.
My whole idea about profiles and output follows two rules.
1. Get as calibrated as you can.
2. Never forget that photography is always a general soupy kind of thing and if it's all going to end up a print, than a proof will always be better than a fancy calibrated light-bulb called a monitor.
3. There is always variables that you will not for-see including the eyeballs of the client and how their eyeballs interact with their "monitor."
I've noticed that many profiles do NOT proof correctly on many screens/apps and giving an ICC profile away may give the customer a false sense of security. This is NOT a theory. This is something I've experienced. Without clear communication on my end on the limitations of soft-proofing in today's world, problems crop up down the road.
I provide profiles free for anyone who is interested in downloading them and looking at them. I point clients to them for soft proofing ONLY if I know they have a calibrated monitor and after I've talked with them on phone or email and told them that it's not an end-all-be-all kind of thing. That in-fact it may show worse on screen than print.
Proofs. If you want a really good print, you still have to see a proof. It's a physical thing. Get over it. A 60x40 that will last 4 times longer than a c-print for $200.00 is cheap as well.
I have many clients who I've printed for so much that they just give me the files and we have a conversation on phone and I tweak the images which way I see fit (or don't do anything at all) and it just works. But this only happens after over a year of printing. Can't happen on one print.
In regards to Luster, soft-proofing is not as big a deal. The paper can show more than you can see on screen. Soft-proofing for more limited gamut paper/ink is more relevant. If you do blue night-shots on chrome, soft-proofing becomes more relevant as well.
So, well, that's my two cents.
take care all,
Walker Blackwell
Black Point Editions
-
I don't need to post a link as to my client base and technology because my services are none of your business and we don't read your books.
Well, that kinda says it all right there bud. Long term, you ain't gonna like it around here. Because if you want to have _ANY_ credibility, you gotta have _SOME_ credibility and so far, what you've done with your posts is lose any you may have had in these forums...
I'm a big boy, and I think I can go through life knowing that YOU don't like me. (actually, based on your attitude, I'm GLAD you don't have any of my "books", wait, oh yeah, I only have one book with my name on it along with Bruce's).
It prolly is a lot better that you hide behind anonymous screen name with no profile because, ya never know who may be reading forums posts (due to Google and other caching). Maybe one of your clients may actually see what kinda attitude you sling in public.
Either way, you are what I would call a lost cause, so I'll just go ahead and ignore you as a user here (that way I don't have to worry about seeing any more of your posts–your first 12 have been pretty useless).
Jon, in the meant time, I think where you are at now is better than when you first came to ask your question? I hope so. As you know, I feel that soft proofing is critical to determining optimal tone curve and color prior to printing (notice what's his name hasn't said he uses soft proofing). In particular, making sure the contrast range of the image will reproduce as expected in the dynamic range of the print.
-
Walker - you can further calibrate your machine using Colorbase (free download from Epson) if you wish. You can also have a technician do the factory level calibration for you (at whatever they charge) if you have any concerns or want to see if you can get a touch of improved performance.
-
I wanted to add something about post on the internet.
I've been on the 'net since 1989 in one form or another, so I like to think that I have a bit of a clue.
When people like Andrew or Jeff post and publically identify themselves or when they publish a book or a website or speak in public etc, they allow for peer review. This is the same as one would find in the scientific community or, even, in the arts community (yes, even photographers :-)
That simple act - making yourself subject to peer review - adds credibility. Not everyone will make themselves completely publically known. I haven't, for example, and there are reasons for it. I expect people to place less credibility on my comments as a result. That's my choice. I won't get upset by it :-) At any rate, there are people here far more knowledgable than I, which is why I come here to read and learn and (after a couple of years of lurking) participate.
But then I wouldn't dream of telling someone they're wrong just because I said so, without providing substantial proof or detailed argument. That's what you did, Dean. You expected us to take your word for it when we don't know what it's worth. Maybe you're right and maybe everyone else is wrong, but you've neither presented a strong argument, presented proof, or given us reason to accept your word on the subject. All of that is fine, but don't get upset when this is pointed out to you.
I hope your business flourishes and your customers are delighted with the results. I hope, also, that you may be gracious enough to consider that perhaps folks have a point and look into what they're saying and if you don't understand it ask them to clarify.
As for your comments about Epson papers. Well, take a look at EFP and tell me it's garbage (it's most definitely anything of the sort). And bear in mind that Epson doesn't own a paper manufacturing plant and that some of the other papers that you are using probably come from the same factories. Some of us can tell just by looking at the "made in ..." label who makes them in some cases. Sure, they may be different, but they're hardly rubbish, even if you don't like them.
Perhaps if you understood and applied color management practices you'd obtain results that would change your mind :-)
-
John (Deanwork),
I'm not quite sure why you're so upset but please keep in mind that Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney have been participating in these and other forums for a good, long time. In that period they have willingly and openly shared their knowledge and expertise. Most of us really appreciate that and find it extremely valuable. Many of us have learned a great deal from them and consider them esteemed members of the online digital photography community. They have earned our respect through the years.
-
Walker - you can further calibrate your machine using Colorbase (free download from Epson) if you wish. You can also have a technician do the factory level calibration for you (at whatever they charge) if you have any concerns or want to see if you can get a touch of improved performance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163149\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. I am aware of that, thank you. The printer is very stable for now (ala the factory calibration that they did before shipment). The only problem I've found is the auto-nozzle clog mesh (the electrified ink crap) gets just one piece of dust on it and won't stop cleaning the head every 2 prints. So that is turned off and is a useless hunk of metal now. Thank you Epson. Yet again their engineering just almost blows me away.
Regarding ICC soft-proofing, I think the relationship between printer and photographer must be based on a level of trust. That is a two way street. If a customer requests an ICC profile before he talks to the printer about things like their ideas around working spaces, monitor calibration, etc, they are assuming a lot of things that might become problems in the future. If I was talking with a possible client who requested an ICC profile I would want to know all about their setup and make sure they knew about mine before I pointed them to the ICC profile to use.
I've had some clients who are way into the technical aspects of printing. This can either be a great thing (and often is) or it can be hell on earth. The hellish customers are the ones who are assuming that color management is way more advanced than it really is. They are negating the weight of human perception in the whole process. These clients end up doing many more re-prints and re-proofs than the ones who trust their eyes and their minds (like the darkroom days) as much as their technical acumen.
take care,
Walker
-
Thanks! I got what I needed from this thread - go to a lab who *will* share their profiles *and* feel comfortable discussing possible profile issues / pitfalls with their clients.
The picture I posted is a HUGE reduction of the original image - the banding and blown highlites are a *perfect* example of converting the image to a lower gamut space - neither are present in the original. As I mentioned in my orginal post, I was barely able to get this to print on my B9180 with acceptable result. With MY workflow (thanks to Bruce, Jeff & Andrew's books & of course this site), softproofing was the only rational way to get that. I'm looking forward to seeing the result on a wider gamut device, like the Epson 11180
Cheers - John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
John:
I print and sell my own panoramas and have no interest in selling anything to or buying anything from forum members. I've tried the soft-proofing thing and didn't find much value in it beyond checking for out-of-gamut issues on the odd image. Nothing posted above has changed my opinion.
As someone else pointed out your printers are most likely using the epson profile and can't legally distribute it. Hiding this fact shows some suspect insecurity for sure but the authors may very well be correct and the profile will be as good as any custom profile anyway. I've had a couple epson papers re-profiled because I wasn't happy with the stock result but by and large they are very good. Download the driver package from epson and install it-- you'll have the profile if that is in fact the one they use.
I don't quite understand though why neither the promoters or detractors haven't pointed out to you that the wider gamut of the 11880 is not going to make much difference for the image you posted and that soft proofing isn't automatically going to help -- blown is out of gamut to the camera sensor. If it's blown in sRGB it's going to be blown in any other profile. Banding is a particular problem with panoramas as the less sophisticated stitching programs often use little more than a gradient (or blur) to blend sections of sky and that coupled with very, very light colors that the printer is only marginally able to reproduce is a recipe for a not-so-great result.
Of course you've reduced the image to display here but in my experience some artifacts like banding and dust are only visible on the screen at certain resolutions and may not be easy to detect at 100%. I usually zoom in and out to examine the skies in particular at numerous resolutions. Sometimes the defects still appear only at printing -- hard proofing.
You have a definite seam issue in the sky about 2/3across L-R. Whether this will show up on an actual print depends on a number of factors that have little to do with the colour space or softproofing and should be fixed in the original image.
The point though is that the 11880 is not a magic bullet and the more precise dot patterns may actually make image problems like banding more visible (mere conjecture here). The size of the image at 60 inches wide would be 7.6x60 inches which is easy for any wide format printer to print as premium luster (and all run of the mill papers) come on ROLLS and if the printer knows what they are doing printing panoramas is simple -- 2 seconds to create a custom paper size. It is much easier to deal with a 10 x60 print rather than a 40x60 print since the chance of denting the narrow print is relatively small. In this manner you can also print 1 as a test.
As my only opinion regarding the artistic merits I would suggest resizing the image to 8x48 inches which will be easier to frame and display and the compression in the horizontal direction will give it more impact. You should be able to see on screen if you like this effect or not but if you do this I would suggest doing it with a separate layer or file to preserve the original as changing the aspect ratio is a destructive change. The above comments regarding banding and seams is not a criticism of you or your work -- it's impossible to shoot into the sun without blowing or severely underexposing the image. For panoramas of any size it is normal to go from complete black to completely blown in small areas; more than the entire luminosity range of any device.
Sorry for the long pedantic post.................happy boxing day
Doug
-
I've tried the soft-proofing thing and didn't find much value in it. Nothing posted above has changed my opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163219\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Doug,
With all due respect, I might suggest that if soft proofing hasn't helped you in the past, that possibly, you haven't actually learned how to soft proof?
When one soft proofs using both the output profile _AND_ checking the options for the Display Options (paper white and ink black) it will of course, make your image look like crap. That's what it's designed for in Photoshop. To simulate both the final gamut of color as well as the dynamic range of the print (the contrast range between max black and paper white).
In my experience, assuming an accurate display profile and output profile, Photoshop's soft proofing is about 90% accurate...the limit is that fact that most displays these days can't show all of the gamut of color that printers such as the 11880 can print. But a lot of those deep, saturate colors don't often appear in "natural" photographic images any way.
The other disconnect is often the fact that people get used to seeing the RGB image on their display and when turing on the "make it look like crap button" (soft proofing) they may not be evaluating the results properly. First off, the eye does what's called "white adaptation" which means the eye looks at the lightest tone value in the field of vision and assumes that to be "white". Therefore, if you have a lot of white UI showing (the palettes in Photoshop), the soft proofed image will appear darker and flatter than it should based upon the white surround. Therefore, it's important, when soft proofing, to turn that Photoshop UI off. Hit the Tab key to hide the UI and the F key to give a dark gray or black background.
Then the problem is that often, the viewing conditions of the print may not be consistent...i use a GTI viewing booth (set 90 degrees to the display) that allows me a digital dimmer) so that the luminance value of the display and the paper white of the print match.
Done properly, the resulting soft proof display view and final printer piece allow a very accurate comparison. About 90% accurate in my experience. Which is close enough to adjust an image accurately for the final print without actually making the print.
There are also issue using actual printed downsized proofs to predict the final large size print. JP Caponigro says that large prints tend to need a tone/contrast adjustment over the same image printed small. Large prints need to be darkened a bit from a small image proof. He actually has suggestions regarding the amount to alter the image based upon the square footage if the small print vs the large print. Check his web site at www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/ in the Techniques section and look for a PDF named tech proof for scale.
If you are printing on a watercolor paper that has a substantial texture, the small print proof will also have problems predicting the extent to which the texture will alter the ability to predict the impact of texture on the details of your image. JP also suggests printing smaller swatches of the image at the final large print size on the same paper you'll be using for the large print. This allows you to fine tune the sharpening for the final detail in the print.
All of these factors impact how one arrives at a printable image for the final print. If all factors are taken into account, the final large print should not be a surprise.
-
All of these factors impact how one arrives at a printable image for the final print. If all factors are taken into account, the final large print should not be a surprise.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There, in a (large) nutshell, is why these forums are so valuable and why people like Jeff deserve a little respect for taking the time to even politely respond to people who sometimes just won't listen.
Soft proofing can and does work well enough to be damn useful. It is rocket science how it works but certainly not to use. I outsource my bigger prints to Lambda/Fujiflex and by softproofing exactly as Jeff explains above I get no surprises - every print comes out as I expect. The lab supplies me with their current week's profile and I do the rest with a 100% success rate so far. QED.
To respond to the OP and to agree with Andrew's comments, if a lab won't supply a profile or worse, doesn't understand the question, go elsewhere...
-
Jeff:
Again with all due respect I think your post has made my point better than I ever could.
I think there are too many factors to rely on photoshop's soft proofing and many of them are out of the user's control especially if the printer itself is with an outside party. There could be as many as three profiles for the individual monitors involved (the user, the printer, and the profile creator) in addition to the actual paper/printer profile and everyone may not be using the same software, same versions, types of monitors, lighting etc.
If a person has their own printer or easy access to the printer in question then hard proofing, even to a cheaper media than will be used like DWM is far more productive in my experience.
But I really did not intend to further the soft proofing argument with the last post and was trying to bring this back to the OP's problem. There was actually a challenge in there for digitaldog and yourself but this wasn't it
Doug
-
As someone else pointed out your printers are most likely using the epson profile and can't legally distribute it.
That's rubbish. They are posted on Epson's web site and with all the Epson drivers for anyone who wishes to download INCLUDING these:
http://pixelgenius.com/epson/ (http://pixelgenius.com/epson/)
Bill Atkinsion continues to provide superb profiles for fixed papers and printers by Epson:
http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html (http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html)
-
That's rubbish. They are posted on Epson's web site and with all the Epson drivers for anyone who wishes to download INCLUDING these:
http://pixelgenius.com/epson/ (http://pixelgenius.com/epson/)
Bill Atkinsion continues to provide superb profiles for fixed papers and printers by Epson:
http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html (http://homepage.mac.com/billatkinson/FileSharing2.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You have published profiles for exactly one paper and it's not the OP's premium luster.
Unless the printer is also using Mr. Atkinson's profiles they do not apply.
Read the legal rubbish on epson's website it's quite clear that if they do not grant the right to redistribute then it is forbidden.
It's probably illegal to even quote the software agreement so don't tell:
Other Rights and Limitations.
The Software is licensed as a single unit, and its component programs may not be separated. You agree not to modify, adapt or translate the Software. You further agree not to attempt to reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software.
---> You may not rent, lease, distribute, sublicense or lend the Software to third parties. <-----
You may, however, transfer all your rights to use the Software to another person or legal entity provided that you transfer this Agreement, the Software, including all copies, updates and prior versions, to such person or entity, and that you retain no copies, including copies stored on a computer. Further, you agree not to place the Software onto a server so it is accessible via a public network such as the Internet.
Kind of surprised the author of copy written material would think otherwise.
I think we've argued this part as far as it's going to get anyway..........
Doug
-
I think there are too many factors to rely on photoshop's soft proofing and many of them are out of the user's control especially if the printer itself is with an outside party. There could be as many as three profiles for the individual monitors involved (the user, the printer, and the profile creator) in addition to the actual paper/printer profile and everyone may not be using the same software, same versions, types of monitors, lighting etc.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
And, I think you are making everything MORE complicated that it needs to be. While I generally only do my own prints, there's one time each year where, because of deadlines, I allow somebody else to print my images. Each year, Epson puts on a print gallery display for Photo Expo. Since Epson is willing to have Nash Editions do the prints and have them framed at Epson's expense, I go for it.
So, I find out what paper Mac Holbert is going to be printing (this year a lot of the prints were on EFP), I soft proof and make image tweaks, do final output sharpening for the resolution I'm sending and then I FTP the images to Mac. I don't bother to have "hard proofs" of the images because I trust my ability to soft proof and prep the images and I trust Mac to be able to pull good prints. So, the first time I see the prints, they are already printed, framed and hanging in the Epson Gallery at PPE.
So far, the prints always look exactly as I preped them and they always look really good–nice framing and good lighting really helps!.
Now, I will admit that Mac & Nash Editions know what they are doing and I would never expect them to screw up my images. Mac also knows that I know what I'm doing so he doesn't expect to have to do anything to the images I send besides print them.
But, the key to doing this is to make sure A: I know what I'm doing and B: He knows what he's doing. It ain't a dark magic art...it's simply using the tools available to make sure the final images are executed and printed to the highest quality standard possible. Of course, all these prints for Epson are done on Epson paper...but with the choice of Sommerset Velvet, Ultrasmooth Fine Art, Luster or the new Exhibition Fiber Paper (EFP), I personally see no need to use any non-Epson papers anyway...and...I'm pretty sure Mac is generally using Epson provided basic paper profiles. I'll ask him.
:~)
-
And, I think you are making everything MORE complicated that it needs to be. While I generally only do my own prints, there's one time each year where, because of deadlines, I allow somebody else to print my images. Each year, Epson puts on a print gallery display for Photo Expo. Since Epson is willing to have Nash Editions do the prints and have them framed at Epson's expense, I go for it.
So, I find out what paper Mac Holbert is going to be printing (this year a lot of the prints were on EFP), I soft proof and make image tweaks, do final output sharpening for the resolution I'm sending and then I FTP the images to Mac. I don't bother to have "hard proofs" of the images because I trust my ability to soft proof and prep the images and I trust Mac to be able to pull good prints. So, the first time I see the prints, they are already printed, framed and hanging in the Epson Gallery at PPE.
So far, the prints always look exactly as I preped them and they always look really good–nice framing and good lighting really helps!.
Now, I will admit that Mac & Nash Editions know what they are doing and I would never expect them to screw up my images. Mac also knows that I know what I'm doing so he doesn't expect to have to do anything to the images I send besides print them.
But, the key to doing this is to make sure A: I know what I'm doing and B: He knows what he's doing. It ain't a dark magic art...it's simply using the tools available to make sure the final images are executed and printed to the highest quality standard possible. Of course, all these prints for Epson are done on Epson paper...but with the choice of Sommerset Velvet, Ultrasmooth Fine Art, Luster or the new Exhibition Fiber Paper (EFP), I personally see no need to use any non-Epson papers anyway...and...I'm pretty sure Mac is generally using Epson provided basic paper profiles. I'll ask him.
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I remain unconvinced. With decent profiles I am much more concerned with consistency between the three machines that print our images. Tweaking in soft proofing mode would, at best, be more work and headache for very little gain from my perspective and experience.
Doug
-
I'm pretty sure Mac is generally using Epson provided basic paper profiles. I'll ask him.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163261\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just talked to Mac and indeed, when printing on Epson substrates, he DOES use the Epson SP (the special profiles Epson US had offered) rather than making his own custom profiles.
I remain unconvinced. I am much more concerned with consistency between the three machines that print our images
If you have three Epson printers, all in the same series (ie, like 78/9800) and you are seeing differences between them using the same profiles, I think you may have some issues with the printers. It's been my experience that the Epson pro printers are VERY close on unit to unit variation. That was our experience when Andrew and I did the EFP profiles. So, if your printers are drifting, I would look into the cause of that.
-
I just talked to Mac and indeed, when printing on Epson substrates, he DOES use the Epson SP (the special profiles Epson US had offered) rather than making his own custom profiles.
If you have three Epson printers, all in the same series (ie, like 78/9800) and you are seeing differences between them using the same profiles, I think you may have some issues with the printers. It's been my experience that the Epson pro printers are VERY close on unit to unit variation. That was our experience when Andrew and I did the EFP profiles. So, if your printers are drifting, I would look into the cause of that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163268\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Printing is on a 4000, 9880 that I own as well as a phatte 9800. So the last three generations plus a rip for extra fun. I don't have to match the 4000 to the 9880 but must match each to the 9800 for key prints. I've always found the 4000 profiles from epson acceptable but find that the 9880 is hit or miss and had to profile enhanced matte in addition to the non-epson media. The imageprint profiles are top-notch. The 9800 and 4000 are very close for both colour and B&W, less so with the 9880.
Once re-profiled the enhanced matte on the 9880 was acceptable and the outside profile for photorag, piezo pro, etc are good.
Doug
-
Printing is on a 4000, 9880 that I own as well as a phatte 9800.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163273\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that would explain the differences...as far as I know, Epson hasn't released any SP profiles for the 880 series yet. So, all you got is the ones bundled into the drivers. The phatte 9800 obviously being non-standard would require the rip which requires its own profiles (and I've never really like the output tables for ImagePrint profiles) and the 4000, if you are also using ImagePrint would have the same set of issues.
-
Well, that would explain the differences...as far as I know, Epson hasn't released any SP profiles for the 880 series yet. So, all you got is the ones bundled into the drivers. The phatte 9800 obviously being non-standard would require the rip which requires its own profiles (and I've never really like the output tables for ImagePrint profiles) and the 4000, if you are also using ImagePrint would have the same set of issues.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, I've got to stop adding to my posts after I've made them.
The 4000 is running the epson drivers as is the 9880. Only the 9800 runs image print to gain the phatte black. This is not my machine but the results have been very good and the matching to the 4000 is quite close and at most times indistinguishable colour-wise at least.
With custom non-epson profiles for both the piezo pro and breathing color canvas on the 9880 I sometimes can't tell the canvas brand apart until I feel the canvas. That is how it should be IMHO. No tweaks, no fuss.
Doug
-
There are also issue using actual printed downsized proofs to predict the final large size print. JP Caponigro says that large prints tend to need a tone/contrast adjustment over the same image printed small. Large prints need to be darkened a bit from a small image proof.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's because going from a small print to a significantly larger one leads to a print with lower perceived contrast. The details in shadow areas are now physically larger so we "see" much more into them at the greater magnification. Going from say an 11x14 to a 30x40 you will usually have to bring down shadow values while maintaining highlights (or in some cases opening them slightly) to arrive at a large print that "feels" the same as the small one in terms of contrast. Of course this is outside the ability of soft-proofing and relies primarily on the printer's experience. Some shops always provide full-size proofs in order to eliminate the issue.
One thing I think the responses to this thread shows is the importance of trust and communication between client and printer when the output is for discerning eyes.
-
When people like Andrew or Jeff post and publically identify themselves or when they publish a book or a website or speak in public etc, they allow for peer review. This is the same as one would find in the scientific community or, even, in the arts community (yes, even photographers :-)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163150\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It always amazes me that people go on the attack on the net and they do not really backup what they say. I really appreciate that Andrew, Jeff et al take the time to respond, and that they offer real help. These are the folks that help us create our art through their interactions with the makers of printers and software. How cool is that To borrow a line from an article on Jeff, Jeff Schewe has forgotten more PS stuff than most people know about PS. I thank you guys for being on here and giving your time to help
-
I can only speak for myself but the disciple/master sort of thing? Question authority, grasshopper.
-
Question stupidity equally.
-
Totally Right, and scale differences are image and media dependent, not something that is visible on even the finest monitors. You can't design a software to do that. That is exactly why we make hard proofs because scaling work is an object oriented process. A physical process that is a translation from one medium (screen) to another (print). A print is not a backlit display (or a film transparency for that matter) governed by Photoshop and assigned simulation numbers.
My clients always prefer having the object in their hands to consider. One reason for that is that they still have the option of making changes from their originally prepared file, once it is translated into a specific paper. Even with the greatest printmakers of all time, printmaking is a physical thing - and a paper process object oriented procedure. One that often grows as it is explored. Digital technology has not eliminated those variables. Maybe one day we will all make images designed for led screens hanging on the wall. I hope that day never comes.
Of course when one is working with monochome inksets and rip control the differences are much more subtle. Black and white is a terribly subjective world in and of itself, even if you don't include print color assignments for toning (not done in Photoshop). There are so many delicate things that can be accomplished on the print level that will never be visible on what Walker refered to as a glorified light bulb, the monitor.
john
That's because going from a small print to a significantly larger one leads to a print with lower perceived contrast. The details in shadow areas are now physically larger so we "see" much more into them at the greater magnification. Going from say an 11x14 to a 30x40 you will usually have to bring down shadow values while maintaining highlights (or in some cases opening them slightly) to arrive at a large print that "feels" the same as the small one in terms of contrast. Of course this is outside the ability of soft-proofing and relies primarily on the printer's experience. Some shops always provide full-size proofs in order to eliminate the issue.
One thing I think the responses to this thread shows is the importance of trust and communication between client and printer when the output is for discerning eyes.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163281\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Question stupidity equally.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163389\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My point exactly! You guys are reading my mind
-
So, who are you and what creds do YOU bring to the party? You don't have a personal profile or link to an atelier service, so I guess we're just supposed to believe your words?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=163103\")
Amazing what you can find on Google these days...
[a href=\"http://www.deanimaging.com/]http://www.deanimaging.com/[/url]
-
This thread seemed to take off in a few directions after my initial reply to John, and due to family and holiday issues I have not had a chance to jump back in.
First of all, John, after reading your other posts, you know what you need and it seems to require an output profile from your provider, and you'll be done. I have no argument with that at all. I merely initially tried to chime in that some printers may not give them out for a variety of reasons, and they shouldn't be judged as printers because of that policy alone, they may just not be your printer if that's your priority. Done with that.
In that same post I said this business has become brutal, and I choose protect myself from that to some degree, what followed proved my point better than anything I could have offered.
After stating I do not have a policy of handing out my output profiles, the immediate reply was a major player in this industry telling people to leave their printer if they do not provide profiles. The implication then, that my clients should leave me, is certainly no leap, and was not taken lightly.
Every printer that posted to this thread, and I know some of them, no doubt uses soft proofing and know it's value. Because we are involved in this work daily, we also know it's limitations. In some situations I have provided a profile to the artists, few have asked, few have calibrated monitors, I even go to them and calibrate theirs sometimes. We all do what we need to do to make the best possible prints for our artists.
Some work their file, what they see on the monitor is what they want, and simply want it reproduced. Others, like myself and the other printers I know here, are totally into the materials and are primarily concerned with the finished object, a paradigm carried down from the fine silver print, platinum, etc., traditions we took to heart. The soft proof got us to our first physical object, now we have new concerns. The first print, aided by softproofing, is not a "surprise", it might even be a final. Everything Walker said was on the mark.
Here's a good one-
"The profile is the key in showing you what the service provider is supposed to give you. If they can't calibrate and profile their devices (or are too lazy), you've got bigger problems here than what is being used as an excuse for not providing profile."
Nice, no one suggested anything of the kind.
My friend John, no doubt sensitive to the implied threat above, came out swinging. Then the tag teaming began. John does not find the forums to be the place to make known who he is and what he does at every turn, it's a place to exchange information and ideas, not promote. That some of us have better things to so than spend time on the internet filling in nice little profiles and myspaces does not make us anonymous or without "creds".
Bud.
John has been "around here" in the printmaking community for a very very long time and is highly respected. He's just not shouting his name and accomplishments every chance he gets.
He is also one of maybe ten people in the country I would give a crap about what he thinks of my prints.
""We could just all download perfectly engineered ones from Epson's website couldn't we, and it would one big happy world.
"For Epson profiles, that's IS the case!..."
...
"with the choice of Sommerset Velvet, Ultrasmooth Fine Art, Luster or the new Exhibition Fiber Paper (EFP), I personally see no need to use any non-Epson papers anyway..."
Are ya getting it yet? Need to be any more transparent?
I've gotten myself in trouble on lists in the past with the occasional rant, posted while a bit too hot under the collar, but it's been a few days and I still feel like saying this and I'll no doubt pay. I've had the immense pleasure of meeting and learning from severel truly gifted masterful amazing people in the photographic community over the years. They were for the most part, intelligent, generous, demanding, and uplifting teachers.
This brand pounding, belligerent condescension certain falls far below the mark.
Sorry for the length. A lot of this is about having the last words, and I expect they will not be in short supply.
Excuse me while I go talk to my clients.
Tyler
-
That's great. You know who he is and that he has achieved some form of success. But for every one else his anonymity means that his words have as much weight as mine. (At least in regards to the tactile. Abstract arguments work fine anonymous or not.)
Edit: It should be noted that his credentials appear to have been established by the end of this thread. I'm referring to earlier in the thread.
-
Thank you Tyler, and for that matter *everyone* else! Obviously, feelings and workflows, are in abundance here! Brutal? Thats why I write software for a living - it's slightly less so (I think) . . .
I can fully understand the challenges faced by a lab in today's environment - especially experienced digital labs that have developed relationships with alternative inks and materials. The challenge of some "picky" soul coming in touting that he is "color mangled" would make *me* tend to cringe in fear - after all it is not your jobs to teach such techniques . . . .
In my particular case, I've been dealing with this lab for nearly 20 years - they *know* who I am, and have sold me film, darkroon chemicals, photo paper, etc. I support them because they are the only medium format E6 process lab within 100 miles of my location and they do a damn fine job. When I found out they had aquired an Epson 11180, I was very excited about the possibilities, after my attempted conversation and resultant lecture, I tend to agree with Jeff, they don't support a color managed workflow and/or don't know what they are doing, - which is too bad for them, and me. I had hoped for a more forthcoming response and respect a 20 year customer deserves.
After years of B&W photgraphy with Ansel Adam's classic series; The Camera, The Negative and The Print essentially defining my workflow, I feel the Luminous Landscape and it's presenters & participants have been instrumental in pointing me toward an alternative, equally rigorous *digital* workflow. Bill Atkinson is an absolute hero of mine in the software development sense, his applications and UI's (user interface) taught the world what a mouse is and is capable of. When I saw him on LLV introducing the concepts of color mangement, I realized that consistent results across a variety of devices is not only possible, it is repeatedly so.
Obviously, there alternative methods that have been described, as well as possible pitfalls and even some pointed technical comment on the image I supplied - please understand that all of your comments are *much* appreciated, I feel I'm in a much better position to choose a digital lab for all large prints because of it!
Happy New Year - John
Quick follow-up; I still have not received the promised profile from the shop despite having paid a $6 "research fee".
-
"with the choice of Sommerset Velvet, Ultrasmooth Fine Art, Luster or the new Exhibition Fiber Paper (EFP), I personally see no need to use any non-Epson papers anyway..."
Are ya getting it yet? Need to be any more transparent?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163730\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you are implying that my choice of paper has anything to do with the fact that I have a relationship with Epson, then you are wrong...I can use ANY paper made...the fact that I choose to use those 4 Epson papers is the result of tests and the desire to use the best paper for my purposes–period.
I have two "standard" papers...Sommerset Velvet for watercolor and generally in the 505 gram 24"x30" size. When I want to print smaller and on watercolor I tend to use Ultrasmooth because with smaller prints, I don't want the higher degree of texture. But, I don't like the too texture of Ultrasmooth printing larger.
For high dynamic range prints, I have, in the past used Luster (also generally 24"x30") but having tested (and been involved testing internally) EFP, I'm planning on switching most of prints over to EFP.
I also don't see the need to using anything other than the standard Epson inks because I can get both large gamut pigment prints in both color and B&W from the same printer. I don't see the need to go to alternative inks sets to get good neutral B&W.
As a result, I don't use a lot of different paper types and I'm using standard Epson ink, so, I have found absolutely no reason to redo the work that Epson has already done on the SP profiles because I found that I couldn't make any better profiles. Epson used the X-Rite I1 iSis with Profiler, which is the same equipment I have access to (although I generally use ProfileMaker instead of Profiler).
So, when I soft proof using the Epson SP profiles on the limited range of papers I use, I've found soft proofing very useful and predictive of the final print. The choice of papers and the use of the Epson SP profiles has nothing to do with any relationship with Epson...
And, the OP wasn't talking about asking for custom made profiles from the service bureau...they were using the standard driver installed profiles that ANYBODY can download and install even if they don't have a printer.
The fact that what's his name chooses to post anonymously while making belligerent statements without backing them up means to me, he is merely making statements without any credibility and there's enough of that already out there on the net.
And Tyler? You pretty much fall in the same category...I don't know you from Adam either.
-
John,
I have an idea. Why don't you take your work to be printed by Tyler B.? He's in Seattle and is one of the best printers in the NW if not the West Coast. He may or may not supply you with a profile but either way, I'm sure you'll get the print your looking for. Softproof or not, you have to do a test print to see what your really going to get. Chances are you won't need to make changes and if you do, it will be that much easier adjusting from the proof print.
- Doug
-
Having enjoyed Jeff and Michael in their 'From Camera To Print', I thought it time to revisit the idea of soft proofing, clearly they think I'm missing out by ignoring it. Guess what. They're right. Spent considerable time today editing an image to get it just perfect (on my profiled monitor). I then made a print on my 5000 using a commercial profile for epson enhanced matte (or whatever it's going to be called tomorrow). I did exactly as Jeff recommended in the video - I looked at the monitor and went oh yuk, but when I set the print 90 degrees to the monitor, normal lighting on, and flipped back and forth between the soft proof and output print - it is spot on - all the differences between the monitor image I worked so hard to get, and the output print were explained by the soft proof.
All I can say is both thanks and you have persuaded me - next I have to learn to adjust my images to compensate as best possible for the deficiencies of a given printer paper combination.
George Barr
My Webpage (http://www.georgebarr.com)
-
First of all, John, after reading your other posts, you know what you need and it seems to require an output profile from your provider, and you'll be done. I have no argument with that at all. I merely initially tried to chime in that some printers may not give them out for a variety of reasons, and they shouldn't be judged as printers because of that policy alone, they may just not be your printer if that's your priority.
ALL of them lame excuses to make the service provider's life easier and not the customer. Its as simple as that!
After stating I do not have a policy of handing out my output profiles, the immediate reply was a major player in this industry telling people to leave their printer if they do not provide profiles.
Customer asks for profile service provider says he has but will not supply. Seems like a prefect reason to take business elsewhere!
Every printer that posted to this thread, and I know some of them, no doubt uses soft proofing and know it's value. Because we are involved in this work daily, we also know it's limitations. In some situations I have provided a profile to the artists, few have asked, few have calibrated monitors, I even go to them and calibrate theirs sometimes. We all do what we need to do to make the best possible prints for our artists.
This isn't about a few of your customers who may know what they are doing and your response. Its about a customer of someone who DOES know what he's doing, does know what he wants from the provider and the provider refuses to comply. Answer, take business elsewhere. Hopefully business owner gets a clue, provides the services customers ask for instead of coming up with lame limitations of the technology (its only 90% there) and throws the baby out with the bath water.
Here's a good one-
"The profile is the key in showing you what the service provider is supposed to give you. If they can't calibrate and profile their devices (or are too lazy), you've got bigger problems here than what is being used as an excuse for not providing profile." Nice, no one suggested anything of the kind.
I absolutely suggested it because 9 times out of 10, this is WHY a service provider will not provide a profile. You have to dig a bit deeper to find out the real reasons, but this is often it.
My friend John, no doubt sensitive to the implied threat above, came out swinging. Then the tag teaming began.
No, John came out with lame technical excuses, then those of us that know better simply provided the CORRECT technical replies based on our own work, the work of others we've taught and the work of pro's in service bureau’s that provide best practices. That you don't like the message doesn't make it a gang up on you and John. You're just in the wrong forum to be saying such nonsense to a pretty educated and savvy audience.
John does not find the forums to be the place to make known who he is and what he does at every turn, it's a place to exchange information and ideas, not promote. That some of us have better things to so than spend time on the internet filling in nice little profiles and myspaces does not make us anonymous or without "creds".
And he's welcome to come here and say anything he wants but if its way off track technically, he's going to be called on it.
Let's see, we've had soft proofing in Photoshop since 1998. This isn't something new and revolutionary that's just being tested, although based on the response of some lab owner's, you'd think otherwise.
John has been "around here" in the printmaking community for a very very long time and is highly respected.
Well by you apparently.
He's just not shouting his name and accomplishments every chance he gets.
Great and he may be the greatest printer in modern history. His ideas about soft proofing are in need of modernization. Or the way he feels about supplying profiles to customers who request em. But that's his business, he can do as he wishes. The original poster seems to know what he wants, and who he doesn't want to deal with in the lab business. As such, these posts have answered the questions asked of the members.
-
All this over a ICC profile and soft proofing?
Happy new year?
-
All this over a ICC profile and soft proofing?
No, it's about shoddy customer service and printers not being willing to educate themselves on good color management practices, which in the majority of cases negatively impacts the quality of the finished product. The reasons given for not providing a client a copy of one's printer profie for soft-proofing are obfuscatory and misleading.
So what if some clients won't know what to do with it, or how to use it properly, or don't calibrate their monitors? That's no excuse for refusing to give it to clients who do have a clue. If you have reservations about a client's color management expertise, you offer to do a proof print, and try to educate him/her about color management best practice, not condescendingly refuse to allow one's printer profiles to be handled by the great unwashed. It's bad color management practice and an insult to the client. If you approach the client properly, you can often earn some extra money doing color management consulting, and increase your value to the client, the quality of their prints, and their satisfaction with your services.
My experience with using outside print services is that those who cannot or will not offer a print profile to their clients are either clueless about color management, print on multiple machines and don't want to deal with the complexity that can introduce to the process (AKA lazy), use canned printer profiles but are ashamed to admit this to their clients, or else dumb everything down to sRGB and limit print gamut accordingly. None of those bode well for the quality of the final print, or customer satisfaction. I will not patronize an outside print service that will not provide a print profile on request for soft-proofing and optimizing an image to a particular printer/inkset/paper combination. There's too many good quality services that will follow best color management practices to waste time with doofi.
-
This thread is, well, it's uncivil. I don't know why. But it is. And a lack of civility isn't called for. That's what's perplexing.
What's interesting is what we have basically three people who print for a living (Amadou, Tyler, and John) saying that there's more to life than an ICC profile. That there's more to making a great print than can be done with soft proofing on a monitor. That sometimes giving clients ICC profiles causes more trouble than it solves.
Then there's two people who do not print for a living (Jeff, Andrew) who say that if a service provider doesn't provide an ICC profile then they either don't know what they are doing or don't provide a good service to their customers.
What makes this ironic is that each of these five people are "industry experts." Amadou, Tyler, and John have forgotten more about fine art printing (a lot more) than most of us will ever learn. Jeff has forgotten more about Photoshop (a lot more) than most of us will ever learn. Andrew has forgotten a lot more about color management than most of us will ever learn.
Each of these people is correct in their own way. So what's up with the shouting boys? You're acting like little kids. Mine! Stop it! I'm right and you're wrong!
What it comes down to is that each of us have different talents, abilities, experience, and vision. Some of us need to have as much control over the process as we can get. Some prefer a collaborative relationship with a print maker.
Those who need the control need a service provider who will basically rent the equipment to them -- provide the ICC profile, let the customer make all adjustments, and just print the file as is from the customer.
Those who want a collaborative relationship typically seek a provider with more printmaking expertise. They recognize that people who make prints day in and day out are likely to know a thing or two that they (the artist) doesn't know and that the expertise offered can perhaps make a better print. It takes a while to establish a trusting relationship between artist and print maker, that's true. But once a collaborative partnership is established it's possible to get better prints faster by exchanging proof prints.
The bottom line is, each of us has to find a service provider that can provide him/her with a level of comfort that makes doing business possible. Because if you aren't comfortable it's really difficult to make good art. And that's what all this is supposed to be about isn't it? The art.
If it's me, and I've got the cash to be making prints bigger than I can make with my desktop printer, and I can get someone of the caliber of a Tyler Boley, John Dean, or Amadou Diallo to make a print for me, I wouldn't hesitate to work with them any way they want.
Nor would I hesitate to learn Photoshop from Jeff Schewe, or color management from Andrew Rodney, taught anyway they want.
But when I print from my local prolab's LightJet I want their ICC profile. Because they aren't offering anything beyond renting me time and running the equipment and therefore I have to make all the adjustments myself. Which usually costs me a couple of proof prints.
Now... How about we start the new year off with a more civil tone, shall we?
-
Then there's two people who do not print for a living (Jeff, Andrew) who say that if a service provider doesn't provide an ICC profile then they either don't know what they are doing or don't provide a good service to their customers.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164638\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Uh huh...well, I don't print other people's images for a living...that's true. But I do print _MY_ images for a living and with the exception of once a year where I have Nash Editions do my prints for Epson's Photo Expo gallery, I do consider myself a professional printer. I also teach fine art printing in classes and workshops, so you would do well to be careful how you try to pigeon hole people around here.
Now... How about we start the new year off with a more civil tone, shall we?
My tone reflects the tone and voice of the posts I answer...post civil and I'll be civil. Post like and a$$hole and I'l respond in kind–sorry, I'm not predisposed to turn the other cheek.
-
My tone reflects the tone and voice of the posts I answer...post civil and I'll be civil. Post like and a$$hole and I'l respond in kind–sorry, I'm not predisposed to turn the other cheek.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164647\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Each of us is responsible for our own behavior. Blaming our behavior on others is childish.
-
Blaming our behavior on others is childish.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164659\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm childish...always have been, always will be...and I really (and I mean REALLY) don't care what other people may (or may not) think. And, I'm that way for good reason...first off, I don't play to what others may think because I do what I do based on MY view. And second, the tenets of creativity demand that one takes a child's view and engages in child's play. If that means the play is rough some times, so be it. I draw the line only at illegal behavior (mostly although I have been known to get speeding tickets).
:~)
So, dooode, you can TRY to change my behavior but I doubt you'll have much success. I've been married for 35 years and my wife has learned that doesn't work so well.
-
Geez guys, do we really need flame wars on LL? Trying to communicate ideas and information via forums is tough enough as it is.
-
...and I really (and I mean REALLY) don't care what other people may (or may not) think. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Of course you care. Otherwise you wouldn't bother posting here or anywhere else and you wouldn't be trumpeting your expertise claims to anyone who will listen.
...you can TRY to change my behavior...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164661\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't want to change your behavior. I want you to take your behavior out to the sandbox where it belongs. Leave the rest of us in peace.
To the other members of this service I say simply this. We are all responsible for our own behavior, including enabling list bullies by listening to them. If enough of us turn out backs on the list bullies they will either stop being so annoying or eventually go away. You have to decide whether an individual's postings are worth the aggravation they cause. If you judge someone to be more trouble then they are worth, plonk them.
Just as I have now plonked Mr. Schewe.
-
Schewe and Rodney may not be the most diplomatic of folks, but they are some of the world's foremost authorities on color management and getting the best possible color accuracy and print quality. In contrast, the counter-arguments offered by the print guys have been misleading excuses at best. If you want to ignore the most authoritative and practically useful advice out there, that's your perogative, but you're shooting yourself in the foot by doing so.
-
Of course you care. Otherwise you wouldn't bother posting here or anywhere else and you wouldn't be trumpeting your expertise claims to anyone who will listen.
Uh huh...ok, let me try again (watch my lips) I really, really don't care about what other people think...my entire career as a photographer has been spent doing what I want to do, not what the market "wanted" me to do.
And, if you find that unfathomable, I would suggest that's _YOUR_ baggage coloring your judgement. Ya see, I bet you DO care what others think and that may indeed be a problem–it's a problem a lot of "creative people" suffer from...doing things to satisfy others rather than themselves.
Just as I have now plonked Mr. Schewe.
Oh, goodie!!! I've been PLONKED!
COOL!
:~)
-
Schewe and Rodney may not be the most diplomatic of folks, but they are some of the world's foremost authorities on color management and getting the best possible color accuracy and print quality. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No one has to be a diplomat -- the bar is much lower than that. But simple civility is called for.
And while I acknowledge the pair's contributions, as you say they are "some of" and not the only authorities. There are many sources if what you are looking for is answers.
In contrast, the counter-arguments offered by the print guys have been misleading excuses at best. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I disagree, my reasons are in one of my previous posts. And I also point out that the three "print guys" are acknowledged master printers and are every bit as knowledgeable in their fields as the others are in theirs. Five of the "worlds foremost authorities" by my count.
If you want to ignore the most authoritative and practically useful advice out there, that's your perogative, but you're shooting yourself in the foot by doing so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=164837\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My foot will be just fine thank you. No one has to put up with bad behavior to get answers, nor should they. There is no shortage of people with authoritative and practically useful advice out there; there are hundreds of books on the use of Photoshop for example, and at least some of those authors participate in some of the lists, and are considerably easier to get along with to boot.
No one person holds all the keys to the kingdom. We don't have to put up with list bullies to get answers.