Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: ejnewman on January 06, 2010, 04:34:07 pm
-
I have recently been discussing how to proof my work for the print lab I use with their technician (who I think owns the lab). It seems like a well reputable print lab, they seem to have professional photographers amongst their clientele...
The way I would like to work is as follows:
ProPhoto colour space, 16bpc and soft proof using the print labs supplied ICC printer profiles, however their advice seems strange, here is a sample from their email back regarding workflow for achieving a colour managed print:
"In my opinion, having tried soft proofing with our Lightjet & Noritsu printers, it just doesn't reflect what the finished print looks like. In every case, when I have carried out a series of test prints for customers they have all come back and said that the print that matched their monitor best was when they worked in sRGB, got the file looking correct in that colourspace and then as the last step "convert" to our relevant printer profile without making any further adjustments. Converting to the profile simply adjusts the colour numbers in the file to compensate for the output of the printer - but it doesn't mean that the final image looks correct on the screen. Some colours hardly change but others change dramatically and don't look right - but they will when the print is produced. I hope that makes sense, I know it doesn't tie in with what a lot of colour management advice preaches but this is the best method in reality when using our printers. I would be quite happy to do a few tests for you."
This doesn't seem right to me, what do others here think?
Elliot.
-
Lots of variables here.
Three things immediately come to mind: (1) If the colour gamut of the printers and papers they use exceeds sRGB, preparing files to fit an sRGB colour space will deprive the final image of hues which could have been reproduced, so this advice does indeed seem strange under that assumption. (2) Are the displays their customers use properly profiled and calibrated? If not, the softproofing won't be reliable no matter what procedures and settings are adopted. Maybe his experience indicates that many of his clientele are not colour-management savvy enough to cope with the requirements of a properly colour-managed workflow, so he has developed simplified instructions to compensate for that? (3) One would not normally convert an image to a printer profile. One may convert between colour working spaces (sRGB, ARGB, ProPhoto etc.) for various reasons, but the usual procedure would be to softproof an image for the printing condition, but leave the colour space in say ARGB or ProPhoto, depending.
If you have a properly calibrated and profiled display, the way you describe you would like to work makes sense. So why not prepare several files doing it your way first as a test, and see what comes back?
-
... Three things immediately come to mind: (1) If the colour gamut of the printers and papers they use exceeds sRGB...
How about the forth: the colour gamut of the printers and papers they use does not exceed sRGB?
-
Perhaps, and that's why I started item (1) with the word "IF".
Mark
-
Let me take the liberty of trying to translate what this lab owner is ACTUALLY telling you...
"In my opinion, having tried soft proofing with our Lightjet & Noritsu printers, it just doesn't reflect what the finished print looks like."
"I have tried softproofing but don't have a friggin' CLUE how to do it correctly, so we really, REALLY hope you don't want to go down that road..."
In every case, when I have carried out a series of test prints for customers they have all come back and said that the print that matched their monitor best was when they worked in sRGB, got the file looking correct in that colourspace and then as the last step "convert" to our relevant printer profile without making any further adjustments.
"Photographers are idiots and don't have a clue how to profile a monitor so if they are using big color spaces (like Adobe RGB or heaven forbid ProPhoto RGB) our prints will end up looking like crap...and we HATE making "do over" prints...
Converting to the profile simply adjusts the colour numbers in the file to compensate for the output of the printer - but it doesn't mean that the final image looks correct on the screen. Some colours hardly change but others change dramatically and don't look right - but they will when the print is produced.
"We do have ICC profiles for our printers...we have no idea how they were made and it seems our interchange color to screen display side of the profiles suck...so while you can get pretty "close" you really can't trust the profile (did I mention the profiles prolly suck?)"
I hope that makes sense, I know it doesn't tie in with what a lot of colour management advice preaches but this is the best method in reality when using our printers. I would be quite happy to do a few tests for you."
"I hope I've scared you off of actually trying to do soft proofing and working in large color spaces because if you do try to go down that road, you're gonna be a pain in the ass customer that will adversely effect our success rate for first print acceptance...really, just do EVERYTHING in sRGB cause that's all your camera captures and our printers can print..."
I think I'm pretty close in the translation...
:~)
-
I have recently been discussing how to proof my work for the print lab I use with their technician (who I think owns the lab). It seems like a well reputable print lab, they seem to have professional photographers amongst their clientele...
The way I would like to work is as follows:
ProPhoto colour space, 16bpc and soft proof using the print labs supplied ICC printer profiles, however their advice seems strange, here is a sample from their email back regarding workflow for achieving a colour managed print:
"In my opinion, having tried soft proofing with our Lightjet & Noritsu printers, it just doesn't reflect what the finished print looks like. In every case, when I have carried out a series of test prints for customers they have all come back and said that the print that matched their monitor best was when they worked in sRGB, got the file looking correct in that colourspace and then as the last step "convert" to our relevant printer profile without making any further adjustments. Converting to the profile simply adjusts the colour numbers in the file to compensate for the output of the printer - but it doesn't mean that the final image looks correct on the screen. Some colours hardly change but others change dramatically and don't look right - but they will when the print is produced. I hope that makes sense, I know it doesn't tie in with what a lot of colour management advice preaches but this is the best method in reality when using our printers. I would be quite happy to do a few tests for you."
This doesn't seem right to me, what do others here think?
Elliot.
Unfortunately, as discussed in a thread recently, printers such as theses have not been designed to effectively utilize color management tools. The basic theory and design dates back to the late 90's before color management tools were widely adopted. This original design hasn't changed significantly ... all improvements have focused on throughput and automation.
The target market for these machines were minilabs printing consumer snapshots. Film was the primary capture method. The entire system was "closed loop" in that it went from film processing to scanning to printing. It wasn't until about 2000 that Noritsu even provided a model that didn't require the scanner front end and could output files from a hot folder. I was quite involved in that process (well, my company at the time). Currently many of the major labs using these printers are driven by a Kodak software product called DP2, which was designed in the 90's to replicate the model of traditional color labs. This includes things like color correction stations with controls that operate nearly identical to video analyzers these labs used in the days before digital. I'm not sure DP2 has any real management tools, but by now perhaps they do (i've been out of touch with that product for a few years).
The advice given is actually pretty close to the "hack" required to get any type of color management. This is a challenge for those of us who really use color management in our workflows with inkjet printers ... this hardware in it's current form really can't operate the same way. In my previous Company we operated 185 Noritsu printers, as well as a Durst and a Chromira. I tried several times to figure out a way to employ better color management, but the only thing that really worked was to lock things down and correct the files at capture. It worked pretty good for individual locations since everything was a closed loop system, but was challenging for our central plant because the color variation was pretty dramatic.
The manufacturers don't seem to get it. I spent two days with Noritsu engineers in Japan a couple of years ago discussing things that would improve their printers, and we spent quite a bit of time discussing this, but they just didn't think there was a need so it was pretty low priority. Currently there are some third parties trying to provide solutions, which I think mostly consists of allowing submission ppRGB or aRGB files instead of sRGB and then automating the conversion process to RGB.
If you have a well calibrated device, and convert your files to sRGB before printing the results should be pretty good - this is the color space they were designed around. I haven't found soft proofing to be very effective, but I suck at soft proofing anyway. In addition, what you should find is if the prints are off, they will most likely be off in a pretty consistent manner, so you may be able to automate the process of applying corrections before converting to sRGB.
-
Unfortunately, as discussed in a thread recently, printers such as theses have not been designed to effectively utilize color management tools. The basic theory and design dates back to the late 90's before color management tools were widely adopted. This original design hasn't changed significantly ... all improvements have focused on throughput and automation.
Thanks for an interesting insight Wayne. FWIW about 6 years ago I remember the immense difficulties a UK company had with colour management using their Durst Sigma and Lambda. I just took a look at the current Lambda product info and CMS is an optional extra!
-
Thanks for all the replies.
I have had issues with this print lab before, prints coming back looking too dark etc. everything is calibrated my end, and fair enough since I didn't soft proof for these prints, but now I do want to soft proof and the lab tells me it will be even further off the mark, and I should stick with the ball park method!
Does anybody here use a uk based print lab that offers full soft proof colour management through profiled printers and papers? or is this just a theoretical myth? I want to be able to see what I'm gonna get, whether I use canvas, gloss, matt, lightjet, inkjet, dot matrix...
-
How about the forth: the colour gamut of the printers and papers they use does not exceed sRGB?
It should in some areas and more importantly, the sRGB reference media is an emissive display. That's simply not the case with output profiles (print profiles) being discussed here. There's no such thing as an sRGB printer (the only output device being an emissive display).
Most of what this lab owner states about sRGB seems nonsensical to me in terms of soft proofing and sRGB (which while soft proofing has left the building). As others have said, it seems like the typical "party line" from labs that want you to think they are professional and up to date in color management when in fact, their main goal is to crank out as many prints as humanly possible, using a workflow that is totally weighted for their needs and not their clients.
If a user can produce good print to screen matching using sound color management practices with a $399 Epson printer, I'd sure hope someone who invested the kind of money in a Lambda or Lightjet could as well.
-
In addition, what you should find is if the prints are off, they will most likely be off in a pretty consistent manner, so you may be able to automate the process of applying corrections before converting to sRGB.
If indeed the device (or the multiple devices which is usually the norm) all consistently produce the same output day in and day out. I have to wonder what the plots of measured consistency over say a month would look like, using a tool like Chromax's Maxwell (see http://www2.chromix.com/maxwell/index3.cxsa) (http://www2.chromix.com/maxwell/index3.cxsa)).
-
Does anybody here use a uk based print lab that offers full soft proof colour management through profiled printers and papers? or is this just a theoretical myth? I want to be able to see what I'm gonna get, whether I use canvas, gloss, matt, lightjet, inkjet, dot matrix...
<plug>For fully colour managed 7900/Z3200 inkjet in the UK you could always contact me at Ionaca.com :-) </plug>
-
If a user can produce good print to screen matching using sound color management practices with a $399 Epson printer, I'd sure hope someone who invested the kind of money in a Lambda or Lightjet could as well.
Sounds logical, but it all assumes a design similar to an inkjet printer, wherein the user has control of the data going to the printer via the manufacturers driver.
Almost all of these legacy machines don't operate that way. You can't even effectively print a target out, because the firmware is going to step into the middle and manipulate the data. The design of these machines is assuming an sRGB file is coming in, so they are hard coded to calibrate to a norm that fits the sRGB input. Agreed it seems stupid, but when they were designed in the mid 90's color management wasn't even on their radar .
As I said, the technology of these machines was engineered and developed to work in a non-digital world trying to effectively simulate a traditional silver halide workflow , with assumptions based on a closed loops system, the goal was to crank out consumer snapshots. They have been adapted into professional applications, but the limitations of the design is something that makes it incredibly challenging to implement a color managed workflow similar to what can be had with current inkjet processes. Digital printing via scanning became very commonplace in the mid to late 90's, even in some professional applications, but it was still a silver halide workflow which at that time was assumed would be the primary capture method for at least a couple of more decades. Even the early versions of Kodaks DP2 software called Composite Machine employed color correction models that followed traditional methods, including methods to duplicate traditional CC filter corrections through the software.
It's tough for me to place much blame on current lab owners ... they just don't have any tools. I think there is growing pressure on labs to solve this problem, so some 3rd party options are out there, but for now most solutions are just tools that automate a work around, not actually solve the problem. I don't know if the manufacturers are working at all to solve the underlying problem ... for example the Durst optional CMS may be very good , or it might be a work around much like the 3rd party tools.
I'll admit we haven't purchased a new Noritsu for some time, but I haven't heard of any new developments coming from them. They are struggling now that most things have gone digital so far fewer places are converting, so the demand for new machines has dropped considerably. These machines can run for several years without any problem and they don't offer any real new technology to drive a need for replacement. I visited their headquarters in Japan 2.5 years ago, and completely stunned by their size and magnitude. A 12 story tower that included 3 floors of luxury hotel suites, helicopter pad, and numerous large manufacturing buildings. Even then you could see they were struggling ..they had shut down the hotel floors completely, there was no longer a helicopter for the helicopter pad, and R&D was being spent to find other products outside the photo industry to manufacture, and they were aggressively trying to develop inkjet solutions.
If you want a fully color managed workflow I don't think any silver halide process will provide that. You can "hack" around it and get pretty good results, most likely at the lowest price point possible, or you can move to inkjet output on high end Epson/Canon/HP printers either through a lab that offers that service or do it yourself. Unfortunately for inkjet, it can't even come close to competing with the material costs and speed of these silver halide printers, meaning most large full service labs will not be full inkjet output ... just can't handle the volume, and they can't offer competitive pricing.
-
Sounds logical, but it all assumes a design similar to an inkjet printer, wherein the user has control of the data going to the printer via the manufacturers driver.
We're talking consistency and screen to print matching. Doesn't mater if you're sending RGB to an Inkjet, Lightjet or Indigo.
Almost all of these legacy machines don't operate that way. You can't even effectively print a target out, because the firmware is going to step into the middle and manipulate the data.
So do all the RIPs that take RGB data and convert it to CMYK on the way to a digital press. Totally immaterial! We're taking about sending know data to a device and reading what it spits out, looking at if it changes over time etc.
The design of these machines is assuming an sRGB file is coming in, so they are hard coded to calibrate to a norm that fits the sRGB input.
Well maybe for some devices but again, doesn't matter. And again, its not outputting sRGB or anything like it.
It's tough for me to place much blame on current lab owners ... they just don't have any tools.
Sure they do. And they don't have to treat their customers like their idea of proper color management and workflow just can't be done and come up with the nonsense we hear (here's a profile, soft proof but send us sRGB). That's just drop dead stupid. Either tell the customer "we don't do color management, you can't soft proof or convert, you have to send us sRGB and if you're lucky, the print will match what the RGB numbers you were looking at match". Anything else is an excuse and a big fat lie.
-
If you want a fully color managed workflow I don't think any silver halide process will provide that. You can "hack" around it and get pretty good results, most likely at the lowest price point possible, or you can move to inkjet output on high end Epson/Canon/HP printers either through a lab that offers that service or do it yourself.
Wayne, you say that but that kinda flies in the face of what Dry Creek Photo was able to do for Costco stores around the country...see Dry Creek Photo's Introduction to Digital Photo Lab Profiles (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/).
I know you've run these type of printers and yes it may be a problem to set up a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier so that it DOESN'T force color transforms on the front end when cueing up images...but it can be done, heck, Costco has proven that the typical line from "Pro Photo Labs" that the printers print in sRGB and you don't want to use ICC profiles and can't soft proof is simply not accurate...
True, it may be a bit more work, slightly reduce productivity and require a level of employee training that pro labs are unwilling to do. But that's an entirely different issue than color management not working for those machines.
-
I claim no expertise in color management, and have no intention to argue anything with anyone in that regard, just to ask a question that hopefully contributes to the discussion. I hope those more knowledgeable of the subject can tell me what I am seeing here:
[attachment=19264:Noritsu_sRGB.png]
I used Apple's ColorSync Utility to compare two profiles: Costco - Noritsu 3102-B (color) and sRGB (shaded). It appears to me that Noritsu profile is very slightly bigger in very few areas, and quite smaller in much bigger areas than sRGB.
The next comparison is between the same Noritsu (color) and a lowly Canon all-in-one MX850 printer's canned profile (shaded). Again, what I see is the much larger space of the lowly ink-jet:
[attachment=19266:Noritsu_MX850.png]
So... if based on the above (and my ignorance) I conclude that it does not make much sense to send anything bigger than sRGB to the lab (as the lab owner already said to the OP), where is my logic wrong?
-
Wayne, you say that but that kinda flies in the face of what Dry Creek Photo was able to do for Costco stores around the country...see Dry Creek Photo's Introduction to Digital Photo Lab Profiles (http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/).
I know you've run these type of printers and yes it may be a problem to set up a Noritsu or Fuji Frontier so that it DOESN'T force color transforms on the front end when cueing up images...but it can be done, heck, Costco has proven that the typical line from "Pro Photo Labs" that the printers print in sRGB and you don't want to use ICC profiles and can't soft proof is simply not accurate...
True, it may be a bit more work, slightly reduce productivity and require a level of employee training that pro labs are unwilling to do. But that's an entirely different issue than color management not working for those machines.
Actually Dry Creek was the main 3rd party I was referring to. They seem to have the best handle on implementing a workflow, although personally knowing the hardware I'm unclear how they can get around the limitations of the firmware other than providing a somewhat functional work around. I admit freely that you and Andrew are far more knowledgeable in the area of color management but the hardware is extremely frustrating to work with because of the basic design premise of the firmware ... simulating a silver halide workflow.. Where I've run into problems trying to make this work is related to the printers firmware.
If I send colors to an inkjet printer through a driver that has all color management turned off, I can assume nothing has interfered with those colors, and then can use that data to characterize how the printer responds to those colors. This allows a profile to modify the data so I can get what I what from the printer.
When I send colors to a Noritsu printer, the firmwares job is produce an expected result based on that color, and that expected result is based on sRGB. If I send a target to a Noritsu, the printer will manipulate the data to provide what it thinks I want. It doesn't provide an opportunity to just send the pure colors to the paper and let me measure that result and then allow me to apply a profile to modify my colors to get my desired result. Perhaps producing a profile from this still offers some opportunity to at least have a tool to softproof, but it really isn't working in what I've always been led to believe is a correct color managed workflow. Personally I believe silver halide paper is capable of larger gamuts that they get credit for, but the devices just won't send that much light through the laser or LED head.
I'm unfamiliar with Dry Creeks method, but personally spent a great deal of time trying to get around this. Perhaps they have found a way to circumvent the firmware involvement,perhaps they've just found a work around, which I admit is better than nothing. Not sure major labs based on Kodak's DP2 software can take advantage of this (of which most of the large ones are), but I know WHCC and Millers/mPix are aggressively working on solutions as well, I believe WHCC also offers a profile that can be used for soft proofing, but at this point I don't believe that profile is actually applied to the data, instead it is just characterizing the firmwares involvement and the lab is still converting the file to sRGB for printing.
At this point in time, things are beginning to move fairly quickly as more educated customers are wanting these capabilities. Small labs with older hardware may be challenged to fully implement, because in my mind to work correctly it will require new firmware. In fact there may indeed be some firmware enhancements that are now being offered (i've been out of his loop for a year or so). Currently I'm involved in setting up a new lab that will utilize Noritsu and Chromira printers as well as Epson inkjet, and have a point person talking to both companies about how we can do this the right way - can we offer a true color managed solution. If not, then we will be analyzing how Dry Creek Photo does it and either work with them (if they are effectively bypassing the firmware issue), or provide similar solutions to theirs using a similar work around.
-
So... if based on the above (and my ignorance) I conclude that it does not make much sense to send anything bigger than sRGB to the lab (as the lab owner already said to the OP), where is my logic wrong?
I did two profiles for the same Kodak Endura VC paper - one was printed on Noritsu (that treats everything as sRGB), second was printed on KIS lab with with Color Management module (that could just print RGB targets without any internal transformations).
The print from Noritsu's gamut volume was only 520.000 dE^3(76), while the print from KIS's gamut volume was 645.000 dE^3(76).
So it seems that the print is potentially loosing about 20% of gamut volume when the machine is locked to sRGB.
-
Rather than sending something bigger or smaller than sRGB, the question is, why not send the data in the output color space of the device using a good profile from whatever original RGB working space you started with?
The discussion/argument isn't that the device is significantly bigger or smaller than sRGB. The point is, this isn't an sRGB output device and the color space you should send is that of the printer, after soft proofing and editing with the profile from that device.
You and I might both have a 30 inch LCD but that doesn't mean I can send you the profile of my display to use and vise versa even if both have very similar sized color gamuts.
-
So... if based on the above (and my ignorance) I conclude that it does not make much sense to send anything bigger than sRGB to the lab (as the lab owner already said to the OP), where is my logic wrong?
I think the answer to that depends on how the profile is being used. If indeed it is a true output profile so the lab is converting the working file directly to the output profile, then it makes sense to not convert. Otherwise you end up with an unnecessary double conversion.
However, I believe most labs are offering these profiles as a soft proofing solution only, but the files are still converted to sRGB to be submitted to the printer. If this is the case sending them aRGB or ppRGB files won't change the results, so might as well just send them in sRGB.
(I might add I have my point person contacting Dry Creek Color to try and understand their process. I'm hopeful things have progressed, but I"m still a little skeptical based on all the frustrations I've had with this over the past 10 years or so).
-
If I send colors to an inkjet printer through a driver that has all color management turned off, I can assume nothing has interfered with those colors....
That's not necessarily the case. In fact, one can (and some do) profile over alterations of the driver or linearization in a RIP. You can profile an Epson using Color Controls instead of No Color Adjustment just fine (and produce more linear response at the expense of color gamut). If data out for building the profile is consistent, it doesn't matter that data in might have been altered in the printing path.
If you've been following the posts on Snow Leopard and printing targets, its not real clear that what's really going on in the print path in terms of no color management.
-
Rather than sending something bigger or smaller than sRGB, the question is, why not send the data in the output color space of the device using a good profile from whatever original RGB working space you started with?
The discussion/argument isn't that the device is significantly bigger or smaller than sRGB. The point is, this isn't an sRGB output device and the color space you should send is that of the printer, after soft proofing and editing with the profile from that device.
You and I might both have a 30 inch LCD but that doesn't mean I can send you the profile of my display to use and vise versa even if both have very similar sized color gamuts.
Andrew,
If I understand Wayne's description of how these machines are "programmed" to function, there may be a real problem here which defies conventional colour management approaches of the kind you are describing. In order to do what you say should be done, which sounds eminently sensible, it is necessary to be able to profile the device. In order to profile the device you need to be able to characterize its native behaviour with all colour-modification software turned off. Wayne seems to be saying that this is the step which these machines do not allow to be done. So if you can't do that, it would seem that you can't profile it properly, and if you can't profile it properly the rest of the recipe doesn't work. Am I making sense here?
Mark
-
This just requires a change of approach on your part. You are trying to do this the right way and the lab has their collective head up their........well you know. I would start soft proofing the way you should, convert the files for print and make them make redo after redo after redo until they begin to get the point. Or if all you want to do is make prints to sell, find another lab and irritate them only part time.
-
However, I believe most labs are offering these profiles as a soft proofing solution only, but the files are still converted to sRGB to be submitted to the printer.
Which is idiotic. You can't know what rendering intent the lab will use, with or without Black Point Compensation or with what CMM. We don't even know if they are using the profile they've supplied for soft proofing to convert the data or if the devices behave as the profile describes the soft proof.
That's my beef with the labs. Its totally marketing based, faith based and brain dead "color management". Either say you don't support color management and force people to send you files in Stupid RGB or do it right. This idea that you can soft proof with some profile and send sRGB to a lab is an attempt to make the slightly more savvy user think the lab has a clue about color management when in fact its a useless "feel good" button.
-
I did two profiles for the same Kodak Endura VC paper - one was printed on Noritsu (that treats everything as sRGB), second was printed on KIS lab with with Color Management module (that could just print RGB targets without any internal transformations).
The print from Noritsu's gamut volume was only 520.000 dE^3(76), while the print from KIS's gamut volume was 645.000 dE^3(76).
So it seems that the print is potentially loosing about 20% of gamut volume when the machine is locked to sRGB.
Interesting. Personally I've always believe this, and the fact their gamut is larger certainly implies they are using a more logical approach to color management. Perhaps soon we can get all silver halide printing out of the dark ages ...
-
In order to profile the device you need to be able to characterize its native behaviour with all colour-modification software turned off.
That's not necessarily so (see example of profiling an Epson using Color Controls). It would be great if the device could be linear and well behaved but that's not a requirement written in stone.
In order to profile a device, one thing is certain. It has to be consistent or you have to have calibration processes in line to keep the device in a state the profile describes.
-
Which is idiotic. You can't know what rendering intent the lab will use, with or without Black Point Compensation or with what CMM. We don't even know if they are using the profile they've supplied for soft proofing to convert the data or if the devices behave as the profile describes the soft proof.
That's my beef with the labs. Its totally marketing based, faith based and brain dead "color management". Either say you don't support color management and force people to send you files in Stupid RGB or do it right. This idea that you can soft proof with some profile and send sRGB to a lab is an attempt to make the slightly more savvy user think the lab has a clue about color management when in fact its a useless "feel good" button.
Agreed. Hopefully they are working on a correct approach.
One issue is that 99% of the customers of these large labs are clueless themselves about color management, don't have calibrated monitors and simply want something that gives them pretty good results, which can be had without that much work (at least for the expectations of those customers). Those that frequent this forum are not typical of their customers.
-
That's not necessarily so (see example of profiling an Epson using Color Controls). It would be great if the device could be linear and well behaved but that's not a requirement written in stone.
In order to profile a device, one thing is certain. It has to be consistent or you have to have calibration processes in line to keep the device in a state the profile describes.
OK, so let's explore that. You have this Noritsu printer which predates colour management and it's equipped with some "smart programming" which makes images come out like how the manufacturer thinks people would like to see them. You feed it a target to print patches for creating a profile. It's "brain" analyzes the "image" and comes up with something which it prints. You take that page of patches, measure them, generate a profile and you think you've characterized the printer. Maybe so. But from what Wayne seems to be describing, the question is "have you really"? Does this printer software necessarily respect the "steady state" repeatable behaviour needed for the profile to work properly with real photographs? I don't know, I'm asking. Will the printer's firmware do a completely different KIND of reading of a real photograph, contrasted to how it interpreted the page of patches, because with each different kind of image it gets, it's trying to automatically simulate a consumer-pleasing outcome, so perhaps its internal behaviour is intentionally not predictable from target to photo, or from one photo to another?
-
Agreed. Hopefully they are working on a correct approach.
One issue is that 99% of the customers of these large labs are clueless themselves about color management, don't have calibrated monitors and simply want something that gives them pretty good results, which can be had without that much work (at least for the expectations of those customers). Those that frequent this forum are not typical of their customers.
Yes, this must be true, otherwise they would be responding to another set of consumer requirements. My first stimulus ten years ago to get into a digital printing workflow of my own arose from dissatisfaction with what I was getting back from labs. So that's at least one customer in a sea of millions they lost! (Epson got me instead!)
-
OK, so let's explore that. You have this Noritsu printer which predates colour management and it's equipped with some "smart programming" which makes images come out like how the manufacturer thinks people would like to see them. You feed it a target to print patches for creating a profile. It's "brain" analyzes the "image" and comes up with something which it prints.
You're assuming this is some kind of auto fix, alter numbers without a way to turn it off device. I know of no such device, at least one that can't simply send the data to the output device without mucking around with it. I know some people said this was the case with the Fuji Frontier but Fuji has (had?) a front end that fully allowed data to be sent through the device with the use of profiles and without alteration of the data.
And we're told "send sRGB" so we are now to assume that this RGB data is somehow magically altered based on what? So I send the same RGB data (numbers) to the device and every time it produces differing results? That would make reprints a bitch.
-
OK, so let's explore that. You have this Noritsu printer which predates colour management and it's equipped with some "smart programming" which makes images come out like how the manufacturer thinks people would like to see them. You feed it a target to print patches for creating a profile. It's "brain" analyzes the "image" and comes up with something which it prints. You take that page of patches, measure them, generate a profile and you think you've characterized the printer. Maybe so. But from what Wayne seems to be describing, the question is "have you really"? Does this printer software necessarily respect the "steady state" repeatable behaviour needed for the profile to work properly with real photographs? I don't know, I'm asking. Will the printer's firmware do a completely different KIND of reading of a real photograph, contrasted to how it interpreted the page of patches, because with each different kind of image it gets, it's trying to automatically simulate a consumer-pleasing outcome, so perhaps its internal behaviour is intentionally not predictable from target to photo, or from one photo to another?
From my observations, Noritsu just makes some kind of simple, internal covertion from sRGB to it's own color space. It gives tolerable and repeatable results - as long as the image is rendered to sRGB, of course.
-
You're assuming this is some kind of auto fix, alter numbers without a way to turn it off device. I know of no such device, at least one that can't simply send the data to the output device without mucking around with it. I know some people said this was the case with the Fuji Frontier but Fuji has (had?) a front end that fully allowed data to be sent through the device with the use of profiles and without alteration of the data.
And we're told "send sRGB" so we are now to assume that this RGB data is somehow magically altered based on what? So I send the same RGB data (numbers) to the device and every time it produces differing results? That would make reprints a bitch.
No, not quite what I'm saying. I would expect it to treat multiple passes of the same numbers identically. What I'm wondering about is whether it behaves in a "proportionately systematic manner" (if I can put it that way) when different sets of numbers of are sent to it. Is it possible that the machines are programmed to produce outcomes which respect certain output parameters regardless of the differing nature of the information sent into them, so that they "bend" the data differently depending on the relationship between a varying set of inputs and an output with a comparatively fixed set of constraints.
-
From my observations, Noritsu just makes some kind of simple, internal covertion from sRGB to it's own color space. It gives tolerable and repeatable results - as long as the image is rendered to sRGB, of course.
That syncs up with my understanding of the process. The front end assumes sRGB and converts to the native color space (it has to, the native color space simply isn't sRGB as you've illustrated).
-
(I might add I have my point person contacting Dry Creek Color to try and understand their process. I'm hopeful things have progressed, but I"m still a little skeptical based on all the frustrations I've had with this over the past 10 years or so).
I don't think you have to go too far to contact the guy from Dry Creek since he's a regular poster here on LuLa (not often but often enough). Try pinging Ethan Hansen (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showuser=53474)...he's a good guy!
And I'm pretty darn sure there ARE ways of sending stuff through relatively recent Noritsu and Fuji printers where the front end does NOT step on the color. It DOES require an active effort by the operator and it's not quite as productive in terms of prints/hour–which is one of the reasons I think lab owners try to discourage it. But maybe that's just my suspicious nature...
:~)
-
No, not quite what I'm saying. I would expect it to treat multiple passes of the same numbers identically. What I'm wondering about is whether it behaves in a "proportionately systematic manner" (if I can put it that way) when different sets of numbers of are sent to it. Is it possible that the machines are programmed to produce outcomes which respect certain output parameters regardless of the differing nature of the information sent into them, so that they "bend" the data differently depending on the relationship between a varying set of inputs and an output with a comparatively fixed set of constraints.
It behaves in a systematic manner. To illustrate this behavior, here's the profile I did:
(http://members.chello.pl/m.kaluza/noritsu.jpg)
The softproofed image was in sRGB. As you can see, the difference between converted and unconverted image is not that large - the machine renders the colors in slightly different way and there's yellow cast, but it definetly looks like it makes some transform from sRGB to its native color space. The problem is that you can't switch it off...
-
If you have something like ColorThink, plot the gamuts in wire frame and pay attention to the Lstar axis down around Lstar 0 to oh, about Lstar 10-15. I can post a shot when I get a chance (off to the airport). In the Noritsu_2006 profile I have, there's a difference one can attribute to the dissimilarities in emissive based working space profiles and printer profiles (one using light, the other a colorant to build color so to speak). In addition, at least with this profile, the sRGB gamut in greens and blues is significantly larger. IOW, there's a lot of difference in the two that a soft proof doesn't show.
-
It behaves in a systematic manner. To illustrate this behavior, here's the profile I did:
...
The softproofed image was in sRGB. As you can see, the difference between converted and unconverted image is not that large - the machine renders the colors in slightly different way and there's yellow cast, but it definetly looks like it makes some transform from sRGB to its native color space. The problem is that you can't switch it off...
Pardon my ignorance, but I am confused as to what exactly caused the difference between the left and right image. Would you care to detail your steps?
-
And we're told "send sRGB" so we are now to assume that this RGB data is somehow magically altered based on what? So I send the same RGB data (numbers) to the device and every time it produces differing results? That would make reprints a bitch.
Actually this is a problem ... these machines have large amounts of drift.
The sRGB data is modified through a lookup table that is constantly being modified to compensate for this drift. In the early days with the Kodak CRT and LED printer, we usually had to tweak the lookup table by hand. I'm sure these have been improved, but I don't think this LUT is as sophisticated as an actual profile, and at this point that process is assuming an sRGB file coming in. It could be the very latest hardware has improved and has found someway to do this via profiles, but that is also challenging. It's hard for a lab to justify spending 100k to 200k to upgrade a printer for this capability, and these printers run for a long time.
We have a test image that is printed at startup of each machine after it is calibrated daily, which is sent to our central lab for monitoring. The drift is apparent and the variation from machine to machine is obvious. When we see one that is too far off we send in the tech. Of course, this drift is nothing new, just goes with the territory of the chemical process, and it usually isn't enough to reject the prints. But it can be a problem if customers compare reprints side by side.
The printer is trying to reproduce the same color and all of this was designed because of the limitations of the silver halide process. It works pretty good, but I've always wondered if because of the large amount of drifting if a color managed workflow as we know it would work, since it would almost require new profiles to be made daily. A few years ago I spent a great deal of time trying to come up with a way to standardize color across all output devices, as we wanted a solution that would allow customer to pick up prints at other locations. Because all of the images are portraits it is very challenging because the expectation is higher than consumer snapshots being produced at places like Costco and Walgreens.
I finally gave up since I sold the company, but never was very successful. As I mentioned, I'm now researching it pretty extensively because of some new projects I'm working on. Hopefully there has been some progress, but even if it has it will take a while to trickle down so it becomes as standard as current inkjet workflows.
-
I just started a new thread that hopefully addresses a number of the issues brought up here about color managing silver halide processes:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=40713 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40713)
Color Managing silver halide workflows can be done very well but there are some unique challenges. I hope you find it worthwhile reading.
-
I don't think you have to go too far to contact the guy from Dry Creek since he's a regular poster here on LuLa (not often but often enough). Try pinging Ethan Hansen (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showuser=53474)...he's a good guy!
Thanks .. I appreciate this.
And I'm pretty darn sure there ARE ways of sending stuff through relatively recent Noritsu and Fuji printers where the front end does NOT step on the color. It DOES require an active effort by the operator and it's not quite as productive in terms of prints/hour–which is one of the reasons I think lab owners try to discourage it. But maybe that's just my suspicious nature...
:~)
I hope you're right, but machines run for years, are very expensive so used machines are very attractive, and upgrade paths are usually not easy.
As far as lab operators, probably some truth. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
It's not like the system is horrible, for the most part it works pretty well. It just doesn't have the fine control we've come to expect from our inkjet workflows, but good results can be had relatively easily. Just requires a different workflow mentality to which most don't have a problem with.
-
I haven't read this full thread, so apologies if this is way OT, but ....
WHCC is a "pro" lab in the US that has a pretty strong quality focus. They require clients to print 5, 8x10 inch prints (provided free of charge) when they open an account to check color accuracy and calibration on the client end, to help ensure customer satisfaction.
They have pretty decent documentation on their CM process. They also provide profiles for soft proofing that seem pretty acurate and work well for me in in PS. I haven't looked at the size of the color space.
A couple of thoughts:
1) You should be able to use their documentation, profiles, etc. to establish a workflow that should work with other Noritsu devices (of the same model/family of course - I'll let you track down the specifications) , and
2) They may be able to advise you on the machines capabilities, and help you establish a process that will work with your provider (ie: translate/fill in for what your lab is unable to articulate.)
Here are a couple of snippets from their site:
"Q. What kind of printers do you use?
A. Depending on the print sizes requested your order could be printed on one or two different pieces of equipment. All prints 12x18 and smaller are printed on one of our Noritsu printers."
http://www.whcc.com/resources/faq/#photographic (http://www.whcc.com/resources/faq/#photographic) prints
"Calibrating your monitor is the first step in receiving the best monitor to print match. The second step is to embed a valid ICC profile into each file you send to WHCC. Without this profile, we do not know what colorspace your files are in. Most photographers use either sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) as a working colorspace."
http://www.whcc.com/resources/ordering-pro...ion-management/ (http://www.whcc.com/resources/ordering-process/color-calibration-management/)
Hope that helps a bit? I can log in to their site on another machine (with my accoiunt info on it) and quote from their detailed instructions for the 5 quality control "test prints", if that info isn't around on the public site (I don't see it after a quick look ...)
I can happily recommend WHCC, but it seems like print fulfilment might be a bit awkward for you!
Good luck!
Best,
Michael
-
I have been looking at the Metro Imaging website and they have a section explaining their colour management, but it seems they only go as far as working space, they also don't seem to supply any profiles... instead they say that they do all the soft proofing, and I quote: "On receipt of your image file, we will install the correct printer profile and individually colour manage the print outcome to match the image file as exactly as possible."
I don't want the lab technician soft proofing for me! I thought the phrase was "what you see is what you get" not "what they see is what you get"
http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/technicalhel...rmanagement.asp (http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/technicalhelp/colourmanagement.asp)
-
I have been looking at the Metro Imaging website and they have a section explaining their colour management, but it seems they only go as far as working space, they also don't seem to supply any profiles... instead they say that they do all the soft proofing, and I quote: "On receipt of your image file, we will install the correct printer profile and individually colour manage the print outcome to match the image file as exactly as possible."
I don't want the lab technician soft proofing for me! I thought the phrase was "what you see is what you get" not "what they see is what you get"
http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/technicalhel...rmanagement.asp (http://www.metroimaging.co.uk/technicalhelp/colourmanagement.asp)
WYGIWYG - What you get is what you get.
-
I have been looking at the Metro Imaging website and they have a section explaining their colour management, but it seems they only go as far as working space, they also don't seem to supply any profiles... instead they say that they do all the soft proofing, and I quote: "On receipt of your image file, we will install the correct printer profile and individually colour manage the print outcome to match the image file as exactly as possible." I don't want the lab technician soft proofing for me! I thought the phrase was "what you see is what you get" not "what they see is what you get"
You could certainly ask them to supply a profile to you for soft proofing purposes. But I think your question brings up another topic. There are two new terms in the photolab business that are starting to become common - "Customer Corrected" or "Lab Corrected" printing.
"Customer Corrected" printing is a fully color managed service where the lab prints your files without even looking at them. This type of service is gaining popularity and it's great for everyone that uses it. Because it's easier for the lab, some labs choose to discount this type of printing.
"Lab Corrected" printing is a continuation of the traditional printed service that labs have done for years that involves color correction. A human looks at each and every image and adjusts them to their preference.
So anytime you are beginning a new relationship with a lab you want to be really clear about which type of service you are looking for. What you have quoted falls into "customer corrected" printing, and they will likely supply a profile upon request so that you can do your own soft proofing.
-
Actually this is a problem ... these machines have large amounts of drift.
If this is always true, there’s no fix (which seems hard to believe), then game over, never use such a device. What I suspect is, you are correct, like many devices, there’s drift or need for continual calibration and a lot of labs simply dismiss as much of this work as possible. Again, a process using something like Maxwell, with email notifiers that tell the lab the minute this happens on a target at a fixed max deltaE programed, would greatly reduce issues and redos. But turning off such a machine (or shutting down a press to fix a blanket) takes time away from production. Those that want the highest quality output in a consistent fashion will do the necessary work to ensure proper calibrating. Most others will simply pass the output onto the client, hoping they don’t notice.
-
"Lab Corrected" printing is a continuation of the traditional printed service that labs have done for years that involves color correction. A human looks at each and every image and adjusts them to their preference.
Its a major problem for those of us who simply want the provided RGB numbers to go to the output device. This tactic seems pretty silly unless the lab is getting both permission to alter the values and paid to do so. Its completely the opposite of the CMYK world where you send a prepress shop some values and you get what you get on the contract proof unless you specifically ask for and pay handsomely for alterations and more proofs. Its too bad the RGB lab world didn’t take a look at this workflow. Its the one area the CMYK output world seems to have gotten right.
-
If this is always true, there’s no fix (which seems hard to believe), then game over, never use such a device. What I suspect is, you are correct, like many devices, there’s drift or need for continual calibration and a lot of labs simply dismiss as much of this work as possible. Again, a process using something like Maxwell, with email notifiers that tell the lab the minute this happens on a target at a fixed max deltaE programed, would greatly reduce issues and redos. But turning off such a machine (or shutting down a press to fix a blanket) takes time away from production. Those that want the highest quality output in a consistent fashion will do the necessary work to ensure proper calibrating. Most others will simply pass the output onto the client, hoping they don’t notice.
A lot of truth in this. Calibration requires you to stop throughput, and print out a target which takes around 5 minutes, then read in the results. One issue is advanced photographers want the consistency of an inkjet, which just isn't going to happen no matter what. Even a variation of a tenth of a degree can produce a change that might be visible when compared side by side.
One real problem is the replenishment rate and machine utilization. The rate is based on an expected average density of the images being printed. There are circumstances where that can change dramatically even in a short time ... perhaps a large job that are all very dark or very light images. Suddenly the developer is a little off. If you keep going it will average itself out, but some prints may exhibit some differences. We'll print an order of several hundred Christmas cards all on a high key background, almost always the last card will be slightly darker than the first because the machine has been over replenishing based on the print densities. Some genius somewhere could probably design a program that controls the replenishment rate based on all the factors including the density of the files being submitted, but currently it's a "start here and tweak". Under utilized machines require more than heavily utilized machines.
These variations are normally well within the toleration point of most of the labs customers, but can easily become issues if prints from different machines are compared, or reprinted at different times. The differences are usually not large, but substantially more so than with current inkjet processes. We sent in files to both WHCC and mPix to get the test prints back, both are using identical equipment, but both produced different results. The results were consistent for each ... one was all slightly cool the other slightly warm. I spent some time at Millers/mPix main plant in Kansas. To solve this they always send an entire job to the same printer. If you order a 30x40 and 100 8x10's, they'll send it all to the 30" durst, rather than the more efficient model of the big print to the durst and the smaller ones to the 11" Noritsu's. We actually installed a 24" Noritsu for much the same reason, to make sure our large portraits matched the smaller ones. The problem we have (I say we since I still consult with my previous company) is that there are 185 Noritsu's spread around the country and we can't really get consistent match between all of them and the central plant. But it works well enough for our customer base ( which are all end consumers, not photographers) nearly all of the time. I guess maybe we fit the description in your last sentence.
Nothing new here, this is the same issue that has been around with silver halide printing forever. It's actually far better than it was ... I remember the nightmares of a bulb blowing in a big Lucht Package printer that had several 600 negative rolls tested up and ready to go ... what we have now is substantially better than that.
-
We sent in files to both WHCC and mPix to get the test prints back, both are using identical equipment, but both produced different results.
That doesn’t surprise nor concern me too much. You see this all the time with all nature of presses (and even an ink jet should someone use differing driver or RIP settings). A bigger issue is plotting the differences of the same equipment in the same shop and consistency between the same machines. If the lab is sending files to multiple printers of the same make and model, all using the same settings, one would and should expect that you could pop that file on any of the machines and get visually similar (deltaE 2000 of say 4-6) all the time from all the devices. Anything over that, I’d be hard pressed to use such a shop. And in terms of average or max deltaE, all the metrics are of course dependent on the number of patches and the source of the values sent. For example, when we send QC targets to a specific digital press, we use patches that fall within gamut from source RGB (using the output profile) to build the patches measured for this delta report. Little reason to send say G255 in ProPhoto or even Adobe RGB (1998) to some devices when there’s no way it can get close to hitting the predicted converted numbers if it falls outside device gamut. Some colors are far more important than others. Skew the gray balance and customers will scream. So you need very specialized QC targets to track all this. Bottom line is, which of these RGB labs are even doing this kind of trending? You’d think that if the trending was really good, they would do well to share this with the customers who care and can understand what they are seeing. I suspect that if we build such trending to most of these labs, even over say a week of feeding in targets every hour, the results would scare the crap out of anyone who could evaluate the results.
-
[concerning "Lab Corrected" printing] This tactic seems pretty silly unless the lab is getting both permission to alter the values and paid to do so.
Lab Corrected is an option that commonly chosen by the customer that's typically dealing with point and shoot images with less than perfect exposures and white balance settings. Lab Corrected prints may their lousy exposures look better.
Its a major problem for those of us who simply want the provided RGB numbers to go to the output device. Its too bad the RGB lab world didn’t take a look at this workflow.
As for a lab that's not color managed, you can ask them to print your images with no corrections - that's easy. Help me understand why you'd want this option at a color manged lab? If a lab is color managed they are using profiles that incorporate RGB CGR like technology (see http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=40713 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40713) for more details on this) which can't be made elsewhere and help reduce color fringing in the shadows.
-
"Lab Corrected" printing is a continuation of the traditional printed service that labs have done for years that involves color correction. A human looks at each and every image and adjusts them to their preference.
It's also central to the workflow model many of these labs use based on DP2 software. A very tightly controlled display can be tweaked with conventional red/green/blue/density dials, and resulting instructions are sent to the output device when the file is processed. This conversion occurs simultaneous to the conversion to the printers output algorithms, including the application of any required shifts based on the specific printers current calibration. The match between these displays and the actual output is very good ... probably closer than most processes with inkjet, but the process is as you describe, adapted from the video analyzer model of labs before digital. Of course when DP2 was designed, that was the goal ... since the process was all analyzed film so the basic thought process was just to replace the method of printing to the paper.
That being said there are great many working photographers that actually like this model. There are thousands of very successful studio and wedding photographers that are still old school in how they approach their business. That is rapidly changing, thus the increased recent pressures on these labs to employ better CMS workflows and I'm sure there are new tools available as well as being worked on ... hopefully in a few years we can all look back and realize how archaic these current processes are and be glad it finally made it out of the stone ages.
-
Lab Corrected is an option that commonly chosen by the customer that's typically dealing with point and shoot images with less than perfect exposures and white balance settings. Lab Corrected prints may their lousy exposures look better.
Yes and its also a path many photographers didn’t ask for but got. The web is filled with customers who got results they didn’t expect because the lab altered their files without asking first.
I agree that the option of having the lab tweak is good for some customers. Its also bad for customers when done without being told. It be far easier if the RGB lab model worked more like the CMYK press model where unless you specifically ask (and pay) for alterations, the numbers go to the device without further human intervention.
-
It be far easier if the RGB lab model worked more like the CMYK press model where unless you specifically ask (and pay) for alterations, the numbers go to the device without further human intervention.
And why would that be preferable to "Customer Corrected" printing that's fully color managed? Customer Corrected printing is where you send your sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB [or whatever] files and they print them with their latest greatest printer profiles without any subjective color corrections. Without even looking at your files.
-
I agree that the option of having the lab tweak is good for some customers. Its also bad for customers when done without being told. It be far easier if the RGB lab model worked more like the CMYK press model where unless you specifically ask (and pay) for alterations, the numbers go to the device without further human intervention.
Andrew, yes, but to some extent perhaps this depends on the customer. Your RGB=CMYK press model assumes a customer equipped and savvy enough to know when the numbers are right. There are no doubt many people who don't want to know anything about numbers or colour management - they just want to send images which look OK on their unmanaged dsplays and want something returned to them which looks "good". For them, perhaps the lab tweaking is a blessing in disguise. I kind of liked the dichotomy between "Customer" and "Lab" corrected whjich Onsight mentioned. It characterizes these two categories of folks quite nicely and points to different solutions for each.
-
I kind of liked the dichotomy between "Customer" and "Lab" corrected whjich Onsight mentioned. It characterizes these two categories of folks quite nicely and points to different solutions for each.
Some labs won't take orders without clarifying exactly which the customer wants. Some kiosks and web ordering sites start by letting you choose one or the other. I like this customer centric terminology too and hope that it continues to gain momentum.
-
Andrew, yes, but to some extent perhaps this depends on the customer. Your RGB=CMYK press model assumes a customer equipped and savvy enough to know when the numbers are right.
Yeah, right. Like all the people who convert to U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 assuming its some “standard” for every and all CMYK conversions, Web presses, digital presses etc. In the CMYK prepress model, shops get converted CMYK that doesn’t have any relationship to how they print all the time. Proof are highly profitable. CMYK or RGB, customers who expect the numbers to be output “as is” hopefully have a clue to the exacting recipe for the conversions.
-
And why would that be preferable to "Customer Corrected" printing that's fully color managed? Customer Corrected printing is where you send your sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB [or whatever] files and they print them with their latest greatest printer profiles without any subjective color corrections. Without even looking at your files.
In my mind, a fully color managed workflow using a Customer Corrected model would be whereby the lab supplies an actual profile of the actual conditions. Then I convert, after selecting the preferred rendering intent, fully aware of the CMM and the role of BPC, and after a soft proof round with minor tweaks to the image based on the profile provided. I don’t want them to take an RGB working space and “send the numbers as is” because that’s not possible without a conversion to the native output space. There’s too much going on there that I can’t control or see. Fine for other users but for advanced users, they simply have to be provided the output profile and control how the resulting output RGB (or CMYK) values are produced. Then just send it to the device “as is”.
-
Yeah, right. Like all the people who convert to U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 assuming its some “standard” for every and all CMYK conversions, Web presses, digital presses etc. In the CMYK prepress model, shops get converted CMYK that doesn’t have any relationship to how they print all the time. Proof are highly profitable. CMYK or RGB, customers who expect the numbers to be output “as is” hopefully have a clue to the exacting recipe for the conversions.
I think you are one step ahead of the "Lab Corrected" folks I had in mind. These are people who may not even be aware of the difference between RGB and CMYK. All they know is that they have a bunch of images they want to print as a book, they make a PDF, it looks good on their uncalibrated and unprofiled displays (which may well be too bright, too contrasty, too saturated and too blue); they send the PDF to the printer and they expect to get back a book which looks like what they expect to see. The "Customer Corrected" folks, on the other hand, would be those knowledgeable enough to follow the workflow you recommend in responding to Scott (your second of the two posts above). These are the people who need a lab service whose output is predictable based on their supplied profiles and recommended softproofing conditions. I, for example, would be a "Customer Corrected" person and I would need to select a lab with a reputation for reliably implementing a proper colour-managed workflow. That makes the discussion with the lab very easy if there are problems, because we both know what the parameters are. It becomes next to impossible in the "Lab Corrected" stream, because that's like nailing jelly to a wall.
-
In my mind, a fully color managed workflow using a Customer Corrected model would be whereby the lab supplies an actual profile of the actual conditions. Then I convert, after selecting the preferred rendering intent, fully aware of the CMM and the role of BPC, and after a soft proof round with minor tweaks to the image based on the profile provided.
That's certainly an option that you can setup with your lab. The problems that I've witnessed with that type of approach is that labs change papers and update profiles and customers are still using the old profiles. Noritsu profiles that have the RGB GCR alteration can't be used in Photoshop so color fringing in the shadows could be present. And embedding a large output profile in each and every image can slow down the process of sending files electronically. For most professionals, being able to work in their working space of choice while soft proofing with the labs profile, and sending their working space images to the lab for printing works really, really well. But naturally there's room for other workflows as long as one has a thorough conversation with the lab.
-
Scott,
Could you list all the photo labs you know that accept image files with an embedded working space profile of the customer's choosing AND has a track record of delivering decent print to screen matches with this method? Or maybe you know and can provide a link to a site that acts as a centralized consortium that strictly adheres to such practices and capabilities.
-
Could you list all the photo labs you know that accept image files with an embedded working space profile of the customer's choosing AND has a track record of delivering decent print to screen matches with this method?
Sure, I'll send you an email with a quick list that's by no means complete. I wish there was a 3rd party certification program like you describe.
-
Thanks, Scott.
No need to keep it in an email.
For those interested here's the list he sent me:
Digital Pro Lab
Cashman Pro
Holland Photo
Austin Photo Imaging
Houston Photo Imaging
Horizon Photography
Infocus Camera
Marin Filmworks
Oakcolor
Richmand Camera
Peoria Color
PhotoTek
River City Silver
-
That's certainly an option that you can setup with your lab.
Depends on the lab of course. So many just “demand” sRGB, or have no current profiles or can’t keep multiple machines behaving the same.
The problems that I've witnessed with that type of approach is that labs change papers and update profiles and customers are still using the old profiles.
Agreed but this is solely the lab’s fault here. Its not rocket science to send out an email blast or update a web page with a newer profile. We could ask why the lab can’t keep the process in line so that the original profiles remain valid.
Noritsu profiles that have the RGB GCR alteration can't be used in Photoshop so color fringing in the shadows could be present. And embedding a large output profile in each and every image can slow down the process of sending files electronically.
Can’t comment on the first part but I’ll accept this as being an issue. The 2nd bit seems pretty silly considering the size of most images and the size of most RGB output profiles. Sure, for customers with dial up, its a problem. Its akin to demanding every file sent be a JPEG and a large compression instead of a lower one (or a TIFF).
For most professionals, being able to work in their working space of choice while soft proofing with the labs profile, and sending their working space images to the lab for printing works really, really well. But naturally there's room for other workflows as long as one has a thorough conversation with the lab.
It might work really well but we don’t know if it can work far better. The bottom line is, this industry by and large is far less concerned with best practices in terms of soft proofing, conversions and consistency (although there are obvious exceptions who deserve the consumers dollars). Is it any wonder that more and more photographers are handling the output tasks themselves in house using Ink Jets when the production allows?
-
For those interested here's the list he sent me:
I know Pictopia also practices this workflow.
-
For those interested here's the list he sent me:
Tom, that list was sent in a private message and should not be posted here. That's just a few places off the top of my head and is by no means comprehensive. Let's not disappoint other lab owners that also run fantastic, color managed labs.
-
Here is what I got back from Metro Imaging (london)
"I can send you profiles for printing but please bare in mind that profiles are a help and not always a perfect representation of what you see on screen. Can you let me know what size prints you want to produce."
I'll have to find out exactly what they mean by this statement... but again seems to back-up what we are all saying here.
-
Scott, stop with the email exchanges, will ya'h? You're making this out to be way more than it is.
Take a deep breath and remind yourself that you're not as big as you think. There's nothing wrong in letting everyone know there are others out there offering a different approach. Do you know how often I see WHCC, Adorama, Mpix and whole slew of other photo labs get mentioned freely on the web? Your small list isn't going to put a dent into your reputation as one of the informed.
I've never heard any of the names you listed and I've been posting and reading on these types of discussion forums since 2002. I doubt anyone is going to try them out due to the fact everybody and their dog is doing this. Why hide names of business that claim to offer a better mousetrap? Put your reputation where your mouth is for a change. GEEZ!
This is an open discussion forum where information is freely exchanged for others to learn and benefit from. The more informed we are the better off the entire industry becomes.
Competition is good. It's always good to keep one's options open. That list is just another drop in the bucket.
And I don't have an NDA contract with anyone nor will I ever. That's not how I roll. If you didn't want those names known, you shouldn't have given them to me. What's to prevent me from cutting and pasting them in other photography forums?
People aren't as stupid as you might think. You telegraph to folks in this thread that you're providing names in an email only to me, while knowing full well I have the freedom to post them in other forums. You think others aren't picking up on that. Give me a break!
-
Moving back on to the topic at hand... Here is the communication with Metro:
ME:
"Regarding colour management, all I am after is the ability to soft
proof so I am able to see what I am going to get, I assume that is the
same thing your lab technicians are doing, the only difference being I
want to have that control.
Could you elaborate on your statement? I'm aware of the inherent
differences between light and paper, and the differences in colour
gamuts - that I don't mind, but using correctly profiled ICC luts
should enable a pretty good interpretation, at least better than not.
Can you also tell me whether you print your black and White images on
black and White silver paper? I know many labs use colour chemistry
for b&w which results in colour shifts."
METRO:
"Yes you have the drift of it. Profiles are a guide and the reason why we are a bit careful giving them out is that some clients expect a perfect match to screen. In reality some colours don't reproduce 100% true because of the different mediums between screen and photographic dyes. I can supply profiles for our Lambda, Lightjet or Polielettronica.
We are the only lab in the UK to produce true Black and White prints from digital files. We use Harman Galerie FB Digital and RC papers. Harman will shortly be releasing a warm tone paper as well. We can produce these prints up to mural size. The Galerie Fibre paper is particularly beautiful with a very deep DMax. Monochrome files are worked up here to print and we don't offer profiles for Black and White images."
-
I have to say I'm disappointed that they dont offer profiles for B&W, and I don't understand why.