Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: CarolynC on October 23, 2010, 08:31:16 pm
-
I do most of my photo editing in Lightroom and am just now realizing the importance of softproofing. After getting my pic just the way I want it in Lightroom, I bring it into Photoshop and apply my lab's softproof profile. Once I do the softproofing, the image looks terrible (as you all know from experience)...colors and tones look very muddy, not as saturated, etc. Don't cringe when I say this but I don't know how to alter colors and tones very well in PS, I'm a Lightroom junkie. Despite that, I'm playing around in PS with softproofing turned on but can't seem to get the colors and tones back to the way I had them...they still look muddy (brownish-toned) no matter how I try to change things. Can some of you please give me some guidance? Do any of you have any tips on getting your colors and tones close to where they were before applying softproofing?
Anyone know of any tutorials online for "post-softproofing" editing in PS? That would be so helpful.
-
There is a wonderful tutorial called "From Camera To Print" on the home page of the Luminous Landscape. One module of it is completely dedicated to softproofing.
-
There is a wonderful tutorial called "From Camera To Print" on the home page of the Luminous Landscape. One module of it is completely dedicated to softproofing.
I agree.
Just as a brief note to the OP however - be aware that once you Soft Proof the image in PS (provided you have simulate paper colour selected etc.; which you should) that you are simulating the dynamic range of what the print will look like on paper. To some extent no amount of adjustment can correct for this. What you are seeing is the difference between the dynamic range of your back lit monitor and the front lit paper you are printing on. Yes, a slight curve tweak can restore some contrast (and is almost always necessary especially with matt papers) but it can never fully compensate for the difference in dynamic range. It just takes practice to get know what adjustment and how much to apply to get the match as close as possible.
-
There is a wonderful tutorial called "From Camera To Print" on the home page of the Luminous Landscape. One module of it is completely dedicated to softproofing.
Thanks guys, that looks like a very helpful resource. Do you know if that tutorial talks about how to undo (as much as possible) those muddy colors and tones? Hope so.
Yes, a slight curve tweak can restore some contrast (and is almost always necessary especially with matt papers) but it can never fully compensate for the difference in dynamic range.
Does the difference in dynamic range cause the colors and tones to look "muddy" or does that happen from something else with softproofing?
-
Check this out-
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/softproof/softproof_1.htm
-
Check this out-
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/softproof/softproof_1.htm
Thank you! :)
-
Once I do the softproofing, the image looks terrible (as you all know from experience)...colors and tones look very muddy, not as saturated, etc.
Well, that is exactly why you need softproofing. To warn you for overly bright and saturated images.
If everything is setup correctly PS will show you the limits of what is possible in your prints. There is no way to go over these limits. If it was possible to go over these limits by means of colourcorrection softproofing would be meaningless.
Try the following; make a image with tree coloured squares 255 red, 255 green and 255 blue. Turn on softproofing. The coloured squares become pale and dull. Try to adjust them with Hue/Saturation. You will see that it is impossible to give them more saturation and clarity. PS will not allowed it!
Offcourse you can improve your image after softproofing to get more pleasing results but you can never exceed the limits of your printer and paper.
Ton
-
The answer is, I think, to avoid the problem altogether by saving the soft-proofed image under a different name. I use a name that identifies the paper/printer profile that was used for soft-proofing, and this image will be used only for printing to that printer/paper. Your original will still be available in LR without the soft-proofing changes.
-
Thanks guys, that looks like a very helpful resource. Do you know if that tutorial talks about how to undo (as much as possible) those muddy colors and tones? Hope so.
Does the difference in dynamic range cause the colors and tones to look "muddy" or does that happen from something else with softproofing?
"Dynamic Range" essentially measures the blackness of your blacks relative to white. Muddiness is a an appearance occurring from "less-than-black" blacks which could be grayish or grayish-brownish, etc., depending on the colours of the image. When you change the viewing medium from your display to a printed image three essential things are happening: (i) the blacks get dulled-down because paper black is not as black as monitor black, (ii) the luminosity of the image gets dulled down because paper reflects light whereas a monitor transmits light, and (iii) white is seldom perfectly white, and the off-white of the monitor does not necessarily match the off-white of the paper you are using. For example, relative to my monitor's version of white, Ilford Gold Fibre Silk has a very slight warm cast, whereas Epson Premium Luster has a blueish cast. The purpose of softproofing in Photoshop is for the program to show you on your monitor what the print will look like. To do this, when you activate the softproof, make sure you have the same printer profile loaded in the soft-proof that you will be using for colour-managing the print. Also make sure to check the box for Simulate Paper White, as this makes the soft-proof show the outcome more accurately. And it may even upset your stomach.
Now, with the softproof active, you can to a considerable extent adjust the image so that the impact of the change from monitor to print appears to the eye to be mitigated, even though in objective terms you cannot overcome the basic limitations of the paper and ink combination. The usual ways I implement it are the following: (1) Make sure your display is calibrated and profiled to a white point which corresponds well with the viewing conditions of the prints. Some people like D50, others D65. You find this out by experimenting. (2) Use a paper which minimizes the difference between monitor and print - so I use Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (but there are other similar papers) whose tone and finish produce a softproof much closer to the monitor image than achievable with a matte paper which has lower DR. However, if you insist on printing on matte, which has its artistic merits, you miss out on that convenience. (3) A Curves Adjustment Layer which is dedicated to the softproof condition: with the softproof active, you would find yourself steepening the curve somewhat to increase contrast and increasing its mid-tone brightness; this will for sure compress some of the tonal detail in the very dark areas of the image, but it will provide more "snap" which you are trying to recover; so there is a bit of a trade-off here between "snap" and dark area tonal gradation; (4) add a "Vibrance" Adjustment Layer, and moderately increase the vibrancy of the image, which will help to brighten up some colours which may appear relatively dulled by the softproof. (4) Back in the Curves Adjustment Layer, if you find that the softproof results in the image having a slight colour cast you don't like, you can counteract it with very moderate mid-point shifts of the individual R, G, or B, curves; for example, if you thought the image a bit too warm under softproof, you could select the Blue Channel and very moderately increase the blue component. But care is needed here, because it affects the whole image. I seldom find myself doing this.
It will really be great when LR has a soft-proofing function, because that will be one more reason for avoiding a trip to Photoshop by being able to print the raw image quite accurately directly from the raw converter. Till then, what's above should help.
-
Hey everyone I was also thinking about this stuff that the OP asked becasue I am fairly new to printing.
It is also important to note that the OP's printer itself, the inks he is using, and his paper choice all have limitations and that he may be finally seeing those limitations as he has now come to the final stage of printing.
On another point, I just asked another forum about using 'simulate paper color'. I was told that it was better not to use it. Here is the answer I got. I agreed with it but you guys are making me re-think things:
Here was my question:
I can only say that there is a difference between the softproof and non softproof image on my calibrated monitor. I am trying to make the two match as closely as possible and it looks a little bit more blue to my eyes than anything else such as yellow or red etc.
Here is the answer:
If you tick Simulate Paper Color the soft proof will look blue - the paper base is slightly blue and this is what is being simulated. To be more precise, the paper is bluer than your monitor white point, so the paper simulation looks blue when compared to your monitor white point. If you view the simulation in PS in Full Screen mode (press f f) on a black background you will probably find that the blue tint has gone. This is only because your eye adapts to the white point of the simulated paper.
You say that you get a good print/screen match with colour. Do you use the same soft proof regime for colour? Try putting a wide white border around one of you colour images and then doing the soft proof with SPC ticked. You'll probably see a blue tint there as well.
The bottom line really is, if you don't want the simulation to look blue against your grey PS desktop, don't tick the box.
What do you think now of checking 'simulate paper color' ?
-
On another point, I just asked another forum about using 'simulate paper color'. I was told that it was better not to use it.
Clearly the Adobe engineers provided a bad option... not. The Simulate Paper is very useful! Useful when used correctly, with good ICC profiles for display and output device.
If you tick Simulate Paper Color the soft proof will look blue - the paper base is slightly blue and this is what is being simulated. To be more precise, the paper is bluer than your monitor white point, so the paper simulation looks blue when compared to your monitor white point.
You suppose the calibrated white point of the display, based on the paper might be an issue here? Its a lot like the dreaded “my prints are too dark”, and those who suggest you alter the RGB values in the document when the issue isn’t the RGB values, its the way the display was (incorrectly based on the print viewing), calibrated. We have to calibrate a white point target. Using the paper(s) to produce this target values is kind of useful if you wish to produce a visual match.
If you view the simulation in PS in Full Screen mode (press f f) on a black background you will probably find that the blue tint has gone. This is only because your eye adapts to the white point of the simulated paper.
What you find in full screen mode is your eyes don’t adapt to the white of the UI and palettes which unfortunately do not under go the white simulation. So that’s good advise but it does make editing a tad more difficult. Full screen mode, with no UI elements, is useful when you wish to view only the soft proof and the print next to it to see if indeed the two visually match. Its useful to set the zoom ratio of the image on-screen to match the size of the print when possible.
-
Whoever gave you that advice = well I don't care who - it's misleading. Firstly, unless you check Simulate Paper White you will not see the influence of the paper on the print. Try it yourself. Make one print adjusted the way you like it without Simulate Paper White, make another print adjusted the way you like it with Simulate Paper White active, then compare them with the monitor images, and you will see which condition is best suited to your circumstances. Secondly, Simulate Paper White will only make the softproof look bluish if the paper itself is bluish - such as Epson's Premium Luster. However, the softproof will look slightly yellowish if the paper has a warmer tint, such as Ilford Gold Fibre Silk - in both cases assuming the profile is feeding back correct information. That's the whole point of softproofing - it is to simulate what you will get from the printer using the specific paper and profile with which you will be printing.
-
WEll I was reading the computer-darkroom link suggested above and I found this statement:
its under 'Display Options" about 3/4 of the way down.
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps11_colour/ps11_1.htm
"The resulting soft proof display can be quite disconcerting at first. By this I mean that the overall tone of the image may tend to look compressed or slightly color shifted (e.g. white takes on a blue cast). This can often occurs when using printer profiles that were created from scanner based profiling applications. In such circumstances it's probably best to leave the Simulate Paper Color and Black Ink options unchecked"
-
This can often occurs when using printer profiles that were created from scanner based profiling applications.
IOW, scanner based profiles suck! Again, the simulate options work well when used correctly with good ICC profiles (display and printer).
-
"Dynamic Range" essentially measures the blackness of your blacks relative to white. Muddiness is a an appearance occurring from...Now, with the softproof active, you can to a considerable extent adjust the image so that the impact of the change from monitor to print appears to the eye to be mitigated, even though in objective terms you cannot overcome the basic limitations of the paper and ink combination. The usual ways I implement it are the following: (1) Make sure your display is calibrated and profiled to a white point which corresponds well with the viewing conditions of the prints. Some people like D50, others D65. You find this out by experimenting. (2) Use a paper which minimizes the difference between monitor and print - so I use Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (but there are other similar papers) whose tone and finish produce a softproof much closer to the monitor image than achievable with a matte paper which has lower DR. However, if you insist on printing on matte, which has its artistic merits, you miss out on that convenience. (3) A Curves Adjustment Layer which is dedicated to the softproof condition: with the softproof active, you would find yourself steepening the curve somewhat to increase contrast and increasing its mid-tone brightness; this will for sure compress some of the tonal detail in the very dark areas of the image, but it will provide more "snap" which you are trying to recover; so there is a bit of a trade-off here between "snap" and dark area tonal gradation; (4) add a "Vibrance" Adjustment Layer, and moderately increase the vibrancy of the image, which will help to brighten up some colours which may appear relatively dulled by the softproof. (4) Back in the Curves Adjustment Layer, if you find that the softproof results in the image having a slight colour cast you don't like, you can counteract it with very moderate mid-point shifts of the individual R, G, or B, curves; for example, if you thought the image a bit too warm under softproof, you could select the Blue Channel and very moderately increase the blue component. But care is needed here, because it affects the whole image. I seldom find myself doing this.
Mark, thank you so much for all your helpful advice. I haven't had a chance to fool around with softproofing the past few days but I will give your suggestions a whirl and see what happens. I'll post here again if I have further questions/concerns.
Ok, since I'm new to printing, I need some advice here. I thought using a lab like WHCC was a good move. However, after reading the following two things in replies, I'm wondering if this isn't the way to go or if I should rethink things...
From Mark - Use a paper which minimizes the difference between monitor and print - so I use Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (but there are other similar papers) whose tone and finish produce a softproof much closer to the monitor image than achievable with a matte paper which has lower DR. However, if you insist on printing on matte, which has its artistic merits, you miss out on that convenience.
From Artistoc - It is also important to note that the OP's printer itself, the inks he is using, and his paper choice all have limitations and that he may be finally seeing those limitations as he has now come to the final stage of printing.
Does this mean that if I possibly went with a different lab who might use different paper, different ink, I wouldn't see such a bad looking change when I softproof? Is there a more "high-quality" lab out there I could use? I am SO new to all of this, I just assumed that WHCC was a good choice.
Also, would printing at home be better, since Mark said to use a paper which minimizes the difference between monitor and print? I was just trying to avoid more expense of a printer, having to deal with ink and paper, etc. Does printing yourself REALLY help you guys get more control over the accuracy of your prints versus using a lab? Please share your advice and experiences on this whole issue. If it does help you guys, like Mark said he has more control over the paper, I will give it a try if I have to. I think the two quotes I posted above are just throwing me for a loop since I thought once you have things properly calibrated and you softproof, you should be able to get great looking prints with labs like WHCC or MPix.
-
sorry Carol I have no experience with labs.
-
Does printing yourself REALLY help you guys get more control over the accuracy of your prints versus using a lab?
IF you are dealing with a lab that demands you send them sRGB (even after sending you a profile for soft proofing), the entire discussion here is moot. You MUST be able to convert the data using the profile, control rendering intent, CMM, etc and have them output that data. If they provide a profile but don’t let you use it, forget em, they are blowing color management smoke up your butt <g>.
-
IF you are dealing with a lab that demands you send them sRGB (even after sending you a profile for soft proofing), the entire discussion here is moot. You MUST be able to convert the data using the profile, control rendering intent, CMM, etc and have them output that data. If they provide a profile but don’t let you use it, forget em, they are blowing color management smoke up your butt <g>.
I'm confused. So are you saying you need to be able to send files in Adobe RGB instead of sRGB? I don't get it, you can't softproof a file in sRGB?? I don't understand what you're saying.
I've been sending my images to WHCC as jpegs. Can't jpegs only be in sRGB color space? WHCC says they can take Adobe RGB as well. huh? How would I do that?
What do you mean by "if they provide you with a profile but don't let you use it?" I don't really understand what you're saying. Sorry, I'm a newb to all of this. Thanks.
-
WHCC takes whatever profile you assign to the image. I print with them occasionally and what I do is edit my image in Photoshop (16-bit, Prophoto or Adobe RGB color space) and then when I'm ready to print I export jpg without changing the colorspace. I used to do this out of Photoshop but I've been getting in the habit of saving the TIFF and then exporting out of Lightroom (which also allows you to specify the resulting color space).
You might be confusing color space with bit depth, JPGs can only be 8-bit but aren't limited to the sRGB color space.
I'm not experienced with soft proofing, so this thread was interesting to me, but thought I'd chime in about a part of the discussion I do know something about. 8)
-
I'm confused. So are you saying you need to be able to send files in Adobe RGB instead of sRGB?
No, you need to send the files in the output color space described by the profile used to soft proof.
Can't jpegs only be in sRGB color space?
Because the device doesn’t output sRGB. It outputs some color space based on the profile provided for soft proofing. Once you soft proof, you’ve decided on a rendering intent. You’ve selected Black Point Compensation (and a CMM that supports it). If you soft proof this way but don’t convert, we have no idea if the lab uses that profile or those settings. Likely not. Otherwise why not allow you to use said profile?
Sending you an output profile solely for soft proofing, then demanding you not fully use it is a half baked idea of color management.
-
RobWalstrom - Thanks for your input!
No, you need to send the files in the output color space described by the profile used to soft proof.
How do you know what output color space the profile has? The WHCC profile I'm using is called WHCC-Lustre up to 12x18. Does it show up in PS somewhere when you apply it?
Sending you an output profile solely for soft proofing, then demanding you not fully use it is a half baked idea of color management.
When you say "fully use it" does that mean I should be able to actually embed their profile in my files? So far the labs I've looked at and tried, WHCC and MPix, both say you do not embed the profile, it's just meant for softproofing. WHCC's site says..."Do not embed these profiles in your files, only use them with Photoshop's "Soft Proofing" function." So this is the half-baked approach to color management you were talking about? I always thought the point of softproofing was just to apply it to your images to see how they'll print on the lab's printers, then edit the image to get it to look better and send it that way in the color space's they accept...RGB or AdobeRGB. This isn't how it works?
If I am supposed to be embedding the lab profile, first how do you do that and second, what labs allow you to do that??
-
How do you know what output color space the profile has? The WHCC profile I'm using is called WHCC-Lustre up to 12x18. Does it show up in PS somewhere when you apply it?
Presumably the profile supplied for soft proofing is what you’d use to convert. You should ensure that. And again, if the lab demands sRGB, you can’t use the profile supplied for soft proofing for conversions.
When you say "fully use it" does that mean I should be able to actually embed their profile in my files?
Convert (and embed).
So far the labs I've looked at and tried, WHCC and MPix, both say you do not embed the profile, it's just meant for softproofing.
Right, that’s stupid. If you supply a profile for soft proofing, you should be able to use it for conversion and embedding. They don’t want you to do that. Forget soft proofing (forget using them as a lab if your aim is a full color management path).
WHCC's site says..."Do not embed these profiles in your files, only use them with Photoshop's "Soft Proofing" function."
They don’t have a clue about color management, that’s my point.
Its like giving a staving dog a rubber bone and telling the dog “don’t eat the bone”. Its silly.
I always thought the point of softproofing was just to apply it to your images to see how they'll print on the lab's printers, then edit the image to get it to look better and send it that way in the color space's they accept...RGB or AdobeRGB. This isn't how it works?
Part of the process is seeing the effect of the profile. The options have to be selected by the user, for example the rendering intent. You have no idea if the lab even use that profile for conversion let along what rendering intent. And if the DO use the profile (which I doubt), why not allow you to use it, pick the CMM, rendering intent, etc? Because their idea of color management is half baked.
-
Presumably the profile supplied for soft proofing is what you’d use to convert. You should ensure that. And again, if the lab demands sRGB, you can’t use the profile supplied for soft proofing for conversions.
Digital Dog, do you know of any helpful articles you could point me to online that explain "converting" because I am not clear on what it is and when to do it. Maybe you've written an article explaining this??
They don’t have a clue about color management, that’s my point.
Do you know of any reputable labs online that would allow me to fully use the profile like you're referring to? If anyone else has any labs they could point me to, please chime in.
-
Digital Dog, do you know of any helpful articles you could point me to online that explain "converting" because I am not clear on what it is and when to do it. Maybe you've written an article explaining this??
Do you know of any reputable labs online that would allow me to fully use the profile like you're referring to? If anyone else has any labs they could point me to, please chime in.
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200406_rodneycm.pdf
Pictopia supplies and allows you to actually fully use their output profiles. Try www.pictopia.com
-
In the below link it is said....
"Please note: You do not need to convert your files to our profiles. This is done automatically by our Chromira. Leave your files in their RGB workingspace."
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html
Below is another link to an article titled "The Hard Truth about Soft Proofs". Where it is said....
"We use ICC profiles with all of our output devices to achieve accurate and repeatable color. To get the most from our color management, your file should be tagged with its workingspace profile. There is no need to convert your file to our output profiles, since our printing software does it for you."
http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/photoshoptip/tip35.html
I do soft proof (using profiles supplied by them) to try to offset the effects of paper & black point to some degree, but don't usually look for exact color matching as the proof colors are generally acceptable. I also submit my files in a working color space, usually aRGB. Although I don't use their Chromira as much as their Epson inkjet, I assume their printing software would automatically convert my aRGB working space to the inkjet profile as well.
Their printer profiles I've been using to soft proof appear to have a Relative Colorimetric rendering intent by default. Is it correct to say that as long as I don't change the rendering intent, I can submit my files in aRGB and the tweaks I've made while soft proofing will have the desired effect, because they are automatically converting to the same profile and rendering intent I used?
Is it also correct to say that if I preferred to change to the Perceptual rendering intent on an image, that to see the same changes in the print I would then have to convert my aRGB image file to their printer profile while it was set to use the Perceptual intent? Presumably because if I didn't, when they automatically convert my file from aRGB to their printer profile, their profile would be using the Relative Colorimetric intent by default. Would such an embedded printer profile in fact override their default when the file is sent to the printer? IOW Their printing software wouldn't convert my embedded (Perceptual) profile back to their default (Relative) profile.
Regards,
Frank
-
Below is another link to an article titled "The Hard Truth about Soft Proofs". Where it is said....
"We use ICC profiles with all of our output devices to achieve accurate and repeatable color. To get the most from our color management, your file should be tagged with its workingspace profile. There is no need to convert your file to our output profiles, since our printing software does it for you."
They should change the title to “Our Bullshit about Soft Proofs".
I do soft proof (using profiles supplied by them) to try to offset the effects of paper & black point to some degree, but don't usually look for exact color matching as the proof colors are generally acceptable. I also submit my files in a working color space, usually aRGB. Although I don't use their Chromira as much as their Epson inkjet, I assume their printing software would automatically convert my aRGB working space to the inkjet profile as well.
So when you soft proof, do you pick a rendering intent? If so which one (its image specific) and how do we know what the lab uses?
Do we know the lab actually used the profile you provided for soft proofing to convert to the output color space?
Do we know if they used Black Point Compensation?
Do we know what CMM they used?
Do we know the profile actually reflects the current conditions of the output device? Or its a profile built years ago and is the device still producing the behavior the profile describes and by how much?
Their printer profiles I've been using to soft proof appear to have a Relative Colorimetric rendering intent by default. Is it correct to say that as long as I don't change the rendering intent, I can submit my files in aRGB and the tweaks I've made while soft proofing will have the desired effect, because they are automatically converting to the same profile and rendering intent I used?
No because we don’t know what the lab is doing after you send them sRGB. Nor why you can’t just convert using their profile, as you desire and they simply refuse to send the numbers as is to the output device. And why do you have to funnel your original data into a tiny, pretty piss poor RGB working space just to get to that output color space?
Is it also correct to say that if I preferred to change to the Perceptual rendering intent on an image, that to see the same changes in the print I would then have to convert my aRGB image file to their printer profile while it was set to use the Perceptual intent?
Since we don’t know what the lab is doing with the sRGB data as mentioned above, all bets are off.
Here’s the deal. Either the lab is clueless about modern color management, or they want you to think they are implementing sound color management when what they really want to do is crank out as many prints as possible without alerting their front end workflow. I have no problem if a lab wants a pure sRGB front end workflow and demand you send them sRGB. When they put out pure BS messages about color management, send you profiles you can’t fully use, pretend they are color managed, it pisses me off as it should their customers. Either do the process correctly and provide profiles you can use fully, or don’t provide profiles, tell users its sRGB and be done. This half ass approach is simply a big lie to customers who think they are getting a color managed work flown when in fact they are not. And there are labs that do fully implement a color managed process, provide profiles you can fully use, work real hard to maintain process control so the profiles are sound and useful.
-
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200406_rodneycm.pdf
Pictopia supplies and allows you to actually fully use their output profiles. Try www.pictopia.com
Thanks for the link and lab suggestion. Pictopia looks good, I'm gonna give them a whirl. Only downside I noticed is they don't support 16-bit images. I read an article saying you get better image quality with 16-bit versus 8. Do any labs out there take 16-bit? Do you guys notice a difference in printing 8 versus 16? Wondering if it would help with color banding, etc.
I noticed Pictopia takes TIFF's as well as JPEG. Am I correct in assuming you get better image quality if you send in TIFF versus JPEG? Advice?
-
Only downside I noticed is they don't support 16-bit images. I read an article saying you get better image quality with 16-bit versus 8.
For editing images, you want to be working in 16-bit. For output, should make little if any difference and in fact, only a few output device drivers fully support a high bit print path. The vast majority convert to 8-bits per color going to the printer anyway. Convert to the output space, then convert to 8-bits per color and send. If the JPEG quality is high, you’ll probably see zero differences from a TIFF IF file uploading speeds and sizes are an issue. If not, just send them a TIFF.
-
They should change the title to Our Bullshit about Soft Proofs".
I can appreciate that they would want to promote hard proofing since that's how they make their money. But it does seem somewhat disingenuous not to mention the benefits of using soft proofing simply to help mitigate the negative effects of the "make my image look ugly" button. I think my first post was somewhat misleading in that I didn't make it clear that's all I wanted to do. I got wrapped up in rendering intents simply because they're in the same dialog as the Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink settings.
I guess you could say I wasn't looking to "fully use" their profile but rather "temporarily" use it just to display the effects of the Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink settings on my monitor so I could make edits to my AdobeRGB image that would offset those effects to some extent. I admit to being somewhat naive about how the other settings (rendering intent and BPC) would be passed along to the printing service, but again it wasn't my intent to do that. It can get somewhat confusing when most of the tutorials and info found about soft proofing are for people who print to their own printer. Sending to a print lab is a different animal and not nearly as straightforward.
What you say about converting to the printer profile makes perfect sense for all the reasons you mentioned. Thanks for giving me a better understanding of how rendering intent and BPC are passed along to a printing service.
However, I'd like to straighten out a thing or two and ask a couple more questions. I'm a bit late responding because I emailed the lab and that took some time.
-I didn't say I sent the lab sRGB, it was aRGB. They request a working space, not necessarily sRGB. Please note that I'm using their PrintLab service, it's less expensive than their custom service in that it's for images that have already been post-processed. And yes it is likely set up to crank out as many prints as possible, hence the lower cost.
-With the understanding that my sole purpose for soft proofing was to mitigate the effects of the Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink settings and NOT to pass the rendering intent on to the printing service, would you agree that sending the file to the lab in my aRGB working color space would reflect my soft proofing edits in the print? IOW The print would be more ugly without the edits <g>
-The lab uses perceptual intent with black point compensation as the default settings for their PrintLab printers. I suspect that they request files for this service to be in a working color space because it is an automated environment, because people are more likely to have files in a working space, and because it's less complicated than fiddling with a printer profile (especially for those who don't soft proof or haven't any other reason to use a printer profile). However, that they request a working space isn't to say they demand one. People who do soft proof and want to override the PrintLab's default perceptual intent can do so. It was explained to me like this...
1-Convert the aRGB (or whatever) working space to the printer profile using the relative colorimetric intent
2-Save the file UNTAGGED (with no embedded profile)
3-Upload the file to the PrintLab
4-On the order form you fill out, note those changes so the lab can output your file properly.
-With regard to the age of printer profiles. Their Chromira profiles are dated 10/28/10 (1 week old), the previous one was dated 11/08. An Epson inkjet profile I requested back in June was dated 11/07. FYI I just downloaded Pictopia's profiles and they are dated 3/18/2010. In your experience, would the age of a profile make a difference when one is soft proofing only to mitigate the effects of the Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink settings? And if so, how old would be too old? Would the same apply if one wanted to change the rendering intent, or would the age limit be different. I suspect the rendering intent could be more sensitive to dated profiles but would love to hear what you have to say about it. Given that you recommend Pictopia, and that their profiles are 8 months old, it seems there's a good deal of wiggle room when it comes to dated profiles.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion I might have caused and answers most of your questions. And thanks again for enlightening me on these issues.
Regards,
Frank
-
But it does seem somewhat disingenuous not to mention the benefits of using soft proofing simply to help mitigate the negative effects of the "make my image look ugly" button.
Soft proofing is a wonderful capability that I fully support (unlike some out there). But you need to use the profile that was used for soft proofing to convert the data. This is where some labs mess up.
I guess you could say I wasn't looking to "fully use" their profile but rather "temporarily" use it just to display the effects of the Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink settings on my monitor so I could make edits to my AdobeRGB image that would offset those effects to some extent.
Why bother if the profile isn’t used as you setup the soft proof (or used at all)? Might as well pick a profile for your Epson printer, soft proof and send off the sRGB data to the lab.
-I didn't say I sent the lab sRGB, it was aRGB. They request a working space, not necessarily sRGB.
IF its not the actual output space you used for the soft proof, output using the settings for rendering intent, BPC etc, it doesn’t matter. You either fully embrace the color management workflow or don’t do it at all because once you hand off that Adobe RGB (1998) document, we have no idea what happens to those RGB values.
-With the understanding that my sole purpose for soft proofing was to mitigate the effects of the Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink settings and NOT to pass the rendering intent on to the printing service, would you agree that sending the file to the lab in my aRGB working color space would reflect my soft proofing edits in the print? IOW The print would be more ugly without the edits <g>
I would not agree. We simply have no idea what happens to that data after you send it. We have no idea if the profile even reflects the conditions of the output device on the day they sent the RGB values to the device.
-The lab uses perceptual intent with black point compensation as the default settings for their PrintLab printers.
So if you soft proof and prefer the Relative Colorimetric intent (which many of us prefer most often but its image specific), now what do you do?
I suspect that they request files for this service to be in a working color space because it is an automated environment, because people are more likely to have files in a working space, and because it's less complicated than fiddling with a printer profile (especially for those who don't soft proof or haven't any other reason to use a printer profile).
IOW, its kind of a machine print. Labs should be up front and just tell you its a machine print. Then just skip sending ICC profiles, taking about soft proofing etc and just crank the working space files through the system and be done. Either conduct the process correctly or treat the workflow like a machine print. I have no issue with either.
1-Convert the aRGB (or whatever) working space to the printer profile using the relative colorimetric intent
2-Save the file UNTAGGED (with no embedded profile)
3-Upload the file to the PrintLab
4-On the order form you fill out, note those changes so the lab can output your file properly.
OK so you CAN send the data in the printer output space using the printer profile with (for whatever reason only) the RelCol intent? IF so, just do that. Then you KNOW (well hopefully) the RGB values will be sent to the output device in that output color space as you soft proofed it.
-With regard to the age of printer profiles. Their Chromira profiles are dated 10/28/10 (1 week old), the previous one was dated 11/08. An Epson inkjet profile I requested back in June was dated 11/07. FYI I just downloaded Pictopia's profiles and they are dated 3/18/2010. In your experience, would the age of a profile make a difference when one is soft proofing only to mitigate the effects of the Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink settings? And if so, how old would be too old?
The date of the profile isn’t important, what IS important is the device continues to reflect the conditions the profile describes. Look at the date of say a paper profile from an Epson 2200. As long as the printer remains in the condition when the profile was made, the age is not at all important. Device stability is the key.
Regards,
Frank
[/quote]
-
Frank, I’ve had prints made by West Coast Imaging. They do a wonderful, professional job and are a pleasure to work with. At my request WCI happily made the conversions to their profiles using relative colorimetric. (Like you, I was using their PrintLab service but my prints were made using their Epson printers.)
On one occasion, WCI mistakenly made a couple of large prints using perceptual intent. When I brought this mistake to their attention, they immediately offered to send me new prints. I told them that after seeing the first prints that I also wanted to make a couple of minor changes to the photos. WCI said that that was fine, I could make the changes, and they would still send me the new prints at no cost.
I have no relationship with WCI other than as a very satisfied customer. Give them a try, Frank. I expect that you’ll be as impressed with them as I am.
-
OK so you CAN send the data in the printer output space using the printer profile with (for whatever reason only) the RelCol intent? IF so, just do that. Then you KNOW (well hopefully) the RGB values will be sent to the output device in that output color space as you soft proofed it.
digitaldog,
OK, understood.
But in that case I would be using a rendering intent (RelCol) that I know is NOT their default. What if I soft proofed using perceptual intent and knowing they would print with that intent by default, would it then still be necessary for me to convert to their printer profile from AdobeRGB when I know they would be using the same profile to convert the same AdobeRGB file automatically? I mean, it seems to be the same conversion taking place using the same profile, but it's just a matter of who's doing the work. The difference is that I don't have to make a conversion, or save without an embedded profile, or retain a backup of the untagged file, or give them special instructions for printing. All I have to do is send them the AdobeRGB file and let them make the conversion automatically. Simple is better unless it's the wrong thing to do. Your guidance would again be appreciated.
The date of the profile isn’t important, what IS important is the device continues to reflect the conditions the profile describes. Look at the date of say a paper profile from an Epson 2200. As long as the printer remains in the condition when the profile was made, the age is not at all important. Device stability is the key.
This seems to be where an element of trust is involved. FWIW I do trust this printing service to maintain their machines in a stable condition. And should the condition change, I trust they will furnish new profiles, as they recently have with their Chromira. Having said that, I do believe that they and I are using the same profile to make conversions.
Regards,
Frank
-
But in that case I would be using a rendering intent (RelCol) that I know is NOT their default.
The idea its a default seems goofy. IF you can convert the data using their profile (and not embed the profile), there is zero reason why you can’t use Perceptual or RelCol. They are just sending the converted RGB data to the output device, it has no idea what the rendering intent is.
-
The idea its a default seems goofy.
I don't think it's goofy. After all, their PrintLab service *IS* an automated environment. I would guess that >90% of their PrintLab customers don't care about color mgmt, don't use profiles to soft proof, and likely don't even know what an ICC profile is. Why should they burden or confuse the vast majority of customers with conversions when all the customer wants to do is submit their aRGB or sRGB files and have them printed? Surely they'd lose customers if they made it too hard or confusing for them.
They say up front that they automatically convert to the printer profile FOR the customer (just so the customer doesn't have to do it). Which brings us to this default stuff. When they convert automatically they MUST choose a rendering intent (no?), so they decided to use Perceptual as a default. Surely they're not going to make a judgment call as to which intent looks best for each image, that would be a job for their custom service not the PrintLab service. Also, a default guarantees that subsequent reprints at a later date would be handled the same as the first, a judgment call IMO would lead to some unhappy repeat customers who had the same file printed at different times but with different intents being applied by the printer operator. Customers would complain that their 2nd print is different than the 1st. Again, it's an automated process, if anything begs for a default it would be that.
The remaining 10%, who want to depart from the Perceptual default and use RelCol can do so by furnishing special instructions with their PrintLab order. Understandably these customers would not have their files mixed in with the others because it would obviously slow down the production of prints (eg: this one gets automatically converted, that one doesn't, etc), such decisions also beg for operator error. At the beginning of the work day I suspect they may queue all the files to be automatically converted together, then start the printer and let it run its course using the default Perceptual intent. Then they'd queue all the files that don't get automatically converted (where customers already converted themselves and didn't embed any profile in the file), send them straight to the printer and let them run their course. The only decision is which batch of files to run first. Although I'm not in the business and haven't the foggiest idea how any lab would actually set up their production, I think the use of a default would be in the interest of efficiency and repeatability, and makes ordering prints much easier/simpler for the vast majority of PrintLab customers.
IF you can convert the data using their profile (and not embed the profile), there is zero reason why you can’t use Perceptual or RelCol. They are just sending the converted RGB data to the output device, it has no idea what the rendering intent is.
I agree, I can use either, and would certainly convert and not embed the profile for images using RelCol. But my question was...
If I want an image to use Perceptual, why should I even bother to convert to their profile when they would automatically convert for me AND BY DEFAULT print with Perceptual intent as well?
With this scenario the same conversion would be performed, using the same profile, and using the same Perceptual intent -- it's just a matter of WHO does the work since either way the same RGB data would be sent to the output device. Would you agree?
Regards,
Frank
-
Andrew, maybe some clarification would be good.
When you talk about converting to the printer profile, you're talking about when prints are being made with Frontiers, Chromiras and the like, yes? You're not talking about prints made with inkjets which would (or should) go through a workflow like what we do when we print our own, right? Because I don't think I've heard of anyone suggesting converting to the paper profile when printing to an inkjet in a properly colour managed workflow. Or have I missed something along the way?
-
When you talk about converting to the printer profile, you're talking about when prints are being made with Frontiers, Chromiras and the like, yes? You're not talking about prints made with inkjets which would (or should) go through a workflow like what we do when we print our own, right? Because I don't think I've heard of anyone suggesting converting to the paper profile when printing to an inkjet in a properly colour managed workflow. Or have I missed something along the way?
Any of the above. When you print to your ink jet, when you select the output profile in Photoshop’s Print dialog (or in Lightroom‘s Print module), the working space gets converted on the fly to the output color space during printing. Obviously with an outside lab, you have to use Convert to Profile to save off an iteration that can be sent to the lab.
-
I don't think it's goofy. After all, their PrintLab service *IS* an automated environment.
Frank, if they tell you they will provide a profile and will allow you to use it and send them the data in the output color space, it make zero sense they tell you want rendering intent you must use. The output color space (the new RGB values) are what they are and should get sent to the device. The device has no idea what rendering intent was selected and used. Its just a big pile of new, RGB values. So if the lab tells you that you can utilize the profile, you should be able to use RelCol or Perceptual (even Saturation) if you prefer that soft proof and want to send those RGB values to the printer.
If I want an image to use Perceptual, why should I even bother to convert to their profile when they would automatically convert for me AND BY DEFAULT print with Perceptual intent as well?
IF the lab demands sRGB or some working space and will not allow you to use the profile as you wish, we’re back to an even goofier non color management workflow where the end user has to assume that the profile will be used.
-
Any of the above. When you print to your ink jet, when you select the output profile in Photoshop’s Print dialog (or in Lightroom‘s Print module), the working space gets converted on the fly to the output color space during printing. Obviously with an outside lab, you have to use Convert to Profile to save off an iteration that can be sent to the lab.
Right. Exactly. So if the print is being sent to an external service provider and it's being printed on an inkjet and you're confident that the lab uses a properly colour managed workflow and uses the proper paper profile in sending the image to the printer, then there's no need to convert to the paper profile.
I get the need to do it for Frontiers. As I understand it, there's no way to invoke a profile in the printing process with a Frontier so converting to the printer profile is necessary. I'm not familiar with Chromiras or Lamdas so dont' know if they work similarly.
-
As I understand it, there's no way to invoke a profile in the printing process with a Frontier so converting to the printer profile is necessary.
No, it depends on the front end software being used.
-
digitaldog,
Thanks for being so patient.
So if the print is being sent to an external service provider and it's being printed on an inkjet and you're confident that the lab uses a properly colour managed workflow and uses the proper paper profile in sending the image to the printer, then there's no need to convert to the paper profile.
BobFisher has essentially described what happens when a working space is sent to WCI's PrintLab service, I would only add that WCI would convert such a file using Perceptual intent due to the PrintLab's automated nature.
Frank, if they tell you they will provide a profile and will allow you to use it and send them the data in the output color space, it make zero sense they tell you want rendering intent you must use. The output color space (the new RGB values) are what they are and should get sent to the device. The device has no idea what rendering intent was selected and used. Its just a big pile of new, RGB values. So if the lab tells you that you can utilize the profile, you should be able to use RelCol or Perceptual (even Saturation) if you prefer that soft proof and want to send those RGB values to the printer.
IF the lab demands sRGB or some working space and will not allow you to use the profile as you wish, we’re back to an even goofier non color management workflow where the end user has to assume that the profile will be used.
My point is that when using a Perceptual soft proof, the same big pile of new RGB numbers would be sent to the device whether I did the conversion or they did it. At least that's how I see it, we're using the same profile, and doing the same conversion, and using the same Perceptual intent.
Another way to put it is that they offer two options for a file soft proofed with the Perceptual intent. Either they automatically convert the file from its working space using the Perceptual intent, or I do it manually and send an untagged file and give them special instructions NOT to do the same thing automatically.
IF the lab demands sRGB or some working space and will not allow you to use the profile as you wish, we’re back to an even goofier non color management workflow where the end user has to assume that the profile will be used.
Actually you could say WCI's PrintLab service does both, as they don't "demand" a working space but offer options to send either a file with a working space -OR- an untagged file converted to the printer profile.
a) When sent a file with a working space, they will automatically convert to the proper printer profile using the Perceptual intent.
b) When sent an untagged file already converted to the printer profile, as instructed they will not convert before sending it to the printer.
I want to use a) above when soft proofing with Perceptual because I don't need to convert, store or save a special iteration in order to maintain the Perceptual intent. And I want to use b) when soft proofing with RelCol so my file won't be automatically and inadvertently (double) profiled with the wrong (Perceptual) intent.
Regardless of how goofy this all sounds, what I need to know is "what is wrong" about sending them a file in a working space when I soft proofed using Perceptual and we know they will convert using Perpetual, and we know they will convert with the same profile I would use to convert. Would the print not be the same regardless of who converted the file? If not, then something is wrong and I'm just not getting it. To me the obvious answer is to use a) when soft proofing with Perceptual simply because it's less work on my end. However, doing the obvious did get me into a jam over rendering intents, and this color mgmt stuff is quite tricky and not as intuitive as it seems. So, as goofy as it sounds, and as goofy as it may be to confirm the obvious for me -- would the prints not be the same? And if not, why.
Regards,
Frank
-
My point is that when using a Perceptual soft proof, the same big pile of new RGB numbers would be sent to the device whether I did the conversion or they did it. At least that's how I see it, we're using the same profile, and doing the same conversion, and using the same Perceptual intent.
Yes, assuming they used the same profile, CMM, BPC etc. And any hope of applying output specific edits after conversion is off the table here.
Another way to put it is that they offer two options for a file soft proofed with the Perceptual intent. Either they automatically convert the file from its working space using the Perceptual intent, or I do it manually and send an untagged file and give them special instructions NOT to do the same thing automatically.
I’d go Option 2. I want to fully control the conversions and post editing, I want to know that the output values are being sent to the printer that I generated.
Actually you could say WCI's PrintLab service does both, as they don't "demand" a working space but offer options to send either a file with a working space -OR- an untagged file converted to the printer profile.
I was speaking generally of all labs, not WCI specifically in terms of best practices.
b) When sent an untagged file already converted to the printer profile, as instructed they will not convert before sending it to the printer.
Again, I’d use B. And it should make no difference if I use RelCol here.
I want to use a) above when soft proofing with Perceptual because I don't need to convert, store or save a special iteration in order to maintain the Perceptual intent. And I want to use b) when soft proofing with RelCol so my file won't be automatically and inadvertently (double) profiled with the wrong (Perceptual) intent.
That will (should) work.
Regardless of how goofy this all sounds, what I need to know is "what is wrong" about sending them a file in a working space when I soft proofed using Perceptual and we know they will convert using Perpetual, and we know they will convert with the same profile I would use to convert.
What would be goofy is a lab demanding you use Perceptual for workflow B (it would make no difference). What’s super goofy is providing you a profile you can’t use.
Would the print not be the same regardless of who converted the file?
Unless you hit a bug with some CMM (and you’d have to ask the lab what CMM they use), that option would not make a big difference. But Black Point Compensation could. If the didn’t use it and you did, there could be an issue or lets say a disconnect between you and them doing the conversions. If you wanted to post edit the image after conversion, well then you have to use option B.
-
That will (should) work.
Unless you hit a bug with some CMM (and you’d have to ask the lab what CMM they use), that option would not make a big difference. But Black Point Compensation could. If the didn’t use it and you did, there could be an issue or lets say a disconnect between you and them doing the conversions. If you wanted to post edit the image after conversion, well then you have to use option B.
Thank you very much digitaldog. BTW They do use Black Point Compensation. Now I feel more comfortable using option A, and should some sort of a disonnect arise I can always resort to using B for everything.
Regards,
Frank
-
Ok, since I'm new to printing, I need some advice here. I thought using a lab like WHCC was a good move. However, after reading the following two things in replies, I'm wondering if this isn't the way to go or if I should rethink things...
WHCC in my experience is not a very good lab. They're more interested in volume. They used to be better but when they switched from Kodak to Fuji paper (I think that happened around 2006ish), everything went downhill quality wise (in a very major way) and their attitude towards the user feedback they were getting was pretty poor. When that happened, a lot of wedding and portrait studios (myself included) switched over to Fotoworks whose output was much better. Around the beginning of 2008 I switched to using Pro DPI for all of my RA-4 prints (for both print sales and album printing). They use Fuji paper and their profiles are absolutely brilliant (at least in my opinion). In dealing with them they've always struck me as a lab that is more concerned with offering a quality product than they are with tons of volume.
They are Adobe RGB friendly. I believe they'll actually take any profile you throw at them (at least I seem to remember exchanging some emails with the owner to that effect... don't quote me, call 'em up to verify).
http://www.prodpi.com
Cheers, Joe
-
Digital Dog
I am new to this thread and am trying to work my way through the more contentious (and perhaps esoteric) view points. But in the meantime you provided the link below in an earlier post in this thread which I found a really helpful concise summary.
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200406_rodneycm.pdf
Would it be possible to provide the links to the complete series?I tried to go to the source but could not easily find it.
Thanks
-
Would it be possible to provide the links to the complete series?I tried to go to the source but could not easily find it.
They are all on my web page.