Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Mike Guilbault on June 23, 2011, 10:27:47 am
-
Just curious. Even with a fully calibrated workflow, do you find that you often reprint an image with some adjustments? In other words, if you do everything possible BEFORE the image is actually printed - do you find that once you see the real print it sometimes needs more work?
Second part to this inquiry is; I understand that monitors can change over time and therefore the need to be regularly calibrated. However, once you have an image printing exactly the way you want it, do you make further adjustments, lets say when your monitor has been re-calibrated a dozen time, or do you print directly from the file that you were happy with in the first place without further adjustments?
-
If a file has been adjusted and you are happy with the print, an uncalibrated monitor will not effect subsequent prints. The monitor is not part of the print pipeline. IOW, if you intentionally remove red from the monitor by messing with the RGB adjustments, your image will look bad, but if you don't adjust the file, it'll print the same as it did last time.
-
Just curious. Even with a fully calibrated workflow, do you find that you often reprint an image with some adjustments? In other words, if you do everything possible BEFORE the image is actually printed - do you find that once you see the real print it sometimes needs more work?
Second part to this inquiry is; I understand that monitors can change over time and therefore the need to be regularly calibrated. However, once you have an image printing exactly the way you want it, do you make further adjustments, lets say when your monitor has been re-calibrated a dozen time, or do you print directly from the file that you were happy with in the first place without further adjustments?
I can give you a statistical and a qualitative answer to that question. As of now on my Epson 4900 after about six months of use my "waste ratio" is about 7%. That means about 7% of the square footage I've printed I've trashed because I was disappointed with the results. Now the qualitative part: more often than not this happens because despite a good colour management set-up that is normally very reliable, my appreciation of what I've seen on the display doesn't cohere with what comes out in the print - and it is usually related to spot areas of brightness rather than colour, or bits of debris I missed on my high-res display get faithfully reproduced on paper, where they show!
I don't touch any aspect of colour management set-up until I start seeing evidence of systemic under-performance. When that happens, the first suspect would be the need to re-profile the display. Once reprofiled, I would just test it with a known reference printer test image, and as needed, re-profile until the matching is back where it should be. That said, I have been using my NEC PA271W for over half a year and have not seen the need to reprofile it yet.
-
Just curious. Even with a fully calibrated workflow, do you find that you often reprint an image with some adjustments? In other words, if you do everything possible BEFORE the image is actually printed - do you find that once you see the real print it sometimes needs more work?
Mike, I have a simple answer to this one. I have zero wastage of my final prints because my editing process is exactly the same as it was in the darkroom - I print one or more workprints as I go along (often as many as three or four) to assess my progress with the picture. These workprints are sized at postcard size, so I get two on an A5 sheet. Of course, this does represent ink and paper wastage for every print I make, but the big ones are always OK as a result. I do have a good monitor and it is pretty trustworthy, but there is always a difference between transmitted and reflected light. And the nice part is that I can take the workprints downstairs, prop them up on the kitchen table, and have a think about how things are going over a coffee, or next morning during breakfast ;)
John
-
I usually print a small "grab of the image first, then if I think I'm where I want to be, I'll print a small version..say 8x10ish. If that matches the original art, then I will go ahead and make my final sized prints.
My feeling is that you can have everything calibrated out the wazoo but the final judgment is in an ACTUAL printout. That's when I might see something in highlight (or shadow) I might have missed and can then make adjustments before wasting large amounts of paper.
-
Just curious. Even with a fully calibrated workflow, do you find that you often reprint an image with some adjustments? In other words, if you do everything possible BEFORE the image is actually printed - do you find that once you see the real print it sometimes needs more work?
Second part to this inquiry is; I understand that monitors can change over time and therefore the need to be regularly calibrated. However, once you have an image printing exactly the way you want it, do you make further adjustments, lets say when your monitor has been re-calibrated a dozen time, or do you print directly from the file that you were happy with in the first place without further adjustments?
Hi Mike,
In some respects I think you've already answered your second question. You have stated that the image is "exactly the way you want it". Therefore, regardless of the calibration quality of your display, it will have no effect on the file from which that image was printed. Of course there could be other factors, such as profile quality and the consistency of the printer. Indeed, if the image looked terrible on a particular display, it would still print just as well as the one with which you have already been satisfied. After all, it's the end product you are concerned about, not what you see on the display, correct? Now of course that doesn't negate the possibility of further corrections in the future, but they would most likely be initiated by your desire to try something different and perhaps better with that particular image. What you settle for today may not be up to your standards at some point in the future. The display is simply a conduit from the computer to your eye, and no matter how tight your colour management is it will never match exactly what you see on paper, canvas or whatever substrate you prefer. That's not to say that a well calibrated system isn't necessary, and I think we all know that it most certainly is, but we also know that perfection simply does not exist in this medium. Trial and error -- in other words, testing! Don't know if this helps in any way, but occasionally I enjoy voicing an opinion.
Gary
-
I typically am making 4 5x7 work prints before pulling the final 17x22. Usually the last two of those are not to so much to dial in what I want but to give me variants to compare to see which "feel" I like the best, that kind of comparison doesn't work for me on the screen as well. I find that when it comes to the final print I want something a tad darker than what looks good to me on the screen for some reason (I'm not talking about mis-calibration or mismatch, but the effect of a emissive and reflective medium). I rarely reprint a full size print, and then its usually because I decided on a different approach after seeing the final -- a different crop or other major adjustment.
-
Don't know if this helps in any way, but occasionally I enjoy voicing an opinion.
Gary
and sometimes I ask a question just to reinforce my own thoughts.. ;)
The reason I asked this time, is that I'm working on an image and the shadows are coming out a little too dark. There's detail on my monitor that I'm not seeing in the print. At first I was thinking it's one of those "My prints are coming out too dark" problems, but everything else about the print is accurate. I'm printing on Epson Cold Press Natural using the Epson profile. The blacks are rich and not necessarily too dark, just missing some detail. Rendering intent is set to Relative... I may try Perceptual.
-
Just curious...
What is the measured contrast ratio of the monitor after profiling?
-
I believe it was 642:1 - or somewhere around there.
I lightened the shadows a little and printed with Perceptual Rendering and it's quite a bit better. I think part of the problem is that my eyes haven't been calibrated in a while. ;)
-
I think part of the problem is that my eyes haven't been calibrated in a while. ;)
Yeah...that's a real problem. Since all you've got is your eyes...it's really important you understand exactly what you are seeing.
Can't really help you there other than to say what you THINK you are seeing (on a computer display) may or may NOT not be what you are THINKING you are seeing.
Ya really gotta lock down your viewing environment relative to your display environment.
If you can't trust what you see, how can you possibly expect to get what you want?
-
Ya really gotta lock down your viewing environment relative to your display environment.
The biggest single improvement that I made in that respect was to fit a (home-made) hood to my monitor.
John
-
I turn the bank of overhead florescent lights over and behind me off when I'm doing critical work. There is a bank on over to the left side, but I don't get much glare from those. Sometimes I'll turn all the lights off but it's awfully dark in the room then and difficult to work. I like the hood idea and may look into making one.
I understand the need for a proper print viewing station with consistent and accurate lighting, but what do you generally do for ambient light at your computer monitor? Do you work in the dark? hmm... reminds me of my darkroom days!
-
I find that my first print is usually spot-on when I print from PS and use soft proofing. I am talking about individual custom prints that get a lot of attention. This is the reward for good monitor calibration, top quality profiles (I find Epson's to be excellent), and an appropriate work flow. I think having a wide-gamut monitor helps, too. Working in appropriate ambient lighting (dim and neutral) is important. Some people swear by a monitor hood but that makes no sense to me. You will never view the print in a totally isolated situation so why would viewing the on-screen image that way help?
I also think it's important to have a good print-viewing setup that you can see while you are sitting at your monitor. I have set up a large cork board with Solux lights that is about 8 feet from my chair and oriented 90 degrees from the screen. It is set up so there is almost no light spill from the Solux lamps to the monitor area. This was I can see the image on screen, turn my head 90 degrees and see the print, then back and forth as needed. I have found this invaluable in getting my prints the way I want and to match the screen image as closely as possible.
-
I would say, as someone emerging from a darkroom after 40 years, that the wastage is considerably less with my 4900, even though I am a beginner in this field. I tend to print straight to 17x22, because a small print isn't the same as a big print. I instinctively print a little lighter to compensate for the fact that a print isn't backlit like my monitor, however well calibrated. The hardest thing for me is green, especially grass. Don't like high octane National Geographic colours, and I am still figuring this one out.
-
For grass, I tend to darken the yellows (in LR) a bit to take the 'glow' away. Works pretty well.
-
Mike,
I have a -15 desaturation almost as a default. I'll try with the yellow.
-
You may be surprised by how much yellow is in grass. I was. You always think of it as just green.
-
You may be surprised by how much yellow is in grass. I was. You always think of it as just green.
Especially in my front yard right now as a result of ultra-high temperatures and little rain over a two week period!!!
-
well... my lawn is mostly Dandelions... so way too much yellow! ;)
-
On a good day when I'm in the grove and don't find nits to pick, what I see is what I get when I click "print" and then compare the print back to the monitor.
By using hardware monitor calibration and then very good print profiles, printer waste is usually caused by human error by using the wrong profile after changing papers, an errant spit of the ink jet nozzle, dropping the print on the floor, etc. With a good workflow, there should be little to no waste!
-
I believe it was 642:1 - or somewhere around there.
I think that's way to high.
The ISO recommendation for softproofing is a contrast ratio of not more than 1:250.
"...... a monitor contrast ratio of approximately 1:250. This is ideal for soft proofing because it
simulates a rich glossy print’s density range of approximately D2.40 (Dmax 2.50 - Dmin 0.10) or
8 EV (2.40 ÷ 0.3 = 8 ) which equals a contrast ratio of 1:256"
/Sven
-
I think that's way to high.
The ISO recommendation for softproofing is a contrast ratio of not more than 1:250.
"...... a monitor contrast ratio of approximately 1:250. This is ideal for soft proofing because it
simulates a rich glossy print’s density range of approximately D2.40 (Dmax 2.50 - Dmin 0.10) or
8 EV (2.40 ÷ 0.3 = 8 ) which equals a contrast ratio of 1:256"
/Sven
And a 2.40 dmax translates to an L* value =3.6, which is what you'd want your monitor to display with softproof viewing turned "on". It's not the native contrast ratio that the monitor needs to be able to reach for softproofing to work well. A subtle fact about most monitor profiles is that they remap the measured blackpoint of the monitor (sort of like relcol with BPC), no matter what the black level is in reality,so that L*=0.0 always gets assigned to RGB 0,0,0 in the display profile. (Note: ColorEyes display Pro does have an optional "absolute" rendering mode for monitor profiles which will map RGB 0,0,0 to the actual measured monitor blackpoint L* value , but that's an exception rather than the rule).
Thus, the best monitors for softproofing will require a black level which approaches L*=0, not 3.6, and then the monitor black will be increased ever so slightly above that black level to the 3.6 L* value when the softproof mode (in PS, for example) is turned on. In practice, L* = 0 isn't attainable, but to get to an L*=1.0 level on your monitor, for example, you need a contrast ratio nearly 1000:1, and better monitors can achieve this level if you also take the precaution to shield stray light from hitting the screen. Once you achieve it, and you then open a digital file with both RGB 255,255,255 whitepoint and RGB 0,0,0 blackpoint, the PS info tool will dutifully tell you that you are seeing L*100 for maximum image white areas and L*=0 for maximum image black areas, but your monitor is only getting down to approximately L*=1.0 relative to the monitor white in reality. Not bad at all but not perfect.
For poor monitors being used in lighting conditions that compound the already poor screen contrast problems, it's not unusual for them to reach only L*= 4 or 5 at native black level relative to monitor white. Then when you turn on softproofing, the predicted shadow values get lifted on a relative basis above this L* error level, so the softproofed image ends up looking flatter in contrast than the actual print. This situation accounts in part for the "makes my image look ugly" complaints many people express about soft proofing. Bottom line: you need a good monitor with high native contrast ratio to get the best softproof. It will have to have a native contrast ratio of 750:1 or better still.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thus, the best monitors for softproofing will require a black level which approaches L*=0, not 3.6, and then the monitor black will be increased ever so slightly above that black level to the 3.6 L* value when the softproof mode (in PS, for example) is turned on.
There are two fundamentally different approaches to monitor calibration. The first is where the monitor is calibrated to the paper (white point and contrast range), the second where the monitor is arbitrarily calibrated then soft-proofing (with Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink) is used to hopefully give an idea of what the printed results will be.
The former has the benefit that the image, once opened, is displayed pretty close to how it will appear on output. Soft-proofing is only required when it is suspected that some image colours may be out of gamut (rarer these days with current generation inksets). It's suited to a production environment where two dozen images need to be printed by lunchtime.
The latter is aimed at hobbyists who are happy to spend forever on a single image and apply (mandatory) edits to image contrast etc in a simulated environment for the paper chosen.
It's debatable which in turn produces the best results.
-
The former has the benefit that the image, once opened, is displayed pretty close to how it will appear on output. Soft-proofing is only required when it is suspected that some image colours may be out of gamut (rarer these days with current generation inksets). It's suited to a production environment where two dozen images need to be printed by lunchtime.
I can see that workflow being used in a lab environment where all output is going to one type of media (e.g. a Lightjet printer printing exclusively on Fuji Crystal Archive paper), but the majority of printmakers I know (pros as well as amateurs) print on everything from matte to glossy to fabric materials. I don't see how one fixed monitor calibration can simulate those very different outcomes, and dedicating multiple monitors to multiple output devices doesn't seem particularly practical, IMHO, but to each his own.
-
... and on top of that, I have to deliver digital image files to commercial clients for web as well as various print uses. Do you use a different monitor profile for each 'delivery' method too? How would you distinguish them?
-
I don't see how one fixed monitor calibration can simulate those very different outcomes, and dedicating multiple monitors to multiple output devices doesn't seem particularly practical, IMHO, but to each his own.
Most people haven't picked up on this yet, but modern monitors (at least the NEC PA series) can be re-calibrated/profiled on the fly. But in reality, if you're printing to a closely matched range of papers (which is what I do) it's rarely required. My reprint rate is probably about 1% ... it has to be because it's a business.
Anyway, the point of this is not to say that one way is better, just that there are two different approaches and which you choose will govern the calibration settings.
-
Most people haven't picked up on this yet, but modern monitors (at least the NEC PA series) can be re-calibrated/profiled on the fly. But in reality, if you're printing to a closely matched range of papers (which is what I do) it's rarely required. My reprint rate is probably about 1% ... it has to be because it's a business.
Anyway, the point of this is not to say that one way is better, just that there are two different approaches and which you choose will govern the calibration settings.
Well, at least on the Mac, one can also use the display preferences panel to switch with relative ease between various pre-built monitor calibration settings since the profiles embed vgct tags. But that's hardly any easier (and less accurate) than a workflow using a competent softproofing method such as readily available in modern version of PS. So, I"m not sure what production efficiency or accuracy you believe is being gained by recalibrating your monitor on the fly for different media. In fact, most display calibrators take a few minutes at best to complete the task and longer at worst. As for staying on closely matched media and just getting to "know" how your monitor colors are finally rendered to your chosen media, or force-tuning the knobs to make the monitor "look like the print", both of these approaches are what everyone used before ICC profiles changed the color workflow game. Most advanced amateurs and professional photographers that I know have moved on nowadays to full ICC-enabled workflows, although there are undoubtedly some "old timers" in the graphic arts industry that still rely on closed-loop CMYK color management methods. If the old ways work better for you, then by all means stick with them, but many of us here on LULA will take exception to your prior statement that ICC profile-enabled workflows are primarily "aimed at hobbyists who are happy to spend forever on a single image and apply (mandatory) edits to image contrast etc in a simulated environment for the paper chosen".
-
If the old ways work better for you, then by all means stick with them, but many of us here on LULA will take exception to your prior statement that ICC profile-enabled workflows are primarily "aimed at hobbyists who are happy to spend forever on a single image and apply (mandatory) edits to image contrast etc in a simulated environment for the paper chosen".
I used the two extremes to emphasize the differences, not literally. There are efficiency considerations that those working on honing just a few images will be less concerned about. If you're editing an image on a monitor at higher contrast then remapping it for the print, it's a two-step process and as a consequence you'll be less productive. Again, this may not bother many. (Unfortunately the native tools in Photoshop aren't well adapted to this mapping. If you're using a composite curve to reinstate the lost contrast you also have to counter the side effects on colour ... but this is different discussion.)
I'm not sure how you figure that the monitor-based calibration approach isn't an ICC workflow. If I understand your advice on a specific contrast setting to make soft-proofing work properly it's no less prescriptive than using the actual value for the paper. I also think you make too much of the differences between papers as the printer profiles themselves (if built uniformly) will map an image value with an L* of 50 to a constant value on paper. So if you're printing to matte or glossy, the general appearance will be much the same. What does change is that the shadows will be more compressed on matte than glossy which is likely the trade-off you'd make yourself if adapting an image to a paper with less absolute contrast.
What is important here though is for people to make up their own mind which approach they're using, then calibrate accordingly. You can't mix a monitor contrast target from one and use the alternate approach. Which is the main point I'm trying to make.
-
So once I run the calibration on my monitor (I use the Eye1 Display 2 on an Eizo CE210W with the Eizo ColorNavigator software), how would I 're-calibrate' it for use with different workflows. I need one for my lab, one for straight digital work (ie. commercial work that will be used on the web) and one for printing to my 4900.
-
I also think you make too much of the differences between papers as the printer profiles themselves (if built uniformly) will map an image value with an L* of 50 to a constant value on paper. So if you're printing to matte or glossy, the general appearance will be much the same.
No. That is incorrect. Make a few prints with excellent profiles on various papers ranging from gloss to matte to plain uncoated paper and compare L=50 input to the final printed output values. This test will definitely not yield "constant" mid tone (L=50) results unless using absolute absolute rendering intent or to a lesser extent relative rendering intent without BPC, definitely not with perceptual mapping intents. However, Absolute and Relcol fail miserably for most digital images when printed to matte papers due to severe clipping of the shadow values and out-of-gamut colors among other issues. Hence the need for relcol with BPC and/or perceptual mapping, and hence the variability in mid-point mapping results.
What is important here though is for people to make up their own mind which approach they're using, then calibrate accordingly. You can't mix a monitor contrast target from one and use the alternate approach. Which is the main point I'm trying to make.
I understand, but I'm also trying to guess what percentage of pros/advanced amateurs still (if ever) advocate this monitor contrast-altering approach to a digital workflow besides yourself. At the risk of going even more OT, perhaps some others who do use this method can weigh in on the discussion. Anyway, most pros I know rely on monitors calibrated to an internationally recognized display device standard so that prior to any discussion of printing options or softproofing simulations, at least the encoded digital file data shared between customer and client will have a reasonable chance at looking alike to all concerned. All major image colorspaces in use today (sRGB, aRGB, ProphotoRGB, etc) map RGB 0,0,0 to L=0.0. If you want to view these image files with proper image contrast on your display you can't view them on a monitor tuned to have a blackpoint value matching typical matte surface media black levels (L* minimum > 15).
-
If you want to view these image files with proper image contrast on your display you can't view them on a monitor tuned to have a blackpoint value matching typical matte surface media black levels (L* minimum > 15).
In practice, I find a monitor calibrated to maximum paper contrast is sufficient for both matte and glossy, namely a value around 250:1 (100cd/m2 / 0.4cd/m2). The shadows will compress with matte but this is expected (and desirable) behaviour. (Except for extremely low key images popular with art school students where matte probably isn't a contender in the first place.)
As for the placement of L* 50 levels on matte and glossy, I know for a fact that this is what I get for B&W as I linearize the output of both to produce exactly this result. I'll have to check again what the results are for colour.
Since you seem to be unaware of it, you may want to take a look at NEC's MultiProfiler software and the possibilities this opens up.
-
So once I run the calibration on my monitor (I use the Eye1 Display 2 on an Eizo CE210W with the Eizo ColorNavigator software), how would I 're-calibrate' it for use with different workflows. I need one for my lab, one for straight digital work (ie. commercial work that will be used on the web) and one for printing to my 4900.
See my post above for a possible starting point for calibration. Eizo monitors (apart for maybe the CG245W/275W which I haven't used) don't do on the fly recalibration so you'll have to opt instead for a median whitepoint ... or use soft-proofing tools to simulate this.
-
That's what I figured... all the more reason we need soft-proofing in LR!
-
... all the more reason we need soft-proofing in LR!
Or a different monitor like NEC's PA series with MultiProfiler which can soft-proof internally (load a paper profile, set the rendering and other options and off you go). You then flip between a monitor calibration not too far from the output and another that satisfies Mark's requirements for higher contrast for soft-proofing. Dunno why I haven't tried this before!
-
...............
Anyway, most pros I know rely on monitors calibrated to an internationally recognized display device standard so that prior to any discussion of printing options or softproofing simulations, at least the encoded digital file data shared between customer and client will have a reasonable chance at looking alike to all concerned. All major image colorspaces in use today (sRGB, aRGB, ProphotoRGB, etc) map RGB 0,0,0 to L=0.0. If you want to view these image files with proper image contrast on your display you can't view them on a monitor tuned to have a blackpoint value matching typical matte surface media black levels (L* minimum > 15).
This is really the bottom-line on this issue. The whole purpose of colour management is to have - to the extent feasible - consistent rendering across output devices whether it is a scanner, monitor or a printer, so that as long as each one of them is colour-managed to reproduce file numbers correctly, one gets the same viewing experience. As you start customizing your colour management policies to specific devices you start removing yourself from the basic paradigm. It shouldn't be necessary to buy a bespoke display model to be able to implement a "multi-lingual" colour management solution, and indeed it isn't, if you do soft-proofing. And yes it is a pain that soft-proofing is not yet available in LR. It will be one of these days. Until then, if you insist on printing from LR, you need to use workarounds, one of which is bending your display to mimic your printer. It's not necessarily a "wrong" thing to do, but one needs to recognize its limitations and then decide whether or not those limitations are important to your other requirements. If they are not, just do it; if they are, softproofing in Photoshop and round-tripping into LR for printing is another option - not one I would use although I have both applications. I simply print from Photoshop with softproofing. I believe in keeping life easy and reliable.
-
Until then, if you insist on printing from LR, you need to use workarounds, one of which is bending your display to mimic your printer. It's not necessarily a "wrong" thing to do, but one needs to recognize its limitations and then decide whether or not those limitations are important to your other requirements.
I tried it with my PA271W. It works very well and you can just toggle back and forth with your default calibration. I'm curious what "limitations" you came across ...
-
The only limitation I had in mind was that stemming from not using the universal approach to colour management as Mark McCormick-Goodhart described it in his last post. In the final analysis, it will be ideal when LR comes with soft-proofing for all those who wish to print from that application. Until then, if you wish to preserve a file that is not purposed to a specific output device, extra steps are necessary regardless of the workflow - via the display or via Photoshop. There is no magic bullet to this.
-
The only limitation I had in mind was that stemming from not using the universal approach to colour management as Mark McCormick-Goodhart described it in his last post.
It's actually no different to soft-proofing with Photoshop except that instead of Photoshop converting to the printer space, then back to the monitor space and sending the resultant values to the monitor, a new monitor space (and corresponding internal LUT) is constructed that combines these two steps. In other words, it's no less colour managed. I spent a few hours this afternoon comparing the results with those from Photoshop (same paper profile, rendering, settings etc) as was impressed. And, as I said, you can just toggle between this and the original calibration. Well worth a try!
-
It's actually no different to soft-proofing with Photoshop except that instead of Photoshop converting to the printer space, then back to the monitor space and sending the resultant values to the monitor, a new monitor space (and corresponding internal LUT) is constructed that combines these two steps. In other words, it's no less colour managed. I spent a few hours this afternoon comparing the results with those from Photoshop (same paper profile, rendering, settings etc) as was impressed. And, as I said, you can just toggle between this and the original calibration. Well worth a try!
OK - you build the soft-proof condition in the display instead of in Photoshop - that part I see no issue with. Now, when you receive the image in the "profiled for paper X" setting of your display, just like for softproofing with PS, you may find that you need an adjustment layer or two for tweaking the image to your satisfaction. So you build them, adjust as needed, and print. Looks in principle the same as triggering a softproof condition in Photoshop and doing the same thing. As long as the output-device-specific "tweaks" are retained as pieces of removable math floating above the image (which is what an Adjustment Layer does), it seems like 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other.
-
It's actually no different to soft-proofing with Photoshop except that instead of Photoshop converting to the printer space, then back to the monitor space and sending the resultant values to the monitor, a new monitor space (and corresponding internal LUT) is constructed that combines these two steps. In other words, it's no less colour managed. I spent a few hours this afternoon comparing the results with those from Photoshop (same paper profile, rendering, settings etc) as was impressed. And, as I said, you can just toggle between this and the original calibration. Well worth a try!
Hi Gromit, So, if I understand you correctly, NEC has brought an ICC profile enabled softproofing workflow to it's monitor calibration app. That is indeed clever in that the end-user would now have a practical softproofing tool for apps that don't support softproofing (like lightroom). However, I'm curious about how NEC implemented this solution. It sounds like NEC is using a device link profile (combining the native calibrated monitor profile with the chosen printer profile). If so, then everything on your screen including your tool sets and menu items changes in appearance, right? Yes, that's still clever, but it does have one minor drawback for advanced users, namely, that PS can let you view before/after results simultaneously by opening a duplicate image in a second window and applying the softproof condition only to the image in the second window. With the NEC approach, side-by-side viewing of source and destination appearance doesn't seem possible, only the toggled before-then-after view.
-
With the NEC approach, side-by-side viewing of source and destination appearance doesn't seem possible, only the toggled before-then-after view.
For this you just need a second video card/cable and turn on PIP :-). Yes, how you described it is overall how it works. A neat twist is that the settings (luminance, contrast, colour temperature) can be different to those for your default calibration. I run a dual monitor setup with the screen dedicated to just the image (I always work this way) but I guess the colours of interface elements etc will just be clipped to the combined monitor/printer space. Non colour-managed apps display garbage in any case.
-
Apologies to all that we seem to have gotten a bit OT with regard to how many prints does it take to get a keeper, but the monitor calibration/softproofing detour we've been on lately is actually pertinent to the question. You don't need softproofing to make a great print. A great print can be done iteratively (even by the numbers on a crummy, uncalibrated monitor) just as it was in the chemical darkroom era. Moreover, if we stick to a limited set of media and perhaps just glossy or pearl photo type papers that have excellent color gamut and dmax, then many people can get pretty good at "Kentucky windage" where they anticipate what the print will look like as it is translated from image appearance on the display to print on paper. That said, a prime reason for softproofing is to cut down on the iterations. Softproofing helps me get really close on the first try. From there, I may make one, two, or sometimes three additional prints to get to my keeper when I'm in a perfectionist mood. If I don't use softproofing, the iteration count definitely goes up, even when printing on a well calibrated output device. And, without a calibrated printer and good printer profile, all bets are off. Sometimes, you get lucky, but most times it's an exercise in pure frustration, so I truly dislike printing on uncalibrated systems, even ones that are nominally characterized with generic profiles. The very first thing I do with a new printer/ink/paper combination is build a custom profile. It definitely saves time and paper. This has been my personal experience. Your mileage may vary.
I am just beginning to try printing from Lightroom sans a softproof method, but I'm sticking to high color gamut, high dmax media where the printed results aren't so far off what you see on screen without softproofing. It's not hard to anticipate the outcome in this specific circumstance and dial in some lightroom presets. Yet, if truth be told, what I mainly do with Lightroom is repurpose RAW files in batch to standard colorspaces like sRGB for friends and clients who would have no clue what to do with the RAW files. For this purpose, Lightroom needs no softproof feature. For high-end printing to fine art media, my files definitely make the trip into PS for the softproof capability, even though I may then take the final print-specific version of the file out to other page layout apps for the final printing.
-
The critical issue is as was stated above in several posts. If one sticks to a well behaved paper (usually a gloss/semi-gloss) with PK ink, the need for soft proofing is minimized as long as one has calibrated all the workflow steps. With Ilford Gold Fibre Silk and Museo Silver Rag, I find that I seldom need to make any corrections when I move from LR to PS to insure the final image is to my liking. Matte papers are a whole different story and I will never print out a LR image without soft proofing first. Usually a curves adjustment or in some cases color adjustment is required. I think you can use the approach Gromit set forth but for me it's less than optimal compared to softproofing.
-
No. That is incorrect. Make a few prints with excellent profiles on various papers ranging from gloss to matte to plain uncoated paper and compare L=50 input to the final printed output values. This test will definitely not yield "constant" mid tone (L=50) results unless using absolute absolute rendering intent or to a lesser extent relative rendering intent without BPC, definitely not with perceptual mapping intents. However, Absolute and Relcol fail miserably for most digital images when printed to matte papers due to severe clipping of the shadow values and out-of-gamut colors among other issues. Hence the need for relcol with BPC and/or perceptual mapping, and hence the variability in mid-point mapping results.
OK, so I did the tests and the results are attached. Minor changes are expected with longer drydown.
CBP2 (Canson Baryta Photographique) shows an L* 50 value of 48, CRP (Canson Rag Photographique Duo) is 52, HPN (Epson Hot Press Natural) is 50. All the preceding were printed in RGB mode, RelCol with BPC (a small uplift is expected with BPC). Also included is HPNBW (Epson Hot Press Natural) in Advanced Black & White mode. While there is some variability around the midpoint, it's close enough that I switch from glossy to matte at will without substantive changes to overall look of the result. In all cases there is a smooth progression to the maximum black for each paper, with compression on the matte papers (as previously discussed). It should be noted that I optimize colour output on gamut, not density. While this test doesn't show what's happening with dark non-neutrals, there's no evidence of any clipping.
The printers used were an Epson 7900 (PK) and 9900 (MK). These results were obtained by printing a 51 stepwedge assigned an L* space, measuring with the output with MeasureTool and processing the results with QuadToneRIP's QTR-Linearize-Data.app.