Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color  (Read 9934 times)

r010159

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 86
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #1 on: October 01, 2015, 11:13:45 pm »

I do respect him for standing up and clarifying his position. Segments of his explanation do not make any sense to me at all. But he has a right to his own opinion. Still, those are pretty looking photographs. A bit too saturated in my opinion. But then IMHO this what driver managed colors tends to do in making the picture look "pretty" over some sacrifice of accuracy. 

I wonder what the name is of his new book?

Bob
« Last Edit: October 01, 2015, 11:20:59 pm by r010159 »
Logged

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2079
    • Wild Nature Photo Travel
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #2 on: October 02, 2015, 01:47:17 am »

I do respect him for standing up and clarifying his position. Segments of his explanation do not make any sense to me at all. But he has a right to his own opinion. Still, those are pretty looking photographs. A bit too saturated in my opinion. But then IMHO this what driver managed colors tends to do in making the picture look "pretty" over some sacrifice of accuracy. 

I wonder what the name is of his new book?

Bob

I read through his statement three times and it just doesn't stack up to me. Something is clearly missing here.

I would have liked more information on how the profiles he tested against were created, what paper he tested all this on and a third party to have more objectively looked at the prints (blind). As it reads to me the conclusion he reached, was the one he was looking for.
Logged
Wild Nature Photo Travel

ashaughnessy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
    • My wordpress blog
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #3 on: October 02, 2015, 07:54:49 am »

Josh-H wrote: "...and a third party to have more objectively looked at the prints (blind)"

Surely the point is to get the result that looks best to you, the creator of the work? Isn't the final result a purely subjective one ? (At least in the context of what Ctein is talking about, and he's very clear about saying this is all about him and how he works). So if Ctein thinks he's got a better end result, then he has, for him. I'm not sure how someone else's opinion would change that, for him. Questions about whether soft-proofing does or doesn't work are more objective, though.
Anthony
Logged
Anthony Shaughnessy
https://anthonyshaug

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #4 on: October 02, 2015, 11:45:43 am »

I read through his statement three times and it just doesn't stack up to me. Something is clearly missing here.
Yes, I agree. Take just soft proofing. We read:
Quote
Consequently, I find that choosing any appropriate canned profile (whether provided by the printer or the paper manufacturer) works well enough.
Pppropriate canned profile? Seems rather difficult to accept other than it appears he's having difficulty with soft proofing!
Then we read:
Quote
[Ctein replies: Michael, yes. Most of my work is in ProPhotoRGB space. The Tiffany Dome photograph is a good example of that. It contains a lot of colors that lie outside of Adobe RGB gamut. In fact, this is a place where soft proofing is useful and accurate
How is a working space that represents colors outside any display system gamut more useful and (the term I hate) accurate than a soft proof that is within gamut of the display using any old profile? Doesn't wash IMHO.

What folks should do, what I recommend to the author is provide test files or links to such files, have each user do their own testing and come to their own conclusions. I have images in ProPhoto RGB where Printer Manages Color doesn't do a good job compared to a custom profile and that's just based on the output, not a soft proof which of course does work on this end. And unlike the author, soft proofing works very, very well on this end.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

robgo2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
    • Robert Goldstein Photography
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #5 on: October 02, 2015, 12:34:53 pm »

Josh-H wrote: "...and a third party to have more objectively looked at the prints (blind)"

Surely the point is to get the result that looks best to you, the creator of the work? Isn't the final result a purely subjective one ? (At least in the context of what Ctein is talking about, and he's very clear about saying this is all about him and how he works). So if Ctein thinks he's got a better end result, then he has, for him. I'm not sure how someone else's opinion would change that, for him. Questions about whether soft-proofing does or doesn't work are more objective, though.
Anthony

Have you ever heard of "confirmation bias?"  It's a common mental trick that leads us to favor results that we already believe or hope are true.  Good scientists must constantly guard against it.  The best check on confirmation bias is reproducibility of results by independent investigators.  Either Ctein should make his files available for others to test, or interested parties will have to run their own similar tests. 

Rob
Logged

Rick Popham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 198
    • http://
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2015, 12:36:27 pm »


I wonder what the name is of his new book?

Bob

"Saturn Run", co-authored with John Sanford (John Camp on this forum).  I read a preview chapter and it looks like something I'll really enjoy.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2015, 12:39:03 pm by Rick Popham »
Logged

ashaughnessy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
    • My wordpress blog
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #7 on: October 02, 2015, 12:39:32 pm »

Have you ever heard of "confirmation bias?"  It's a common mental trick that leads us to favor results that we already believe or hope are true.  Good scientists must constantly guard against it.  The best check on confirmation bias is reproducibility of results by independent investigators.  Either Ctein should make his files available for others to test, or interested parties will have to run their own similar tests. 

Rob

Agreed that this is a real phenomenon. My question is whether it matters, as in the end it's down to what he prefers for his own work. Other people might have other opinions and I think that's something he stresses. However, thinking about it, if the results are so subtle and so close that you need several people to work out what is being seen, then perhaps it doesn't really matter?
Anthony
Logged
Anthony Shaughnessy
https://anthonyshaug

robgo2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
    • Robert Goldstein Photography
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #8 on: October 02, 2015, 01:01:52 pm »

Agreed that this is a real phenomenon. My question is whether it matters, as in the end it's down to what he prefers for his own work. Other people might have other opinions and I think that's something he stresses. However, thinking about it, if the results are so subtle and so close that you need several people to work out what is being seen, then perhaps it doesn't really matter?
Anthony
Of course, Ctein is entitled to his own preferences, but he is widely regarded as an authority on fine printing, and it is in that role that he is making broad recommendations about how to produce the best print results.  It is for this reason that independent confirmation is vitally important.  Ideally, each individual user will perform appropriate comparisons of different methods, but I suspect that many will simply take his opinion as gospel truth.  And, I suppose, if they are satisfied with the output, no harm, and maybe some good, will have been done, but that does not mean that their prints will be "objectively" better.  They may simply believe that they are.  (Confirmation bias again.)

Rob 
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #9 on: October 02, 2015, 01:17:23 pm »

It is for this reason that independent confirmation is vitally important.  Ideally, each individual user will perform appropriate comparisons of different methods, but I suspect that many will simply take his opinion as gospel truth.  And, I suppose, if they are satisfied with the output, no harm, and maybe some good, will have been done, but that does not mean that their prints will be "objectively" better.  They may simply believe that they are.  (Confirmation bias again.)

Excellent point! From me it seemed to fall on deaf ears. Perhaps if others point out the need, it might happen. Each user should do their own independent testing.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Josh-H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2079
    • Wild Nature Photo Travel
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #10 on: October 02, 2015, 10:24:55 pm »

Quote
Ctein is entitled to his own preferences, but he is widely regarded as an authority on fine printing

He is widely regarded as the master of Dye Transfer printing. I am not sure he is widely regarded as an authority on digital inkjet printing. And there are obviously glaring differences between these vastly different technologies.

As I said, I have kudos respect for Ctein and his dye transfer work - he was the master of that process (I regret not buying one of his dye transfers for my print collection when he made the last ones available..) But his methodology for inkjets seems seriously flawed to me. Without seeing his printed results first hand its just speculation as to which is better and as Andrew mentioned above (and I completely agree) its well worth each user conducting their own tests.
Logged
Wild Nature Photo Travel

Eric Brody

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 487
    • http://www.ericbrodyphoto.com
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2015, 01:08:30 am »

I read TOP regularly and have always admired Ctein, for his really interesting name if nothing else  :), though he does have an excellent reputation as a master of dye transfer printing. I am especially enamored of his articles on bad science having used them to try to help internet educated anti vaccine people see the light. But I am confused by all this kerfuffle over printing.
My understanding is that one gets the best image one can with Lightroom, Photoshop, or Gimp, on one's high quality calibrated monitor. One then makes a print that one hopes will match the monitor in color, luminance, density, or whatever one wishes to care about. Basically the print should match the monitor (taking into account the inevitable differences between transmitted light on a monitor and reflected light on a print). If they match, success, if not, something's wrong... in the work flow with the monitor calibration, luminance, printer, etc. Ctein apparently uses a Mac monitor; these are not famous for being able to be calibrated or turned down enough to match prints. Is this the source of the confusion and the conflict. I have an NEC 27" monitor of the type beloved by Andrew Rodney and Jeff Schewe, I have not tried it "both ways," to be fair, but I'm happy with the prints that come off my 3800 in color, black and white and black and white with QTR. Maybe I'll try, maybe I won't but it's really up to me, isn't it. If I'm happy why change... and I am not one of those conservatives who believe nothing should ever be done for the first time  ;)
Logged

graeme

  • Guest
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2015, 07:28:40 am »

Ctein apparently uses a Mac monitor; these are not famous for being able to be calibrated or turned down enough to match prints.

The 2 mac displays I've had ( 2007 20" display & retina iMac display ) can certainly be turned down enough to match the brightness of a print illuminated by my not to bright Ott Lite.
Logged

robgo2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
    • Robert Goldstein Photography
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2015, 10:28:21 am »

The 2 mac displays I've had ( 2007 20" display & retina iMac display ) can certainly be turned down enough to match the brightness of a print illuminated by my not to bright Ott Lite.
I may be wrong about this, but I believe that there was a generation or two of iMacs whose illumination could not be reduced to photographically useful levels.  This is no longer the case and never was for Apple Cinema Displays.  I calibrate mine at 90cd/m2 and get very good matches for B&W prints from my 3880.

I don't do much color printing, but this discussion has got me thinking about upgrading my 8 year old display, not only for the wider color gamut, but also for the 27 inches of real estate.  As my eyes age, I have been steadily moving the monitor forward in order to be able to see fine details.   I fear that one day it may fall off the front of the desk.  :D

Rob
Logged

nma

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2015, 11:24:00 am »

Have you ever heard of "confirmation bias?"  It's a common mental trick that leads us to favor results that we already believe or hope are true.  Good scientists must constantly guard against it.  The best check on confirmation bias is reproducibility of results by independent investigators.  Either Ctein should make his files available for others to test, or interested parties will have to run their own similar tests. 

Rob

Many interesting points have been raised about the methodology. Some question whether Ctein knows his stuff about inkjet printing. Confirmation bias. Huh?

Whatever anyone wants to say about Ctien's article, one thing is for sure: Ctien knows a good print when he sees one. So, his conclusions should be taken seriously, not received wisdom  but an important point that can further our understanding of how to optimize print quality. In some sense we have been operating in group-think: Everyone knows the way we do it now is optimum. It seems to me that Ctien has opened our eyes to options we have left on the table, assuming Epson has provided printer manages color as just a choice for dummies.
Logged

robgo2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 388
    • Robert Goldstein Photography
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2015, 11:38:15 am »

Many interesting points have been raised about the methodology. Some question whether Ctein knows his stuff about inkjet printing. Confirmation bias. Huh?

Whatever anyone wants to say about Ctien's article, one thing is for sure: Ctien knows a good print when he sees one. So, his conclusions should be taken seriously, not received wisdom  but an important point that can further our understanding of how to optimize print quality. In some sense we have been operating in group-think: Everyone knows the way we do it now is optimum. It seems to me that Ctien has opened our eyes to options we have left on the table, assuming Epson has provided printer manages color as just a choice for dummies.
I don't think that anyone here would dispute the fact that Ctein knows a good print when he sees one, but that does not alter the fact that his findings must be verified independently.  That is how science is done.  If other competent investigators confirm his results, then they will have to be taken seriously.  And for the record, even the greatest experts in any field are susceptible to confirmation bias.  The annals of scholarly research are chocked full of such examples.

Rob

Logged

nma

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 312
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #16 on: October 03, 2015, 11:53:42 am »

I don't think that anyone here would dispute the fact that Ctein knows a good print when he sees one, but that does not alter the fact that his findings must be verified independently.  That is how science is done.  If other competent investigators confirm his results, then they will have to be taken seriously.  And for the record, even the greatest experts in any field are susceptible to confirmation bias.  The annals of scholarly research are chocked full of such examples.

Rob

Hi Rob,

I wrote " ... So, his conclusions should be taken seriously, not received wisdom  but an important point that can further our understanding of how to optimize print quality..."  What part of "not received wisdom" did you not understand? How is that inconsistent with "must be verified independently?"  The idea that we are doing science by exploring the function of the existing options in a commercially available printer is preposterous and aggrandizing. Ctein is an authority on prints, if not printing. Maybe we should open our minds to the possibility that there are other ways to do things and not criticize the guy for telling us about his observations.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #17 on: October 03, 2015, 12:14:01 pm »

My understanding is that one gets the best image one can with Lightroom, Photoshop, or Gimp, on one's high quality calibrated monitor. One then makes a print that one hopes will match the monitor in color, luminance, density, or whatever one wishes to care about. Basically the print should match the monitor (taking into account the inevitable differences between transmitted light on a monitor and reflected light on a print). If they match, success, if not, something's wrong... in the work flow with the monitor calibration, luminance, printer, etc.
That's the goal, WYSIWYG (within reason) with color management which just defines big piles of numbers. If you can print as many proofs as you need to get to your goal, you could do all your work on a grayscale display! You could edit and print and try different profiles and rendering intents and options like Printer Manages Color, and working spaces, and build ring-arounds and eventually get an ideal print. Color management or not.

When people state that soft proofing doesn't work, without knowing their full expectations (an emissive display will never match a reflective print perfectly) if they are unable to get a close match, something on their end isn't working optimally, as it can and should. Soft proofing isn't a new idea by a long shot, it was around before Photoshop 5 introduced it in 1998 (in the ColorBlind Suite).
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

cortlander

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 158
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #18 on: October 03, 2015, 06:25:32 pm »

I am not a master printer, and had no clue who Ctein is. Except for ABW, I had never tried Printer managed color prints. But after reading his article that seems to have some distinguished folks bent out of shape, I gave it a try. I tried printer managed color with Canson Rag Photographique, Canson Arches Aquarelle and Canson BFK Rives. The results have been pleasing. I compared them with prints that I made with profiles supplied by Canson soon after I got my P800. I have to say that the Printer Managed prints looked pretty good to my untrained eye.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 06:28:38 pm by cortlander »
Logged
cortlander

MHMG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1285
Re: Ctein's follow-up article on printer-managed color
« Reply #19 on: October 03, 2015, 08:53:17 pm »

I am not a master printer, and had no clue who Ctein is. Except for ABW, I had never tried Printer managed color prints. But after reading his article that seems to have some distinguished folks bent out of shape, I gave it a try. I tried printer managed color with Canson Rag Photographique, Canson Arches Aquarelle and Canson BFK Rives. The results have been pleasing. I compared them with prints that I made with profiles supplied by Canson soon after I got my P800. I have to say that the Printer Managed prints looked pretty good to my untrained eye.

What has had some "distinquished folks" (perhaps myself included) bent out of shape is not Ctein's favorable recommendation of a printer manages workflow. It's his resolute opinion that ICC profiles were an epic fail for him in some instances, and never really better in almost every other instance. That conclusion flies in the face of what my own hard fought hard won experience is with an ICC profiled workflow. I'd be the first to tell you a really well calibrated ICC workflow, complete with highly accurate soft proofing is definitely not easy to set up. Unlike what some marketing guys or amateur photography forums will tell you, you don't truly get all the way there to a precise soft proof by taking any old monitor, buying some inexpensive calibrator puck, and using a generic profile provided by some third party media vendor. I wish we could all get there easily following that recipe, and sometimes that recipe works "good enough" for some folks to be happy, but when we are talking about a master printmaker pulling out all stops to work through a sophisticated ICC profiling approach and then reporting it didn't work, yeah, that's when the little antennae in the back of my head start to tell me "what the hell, what happened?".   So, I repeated Ctein's exercise with his one of his most troublesome images (Ctein kindly sent me his source file for  the Apollo Soyuz image bathed in searchlights under a nighttime sky).

1) I replicated the print he got using his printer manages color/Epson color controls workflow, and I agree it was a very good print.

2), I printed again using PS manages colors and an ICC profile (custom built using PM5 software using the default logo colorful setting). Again, I replicated Ctein's experience. It did not produce an "out of the box" print that was as good as the one created in step 1. Ctein and I totally agree on that score.

3). I then noted that the source file itself has unwanted encoded color errors in the hue constancy of the colors in the night time beams of light, such that some corrective action must be taken to get the print he wants (where the beams of light should trail off uniformly in hue throughout the image). That means the LUT which Epson hardwired into its Epson Color control workflow is doing some error correction in the blue sector of the color space to fix the classic "blue turns purple" problems common to many digital image color reproduction methods. The Epson "fix" just happens to help this particular image in a good way, but may cause errors in others. And on a wide gamut monitor, the aRGB source image definitely does not come close to matching the printer manages color prints. So, let's clear up that misconception right now. Ctein was editing an image in aRGB color space, but looking at his edits on a monitor generically factory calibrated to mimic a native sRGB-like gamut.  As such, should it surprise us that Ctein believes soft proofing is not very accurate? Printer manages color did not render a perfect reproduction of the source file, perfectly displayed on his monitor. It was just a method that happened to "play nicely" with this particular image that Ctein printed along with others to test his printer manages color hypothesis.

4). In step 2, I had verified that Xrite ICC default profiles' perceptual and relative rendering tags do in fact exaggerate the color errors of Ctein's Apollo Soyuz source image because Xrite's default profile recipes favor colorfulness at the expense of tonality (i.e. the typical Xrite-built profile favors colorfulness over the preservation of lightness relationships among the various image elements). As such, these profiles were not a good staring point for any subsequent image edits. Because Xrite's default profiling algorithm(s) are so pervasive in the industry, and because Andrew Rodney likely made Ctein a custom profile using said default settingss which Ctein also stated failed to fix his issues, it's fair to say that Ctein does not like ICC profile(s) renderings which favor colorfulness over tonal accuracy.  In my own work, I switch between Logo colorful and logo classic frequently, so I'm sympathetic to anyone who finds precise color accuracy lacking in many typical ICC profiles. Xrite and other profile making vendors really need to emphasize these aspects of "color mapping" more in their literature than is typically found.

5. Once I understood what Ctein's ICC profile problem was, namely that one needs to start with a profile that favors the preservation of tonal relationships at the expense of colorfulness. I reached into my "bag of ICC profile tricks' and applied Xrite's original PM5 "logo classic" to soft proof the Apollo Soyuz image on my calibrated high gamut NEC spectraview II display. The softproof showed me that logo classic was providing a much better starting point for final image edits needed to match or exceed Ctein's printer managed color output because log classic favors tonal (lightness) accuracy at the expense of hue and chroma.

6). I applied just two image edits in my carefully calibrated softproofing mode, one hue/sat layer in PS, and one curve correction. Using a sound softproofing workflow as my guide, I was able to make my corrections in a matter of minutes while working on Ctein's source file image.(note: while the edits were few, they were indeed tricky moves on this file, ones that would be very hard pressed to do without accurate soft proofing guiding the effort). When I had completed those edits, I had on screen a soft proofed image I actually thought was superior to the print I made with Ctein's method. Yah, I know, my word against his as to which was a preferable rendition of the source file, but bear in mind, what I liked better, I was seeing on screen, and I was expecting it to print the way I was seeing it on screen. Moreover, with just one more layer, and a couple of trims on the "fill" percentages of the PS layer sliders,  I knew I could get really really close to Ctein's preferred "printer manages color" rendition of this image if I wanted to, so I wasn't sacrificing any flexibility in color and tone reproduction and in being able to deliver just what anyone would expect in print from that source file, IMHO, by using an ICC profiled workflow.

7). The resultant print matched my edits very accurately, and because I liked this "interpretation" of the image better than what I got when printed with the "printer manages color workflow" on my P600 printer, I ended up with an ICC profiled print off this file that I liked better as well. Moral of the story:  ICC profile managed workflows are not inferior to printer manages color as Ctein seems to assert, but you do have to understand ICC profiling strengths and weaknesses very well.  Indeed, when done properly, soft proofing with the right ICC profile rendering recipe gets you where you want to go and also tells you very closely what to expect in the final print. My faith in my ICC profiling workflow and all those years I have spent mastering it was restored after completing this little exercise :).

All that said, for many folks who don't want to take on all the overhead of a sophisticated ICC custom profile workflow, Ctein has done you a favor, and I admire him for telling us about his personal approach to digital printmaking. Just Use printer manages color with a newer Epson printer, and you probably will get pleasing prints without investing nearly the effort I and others have made in exacting ICC profiled workflows over the years. However, if you are willing to invest the time and take on the steep learning curve of a sophisticated soft proofing environment, you will indeed be rewarded by a richly deserved wysisyg image editing methodology that is extensible to all printers not just Epson printers, and even ones at remote sites not just in your immediate reach.

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com


« Last Edit: October 03, 2015, 09:26:41 pm by MHMG »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up