Soft Proofing Techniques

[Mark D Segal]

There's more to RI than just that. As you know, every color value is converted, converted differently and converted without any idea about adjacent pixels. So we humans need to view all the color values in context so they appear to us as an image, not a huge pile of numbers going from one triplet to another. Hence, and again, soft proofing is about color appearance and one has to start by picking the RI they visually prefer and OOG is then handled just like non OOG colors. Least we forget people editing on displays who's gamuts are far smaller in many areas of color space than the printer. The proof then becomes the print (the print becomes that proof). Exactly! And I stated that. So you're doing this in an RGB working space which is output agnostic by design.
And yes! Some images after soft proofing don't require any further editing. But you need to get the image into a state it's even worth viewing with a soft proof, and only then can you decide what RI to select. So going full circle, this is why it's not a good idea to do the following: assuming you know the type of paper you'll be using, why not use soft proofing from the start?Some do, some don't. If everyone did, no need for the forums no need for the questions/answers.

Ya, I agree, that last bit was probably a bit presumptive without a context - I had in mind after due discussion!! :-).

OK, one last gasp at this from me: I'm in Lr. I'm not softproofing yet. I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits. Looks nice. Then I push "S" (for softproof, or perhaps a four letter word) and OMG, what happened to that nice photo I edited - I need to change this, change that, change the other thing. Editing twice over, whereas if I started the whole process under soft-proof it's once over, save perhaps for some tweeks depending on whether or not I decide to change the RI, which I consider to be an editing variable.

Andrew, have we exhausted this now?

[digitaldog]

I'm in Lr. I'm not softproofing yet. I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits. Looks nice. Then I push "S" (for softproof, or perhaps a four letter word) and OMG, what happened to that nice photo I edited - I need to change this, change that, change the other thing. Editing twice over, whereas if I started the whole process under soft-proof it's once over, save perhaps for some tweeks depending on whether or not I decide to change the RI, which I consider to be an editing variable.

Think about what you've written above, then we'll move on. You state you look at the photo and see based on the non-soft proof view, you need to make edits. So you should! You really think starting with a soft proof isn't going to cause you to apply just as many edits and with less options for that data? Some of the edits are based upon one output and one RI. It can work, but it's rather inflexible. What you going to do when you want to reprint that image on your new (fill in the blank) printer who's profile and behavior isn't anything like the one you used previous. Or send it to a lab with a printer you can't afford. Sound like a good idea? Not to me. Now editing the image to appear as desired in an RGB working space which is output agonistic makes far more sense to me. And Adobe. I can send that document to a printer without any edits if the soft proof shows me I need no such edits with a specific profile and RI. I may need some edits. And now, I make them specifically for this paper, printer, profile, RI. I can go back any time to the non output specific edited image to any output device and I've lost nothing. Time or data.


You're often editing twice; one to get the image into an appearance within a working space (editing space) you desire. That's the big work. Output specific edits may or may not be necessary. If so, it's pretty quick and easy compared to the first editing process. You have flexibility!


Starting with a soft proof and editing all the way through is a bit like the old workflow days where images were drum scanned, in CMYK, to output size. And it worked. But you found you often needed to get another scan, then another because the image needs output specific scanning (size, color space in CMYK etc). RGB workflows changed all that for the better, unless you were selling scans! Scan once, use many. Same applies to RGB working space: Edit that master archive first, use it for all future output needs. Apply specific output edits IF necessary when necessary. Some of this can't be put back into the toothpaste tube so workflows that are based on flexibility, future output needs and changes in output devices seems to largely suggest to me, a 'start with a soft proof' approach is inflexible, nor addresses future output needs and future changes in the output device.   


RGB working space were designed from day one to be divorced from any device; your display or any printer. They were designed with the same idea in mind as scanning once and using many.

[Mark D Segal]

Yes Andrew - when have I not thought about what I write? - OK, we won't go there :-).

It all depends on context. So to be clear: I'm working in Lr where everything is redoable in several different ways as we fancy it, and non-destructible, not baked in. Not comparable to scanning and nothing old time about it. When I start editing a photo for the first time, I know what it's output purpose is from the get-go, so I can go straight into that space and work away. It's a once through, save for perhaps a few extra tweaks testing the RI variable, just loike there would be extra tweaks for altering any other variable for a look-see. Very often, once that photo is printed, that's the end of it. But let's say I revert to it any time thereafter and need to repurpose it altogether. Say I want to put it into a Blurb book rather than an Epson Legacy Baryta or some such print. So I select a profile akin to what a Blurb book would print like, and the image appearance will change. I create a virtual copy and tweak the tone settings till I'm happy I've optimized it for that purpose. However I break into the editing circle some such set of moves will be needed. That's why I say six of one and half a dozen of the other. So I have no problem with the way you approach it. Different entry points around this circle may work better for some people than others, depending. I'm fine with that. But I just don't believe there is one best way cast in stone here.

[digitaldog]

Yes Andrew - when have I not thought about what I write? - OK, we won't go there :-).

It all depends on context. So to be clear: I'm working in Lr where everything is redoable in several different ways as we fancy it, and non-destructible, not baked in.

Doesn't matter! You're capturing raw? Everything is non non-destructible, not baked in. It's about flexibility and a workflow where you accomplish your goals with as little time and effort as necessary.  
IF you start from the get go and place both working space edits and output specific edits together and while viewing both sets of edits, those edits are targeted TOGETHER for one device. I don't know how to phrase that fact any simpler.

[Mark D Segal]

Doesn't matter! You're capturing raw? Everything is non non-destructible, not baked in. It's about flexibility and a workflow where you accomplish your goals with as little time and effort as necessary.  
IF you start from the get go and place both working space edits and output specific edits together and while viewing both sets of edits, those edits are targeted TOGETHER for one device. I don't know how to phrase that fact any simpler.

I don't do working space edits. I only do output specific edits and if I ever need to repurpose, which is seldom, I do so. And I'm not worried about that because (a) the raw file is always the same raw file regardless of where I break into an editing cycle and (b) the edits usually needed from one purpose to another in my experience are pretty easy to handle incrementally regardless of whether I started from an edited working space file or an edited output version.

[digitaldog]

I don't do working space edits.

Of course you do if we are to believe part of your postings here. What do you think you're working on with soft proofing on or off in Develop?
YOU wrote:

I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits.

A non soft proof edit is occurring IN an RGB working space. ProPhoto RGB, 1.0 TRC. No different than Photoshop. That you say you're not doing working spaces edits either implies you don't understand this OR what you wrote just above isn't accurate; you edit from the get go with soft proof on (you are still editing in a working space) or editing without a soft proof (still editing in a working space). Those conflicts seem to indicate the need for a refresher in what and why RGB working space are implemented in all Adobe products that support color management, including LR as well as so many non Adobe products:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

[praja343]

Andrew:
Thank you for the reference to the video on soft proofing - it will be very useful to see and use. I am using Photoshop CC and I will try out the method.
Best wishes,
Prakash.

[Mark D Segal]

Of course you do if we are to believe part of your postings here. What do you think you're working on with soft proofing on or off in Develop?
YOU wrote: A non soft proof edit is occurring IN an RGB working space. ProPhoto RGB, 1.0 TRC. No different than Photoshop. That you say you're not doing working spaces edits either implies you don't understand this OR what you wrote just above isn't accurate; you edit from the get go with soft proof on (you are still editing in a working space) or editing without a soft proof (still editing in a working space). Those conflicts seem to indicate the need for a refresher in what and why RGB working space are implemented in all Adobe products that support color management, including LR as well as so many non Adobe products:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

Andrew, you can stop lecturing me because I've been doing digital image editing for the past 20 years and I know more than a few things about the underlying principles, especially the difference between an internal working space and an output space, and that when we edit a softproof we are working in both at the same time. Your "refreshers" are fine - I've seen it all  long ago. I'm talking about PROCEDURE. Yes, I look at the Photo without the soft-proof on at first to see what I have. THEN I activate it and start editing relative to the conditions for which the image is purposed, which means under softproof for a specific paper/printer because I'm only editing the selects I intend to print. It's basically a one-step procedure in terms of workflow, which is what I'm talking about. Yes, it implicitly works within Lr's internal working space but it's guided by the softproof, which is the output space as interpreted through the output profile selected in the softproof menu, and that's the determinative procedure. I'm just advising how I work to produce very high quality prints very efficiently within Lr from start to finish and how easily that workflow can be redirected to a repurposing of the photo within Lr. If you think another approach is better that's fine and I think we've exhausted this discussion. Our audience should now be clear that there are alternative ways of doing this, one not necessarily better than another. I'm getting back to real work now. Cheers.

[digitaldog]

Andrew, you can stop lecturing me because I've been doing digital image editing for the past 20 years and I know more than a few things about the underlying principles, especially the difference between an internal working space and an output space, and that when we edit a softproof we are working in both at the same time.

I thought that too. But your text is confusing and I pointed out where and why. Are you sure you not using (what you call doing) an RGB working space in LR? Think carefully about the answer based again on your text (it's all I have to go by):


 I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits.
I don't do working space edits.

Can't have it both ways, hence my severe confusion over what you are writing. IF I'm confused, consider your other readers! And yes, you are doing working space edits.

If you think another approach is better that's fine and I think we've exhausted this discussion.

Last thing I'd like to do is have YOU change your workflow. It doesn't affect me whatsoever. I do have some concern for your readers and expressed why! I also explained why I think it's a poor workflow to setup a soft proof at the get go and edit based on that alone. And yes, you and I have exhausted this discussion unless you wish to clarify the italic text of yours above and consider why it's so confusing!   

[Mark D Segal]

Andrew, in all I've written in this thread I think what I consider a good, usable procedure for image editing using softproof in Lr is now sufficiently clear. And the readers will do just fine without me changing my workflow. Thanks to discussions like these they see what the options are, they are mature adults and they can try different approaches and adopt what they think works best for them - your approach, my approach, whatever. I fully understand where you are coming from technically, I have no problem with it, but I just happen to find another procedure very workable and sensible in context so that's the experience-based feedback I gave to the person who put the question. You have another opinion, OK fine. We know. Let's now move on!  :-)

[digitaldog]

Andrew, in all I've written in this thread I think what I consider a good, usable procedure for image editing using softproof in Lr is now sufficiently clear.

Your text, copy and paste:

I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits.
I don't do working space edits.

I don't consider that clear. The two opinions actually appear to strongly contradict each other. If it wasn't you posting, I'd have to say; please make up your minds.

Since you're describing your workflow, a simple question might clear it up: do you edit with the soft proof off at any time? If so, the 2nd statement  (I don't do working space edits) is wrong/confusing. Even though technically you are always making working space edits! That underlying color space processing takes place in an RGB working space. Despite the simulation of the soft proof. NO different in Photoshop either FWIW.
Enough said?

[Mark D Segal]

OK, for avoidance of all doubt dear readers including Andrew, add the words "under softproof" at the end of the first italicized sentence. And yes I know what's going on under the hood.

Re Photoshop, not to open another can of worms, yes technically the same processes are happening - we are using Proof View for guidance about how an edit will affect the appearance of the output image, while the editing happens in the RGB internal working space. The big difference from Lr however is the ease of repurposing a photo which is much better in Lr. Changing gears is more cumbersome in Photoshop. Before we had softproofing in Lr I used another workflow: edit the image in Lr according to the working space alone, then export the photo to Photoshop, activate soft-proofing in order to finish the editing under softproof there, then print. As soon as Lr introduced softproofing my use of Photoshop plummeted. Of course I still use it for printing proofing targets which need Absolute Rendering Intent, not available in Lr, and ACPU for printing profiling targets with No Color Management, not available in either Lr or Photoshop. A fun world we live in, huh? :-)

[digitaldog]

OK, for avoidance of all doubt dear readers including Andrew, add the words "under softproof" at the end of the first italicized sentence.

This is what you wish to express?

I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits under softproof.

[Mark D Segal]

Yes, but there is context to this statement perhaps worth considering. It's a bit more involved than what you pulled up there, but I wasn't intending to get into a whole tra-la-la on image editing when I responded to that question. When we open the Photo in Lr before activating softproof or do anything else, and provided we have not imposed any recipes or Auto functions on the image from the get-go, what we have is a native view of the photo as Lr would interpret it "out of the camera as demosaiced with Lr's algorithms". If I'm intending to print the photos, that view can be indicative as a starting point but not determinative. It's helpful for playing back and forth with various editing tools on a trial and revert basis to get a feel for what I'll do with the photo, only because response time is often faster than with softproof on, and as I like to use Lab values for deciding on any changes to white balance (perhaps moving from As Shot to Custom), it needs to be non-softproof. This phase of using the non-softproof view is usually short, then I move into softproof and do all the heavy lifting in that mode. The main exception to leaving softproof on during the editing process is when making masks. This process tends to be more responsive with softproof off and one doesn't need it for constructing a mask. As I mentioned already, I treat Rendering Intent as an editing option so examining that option happens under softproof too.

[digitaldog]

When we open the Photo in Lr before activating softproof or do anything else, and provided we have not imposed any recipes or Auto functions on the image from the get-go, what we have is a native view of the photo as Lr would interpret it "out of the camera as demosaiced with Lr's algorithms".

So what? EVERY product's out of the camera as demosaiced will differ, again so what, what makes that one, default useful (I find it far from useful hence the use of presets and my own DNG camera profiles).

If I'm intending to print the photos, that view can be indicative as a starting point but not determinative.

Indicative of what? Useful how? It's just one rendering. No different in theory than the JPEG your camera spits out. What makes that JPEG 'right'?

It's helpful for playing back and forth with various editing tools on a trial and revert basis to get a feel for what I'll do with the photo, only because response time is often faster than with softproof on, and as I like to use Lab values for deciding on any changes to white balance (perhaps moving from As Shot to Custom), it needs to be non-softproof.

I see no speed differences for one. I see no reason why Lab values of an output color space is useful for editing IN what is clearly an RGB working space.

This phase of using the non-softproof view is usually short, then I move into softproof and do all the heavy lifting in that mode. The main exception to leaving softproof on during the editing process is when making masks. This process tends to be more responsive with softproof off and one doesn't need it for constructing a mask. As I mentioned already, I treat Rendering Intent as an editing option so examining that option happens under softproof too.

So all this is to 'speed up' LR?

[Mark D Segal]

So what? EVERY product's out of the camera as demosaiced will differ, again so what, what makes that one, default useful (I find it far from useful hence the use of presets and my own DNG camera profiles). Indicative of what? Useful how? It's just one rendering. No different in theory than the JPEG your camera spits out. What makes that JPEG 'right'? I see no speed differences for one. I see no reason why Lab values of an output color space is useful for editing IN what is clearly an RGB working space.  So all this is to 'speed up' LR?

You are welcome to see or not to see whatever you wish, and indeed to contradict yourself in so doing. But don't ask me to explain to you how you managed that because I don't have the appetite for prolonging mind games. Just figure it out for yourself.

Good evening Andrew.

If any one ELSE participating in this thread needs further clarification from me on anything I've contributed to this discussion please feel free to ask.

[digitaldog]

Just figure it out for yourself.

I figured it (soft proofing workflows) out 2 decades ago.
Trying to figure out what you propose, much more difficult. As the copy and paste and need for your text to be additionally edited by me illustrates. Nighty night. 

[jrsforums]

Is this finally over?

Mark, you are wonderfully cool under idiotic fire!!😀

[Mark D Segal]

Is this finally over?

Mark, you are wonderfully cool under idiotic fire!!😀

I hope so, and thank you.

Actually, looking back - this whole thread should have stopped at the latest with reply #20 saying this: "OK, one last gasp at this from me: I'm in Lr. I'm not softproofing yet. I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits. Looks nice. Then I push "S" (for softproof, or perhaps a four letter word) and OMG, what happened to that nice photo I edited - I need to change this, change that, change the other thing. Editing twice over, whereas if I started the whole process under soft-proof it's once over, save perhaps for some tweeks depending on whether or not I decide to change the RI, which I consider to be an editing variable."

I failed to catch it last night - because I didn't go back to review the actual post, but Andrew picked up the sentence I bolded just above totally out of context to create incoherence where there was none when reading the rest of the paragraph. I was simply describing two workflows the distinction being that the former risks more redundancy than the latter. All I should have pointed out was the need to read the sentence in the context of the paragraph and leave it at that; sorry I missed that and contributed to more of a feeding frenzy than the subject deserved. So John Dean, yes, you're right. :-)

I'm done with this thread, over and out. I hope some folks found some of the insights in it useful despite the needless twists and turns it took.