SoftProofing Hahnemuhle ICC Profiles in Photoshop

[jtphotog]

I have downloaded the Hahnemuhle ICC profiles for their papers.  I'm using Photoshop CS3 to softproof (and print) my images to an HP B9180 on Mac OS X 10.4.9 (PowerMac Dual G5).  I have purchased the Hahnemuhle sample pack and downloaded the respective ICC profiles for my printer and OS.  When I do a simple soft proof, for any of the papers, the color shift and looks washed out.  I did a test print, and sure enough, the print was bad, too.

I confirmed I have the print driver setup correctly, allowing photoshop to manage colors and using the respective Hahnemuhle ICC profile.  Plus, at a minimum, soft proofing should look so terrible.  

Note: My monitor is calibrated using ColorVisions's Spyder.

Thanks.

[francois]

I have downloaded the Hahnemuhle ICC profiles for their papers.  I'm using Photoshop CS3 to softproof (and print) my images to an HP B9180 on Mac OS X 10.4.9 (PowerMac Dual G5).  I have purchased the Hahnemuhle sample pack and downloaded the respective ICC profiles for my printer and OS.  When I do a simple soft proof, for any of the papers, the color shift and looks washed out.  I did a test print, and sure enough, the print was bad, too.

I confirmed I have the print driver setup correctly, allowing photoshop to manage colors and using the respective Hahnemuhle ICC profile.  Plus, at a minimum, soft proofing should look so terrible. 

Note: My monitor is calibrated using ColorVisions's Spyder.

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

FWIW, I experienced the same problem with Hahnemuhle profiles. It was a couple of years ago. I now use custom profiles.
By the way, was your rendering intent "Perceptual"? If it was, then try "Relative Colorimetric" to see if it improves your soft-proofing/prints.

[jtphotog]

FWIW, I experienced the same problem with Hahnemuhle profiles. It was a couple of years ago. I now use custom profiles.
By the way, was your rendering intent "Perceptual"? If it was, then try "Relative Colorimetric" to see if it improves your soft-proofing/prints.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

francois,

Thanks for the response.  Yes, I tried Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual, all with the same effect.  By the way, the Crane Museo profiles do the same thing.

Do you know of any free canned Hahnemuhle Profiles?

[jschone]

What papers were included in the sample pack? What kind of image are you trying to print?

-Check out of gamut colors
-Bring out of gamut colors back with hue/saturation
-Although there is a difference between Relative and Perceptual, with both you should be able to achieve reasonable results. Is there a lot of purple/blue in your image maybe? (again, check out of gamut)
-If your prints look the same as your soft proof, something is going good... (even when the result is bad) Seems your on the right track. Cotton papers are more difficult for saturated colors. How is the shadow separation in the final print? Graduation of color?
 
Jochem

francois,

Thanks for the response.  Yes, I tried Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual, all with the same effect.  By the way, the Crane Museo profiles do the same thing.

Do you know of any free canned Hahnemuhle Profiles?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[digitaldog]

I did a test print, and sure enough, the print was bad, too.

I confirmed I have the print driver setup correctly, allowing photoshop to manage colors and using the respective Hahnemuhle ICC profile.  Plus, at a minimum, soft proofing should look so terrible. 

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114722\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Then the profile stinks. If the output were good and the soft proof poor, it could be the soft proof table. That both match means something is off with respect to the output behavior and that which the profile thinks it should be defining. Could be a media setting. Or the profile just isn't defining the process correctly.

[pflower]

I have used photo rag as my stock paper for at least 4years.  I have no experience with your printer but have used Epsons (2100, 7800 and now 3800.  I get great prints from the canned profiles for all of these printers using either the profiles for enhaced matte or archival matte.  Then I have have had custome profiles made.  The differences between epson's canned profies are subtle - not dramatic.  If you re getting washed out prints then the profiles are bad.  I have never used any of the Hahnemuhle profiles but have heard that they are not great.  But the paper is the best I have seen ( and I have tried virtually ever paper available in the UK).  Try the canned matte profiles that come with your printer before judging.

Then the profile stinks. If the output were good and the soft proof poor, it could be the soft proof table. That both match means something is off with respect to the output behavior and that which the profile thinks it should be defining. Could be a media setting. Or the profile just isn't defining the process correctly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[jtphotog]

What papers were included in the sample pack? What kind of image are you trying to print?

-Check out of gamut colors
-Bring out of gamut colors back with hue/saturation
-Although there is a difference between Relative and Perceptual, with both you should be able to achieve reasonable results. Is there a lot of purple/blue in your image maybe? (again, check out of gamut)
-If your prints look the same as your soft proof, something is going good... (even when the result is bad) Seems your on the right track. Cotton papers are more difficult for saturated colors. How is the shadow separation in the final print? Graduation of color?
 
Jochem
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I checked out of gamut colors, and there are none showing up in Photoshop.  BTW, when I use HP's ICC profile for the Hahnemuhle PhotoRag (not the HP-branded), the soft proofing in Photoshop appears correct AND prints correct.

[eronald]

The last time I checked, paper profiles from the best people in the business (Andrew, Chromix) were well under $100 (mine are at $30). Why are you guys so cheap ? Find someone to run a custom profile if the canned ones don't make you happy.

Edmund

[digitaldog]

The last time I checked, paper profiles from the best people in the business (Andrew, Chromix) were well under $100 (mine are at $30). [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

From day one, my profiles have and will continue to be $100 (just to set the record straight).

[eronald]

From day one, my profiles have and will continue to be $100 (just to set the record straight).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Andrew.

This shows how cheap the profiles are, since you're at the summit of the pyramid.

Edmund

[jtphotog]

The last time I checked, paper profiles from the best people in the business (Andrew, Chromix) were well under $100 (mine are at $30). Why are you guys so cheap ? Find someone to run a custom profile if the canned ones don't make you happy.

Edmund
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=114974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cheap?  Well, now, that is a very relative term, don't you think?  Someone with a "PhD" at the end of their signature should think twice before making such ridiculous statements.

The point of the question is determine WHY the ICC profiles provided by these 2 manufacturers are not softproofing and printing correctly.

[digitaldog]

The point of the question is determine WHY the ICC profiles provided by these 2 manufacturers are not softproofing and printing correctly.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=115623\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I suspect that the profiles are at fault (duh <g>). That could be due to the printer used or the settings or the software that built the profiles (one could examine that if the company didn't go out of its way to hide this fact). So lets say the printer used doesn't conform in behavior with the users downloading the canned profile. Now with the pro line of Epson printers, its pretty clear the devices are pretty darn stable and conform to a standard behavior. Even a few years ago, when Bill Atkinson built his profiles for the pro line of printers, many, many users got good results from that single profile. The profile was of course well made (Bill built a custom software package to do this) but more importantly, many of the Epson printers out in the field produced results which matched closely Bill's printer used to print the targets. So that's key here. If someone producers 100,000 printers and the standard deviation is a deltaE of 8, no ones profile is going to work very well no matter how many patches are used, the Spectrophotometer or the algorithms. I'm super impressed with the quality of the canned profiles from my 3800 (using the US built Pro profiles). My custom profiles are a bit better but for 95% fof users, the out of the box experience is excellent. Of course, that's using Epson paper!

The issue could be optical brighteners in the papers and how well the software or Spectrophotometer 'compensate' for it.

What I can say is I don't think that by and large, this is an issue with the papers. Looking over the saved spectral data files I keep from all profiles I build, I've built a fair number from this company and as yet (knock wood) I haven't had customers complain to me. So I suspect these are just crappy canned profiles. It IS expensive to license profiles made from quality off the shelf products. You're going to have to drop at least $5000 if you want to supply in mass a profile built using ProfileMaker Pro. Maybe the company is using a lesser quality product or rolling their own software.

[a_krause]

I too was having awful results with the Hahnemuhle canned profiles but great results with the Epson canned profiles and even the Moab canned profiles, which lead me to believe that the Hahn canned profiles just stink. I ended up printing my books with Moab entrada as it is a brigher paper and i thought made my prints look better anyways. If you are super stuck to the Hahn. paper get a custom profile, in hindseight it isnt that much considering a box of 20 peices of paper is about $50 [or more] and a profile will cost you 100.

 
oh yea, I am making prints with an epson 2400.