HP B9180 and CS3 softproofing?

[michaelbs]

LL print tutorial "from camera to print" praises softproofing in Photoshop as an absolute must in order to get the predictable print you want.
I use the settings outlined in the tutorial but my prints on Hahnemuhle fine art paper look very similiar to the non proofed image. When I use CS3 softpoofing for the profiled paper the screen shows me an image where every black/dark shade has turned grey and there is an overall haze to the image. I simply don't see that on my prints. On my prints black is pitch black and there is no haze.
Could it be that my HP B9180 is so good with these fine art mat papers that CS3's soft proffing module is obsolete?

[rdonson]

Could it be that my HP B9180 is so good with these fine art mat papers that CS3's soft proffing module is obsolete?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Where did the profiles come from that you're using?  Did you buy or create custom profiles?  Its possible that the profiles you're using aren't very good for softproofing.  Are you color managed in your workflow?

[michaelbs]

Where did the profiles come from that you're using?  Did you buy or create custom profiles?  Its possible that the profiles you're using aren't very good for softproofing.  Are you color managed in your workflow?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138934\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Profile for the Hahnemuhle photorag bright white 310 comes from Hahnemuhle's website.
I think you have a point that this particular paperprofile  is far from optimal for softproofing. If I choose a non fine art paper profile softproofing isn't that incorrect.
Yes my workflow is colormanaged. It corresponds perfectly with the "from camera to print" tutorial.

[Geoff Wittig]

LL print tutorial "from camera to print" praises softproofing in Photoshop as an absolute must in order to get the predictable print you want.
I use the settings outlined in the tutorial but my prints on Hahnemuhle fine art paper look very similiar to the non proofed image. When I use CS3 softpoofing for the profiled paper the screen shows me an image where every black/dark shade has turned grey and there is an overall haze to the image. I simply don't see that on my prints. On my prints black is pitch black and there is no haze.
Could it be that my HP B9180 is so good with these fine art mat papers that CS3's soft proffing module is obsolete?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The whole point of soft-proofing is to roughly simulate the appearance of a reflective medium with perhaps a 1:100 dynamic range (i.e. your print), on a transmissive device with a dynamic range more like 1:400 or higher (i.e., your monitor). If the image looks great on your LCD monitor, you're likely to be disappointed with the relatively anemic contrast and perceived Dmax on the print. Ideally the soft proof alerts you to this and permits you to optimize the image contrast so the print isn't a let-down. At least in my experience, presuming the monitor is accurately calibrated, the soft proof step does show me which paper/image combinations are going to look so flat that some curves and shadow tweaking will be required. It also sometimes lets me know which images really need to go on luster or satin paper and which work fine on cotton rag fine art.
As always, YMMV.

[rdonson]

Profile for the Hahnemuhle photorag bright white 310 comes from Hahnemuhle's website.
I think you have a point that this particular paperprofile  is far from optimal for softproofing. If I choose a non fine art paper profile softproofing isn't that incorrect.
Yes my workflow is colormanaged. It corresponds perfectly with the "from camera to print" tutorial.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=138974\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If other profiles are working properly then this one is probably suspect.  

A quick look at it (just as a text file) seems as though it was made from a TC9.18 target with perceptual rendering and D50 luminant in mind from an eye-one.  I don't have the tools to tell if there's anything really amiss with the profile.

[Ernst Dinkla]

I expect we will see more and more complaints about softproofs not representing the actual output. From comments that the normal display is a better representation of the print than the softproof offers, to complaints that the prints are duller than the softproof (with one exception: I doubt that prints can be duller than Qimage's softproof :-).

Reasons are the wider spread of LCD monitor's (many running at higher light levels than we had on the CRTs), the appearance of wider gamut monitors (even affordable 22" models like the Samsung 226 CW, not one to recommend BTW), the N-channel printers with other/wider gamuts and the profiles delivered with them, the widening gap between gloss print gamut and matt print gamut.

Getting used to the new products is one thing, in the past it wasn't easy either to get things synchronised. If the monitor calibration/profiling is hard enough rock to build on there are some issues left. The "RGB" printer profiling should be good coming from the printer manufacturer for the manufacturer's paper, at least for the print itself and we can judge that with our eyes, metamerism is also less an issue than it was before. Whether the generic softproof part of the profiles still is suitable for every desktop, gloss and matt papers, N-color printer gamuts is something I'm not so sure about. I also wonder whether third party profiling software is up to date on that aspect and to extend that I wonder whether their "RGB" printer device profile creation copes with the increased gamuts of printers in general and the specific hues of the N-color models. I bet not all that we trusted in the past and/or didn't upgrade performs optimal on the new tasks.

Starting from the best monitor + monitor calibration/profiling you can afford, "RGB" profiles you trust based on the print output and not satisfied with the softproof you actually need a profile editor that allows editing on the softproof side of the profile.

Not all editors have that feature while it actually is becoming a necessity with the changed and varied conditions sketched above. Even a small plug-in for Photoshop that only allowed softproof editing on a printer profile would be a good tool to adapt the printer profile to individual desktop conditions. Kodak Colorflow tools that I have has far more features and is an expensive but very good editor.

There are probably tricks possible with the monitor profile(s) to get there cheap but it  isn't the right path and an inconvenient one too. I'm not sure whether new generic softproof methods will solve this in the future, I have some doubts as development in printing and monitors continues. There are of course risks that softproof editing by the user will be used to compensate flaws in the rest of his color management. If you leave "You press the button, we do the rest" territory you need some skills.


Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/

[neil snape]

Cross post from Dpreview.
I'm reposting as it is useful info. The information on LL forum is quite high and maybe should become the one stop for quality info.

I've always been only somewhat satisfied with soft proofing in Photoshop. My dearly loved and missed colleague Bruce Fraser wanted to believe it to be fool proof, but I can tell you it is not. Spectros are devices that have their own limitations and encounter problems with different inks and media. HP profiles (for pigments) are reasonable at printing on matte but not very good at soft proofing. The refraction from some matte papers evokes a L* shift according to the spectro that our eyes simply do not correspond >

Graeme Gill has written about the spectrum of the light making color constancy or failure what it is as well. I've been trying to understand these phenomena for a long time and still I'm surprised at all the influences of light and reflection compared to what one categorically assumes to be deviant behavior. Some years ago a PHD in color did some tests with measured samples of different substrates and varnishes with a normal 0/45 spectro and a sphere. The differences where and are enormous, the sphere being a lot closer to what the eye sees. In the EFI XF manual I was ready last night, the color difference model also plays into how much deviation in the appearance differs with each model , the closer to human vision being the later color models.
Color matching is a very complex subject that apparently has many twists to it.

So you can use soft proofing, probably should but in the case of HP piggies on matte you'll be better off leaving the rendering preview set to relative with no paper white or black.

[rdonson]

Starting from the best monitor + monitor calibration/profiling you can afford, "RGB" profiles you trust based on the print output and not satisfied with the softproof you actually need a profile editor that allows editing on the softproof side of the profile.

Not all editors have that feature while it actually is becoming a necessity with the changed and varied conditions sketched above. Even a small plug-in for Photoshop that only allowed softproof editing on a printer profile would be a good tool to adapt the printer profile to individual desktop conditions. Kodak Colorflow tools that I have has far more features and is an expensive but very good editor.

There are probably tricks possible with the monitor profile(s) to get there cheap but it  isn't the right path and an inconvenient one too. I'm not sure whether new generic softproof methods will solve this in the future, I have some doubts as development in printing and monitors continues. There are of course risks that softproof editing by the user will be used to compensate flaws in the rest of his color management. If you leave "You press the button, we do the rest" territory you need some skills.
Ernst Dinkla

try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=139089\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the very informative post, Ernst.  Just for the heck of it I started to play with the profile Michael mentioned last night with APS 1.3.  Surprisingly APS does have some editing features for softproofing.  I haven't delved into them but I have the feeling that you may think they're insufficient and possibly very dangerous in the hands of a CM novice like me.

[Ernst Dinkla]

Just for the heck of it I started to play with the profile Michael mentioned last night with APS 1.3.  Surprisingly APS does have some editing features for softproofing.  I haven't delved into them but I have the feeling that you may think they're insufficient and possibly very dangerous in the hands of a CM novice like me.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There's little lost if you make sure that the profile name reflects the editing done to it.
I'm no color guru at all but for some time I have been wondering why I get the feeling the match is more off today than it was in the past and more people complaining in the lists and not always because the print has less saturation than expected like it was usual before. Related to that the out of gamut representation is something I never used, if it is critical you can't trust it and for the rough picture you don't need it. I also get more reservations about the 3D gamut competitions on the web. The proof is in the pudding and in our case it rolls off the printer so if that monitor and viewing light is used correctly little harm can be done by adapting the softproof side of the profile to match the prints.




Ernst Dinkla

try: [a href=\"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/[/url]