Printing from LR2 v. CS3

[Josh-H]

Question - I am very happy with the new output sharpening in LR2.0 - it really is fully the equal of Photokit sharpener for CS3. In my own tests I can see NO difference between images output sharpened in LR2.0 v. CS3 w/ Photokit. Truly Top Notch Work Jeff!

Clearly the only thing lacking in LR2.0 is softproofing - which leads me into my question.

In LR2.0 Tutorial Michael states he no longer prints from CS3, but prints from LR2.0. A Pretty definitive statement.

I totally understand the comment - but what I fail to understand is how to adjust the image for the softproof in LR.20?

Example - if I open an image in CS3 and softproof it I can clearly see what the ideal rendering intent is, and then proceed to apply small corrections for the contrast of the on screen image, v. the print via the softproof - pretty much the workflow described in 'From Camera to Print'. In other words, I usually give an image a small curves creep to account for the contrast ratio and a small saturation bump to restore the 'vibrance' lost in the softproof. I may also tweak individual color channels or do a color range selection to 'punch black', amongst other small tweaks.

I can do this in LR 2.0 in the develop module.. but its purely guesswork to compensate for the difference between the image on screen and the print - since I cant softproof it in LR2.0.

Am I missing something here..or is printing from LR2.0 still next to useless [for critical printing] given the lack of softproofing....

For my own sake I made a print from CS3 with full soft proof corrections and then made a print from LR2.0 to compare the two. What I found was NO discernable difference in sharpness between output sharpening of LR2 and CS3 with PK sharpener [again - amazing work by Pixel Genius] - but noticeable contrast differences, slight saturation differences and slight dynamic range differences due to the lack of soft proofing and hence lack of control to adjust for the differences.

I would love to simplify my workflow by ditching printing from CS3 - but unless I am missing something I fail to see how it is possible without softproofing capabilty- and thats despite the clearly massive advantages of the page layout capabilties.

I should clarify all of the above with the caveat that this refers to final critical printing - not contact sheet printing, which can clearly be done in LR2.0 without stress.

Thoughts?

[madmanchan]

The current method is to round-trip via Photoshop. Do your soft-proof and edit-as-necessary in PS. Then print resulting file from LR.

[michael]

The lack of soft proofing is LR 2.0 is a serious failing, but not a show stopper.

The thing to keep in mind is that the need for soft proofing is only there when an image has out of gamut colors. Otherwise just stick to Relative and be done with it.

If you're printing to matte papers then this is going to be an almost constant issue, and in that case I would export to Photoshop, soft proof and usually print directly from there.

But, if you print with the new generation of quality papers that use photo black ink, (as I do), they have a much wider gamut, making the need for soft proofing necessary much less often. After a while you get to know your images and paper and ink, and will be able to tell when a particular image is going to be a problem, without having to pop into Photoshop to check it.

Michael

[Schewe]

The thing to keep in mind is that the need for soft proofing is only there when an image has out of gamut colors. Otherwise just stick to Relative and be done with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, Mike is 1/2 right (the part about relative being fine most of the time) but kinda wrong on the gamut thingie...at this point with the large gamut printers and the smaller gamut displays, the most important part of soft proofing is for contrast range of the final print-particularly for matte type papers. The gamut of the printers if generally good enough but it's the way the tones will be mapped to the print that is important to observe and correct prior to printing.

[michael]

Jeff's right. If you like that sort of thing.

I tend to prefer my prints to be a bit less punchy, and not push black levels to far.

It's personal preference as well as technology.

Michael

[Josh-H]

Thankyou for the replies Gents.

I looked over the prints again today in the cold light of day [made in Lr2.0 and CS3 - printed on Ilford GFS with an IPF5100. The CS3 print softproofed and tweaked before print.

The differences are subtle - but there is enough of a difference for me to want to round trip through CS3 for critical final printing. That last little tweak in the softproof really adds snap in my test print.

I probably wouldnt bother for anything other than the final critical print for the client however.

I think this has been an interesting exercise for me and shows how amazing the new output sharpening is in LR2 and how good LR is getting for printing.

Now Adobe - PLEASE FOR GAWWWD'S SAKE [AS WELL AS MY OWN] GIVE US SOFTPROOFING IN 2.1!  

[budjames]

Michael,

Do you still use ImagePrint RIP anymore? I guess from your LR2 tutorial that the answer is no.

From my informal testing, I still see benefits of IP7 on my MacPro printing to my Epson R2400. There seems to be a subtle increase in shadow detail using IP as compared to printing via CS3 or LR2 using the Epson profiles. Although this could be the quality of the profiles too.

As usual, your comments are greatly appreciated.

Bud James

[TerryM]

Just an interesting observation. I send out most of my prints, but do like to print some snapshots of the grandkids. I have been using CS3 to print and just let the printer manage color. Use a Epson R280.

After upgrading to Lightroom 2 I decided to try printing from there and let the printer manage color. Colors are way off and look bad. And looks fine printing from CS2.

The only difference I can tell is my images in CS3 are sRGB and in LR I have no control.

Any comments as to why that would be?

[Adam L]

But, if you print with the new generation of quality papers that use photo black ink, (as I do), they have a much wider gamut, making the need for soft proofing necessary much less often. After a while you get to know your images and paper and ink, and will be able to tell when a particular image is going to be a problem, without having to pop into Photoshop to check it.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wonder how long have I been living under a mushroom.   Are we now at a point in time where the quality of paper makes Matt black obsolete?   No more ink swapping?

[Josh-H]

I wonder how long have I been living under a mushroom.   Are we now at a point in time where the quality of paper makes Matt black obsolete?   No more ink swapping?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No - I dont believe so. But I also don't think thats what Michael was insinuating. Not to put words in his mouth - but I think he was just making an observation specific to printing from the new Baryta papers and how they need almost no soft proof tweaking in CS3 compared to matt papers.

Personally, I am printing 95% of my work on the new Baryta papers - but.. every now and again a photograph just screams out for a nice 'toothy' fibre based rag paper  

[photopianeil]

I think we can see by this discussion, there's more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to previsualizing the final print.  I have printed professionally for thirty years for exhibition and photographers portfolios, first photographically with type-C and Cibachrome, and then later with Fuji Pictographs and through the first generation of pigmented inkjets.  Each material had it's own characteristics which needed to be compensated for as is the case today with various papers.  Currently I am using UC3 inkjets and have never found the process easier.  I learned how to soft proof a few years ago from Michael's written tutorial and understand the nature of rendering intent.  Two things were clear to me after working with SP in CS3 and trying Relative Colormetric instead of perceptual.  Seemingly no matter what I did, I could not get an overall better print with either SP or using RC to convert the colors.  I would agree with Michael that the new papers (especially the Baryta coated ones) are making the SP facility even less important.  Since using SP, I understand the process better, but that conscious understanding has not made my prints better either.  Using SP also becomes more chancy when you figure that anyone using an LCD display under $1000 is simply peeing in the wind in my opinion.  I have tried to use LCDs to correct color, but it seems that only the top of the line ones work as well for color as my old CRT.  The current calibrated Mac LCD's I use at school are  difficult to print with.  I had the opportunity to use a dual settup of Eizo 20" CG displays, but I had nothing to compare them to and he was still printing to a 4000 which I don't like nearly as well as the UC3 printers.  Surely after a few sessions with SP and comparing what looks good initially and what works, you should be able to eventually previsualize exactly what your screen image should look like to get you the print that you are after.