Soft proofing

[Mark D Segal]

Mark

Maybe the Epson Printer Profile is the culprit.  If you can't profile the output you might want to try the trial version of Colorbyte Imageprint 8.  Download and install the demo program, actually the full program just coded to print demo across the print.  Download the appropriate Colorbyte profile and give it a shot.  Epson has always said that they express no warranty on their profiles.  But if you have the display calibrated, are selecting the appropriate profile while softproofing and printing, then the third leg of the stool would be a bad profile.

Firstly, if it's an actual Epson-made profile, I'd be surprised if the Epson profile were the culprit. Huge numbers of people are using these profiles successfully, and they happen to be very good. I would only look upon printet profiling as part of the problem if there were reason to believe that something was unusual about how the printer is behaving, but if that's the case the printer should be repaired. But first try all colour management remedies before suspecting a printer problem. Secondly, ImagePrint is a waste of time and money unless the OP has special layout and archiving requirements that make it advantageous. I would recommend avoiding that approach and just getting basic colour management right.

[PeterAit]

I have been soft-proofing my images before saving back to LR and printing, but the first print is always much too dark.  I have calibrated and re-calibrated my monitor, color management is turned off in printer settings, and  the correct profile is being used. I've begun making the soft-proofed image very bright to compensate, but still need 3 or 4 prints to get it right.

It seems to me that defeats the purpose of soft proofing and I might as well print directly from LR without soft proofing. My impression from studying the Reichmann/Schewe Camera to Print tutorial is that the first print should pretty much match the soft proofed image on the monitor. Is this too optimistic or do I have a broken link in the chain? Would the monitor calibration be most likely? Any way to tell for sure?

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I'm using a 24" iMac, Epson 4880 and Epson Ultra Premium Luster with profile PLPP260.

Thanks.

The simple answer is "yes" (to the extent that a monitor and print can ever really match). A corollary to that answer is that it takes some experience to get things working so that your first print is just as you want (and that's not always true even for the real experts, but it's true a lot of the time). Even if your system and monitor brightness and everything else are set up optimally, there is some judgement involved, and that comes only with experience.

[Mark D Segal]

The simple answer is "yes" (to the extent that a monitor and print can ever really match). A corollary to that answer is that it takes some experience to get things working so that your first print is just as you want (and that's not always true even for the real experts, but it's true a lot of the time). Even if your system and monitor brightness and everything else are set up optimally, there is some judgement involved, and that comes only with experience.

I wouldn't want the OP to be frightened by the idea that a great deal of experience and judgment is needed to get this right, because it's really not quite the case. After some initial experimentation and testing, the process should be reliable enough to work almost automatically and deliver satisfactory results most of the time (yes, there will always be some problematic images but those should be the exception, not the rule). One always needs to be aware that there is a fundamental difference between reflected and transmitted light, and a moderate mental adjustment of how one looks at these images comparatively is necessary, but for that too, getting accustomed to it doesn't take an age of time and experience.

[Photo Op]

Have you tried making the print directly from Photoshop rather than sending the file back to LR? This may be a useful thing to do and see whether the result differs, just in case there is something getting messed-up on the return trip. No doubt you have colouor management turned off in the printer driver?

Exactly my experience.

MacPro w\10.6.2
LR 2.6, LR 3Beta, CS4
Epson R2880 printer, latest Apple "provided" Snow Leopard pushed drivers
Monitor calibrated with most recent ColorEyes software and Spyder 3 spectro
Ilford and Red River paper using vendor provided icc's

Soft proof target (ProPhoto) in CS4. Print is "exactly" what appears in monitor. Color patches same color, tone, "whatever" same as screen.

Open same untagged target in LR (either version). Print with either paper with exactly the same settings as CS4.

Scenes in the LR print are similar to monitor and print from CS4. BUT, color patches and strips in the target are desaturated from the CS4 print. Black and White gradation tests are not as "good" as in CS4 print.

FWIW. I consider my workflow/calibrating to be working with CS4. Therefore, I would recommend the OP use CS4 and its softproofing/printing to determine whether his "calibrating" is working. In my opinion, LR still does not perform to its big brother's standards, for whatever the reason.

[Mark D Segal]

Exactly my experience.

MacPro w\10.6.2
LR 2.6, LR 3Beta, CS4
Epson R2880 printer, latest Apple "provided" Snow Leopard pushed drivers
Monitor calibrated with most recent ColorEyes software and Spyder 3 spectro
Ilford and Red River paper using vendor provided icc's

Soft proof target (ProPhoto) in CS4. Print is "exactly" what appears in monitor. Color patches same color, tone, "whatever" same as screen.

Open same untagged target in LR (either version). Print with either paper with exactly the same settings as CS4.

Scenes in the LR print are similar to monitor and print from CS4. BUT, color patches and strips in the target are desaturated from the CS4 print. Black and White gradation tests are not as "good" as in CS4 print.

FWIW. I consider my workflow/calibrating to be working with CS4. Therefore, I would recommend the OP use CS4 and its softproofing/printing to determine whether his "calibrating" is working. In my opinion, LR still does not perform to its big brother's standards, for whatever the reason.

My recommendation to work within CS4 first is based on scientific procedure: to pare down the variables and analyze one at a time. Not that I necessarily expect there to be a problem with printing from LR, but nothing is impossible.

My experience printing from LR is that it works fine. But since I need to soft-proof in PS anyhow, I just print from there. I don't see the advantage of going back to LR for printing - for me it is just an unecesasry step. When soft-proofing comes to LR, my trips to PS will be very much reduced.

I don't recommend Ilford's profile for Gold Fibre Silk, if that's the paper being used. I've tried it and found it unsatisfactory (Epson 3800), so I made my own and the results are considerably better.

[PeterAit]

Mark

Maybe the Epson Printer Profile is the culprit.  If you can't profile the output you might want to try the trial version of Colorbyte Imageprint 8.  Download and install the demo program, actually the full program just coded to print demo across the print.  Download the appropriate Colorbyte profile and give it a shot.  Epson has always said that they express no warranty on their profiles.  But if you have the display calibrated, are selecting the appropriate profile while softproofing and printing, then the third leg of the stool would be a bad profile.

The Epson profile for Premium Luster is very accurate. My own prints and the Atkinson test print come out spot-on using that profile when printed on a 4880 and viewed using Solux lights (which, by the way, are well worth the modest cost). My monitor is calibrated at 140, I believe.

[Schewe]

My experience printing from LR is that it works fine. But since I need to soft-proof in PS anyhow, I just print from there. I don't see the advantage of going back to LR for printing - for me it is just an unecesasry step.

Really? You don't like to use custom print templates to maintain ease and consistency? You actually like having to open the Print dlog and the print driver dlog fro each and every print you ever make? You don't like Lightroom's output sharpening (and the improved ability to upsample)?

Lightroom is far more efficient in the printing workflow that even if I _DO_ go into Photoshop to soft proof (and do any major retouching) it's still worth it to me to go back to Lightroom for the printing...really!

:~)

[Mark D Segal]

Really? You don't like to use custom print templates to maintain ease and consistency? You actually like having to open the Print dlog and the print driver dlog fro each and every print you ever make? You don't like Lightroom's output sharpening (and the improved ability to upsample)?

Lightroom is far more efficient in the printing workflow that even if I _DO_ go into Photoshop to soft proof (and do any major retouching) it's still worth it to me to go back to Lightroom for the printing...really!

:~)

Jeff - ya - really. Once I've softproofed, all I need to do to print is: (i) PK Output sharpen to taste (more controllable than that in LR), (ii) optional-flatten; (iii) click print once for the Photoshop dialog (which is all set-up and sticks aprt from clicking the Portrait or Lansscape buttons when needed) and quickly again for the Epson driver. (iv) By choice, the Epson print preview comes up to show me that the image is there centered as I like it. (v) Click print. All of this takes less time than it took me to write it down here. It's dead-easy. Two of these steps are optional, and the other three would be done in LR as well. As far as I'm concerned, for my usual workflow it's probably six of one, half a dozen of the other. I print them one at a time as I finish final review and tweaks - no batch printing.

[Schewe]

Two of these steps are optional, and the other three would be done in LR as well.

Uh no...if you know how to set up Lightroom templates, you NEVER have to see a print dlog again. You select the image and you "Print One) after selecting the proper template. In Lightroom all you need to do is select the correct template (one click), click on the Print One, (one click) and make sure your paper is loaded in the printer...

Really Mark, printing from Photoshop is so last millennium...whether you need a large or a small print, Lightroom allows you to keep a single image optimized for output (from the soft proofing) and make whatever size print you need off of that master tiff image. Yes, if you change printers/paper you have to pop the image open again (easy to do in Lightroom) to select a different soft proof setting...but the ability to have only ONE master rendered image (aside from the original raw file) for whatever size print you need is pretty compelling...

[Mark D Segal]

but the ability to have only ONE master rendered image (aside from the original raw file) for whatever size print you need is pretty compelling...

I know the workflow and I've done it, but what's optimal, regardless of the millenium, depends on what one needs. I very seldom - if ever - print the same image at different sizes. For what I do most of the time - a one-off, one size, it's so quick and simple that there's little advantage sending the image back to LR for this purpose. It will be a whole different ballgame once LR has soft-proofing, and as you know, I along with many others have been recommending this to the developers for quite a while. Well, seems as if it MAY be *somewhat* around the corner (from what I've heard harder to do than to wish for), and when it happens, I'll definitely be printing directly from LR much of the time.

[Nill Toulme]

...whether you need a large or a small print, Lightroom allows you to keep a single image optimized for output (from the soft proofing) and make whatever size print you need off of that master tiff image. Yes, if you change printers/paper you have to pop the image open again (easy to do in Lightroom) to select a different soft proof setting...but the ability to have only ONE master rendered image (aside from the original raw file) for whatever size print you need is pretty compelling...

This is exactly what has kept me printing with Qimage for years — along with its superb no-step upsizing and output sharpening algorithms.  Utterly painless.

Nill

[Nill Toulme]

...I am viewing the prints in the same room as the monitor so the light is the same for both. ...
I could change the calibration targets but would that matter since I am judging the monitor image and print in the same light?  And yes, I do turn away from the monitor when viewing the print.

Mark, forgive me if you're past this in the process, but these statements suggest to me that you're missing the point regarding ambient illumination.  The fact that you're viewing the prints and the monitor in the same lighting is utterly irrelevant IMO.  Gosh, my workroom is usually so dark I can hardly see to find the print, much less judge it (exaggeration, but slight).  

The print should be judged in roughly the same type and level of illumination that you expect it to be viewed in after delivery.  If that bears any relation to your working illumination, it's probably only coincidental.

Then you need to set your monitor luminance so it matches your print's brightness level to your own satisfaction.  This is where your ambient working light level comes in.  If you're working in a dark room, you will probably need to set your monitor somewhat darker, conversely for a brighter work environment.

Does that make sense?  Sorry if I'm telling you something you'd already grasped, but your mention of the light being the same for your monitor and prints suggested to be that perhaps you had not.

And you others who understand all this a lot better than I do, please correct me if I'm, um, in the dark.

Nill

[Ray]

If I can make a comment here regarding ambient lighting; regardless of whether your print matches your monitor, the appearance of the print will change according to ambient lighting conditions. It's impssible to make a print that looks the same under all lighting conditions. In dim lighting there will appear to be less detail in the shadows; in warm lighting the color hues will change, and in bright sunlight everything will appear as clear as a bell.

The ideal situation, it would appear to me, is to display your prints under the same lighting conditions they were created. If your monitor is calibrated to a D65, your ambient room lighting, or viewing booth, should also be D65, and the place where your prints are exhibited should then also have ambient D65 lighting. Is this not the case?

It would seem very unsatisfactory to me to have to adjust the brightness of one's monitor after calibration in order to match the brightness of a print which is viewed under darker conditions than the intended display conditions.

[Mark D Segal]

Broadly agree about the matching as long as we're clear that you're discussing two separate issues here: temperature and luminosity. The choice within the range of say D50 and D65 relates to the temperature of the display lighting and the bulbs used for print viewing. Whether the light is dim or bright is the luminance adjustment, which for the display would be measured in cd/M2. I agree that aligning both makes sense, but it's not necessary to the Nth degree because visual adaptation to a certain range of differences works to our advantage.

(Quick edit after posting)

[ErikKaffehr]

Bill,

Thank's for doing the math! Two comments:

143 cd/m^2 is a bit brighter than what is suggested on this forum but it's still pretty close (at least same power of two ;-)

An issue may be that in many cases the prints are presented in much less light than recommended in the ISO standard and this is really part of the issue. The print looks right in your viewing booth or under your "task lamp" but it's dark and boring under less intense illumination.

Best regards
Erik

That is an interesting exercise, and there may be come confusion relating the suggested luminance of the monitor (around 120 cd/m^2) with the ISO 3664 P2 standard which specifies a viewing illuminance of 500 lux (ICC link). The Photometry FAQ gives the answer: "The perfect diffuse reflector emits 1/p units of luminance per unit illuminance. If the reflectance is r, then the luminance is r times the illuminance." This is using a unit that has the factor of (1/p) built in (apostilb).

An average white paper has a reflectance of about 90%. The luminance of the paper viewed under an illuminance of 500 lux would have a luminance of 500*pi * 0.90 = 143 cd/m^2. This is somewhat brighter than recommended on this thread.

[Ray]

Broadly agree about the matching as long as we're clear that you're discussing two separate issues here: temperature and luminosity. The choice within the range of say D50 and D65 relates to the temperature of the display lighting and the bulbs used for print viewing. Whether the light is dim or bright is the luminance adjustment, which for the display would be measured in cd/M2. I agree that aligning both makes sense, but it's not necessary to the Nth degree because visual adaptation to a certain range of differences works to our advantage.

(Quick edit after posting)

Mark,
Of course you're right that it's not necessary to be precise to the Nth degree.

The precision in digital photography is mostly about lenses and camera bodies. The artistic results are infinitely variable.

It's possible to create a masterpiece with an unclaibrated monitor through pure chance. The print that you hang on your wall may improve according to the changing ambient lighting conditions. At 5pm in the evening, in the middle of winter, or the middle of summer, your print might look terrific.

It's really all about control at the time of printing.

[Mark D Segal]

It's really all about control at the time of printing.

Plus everything up-stream of printing too which contributes to a proper colour-managed workflow.

I'm sure you know - while contemporary colour management can produce excellent results, it is neither perfect nor foolproof, so one of the points I was making is that we are fortunate insofar as our adaptive capacities help to overcome the "soft edges".

[PeterAit]

I wouldn't want the OP to be frightened by the idea that a great deal of experience and judgment is needed to get this right, because it's really not quite the case. After some initial experimentation and testing, the process should be reliable enough to work almost automatically and deliver satisfactory results most of the time (yes, there will always be some problematic images but those should be the exception, not the rule). One always needs to be aware that there is a fundamental difference between reflected and transmitted light, and a moderate mental adjustment of how one looks at these images comparatively is necessary, but for that too, getting accustomed to it doesn't take an age of time and experience.

I agree with you - in fact, when I first set up a new computer and printer and calibrated the monitor, my very first print was "satisfactory" in that it was a good match to the screen. So yes, the technology, when properly applied, can give good results for the beginner. My comment was more relevant to the photographer who wants to go beyond "satisfactory," in which case experience is definitely required.

[Mark D Segal]

I agree with you - in fact, when I first set up a new computer and printer and calibrated the monitor, my very first print was "satisfactory" in that it was a good match to the screen. So yes, the technology, when properly applied, can give good results for the beginner. My comment was more relevant to the photographer who wants to go beyond "satisfactory," in which case experience is definitely required.

Yea, but not with the colour-management set-up -  more likely with working-around those situations where despite the best colour management one needs to make some "unusual" adjustments. This takes some experience. Yet again, not to exaggerate it.

[Mark F]

Problem solved!!! Hallelujah!! After spending hours and hours on Saturday and Sunday with the test prints and everything else that had been suggested it finally occurred to me that maybe there was something wrong with the printer so I called Epson tech support this morning.  Reached a very knowledgeable guy right away and it turns out that the printer is ok but the drivers were corrupted. We uninstalled everything, downloaded the latest drivers and bingo!  Problem solved.  

I guess I should have thought of that earlier but I learned a lot along the way and really, really appreciate everyone's help.

Nills and Ray, I do understand that every room's ambient light will be different than every other's room, but my prints were so far off from the monitor that my initial goal was just to get the prints to match the monitor under the same light that the monitor was being viewed.  Now that I've done that I can start tweaking. By the way, it is my understanding that many galleries use 3500K light bulbs and find that better shows off the work.