How many rounds of color proofs to get it right?

[RichardJWhite]

I am curious as to what peoples experience is as far as printing color proofs goes. Clearly this is a subjective discussion, people have different taste levels and see things differently, and have tighter color workflows, but what are your experiences or rules of thumb as far as what happens between first output and final print?

I am testing color on 5"x7" for a final 9"x12". It is looking like it will take 2-3 rounds and maybe 4 on the more difficult images. I am working with all kinds of different images: digital capture, small/medium format color positive/negative and the same with some b&w, all scanned on a flextight x1.

Is it necessary or helpfull to print one proof at the final size, considering that I have a limited amount of scored/drilled paper, and I can proof the same size without using the scored paper?

Any thoughts?

[Dick Roadnight]

I am testing color on 5"x7" for a final 9"x12". It is looking like it will take 2-3 rounds and maybe 4 on the more difficult images.

The theory is that if you get your monitor calibrated properly, you get it right first time, ...or learn how it should look on screen to look good on paper.

[dgberg]

First question,what are the images of? Just curious. Second question,are they for a paying client? 9 X 12's are pretty cheap these days,a couple of bucks at best.  Cannot imagine that it would take more then 1 proof if that. Most of my printing is for the Photography enthusiest group and I might do several proofs a month if that. No one wants to pay for proofs these days. For the other printing work we do it is mostly family pictures and we never proof print.
Without knowing if you have a discriminating client or if they are for yourself and your just pretty fussy. At that size I would print the full size right from the start expecting the first one to be the final one. If it doesn't make the cut, print another. Anything more then that might just be an excerise in futility.
On the other hand if this is a high end client and they want what they want regardless of the cost then you print as many as it takes!

[JeffKohn]

The theory is that if you get your monitor calibrated properly, you get it right first time, ...or learn how it should look on screen to look good on paper.

That's the theory, but IMHO the reality is that there's more to it than having a calibrated display.

Custom profiles and a knowledge of how to soft-proof go a long way towards getting consistent results. Soft-proofing takes some practice though, it's not as simple as turning on the soft-proofing and having a WYSIWYG preview of exactly what the print will look like. The key to soft-proofing is identifying problem areas where color or tonal detail is lost, so that you can fix them before printing.

Choice of printer can play a role, as well. Cheaper dekstop printers may "drift" over time, so that even with a profile you may have trouble getting consistent results. The newer printers (especially large-format) have gotten more consistent, and some of them have calibration routines built-in.

I don't feel the need to print a color proof except for really large prints. If I did proofs for smaller prints the amount of ink/paper wasted on the proofs would outweigh the waste from actually having to re-print something due to a problem, which is very rare. In fact I can't remember the last time I had to re-print because of a color problem; if I need to reprint it's probably because of a paper defect (which can be really frustrating).

[RichardJWhite]

The theory is that if you get your monitor calibrated properly, you get it right first time, ...or learn how it should look on screen to look good on paper.

That is the theory, but not my reality, nore anyone I know. Again this is a subjective judgement. If you shot an ad campaign, getting paid, say, $15,000.00 dollars a day and were handing in prints as well as files, you are confident enough in your color managment that you would not have output any proofs? Kudos...

[RichardJWhite]

First question,what are the images of? Just curious. Second question,are they for a paying client? 9 X 12's are pretty cheap these days,a couple of bucks at best.  Cannot imagine that it would take more then 1 proof if that. Most of my printing is for the Photography enthusiest group and I might do a proof once a month if that. No one wants to pay for proofs these days. For the other printing work we do it is mostly family pictures and we never proof print.
Without knowing if you have a discriminating client or if they are for yourself and your just pretty fussy. At that size I would print the full size right from the start expecting the first one to be the final one. If it doesn't make the cut, print another. Anything more then that might just be an excerise in futility.
On the other hand if this is a high end client and they want what they want regardless of the cost then you print as many as it takes!

I am printing a portfolio for a commercial photographer (my wife) there a couple different books, both with about 150 different images. Most of them are commisioned work, advertising, editorial and catalog.
They are going infront of: Photo/Design/Creative Directors at national magazines, Art Buyers/Directors, Creative Directors thier clients and the odd celebrity. Basically people who are paid to judge work, the less there is to criticize, the better. Money, as far printing color proofs is not an issue.

I am also one of the people paid to judge other peoples work...

[dgberg]

Fair enough. I would then print until you are happy with the results. As you can see from the various responses many printers send the first print out of the printer out the door with the customer. After hearing a little about the project it changes everything. Good luck with this project.

[Sven W]

I am curious as to what peoples experience is as far as printing color proofs goes. Clearly this is a subjective discussion, people have different taste levels and see things differently, and have tighter color workflows, but what are your experiences or rules of thumb as far as what happens between first output and final print?

I am testing color on 5"x7" for a final 9"x12". It is looking like it will take 2-3 rounds and maybe 4 on the more difficult images. I am working with all kinds of different images: digital capture, small/medium format color positive/negative and the same with some b&w, all scanned on a flextight x1.

Is it necessary or helpfull to print one proof at the final size, considering that I have a limited amount of scored/drilled paper, and I can proof the same size without using the scored paper?

Any thoughts?

For me it really depends on, if I compare prints to my monitor or to an original. When it comes to a reproduction, I run prints until everbody is happy  
When I make proofs for offsetprinting, and compare to my monitor (Eizo CG 211), I use the Efi-RIP with certified papers, Epson 9900, correct viewing-light (Solux) and the proofs are dead on right after the first run!

/Sven

[PeterAit]

I am curious as to what peoples experience is as far as printing color proofs goes. Clearly this is a subjective discussion, people have different taste levels and see things differently, and have tighter color workflows, but what are your experiences or rules of thumb as far as what happens between first output and final print?

I am testing color on 5"x7" for a final 9"x12". It is looking like it will take 2-3 rounds and maybe 4 on the more difficult images. I am working with all kinds of different images: digital capture, small/medium format color positive/negative and the same with some b&w, all scanned on a flextight x1.

Is it necessary or helpfull to print one proof at the final size, considering that I have a limited amount of scored/drilled paper, and I can proof the same size without using the scored paper?

Any thoughts?

With a calibrated high-gamut monitor and some experience (and photoshop's proofing command) I never have to make proofs - prints come out just as they look on the screen. This is, in fact, the whole rationale for good monitors, profiling, and calibration.

[Dick Roadnight]

The theory is that if you get your monitor calibrated properly, you get it right first time, ...or learn how it should look on screen to look good on paper.

That is the theory, but not my reality, nore anyone I know. Again this is a subjective judgement.

No monitor can be the same as paper, because a monitor is self-illuminated, and paper has to be lit... and you need to know the lighting in which the print will be observed to know how to print the picture... print light for typical home display, without picture lights, darker for display in a gallery with good picture lights.

¿So what do you do if you display pictures in a gallery for sale to customers who will almost certainly not "properly" light the picture?

[Dick Roadnight]

I am printing a portfolio for a commercial photographer (my wife) there a couple different books, both with about 150 different images. Most of them are commisioned work, advertising, editorial and catalog.
They are going infront of: Photo/Design/Creative Directors at national magazines, Art Buyers/Directors, Creative Directors thier clients and the odd celebrity. Basically people who are paid to judge work, the less there is to criticize, the better. Money, as far printing color proofs is not an issue.

I am also one of the people paid to judge other peoples work...

You can assume that professionals will observe the picture in ICC standard conditions, so calibration should more or less do the job... the problem is to make the photos look like a set.

I hate large areas of shadow... but you see it in almost most pictures now... but this is personal preference, but I would try to adequately fill the shadows, accept for where shadows are artistically beneficial.

Colour temperature should be consistent accept for sunsets etc...

¿How long is a piece of string?

[ednazarko]

I am printing a portfolio for a commercial photographer (my wife) there a couple different books, both with about 150 different images. Most of them are commisioned work, advertising, editorial and catalog.

There's the issue, from my perspective.  When I'm printing individual images that will be viewed as individual images, in other words where each print stands and shows alone, I've never had to do more than one proof print beyond soft profiling.  I've got the multiple Solux viewing options, do end to end profiling, and am very careful even about the color temp and brightness of my working light sources when soft proofing - eyes adapt quickly to new inputs, and when I got really focused on squeezing all variability out of my environment, the value of all the obsessive focus on profiling and profiles paid off.  Where I will sometimes need to make an adjustment it's almost always a problem with shadow density, which is the hardest thing to get right on an LCD no matter what you paid for it, but I use relatively few papers, and have been able to eliminate even that one proof in most situations.

However, books make me crazy, because each image does NOT stand alone.  From a creative perspective, I usually optimize every photo to make it the best possible image on its own - most of my printing is for shows or sales of individual images, and whether I chose to shift white balance a bit for one photo versus another isn't an issue, and I am as free with creative color adjustments as I was when I did wet printing.  But when I have a series, or a book, where all the shots from an event or project will be shown together, I find I end up re-processing the RAW files with a standard stored setting - which basically shifts the pain from adjusting to get the proofs to match up to having to reprocess the images from scratch.  If that wasn't possible - and I have thankfully not had to produce anything that was based on work across years of time, camera types, types of image, art director influenced styles, and film with digital - I think I'd find myself in proofing purgatory even with my obsessive workflow.  (I can't tell you how hard I try to avoid that situation... some of my work from a few years ago never gets into my portfolio books any more because I don't want to face Ektachrome VS mixing with my current digital.)  Sounds like that's where you are.  Really, the answer on how many rounds probably depends on what kind of product you're producing.