Correcting img when they "don't want color correction",& used unprofiled monitor

[darlingm]

I ask the impossible, for those who print for others... 

I have custom profiles for my Epson 9900 (of course one each for each media/ink/driver setting combination.)  I also have a custom profile for my monitor.  The prints I make reasonably match what is on my screen.

I have a potential new client who prepares their own images and "doesn't want color correction".  As expected, the colors in the print doesn't match their expectations.  So, they don't want color correction, but they do. 

Obviously, the correct fix is to have their monitor profiled, and have them re-do their color corrections, so their image's color is standardized and transportable.

What do we do if that's just not going to happen for one reason or another?



We could color correct the image as we see fit, but that will render the image in our eye -- and could make it clear to them when comparing with their monitor that we put our touch on it.

Instead, I'm wondering if we could make an educated guess at what needs to be done.  I understand color profiles, monitor variations, and differences in custom settings.  There's, of course, no set of rules to follow to have the print match what they're expecting.  We're throwing darts at this point.

However, although there will be variance, I'm wondering if most monitors are off by a similar enough manner.  I'm thinking that I could get reasonably close by assuming their monitor, like most, is too bright/contrasted.  I'm thinking some combination of vibrance filters and brightness/contrast filters could get reasonably close to them being happy with the print, yet still feeling like I didn't color correct it.  (Even though they would know that I technically had.)

Anyone have a set of filters they use to try to get reasonably close, by trying to predict how their monitor is likely off, rather than using our eye to color correct ourselves?  Or, is that just a waste of time, and the only option at that point if their monitor won't be profiled to use our own eye?

[Tony Jay]

This isn't a technical issue.

Sadly, if your potential clients don't understand colour management and couldn't care less yet are upset by the poor results they are getting when printing there is nothing you can do.
I will be interested to see what others have to contribute here - nonetheless in my humble opinion you may have to walk away from this situation and chalk this up as an experience not to be repeated.

Regards

Tony Jay

[darlingm]

Hmm... If I could get profile their monitor, is there any way to make the necessary changes without having to have them re-do their color work?  I'm wondering if taking their image tagged as sRGB, assigning it to their monitor color profile, and converting it to AdobeRGB/ProPhoto/printer profile/whatever would do the trick.  Sort of like assigning a scanner/camera profile to an untagged scanner/camera image.  However, I'm unsure this would work as I intend it.  (To expand on my original post, the barrier to proper color management on their side is due to the massive amount of files that would need re-work.)

[AFairley]

I don't see how any good can come out of trying to accommodate this client, personally.

[Bryan Conner]

I don't see how any good can come out of trying to accommodate this client, personally.

I agree.  I think both you and the customer will be much happier by not doing business in this way.  I would tell the client exactly that.

[Bob Smith]

(To expand on my original post, the barrier to proper color management on their side is due to the massive amount of files that would need re-work.)

Either they have to do the work or they have to expect to pay you to do the work.  No way around it... no shortcuts.  If they don't realize this and/or aren't open to suggestions for ways to improve their workflow/results then politely walk away.  If for whatever reason you can't easily walk away then be sure that you price your work based on the knowledge that you will have to do substantially more work and suffer more requests for re-dos due to misunderstood expectations.

Some of my clients need a lot of "hand holding" through the production process; others need none.  I price their work accordingly.  Unfortunately you often can't easily tell which camp a new client will fall into until you've done a little work together.  No amount of technology will improve this.  It's all about people skills and learning to interpret what a client really means when what they're asking for and what you know they really want are two different things.  It's about learning how to politely instruct people that think they already have all of the answers.  I'm certainly no expert in this area, but I've been doing it long enough that I've manage to improve somewhat.

Bob Smith

[randal21]

Your situation sounds like some of the clients I get. I am slowly getting artists who printed with a fellow for years and he retired. I have to break it to them that I need to do a color proof and charge them even though they have had it done on the previous owners equipment. Am I out of line or missing something? It's not like I can just press a button and everything prints with all of their colors perfect ... or is it? I print on a 7900 and previous printer used a 7600. Sorry if I may have opened another can of worms but it does seem somewhat related. I would sit down with your client and educate them about color management and possibly walk away. May save you time/ink/paper.

[randal21]

I ran across this from an email from Tim Grey who is a great color person I recommend.

"Today's Question: You say that most LCD screens are overly bright for image editing, and I wholeheartedly agree. My question is, if we're dimming our monitors to do image editing then won't our final, edited images end up looking way too light and washed out on other people's unadjusted/overly bright screens? Most people who aren't photographers don't dim their screens. My concern is that our carefully retouched and finalized images will look bad on other people's monitors.  Then again.... I know we can't control for everything...and there's no way to gauge what other people might be doing with their monitors... Still, we obviously want our work to look its best out in the world.
Tim's Answer: This is, of course, a very valid concern. In effect, why are we changing the appearance of our displays to make them accurate, if the vast majority of people who might view our images have an inaccurate display themselves.

I suppose this comes down to a philosophical consideration. My view is that I want my images to look as accurate as possible in the context of a proper display. If the viewer is using a computer display that is too bright or that has an incorrect color balance, that becomes their problem, because it means that everything they look at isn't quite accurate.

Of course, I also don't worry too terribly much because the human visual system includes a feature called white point adaptation. This mostly allows us to correct automatically for color cast in something we're looking at, but it also enables us to correct for tonal variations.

By having an accurate display, you're ensuring that all color-managed output will be accurate. That includes not only display on a monitor that is properly calibrated and profiled, but also printing using a printer, ink, and paper combination that has also been properly profiled. Considering the wide range of possible ways an image might be shared, I'm much more interested in having a display that is accurate, and an image that is optimized based on an accurate view, than I am in trying to anticipate and correct for what might be a wide variety of different problems with the displays being used to view my images.

So, I completely understand where you're coming from, but to me the solution is to ensure all images look their best under proper display conditions, and then hoping that over time people will become educated on achieving the best display possible with their computers and other devices."

Hope this helps. Google Tim Grey and I recommend his boob k..."Color Confidence".  Good luck

[AFairley]

(To expand on my original post, the barrier to proper color management on their side is due to the massive amount of files that would need re-work.)

This is a canard.  They need to understand that when they replace the current uncalibrated monitor (and it won't last forever) with a different uncalibrated monitor (or if they go high end, a factory-calibrated monitor) all of their files are going to look off anyway.  They can pay the price for working in a non-color-managed system now or pay the price later, but sooner or later they will have to pay the price.

[John Caldwell]

Worded a little differently, the customer concedes that all their files will need to be altered by you so that the print matches their expectations, but they are unwilling to put you in anything other than a trial and error process of matching their expectation. So long as they pay for every step of that process, you might be willing to work for them on a time & materials basis. It may be that after a few images have been "solved" you'll be able to generalize a group of adjustments that could be applied to some number of images.

How many files are included in this group, such that the customer finds it prohibitive to redo the editing on a calibrated monitor?

John Caldwell

[Bryan Conner]

Now this is completely in jest, and loaded with sarcasm, but what if you told the client that since they are doing their work on an uncalibrated monitor that maybe the solution would be for you to provide them with uncalibrated images? You would not use a light meter, no white balance etc.

[Seehorse]

I ran across this from an email from Tim Grey who is a great color person I recommend.

"Today's Question: You say that most LCD screens are overly bright for image editing, and I wholeheartedly agree. My question is, if we're dimming our monitors to do image editing then won't our final, edited images end up looking way too light and washed out on other people's unadjusted/overly bright screens? Most people who aren't photographers don't dim their screens. My concern is that our carefully retouched and finalized images will look bad on other people's monitors.  Then again.... I know we can't control for everything...and there's no way to gauge what other people might be doing with their monitors... Still, we obviously want our work to look its best out in the world.
Tim's Answer: This is, of course, a very valid concern. In effect, why are we changing the appearance of our displays to make them accurate, if the vast majority of people who might view our images have an inaccurate display themselves.

I suppose this comes down to a philosophical consideration. My view is that I want my images to look as accurate as possible in the context of a proper display. If the viewer is using a computer display that is too bright or that has an incorrect color balance, that becomes their problem, because it means that everything they look at isn't quite accurate.

Those of us in video production have been dealing with this problem forever; the one uncontrollable variable is the client's TV set when you deliver the finished product.  The only solution I've ever known is to ensure that everything's correct on your calibrated equipment and accept that sometimes the client's TV (monitor, whatever) will be way out of true.  If they complain then explain that the video (photo) is correctly calibrated and that they probably need to adjust their TV.

More often than not they accept that... of course sometimes they don't even notice that the football game on TV is 5 degrees out of phase and all the blues are purple.