Re-edit color using soft proofing - but print preview raises gamut warnings!

[The View]

I have a significant discrepancy between my soft proofing view and my print preview in Photoshop.

(Photoshop manages color - match print color checked, paper color checked).

The gamut warning basically blasts out half the image (which is a strong green).

I was under the belief that when you re-edit color in soft proofing view you cannot see any colors you can't print.


Obviously that's not the case.

What am I doing wrong?

Why am I creating colors in soft proofing that are not printable? I using the right paper profile, I have simulate paper color and black point compensation checked...


While re-editing the images's color in soft proofing, I had an original file open next to it (not in proof preview) to see where I was going editing color in soft proofing.


I'm printing with a Canon 9500 Mark II to Ilford Galerie Prestige Smooth Gloss 310 GSM.

I have not yet printed the picture because after this gamut warning my image looks like ground zero. Wherever is this strong, green color, a dull, cold green not even close to the original has been filled in by print preview.


Monitor: NEC PA271W, calibrated through X-Rite i1Display Pro using NEC's Spectraview II, computer Apple MacBook Pro Retina 16GB RAM, calibrated to D65 (I am thinking of calibrating the monitor to a warmer 5750 K, but this can't really be the issue here).

[The View]

Sometimes all one needs is to formulate the question and then find the answer.

Shift Command Y gave me the gamut warning in soft proofing and turned my image into gray.

Well, I'm glad I didn't print it.

Back to editing the color. Greens seem to be hard to print.

[Schewe]

I have not yet printed the picture because after this gamut warning my image looks like ground zero. Wherever is this strong, green color, a dull, cold green not even close to the original has been filled in by print preview.

So, paying too much attention to gamut warning isn't going to get you an optimal image...soft proofing can if the profile is good and accurate. Really, gamut warning is simply a device to see what colors will not print, but not what those colors will look like once printed. That's what soft proofing is designed to do. Personally, I ignore gamut warning and simply soft proof the image and try to adjust the soft proofing to look as close to the original image as possible.

[The View]

So, paying too much attention to gamut warning isn't going to get you an optimal image...soft proofing can if the profile is good and accurate. Really, gamut warning is simply a device to see what colors will not print, but not what those colors will look like once printed. That's what soft proofing is designed to do. Personally, I ignore gamut warning and simply soft proof the image and try to adjust the soft proofing to look as close to the original image as possible.

I'm glad you are saying this as editing to gamut warnings sounds to me like filing your taxes, not creative work.


But what about the horrible print preview in Photoshop - drab, cold, low saturation green where I edited a vibrating green? (Smooth Gloss paper should be able to print with quite a high saturation and vibrance, shouldn't it?)


I edited the image so it looked good in soft proofing.

But when I looked at the image in the print preview dialogue in Photoshop, the green was dead and drab.

Does this mean I should not trust the print preview in Photoshop?

And that the in-gamut colors that replace the out-of-gamut colors will not be as horrible as what I see in Photoshop's print preview?

[tho_mas]

Greens seem to be hard to print.

also when you print with percpectual RI instead of relative colormetric?

[The View]

also when you print with percpectual RI instead of relative colormetric?

I have set soft proofing to perceptual.

I haven't yet printed the image - if it looks anywhere close to the print preview in Photoshop... I'm trying to figure out if I am doing something wrong, or if one really shouldn't look at gamut warnings and print previews.

[tho_mas]

I haven't yet printed the image - if it looks anywhere close to the print preview in Photoshop... I'm trying to figure out if I am doing something wrong, or if one really shouldn't look at gamut warnings and print previews.

well... at some point you should print the image ... otherwise you'll never find out how softproof, print preview and real print correlate.

In theory with perceptual RI all out of gamut colors should get mapped into the target color space (the printer profile). So with perceptual you can actually ignore the gamut warning (which - to my knowledge - always refers to relative colormetric RI either way which RI is set for softproofing).

And, again - switch off the simulation of paper white for these glossy papers when softproofing!! Color managment works great when all parameters are set up correctly and all devices are acurratley described by their respective profiles. But in the case of papers containing OBAs (profiled without UV cut filter) the measurment devices produce errors and white appears to be blue with paper simulation (but the paper isn't blue, it's white... isn't it?)

[The View]

I printed the image and it didn't look as bad as the print preview. It actually looked pretty good and I could use it for my portfolio.

That said, it printed cooler than the soft proof, and a tiny bit darker (nothing that would make the print a toss).

I'd have loved to see more yellow in the green to give it more vibrance.

I probably should have used more saturation in the soft proof edit.


Tho_mas, I tried soft proofs both with and without simulation of paper color - for the Ilford paper I'm printing on, if you turn simulate paper color off, the image gets way brighter and contrastier and looks less like the print as with "simulate paper color" checked.

[tho_mas]

Tho_mas, I tried soft proofs both with and without simulation of paper color - for the Ilford paper I'm printing on, if you turn simulate paper color off, the image gets way brighter and contrastier and looks less like the print as with "simulate paper color" checked.

okay, cool - so stay with this workflow for the Ilford. I don't know this paper nor the profiles provided by Ilford. But with regard to the Hahnemühle you've mentioned in the other thread I promise the simulation of paper white won't work (Lab - b = -5).

[The View]

It looks like to me that when editing a soft proof you have to be a little more heavy handed that when editing for the web.

Looks like I have to pump up the saturation and push colors further to register well on paper.

Similar to sharpening which feels like biting on aluminum foil when you look at print sharpening on the screen.



Sharpening actually went well with a mix of edge sharpening/high pass and unsharp mask (I had prepared myself with that "oversharpening"). (I'm soon to try out lab sharpening for print - if this will give me the crystal clarity I desire).

[Tony Jay]

So, paying too much attention to gamut warning isn't going to get you an optimal image...soft proofing can if the profile is good and accurate. Really, gamut warning is simply a device to see what colors will not print, but not what those colors will look like once printed. That's what soft proofing is designed to do. Personally, I ignore gamut warning and simply soft proof the image and try to adjust the soft proofing to look as close to the original image as possible.

Yes! Emphatically yes!

Tony Jay