Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Softproofing problems  (Read 2947 times)

Paul Ozzello

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
    • www.paulozzello.com
Softproofing problems
« on: September 30, 2013, 10:50:14 pm »

So I'm finally able to get a really close match from screen to print on my Canon Pro 9000, but I'm going to start printing on an Epson 9890 and the initial softproof doesn't look good. I created a 21 step gray wedge in my image and I can see all 21 steps using the Canon softproof profile, but the last 4 steps in the shadows are completely blocked up softproofing with the Espon profile. What gives ?

I'm comparing both using Relative Colorimetric / No Black Point Compensation because it was the best print with the Canon. Should I try to 'remap' the shadow zones with a slight curve ?

Canon profile


Epson profile

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #1 on: September 30, 2013, 10:52:22 pm »

What papers? What profiles?
Logged

Paul Ozzello

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
    • www.paulozzello.com
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2013, 11:20:36 pm »

What papers? What profiles?

Hi Jeff,

I'm printing on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 using "Canon Pro9000 for Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308" and "HFA_Eps9890_MK_PhotoRag" profiles.

I'm seing the same behavior with all the other available Canon and Epson profiles. Could Canon profiles be targeting Relative Colorimetric and Epson Perceptual ?


Great book by the way !

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2013, 11:34:56 pm »

I'm printing on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308 using "Canon Pro9000 for Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308" and "HFA_Eps9890_MK_PhotoRag" profiles.

So, these are Hahnemuhle supplied profiles? Your screenshots don't indicate what rendering intent was used for both (they need to be the same for any legit comparison).

It doesn't surprise me that that soft proofing will show different results based on the printer. The question to be asked is which result (the actual print) is the most accurate? Profiles should be able to provide soft proofing that indicates what result you should expect given a certain paper/printer combo...so, which soft proofing was more accurate?
Logged

Paul Ozzello

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
    • www.paulozzello.com
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2013, 11:49:28 pm »

So, these are Hahnemuhle supplied profiles? Your screenshots don't indicate what rendering intent was used for both (they need to be the same for any legit comparison).

It doesn't surprise me that that soft proofing will show different results based on the printer. The question to be asked is which result (the actual print) is the most accurate? Profiles should be able to provide soft proofing that indicates what result you should expect given a certain paper/printer combo...so, which soft proofing was more accurate?

Both proofs are using Relative Colorimetric and No black point compensation (the print tonality from the Canon was perfect and identical to the screen).

The Canon was from a Canon supplied profile for Hahnemuhle, while the Epson profile came from the Hahnemuhle website.

I'll be printing on the Epson over the weekend but the initial softproof using the same rendering intent doesn't look so good.

I'm working on grayscale files using a Gray Gamma 2.2 working space.

Paul

RHPS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #5 on: October 01, 2013, 03:09:53 am »

I suspect that the Hahnemuhle soft proof is giving you a reasonable representation of the print on the Epson printer. If your step wedge goes down to pure black it doesn't surprise me that the last four steps are blocked up when you use relative colorimetric with BPC turned off. The Dmax on Photo Rag is probably around an L* of 18 so the last four steps just can't be printed. You either need to modify your image, use BPC to do the re-mapping for you, or use perceptual rendering.

I don't know what Dmax the Canon dye inks achieve with this paper, but it may well be a bit better than the Epson's pigment ink. But then maybe the Canon profile is somehow incorporating its own version of BPC?
Logged

Paul Ozzello

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
    • www.paulozzello.com
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #6 on: October 02, 2013, 02:17:40 pm »

I suspect that the Hahnemuhle soft proof is giving you a reasonable representation of the print on the Epson printer. If your step wedge goes down to pure black it doesn't surprise me that the last four steps are blocked up when you use relative colorimetric with BPC turned off. The Dmax on Photo Rag is probably around an L* of 18 so the last four steps just can't be printed. You either need to modify your image, use BPC to do the re-mapping for you, or use perceptual rendering.

I don't know what Dmax the Canon dye inks achieve with this paper, but it may well be a bit better than the Epson's pigment ink. But then maybe the Canon profile is somehow incorporating its own version of BPC?

That's an interesting point and hadn't considered the effect of a different ink type on the same paper. I will try different rendering intents on the Espon and decide which is best. If relative colorimetric BPC turned off is still the best, should I add a photoshop curve to 'remap' the lost shadow details ?

RHPS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2013, 10:10:23 am »

Just looking at the profiles it appears that the Canon dye inks give a significantly better Dmax than the Epson pigments - 1.85 against 1.57 - so  you will never achieve the same black on the Epson as you will on the Canon. BPC is the simplest way to re-map the blacks, but naturally you sacrifice some overall contrast. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Epson print will be any less satisfying, but I think you have to accept that it will be different.

Perceptual rendering will re-map the blacks for you but you may find that the linearity is not as good as with RelCol and BPC. Try soft-proofing a radial grey gradient to see the difference between the two rendering intents.
Logged

Paul Ozzello

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
    • www.paulozzello.com
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2013, 01:20:20 pm »

Just looking at the profiles it appears that the Canon dye inks give a significantly better Dmax than the Epson pigments - 1.85 against 1.57 - so  you will never achieve the same black on the Epson as you will on the Canon. BPC is the simplest way to re-map the blacks, but naturally you sacrifice some overall contrast. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Epson print will be any less satisfying, but I think you have to accept that it will be different.

Perceptual rendering will re-map the blacks for you but you may find that the linearity is not as good as with RelCol and BPC. Try soft-proofing a radial grey gradient to see the difference between the two rendering intents.

Did you use some type of profile utility to come up with those density figures ? Will ABW give me a better density ?

I downloaded Graham Preston radial gradient image - thanks for the tip.

RHPS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 119
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2013, 03:53:20 am »

I examined the profiles in Gamutvision - its predictions normally agree pretty well with reality in this context. Personally I find that ABW does give a slightly better Dmax, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get you to the same level as the dye ink.

When you make your prints on the Epson don't try to compare them with the Canon prints. Just take them as they are - you may find you really like them, and of course they will last much longer than the dye prints.
Logged

Paul Ozzello

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
    • www.paulozzello.com
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2013, 03:30:31 pm »

I examined the profiles in Gamutvision - its predictions normally agree pretty well with reality in this context. Personally I find that ABW does give a slightly better Dmax, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't get you to the same level as the dye ink.

When you make your prints on the Epson don't try to compare them with the Canon prints. Just take them as they are - you may find you really like them, and of course they will last much longer than the dye prints.

You didn't honestly think I wouldn't compare them ?  ;D

No matter what I try I am unable to make a print on the Epson with the same depth and dimension I get from the Canon. I created a new thread detailing my experience. I'm starting to regret my purchase... any ideas ?

Paul

Paul

Pete Berry

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 445
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #11 on: October 07, 2013, 02:52:58 pm »

You didn't honestly think I wouldn't compare them ?  ;D

No matter what I try I am unable to make a print on the Epson with the same depth and dimension I get from the Canon. I created a new thread detailing my experience. I'm starting to regret my purchase... any ideas ?

Paul

Paul

Paul, I'm afraid your expectations are unrealistic comparing dye to pigment matte blacks. Prior to my Canon ipf5000-5100 printing of six years, I used a Canon i9900. The deep blacks on matte paper were simply spectacular, without blocking up, and I've seen nothing in the pigment world to match them.

Standing alone my Hahne 308 prints are generally much more than acceptable on the 5100, but there are some images that just die from lack of the deepest blacks the i9900 could generate. I could probably be seduced into a larger format dye ink printer for this reason if there are any out there - after 10 years or more, my protected old 9900 prints still look pretty great.

Pete
Logged

Paul Ozzello

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
    • www.paulozzello.com
Re: Softproofing problems
« Reply #12 on: October 07, 2013, 03:49:23 pm »

Paul, I'm afraid your expectations are unrealistic comparing dye to pigment matte blacks. Prior to my Canon ipf5000-5100 printing of six years, I used a Canon i9900. The deep blacks on matte paper were simply spectacular, without blocking up, and I've seen nothing in the pigment world to match them.

Standing alone my Hahne 308 prints are generally much more than acceptable on the 5100, but there are some images that just die from lack of the deepest blacks the i9900 could generate. I could probably be seduced into a larger format dye ink printer for this reason if there are any out there - after 10 years or more, my protected old 9900 prints still look pretty great.

Pete

They really are spectacular. I look at my dye prints made on a 7 year old printer with depth and tonality to die for :(

I'm considering trying Jon Cone's Ink Thrift inks but don't know how they would react with a matte paper. I just got some Epson Hot Press paper which should theoretically reach 1.79 density with better shadow separation than the Hahnemuhle - I'll let you know the results.
Pages: [1]   Go Up