Color management with Bay Photo

[PeterAit]

I am going to give Bay Photo a try for some of the things I cannot do at home, like prints on metal. I am unclear on the color management part of the process. I want to manage color myself, but they provide only a single ICC profile for soft-proofing. I can't believe that one profile will be correct for all the various types of prints they do. Their support has been unhelpful (so far), but I hope someone here can clue me in. Thx.

[digitaldog]

I can't believe that one profile will be correct for all the various types of prints they do.

It isn't so soft proofing is a waste of time. They have as such, basically no color management you can be involved with. Either go that route and hope for the best or find a lab that fully supports color management. That means providing you the output profile for the process and allowing you to use that profile to soft proof and convert to the output color space using the rendering intent you prefer.

[PeterAit]

It isn't so soft proofing is a waste of time. They have as such, basically no color management you can be involved with. Either go that route and hope for the best or find a lab that fully supports color management. That means providing you the output profile for the process and allowing you to use that profile to soft proof and convert to the output color space using the rendering intent you prefer.

Any recommendations for a good lab that permits full color management?

[brinked]

I run a metal photo lab in south florida.  Every photo gets converted with our own ICC profile that was calibrated using our very own mix of paper/ink and press time and temperature.

The profile is made to ensure the most accurate prints....regardless of the colorspace you worked with.  The only time where we would need to do anything to the photo is if we at the lab had to make adjustments to the photo before printing in which case we would simply convert to your embedded colorspace.

Once the file is in print ready format, the RIP software converts it and uses the ICC profile to ensure the end result is a metal print that matches what you see on your (hopefully calibrated) monitor as much as possible.

Will

[digitaldog]

Every photo gets converted with our own ICC profile that was calibrated using our very own mix of paper/ink and press time and temperature.
Once the file is in print ready format, the RIP software converts it and uses the ICC profile to ensure the end result is a metal print that matches what you see on your (hopefully calibrated) monitor as much as possible.

So the end user can get access to this profile? They can use it to convert using a rendering intent they prefer (since this IS image specific)? If so, they then have control over Black Point Compensation (I hope the RIP provides that) and can post edit the image after conversion if the profile is supplied. They can soft proof based on whatever RI they intend to use since this will alter the preview.

[mcpix]

I think Chris is closer to a real world explanation of how most labs handle files from their customers. Each of my devices has a specific color profile whether it's my Noritsu 3501 silver halide printer or my Canon IPF 8300. There is a profile generated for each printer/paper combination. Yes the customer does not get to pick the rendering intent or the black point compensation. However considering that most customers are not using calibrated monitors, but are instead sending files from their laptops, phones, tablets and over bright computer screens, it's the best way to do it. Our lab provides a consistent output. You can make corrections based upon the proof print you receive from us, and be certain that the final print will only reflect the changes that you have made.

[digitaldog]

Each of my devices has a specific color profile whether it's my Noritsu 3501 silver halide printer or my Canon IPF 8300. There is a profile generated for each printer/paper combination.

True, getting multiple but the same device to behave the same and use one profile is a lot harder. I've done it with multiple digital presses so I'd expect lab's could do it with the devices you mention IF they try real hard. What is being admitted here is that it's hard work to take say 2 or more Canon's or Noritsu's and make them behave the same and keep them that way. Of course it's doable!

Yes the customer does not get to pick the rendering intent or the black point compensation.

Making this a less than ideal color managed workflow. For the customer. But then, if the goal is to make as much data flow through the various devices instead of making them behave the same, it's kind of obvious what route a shop will take. Doesn't mean it can't be done. I guess maybe that's why the one lab I worked with in the past that did have a full color managed path for their customers (Pictopia) is no longer in business. I don't know what the cause was but I do know they had the ability to fully color manage the lab and provide the output profile to the customer to output prints like most of us here do with our desktop color printers. Hardly rocket science!

However considering that most customers are not using calibrated monitors, but are instead sending files from their laptops, phones, tablets and over bright computer screens, it's the best way to do it.

It's the best way for you or other's to do so, not the customer who does have a calibrated display and wishes to handle the color through a lab as they would if they were working with their own Canon or similar output device. IOW, that's a pretty lame excuse for not providing process control among the same devices and providing those who want a profile that profile! This isn't a technological issue, it's a political (business) decision so let's not place the excuse for not doing it where it belongs. Please.

You can make corrections based upon the proof print you receive from us, and be certain that the final print will only reflect the changes that you have made.

And I could do all my image editing on a grayscale display, send the numbers to an output device I own and futz around until I get a print I like. That's what one does without color management in the first place! Color management is simply a means to an end. If your idea of a good color workflow is print until you get what you like, with no regard to the time that takes or the cost, then you do not need color management.

[mcpix]

Not sure if it's miscommunication...  It is a color managed workflow. 

Exactly! Maybe I didn't explain it well. There isn't just one profile there is a unique profile for each printer/paper combination. There's a profile for Epson luster on the ipf 8300 and a different profile for BC Lyve on the same printer. The same with my Noritsu, a different profile for each paper surface. The goal is to get all the printers and papers to print the same file the same way (as much as possible).

[digitaldog]

There isn't just one profile there is a unique profile for each printer/paper combination. There's a profile for Epson luster on the ipf 8300 and a different profile for BC Lyve on the same printer. The same with my Noritsu, a different profile for each paper surface. The goal is to get all the printers and papers to print the same file the same way (as much as possible).

Fine, so why not supply each profile for the intended output to the customer to convert the data as they desire? And why would one take a wide(er) gamut device like an 8300 and dumb it down to have the same gamut and thus color appearance as a Noritsu? IF you profile both to their best abilities, they should still appear the same if done correctly but wider gamut data the ink jet can produce is utilized. And even if you do dumb down all devices to produce the same color and tone, there is still no reason not to supply each profile to anyone who wants to use them.

Of course, there's the silly "save everything as sRGB" mindset in many labs which would deal a huge blow to the wider gamut devices like the Canon. But even so, one could supply each profile for each device and substrate combo to the end user. The customer could then soft proof, convert as they desire and send output ready RGB to you for that printer. FWIW, that's how the CMYK world (digital and non digital press) has been done for years and years. Only the RGB aimed at photo lab world seems to feel it is necessary to demand sRGB then funnel every and all files through some RIP (despite the fact the file is raster data) and then claim because there's an ICC profile somewhere in the mix, they are 'color managed'. The issue is the end user isn't color managed as they either have no access to the profile or they can only use it for soft proofing (silly).

[digitaldog]

I'm sending you a 25% Cyan swatch for my print, but the printing device needs to receive an adjustment to print 30% cyan - in order to measure the C25 on the actual printed piece.  Do I need to know that as a customer? No!

Yes if a customer wishes to both soft proof and properly convert the data for output. Further, the so called 30% adjustment will be handled in the first place from RGB with that profile. Assuming the profile is indeed correct and describes the output conditions (something I suspect isn't always the case). Otherwise there's no reason not to supply the profile unless one is chasing their process control tails, building new and differing profiles all the time. Hardly what I'd call a color managed workflow.

If I can get dozens of digital presses to produce the same color appearance down to an average dE of less than 4,  it should be quite simple to do with any of the devices mentioned. But it does take a lot of work on the printer side. Lots of printing test patches and measuring them, comparing them to a reference (the profile's color aim), shutting down production when a dE level exceeds what is deemed acceptable, making sure the people running the machines are constantly examining the output and values. It's work but it's doable. The 8300 at a lab and the 8300 I've got like other's here being color managed are no different and keeping the output consistent is a piece of cake. The analog process is harder but equally doable.

Edit for clarification and disclosure: FWIW, it's a Canon 5000 I had among many such digital ink jet printers (currently a 4900 and 3880). Super easy to profile, very consistent from machine to machine hence the reason why many of the canned profiles work so well. When I built the Epson Exhibition Fiber profiles for Epson, we used half a dozen differing printers around the country to print the profile targets. With 5000 patches, the average dE was about 0.5! IF Epson can supply the profiles for their customers, there's on reason anyone in a lab can't either.

[digitaldog]

If the files are supplied in wide enough gamut, then each press will shine on it's own abilities. Supplying the soft proof icc and linearized files for the device, sure - send it to the customer on an individual basis. If they're asking for it, they know how to use it..

We're talking presses now? Because I also deal with differing digital press technology that have to match each other. Doable, no reason a profile still can't be supplied to anyone who needs to use them. And what are you talking about in terms of linearization? That's done long before a profile is created. All a customer needs is the ICC profile and the promise by you or the lab that they will produce the same output the profile defines. Has nothing to do with linearization at this point. IF you've got an issue with linearization drifting, you've got major issues no ICC profile can address. That's hardly a color managed situation!

[mcpix]

Fine, so why not supply each profile for the intended output to the customer to convert the data as they desire? And why would one take a wide(er) gamut device like an 8300 and dumb it down to have the same gamut and thus color appearance as a Noritsu? IF you profile both to their best abilities, they should still appear the same if done correctly but wider gamut data the ink jet can produce is utilized. And even if you do dumb down all devices to produce the same color and tone, there is still no reason not to supply each profile to anyone who wants to use them.

I'm not sure why you think I'm dumbing down the gamut on the 8300. If you give me a 16 bit tiff, I'll print it as a 16 bit tiff on the Canon. The Noritsu can't handle 16 bit files, so I do have to convert them to 8 bit. As Chris said, each device will print the file to the best of it's abilities.

I have no problem with giving a customer the ICC profile, it's just that 90% would not use it correctly. What good is a soft proof if you don't have a calibrated monitor?

Bottom line, if a customer knows what they're doing and has taken the time to calibrate their equipment, I have no problem working with them to get the best result.

[digitaldog]

I'm not sure why you think I'm dumbing down the gamut on the 8300.

An assumption perhaps, my bad. Didn't you say you were attempting to match it to a lower gamut device (certainly the Noritsu)?

If you give me a 16 bit tiff, I'll print it as a 16 bit tiff on the Canon

What does that have to do with gamut? That's the encoding of the bits.

The Noritsu can't handle 16 bit files, so I do have to convert them to 8 bit.

Again, this has nothing to do with bit depth. I've got custom ICC profiles from such printers and I'm referring to the size of their color gamut. I can supply a 2D or 3D gamut map if you like. Based on those maps, a modern ink jet has a wider gamut in many areas of color space compared to the Noritsu.

I have no problem with giving a customer the ICC profile, it's just that 90% would not use it correctly. What good is a soft proof if you don't have a calibrated monitor?

That's good news! And I suspect it's excellent reason many here will ask for it as they do have calibrated displays, they do soft proof and they do expect a fully color managed opportunity.

So to clarify, if I asked for a profile for the Noritsu or the Canon, you'd send me the profile. I could send you the RGB data converted from my working space of choice TO that output color space and you'd be fine sending those numbers directly to the output device?

[mcpix]

So to clarify, if I asked for a profile for the Noritsu or the Canon, you'd send me the profile. I could send you the RGB data converted from my working space of choice TO that output color space and you'd be fine sending those numbers directly to the output device?

The Noritsu profile is hard to get to. It is generated internally by the machine's hardware/software when your are initially balancing a particular paper type. I'm also not sure if you could actually send those adjusted files to the printer.

On the Canon, sure. I'll be honest, I've never had a customer ask me to do that (30+ years in the biz). However, if you'd walk me through it, I'll give it a go.

[digitaldog]

The Noritsu profile is hard to get to.

I've built them, so it has to be something someone provided at some point, it's just a file.

On the Canon, sure. I'll be honest, I've never had a customer ask me to do that (30+ years in the biz).

Many here on LuLa would probably ask for it as evidence of the OP's request. You'd probably get a lot more business and requests if this kind of audience knew you'd even supply the profile and allow them to use it fully.

[digitaldog]

Opening your lab and supplying the "promised" WYSIWYG profile for all photographer customers on all their various "calibrated" monitors?

Your only concern is to provide the output profile. How the user may or may not calibrate their display doesn't need to be on your radar and yes, based on the audience here, a lot do calibrate and profile their displays to provide a good soft proof.

So they can run 1 print?

I (and the OP) only want an email with a 1.5mb ICC profile. Asking for a small file you have and use to output a digital file isn't much to ask for. How many prints get made isn't and shouldn't be an issue. Or are you saying you're building profiles all the time and the end user would need a new one for each order? If so, we don't want that profile, the process control is all over the place.

If you want the ad-agency, top-end level with supplied profiles and time for that kind of support, you won't find it in gang-run websites like Bay or MPix or etc.

Again, we're asking for a stinking ICC profile, what's the big deal? What's ad-agency, top-end level anything have to do with simply putting a tiny file on a web page for download? No one is asking for anything further, support or otherwise. We simply want a color managed lab to act like a color managed lab and provide a tiny file that's darn useful for soft proofing and converting data for output. No further hand holding is requested.

You wrote the book but what you demand simply isn't realistic for the majority of labs

Bullshit! The profile is either defining the output process or it isn't. If it is, why not provide it as a download? We're not asking to see your books or client list, we're asking for a tiny file that Photoshop has used since 1995 as an important part of the imaging workflow.

How many photographers lurking this thread have a clue what we're talking about?

Many more than 2! And how does that matter? Are you in the service business? As someone with over 8000 posts on this forum, over 10 years of hanging out here, I have a pretty good idea of how many photographers here would use the profile IF you supplied it. You've made what, 50 posts? I think you need to better research just who hangs out here! Further, I don't treat them as too uneducated to use it either, an interesting perspective you seem to have of this group.

How many photographers lurking this thread have a clue what we're talking about?

Why not go into the dedicated color management forum we have here and start a poll, you'll find out instead of assuming a simple request for an output profile is an unfair request from a service provider.

[digitaldog]

The people posting on this forum have an interest in learning and growing in photography. It certainly isn't all of the photographers out there.
Post a website link for a lab that provides downloads of each of their machine's profiles, please.

What's your point? The OP specifically asked for an ICC profile and a lab that would supply one. This is some huge anomaly in your book? And the bit about other labs, we have someone in this post alone who's stated he'd provide the profiles (well for one device and if he tries real hard, the other). That all the labs with web pages don't provide profiles, that's in some way a good workflow for the end user? Just what lab do you represent with that kind of service attitude?

Again, just what justification do you have for your lab (assuming you are associated with one which it sounds like) or other lab's in NOT providing a small file that are claimed to define the lab's output conditions for use in Photoshop, Lightroom, C1, and a boatload of other applications people use in terms of color management?

[digitaldog]

Good Luck getting the profile and better luck if it matches!

Why wouldn't it match? The RGB numbers I send today and the same set in a year don't alter like bad cheese and neither does an ICC profile. Are you suggesting they and many such labs have awful process control?

[digitaldog]

Do you want me to PM my resume? No problem! It will satisfy you I'm sure.

I'm not interested, I'm simply trying to assist the OP who clearly wrote in the very first post:

I want to manage color myself, but they provide only a single ICC profile for soft-proofing

Now you boys running Lab's can satisfy him and many other's here by simply providing an ICC profile for whatever output device a customer may wish to use. My goal is to assist them and dismiss silly blowback as to why such a profile simply cannot be supplied. It can, it should and that's about it. You guys want some new customers? Rather than tell those here who understand color management like the OP all the reasons they can't get one, tell them where and how to get the profile, and move on.

[MHMG]

My only point of opinion is the lab who gives you the profile is generally the lab that will cost more $$$! Not bc the profile costs more, but bc the level of service and support for it is different!

Chris has indeed identified the problem. It's not the profile. It's the cost of providing more customized service.  Even when the customer is highly knowledgeable about color managed workflows and knows exactly what to do with a supplied ICC profile,  inevitably a more lengthy discussion must still take place between that customer and the lab staff.  And this client hand holding must be factored into the cost of the job.  For example, a couple of years ago, I built my own custom profile for my local Wallmart store's Fuji Frontier machine. Those machines have excellent day-to-day process calibration/linerarization procedures staff is trained to perform So, successful profiling of this system by me was a highly doable project, but not before I personally visited the store and spoke with staff.  I went to the day shift operator and said, "can you help me turn off any of your machine's "auto-enhancement" features? I want my files to print without any further color correction on your part".  The operator got a "deer in the headlights look" and said I'd need to speak to the KEY operator who would be in later that day. So, I did speak to that operator, and he did know what to do. He had to go into their own software with his administrator privilege and turn off the auto color correction feature manually.  That feature is there because this Fuji minilab typically defaults to this mode, the idea being that the Fujifilm minilab software could more often than not color correct most consumer digital files better than the jpeg quality coming from most consumer digicams.  

Once the lab manager and I got on the same page, I printed a color target, built a profile, and I achieved the print quality exactly as I wanted.  But each time I went to the store for prints, I had to  personally speak to key operator about turning off the auto correction features. And the manager had to remember to turn them back on after my job was completed!  This manager tolerated me because he took a personal interest in my imaging expertise, but nonetheless, I was definitely a higher maintenance client for that store!  A couple years later my local Walmart then switched over to a new Fuji dry lab machine. The workflow changed. On the good side, the kiosk where the consumer selects and crops his/her images now had a checkbox for "auto enhance" so that now the consumer gained control of whether to "enhance" the image or not without having to wait for the lab manager. But by that time, a new lab manager was running the show and he freaked out when I uploaded the ICC color target to print.  The Xrite color target looked to him like a professional image file that surely I had no copyright clearance to print! He was wrong, but I couldn't convince the new manager to let me print the target!  More conversation, more discussion, I was rapidly going from "higher maintenance client" to really high maintenance client when I certainly didn't want to be.  Bottom line:  Something as simple as a software feature like auto enhancement on the output device can wreak havoc on a color managed workflow, so client and staff must work closely together to iron out the workflow issues as different choices are made on which printing system will be used for the job. That takes time, and time is money.

I have totally given up trying to work with budget labs. It's not fair to them at the price point they are trying to deliver services, and it's certainly too much effort on my part as well

cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com