Why aren't paper profiles specific to a particular lighting?

[pcgpcg]

I’m a beginner at fine art printing.  During my arduous, frustrating, and so far not very successful learning curve I have yet to get the soft-proofing in LR to work well for me.  In an effort to figure out my problem I have replaced the ten 4’ fluorescent bulbs in my studio first with 6500K bulbs and now with 5000K bulbs.  I have calibrated my display at D50, D55, and D65.  I’ve set the printer driver color mode to “No color correction”. I’ve calibrated my iPF6400 with paper recommended for that purpose by Canon and had a custom profile made for the paper I’m using for printing.

Still, soft-proofing is not helpful.  It is so inaccurate that I’m better off looking at the print and making adjustments in the Develop module based on what I think the print needs, ignoring what LR is showing me.  I’ve gone through more than half a roll of 40’ x 24” paper making small test prints and I’ve managed to get just three prints dialed in.  I’m using a warm paper (Moab Entrada Natural Rag) and the appearance of the print changes dramatically under different lighting.  So my question is this…

Since lighting affects the appearance of a print so much, why isn’t that taken into account when a paper profile is made?  Why aren’t paper profiles specific to a particular lighting?

[Jeff-Grant]

You haven't said what CD you are using on your monitor. I run mine at 80. In i1Profiler, you can set lighting before building the profile. There are a lot of options to choose. Having said that, I've never touched it. My understanding is that it is a can of worms which you should approach with caution.

[bill t.]

It's possible you have everything calibrated as good as possible.  Typical of matte papers, your media is probably quite weak in certain colors, typically the cooler ones.  You monitor probably is weak in colors around yellows, where some matte media is quite strong.  And if you are using the "high CRI" Philips fluorescents you may want to try something else, I find them impossible to use for color correction as they are positively bizarre in the reds and oranges.  And of course fluorescent light sources are very "spotty" throughout their spectrum.  And although OBA papers are famous for color metamerism, even non-OBA papers have the same issue to a smaller degree.  Out of time to say more, will defer to more knowledgeable posters on this subject.  Will only add that I have never found soft proofing truly accurate for any matte media, but have had much better matches with higher gamut glossy media.

[Mark D Segal]

There is no can of worms. First, there is an inherent difference between the appearance of reflected light and that of transmitted light that no amount of soft-proofing can overcome completely - but set-up right it can come awfully close and you just need to train yourself to deal with the difference. When you make the paper profile, the software should give you options for setting D50, D65, whatever. Choose appropriately to the viewing conditions you expect. Next make sure the brightness and colour temperature of your display are a good match for the viewing conditions in your room. With all this set-up "in sync" your prints should look very close to what you see on the display when viewed under the lighting conditions for which it is all calibrated. You cannot expect to match print appearance under all lighting conditions with one set of display parameters and one profile.

[pcgpcg]

Thank you to all who responded.

I've learned from the supplier of my paper profile that it is "defined for D50 viewing".  I've now got my studio lit with Phillips 5000K lamps.  I know that that is by no means a perfect solution (CRI index of these lamps is 82) and I am beginning to realize that, especially with the paper I'm using, soft-proofing with LR is not a magic cure all, but a tool to use along the way to getting the prints to look like I want. I'm keeping my display calibrated to D65 because it's my understanding that this is the best way to go for editing images that appear on the web (since sRGB uses D65) and that is what the customer uses to initially judge the image.

I understand that there is a lot that will always be out of my control (such as the conditions under which the customer ultimately views the print) and that somewhere along the way I have to find a happy medium and then, as Mark states, "train [myself] to deal with the difference".  As I'm selling prints to folks who will hang them under a variety of lighting conditions, I've decided that a professional viewing booth, even if it was cost-justified, wouldn't be all that helpful in this situation.  So, back to the learning curve...

[huguito]

I believe you have not say in what way are your prints different that what you see in the screen

Are they lighter or darker than the screen?
My prints didn't quite match in luminosity until I start calibrating my monitor to 80 or 90. Most monitors are set way to bright from the manufacturer, between 120 to 150.

If your prints are off in hue you may be double profiling. Are you setting the printer driver to "Photoshop manage printing"?

[Stefan Ohlsson]

You haven't said what CD you are using on your monitor. I run mine at 80. In i1Profiler, you can set lighting before building the profile. There are a lot of options to choose. Having said that, I've never touched it. My understanding is that it is a can of worms which you should approach with caution.

There are other cans that I should be much more cautious of. If you know that your print always should be shown under tungsten lighting, you can select Illuminant A and the profile will be adjusted to that lighting condition. It is especially important if you use that profile for B&W prints, as they show the metameric failure better than a colour print. And as Jeff know, I'm fond of ImagePrint. In that program, you have several profiles adjusted for different lighting conditions for colour prints.

[pcgpcg]

If your prints are off in hue you may be double profiling. Are you setting the printer driver to "Photoshop manage printing"?

They are off in hue.  I soft-proof in Lightroom 5 and in the printer driver I have set Color Mode to "No Color Correction", which I believe means I am not double proofing. 

[mjcreedon]

As Stefan noted the ImagePrint RIP creates profiles for different lighting.  For home lighting it is anyones guess the light source used to illuminate the print.  I decided to set up my studio and print viewing area using Solux Track Lights with 4700 Kelvin bulbs which is basically a 5000 K viewing area.  Use enough light illumination in your print viewing area to not cause dark prints.  An alternative to track lighting for your print viewing area could be picking up a few OttLites with 5000 K bulbs from most Office Depot stores.  Position them so you have sufficient illumination of your print compared to your screen image.  For the Moab Natural Fine Art I like to calibrate my display to either 5000 or 5500 K at Gamma 2.2.  A Harmon Gloss might be best at 6500 K at Gamma 2.2.  In the past many people I know did a final tweek to their profiled display.  Under System Preferences choose white as your screen color, place a blank sheet of Moab Natural Fine Art in your print viewing area and adjust the RGB controls of your monitor to match the white of the screen to the white of the paper you would be printing on.  If you would be switching out using different papers all the time this is not a good move but if using only one paper for a period of time you might find some value from the workflow.  Only trial and error will tell.

[huguito]

You should set the option on the driver to " No color correction" but you ALSO, and this can drive you nuts if you forget doing it, set it as Photoshop Manage Colors.
Otherwise I believe you could be double profiling, and therefore be off in Hue

[papa v2.0]

Hi
A couple of things.

What type of monitor do you have?

Are your monitor viewing conditions correct?

Are you viewing the print next to the monitor or away from the monitor.

What is the lumminance of the print viewing lamps eg 500 lux or 2000lux?

Iain

[JRSmit]

Did you check just a blank sheet of Moab paper against a totally white image in softproof mode in LR? If so, does it look (sort of) identical? Identical in luminance and in color i maen?