Soft proofing doesn’t work

No, never use it

1 (1.1%)

Sometimes

18 (19.1%)

Better than no SP not a match

18 (19.1%)

Yes, always use it

51 (54.3%)

Just make a print!

6 (6.4%)

Total Members Voted: 93

[Alan Goldhammer]

Needless to say here, factory defaults are sweet for playing video games.

A decent wager could be made and won by betting more computers are used for playing video games than for doing digital photography.  I know when I was shopping for a new computer last year (PC of course ) that by picking a computer that was designed for video games would give me all the computational power and video that I would need for LR and PS.  Got it from a company that specializes in gaming computers.  Funny thing is that I've yet to play a video game on it! 

I found it also interesting to read the comments section on Matt's blog.  Other than Jeff and Andrew about two other people said they soft proof prior to printing; the remainder were a Greek chorus echoing Matt's point of view.  If Matt likes a bright monitor he can get a NEC SpectraView monitor and have one setting for all the mundane stuff and a critical setting for the photo work.  I can't believe that he in all honesty can say that he runs his computer at max brightness and gets a print to match first time (or even second time) through.

[Farmer]

Something else to consider, is that most occupational health and safety guidelines recommend turning DOWN monitors to a "comfortable" level.  It's hard on the eyes to spend a day looking a very bright object, even more so when it's as close as a monitor (compared, say, to a TV or projector screen).

[Photo Op]

......and perfecting it for the final print.

And therein is the rub. You work for the final print. I suggest they (Matt & Co.) work for the screen, and thus never have to concern themselves with such a mundane thing as Soft Proofing!

[Mark D Segal]

And therein is the rub. You work for the final print. I suggest they (Matt & Co.) work for the screen, and thus never have to concern themselves with such a mundane thing as Soft Proofing!

That doesn't get them off the hook, because they are instructors and if they are teaching people how to print they need to do so correctly.

Now, the best thing really, instead of us wondering what they're about on this, is for them to come onto this Forum and explain themselves.

[Photo Op]

Mark - I did not offer the comment to get them off the hook. I meant it more as an indictment of Matt's attitude towards SP (and by extension Andrew and Jeff). If you expect them to leave the cozy forum over at Kelby training for the serious discussions that take place here at LuLa.......how long can you tread water?

And if you want a real head turner, check out the invite to their latest "all" things Lightroom seminar-

http://lightroomkillertips.com/

It’s All About the Print!
4:00 to 5:00 P.M.
The printing features of Lightroom make it arguably the best program for printing photographic images ever. And with the new custom layout feature in Lightroom 3, you now have total control over printing one or several photos to a page. In class, you’ll learn exactly how to set up your system for printing success, and automate the whole process, so you can just sit back, print, and get predictable results that look exactly the way you wanted them to. We’ll cover everything from setting up Lightroom’s color management to configuring the print settings so you’ll get quick, reliable results, while side-stepping some common printing problems. We wrap up the day by bringing it all together by showing you the full beginning-to-end process; you’ll see it all, from taking the images into Lightroom, sorting, process, proofing, and even outputting the print right in class. Seeing this real world workflow come together live in class really “makes it stick” and brings it all together to make this incredible day of learning a career-changing experience.

Notice the part on SP???

[Mark D Segal]

Mark - I did not offer the comment to get them off the hook. I meant it more as an indictment of Matt's attitude towards SP (and by extension Andrew and Jeff). If you expect them to leave the cozy forum over at Kelby training for the serious discussions that take place here at LuLa.......how long can you tread water?

And if you want a real head turner, check out the invite to their latest "all" things Lightroom seminar-

http://lightroomkillertips.com/

It’s All About the Print!
4:00 to 5:00 P.M.
The printing features of Lightroom make it arguably the best program for printing photographic images ever. And with the new custom layout feature in Lightroom 3, you now have total control over printing one or several photos to a page. In class, you’ll learn exactly how to set up your system for printing success, and automate the whole process, so you can just sit back, print, and get predictable results that look exactly the way you wanted them to. We’ll cover everything from setting up Lightroom’s color management to configuring the print settings so you’ll get quick, reliable results, while side-stepping some common printing problems. We wrap up the day by bringing it all together by showing you the full beginning-to-end process; you’ll see it all, from taking the images into Lightroom, sorting, process, proofing, and even outputting the print right in class. Seeing this real world workflow come together live in class really “makes it stick” and brings it all together to make this incredible day of learning a career-changing experience.

Notice the part on SP???

Wait a minute - I'm confused here. What's wrong with Andrew and Jeff's attitudes about soft-proofing - if that's what you mean "by extension"? I don't see any problem with it - pretty straightforward to me.

As for the "Killer Tips" seminar - well it sure could be a killer - I mean they mention proofing in Lightroom - as far as I know the only way to do that there is to make a print and then another one - unless they round trip people through Photoshop's soft-proofing back into Lightroom? But they don't advise doing it in PS. So.................?

As for my suggestion that they explain themselves in this Forum - no harm inviting them. We're open-minded folks willing to hear what they have to say about it. You may well be correct that they wouldn't do it, but once invited, it's up to them how to handle it.

[Photo Op]

Mark- I'm questioning his attitude towards Andrew and Jeff's suggestions. I fully support the comments of both Andrew and Jeff.

[Mark D Segal]

Claro

[digitaldog]

As for my suggestion that they explain themselves in this Forum - no harm inviting them.

Go ahead but don’t hold your breath. Some don’t like to venture outside their own blog or forum.

[RFPhotography]

Wait a minute - I'm confused here. What's wrong with Andrew and Jeff's attitudes about soft-proofing - if that's what you mean "by extension"? I don't see any problem with it - pretty straightforward to me.

As for the "Killer Tips" seminar - well it sure could be a killer - I mean they mention proofing in Lightroom - as far as I know the only way to do that there is to make a print and then another one - unless they round trip people through Photoshop's soft-proofing back into Lightroom? But they don't advise doing it in PS. So.................?

As for my suggestion that they explain themselves in this Forum - no harm inviting them. We're open-minded folks willing to hear what they have to say about it. You may well be correct that they wouldn't do it, but once invited, it's up to them how to handle it.

Mark, there is a third party plugin available for soft proofing in LR.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Mark, there is a third party plugin available for soft proofing in LR.

This has been mentioned a couple of times on various threads but I've not seen anyone give it an actual test run and compare it to what can be done in PS.

[Schewe]

This has been mentioned a couple of times on various threads but I've not seen anyone give it an actual test run and compare it to what can be done in PS.

It's ok...it does allow a side by side view of the original and the soft proofed side. You can compare rendering intents but you can't easily adjust the image in place. For me it wouldn't take the place of doing final soft proofing in Photoshop and then return the adjusted image to Lightroom for printing...

[RFPhotography]

You can save the proofed version and the original, view them side by side in Compare then use the Quick Develop tools in the Library module to adjust the proof but there's no access to the full tools available in the Develop module for doing a side by side.  It's more than a little fussy to do all that too, and it's not as useful as PS.  

Nat Coalson did a review of it last December.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Bob, thanks for the reference; I had not seen that review of this plug in.  Jeff thanks for your comments as well; looks like I'll stick with PS since I already own it and wait for the LR team to incorporate soft proofing at some future date.

[xavier.grehant]

What if you were sharing your files with your clients? Would soft-proofing be useful then?

At netsas.com we bet that the “right level” of color management is quite necessary. We introduced it in Shortcut, “your online personal interface” for collaboration on images and projects (see http://netsas.com/en).

You might still need to show the actual result on paper, but I think online softproofing saves time in the earlier steps and avoids surprises.

[papa v2.0]

Hi Guys

Well the old chestnut rears it head again.

To answer Andrews question "soft proofing doesnt work'.
Yes

Go look at colour space viewing conditions and you will find your answer.
I recommend  Mark Fairchild's book on Colour Appearance.

Unfortunately colour science has now migrated into the end users hands wether you like it or not.
If you want to produce good colour imaging learn some colour science.

Cant say any more than that really. Oh and this goes to Adobe as well.

Iain

[Mark D Segal]

Hi Guys

Well the old chestnut rears it head again.

To answer Andrews question "soft proofing doesnt work'.
Yes

Go look at colour space viewing conditions and you will find your answer.
I recommend  Mark Fairchild's book on Colour Appearance.

Unfortunately colour science has now migrated into the end users hands wether you like it or not.
If you want to produce good colour imaging learn some colour science.

Cant say any more than that really. Oh and this goes to Adobe as well.

Iain

Yup, I'm and end-user and I like colour management AND soft-proofing. I think between the ICC, Adobe, Epson et. al, on the whole they've done a great job at making very useful tools available to all us clueless end-users, and guess what - we don't even need a Ph.D. in colour science to use them properly and achieve superb, reliable results most of the time. That's the beauty of it.

[Schewe]

Cant say any more than that really. Oh and this goes to Adobe as well.

Can't or won't?

So, do you make prints?

As a practical matter, do you have anything useful to suggest above and beyond soft proofing in Photoshop?

[Josh-H]

Hi Guys

Well the old chestnut rears it head again.

To answer Andrews question "soft proofing doesnt work'.
Yes

Go look at colour space viewing conditions and you will find your answer.
I recommend  Mark Fairchild's book on Colour Appearance.

Unfortunately colour science has now migrated into the end users hands wether you like it or not.
If you want to produce good colour imaging learn some colour science.

Cant say any more than that really. Oh and this goes to Adobe as well.

Iain

Wow... I must have missed the memo...

I guess the hundreds of soft proofed, subsequently tweaked and accurate prints I have here in my studio in my artists file were all just flukes. I guess I wasted my time soft proofing them when I could have just printed them by guessing the rendering intent and making assumptions as to how to tweak.

You see here's the thing... since I started soft proofing some years ago (I forget how many now) I have not had to make a single additional print because I chose the wrong rendering (RelCol or Perceptual). Occasionally, (very very occasionally) I will change something  because I am not happy with the first print. But that is a very rare occurrence because of ... yep... you guessed it.. SOFT PROOFING! Soft proofing allows one to accurately see what the finished print will look like and tweak it accordingly. Its an incredibly powerful tool-provided you know how to use it.

Sure.. I could ditch soft proofing and make multiple test prints to choose the best rendering intent. Buy why on earth would I want to waste expensive artist paper and even more expensive pigment ink (more expensive than the finest single malt whiskies) when I can get it right before ink hits paper. I just dont get this mentality. The only sense I can make of it is that 'people' dont understand how to use soft proofing; therefore in their mind 'it doesnt work'.

Soft proofing accurately and tweaking accordingly takes more than a 'bit' of skill and a little bot of knowledge. A well calibrated monitor, an accurate profile, correct colour management and PS settings are just some of the cornerstones required. But these alone do not guarantee good results. You need practice - heaps of it. There really is no substitute for experience learned through trial and practice.

I am starting to feel like there is a generation of photographers who quite literally shoot and process for the web almost exclusively. They run their monitors at 100% and scratch their heads when their prints turn out to dark. Its nothing short of laughable that they then turn around and claim soft proofing doesn't work.

You know its one thing to stick your hand up and say 'I don't understand soft proofing, can someone please help me so I can get good prints' and its quite another to come out and blatantly and ignorantly say 'soft proofing doesnt work' (when it clearly does for the fine art printers who have taken the time to understand it).

Phew.. I think I need a coffee....

[RogerW]

Well said that man!

Now can we get back to printing our photos please?  S-P or no, please yourself, I do.