Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: ashaughnessy on July 27, 2015, 02:56:22 am
-
Ctein has put a blog post on the online photographer blog - http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/are-profiles-obsolete.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/are-profiles-obsolete.html) - about getting to the point where custom monitor and printer profiles are obsolete. I'm happy to imagine this for monitor profiles but can't see how the printer can know what paper you're printing on when you're using a third party paper?
What are the views from here?
Anthony
-
I think it depends - worth testing. That said, I can see it perhaps being OK, depending on the printer model, using OEM papers for which the printer is specifically profiled ("Printer Manages Color" must be using its own profiles internally), however for third-party papers I would expect a custom profile to perform better.
-
Ctein has put a blog post on the online photographer blog - http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/are-profiles-obsolete.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/are-profiles-obsolete.html) - about getting to the point where custom monitor and printer profiles are obsolete. I'm happy to imagine this for monitor profiles but can't see how the printer can know what paper you're printing on when you're using a third party paper?
What are the views from here?
Anthony
Sounds like nonsense to me. First, proof of concept what a custom profile provides. Below is the canned profile versus my custom profile (without post optimization which will improve it further). The canned profile is from a new Epson P600 on luster paper, this is one of Bill's Ball's found on my Gamut Test File (http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif ). Look at the blue ball printing nearly completely black! Is that what Ctein feels is proper output?
(http://digitaldog.net/files/EpsonVsCustomProfile.jpg)
The situation is far, far worse with displays! They not only need to be calibrated and profiled on a regular basis, one size of calibration absolutely doesn't fit all! If your goal is a soft proof that matches a print, that's simply not going to happen out of the box or without proper display calibration for that goal. YMMV.
Sounds to me like an article to be controversial to funnel web traffic? Because I don't see a canned profile for a very good and new printer producing output that rivals a custom print profile and there are many other examples one can see on a print besides this egregious blue printing black problem!
-
Hi Andrew - while I'm not surprised in principle, I find the size of the disconnect between the canned and the custom profiles to be unexpectedly large. You say you tested with Luster Paper: was that Epson Premium Luster or whatever it is called these days? And can I assume in both tests you had the reference paper in the printer driver set to that paper, and you used the same and most fitting Rendering Intent?
I ask because of some logical considerations that may or may not be correct: (1) when the printer is set to Printer Manages Color, presumably it is selecting under the hood the same paper profiles that Epson provides to people who want to manage colour with Epson papers from their printing application; (2) we have seen how Epson's canned profiles have been dramatically improved over the years; (3) these printers are said to be manufactured to a high degree of performance similarity from unit to unit, <supposedly> making it far safer to use canned profiles nowadays than was ever the case in the early days of inkjet printing. Now, if all three of these propositions were correct - please weigh-in on me - the extent of difference shown in your example shouldn't be there. OR, what it could mean is that the Epson profile for this paper and printer (and perhaps others) just isn't all that good to begin with, or printer variance from unit to unit is larger than one may assume, hence the far better rendition with a well-made custom profile. Over to you.
For third party papers I wouldn't even try relying on a printer manufacturer's canned profiles. Even the paper manufacturers often don't do themselves a service with their canned profiles for their own papers, though that too has been an improving story over the years.
-
Hi Andrew - while I'm not surprised in principle, I find the size of the disconnect between the canned and the custom profiles to be unexpectedly large. You say you tested with Luster Paper: was that Epson Premium Luster or whatever it is called these days?
Epson Premium Luster yes. Test it yourself.
Further, Ctein has us believe that the answer is to use Printer Manages Color. First, I printed using that suggestion and yes, the blue ball is black just like using the canned profile! I need this new print to dry down but so far, it looks very much (to be identical?) as using the canned profile. So the idea that using Printer Manages Color is something useful or special doesn't wash on this end. IF it uses another profile or process to print, how does Ctein expect us to soft proof? So, Printer Manages Color isn't anything useful that I see, potentially worse actually than Application Manages Color IF there's a difference as we can't soft proof.
-
Did any of you actually read AND understand Ctein's post?
I suggest you do so and you will see that the post really applies to his situation and equipment.
Just try rereading before jumping to conclusions, then all may be more clear.
Rich
-
Andrew: Yes I thought of the soft-proofing question too, but then concluded - in my mind of course - not on paper yet - that if the printer is using those same OEM paper profiles for the management of colour, one can load the appropriate Epson profile into one's soft-proofing utility and carry on.
Rich - why should I read something before commenting on it? What purpose does that serve? JUST KIDDING. Yes, of course I read it, and the stuff he's using is no different from that of a great many other people. But as individual conditions and requirements can vary that is why a started my initial response with "worth testing". And Andrew did and got the outcome he got.
-
Did any of you actually read AND understand Ctein's post?
Yes. How many points need to be dismissed?
First is monitor profiling. You only need one monitor profile for each color temperature you work at.
Only if you use one paper...
For printers, you have a custom profile for every paper you use, although you can often get away with one profile for each category of paper (matte, canvas, glossy, etc.).
That doesn't even deserve a comment, not for this audience.
We really are talking about “printer-managed color,” as Photoshop refers to it. Profiling is turned off entirely. No custom profiles, not even the canned profiles that get installed with your printer software.
The output test I did would suggest otherwise but the fact is, the print is as bad as using the canned profile. And as I asked Mark, if no profile gets installed or presumably used (is that what he's implying?) how do I soft proof?
I'm using Photoshop, under Mac OS X, with Epson 3880 (a 6-year old design, it's worth noting) and P800 printers.
I'm using a 3880 and a close brother, the P600 and both produce the same ugly black ball among other issues from the canned profile.
I did extensive tests of my best custom-made paper profiles (which may not be the best in the entire world, but they are pretty damn good) against printer-managed color. The printer won.
He needs a better custom profile, a better set of images to test profiles.
Yes, I read it. I don't agree and my output doesn't either. You and other's can do your own tests and report back. A reference image is available for anyone who wishes to use for testing (http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip)
-
Andrew: Yes I thought of the soft-proofing question too, but then concluded - in my mind of course - not on paper yet - that if the printer is using those same OEM paper profiles for the management of colour, one can load the appropriate Epson profile into one's soft-proofing utility and carry on.
I believe that's what's happening. I can ping Dave P or my contacts at Epson but does it matter? IF It uses the same profile as I suspect it's just as bad as selecting the profile with Application Manages Color. It shows that Ctein may not understand what's happening here and clearly, he's missed soft proofing IF it's different. So that's some data points to dismiss this article. Note too, when selecting Printer Manages Color we have the option to pick a rendering intent. That would further suggest that Ctein's idea that this process is different or better or special or doesn't use an ICC profile doesn't wash. But like you, I'm not positive because I've never needed to deal with Printer Manages Color. I have no reason to.
-
Andrew - his article made me wonder about who doesn't understand what regarding the processes under the hood when Printer Manages Color. Let us stick with the Epson case alone for a moment. Epson's driver includes separate profiles for each of the Epson papers that said Epson printer model can use. And let us recall we are dealing with a huge range of papers from the widest gamut luster to the narrowest gamut matte, different finishes, textures, ink receiving characteristics, and what not. Therefore, for the printer just to know how much ink to lay down on the paper and what recipe to use for optimizing printed gamut, it MUST use a separate profile or equivalent for each paper the user selects under Printer Color Management. Someone will need to educate me that it works any differently from this. So yes, great idea to ping both Dave P and your Epson contacts on this matter - best to get it clarified from the folks who for sure know the internals.
-
Andrew - his article made me wonder about who doesn't understand what regarding the processes under the hood when Printer Manages Color.
I think I do better now.
Printer Manages Color, select ColorSync Radio button, you get the profile used as if you selected Application Manages Color and selected the same profile. That's why the ball is black in both cases. So that path is worthless.
Printer Manages Color, select Epson Controls, Adobe RGB as Ctein recommends, you get a different result. First off, blue ball isn't black but it's not close to the quality of my custom profile here and elsewhere. Colors clip to Adobe RGB (1998) which is unacceptable for reasons I don't have to get into and you can't soft proof! Green's suffer as expected, sever banding of magenta balls, throughout Granger Rainbow, saturated colors in the blankets in the image show no detail etc. Using Epson Controls and Adobe RGB (1998), certainly on my Gamut Test File which is in ProPhoto RGB produces an inferior rendering in many areas compared to just using a good custom profile on the ProPhoto RGB data.
-
Just try rereading before jumping to conclusions, then all may be more clear.
So far, only one person here has jumped to conclusions! ;D
-
Andrew,
Over the years I have learned a bit about color from your articles and for that I am grateful.
You made way more about a simple "this size fits me" article, by Ctein, than was in the article.
I did not mind too much your posturing and rambling on, but your last post was unnecessary and childish.
Rich
-
Mark,
I apologize, I failed to understand your first post properly.
Rich
-
Uhmmm... could someone give an example of printer + paper combination where "no profile" (I guess manufacturer-provided ICC profile?) actually works?
It surely hasn't worked out for my Canon Pixma Pro-1. Here's why: computer monitors are often preconfigured with high saturation and contrast to impress laymen in the stores when comparing to other monitors. Then papers profiles are the same, high saturation and contrast, and perhaps if you use an uncalibrated wide-gamut screen in store-show-impress-mode and tune your image on that screen and then print it with the impress-mode manufacturer paper profiles, they may cancel out and you actually get something that is somewhat similar to what you have on screen.
To me it seems like it can only be some narrow use case with very specific screen, printer and paper combination you could get away without profiling.
If manufacturers really wanted to provide experienced users with accuracy rather than providing exaggerated saturation and contrast to the laymen we could probably do well with canned printer+paper profiles. I'm less sure about screens due to sample to sample variation, they would need to make individual factory calibration (which I guess they may do on some high end screens that cost like 2-3 times more).
I don't think printers/papers have the same sample variation issue, if they had it would be pretty hopeless (imagine recalibrating for each new ink tank or paper roll...), which means manufacturer ICC profiles could be good, but the ones I've tested (from Hahnemuhle, Canon, Canson etc) are all designed not for accuracy but for exaggeration. This is a deliberate design choice and I guess it's due to the commercial reality -- if they would make accurate profiles, beginners and laymen would print and compare to the competition and find their paper to be "dull" and then buy the competitor paper with the contrasty profile instead.
-
Let us stick with the Epson case alone for a moment. Epson's driver includes separate profiles for each of the Epson papers that said Epson printer model can use. And let us recall we are dealing with a huge range of papers from the widest gamut luster to the narrowest gamut matte, different finishes, textures, ink receiving characteristics, and what not. Therefore, for the printer just to know how much ink to lay down on the paper and what recipe to use for optimizing printed gamut, it MUST use a separate profile or equivalent for each paper the user selects under Printer Color Management.
Yes, indeed, more ammo that this article is either aimed at photographers who prefer to shoot JPEG and sRGB mindset or the author is not doing his due diligence.
I can only speak of my own experiences based on what I'd think is better testing methodology. I produced three prints from the P600, two variations I've tested on my 3880 (I didn't try Printer Manages Color using Ctein's settings for so many obvious reasons). In both cases, using reference images designed to test what a profile does, the custom profile was vastly, visually superior to the canned profile. Unlike Ctein, I've actually provided photo's (albeit not ideal) to illustrate the differences. I've also pointed out that using his now preferred process (Printer Manages Color), we clip to Adobe RGB (1998) on a printer we both know exceeds that gamut and we can't soft proof. So this 'technique' is probably well suited to the 'just shoot JPEG in sRGB' crowed. That's fine if you fall into that camp.
Ctein either needs someone to build him a much better custom profile and/or provide him much better test files for detecting problems with output profiles. I'm using essentially the same printers he mentions so the disconnect in our findings isn't due to that.
I'd be happy to photograph the same blue ball using his suggestions compared to my custom profile, or show the entire print. But better, each person should do their own testing and view the prints with their own eyes. The differences I see between the three possible print processes are not at all subtle.
-
Here's a simulated comparison between custom profile (to the left) on semi-gloss paper, compared to the original image (center) and the "standard" (=canned) profile to the right.
(http://www.ludd.luth.se/~torger/photography/img/ap-comparison.jpg)
While only a simulation it represents well what I see on paper. That is that with my own custom profile I get very good match screen vs print, and with canned profile there are many quite obvious errors (although I'm sure some consider them small), for instance, wrong hue of the blue sky, wrong hue of the neutrals (b&w), too high contrast, too high saturation here and there.
-
Actually that was the second WTF moment I've come across this week. The first was Ming Thein insisting that the best way to calibrate a monitor is to use Apple's Display control panel calibrator, because, if I understood him correctly, that way you get a profile that matches your eyesight. He charges $80 for that kind of gem....
-
Retina factory state on a set of sRGB colours - dE 14. After calibration and profiling - dE 3.2.
-
Actually that was the second WTF moment I've come across this week. The first was Ming Thein insisting that the best way to calibrate a monitor is to use Apple's Display control panel calibrator, because, if I understood him correctly, that way you get a profile that matches your eyesight. He charges $80 for that kind of gem....
Used 'the Google' found him but not anything about using the control panel. Can you dig up a URL, I'd love to see it. TIA.
-
http://blog.mingthein.com/2012/10/17/color-management/
this one??!?
aaron
-
A JPEG, in sRGB, from a 5D (not using my preferred 105 Macro to show more balls) isn't ideal. But here's my profile (top) versus what Ctein recommends (Adobe RGB (1998) using Epson Controls).
To my eye, nothing is superior on the output using his method. It's clear what clipping to Adobe RGB (1998) does here with Greens (ugly banding without profile). Look at how flat the upper blue ball is, no shape like that with the profile. Upper Magenta ball shows banding and more lack of smoothness. Dirty yellow bottom ball.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/ProfilevsCtein.jpg)
Of course, actually viewing the prints on a light booth revels the differences much better, but I think you can get the idea.
-
Sorry, it's in his 2 hour long $80 video, which has about 15 mins content. A fool and his money .... The section on display calibration, for whatever video capture reason, doesn't even show the actual effect of changing brightness/contrast in the calibrator. Actually he's using an Apple Thunderbolt display, maybe it's sufficiently well factory calibrated... But anyway, my impression is that one reason to use hardware calibration is precisely NOT to introduce "eyesight bias". But what do I know.
-
Actually he's using an Apple Thunderbolt display, maybe it's sufficiently well factory calibrated...
Calibrated to what for what? No, you're correct, it's worthless advise.
-
> The section on display calibration, for whatever video capture reason, doesn't even show the actual effect of changing brightness/contrast in the calibrator
Possibly shooting with auto exposure and auto white balance ;)
> Apple Thunderbolt display, maybe it's sufficiently well factory calibrated
With 13.8 dE??
-
So yes, great idea to ping both Dave P and your Epson contacts on this matter - best to get it clarified from the folks who for sure know the internals.
Did you see that Dave P did post on Ctein's page? Note the part about Windows and sRGB, even less ideal IMHO:
We really are talking about “printer-managed color,” as Photoshop refers to it. Profiling is turned off entirely. No custom profiles, not even the canned profiles that get installed with your printer software.
To clarify, profiling isn't turned off entirely. Whatever profile the document is in (your working profile in Photoshop, or the document profile if you're not converting to a standard working profile, or ProPhoto RGB if you're working in Lightroom) is sent to the printer with the document, so the printer knows what the numbers in the document mean.
When using "Printer Manages Color" on the Mac, Photoshop will do its level best to send the document as-is to the printer. The caveat here is that the color-space the document is in needs to be something that the OS can turn into what the printer wants. In practice, this means any profiled RGB, CMYK or gray color-space, as well as La*b* (CIELAB) go from Photoshop to the OS without color conversion happening inside Photoshop. But all the printer drivers take (only) RGB input, so there's no reason to even think about the fact that they're using CMYK inks unless you want extra color conversions.
The OS then converts that color-data we've handed it into whatever color-space the printer driver wants (no conversion for profiled RGB, but CMYK, gray, and La*b* will probably be converted by the OS), and then the printer driver is in control. Since the OS is possibly doing a color conversion, the version of the OS matters, but since 10.4 or 10.5 things have been pretty stable (and good).
On Windows, GDI (and ICM2.0) uses sRGB as its interchange space, so if you use "Printer Manages Color" on Windows, all color information will get converted to sRGB at some point, possibly compressing your color gamut. If you can see a difference, use "Photoshop Manages Colors," but make a print first to see if you can see a difference.
Posted by: Dave Polaschek | Monday, 27 July 2015 at 09:33 AM
-
Mark,
I apologize, I failed to understand your first post properly.
Rich
No problem - happens to the best of us. :-)
-
> possibly compressing your color gamut
Clipping, in my experience, not compressing, as the conversions between matrix profiles are handled in the system using relative colorimetric intent.
-
Did you see that Dave P did post on Ctein's page? Note the part about Windows and sRGB, even less ideal IMHO:
Thanks for reproducing that Andrew - very interesting. From what Dave says, if the file is in an RGB working space, the OS does not need to do any conversions, so it hands the RGB data to the printer driver. Then it would appear from what you explained further above, "Printer Manages Color" actually has two options - this is where it gets subtle: "Colorsync" or "Epson Color Controls". If I understand correctly, with Colorsync selected, the printer uses the same profiles we can use in an application controlled workflow, so if the results are similar whether the route is the application or the driver controlling, and poorer than what you can get from a custom profile, it simply means the canned profile is inferior to a good custom profile and therefore to avoid. Then you mentioned that if one rather selected "Epson Color Controls", the results are different again, but you say also inferior to a good custom profile. It makes me wonder about the secret sauce by which the printer driver is interpreting the numbers in this option, because there has to be something akin to a profile for doing so. Regardless of the option however, the bottom line emerging from your tests is that both Printer Managed options are inferior to a custom profile with the application managing, but in different ways. Now if you could determine that so readily, one wonders about how Ctein came to believe what he wrote. Perhaps he is using photographs that don't reveal the extent of differences in the way that bespoke test images do, and therefore he's not seeing the whole story. And there remains the question of 3rd party papers which he didn't mention, but clearly can't be left to Printer Colour Management, except in ABW mode where there is no choice.
-
It makes me wonder about the secret sauce by which the printer driver is interpreting the numbers in this option, because there has to be something akin to a profile for doing so.
I don't believe it's a secret interpretation, the driver either gets sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) at some point based on which of the two settings the user selects. Then it does what it does to produce CcMmYKk or whatever.
Regardless of the option however, the bottom line emerging from your tests is that both Printer Managed options are inferior to a custom profile with the application managing, but in different ways. Now if you could determine that so readily, one wonders about how Ctein came to believe what he wrote.
I wonder if he does believe it (he asks If you do this test, please report back here and let us know what you find. It would be nice to have an assemblage of information on which printers work better with printer-managed color and which don't.). He also replied to my post there, asking about soft proofing (seems to have escaped him?).
IF his technique indeed produced a better result than a custom profile, which it doesn't, that be one thing. That it doesn't and you funnel the data into Adobe RGB and can't soft proof, is another. Two major strikes against this idea. But to be fair to him, the article is titled Are Profiles Obsolete? Hopefully he doesn't believe that.
One thing he writes in his article I'm kind of shocked to read is:
Then there's printing. For printers, you have a custom profile for every paper you use, although you can often get away with one profile for each category of paper (matte, canvas, glossy, etc.).
Say what? Seems far from ideal and again, no possibility to properly soft proof.
-
One thing he writes in his article I'm kind of shocked to read is: <<For printers, you have a custom profile for every paper you use, although you can often get away with one profile for each category of paper (matte, canvas, glossy, etc.)>>
Say what? Seems far from ideal and again, no possibility to properly soft proof.
There is such a range of papers within each of these major categories in principle it can't possibly be true, even before considering the soft-proofing question. But again, what one sees - or not - partly depends on what one is looking at.
-
But again, what one sees - or not - partly depends on what one is looking at.
It will be interesting to see what Ctein has to say to a post I made on his blog (still awaiting moderation):
Ctein, there are at least three conceptual problems I see using Printer Manages Color and one actual problem:
1. You're clipping all your image data into Adobe RGB (1998) . As I'm sure you're aware, both our printers (P600, 3880) exceed Adobe RGB (1998) by quite a bit (I can provide gamut maps or gamut volume values if you wish). And yes, it's clipping, there's no option for gamut compression as there's no perceptual conversion to Adobe RGB (1998), one less option. All my original data is raw, processed in the ACR color engine which does it's processing in ProPhoto RGB gamut. If you're interested, you or others can test how such a workflow, albeit with very saturated imagery found form raw, in my Gamut Test File, how and why anything but ProPhoto RGB is suboptimal for output to the devices we're talking about:
-----
AR: I pasted info on video I did about benefits of wide gamut working space.
----
2. You can't soft proof. The profile used to produce the output values equally has to be used for soft proofing. So Printer Color Management restricts soft proofing. Maybe you and your readers don't soft proof? I find it critcally important, especially to produce output specific edits.
3. The Epson driver doesn't know anything about 3rd party papers, how can it? Same with Canon and other drivers. When you select Epson Luster, the driver 'assumes' you're using Epson Luster paper. So while Printer Manages Color might work kind of OK with an Epson paper, how can it know or be optimal for other papers? Do you believe that all papers considered "Luster" or Matt behave the same way? I can't see how using Printer Manages Color with a host of papers from 3rd party companies could work equally well or the same, can you?
Lastly, the actual problem I've seen today. The output using Printer Color Management doesn't get close to producing output that's as good as my custom profile. Hence the photo's of the prints which don't really show all the warts of this process.
Your readers should do their own testing. They should use good color reference images to do so, images that are designed to show issues with color output. You have two, one being the Granger Rainbow and I use that as well. But when testing using my wide gamut file, Bill (Atkinsion's) 14 balls are excellent for uncovering color issues. The saturated images (the blanket image for example) is very useful. Of course this is outlined in the above video.
I'm happy to see that at the end of the title of this article is question mark. Based on the above, I don't think that's necessary as profile are not obsolete. I suppose for those photographers who need a KISS approach and don't mind suboptimal output, using Printer Manages Color is akin to shooting a JPEG in sRGB than shooting raw. I'm OK with that approach as long as the photographer understand the practical limitations of those choices.
Just before, someone posted this which is also interesting:
Ctein,
Since you are reviewing the new Epson printer, do you know if they are planning to add a windows print feature for RGB? I am currently using Moonphoto in Seattle for custom printing and they do their work in RGB, not sRGB. Regarding the new ink sets, can they handle the pro-photo color space? I am interested in this color space but have not used it.
[ Mathew — Sorry, I don't do Windows, so I wouldn't know about that. There is no printer out there that can fully handle the ProPhoto color space. But, all modern quality printers can produce colors that fall a little outside of Adobe RGB. While Adobe RGB is a roughly good match for printer gamuts, it doesn't catch all the colors a printer can reproduce. Working in ProPhoto RGB does add usable hues to your workspace. — Ctein]
Posted by: Mathew Hargreaves | Monday, 27 July 2015 at 05:52 PM
comment-form-atp
Interesting article. Thank you.
What profile are you using for soft proofing? Or does Printer Managing Colours render soft proofing unnecessary too?
{ Jason — I don't find soft proofing especially useful for my work; it doesn't tell me well enough what a print will actually look like. So, I couldn't really say the best way to make use of it with this approach. — Ctein ]
-
I think as most of the shooters have sRGB JPEG files from cameras Epson did an excellent job for this particular audience. However I'm afraid this audience does not print much.
For anything else, including, pardon me, hard proofing, which is lost somehow in the argument, more quality and workflow flexibility, more user control over the workflow are needed.
The good thing is that while working on improvements to "Printer-based colour management" Epson did a grand job polishing and stabilizing ink control. Still, I'm not printing at 20 Celsius all the year around (not to mention humidity changing from 40% to 90% during the year), and it is pretty much the same as with film processing - 2 degrees difference makes for a marked difference in colour and density. Neither are papers perfectly same between batches. IMHO the idea of printer managed colour is not adequate for mid- and high-end printing.
And Retina not needing calibration and profiling is quite odd.
-
I think as most of the shooters have sRGB JPEG files from cameras Epson did an excellent job for this particular audience. However I'm afraid this audience does not print much.
I have to admit, while I've heard the name Ctein over the years, I didn't know much about him. Then I read this just now after reading the blog post Are Profiles Obsolete?:
http://ctein.com/whoami.htm
I do have an international reputation as one of the premier photographic printers alive; in fact, experts at Kodak at one time declared me to be the finest color printer, bar none. For many years my printing skills have been in great demand by others. If you need custom printing done, I'm your guy.
Maybe he is addressing the sRGB JPEG group at this site. But some of what he states based on his bkgnd has me scratching my head.
-
I like Ctein, actually. But I'm afraid he got carried away here, just a little :) Point is, simplicity sells. You can witness "over my head" being a very strong argument.
-
It will be interesting to see what Ctein has to say to a post I made on his blog (still awaiting moderation):
Wait no longer. :)
-
Wait no longer. :)
Ctein contacted me via email, I'm going to build him a couple profiles so he can further test on his end. So, a fellow with very open mind about all this. Stay tuned.
Someone on the blog asked about differences in printing between Lightroom and Photoshop; is one better? They should be identical, they have been in the past, the times I've tested this. So I'm also going to do this test again with LR6 and Photoshop CC 2015.
-
It is, I feel, interesting to compare the way digitaldog talks about Ctein with the way Ctein talks about digitaldog. It may not say much about color management, but it says a lot about character.
-
Someone on the blog asked about differences in printing between Lightroom and Photoshop; is one better? They should be identical, they have been in the past, the times I've tested this. So I'm also going to do this test again with LR6 and Photoshop CC 2015.
The two behave the same, doesn't matter which you use, you'll get the same color appearance.
-
> The most important book on photography written in the last 123 years
That is an amazing achievement, Andrew! Can I have a pdf copy for a review please?
-
Sure!
-
> The most important book on photography written in the last 123 years
That is an amazing achievement, Andrew! Can I have a pdf copy for a review please?
I'm shocked Michael hasn't provided a review here considering this achievement. Or did I miss it?
Maybe you can provide a review for LuLa Iliah.
-
I'm shocked Michael hasn't provided a review here considering this achievement. Or did I miss it?
Maybe you can provide a review for LuLa Iliah.
I will do that, given I will have the pdf. I do not have Kindle, so the link in the Andrew's signature does not help. I will keep folks here updated.
Upd. PDF received
-
Without going in to details, I'd like to report that Iliah surprised me with his kindness and openness. I am confident that whatever he reports will be honest and worthwhile. Yes, even if negative. Arguably more useful in that case.
-
Curious how a printer handles out-of-the camera jpegs? (assume the white balance is correct)
-
Clipping, in my experience, not compressing, as the conversions between matrix profiles are handled in the system using relative colorimetric intent.
The other short coming doing the Printer Manages Color is the issue of the bit depth of the color transform. In Photoshop (using the Adobe CMM) and Lightroom (it only uses the Adobe CMM) the working space to output profile is done in 20 bit precision. In the Apple CMM it's 16 bit and I believe Windows is the same. So, there are actually double transforms happening, document to SRGB or Adobe RGB in 16 bit then from that profile another color transform to arrive at the printer color. So, I expect Photoshop Manages Color to end up with a more precise result with much less chance of banding...
The only time I've ever heard of a Printer Manages Color being better than use color managed is with certain non-pro printers from Canon and certain entry level Epson printers like the PictureMate and the all in one printer/scanner/fax machines.
-
The other short coming doing the Printer Manages Color is the issue of the bit depth of the color transform. In Photoshop (using the Adobe CMM) and Lightroom (it only uses the Adobe CMM) the working space to output profile is done in 20 bit precision. In the Apple CMM it's 16 bit and I believe Windows is the same. So, there are actually double transforms happening, document to SRGB or Adobe RGB in 16 bit then from that profile another color transform to arrive at the printer color. So, I expect Photoshop Manages Color to end up with a more precise result with much less chance of banding...
The only time I've ever heard of a Printer Manages Color being better than use color managed is with certain non-pro printers from Canon and certain entry level Epson printers like the PictureMate and the all in one printer/scanner/fax machines.
Yes, Jeff, double conversions tend to add more banding and noise in shadows than possible, and gamut transforms go unchecked totally. On top of that there is indeed the precision issue.
I think what Epson did was to open a path for more or less accurate and reliable colour and tone to the users who have no idea of proper colour management, or no means to it. First print comes out more or less agreeable. To achieve this, they figured out the rather stable control of ink coverage and optimized conversion from "pseudo printer additive" to physical printer subtractive (including optimization for the use of light and heavy inks), so the changes in linearization are much less of an issue when it used to be, and the dynamic range of the print is effectively close to maximum the media and inks can handle, with more smoothness, more tones, less posterization. For those of us who use custom profiles those underlying improvements mean less kinks in LUTs, and more stable and more easily achieved results.
-
FWIW, Dave Polaschek stated: "Picking "Printer Manages Colors" on Windows guarantees that your color data will be converted to sRGB."
-
FWIW, Dave Polaschek stated: "Picking "Printer Manages Colors" on Windows guarantees that your color data will be converted to sRGB."
I wonder about that. The Windows PS-3 driver of the HP Z3200-PS in printer CM mode has a selection menu that gives you a choice between sRGB, AdobeRGB, Colormatch and AppleRGB for RGB images and some CMYK spaces for CMYK files. The PCL-3 driver only sRGB and AdobeRGB. I do not think the driver will convert to any of these spaces first but has different LUTs to deal with images with the assigned spaces. The user then has to correlate the color space choice with the image assigned color space I think. Otherwise I do not understand the menu either, a proper driver recognition of the color space in the file could have been implanted and have things doen automatically. Anyway if only sRGB would get through the above choices become even weirder as that either corrupts the CM right away or the data gets two conversions on the way and a small space in between. I think HP avoids a color engine implant the way they designed the menu choices and Windows does not convert to sRGB on the fly.
Qimage Ultimate (that can not work with CMYK files and is Windows only) has three choices on color management:
* OFF - and QU will not do any CM but also strip the color space from the data it sends through to the driver. Good for target printing.
* Printer will do CM - and QU will not do any CM but keep the color space assigned to the data it sends to the driver.
* Qimage Ultimate CM on - and QU will do the CM and expect the driver setting to be on "Let application do CM" and expects the OS does not interfere either, Windows respects that approach as we know.
In the two first choices I see a conflict if the data gets sRGB assigned or is converted to sRGB by Windows. I have no reason to think it works like that.
There could be (desktop model) drivers with no other expectation than sRGB assigned or no space assigned files thrown at them and their driver CM based on that assumption. Not a Windows limitation but a simple driver CM.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Off Topic:
I sold two, yes, TWO, copies of my book today. It's madness, I tell you, madness. Hurry, before they run out!
-
Off Topic:
I sold two, yes, TWO, copies of my book today. It's madness, I tell you, madness. Hurry, before they run out!
Wow, two, yes TWO OT posts on the subject of color management. It is madness. :-\
-
Hi, i just bought the new epson sure color p600 printer and can't get good colour. I am printing greeting cards with photos that i created in Apple Pages software. Printed these for years with epson r2400 without any color problems but terrible rendering wit p600: reds are orange and prints very dark. Can someone help? And what are best settings to use ? Thanks, just joined this forum
Paulinemyre@ rogers.com
-
Hi, i just bought the new epson sure color p600 printer and can't get good colour. I am printing greeting cards with photos that i created in Apple Pages software. Printed these for years with epson r2400 without any color problems but terrible rendering wit p600: reds are orange and prints very dark. Can someone help? And what are best settings to use ? Thanks, just joined this forum
Paulinemyre@ rogers.com
The P600 should handle this just fine. You probably are having a colour management set-up issue, but impossible to advise without seeing a lot more detail about the media you are using and the colour management settings in your print application and the printer driver.
-
Thanks for your reply. After trial and errors i was able to get accurate color with the epson p600. However now i cannot access the advanced black and white. I did it once but unable to do it again. Is this feature only accessible with photo black ink?. I am using photographic matte paper and matte black ink.
many thanks for your help