Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: HSakols on January 29, 2016, 04:31:57 pm
-
Is soft proofing less critical for glossy or luster papers as compared to mat papers?
-
Is soft proofing less critical for glossy or luster papers as compared to mat papers?
Typically, yes. Matte papers have a much smaller dynamic range and gamut and so are more likely to not be able to reflect the full image. But it depends on the image. You soft proof to find out.
-
Is soft proofing less critical for glossy or luster papers as compared to mat papers?
Only if you like surprises. Will a matt soft proof look considerably different than a soft proof for luster, with the simulation of ink and paper on? Yes. Will a soft proof of Luster with the same settings look different set on than set for off and will the settings on match the print better (if all color management ducks are in order)? Yes.
Soft proofing is critical for a visual match between display and print.
-
From my own experience, I find the soft proofing of fine art matte papers too be overly muted. I wish there was a slider there that let you tune the soft proofing to how you see it compared to the print.
Brian A
-
I wish there was a slider there that let you tune the soft proofing to how you see it compared to the print.
The slider(s) and controls are in the product that calibrates the display. Not all are created equally. Not all allow you control over a very important attribute; the contrast ratio of the display. Gotta have good control over black in the panel for that.
-
Typically, yes. Matte papers have a much smaller dynamic range and gamut and so are more likely to not be able to reflect the full image. But it depends on the image. You soft proof to find out.
Isn't "less critical" sort of like being "less pregnant?" I have never found a paper - glossy, luster, matte, canvas - that does not require soft proofing adjustments for best results. It's true that glossy/luster papers seem to need less adjustment than matte/canvas, but they still need it.
-
<< I wish there was a slider there that let you tune the soft proofing to how you see it compared to the print. >>
The slider(s) and controls are in the product that calibrates the display. Not all are created equally. Not all allow you control over a very important attribute; the contrast ratio of the display. Gotta have good control over black in the panel for that.
And then the other half of your slider lives in the infinitely variable dimming switch of your viewing station, which allows you to match that good monitor to the actual print. It's uncanny how accurate a soft proof is when all that is dialed in.
-
Is soft proofing less critical for glossy or luster papers as compared to mat papers?
As the others (no doubt more expert in these matters than am I) have said, optimal printing workflow benefits from soft proofing no matter what paper is used. But I sensed in your question a different shade of meaning. My experience is that in general, matte papers require more "tweaking" in soft proofing (especially contrast, shadow control, black point, etc.) than luster or glossy papers. If that's the thrust of your question then a qualified "yes" is appropriate I think. In fact, there are one or two luster/semigloss papers I use that require very little tweaking in soft proofing for most images.
Rand
-
The slider(s) and controls are in the product that calibrates the display. Not all are created equally. Not all allow you control over a very important attribute; the contrast ratio of the display. Gotta have good control over black in the panel for that.
Soft proofing glossy/semi-gloss/lustre/pearl/satin/silk/semi-matte/photo-matte works fine, but I have to use a different monitor profile (NEC SpectraView) for matte papers. I'd rather be able to modify the way the soft proof appears and run the same profile for the same viewing conditions.
I understand how it works, I'd just prefer it different.
Brian A
-
From my own experience, I find the soft proofing of fine art matte papers too be overly muted. I wish there was a slider there that let you tune the soft proofing to how you see it compared to the print.
Brian A
Hi!
Matte papers print and soft proof more muted on matte if you use perceptual (or BPC with RI) because of the shadow expansions from a poor DMax. For RI without BPC there shouldn't be any muting at all if the image doesn't extend beyond the paper's black point. Soft proofing should accurately portray the resulting print unless something's out of whack. I get very good matches between prints and soft proofs with I1Profiler profiles. OTOH, soft proofing with Canon's provided 9500 II profiles fails because their profiles do a BPC in the RI LUTs. This wrecks the soft proofs in shadows and their matte paper profiles are the worst offenders.
-
Hi!
Matte papers print and soft proof more muted on matte if you use perceptual (or BPC with RI) because of the shadow expansions from a poor DMax. For RI without BPC there shouldn't be any muting at all if the image doesn't extend beyond the paper's black point. Soft proofing should accurately portray the resulting print unless something's out of whack. I get very good matches between prints and soft proofs with I1Profiler profiles. OTOH, soft proofing with Canon's provided 9500 II profiles fails because their profiles do a BPC in the RI LUTs. This wrecks the soft proofs in shadows and their matte paper profiles are the worst offenders.
Doug,
Please translate. What does "BPC with RI" mean?
Rob
-
Black Point Compensation with Relative Intent
-
Please translate. What does "BPC with RI" mean?
Or possibility Black Point Compensation with Rendering Intent. 8)
-
D@mn. That's what I get for not proofreading my work.