Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Laminarman on December 28, 2017, 10:14:08 am
-
I do soft proof, but find I still tweak my images after printing/drying. As imagined, it gets expensive printing on Epson EFP or other premium paper. Now that my P800 is on the way, larger paper is even more expensive. Is there a way to proof on less expensive paper rather than burn more expensive paper? I usually use EFP by Epson, Museo SR, Ilford Galerie and Somerset Velvet. I am unable to find the answer so have resorted to displaying my ignorance here.
-
What kind of display are you using? Is it properly calibrated and profiled? What are the main deficiencies you find between the soft proof on your display and the photo that comes out on paper? How good are the printer profiles you are using? In what lighting conditions are you examining the prints? I'm asking these questions because more often than not the difficulty you are having relates to improper colour management, and the cheapest solution in the long run would be to improve your colour management. It is difficult to find significantly cheaper paper that will correctly render the same appearance you see in the soft-proof and you want from a higher quality paper, whereas correctly calibrated colour management will usually suffice to match your expectations from the soft proof with the results on paper.
-
Thank you Mark. I'm using a NEC 2490 WUXi display with their color profile software Spectraview along with their brand new colorimeter. I use the factory or paper manufacturer profiles. I am also viewing under Solux track lighting (I forget the bulb...I believe 3500K I'm not at home right now). Usually what I find is the print is rather accurate but I always seem to have to increase exposure in the final print. While rendition is true, I always seems to need to increase exposure in PS about 1/2 stop, then may fine tune levels/blacks/highlights. I would say for a print I really want right I print it about 3x until I'm very satisfied.
-
OK, useful info, you have the right kind of stuff. The remaining questions are about the optimality of settings. I'm quite fussy about print quality - for example, the other day I rejected an otherwise fine 13*19 print of the Deustche Bahn HQ at Potsdamer Platz Berlin at night, because on the print, I found the redness of the very small flourescent "DB" logo at the top of the building somewhat over-exposed. I just missed examining that closely enough on my monitor. So with that in the background, when I tell you my waste ratio is about 1.3% for over 500 sq. ft. printed since April 1, you'll know what I mean by a good standard of colour management. I would not tolerate reprinting anything 3 times. It's a clear sign of a need to drill down on the colour management settings, because while it's not perfect, the science is good enough that for the most part you will find yourself reprinting only because you missed something on your display that was correctable. As for the prints needing increased exposure, that sounds very much like the display being too bright. Perhaps you've read Andrew Rodney's article on this website about "Why Are My Prints Too Dark?" If not, well worthwhile. If you use one paper more than the others, perhaps have a custom profile made, though these days the better manufacturer profiles are actually pretty good. BTW what printer are you using? That said, I kind of suspect without knowing too much about your settings and set-up that perhaps most of the problem will be resolved with different monitor calibration settings for brightness, black point, white point and contrast ratio. It's worthwhile doing some controlled experimenting.
-
Wow, 1.3% is pretty impressive. I am using an Epson R2400 now, but the P800 is on it's way. I wonder if I could just adjust screen brightness during calibration? I'll look at it this weekend and perhaps that will help. But I agree, some controlled experimenting (on smaller paper of course..) will be in order.
-
I don't know how that particular software works, but usually one has the ability to adjust certain parameters such as brightness, white point, black point and gamma to calibrate the display BEFORE profiling it. This would be the way to go, because once a calibration parameter is changed, it is usually necessary to reprofile with the new calibration settings. But perhaps different software packages work differently in this regard.
-
Perhaps you've read Andrew Rodney's article on this website about "Why Are My Prints Too Dark?" If not, well worthwhile.
Has the article been deleted? I can't locate it on the site.
-
Has the article been deleted? I can't locate it on the site.
It's gone from here but a video (much better) exists for free:
Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:
Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4)
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4 (https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4)
-
Has the article been deleted? I can't locate it on the site.
Appears to not be appearing : (
-
OK got it, thank you! I'll watch it later.
-
https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/master-charles-cramer/
Check out the videos on Post Priduction Techniques. You might find something interesting.
-
I've had the true privilege of doing a few workshops with Charlie Cramer and his new videos on LULA are spot on. One of the simplest things he talks about is using a white background in both Lightroom and in Photoshop. He even demonstrates what a difference it makes in the videos. He also reminds us that reflected light from a print is quite different than transmitted light on a monitor regardless of profiling and other soft and hardware adjustments, and.. print early, print often. I have no stock in Epson ink but it's not uncommon for the first print, no matter how carefully made, to benefit from some minor adjustments. This was certainly true in the wet darkroom days. I usually print work prints 6x9 on 8 1/2x11 paper. I'll often spend a few days with a work print before committing to larger sizes. Some people have no problem spending thousands on cameras and lenses and then choke up over spending another $1-2 making a really nice print better by adjusting and redoing it. Have fun whatever you do.
-
I find the only sure fire way to proof with out wasting paper is using test strips. Of course this means you have to learn to pick proper areas of the image to test, and you will still get fooled sometimes!
-
All great suggestions. Sometimes the obvious is so stupid. I used to darkroom print and use test strips. I suppose I could print on 8x10 before resizing larger. That's a cost savings. I don't mind spending money, but at $100 for 25 sheets of paper it seems wasteful to use 3-4 sheets to get a final print. Now, my wife thinks I'm crazy as she thinks they all look the same. And we all know, most people won't notice much difference. But I do, and I'm the most important person when it comes to this. I don't do this for money or income, purely for pleasure. Thank God. I'd be broke.
-
Now, my wife thinks I'm crazy as she thinks they all look the same. And we all know, most people won't notice much difference. But I do, and I'm the most important person when it comes to this. I don't do this for money or income, purely for pleasure. Thank God. I'd be broke.
Your wife and anyone else that says they all look the same is indicating you are chasing your tail due to your eyes adapting to what you are editing on the display. I have the same dark print problem even with an Epson All In One and printing to my local Walmart Fuji Frontier.
You need to be mindful of your eyes adapting quickly to what you're editing. I ran a darkroom professionally for several ad specialty screenprinters that didn't rely on visual judgement but the use of a 14 step Stouffer step wedge with fixed exposure usually 5 seconds at f/22 on RC paper and went for a number open 5 in the developer before switching to stop bath.
Now that you are relying on minute long edits on a transmissive display you don't see your eyes adjusting that quickly. And it requires huge edits to lighten the image to make a noticeable dent on the print. The larger the print the more light you'll need to keep up with the bright display.
It's the same thing that happens in a darkened movie theater where the black points when the lights go on are so washed out they're almost as bright as mid gray. When the theater lights go off, the blacks are quite dense. Reflective light from track lights function the same in regards to contrast appearance which can make prints look dark because transmissive displays show more detail ramping up out of very dense black.
This LuLa thread shows what I'm talking about...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=79948...
-
I just came across an image I originally edited back in 2013 and was trying to make it look good with dramatic contrast to show all the detail in the ground not realizing that the shot was taken in bright sunlight.
Clearly the one on the left is going to produce a dark print crushing a lot of detail that hides the nutria's hands that evoke a kind of sad and needy characteristic in the animal vs the one the right when my better judgement told me it's a shot taken in noon day light, not dusk. Who cares about the ground detail anyway.
-
I've had the true privilege of doing a few workshops with Charlie Cramer and his new videos on LULA are spot on. One of the simplest things he talks about is using a white background in both Lightroom and in Photoshop. He even demonstrates what a difference it makes in the videos. He also reminds us that reflected light from a print is quite different than transmitted light on a monitor regardless of profiling and other soft and hardware adjustments, and.. print early, print often. I have no stock in Epson ink but it's not uncommon for the first print, no matter how carefully made, to benefit from some minor adjustments. This was certainly true in the wet darkroom days. I usually print work prints 6x9 on 8 1/2x11 paper. I'll often spend a few days with a work print before committing to larger sizes. Some people have no problem spending thousands on cameras and lenses and then choke up over spending another $1-2 making a really nice print better by adjusting and redoing it. Have fun whatever you do.
Charlie's videos are excellent but this needs clarification. There is no intrinsic difference between light that is reflected and transmitted light. What makes the difference is knowing one comes from a monitor. This makes a really big difference - I've done personal tests on this - but it's virtually all psychological. Jim Kasson, who Charlie mentions, has also pointed out that when a monitor is carefully set up so people don't know the image is coming from a monitor and compared to a properly illuminated print side by side people can't identify any difference.
-
Charlie's videos are excellent but this needs clarification. There is no intrinsic difference between light that is reflected and transmitted light. What makes the difference is knowing one comes from a monitor. This makes a really big difference - I've done personal tests on this - but it's virtually all psychological. Jim Kasson, who Charlie mentions, has also pointed out that when a monitor is carefully set up so people don't know the image is coming from a monitor and compared to a properly illuminated print side by side people can't identify any difference.
Sorry, but I don't agree with this. For one thing, Canon's engineers and scientists have committed large amounts of time and resources to studying the conditions in which different ways of configuring reflected light make a large difference to Black shading appearance particularly when dealing with matte papers. Absent soft-proofing, the contrast ratio of a display is usually greater than what matte paper can usually reflect. The comment attributed to Jim Kasson's as stated here is tautological when you think about it. Yes, with very good soft-proofing you can overcome much of the difference between monitor appearance and paper appearance, but that is by design!
-
Sorry, but I don't agree with this. For one thing, Canon's engineers and scientists have committed large amounts of time and resources to studying the conditions in which different ways of configuring reflected light make a large difference to Black shading appearance particularly when dealing with matte papers. Absent soft-proofing, the contrast ratio of a display is usually greater than what matte paper can usually reflect. The comment attributed to Jim Kasson's as stated here is tautological when you think about it. Yes, with very good soft-proofing you can overcome much of the difference between monitor appearance and paper appearance, but that is by design!
Charlie was specifically referring to the psychological limitations involved with soft proofing when you know the image in on a monitor. He wasn't referring to the image prior to soft proofing. Kasson referred to an example where the image was soft proofed so it was colorimetrically the same as the actual print beside it but the fact the monitor was displaying the image was hidden from the viewer.
That said, I quite agree that a good softproof setup and matching hard proof set up can work quite well. The key is to get the illuminant and monitor at the same lever and white point. But many have problems and it's often ascribed to some mythical difference between emitted light and reflected light. Light is light. But people do perceive things differently when they know one is from a monitor and one from a print. It's particularly significant when they aren't matched and especially when comparing a monitor to a print illuminated with room light.
-
The differences between transmitted and reflected light are not mythical and while obviously "light is light", to put the matter more correctly, different kinds of light (i.e. transmitted or reflected in various ways) can produce different kinds of visual appearance depending on the materials light interacts with.
-
The differences between transmitted and reflected light are not mythical and while obviously "light is light", to put the matter more correctly, different kinds of light (i.e. transmitted or reflected in various ways) can produce different kinds of visual appearance depending on the materials light interacts with.
It's certainly true that specular reflections off glossy or similar prints can and does alter appearance in ways that can't be easily modeled on a monitor. OTOH, if a glossy print is viewed on a hard proof stand properly lit w/o specular reflection then its reflected light has the same character as emissive from a monitor.
Surface characteristics can alter print appearances dynamically in quite pleasing ways. Especially if one is handling the print. I think we agree there. Color management is, in some ways, quite limited. It's accurate only when an image is illuminated at 45 degrees from both sides and viewed head on. Beyond that things vary. They vary the least with matte prints and the most with glossy and especially things like metallic paper prints. For those soft proofing is much less useful. One of the things I like about Canson Rag Photo is that it's such a good matte paper with virtually no specular reflections or sensitivity to the illuminant position. In fact, every Colorchecker I have from X-Rite or even an older GMB one exhibits more specular reflection than the Canson. I was rather surprised to see any and had thought it an attribute of the CC SG only. It's negligible viewed head on but at an angle you can get some weird color shifts.
-
I do soft proof, but find I still tweak my images after printing/drying. As imagined, it gets expensive printing on Epson EFP or other premium paper. Now that my P800 is on the way, larger paper is even more expensive. Is there a way to proof on less expensive paper rather than burn more expensive paper? I usually use EFP by Epson, Museo SR, Ilford Galerie and Somerset Velvet. I am unable to find the answer so have resorted to displaying my ignorance here.
I like to see what I'm doing on print too. It's not because I don't get what I see on my monitor - it's because a print is different than a monitor and I like to see the print. I use cheaper papers first like Epson semi gloss.
-
I appreciate this discussion and thank everyone. I tend not to to get overly scientific (that sort of stuff is my day job...) so this is a release. Perhaps what I'll do is spend this weekend with some good IPA's in hand running tests. There's a linear relationship whereby the increasing volume of IPA ingested producing increasingly pleasurable prints, so I'll see how that works out for me : ) I'll first adjust monitor brightness as I suspect that is an issue.
-
If you're not viewing a sample print, (controlling that viewing condition next to the display, controlling the display as well), with the goal of a close visual match between the two, soft proofing is moot.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg)
-
If you're not viewing a sample print, (controlling that viewing condition next to the display, controlling the display as well), with the goal of a close visual match between the two, soft proofing is moot.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/Print_to_Screen_Matching.jpg)
I agree. I meant to write that I use cheaper papers for first proof...not for the final print.
-
Andrew, I have snouts on my lights to there isn't any spill onto the LCD monitor. However, in your photo, you say you match the booth luminance to the monitor, how do you do this? I should also mention I edit on the display with ALL lights off in the small room I work in, so wondering if this is my problem?? Going to watch your video this afternoon. Thank you.
-
Andrew, I have snouts on my lights to there isn't any spill onto the LCD monitor. However, in your photo, you say you match the booth luminance to the monitor, how do you do this?
Trial and error. A bit easier when you can control both display and booth intensity.
-
Trial and error. A bit easier when you can control both display and booth intensity.
Just watched your INCREDIBLE video, thank you. It clears up a lot. I think sometimes we assume it's all measuring and computers and meters...etc and I'm a bit relieved to see that just using your eyes and doing trial and error still counts for a lot. I'm fortunate I have a good NEC display and the software and some control over my lighting. Thanks again for all your help.
-
I do soft proof, but find I still tweak my images after printing/drying. As imagined, it gets expensive printing on Epson EFP or other premium paper. Now that my P800 is on the way, larger paper is even more expensive. Is there a way to proof on less expensive paper rather than burn more expensive paper? I usually use EFP by Epson, Museo SR, Ilford Galerie and Somerset Velvet. I am unable to find the answer so have resorted to displaying my ignorance here.
I know a lot has been said about soft proofing, but, like you I do like to see something tangible, so I print a “test strip” of the photo I’m working on. After I think I’ve finished processing, I bring the photo into the Print module and sit and have a good look at it “on the paper” to ensure colour and tonal values are correct. This is where I’m now looking at the image as a finished print and not a processing file. I think this is a step many people miss. You need to step back and take the whole thing in with a white border around it: check to see how the highlights relate to the “paper white”, how deep the shadows appear, and the overall colour cast, again, compared to paper White. A large, accurate monitor helps with this as well as an understanding of how your printing system works.
I’ve set up LR to print a 2.75” strip on the size of paper I’ll be using for the final print. In the Print module, I drag the image to show a section that includes the brightest highlight and, if possible, the darkest shadow area and hit Print. Two minutes later, I have a single strip of the photograph to evaluate, usually up in my living room where I have typical home mixed lighting.
Typically, without softproofing or a calibrated monitor (but using a Benq wide gamut SW2700PT monitor, calibrated using Apple’s system on my MacBook Pro), I print one test strip, rarely two, before I print an artist’s proof, which I put up on the piano to live with for a while. That being said, I use the same paper for my work (MOAB Entrada Rag Natural), so I know how it prints.
My belief is, and I know it’s counter to the techno-culture of calibration and softproofing helpfully espoused here, if you learn your craft well, your printing system - your monitor, printer inks and paper - and you slow down to carefully assess colours and tones on a white background, then make corrections, photographers will have greater success printing. They will also develop an eye for what’s correct. Yes, there’s an element of trial and error, and a learning curve, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch, either. These are the same principles I used in black-and-white and colour wet darkrooms for years and they are as important today as back then.
-
I think sometimes we assume it's all measuring and computers and meters...etc and I'm a bit relieved to see that just using your eyes and doing trial and error still counts for a lot.
Colorimetry and the dE testing is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. The reason why viewing a print is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices can't provide. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. Colorimetry based on solid colors in very specific ambient and surround conditions.
-
Colorimetry and the dE testing is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. The reason why viewing a print is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices can't provide.
Man, this should be engraved in stone somewhere. This is where science meets art. And says, that in our world, you can't "get to" the art part, without some understanding and application of the science part.
Thanks Andrew . . .
Rand
-
Terry, I like your piano viewing station. :) Your prints looks great.
-
Colorimetry and the dE testing is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. The reason why viewing a print is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices can't provide. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. Colorimetry based on solid colors in very specific ambient and surround conditions.
There is no red in a 700 nm light, just as there is no pain in the hooves of a kicking horse.
Here's a detailed chapter on color appearance, perception and stimulus. With lots of examples showing various things that impact color appearance. It's a really good chapter, apparently part of coursework yet not too long or overwhelming. Check out the rings example the above quote introduces. Huge apparent color shift yet each of the three rings have the same colorimetric color.
http://faculty.washington.edu/sbuck/545ColorClass/ShevellCh4.pdf
-
There is no red in a 700 nm light, just as there is no pain in the hooves of a kicking horse.
Here's a detailed chapter on color appearance, perception and stimulus. With lots of examples showing various things that impact color appearance. It's a really good chapter, apparently part of coursework yet not too long or overwhelming. Check out the rings example the above quote introduces. Huge apparent color shift yet each of the three rings have the same colorimetric color.
http://faculty.washington.edu/sbuck/545ColorClass/ShevellCh4.pdf
Apparently those rings (orange and greenish gray) have been edited in post to look different within their given blue/grayish green surround. I checked the RGB data on a zoomed in view of the rings. Are they suppose to be exactly the same color by the numbers within their surrounding rings? Or is this just a demo of this visual effect?
Maybe I'm missing something or looking at the wrong rings.
I'm a bit disappointed there's not one actual photo of a scene to explain color appearance behavior, only a bunch of flat color squares, graphs and Plankian Locus diagrams. We are all photographers. Shows this happening in an actual photo.
-
Apparently those rings (orange and greenish gray) have been edited in post to look different within their given blue/grayish green surround. I checked the RGB data on a zoomed in view of the rings. Are they suppose to be exactly the same color by the numbers within their surrounding rings? Or is this just a demo of this visual effect?
The image in the pdf looks to be a scan from text for the college class. However, the visual effect is real. I copied the ring onto the two right hand circles so the circle colors, as ratty as they are, shows the same apparent color shift.
Maybe I'm missing something or looking at the wrong rings.
I'm a bit disappointed there's not one actual photo of a scene to explain color appearance behavior, only a bunch of flat color squares, graphs and Plankian Locus diagrams. We are all photographers. Shows this happening in an actual photo.
The effect is in many colorful images but is not noticed because we don't normally compare the way a color looks in a scene with one isolated from its context. Put another way, the context a specific RGB triplet exists in determines its color appearance. The same triplet in a different context can appear to have a different color. The rings are just a simple way to demonstrate the effect.
-
If you want an example from a photograph, look at any inkjet print. All the appearances are due to the placement of various colours next to each other so that they appear together as some other colour at an appropriate viewing distance.
-
The effect is in many colorful images but is not noticed because we don't normally compare the way a color looks in a scene with one isolated from its context. Put another way, the context a specific RGB triplet exists in determines its color appearance. The same triplet in a different context can appear to have a different color. The rings are just a simple way to demonstrate the effect.
This isn't a color appearance effect that we have to deal with as photographers seeing and capturing what is in front of us and post process on our computers. There would not be a situation where we'ld have to keep this in mind when we edit images because we're not trying to recreate exactly what was there within the scene. I know that sunlight will make colors look warmer while shade will make them appear cooler.
When would we as photographers encounter a color appearance situation with what is happening with the rings?
These perception/appearance anomalies are just showing a trick of the eyes. Technically it doesn't help us make better photos knowing this.
-
This isn't a color appearance effect that we have to deal with as photographers seeing and capturing what is in front of us and post process on our computers. There would not be a situation where we'ld have to keep this in mind when we edit images because we're not trying to recreate exactly what was there within the scene. I know that sunlight will make colors look warmer while shade will make them appear cooler.
When would we as photographers encounter a color appearance situation with what is happening with the rings?
These perception/appearance anomalies are just showing a trick of the eyes. Technically it doesn't help us make better photos knowing this.
Since you don’t appear to understand the differences how can you write with this such certainty!
-
I know a lot has been said about soft proofing, but, like you I do like to see something tangible, so I print a “test strip” of the photo I’m working on. After I think I’ve finished processing, I bring the photo into the Print module and sit and have a good look at it “on the paper” to ensure colour and tonal values are correct. This is where I’m now looking at the image as a finished print and not a processing file. I think this is a step many people miss. You need to step back and take the whole thing in with a white border around it: check to see how the highlights relate to the “paper white”, how deep the shadows appear, and the overall colour cast, again, compared to paper White. A large, accurate monitor helps with this as well as an understanding of how your printing system works.
I’ve set up LR to print a 2.75” strip on the size of paper I’ll be using for the final print. In the Print module, I drag the image to show a section that includes the brightest highlight and, if possible, the darkest shadow area and hit Print. Two minutes later, I have a single strip of the photograph to evaluate, usually up in my living room where I have typical home mixed lighting.
Typically, without softproofing or a calibrated monitor (but using a Benq wide gamut SW2700PT monitor, calibrated using Apple’s system on my MacBook Pro), I print one test strip, rarely two, before I print an artist’s proof, which I put up on the piano to live with for a while. That being said, I use the same paper for my work (MOAB Entrada Rag Natural), so I know how it prints.
My belief is, and I know it’s counter to the techno-culture of calibration and softproofing helpfully espoused here, if you learn your craft well, your printing system - your monitor, printer inks and paper - and you slow down to carefully assess colours and tones on a white background, then make corrections, photographers will have greater success printing. They will also develop an eye for what’s correct. Yes, there’s an element of trial and error, and a learning curve, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch, either. These are the same principles I used in black-and-white and colour wet darkrooms for years and they are as important today as back then.
Hi Terry,
I find your approach quite interesting, mostly because it's also my approach, and has been since I first wandered out of the darkroom and into the light of digital/inkjet printing back in 2003. Of course this technique is referred to as "hard proofing", a procedure that seems to be much maligned by many. I do have a wide gamut NEC PA27W display, and I use the NEC Spectraview software to calibrate it with the i1 Display Pro Colorimeter. I do that because most of my printing is for my customers, as well as some of my own work. I want to know that what I am seeing on my display is what it should be for any particular file I receive, and the only way I can be certain that is the case is to properly calibrate my display. If I find problems I can then get in touch with the customer and discuss the issue, and determine if the their display is calibrated as well. If not I will offer some suggestions. However, in my opinion, getting totally immersed in the minutiae and science of the act of producing a more than acceptable print, takes the ART out of Fine Art Printing. It's true that the numbers don't lie, but I believe it's equally true that total perception of those numbers is always necessary for one to produce a Fine Print from any good digital file. After soft proofing, a test strip of a critical area of the image should, in most cases, supply enough information to perhaps make another slight adjustment and take it to print. I was first introduced to this procedure in 1968 when I started working at a custom colour lab in Toronto, and it has always stayed with me through my own lab business, from type "C" prints etc. to digital. Of course it works equally well for silver B&W printing, and digital B&W also.
Here's a quote from you post Terry, and I have inserted one more word, as you will notice. "These are the same principles I used in black-and-white and colour wet darkrooms for years and they are as important, and relevant today as back then". I believe that to be the case as well, but we also required the numbers back then for QC, now referred to as Colour Management, even though it "manages" a lot more than just colour.
Gary
-
Since you don’t appear to understand the differences how can you write with this such certainty!
I didn't say I don't understand the differences. I asked when would knowing this optical effect be useful when photographing and processing a scene? I've never encountered it with the thousands of Raws I've shot in the past ten years.
I guess you didn't read that part of my point, Andrew.
-
I didn't say I don't understand the differences.
One simply has to search for ? and your name, there's plenty of questions from you that suggest you do not know the differences. So yeah, I did read the questions!
Maybe I'm missing something or looking at the wrong rings.
Agreed.
-
May I recommend that this discussion stick with technicalities?
-
The image in the pdf looks to be a scan from text for the college class. However, the visual effect is real. I copied the ring onto the two right hand circles so the circle colors, as ratty as they are, shows the same apparent color shift.
The effect is in many colorful images but is not noticed because we don't normally compare the way a color looks in a scene with one isolated from its context. Put another way, the context a specific RGB triplet exists in determines its color appearance. The same triplet in a different context can appear to have a different color. The rings are just a simple way to demonstrate the effect.
I thought on this a bit as to when and where this would be an issue in real world applications and I was reminded of my graphic art classes on color design where a furniture designer for an interior designer decided not to use a neutral gray pinstripe trim with a baby blue covered sofa where the gray may appear orange instead of true gray and instead went with a greenish gray.
Now I don't know if visually that kind of color trick on the eyes would really happen because that was a hypothetical, but it's the only situation where this would be an issue.
-
Now I don't know if visually that kind of color trick on the eyes would really happen because that was a hypothetical, but it's the only situation where this would be an issue.
I agree with you.
-
I agree with you.
I really don't respect you, Andrew, with answers like that. Why don't you just ignore me. You aren't any help.
And if you're a teacher of some school I'ld hate to see kids see you act like this. You're not helping!
-
Some people will never learn anything well, because they understand everything too soon.-Source Unknown
-
Guys - can we move on? This kind of dialog impairs the reputation of our forum. I'm no moderator, but in our shared interest I am suggesting yet again that participants keep it civil and technical.
-
Some people will never learn anything well, because they understand everything too soon.-Source Unknown
Blame the teacher. They're the ones with the most resources.
-
Guys - can we move on? This kind of dialog impairs the reputation of our forum. I'm no moderator, but in our shared interest I am suggesting yet again that participants keep it civil and technical.
I don't think Andrew is capable of moving on. He's the only person I've seen behave like this.
-
Let us not prejudge what human beings are capable of. :-) I shall leave it at that.
-
May I recommend that this discussion stick with technicalities?
I don't know how Doug could make this any easier for everyone to understand but apparently at least one person here doesn't understand it:
Put another way, the context a specific RGB triplet exists in determines its color appearance. The same triplet in a different context can appear to have a different color. The rings are just a simple way to demonstrate the effect.
-
Let us not prejudge what human beings are capable of. :-) I shall leave it at that.
I'll let law enforcement authorities do the prejudging.
-
I don't know how Doug could make this any easier for everyone to understand but apparently at least one person here doesn't understand it:
Show how this knowledge of color will be used to help a photographer make better photographs. What are the technicalities of when and where this will occur?
-
Show how this knowledge of color will be used to help a photographer make better photographs. What are the technicalities of when and where this will occur?
Some are not actual photographers capable of making better photographs no matter how much or little knowledge of color they don't have.
Good luck Doug.....
-
I thought on this a bit as to when and where this would be an issue in real world applications and I was reminded of my graphic art classes on color design where a furniture designer for an interior designer decided not to use a neutral gray pinstripe trim with a baby blue covered sofa where the gray may appear orange instead of true gray and instead went with a greenish gray.
Now I don't know if visually that kind of color trick on the eyes would really happen because that was a hypothetical, but it's the only situation where this would be an issue.
This is a good example of the instructor understanding how color appearance shifts in context. Designers that combine colors in fabrics experiment to determine what looks best. Trying to make things like pinstripes look neutral when surrounded by saturated, similarly hued colors, is where the art of the designer comes in.
Another analogy might be comparing photography and printing with pottery and firing in a kiln. A kiln is a tool, subject to precise engineering, but the potter's creations are art. Getting the expected result from a kiln has improved over the ages as temp measurement has become much more precise but the primary art is the potter's. She does benefit from being able to get reproducible results from a kiln or a new one when goes somewhere else. And, like paper varies, firing in a kiln where different things are volatilized into it's atmosphere at different stages can enhance the art, and that process can be made reproducible by precision techniques.
This is a printer subforum. Most, but not all, of the art is in the photograph and paper.
-
This is a good example of the instructor understanding how color appearance shifts in context. Designers that combine colors in fabrics experiment to determine what looks best. Trying to make things like pinstripes look neutral when surrounded by saturated, similarly hued colors, is where the art of the designer comes in.
Another analogy might be comparing photography and printing with pottery and firing in a kiln. A kiln is a tool, subject to precise engineering, but the potter's creations are art. Getting the expected result from a kiln has improved over the ages as temp measurement has become much more precise but the primary art is the potter's. She does benefit from being able to get reproducible results from a kiln or a new one when goes somewhere else. And, like paper varies, firing in a kiln where different things are volatilized into it's atmosphere at different stages can enhance the art, and that process can be made reproducible by precision techniques.
This is a printer subforum. Most, but not all, of the art is in the photograph and paper.
But where is this trick on eyes with regard to color perception occurring in the kiln and pottery? Was that just an analogy or metaphor for art in general or was that a scientific explanation of how color perception is skewed in the form of an optical effect?
Sorry, Doug, but I was hoping for something more clear.
Quote from Andrew..."Some are not actual photographers..."
Yes, like you. So how does that help explain what I'm asking about?
-
Yes, like you.
You've shot how many national ad campaigns, annual reports, magazine covers? Ask me.
So how does that help explain what I'm asking about?
It's all been explained already!
-
You've shot how many national ad campaigns, annual reports, magazine covers?
So I'm assuming you shot those national ad campaigns and no longer do so. With that said, when did you encounter this color appearance effect in your former days as a photographer? Can you give a real world example?
-
So I'm assuming you shot those national ad campaigns and no longer do so.
Yes. I'm assuming you've never ever done so.
With that said, when did you encounter this color appearance effect in your former days as a photographer? Can you give a real world example?
Yes! Shooting an Annual report for GTE. Had to shoot multiple color papers curled 4x5 on film and one was a mile off from what we saw and the others. Metameric failure. Clever fix too!
-
But where is this trick on eyes with regard to color perception occurring in the kiln and pottery? Was that just an analogy or metaphor for art in general or was that a scientific explanation of how color perception is skewed in the form of an optical effect?
Sorry, Doug, but I was hoping for something more clear.
It's just an analogy. A printer is a tool. An image that is in gamut of two printers profiled with the same equipment ideally should produce prints indistinguishable from each other. But this is not true except under certain conditions with glossy type papers (and here questions of art and esthetics are involved) however, with good, fine textured Matte papers that have no OBAs, prints I make on a 9500 look identical to those printed on the 9800 and should with other printers as well. They are also very close to how they appear soft proofing.
Now for images that are out of gamut the printers can produce different results. Especially with different profile makers. And some may prefer one profile vendor and Intent over another. However, a properly made profile that one likes the print (or softproof) for can be used to create an image that will match when printed on the same or another printer with a different profile via Photoshop conversion techniques. At least when the second printer has a gamut that is a superset of the first printer's gamut.
-
Here's a quote from you post Terry, and I have inserted one more word, as you will notice. "These are the same principles I used in black-and-white and colour wet darkrooms for years and they are as important, and relevant today as back then". I believe that to be the case as well, but we also required the numbers back then for QC, now referred to as Colour Management, even though it "manages" a lot more than just colour.
Gary
Exactly, Gary. Thank you.