Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: praja343 on February 19, 2018, 10:39:41 pm
-
The soft proofing technique I have been using is by "trial and terror" method i.e. make an image duplicate, view>proof setup>custom>choose printer and paper and then compare the copy to the original by tiling the original and copy or using the preview button to see what changes I need to make.
Usually, the proof copy is slightly less bright, less contrasty and less saturated. I then make changes in curve and hue saturation to get approximately the same look and save that as my proofing adjustment. The print then becomes the final arbiter.
Does anyone have better ideas to match the softproof to the original? I cannot afford image print or any RIPs. I was thinking if I could sample the RGB values at different coordinates (brightest, darkest, most saturated etc. - say half a dozen different points) of the original and the same coordinates of the proof copy, that will give me better control of what I need to do (e.g. x=5.195, y=3.658 R=187, G=34 B=10 in the original and find out what it is the proof say R=176, G = 28, B=4 then I can adjust the RGB curves independently to get close to original) but I cannot copy the co-ordinates exactly using only the mouse for these points from the original to the proof so I cannot the corresponding RGB values. So how can I copy the specific (x,y) coordinates from the original and paste them on the proof copy to get the corresponding location exactly on the proof copy and get the corresponding RGB values precisely? In other words how can I get the cursor to x=5.195, y=3.658 exactly in proof copy so I can measure the RGB values at that location? That way I could get the two images closer rather than eyeballing it.
Are there other "rules of thumb"? that members of the forum use? Is what I propose to do too complex and should I just stick to the old method? Any suggestions would be welcome.
Thanks.
-
I don't think you can do this by the numbers. The softproof shows you a reduced dynamic range and a narrower gamut than the non-softproof because that is the reality of what the printing technology can deliver, so a great many of the numbers can't be the same between the two. That's the whole problem. The difference cannot be erased by replication. Furthermore, even if you could replicate a number of specific points in the image as you suggest you want to do, that won't assure you have a desirable result under softproof. With softproofing, the whole image is at play in terms of how one sees relations say of micro-contrast between neighbouring pixels - millions of them - and macro-contrast between regions of the photo. I don't see how the proposed approach would readjust these relationships reliably and appropriately.
It is, I believe, a situation where we try to replicate the visual impression of the non-softproof by enhancing micro and macro contrast and perhaps some vibrancy using those bespoke tools and depending on our visual impression for evaluating the results. In fact, I print many photos every year and I pay no attention to the non-softproof apart from an initial view of it, because I know it is not relevant to everything that comes next. To me, the most important issues are the tonal and colour relationships that can be achieved and look best for that photo with whatever paper and printer I'm using. So I'm comparing a range of editing possibilities all within the constraints of the softproof to see what looks best for the photo. My image editing objective is to make the most appropriate edits under softproof of the image that I can. Maybe there are better ways but I haven't either discovered or read of them.
-
Soft proofing is all about a close(er) visual match between the output and what you see on the display so display calibration is super critical. Also using the Simulate check boxes for ink and paper is key. And most importantly, it's used to select the rendering intent you desire for the conversion. You can't pick without seeing the options.
-
In addition to what Andrew said there are a few points that might get you closer to a WYSIWYG
If you have a properly calibrated monitor AND you have a hard proof viewing station that are set so the luminosity and xy coordinates match and you have OBA free paper then:
Checking the show paper color box should provide reasonably close matching to a print. OTOH, if your monitor is set for D65 and your print viewing station is different or located elsewhere, you are probably better off just checking the show black check box. This is because you color adapt to the white. Checking the show paper white will reduce the brightness slightly because the paper profile contains the actual, reduced, white point of the paper. This can be disconcerting until you are used to it. It's also most effective if the print is viewed alongside the monitor.
Now, when you view a soft proof with Relative Colorimetric w/o BPC and with the paper white unchecked, you should see very little change if your image is within the paper's gamut. The most likely differences will be the darkest shadow areas and if you have colors below the L* limit of the paper you will see blocking. This can be accommodated by using BPC but that will also produce a tone shift. Alternately, you can raise the blacks using curves to just the point where the blacks are no longer blocked. This can often be more effective than using BPC which assumes the image has blacks that go all the way to 0. If you do that then you will see almost no change in the image which viewing soft proof. It basically does what BPC does but in the image. Best way to do it is in an adjustment layer so you don't mess with the original image.
If you have colors outside the printer's gamut you will, of course, see a change in those areas of the image.
Soft proofing and printing with Perceptual will always produce an image change. Perceptual can produce quite attractive results but you have to expect soft proofing and printing to differ from the original.
-
In addition to what Andrew said there are a few points that might get you closer to a WYSIWYG
If you have a properly calibrated monitor AND you have a hard proof viewing station that are set so the luminosity and xy coordinates match and you have OBA free paper then:
Checking the show paper color box should provide reasonably close matching to a print. OTOH, if your monitor is set for D65 and your print viewing station is different or located elsewhere, you are probably better off just checking the show black check box. This is because you color adapt to the white. Checking the show paper white will reduce the brightness slightly because the paper profile contains the actual, reduced, white point of the paper. This can be disconcerting until you are used to it. It's also most effective if the print is viewed alongside the monitor.
Now, when you view a soft proof with Relative Colorimetric w/o BPC and with the paper white unchecked, you should see very little change if your image is within the paper's gamut. The most likely differences will be the darkest shadow areas and if you have colors below the L* limit of the paper you will see blocking. This can be accommodated by using BPC but that will also produce a tone shift. Alternately, you can raise the blacks using curves to just the point where the blacks are no longer blocked. This can often be more effective than using BPC which assumes the image has blacks that go all the way to 0. If you do that then you will see almost no change in the image which viewing soft proof. It basically does what BPC does but in the image. Best way to do it is in an adjustment layer so you don't mess with the original image.
If you have colors outside the printer's gamut you will, of course, see a change in those areas of the image.
Soft proofing and printing with Perceptual will always produce an image change. Perceptual can produce quite attractive results but you have to expect soft proofing and printing to differ from the original.
Let's revert to the point Andrew made that the main purpose of softproofing is to use the display for predicting what comes out of the printer. I think the O/P knows this - he's just looking for more systematic ways of operating it than visually checking back and forth. the use of BPC, Perceptual or Relative Intents are all choices that have differing impact on the softproof and the print depending on gamut and the extent of out-of-gamut (OOG colours). As long as simulating Black Ink and Paper White are activated in the softproof, it will show the differences any of these options will make to the print, and that is conform with its purpose, so I would simply underline Andrew's point that for softproofing to be useful these conditions must be active. The extent of the difference between a softproof and a non-softproof depends in the first instance on the gamut of the printer profile and the extent of OOG colours. The narrower the gamut and the more that is OOG, the larger the difference will be. When everything is in-gamut softproofing shows very little difference. Softproofing generally shows more difference for matte papers than luster papers because the gamut of matte is generally narrower than that of luster. Because Perceptual remaps both in-gamut and OOG pixels much more (and differently) than Relative does, Perceptual will display more difference than Relative the narrower the gamut and the greater the OOG presence as well. But in the final analysis, what matters most in this exercise is the combination of settings that produces the most satisfactory softproof in the mind of the user, and we only know this by testing the options and observing the impacts.
-
Let's revert to the point Andrew made that the main purpose of softproofing is to use the display for predicting what comes out of the printer. I think the O/P knows this - he's just looking for more systematic ways of operating it than visually checking back and forth. the use of BPC, Perceptual or Relative Intents are all choices that have differing impact on the softproof and the print depending on gamut and the extent of out-of-gamut (OOG colours). As long as simulating Black Ink and Paper White are activated in the softproof, it will show the differences any of these options will make to the print, and that is conform with its purpose, so I would simply underline Andrew's point that for softproofing to be useful these conditions must be active. The extent of the difference between a softproof and a non-softproof depends in the first instance on the gamut of the printer profile and the extent of OOG colours. The narrower the gamut and the more that is OOG, the larger the difference will be. When everything is in-gamut softproofing shows very little difference. Softproofing generally shows more difference for matte papers than luster papers because the gamut of matte is generally narrower than that of luster. Because Perceptual remaps both in-gamut and OOG pixels much more (and differently) than Relative does, Perceptual will display more difference than Relative the narrower the gamut and the greater the OOG presence as well. But in the final analysis, what matters most in this exercise is the combination of settings that produces the most satisfactory softproof in the mind of the user, and we only know this by testing the options and observing the impacts.
Yep, this is all true but I was addressing the OP's question: "Does anyone have better ideas to match the softproof to the original?"
Relative Colorimetric w/o BPC will do that IF the image is in gamut. As you point out that is more of an issue with matte prints but when the image is in gamut Relative Colorimetric soft proof (and print) will match the original image quite closely. That is the primary use of Rel. Col.
When I use Rel. Col. but have a problem with OOG deep shadows (especially with matte) I prefer to adjust the image with curves to using BPC. BPC is rather heavy handed assuming the image will have blacks that go to L*=0. This is often not the case and, if so, adjusting the image with curves accomplishes less of a tone shift in the print or soft proof.
If the image is significantly OOG nothing will make the softproof match the original and one normally chooses the intent that produces the most pleasing results and accepts the differences from the original.
-
Are there other "rules of thumb"? that members of the forum use? Is what I propose to do too complex and should I just stick to the old method? Any suggestions would be welcome.
Well, nobody has said the obvious that for me, soft proofing is NOT used to match the image before soft proofing but to evaluate the image and how it will look on the printer and media of choice.
Yes, all the tutorials seem to be about matching the original image before soft proofing but what I really use soft proofing for these days is how to adjust the image to look as good as possible with the ink/paper combination. Soft proofing allows me to tweak the image to get the best print possible regardless of where it may have started.
The other thing I use soft proofing for is evaluating what media to choose for a particular image...sometimes I want to print on specific papers such as a matte fiber or textured watercolor paper. Buy using soft proofing I can see what the image will look like on a low dynamic range matte paper. Sometimes, based on the soft proofing, I'll just pass on trying to get an image to look good on that paper and print on a higher dynamic range paper like a luster or glossy.
Other times, I'll actually use soft proofing to choose what image to actually bother to work on. I'll use soft proofing to help select the best image–this is particularly true when shooting for halftone reproduction. Sometimes I'll need to change to lighting to open things up or add lights to pop an edge or enhance texture...
These are things that soft proofing can be used for...not just to make print match your RGB display.
Also note that soft proofing accurately requires a very accurately calibrated and profiles display (something the OP didn't mention) and a viewing environment that makes evaluating the actual print accurately and consistently...
This is my imaging room (well, it's a couple of years old now)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/Studio.jpg)
On the left of the main displays is a GTI viewing booth camped for D65 and left of that is a task lamp with SoLux 47K bulbs (which are a bit too warm). I chose to lamp the viewing booth with D65 because the original D50 make the prints too warm.
Also note that my imaging area is quite bright...after a decades of working with dim CRT displays in a cave, I now work with a much brighter room lighting and run my LCD displays much brighter–currently running at 160cd/m2 with both native white balance (measured about 6600K) with a Monitor Native Gamma (close to 2.3 or so) and I'm running the NEC PA302W at Native (FULL) color gamut (prolly about 98% of Adobe RGB).
I also use the digital dimmer on the GTI light box to reduce the brightness of the lighting to match the white brightness of the display so that the soft proofed paper white (using the profile) matches (approx.) the actual final printed paper white.
All told this makes for a very, accurate soft proofing environment so I can not only match but improve my images when making final prints...and truth be told, I'll often go back to my master RGB images and fiddle with them to look as good as the prints :~)
-
Yes, all the tutorials seem to be about matching the original image before soft proofing but what I really use soft proofing for these days is how to adjust the image to look as good as possible with the ink/paper combination. Soft proofing allows me to tweak the image to get the best print possible regardless of where it may have started......
Based on the above then, assuming you know the type of paper you'll be using, why not use soft proofing from the start?
-
Based on the above then, assuming you know the type of paper you'll be using, why not use soft proofing from the start?
Referring to your quote from Jeff, as well as my conclusion in Reply #4 (But in the final analysis, what matters most in this exercise is the combination of settings that produces the most satisfactory softproof in the mind of the user, and we only know this by testing the options and observing the impacts), my answer to your question would be: yes indeed, why not? This is how I work. Most of my output is on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk or similar, but if I wish to see how the image would print on a matte media, I'd make a virtual copy of the photo and change the softproof condition to the paper I may wish to try, then amend the image edits accordingly to produce under softproof what I think would be the best looking photo for that paper. I've demo'd this approach in a number of my reviews for this website.
-
When using Lightroom, comparisons between the original and the soft proof were straightforward.
I now use Capture One and these comparisons are not nearly as convenient. This is what started me thinking, if ultimately I want the "soft proof" to look good and I can't really compare the before and after, why not just do the whole process with the "soft proof"?
Thanks for the confirmation.
-
Well, nobody has said the obvious that for me, soft proofing is NOT used to match the image before soft proofing but to evaluate the image and how it will look on the printer and media of choice.
I probably wasn't totally clear when writing earlier: Soft proofing is all about a close(er) visual match between the output and what you see on the display so display calibration is super critical.
-
Based on the above then, assuming you know the type of paper you'll be using, why not use soft proofing from the start?
Couple reasons:
1. Until you fully edit the image, what Rendering Intent will you select? That's the first task for soft proofing! To simulate on-screen, how the image should appear when printed when everything is setup ideally. With that specific profile and it's specific behavior of rendering intents.
2. When apply output specific edits based on the paper profile and now selected rendering intent? Better: edit the image as you desire in your RGB working space and that's your master archive for any output today and in the future. Then soft proof, pick RI, produce output specific edits that are NOT burned into the master!
3. You end up with a newer, better output profile; now what? You've painted your data into a corner.
-
Couple reasons:
1. Until you fully edit the image, what Rendering Intent will you select? That's the first task for soft proofing! To simulate on-screen, how the image should appear when printed when everything is setup ideally. With that specific profile and it's specific behavior of rendering intents.
2. When apply output specific edits based on the paper profile and now selected rendering intent? Better: edit the image as you desire in your RGB working space and that's your master archive for any output today and in the future. Then soft proof, pick RI, produce output specific edits that are NOT burned into the master!
3. You end up with a newer, better output profile; now what? You've painted your data into a corner.
With Lightroom, the application is so flexible and so non-destructive that the order with which one approaches these things really isn't super-critical, so there's not much worth debating about in this context. The cake will come out baked pretty much the same regardless of the order in which you drop the ingredients into the bowl. As for Rendering Intent, I have no problem starting with the one I know I'll end-up with most of the time, which is RelCol. I'll do all my edits on that assumption, but depending on what I see, I may test Perceptual. It's
a mouse-click. If see merit to that option, I may then need to go back and tweak a slider or two - a bit. So no big deal here. With LR edits are never burned into a master. They're just a history track that one can amend at will. Likewise with profiles. Sometimes I'm naughty and test a profile for another paper if I think it may have properties better suited to the photo. Often the edits it entails are trivial, but if they are substantial, create a virtual copy and edit-away. It's pretty much a free-lunch. Now, if we were talking about destructive or irreversible editing processes that do get baked into the original file (but one can always work to avoid that by keeping an unworked or raw master), totally different scenario and different approach, where Andrew's concerns would be much more relevant.
-
With Lightroom, the application is so flexible and so non-destructive that the order with which one approaches these things really isn't super-critical, so there's not much worth debating about in this context. The cake will come out baked pretty much the same regardless of the order in which you drop the ingredients into the bowl.
Perhaps. You still have to decided upon a rendering intent from the get go. It's super pointless to pick say Perceptual, make output specific edits based on that, then then switch to RelCol. Just as it would be pointless to create output specific edits for paper A then use paper B's profile.
As for Rendering Intent, I have no problem starting with the one I know I'll end-up with most of the time, which is RelCol.
Ditto but I still have to toggle it on and see if I prefer it or Perceptual. Using Photoshop, Saturation is fair game too. But you will never know until you toggle all the options. There's simply no way I'd apply and output specific edit until I completely decided to move forward with a selected RI. So I have to check first, for every image, then edit based on that appearance.
Often the edits it entails are trivial, but if they are substantial, create a virtual copy and edit-away.
In LR, that's the only option you have IF you invoke a soft proof then start editing. And that you are forced to do so backs up my points about selecting the profile and RI, then move forward with edits based on both.
Now, if we were talking about destructive or irreversible editing
It's more about wasting time, making edits that are not based on the RI. Nearly impossible to invoke destructive or irreversible editing in LR at least from raw data. But you can certainly jump down a rabbit hole of editing that ends up a waste of time if you don't plan the editing 'carefully'. I suppose not doing so is a good workflow if you charge by the hour, but many of us want to start editing with minimal time wasted, non destructive or not.
-
This is really a chicken-egg business so it's not worth arguing about. Whether one settles on the RI first or last is hardly an issue I'd stake my life on Andrew because the impact of the image edits can easily dwarf the impact of the RI changes. Perceptual may work better for photos with heavily OOG colours, while RELCOL may be preferable otherwise, but that's initial guidance and one can start with it. To really know which RI is preferable one needs to optimize the edits for each of them anyhow. Can't think of how many thousands of photos I've edited in Lr since the app first appeared and my workflow is pretty efficient doing what I'm suggesting here because I largely know what I'm doing - what I start with and what I expect to end with. If you try to predetermine too much before you start editing, that can end-up being quite a time waster. I don't think either of these approaches are necessarily more time consuming than the other. And creating virtual copies isn't the only option for making big changes. One can scratch the history and re-edit the original file if one wanted to in Lr, or one can keep the history and tweak a few settings as appropriate. But each to his/her own. I'll repeat - not an issue worth arguing about.
-
This is really a chicken-egg business so it's not worth arguing about.
Who's arguing? I made some points about when to pick an RI via soft proofing then when to begin editing the color appearance based on that selection. Where's the debate in picking the RI when it's time to pick it for output, rather than at the very beginning of the editing process as I've proposed. Which do you believe, based on working on image files would be the least time consuming?
Whether one settles on the RI first or last is hardly an issue I'd stake my life on Andrew because the impact of the image edits can easily dwarf the impact of the RI changes.
Do you believe and do you wish your readers to believe that there's no impact on one's time spent editing an image?
Perceptual may work better for photos with heavily OOG colours, while RELCOL may be preferable otherwise, but that's initial guidance and one can start with it.
No need to go deeper than explaining these facts: The RI one selects should be based on the appearance the image creator prefers. The OOG color stuff isn't even worth mentioning IF you examine image gamut versus output gamut using a 3D gamut map: time consuming and not at all necessarily if your goal is to edit an image and make a print! Just view the soft proof using various RI's and pick the one you like. Done.
To really know which RI is preferable one needs to optimize the edits for each of them anyhow.
To know one has to view the three options (or two in LR). That's my point. That's job #1. Until you decided on an RI using a soft proof, you can't edit the image via the soft proof! I don't know how to make it any easier to follow. And it's utterly pointless to do so at the beginning of the editing in an RGB working space which is OUTPUT AGNOSTIC by design. A color space designed for editing images not based on any output device.
If you try to predetermine too much before you start editing, that can end-up being quite a time waster.
Exactly my point! Do not predetermined stuff to early in the editing process; like picking a soft proof before doing the heavy lifting on the master archive in an RGB working space designed for editing and archiving images without output being defined.
I don't think either of these approaches are necessarily more time consuming than the other.
Editing based upon an RI you will not use is time consuming. And pointless.
-
I forgot to mention that I calibrate the monitor a couple of times a month though using the Colormunki photo and not one of the more expensive ones. I print a nozzle check pattern on my 3880 before printing to ensure that the heads are fine. I wish I had Jeff Schewe's imaging room even though it is a couple of years old (hint, hint) and I do look at the print in under a lamp at 6500K.
It takes a couple of iterations (sometimes a couple more) before I am happy with the print - I now try different RIs based on this discussion. By then the monitor image does look unappealing - but who cares because the print looks good. I was trying to decrease the number of iterations by matching the "problem" parts of the image between the soft proof and the monitor and letting the other parts fall where they may. I do have different presets for different kinds of paper for brightness, contrast and saturation (mostly the variables I change to proof) and pick and hope for the best or reiterate.
I have learnt from your answers; Mark Segal, Andrew Rodney and Jeff Schewe (along with Wayne Fox) have helped me progress along my path a few times before since this is a learn by doing kind of a thing for me.
To appropriate a quote from a politician of the past, "It is the (way) print (looks) stupid". So I will try and improve my visual examination skills and not worry too much about RGB values in different parts of the image while proofing.
A tip of the hat to the three of you (Jeff, I can send you a PM with my address if you are throwing any parts of your "old" viewing room. I will pay the shipping :)). Thanks.
-
I forgot to mention that I calibrate the monitor a couple of times a month though using the Colormunki photo and not one of the more expensive ones.
Lesser expensive options provide crippled software, and calibration once a month should be fine with a modern LCD.
I now try different RIs based on this discussion. By then the monitor image does look unappealing - but who cares because the print looks good.
Not ideal; the idea with soft proofing along with ideal display calibration is WYSIWYG (within reason, differences between emissive displays and reflective prints (where the illuminant plays a major role). With the simulate check boxes on, when in full screen mode (no white from the GUI), the soft proof and print should match closely, which isn't what you're reporting.
Maybe this will help conceptually even if you're not using PS:
Soft proofing in Adobe Photoshop CC
In this 33 minute video, I'll cover soft proofing in Adobe Photoshop CC:
What is sof proofing.
Setting up a soft proof.
Saving soft proof presets.
What the simluate ink and paper check boxes do, why to use them.
Making output specific edits in layer sets.
Working with soft proofing in full screen mode.
The Out of Gamut Overlay and why to ignore it.
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/SoftProofingInPhotoshopCC.mp4
Low resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njFgYba3lHU&feature=youtu.be
This is older and more specific to LR but I'd view the video above first:
http://digitaldog.net/files/LR4_softproof2.mov
-
Who's arguing? I made some points about when to pick an RI via soft proofing then when to begin editing the color appearance based on that selection. Where's the debate in picking the RI when it's time to pick it for output, rather than at the very beginning of the editing process as I've proposed. Which do you believe, based on working on image files would be the least time consuming? Do you believe and do you wish your readers to believe that there's no impact on one's time spent editing an image? No need to go deeper than explaining these facts: The RI one selects should be based on the appearance the image creator prefers. The OOG color stuff isn't even worth mentioning IF you examine image gamut versus output gamut using a 3D gamut map: time consuming and not at all necessarily if your goal is to edit an image and make a print! Just view the soft proof using various RI's and pick the one you like. Done. To know one has to view the three options (or two in LR). That's my point. That's job #1. Until you decided on an RI using a soft proof, you can't edit the image via the soft proof! I don't know how to make it any easier to follow. And it's utterly pointless to do so at the beginning of the editing in an RGB working space which is OUTPUT AGNOSTIC by design. A color space designed for editing images not based on any output device. Exactly my point! Do not predetermined stuff to early in the editing process; like picking a soft proof before doing the heavy lifting on the master archive in an RGB working space designed for editing and archiving images without output being defined. Editing based upon an RI you will not use is time consuming. And pointless.
OK, not arguing - discussing.
I'll just make two further observations on this:
(1) Rendering Intent is all about how OOG colours are handled and what impact the chosen Intent has further on in-gamut colours. For the most part I use wide-gamut papers so prefer RelCol as a starting point and more often than not it is also the end point. If I see issues that Perceptual may handle better, it's a mouse-click to find out, and if the change in RI calls forth tweaking a slider or two, that happens real fast. Not an issue.
(2) I need to edit the image to put it into near final shape, before I can know with confidence which RI is going to look better for that image. Often, the changes induced by an RI switch are subtle compared with the changes induced by editing. The optimal choice is image-dependent and what the image looks like depends a lot on how it's edited, so it is a bit of chicken-egg business and whether you start with the chicken or the egg, the time spent isn't going to differ much, if at all, depending on how one works and how well one knows the application one is working with.
I'll leave it at that. I think we all understand the choices and their workflow implications.
-
(1) Rendering Intent is all about how OOG colours are handled and what impact the chosen Intent has further on in-gamut colours.
There's more to RI than just that. As you know, every color value is converted, converted differently and converted without any idea about adjacent pixels. So we humans need to view all the color values in context so they appear to us as an image, not a huge pile of numbers going from one triplet to another. Hence, and again, soft proofing is about color appearance and one has to start by picking the RI they visually prefer and OOG is then handled just like non OOG colors. Least we forget people editing on displays who's gamuts are far smaller in many areas of color space than the printer. The proof then becomes the print (the print becomes that proof).
I need to edit the image to put it into near final shape, before I can know with confidence which RI is going to look better for that image
Exactly! And I stated that. So you're doing this in an RGB working space which is output agnostic by design.
And yes! Some images after soft proofing don't require any further editing. But you need to get the image into a state it's even worth viewing with a soft proof, and only then can you decide what RI to select. So going full circle, this is why it's not a good idea to do the following: assuming you know the type of paper you'll be using, why not use soft proofing from the start?
I think we all understand the choices and their workflow implications.
Some do, some don't. If everyone did, no need for the forums no need for the questions/answers.
-
There's more to RI than just that. As you know, every color value is converted, converted differently and converted without any idea about adjacent pixels. So we humans need to view all the color values in context so they appear to us as an image, not a huge pile of numbers going from one triplet to another. Hence, and again, soft proofing is about color appearance and one has to start by picking the RI they visually prefer and OOG is then handled just like non OOG colors. Least we forget people editing on displays who's gamuts are far smaller in many areas of color space than the printer. The proof then becomes the print (the print becomes that proof). Exactly! And I stated that. So you're doing this in an RGB working space which is output agnostic by design.
And yes! Some images after soft proofing don't require any further editing. But you need to get the image into a state it's even worth viewing with a soft proof, and only then can you decide what RI to select. So going full circle, this is why it's not a good idea to do the following: assuming you know the type of paper you'll be using, why not use soft proofing from the start?Some do, some don't. If everyone did, no need for the forums no need for the questions/answers.
Ya, I agree, that last bit was probably a bit presumptive without a context - I had in mind after due discussion!! :-).
OK, one last gasp at this from me: I'm in Lr. I'm not softproofing yet. I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits. Looks nice. Then I push "S" (for softproof, or perhaps a four letter word) and OMG, what happened to that nice photo I edited - I need to change this, change that, change the other thing. Editing twice over, whereas if I started the whole process under soft-proof it's once over, save perhaps for some tweeks depending on whether or not I decide to change the RI, which I consider to be an editing variable.
Andrew, have we exhausted this now?
-
I'm in Lr. I'm not softproofing yet. I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits. Looks nice. Then I push "S" (for softproof, or perhaps a four letter word) and OMG, what happened to that nice photo I edited - I need to change this, change that, change the other thing. Editing twice over, whereas if I started the whole process under soft-proof it's once over, save perhaps for some tweeks depending on whether or not I decide to change the RI, which I consider to be an editing variable.
Think about what you've written above, then we'll move on. You state you look at the photo and see based on the non-soft proof view, you need to make edits. So you should! You really think starting with a soft proof isn't going to cause you to apply just as many edits and with less options for that data? Some of the edits are based upon one output and one RI. It can work, but it's rather inflexible. What you going to do when you want to reprint that image on your new (fill in the blank) printer who's profile and behavior isn't anything like the one you used previous. Or send it to a lab with a printer you can't afford. Sound like a good idea? Not to me. Now editing the image to appear as desired in an RGB working space which is output agonistic makes far more sense to me. And Adobe. I can send that document to a printer without any edits if the soft proof shows me I need no such edits with a specific profile and RI. I may need some edits. And now, I make them specifically for this paper, printer, profile, RI. I can go back any time to the non output specific edited image to any output device and I've lost nothing. Time or data.
You're often editing twice; one to get the image into an appearance within a working space (editing space) you desire. That's the big work. Output specific edits may or may not be necessary. If so, it's pretty quick and easy compared to the first editing process. You have flexibility!
Starting with a soft proof and editing all the way through is a bit like the old workflow days where images were drum scanned, in CMYK, to output size. And it worked. But you found you often needed to get another scan, then another because the image needs output specific scanning (size, color space in CMYK etc). RGB workflows changed all that for the better, unless you were selling scans! Scan once, use many. Same applies to RGB working space: Edit that master archive first, use it for all future output needs. Apply specific output edits IF necessary when necessary. Some of this can't be put back into the toothpaste tube so workflows that are based on flexibility, future output needs and changes in output devices seems to largely suggest to me, a 'start with a soft proof' approach is inflexible, nor addresses future output needs and future changes in the output device.
RGB working space were designed from day one to be divorced from any device; your display or any printer. They were designed with the same idea in mind as scanning once and using many.
-
Yes Andrew - when have I not thought about what I write? - OK, we won't go there :-).
It all depends on context. So to be clear: I'm working in Lr where everything is redoable in several different ways as we fancy it, and non-destructible, not baked in. Not comparable to scanning and nothing old time about it. When I start editing a photo for the first time, I know what it's output purpose is from the get-go, so I can go straight into that space and work away. It's a once through, save for perhaps a few extra tweaks testing the RI variable, just loike there would be extra tweaks for altering any other variable for a look-see. Very often, once that photo is printed, that's the end of it. But let's say I revert to it any time thereafter and need to repurpose it altogether. Say I want to put it into a Blurb book rather than an Epson Legacy Baryta or some such print. So I select a profile akin to what a Blurb book would print like, and the image appearance will change. I create a virtual copy and tweak the tone settings till I'm happy I've optimized it for that purpose. However I break into the editing circle some such set of moves will be needed. That's why I say six of one and half a dozen of the other. So I have no problem with the way you approach it. Different entry points around this circle may work better for some people than others, depending. I'm fine with that. But I just don't believe there is one best way cast in stone here.
-
Yes Andrew - when have I not thought about what I write? - OK, we won't go there :-).
It all depends on context. So to be clear: I'm working in Lr where everything is redoable in several different ways as we fancy it, and non-destructible, not baked in.
Doesn't matter! You're capturing raw? Everything is non non-destructible, not baked in. It's about flexibility and a workflow where you accomplish your goals with as little time and effort as necessary.
IF you start from the get go and place both working space edits and output specific edits together and while viewing both sets of edits, those edits are targeted TOGETHER for one device. I don't know how to phrase that fact any simpler.
-
Doesn't matter! You're capturing raw? Everything is non non-destructible, not baked in. It's about flexibility and a workflow where you accomplish your goals with as little time and effort as necessary.
IF you start from the get go and place both working space edits and output specific edits together and while viewing both sets of edits, those edits are targeted TOGETHER for one device. I don't know how to phrase that fact any simpler.
I don't do working space edits. I only do output specific edits and if I ever need to repurpose, which is seldom, I do so. And I'm not worried about that because (a) the raw file is always the same raw file regardless of where I break into an editing cycle and (b) the edits usually needed from one purpose to another in my experience are pretty easy to handle incrementally regardless of whether I started from an edited working space file or an edited output version.
-
I don't do working space edits.
Of course you do if we are to believe part of your postings here. What do you think you're working on with soft proofing on or off in Develop?
YOU wrote:
I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits.
A non soft proof edit is occurring IN an RGB working space. ProPhoto RGB, 1.0 TRC. No different than Photoshop. That you say you're not doing working spaces edits either implies you don't understand this OR what you wrote just above isn't accurate; you edit from the get go with soft proof on (you are still editing in a working space) or editing without a soft proof (still editing in a working space). Those conflicts seem to indicate the need for a refresher in what and why RGB working space are implemented in all Adobe products that support color management, including LR as well as so many non Adobe products:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf)
-
Andrew:
Thank you for the reference to the video on soft proofing - it will be very useful to see and use. I am using Photoshop CC and I will try out the method.
Best wishes,
Prakash.
-
Of course you do if we are to believe part of your postings here. What do you think you're working on with soft proofing on or off in Develop?
YOU wrote: A non soft proof edit is occurring IN an RGB working space. ProPhoto RGB, 1.0 TRC. No different than Photoshop. That you say you're not doing working spaces edits either implies you don't understand this OR what you wrote just above isn't accurate; you edit from the get go with soft proof on (you are still editing in a working space) or editing without a soft proof (still editing in a working space). Those conflicts seem to indicate the need for a refresher in what and why RGB working space are implemented in all Adobe products that support color management, including LR as well as so many non Adobe products:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf)
Andrew, you can stop lecturing me because I've been doing digital image editing for the past 20 years and I know more than a few things about the underlying principles, especially the difference between an internal working space and an output space, and that when we edit a softproof we are working in both at the same time. Your "refreshers" are fine - I've seen it all long ago. I'm talking about PROCEDURE. Yes, I look at the Photo without the soft-proof on at first to see what I have. THEN I activate it and start editing relative to the conditions for which the image is purposed, which means under softproof for a specific paper/printer because I'm only editing the selects I intend to print. It's basically a one-step procedure in terms of workflow, which is what I'm talking about. Yes, it implicitly works within Lr's internal working space but it's guided by the softproof, which is the output space as interpreted through the output profile selected in the softproof menu, and that's the determinative procedure. I'm just advising how I work to produce very high quality prints very efficiently within Lr from start to finish and how easily that workflow can be redirected to a repurposing of the photo within Lr. If you think another approach is better that's fine and I think we've exhausted this discussion. Our audience should now be clear that there are alternative ways of doing this, one not necessarily better than another. I'm getting back to real work now. Cheers.
-
Andrew, you can stop lecturing me because I've been doing digital image editing for the past 20 years and I know more than a few things about the underlying principles, especially the difference between an internal working space and an output space, and that when we edit a softproof we are working in both at the same time.
I thought that too. But your text is confusing and I pointed out where and why. Are you sure you not using (what you call doing) an RGB working space in LR? Think carefully about the answer based again on your text (it's all I have to go by):
I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits.
I don't do working space edits.
Can't have it both ways, hence my severe confusion over what you are writing. IF I'm confused, consider your other readers! And yes, you are doing working space edits.
If you think another approach is better that's fine and I think we've exhausted this discussion.
Last thing I'd like to do is have YOU change your workflow. It doesn't affect me whatsoever. I do have some concern for your readers and expressed why! I also explained why I think it's a poor workflow to setup a soft proof at the get go and edit based on that alone. And yes, you and I have exhausted this discussion unless you wish to clarify the italic text of yours above and consider why it's so confusing! :-\
-
Andrew, in all I've written in this thread I think what I consider a good, usable procedure for image editing using softproof in Lr is now sufficiently clear. And the readers will do just fine without me changing my workflow. Thanks to discussions like these they see what the options are, they are mature adults and they can try different approaches and adopt what they think works best for them - your approach, my approach, whatever. I fully understand where you are coming from technically, I have no problem with it, but I just happen to find another procedure very workable and sensible in context so that's the experience-based feedback I gave to the person who put the question. You have another opinion, OK fine. We know. Let's now move on! :-)
-
Andrew, in all I've written in this thread I think what I consider a good, usable procedure for image editing using softproof in Lr is now sufficiently clear.
Your text, copy and paste:
I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits.
I don't do working space edits.
I don't consider that clear. The two opinions actually appear to strongly contradict each other. If it wasn't you posting, I'd have to say; please make up your minds. :D
Since you're describing your workflow, a simple question might clear it up: do you edit with the soft proof off at any time? If so, the 2nd statement (I don't do working space edits) is wrong/confusing. Even though technically you are always making working space edits! That underlying color space processing takes place in an RGB working space. Despite the simulation of the soft proof. NO different in Photoshop either FWIW.
Enough said?
-
OK, for avoidance of all doubt dear readers including Andrew, add the words "under softproof" at the end of the first italicized sentence. And yes I know what's going on under the hood.
Re Photoshop, not to open another can of worms, yes technically the same processes are happening - we are using Proof View for guidance about how an edit will affect the appearance of the output image, while the editing happens in the RGB internal working space. The big difference from Lr however is the ease of repurposing a photo which is much better in Lr. Changing gears is more cumbersome in Photoshop. Before we had softproofing in Lr I used another workflow: edit the image in Lr according to the working space alone, then export the photo to Photoshop, activate soft-proofing in order to finish the editing under softproof there, then print. As soon as Lr introduced softproofing my use of Photoshop plummeted. Of course I still use it for printing proofing targets which need Absolute Rendering Intent, not available in Lr, and ACPU for printing profiling targets with No Color Management, not available in either Lr or Photoshop. A fun world we live in, huh? :-)
-
OK, for avoidance of all doubt dear readers including Andrew, add the words "under softproof" at the end of the first italicized sentence.
This is what you wish to express?
I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits under softproof.
-
Yes, but there is context to this statement perhaps worth considering. It's a bit more involved than what you pulled up there, but I wasn't intending to get into a whole tra-la-la on image editing when I responded to that question. When we open the Photo in Lr before activating softproof or do anything else, and provided we have not imposed any recipes or Auto functions on the image from the get-go, what we have is a native view of the photo as Lr would interpret it "out of the camera as demosaiced with Lr's algorithms". If I'm intending to print the photos, that view can be indicative as a starting point but not determinative. It's helpful for playing back and forth with various editing tools on a trial and revert basis to get a feel for what I'll do with the photo, only because response time is often faster than with softproof on, and as I like to use Lab values for deciding on any changes to white balance (perhaps moving from As Shot to Custom), it needs to be non-softproof. This phase of using the non-softproof view is usually short, then I move into softproof and do all the heavy lifting in that mode. The main exception to leaving softproof on during the editing process is when making masks. This process tends to be more responsive with softproof off and one doesn't need it for constructing a mask. As I mentioned already, I treat Rendering Intent as an editing option so examining that option happens under softproof too.
-
When we open the Photo in Lr before activating softproof or do anything else, and provided we have not imposed any recipes or Auto functions on the image from the get-go, what we have is a native view of the photo as Lr would interpret it "out of the camera as demosaiced with Lr's algorithms".
So what? EVERY product's out of the camera as demosaiced will differ, again so what, what makes that one, default useful (I find it far from useful hence the use of presets and my own DNG camera profiles).
If I'm intending to print the photos, that view can be indicative as a starting point but not determinative.
Indicative of what? Useful how? It's just one rendering. No different in theory than the JPEG your camera spits out. What makes that JPEG 'right'?
It's helpful for playing back and forth with various editing tools on a trial and revert basis to get a feel for what I'll do with the photo, only because response time is often faster than with softproof on, and as I like to use Lab values for deciding on any changes to white balance (perhaps moving from As Shot to Custom), it needs to be non-softproof.
I see no speed differences for one. I see no reason why Lab values of an output color space is useful for editing IN what is clearly an RGB working space.
This phase of using the non-softproof view is usually short, then I move into softproof and do all the heavy lifting in that mode. The main exception to leaving softproof on during the editing process is when making masks. This process tends to be more responsive with softproof off and one doesn't need it for constructing a mask. As I mentioned already, I treat Rendering Intent as an editing option so examining that option happens under softproof too.
So all this is to 'speed up' LR?
-
So what? EVERY product's out of the camera as demosaiced will differ, again so what, what makes that one, default useful (I find it far from useful hence the use of presets and my own DNG camera profiles). Indicative of what? Useful how? It's just one rendering. No different in theory than the JPEG your camera spits out. What makes that JPEG 'right'? I see no speed differences for one. I see no reason why Lab values of an output color space is useful for editing IN what is clearly an RGB working space. So all this is to 'speed up' LR?
You are welcome to see or not to see whatever you wish, and indeed to contradict yourself in so doing. But don't ask me to explain to you how you managed that because I don't have the appetite for prolonging mind games. Just figure it out for yourself.
Good evening Andrew.
If any one ELSE participating in this thread needs further clarification from me on anything I've contributed to this discussion please feel free to ask.
-
Just figure it out for yourself.
I figured it (soft proofing workflows) out 2 decades ago.
Trying to figure out what you propose, much more difficult. As the copy and paste and need for your text to be additionally edited by me illustrates. Nighty night. ;)
-
Is this finally over?
Mark, you are wonderfully cool under idiotic fire!!😀
-
Is this finally over?
Mark, you are wonderfully cool under idiotic fire!!😀
I hope so, and thank you.
Actually, looking back - this whole thread should have stopped at the latest with reply #20 saying this: "OK, one last gasp at this from me: I'm in Lr. I'm not softproofing yet. I look at the photo, see what I think is needed based on the non-softproofed view and make my edits. Looks nice. Then I push "S" (for softproof, or perhaps a four letter word) and OMG, what happened to that nice photo I edited - I need to change this, change that, change the other thing. Editing twice over, whereas if I started the whole process under soft-proof it's once over, save perhaps for some tweeks depending on whether or not I decide to change the RI, which I consider to be an editing variable."
I failed to catch it last night - because I didn't go back to review the actual post, but Andrew picked up the sentence I bolded just above totally out of context to create incoherence where there was none when reading the rest of the paragraph. I was simply describing two workflows the distinction being that the former risks more redundancy than the latter. All I should have pointed out was the need to read the sentence in the context of the paragraph and leave it at that; sorry I missed that and contributed to more of a feeding frenzy than the subject deserved. So John Dean, yes, you're right. :-)
I'm done with this thread, over and out. I hope some folks found some of the insights in it useful despite the needless twists and turns it took.