Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: GreggP on January 04, 2020, 07:03:55 pm
-
Awhile ago I sold my printer. I didn't print enough to justify the high cost of ink and photo papers. The model I owned, the Epson Photo Stylus R2400, has fairly small ink cartridges and they needed replacement pretty regularly, which was pretty expensive. I was probably wasting a lot of ink because infrequent use meant a lot of head cleaning.
I've decided to try sending my processed images to a local printing service and I'd like to learn the best strategy for processing my images before sending them off.
I shoot RAW and plan to export the images to TIFF before sending them to the printing service. I use a datacolor SpyderX to calibrate my display, which is capable of displaying almost 100% Adobe RGB. I do 90% of my post-processing in Lightroom. However, on the rare occasion that I printed something, which was several years ago when I wasn't using Lightroom, I used QIMAGE for printing. So I don't have any experience with printing from Lightroom but that probably doesn't matter since I'm using an outside service.
I've downloaded paper/ink profiles from the printing service and have loaded up these profiles in Lightroom's Develop module. I can then see what colors are out of gamut for each paper/ink profile using the Soft Proofing feature. Then I can use targeted adjustments to reduce the saturation of those out of gamut colors.
I can also use Lightroom to crop the image to the size I want for the frame and mat I plan to use. If I need white space around the image, instead of a mat, then I can export the TIFF and edit in Photoshop and use the Canvas command to add a border.
Is it a good idea to apply these targeted adjustments to the out-of-gamut colors? If so, which is better for this, Lightroom or Photoshop? With Photoshop, I can set the Proof Setup to my desired paper/ink profile and then activate 'Proof Colors' and 'Gamut Warning' to double-check if the colors are still in gamut.
Does it help to toggle paper/ink simulation on in Lightroom? I've read that those simulations aren't very reliable and many paper manufacturers say to leave it toggled off.
When I export the TIFF file from Lightroom, I can choose sRGB, Adobe RGB for ProPhoto RGB for the color space. I assume Lightroom does everything in ProPhoto, so i just set it to ProPhoto for the exported TIFF. If I edit the TIFF in Photoshop, which uses ProPhoto for the workspace, then I don't need to worry about any color conversion. After editing (like adding a border) and saving the TIFF image in Photoshop, the color space options are a little different. I noticed that in the color section near the bottom of the SAVE-AS dialog, there are 2 options. The first option is the "Use Proof Setup: 6400 Premier Photo Lustre Glossy...". The second option is "ICC Profile: ProPhotoRGB". The first option is grayed out. Why is it grayed out? If I choose another file type, like Photoshop PDF, the first option is available. If I check the "Use Proof Setup" option with PDF, then the ICC Profile lists the paper/ink profile. If I switch it back to TIFF, the ICC Profile is still showing the paper/ink profile.
What should I be using for the color space? The ICC profile (ProPhoto RGB) or the paper/ink profile?
Thanks in advance for any help!
-
When I export the TIFF file from Lightroom, I can choose sRGB, Adobe RGB for ProPhoto RGB for the color space. I assume Lightroom does everything in ProPhoto, so i just set it to ProPhoto for the exported TIFF. If I edit the TIFF in Photoshop, which uses ProPhoto for the workspace, then I don't need to worry about any color conversion.
All processing takes place in a color gamut that's the size of ProPhoto RGB.
Ideally you'll send ProPhoto RGB converted to the printer's output space to the lab but will they accept that color space? Will they convert it (ugh) to sRGB? Not ideal.
What should I be using for the color space? The ICC profile (ProPhoto RGB) or the paper/ink profile?
The profile for the actual printer IF (big IF) they supply the profile and allow you to use it.
You really need to first find out what the lab accepts. Will they accept ProPhoto RGB? Will they allow you to convert from ProPhoto RGB to the output profile they supply? Will they (ugh) force you to convert to sRGB which is really sub optimal.
-
I've decided to try sending my processed images to a local printing service and I'd like to learn the best strategy for processing my images before sending them off.
I shoot RAW and plan to export the images to TIFF before sending them to the printing service.... When I export the TIFF file from Lightroom, I can choose sRGB, Adobe RGB for ProPhoto RGB for the color space.... If I edit the TIFF in Photoshop ... the color space options are a little different. I noticed that in the color section near the bottom of the SAVE-AS dialog, there are 2 options. The first option is the "Use Proof Setup: 6400 Premier Photo Lustre Glossy..."
You really need to ask the service what they will and will not accept. Most of them will not accept TIFFs, and instead insist on JPEGs. Likewise, many (maybe most) services only accept files in sRGB, although this service's making available profiles for their printer + paper combinations is a hopeful but not definitive sign otherwise. Some services provide profiles intended only for soft-proofing, and still expect you to submit your file in sRGB (or maybe give the the option of sRGB or Adobe RGB). Other services let you convert to their profile using the rendering intent of your choice and them submit the file in their profile. Often the service's website will answer these questions, but if not, ask them!
Also: you can use Lightroom's Print module to add white space etc.--just print to a JPEG (TIFF is not an option in the print module) instead of to a printer, and choose either one of its standard color working spaces (sRGB, Display P3, Adobe RGB, or ProPhoto RGB) or the ICC output profile of your choice. After you choose print to JPEG, you can set custom dimensions etc., which in conjunction with your cell size etc. establish the borders. Attached is a JPEG 'printed' from Lightroom, showing the vault where all the Lightroom secrets are kept, set to print on 11x14 inch paper at 300 ppi with a 1 inch border on each side, in Adobe RGB for good measure.
-
The printing service prefers TIFFs.
They haven't really explained their preference for color space and I'll contact them tomorrow and ask about this.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of using their ink/paper/printer profile, while using Lightroom or Photoshop, to soft proof your images? Isn't soft proofing a good way to see what colors from your image might be over-saturated? Then you can use targeted adjustments to pull the saturation of those colors down to something that will print, right?
Should I make those targeted adjustments or should I just rely on the printing services preferred method for adjusting those out of gamut colors (they prefer perceptual intent)?
Does it matter if those targeted adjustments are done in Lightroom or Photoshop?
When I save the final TIFF image in Photoshop, should I check one of the boxes for color? If I didn't check a box, what would happen?
Isn't the print service going to open up my TIFF image and apply the ICC profile when they print? Does it matter what color profile is embedded in the file (that is if the embedded profile is wider than the ICC profile but desaturated based on my soft proofing) if I already have adjusted the colors?
If I switch to PDF and back to TIFF, I can get it to use the proof setup ICC profile. What would be the advantage to this?
One other, sort of unrelated question... they refer to their service as "Fine Art Giclée Printing (https://www.picturesalon.com/home). They use inkjet printers. What's the difference between inkjet and giclée printing?
Sorry for all the questions... And thanks again for your help.
-
The printing service prefers TIFFs.
They haven't really explained their preference for color space and I'll contact them tomorrow and ask about this.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of using their ink/paper/printer profile, while using Lightroom or Photoshop, to soft proof your images? Isn't soft proofing a good way to see what colors from your image might be over-saturated? Then you can use targeted adjustments to pull the saturation of those colors down to something that will print, right?
Yes but the profile has to be one supplied that actually defines the conditions of the printer when it makes your print. And you need to pick a rendering intent just to soft proof meaning, does the lab allow you to use their profiles for both soft proofing and conversions? Usually not. So they wish to give you an idea that they are indeed color managed. They supply a printer profile but if (big if) they force you to send them the image in say sRGB, you're not using a fully color managed workflow. You're being told the profile is used for soft proofing alone which isn't very effective for many reasons.
Ideally the lab allows you to handle the image as you would if you were making your own prints. You pick the working space. You pick the profile and thus rendering intent for conversion. You produce output specific edits if necessary based on that soft proof and, the print comes out as you expect using a fully color managed workflow. Simply supplying a profile that may or may not define their process for soft proofing is a hack and kind of a lie, making you believe they are color managed.
-
They use inkjet printers. What's the difference between inkjet and giclée printing?
One is an actual term describing (part) of the print process, the other is an utterly BS marketing term. That they market as giclee makes me recommend you look elsewhere....
-
One is an actual term describing (part) of the print process, the other is an utterly BS marketing term. That they market as giclee makes me recommend you look elsewhere....
I wouldn't necessarily disqualify them for using a marketing term for promoting their services. If I were to do that for every product or service I buy, I wouldn't purchase a thing. Anyhow, having worked on the engineering/development side of many technology businesses, I too get pretty annoyed by these marketing terms. For a small business like this, I can't blame them for trying to be a little different from the printing offered by the inexpensive services like Walgreens.
Anyhow, I appreciate your warnings.
-
Yes but the profile has to be one supplied that actually defines the conditions of the printer when it makes your print. And you need to pick a rendering intent just to soft proof meaning, does the lab allow you to use their profiles for both soft proofing and conversions? Usually not. So they wish to give you an idea that they are indeed color managed. They supply a printer profile but if (big if) they force you to send them the image in say sRGB, you're not using a fully color managed workflow. You're being told the profile is used for soft proofing alone which isn't very effective for many reasons.
Ideally the lab allows you to handle the image as you would if you were making your own prints. You pick the working space. You pick the profile and thus rendering intent for conversion. You produce output specific edits if necessary based on that soft proof and, the print comes out as you expect using a fully color managed workflow. Simply supplying a profile that may or may not define their process for soft proofing is a hack and kind of a lie, making you believe they are color managed.
Like I said, I will ask tomorrow (they're not open today). Using either Lightroom or Photoshop, there doesn't appear to an easy way to set the TIFF file to their ICC profile. Except with Photoshop, you can sort of do it by switching to PDF and back to TIFF but I don't know if that really works. Also, they've never said they require my image set to sRGB. I told them my workflow stays in ProPhoto RGB from my Canon camera to Lightroom and Photoshop. They're fine with that and it makes no sense that they'd convert to sRGB before printing.
Am I missing something or is there some other technique used to embed an ICC paper/ink/printer profile in a TIFF?
-
Thanks in advance for any help!
From what I can see in your profile and Picture Salon's website, you're both in Madison, WI. Have you considered visiting them in person with your concerns?
-
From what I can see in your profile and Picture Salon's website, you're both in Madison, WI. Have you considered visiting them in person with your concerns?
I've already visited them. I had a chance to talk with them about the differences in the paper/media they offer and look at some samples. I posted here to learn what more experienced photographers do when they work with a printing service. Having never used a printing service, I wanted to learn more and ask the right questions before I submitted a file.
-
Methinks that after the confusion, bother, and cost of using this service, and the probably mediocre results, you're going to think twice about not printing yourself. To me, it would be like stumbling around in the dark.
-
I've already visited them. I had a chance to talk with them about the differences in the paper/media they offer and look at some samples. I posted here to learn what more experienced photographers do when they work with a printing service. Having never used a printing service, I wanted to learn more and ask the right questions before I submitted a file.
In that case, I can tell you that it's common to agree with your provider something along the lines; "Please do not auto-correct, modify, convert, etc." submitted file(s) when handing off your images. I trust you're in good hands with Salon and especially since they're local. In ideal situation.
This is providing you're doing the complete conversion yourself as you might have done in your previous personal workflow.
-
Methinks that after the confusion, bother, and cost of using this service, and the probably mediocre results, you're going to think twice about not printing yourself. To me, it would be like stumbling around in the dark.
You might be right, we'll see. I'm waiting for my 8x10 proof, (which costs $5.25) to see the results. Based on their customer reviews, their results are far from mediocre. BTW, my daughter is an artist and she has all of her digital work printed there. None of her customers have ever complained about the quality of her prints. Last time I bought a set of inks for my R2400, I paid around $130. A 50 pack of paper starts at about $28. It would be cheaper to print my own. Do you know if there is much of an improvement in quality going from an Epson R2400 to the Epson 9600? How about to those Canon iPF printers? I think their website might be out of date because they've since purchased a couple newer printers.
-
Like I said, I will ask tomorrow (they're not open today). Using either Lightroom or Photoshop, there doesn't appear to an easy way to set the TIFF file to their ICC profile. Except with Photoshop, you can sort of do it by switching to PDF and back to TIFF but I don't know if that really works. Also, they've never said they require my image set to sRGB. I told them my workflow stays in ProPhoto RGB from my Canon camera to Lightroom and Photoshop. They're fine with that and it makes no sense that they'd convert to sRGB before printing.
Am I missing something or is there some other technique used to embed an ICC paper/ink/printer profile in a TIFF?
In Photoshop, Edit > Convert to Profile. Then save it.
-
In Photoshop, Edit > Convert to Profile. Then save it.
Ah, thanks!!!
-
After looking a little closer on Picture Salon's website, they state:
"Picture Salon provides these custom ICC profiles for customers who demand an extra level of control when adjusting their images for print. They should not be embedded in the image. These profiles are the same ones that we use for printing on paper and canvas and should allow you to better visualize the contrast and color characteristics of a particular paper or canvas before printing. Profiles can be used for "soft proofing" in Adobe Photoshop."
I wonder why they don't want them embedded...?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the purpose of using their ink/paper/printer profile, while using Lightroom or Photoshop, to soft proof your images? Isn't soft proofing a good way to see what colors from your image might be over-saturated? Then you can use targeted adjustments to pull the saturation of those colors down to something that will print, right?
Should I make those targeted adjustments or should I just rely on the printing services preferred method for adjusting those out of gamut colors (they prefer perceptual intent)?
Does it matter if those targeted adjustments are done in Lightroom or Photoshop?
When I save the final TIFF image in Photoshop, should I check one of the boxes for color? If I didn't check a box, what would happen?
I agree with what Andrew wrote, but to put it a bit differently in case this helps: soft-proofing is good for trying to make sure not only that the print you get most closely matches what you see on your monitor, but also lets you adjust the file for the most pleasing print, based on what the printing service can / will actually deliver. There are printing services that provide ICC profiles to be used only for soft-proofing. Where someone uses such a service, the approach can be to edit (preferably a copy) in soft-proof mode for best results, and then save that file in a regular working space (usually sRGB) to upload it to the service. However, the better approach is where the lab provides the full ICC output profile for their printer + ink + paper (inkjet) or printer + paper + chemistry (wet print), and then you not only use that profile for soft-proofing but also perform a 'convert to profile' and send them a file saved in their ICC profile. This latter approach lets you experiment with rendering intents and black-point compensation for the convert to profile, to see what produces the result closest to what you want.
[T]hey refer to their service as "Fine Art Giclée Printing (https://www.picturesalon.com/home). They use inkjet printers. What's the difference between inkjet and giclée printing?
The difference is pretentiousness. Today those terms are essentially interchangeable. Thirty years ago the word "giclée" was made up to improve the marketability of the new high-quality inkjet prints. See, e.g., https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/what-a-giclee-print (https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/what-a-giclee-print). Since then, even some of those involved have expressed reservations about the term.
-
After looking a little closer on Picture Salon's website, they state:
"Picture Salon provides these custom ICC profiles for customers who demand an extra level of control when adjusting their images for print. They should not be embedded in the image. These profiles are the same ones that we use for printing on paper and canvas and should allow you to better visualize the contrast and color characteristics of a particular paper or canvas before printing. Profiles can be used for "soft proofing" in Adobe Photoshop."
I wonder why they don't want them embedded...?
I don't know why they don't want their own profiles embedded in the files you submit, but their approach, although common, is not the best because:
(1) it does not let you choose which rendering intent is used to convert from the working space in which you submit your file (they may require sRGB, or also allow Adobe RGB and possibly even other spaces like ProPhoto RGB) to the output profile--e.g., maybe you'd prefer the results from relative colorimetric but they'll use perceptual, or vice versa.
(2) Likewise, it does not let you choose whether black point compensation is used to convert; usually you'd probably want it, but there may be exceptions.
(3) Unless they allow you to submit files in ProPhoto RGB, there's a risk that their printer's gamut will be greater than the working space in which you submit your image, and therefore you might not be able to print the to full limits of the printer's gamut, and instead needlessly have to clip (perceptual) or compress (relative colorimetric) the image's gamut.
-
I don't know why they don't want their own profiles embedded in the files you submit, but their approach, although common, is not the best because:
(1) it does not let you choose which rendering intent is used to convert from the working space in which you submit your file (they may require sRGB, or also allow Adobe RGB and possibly even other spaces like ProPhoto RGB) to the output profile--e.g., maybe you'd prefer the results from relative colorimetric but they'll use perceptual, or vice versa.
(2) Likewise, it does not let you choose whether black point compensation is used to convert; usually you'd probably want it, but there may be exceptions.
(3) Unless they allow you to submit files in ProPhoto RGB, there's a risk that their printer's gamut will be greater than the working space in which you submit your image, and therefore you might not be able to print the to full limits of the printer's gamut, and instead needlessly have to clip (perceptual) or compress (relative colorimetric) the image's gamut.
After installing all of their profiles and stepping through each one while soft proofing, I enabled the out-of-gamut warnings to see which combo gave me the widest color range. All of the profiles had out-of-gamut warnings, so it seems my Prophoto RGB workspace has more color than their ink/paper/printer can show on the print. I also noticed that my monitor, although it is 100% Adobe RGB, can't display some of the colors they are capable of printing. So if I provide them with my adjusted image (lowered saturation while soft proofing), they won't need to clip or compress away any colors. BTW, from what I've read (or viewed on YouTube videos) the color intent (in Lightroom you can choose relative or perceptual) is usually based on a recommendation from the paper manufacturer. For example, I think Hahnemühle recommends using perceptual. Am I wrong?
-
After looking a little closer on Picture Salon's website, they state:
"Picture Salon provides these custom ICC profiles for customers who demand an extra level of control when adjusting their images for print. They should not be embedded in the image. These profiles are the same ones that we use for printing on paper and canvas and should allow you to better visualize the contrast and color characteristics of a particular paper or canvas before printing. Profiles can be used for "soft proofing" in Adobe Photoshop."
I wonder why they don't want them embedded...?
As I predicted, they only want you to use them for soft proofing, not conversion. So half baked color management, not ideal.
-
As I predicted, they only want you to use them for soft proofing, not conversion. So half baked color management, not ideal.
If they accept my adjusted TIFF with ProPhoto RGB profile, do you forsee any problems when they print to the paper/ink combo I select?
-
If they accept my adjusted TIFF with ProPhoto RGB profile, do you forsee any problems when they print to the paper/ink combo I select?
Well you can't select a rendering intent which is kind of useful. Do they accept ProPhoto RGB?
-
Well you can't select a rendering intent which is kind of useful. Do they accept ProPhoto RGB?
I thought rendering intent was based on the recommendation of the paper manufacturer. As for accepting ProPhoto RGB, I don't know yet. I will ask tomorrow.
-
I thought rendering intent was based on the recommendation of the paper manufacturer.
No. There are four possibilities within an output profile for RI and the right one is the one that you prefer visually based on a soft proof.
-
I don't know why they don't want their own profiles embedded in the files you submit, but their approach, although common, is not the best
Question; Have you personally created your own output profile for a printer / ink / media combination of yours and, if so, how many different versions have you generated?
If you were to have published any of those (as from the context as a service provider), how would those versions be managed over time? If they were significantly different over time, what would the consequences be? If they were negligibly different, what would the consequences be?
...just asking.
-
Question; Have you personally created your own output profile for a printer / ink / media combination of yours and, if so, how many different versions have you generated?
If you were to have published any of those (as from the context as a service provider), how would those versions be managed over time? If they were significantly different over time, what would the consequences be? If they were negligibly different, what would the consequences be?
...just asking.
Yes, I have. I don't own the hardware, but I rented an X-Rite spectrophotometer (through LensRentals.com) and made a dozed or so profiles. Mostly there was only one version for each printer + paper, but the X-Rite software lets you use use a slightly different process to make a profile specifically designed for B&W. So I think I made 10 regular color profiles plus 3 profiles intended specifically for B&W for some of the same papers. I have not noticed any changes in printer behavior that would invalidate these profiles or suggest re-profiling. But these are just for my personal use, and I'm sure my eyes are less critical than some.
As far as service providers and what they do--IMO it's reasonable to expect more from a professional service--they probably ought to generate new profiles from time to time, and always make the current profiles available on the Internet. As a lower-end example that is to be commended, from time to time Costco has Dry Creek Photo make new profiles for every printer + paper combination in every store, which are posted on the Dry Creek website by Costco location (https://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/ (https://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/)). Unfortunately my local Costco no longer has an in-store photo lab, and generally they seem to be disappearing. When my local Costco had an in-store photo printing operation, new profiles did appear from time to time. I don't know how different they were from the previous profiles for the same printer + paper combinations (the store had a Fuji inkjet minilab with two or three paper options plus an Epson pro photo inkjet with two paper options).
-
Question; Have you personally created your own output profile for a printer / ink / media combination of yours and, if so, how many different versions have you generated?
If you were to have published any of those (as from the context as a service provider), how would those versions be managed over time? If they were significantly different over time, what would the consequences be? If they were negligibly different, what would the consequences be?
...just asking.
This is an excellent question and very appropriate IMHO. As a collaborative printer for a small number of local artists/photographers, I can make the observation that in the end, a hard proof is the only way to go when dealing with a printing service. It's really no different than if you are printing for yourself: a soft proof is useful, but an actual print is ultimately needed to verify you will get what you want, especially when it comes to color considerations. (I provide a free 8.5x 11 proof print for print sizes up to 17x22, and two free proof prints for anything larger as part of my normal fees.)
So while I agree with Andrew that the "ultimate" scenario would be a fully color-managed workflow, I think that certain realities (as suggested by Stephen Ray's post quoted above) dictate that usually the best approach when dealing with a printing service is to soft-proof with their profile but use their hard proof to do the final evaluation. A fully color-managed workflow is of course what you want when you do your own printing.
-
Therefore, print it yourself.
I'm pretty sure that it's been proven to this point, soft proofing to exact results is not possible.
-
I'm pretty sure that it's been proven to this point, soft proofing to exact results is not possible.
True,. in practice. Soft proofing can be pretty good if the surround, brightness, size, and viewing distance are matched with the hard proof or final print, except for those printable colors which are outside the monitor's gamut. Performing this matching is quite difficult, and matching the surround well usually requires partially blocking the monitor with a mask and artfully setting up the viewing station so that the monitor does not appear to be self-luminous. I've only seen this done well in labs. So the best proof is a hard proof. I have successfully used an Epson 4900 as a hard proofing device for a GRACoL-compliant 2006 printer.
[Edit. Also, soft proofing won't work unless the observer has color-normal vision.]
Jim
-
Well, also, in the end, you have two different sets of eyes trying to match an image on paper.
Who do you want to be? Ansel Adams or Annie Leibovitz? Ansel controlled the entire process. He could put a print in front of you and say, I made this. Annie, maybe more famous, could really care less about technical issues, left most if not all of it to others. Refuses to acknowledge that, or at least be polite and acknowledge the team she assembled, but, works for her, I guess.
-
I don't want to be Leibovitz, I've met her, and no thanks. ;)
Never met Adams but he seems like he was a nice enough fellow.
-
I was able to spend an hour with Ansel back in 1980 when I was a student in Tucson who showed his wok from the archive to researchers . He was a kind, highly intelligent master who treated his assistants like respected colleagues. I could say some things about the other photographer, told to me by someone who assisted on a project and another who witnessed a shoot, but it isn’t worth taking the time. I hate to see them mentioned in the same sentence. One was interested in using his passion and talent to preserve the best thing about our country, the natural ecosystem. And he was way ahead of his time. That other person in my opinion was interested in personal fame and getting famous people to take their clothes off. She is no Avedon, that is for sure.
John
I don't want to be Leibovitz, I've met her, and no thanks. ;)
Never met Adams but he seems like he was a nice enough fellow.
-
I have a calibrated monitor and profiles for all my papers to my Epson. I send larger photos to Digital Silver Imaging to be printed. I soft proof to my printer send this file to DSI and they send me a printed proof. The results from the printed proofs I get back from them are always spot on. I have on only one occasion only had to adjust the proof for the final print. I know some of you will faint over that method but it works in sending files to them. BTW, they are excellent printers and are always willing to work with you on getting the print you want. www.digitalsilverimaging.com
Sharon
-
I was able to spend an hour with Ansel back in 1980 when I was a student in Tucson who showed his wok from the archive to researchers . He was a kind, highly intelligent master who treated his assistants like respected colleagues.
As well he might. Consider who they were. Partial list: Pirkle Jones, Don Worth, Ted Orland, Alan Ross, John Sexton, Chris Ranier.
I've spent time with all of them, and done workshops with four of them, and they are an exceptional group.
-
I have a calibrated monitor and profiles for all my papers to my Epson. I send larger photos to Digital Silver Imaging to be printed. I soft proof to my printer and the results from the proofs I get from them are always spot on. I have on only one occasion only had to adjust the proof for the final print. I know some of you will faint over that method but it works in sending files to them. BTW, they are excellent printers and are always willing to work with you on getting the print you want. www.digitalsilverimaging.com
Sharon
I think you're confused about the term soft proofing. Sounds to me that you have a nicely calibrated system in your studio that gives you prints that match your monitor. Are you saying that you send one of these hard proofs from your printer to this company to match? That's hard proofing. A soft proof would be sending a file that you think they will see the same way you see it on their equipment, and will print the same as it does on your printer, if all the calibrations and profiles are in order. No paper proof sent.
-
I think you're confused about the term soft proofing. Sounds to me that you have a nicely calibrated system in your studio that gives you prints that match your monitor. Are you saying that you send one of these hard proofs from your printer to this company to match? That's hard proofing. A soft proof would be sending a file that you think they will see the same way you see it on their equipment, and will print the same as it does on your printer, if all the calibrations and profiles are in order. No paper proof sent.
I'm saying I proof the print like I was printing it here. I get the file ready like I'm printing it here and send it to them.
Sharon
-
Actually, I realize I wrote my original response poorly. DSI sends me printed proofs before they make the final print. Those are what are spot on.
I soft proof the file to my printer profile.. Send the file to them.. They send back a printed proof.
Sharon
-
I edited my original message to hopefully make more sense.
-
Actually, I realize I wrote my original response poorly. DSI sends me printed proofs before they make the final print. Those are what are spot on.
I soft proof the file to my printer profile.. Send the file to them.. They send back a printed proof.
Sharon
I don't think you're at all confused about soft proofing if what you're saying is, the prints and display match to an acceptable level (it will NEVER be perfect or "100%*)
"*Have no fear of perfection-you'll never reach it". -Salvador Dali
-
Yes that is what I am saying.
-
Oh, ok, sounds like this process is pretty nailed down for you. I have to keep those people in mind, although I really don't want to go much bigger than my 17" printer.
Btw, nice website. Who do you use for a host? Does it look good on a phone?
-
Oh, ok, sounds like this process is pretty nailed down for you. I have to keep those people in mind, although I really don't want to go much bigger than my 17" printer.
Btw, nice website. Who do you use for a host? Does it look good on a phone?
Thanks, Benny! I use photofolio. https://www.photofolio.com/ They are more expensive than squarespace but also more customizable and their support is excellent. Im in the process of updating it - its been awhile. ::) It works well on mobile and you can customize for mobile specifically.
-
I have a calibrated monitor and profiles for all my papers to my Epson. I send larger photos to Digital Silver Imaging to be printed. I soft proof to my printer send this file to DSI and they send me a printed proof. The results from the printed proofs I get back from them are always spot on. I have on only one occasion only had to adjust the proof for the final print. I know some of you will faint over that method but it works in sending files to them. BTW, they are excellent printers and are always willing to work with you on getting the print you want. www.digitalsilverimaging.com
Sharon
Does Digital Silver Imaging provide ink/paper/printer profiles so you can soft proof your images with Lightroom or Photoshop? I checked their website and didn't see anywhere to download profiles.
-
I don't know. I use the ones for my printer and like I said, it always works out. I think the most important part of it is having your monitor calibrated tbh and to soft proof the paper. Their prints look like my prints, just bigger. ;D
Sharon
-
I don't know. I use the ones for my printer and like I said, it always works out. I think the most important part of it is having your monitor calibrated tbh and to soft proof the paper. Their prints look like my prints, just bigger. ;D
Sharon
But when you soft print with either Lightroom or Photoshop, you have to select a profile. If you are using one for your ink/printer/paper combination, then that's not soft proofing their prints, it's soft proofing yours. Right? I would think a more accurate soft proof would be possible if you were using a profile for their ink/paper/printer.
I use a Datacolor Spyder X to calibrate my display. The Picture Salon (the local printing service I'm working with) uses the X-Rite ColorMunki. I'm hoping that won't make any difference.
-
But when you soft print with either Lightroom or Photoshop, you have to select a profile. If you are using one for your ink/printer/paper combination, then that's not soft proofing their prints, it's soft proofing yours. Right? I would think a more accurate soft proof would be possible if you were using a profile for their ink/paper/printer.
I use a Datacolor Spyder X to calibrate my display. The Picture Salon (the local printing service I'm working with) uses the X-Rite ColorMunki. I'm hoping that won't make any difference.
Greg all I can say is the prints match perfectly. I have only had one printed proof from them that needed to be altered. Like I said, I think the most important part is having a calibrated monitor. If I wasn’t getting great prints, I would do it differently.
Sharon