Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: John V. on April 05, 2015, 06:42:23 pm
-
Could someone help me understand this?
If I have multiple papers profiled with the same device (colormunki) why is it the images don't always match? Example: an image on Epson Hot Press is much warmer than the same image on photo paper, which appears much cooler. Shouldn't these images match? Isn't that the point of creating paper profiles?
-
In two words: paper white (they differ, sometimes dramatically). There's also OBA's and the effect of the illuminant upon them which can produce 'issues'.
-
I don't mean to put you on the spot digitaldog, but I still don't understand. Shouldn't the profiles compensate for the paper white of different papers and produce colors that match?
-
I don't mean to put you on the spot digitaldog, but I still don't understand. Shouldn't the profiles compensate for the paper white of different papers and produce colors that match?
Profiles don't compensate or correct, they define (profile) a process. You don't even need a profile to see the vast differences in the paper whites, just look at two differing papers together within the same field of view. Take say a Matt paper with no OBA's then something like Epson Ultra Premium Glossy (who's paper white has a huge -7 bStar) and view them together.
-
I always thought creating profiles was to determine how a color "should" appear. For example when I print the colormunki charts, it's saying this is how your printer produces this red on this paper, and creating the profile defines how that red should appear, and defines what adjustments need to be made in order to achieve the "target" color. This is incorrect? Am I not looking at this the correct way? If I'm just totally off in my understanding, I apologize
-
"Red" is just an English word you and I use to describe a sensation deep in our brains. Computers have no such capabilities. They only understand sets of numbers to define a solid color patch and we use Lab which is based on how we see to produce those numbers. The profile is simply a descriptor of Lab values of single color patches and has no knowledge of images or color in context nor is it based on color appearance models. Colorimetry which is what you end up with after measuring a pile of colors is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. And Lab has flaws too.
-
John, when one prints the colour "white" is the paper and nothing else.
If the paper is "cool" is has a slightly blue tinge then that is how the whites will look.
In fact all the lightest tones will also look cool.
The same principle applies to "warm" papers.
In addition, the texture of the paper also changes how a print looks and no ICC profile in the world can accommodate for that.
Discerning printers actually choose different papers, not only for the texture, but also based on the whether it is cool or warm for different images to specifically accentuate a look that is desired.
Tony Jay
-
I'm sure you all see what I'm saying, but since I'm not exactly happy with the way I worded my previous post, I'm jsut gonna throw this out there.
Suppose I have printed the colormunki targets on 2 different papers. I can understand why the colors do not match in their appearance. There is no form of color management in place whatsoever.
Suppose now I go through the process of creating profiles for both of these papers. I then go and reprint the targets, this time using the profiles I just created, with their respective papers, shouldn't I get two prints with colors that match each other?
Apparently not... What I'm gathering is that it's simply just the limitations of the technology... (?)
-
Come to think of it, that could be my real problem here. Or, at least part of it. I should experiment with viewing the 2 prints (mentioned in my original post) under different lighting conditions.
-
It's not noting to do with the limitation of technology, differing papers produce differing numbers and results due to the paper.
Make some print tests using Absolute Colorimetric where paper white is handled quite differently and tell us if you like the results (likely not).
-
hmm, that brings up another (perhaps related question). How/where is my colormunki getting the info to "simulate paper white" when soft-proofing. Is that gathered during the profiling process? I suppose it would have to be... I won't make a big deal out of this, just a point in the right direction perhaps. Thanks digitaldog, tony, and all.
-
Is that gathered during the profiling process?
Yes.
-
lol
-
Sorry Guys. I have to agree with John Drew.
The ICC profiles, whether supplied by the paper manufacturer or created by the ColorMunki, should allow the photographer to produce prints that match and which meet his requirements as specified to the printer by the image file he has produced.
Print the same image file on a variety of papers without dedicated profiles and, of course, the results will vary - not just because of base tints in the paper but because of myriad other factors such as reflectivity, ink absorption, and others.
But to say that "white" is simply the base paper cannot be true. If the paper is warmer than some, then the ICC profile should interpret "white" as requiring a slight blueish ink mix to be added and a "cold" paper may require whites to be warmed by the application of ink.
-
But to say that "white" is simply the base paper cannot be true.
OK, you can believe that if you wish. It is a bit like suggesting the illuminant is just "light" and assuming it has no role upon how we perceive the print.
White, like Red is just a word, it tells us nothing about the color appearance of white.
The ICC profiles, whether supplied by the paper manufacturer or created by the ColorMunki, should allow the photographer to produce prints that match and which meet his requirements as specified to the printer by the image file he has produced.
ICC profiles know absolutely nothing about images. Or color in context.
IF you want to attempt to match two different prints, you have to cross render. And guess what happens? We use an Absolute Colorimetric intent which is IDENTICAL to RelCol expect how it maps paper white!
-
Count me in the perplexed category. Profiles are always paper specific, not just printer specific. If so, it would be logical to expect that, not matter what paper, the resulting image would look the same or very similar, as the profile would/should compensate for any differences. I understand that certain papers can not achieve the same maximum black, but color balance should be another thing. After all, the idea is to match print to screen, and screen is always the same.
-
Count me in the perplexed category.
Already assumed after our discussion of gamut and color numbers. ;D
Profiles are always paper specific, not just printer specific.
Both!
If so, it would be logical to expect that, not matter what paper, the resulting image would look the same or very similar, as the profile would/should compensate for any differences.
Logic based on misunderstandings of color management isn't sound logic. ;D
I understand that certain papers can not achieve the same maximum black, but color balance should be another thing. After all, the idea is to match print to screen, and screen is always the same.
Color balance is based on lots of items, one of them the white of the paper and your perception of that white. And yes, the idea IS to match print to screen and why, those of us serious about it use a reference display system that allows us to calibrate to multiple calibrations to do just that. We consider WP, contrast ratio when we do so, we end up with differing calibrations per paper due to that. Do you expect that if you send the same RGB numbers through a good profile to vastly different papers, those papers play no role? If not, how can you assume one target calibration for a display accounts for the differences? It can't.
It's funny to read people all over the web state: "I've calibrated my display and it doesn't match the print". When you ask them what they used for calibration aim points, they tell you someone suggested 120cd/m2 6500K (or D65 which isn't the same). Yes, they did calibrate the display, they just did it wrong! IF you calibrate your display correctly, you do so to produce a match and the settings will vary, one size doesn't fit all. How can it?
-
Count me in the perplexed category. Profiles are always paper specific, not just printer specific. If so, it would be logical to expect that, not matter what paper, the resulting image would look the same or very similar, as the profile would/should compensate for any differences. I understand that certain papers can not achieve the same maximum black, but color balance should be another thing.
Yes, within the capability of the paper and ink. Remember that an icc profile is simply a measurement of the colour characteristics of the printer-paper combination. With monitors, the monitor profiles usually also contain calibration information that is used to alter the characteristics of the monitor. With printers, the profile is simply a measurement.
Colours will look the same on two papers to the extent that the two papers and the ink are capable of displaying the same colours. For whites this usually isn't so, as white is going to be the paper colour (i.e. with no ink on it), and two papers are normally different colours.
After all, the idea is to match print to screen, and screen is always the same.
Screen matching is usually better, as when you run the profiling/calibration software on the monitor it calibrates as well as profiles. That is, it adjusts the white (and tone response curve) to a standard setting such as D65 or whatever. So whites will be right (so long as you've calibrated the monitor to the white that you want, of course). Because one doesn't (normally) calibrate printers, you're stuck with the gamut and white point that the paper and ink combination can achieve.
-
My understanding is that the OP is not just talking about empty (of color) areas in an image, where paper white would show through. My understanding is that he is talking about overall color balance.
-
... Color balance is based on lots of items, one of them the white of the paper and your perception of that white. And yes, the idea IS to match print to screen and why, those of us serious about it use a reference display system that allows us to calibrate to multiple calibrations to do just that. We consider WP, contrast ratio when we do so, we end up with differing calibrations per paper due to that. Do you expect that if you send the same RGB numbers through a good profile to vastly different papers, those papers play no role? If not, how can you assume one target calibration for a display accounts for the differences? It can't.
It's funny to read people all over the web state: "I've calibrated my display and it doesn't match the print". When you ask them what they used for calibration aim points, they tell you someone suggested 120cd/m2 6500K (or D65 which isn't the same). Yes, they did calibrate the display, they just did it wrong! IF you calibrate your display correctly, you do so to produce a match and the settings will vary, one size doesn't fit all. How can it?
Are you saying that you calibrate your monitor differently for different papers?
-
Are you saying that you calibrate your monitor differently for different papers?
What part of: we end up with differing calibrations per paper or and why, those of us serious about it use a reference display system that allows us to calibrate to multiple calibrations to do just that wasn't clear?.
My understanding is that the OP is not just talking about empty (of color) areas in an image, where paper white would show through. My understanding is that he is talking about overall color balance.
Whatever your understanding is, based on the above, I'm going to stick with my understanding. ;D
OP wrote: If I have multiple papers profiled with the same device (colormunki) why is it the images don't always match? Example: an image on Epson Hot Press is much warmer than the same image on photo paper, which appears much cooler. Shouldn't these images match? Isn't that the point of creating paper profiles?
-
What part of...
Can't you just answer a simple question: "Are you saying that you calibrate your monitor differently for different papers?"
-
Can't you just answer a simple question: "Are you saying that you calibrate your monitor differently for different papers?"
The question was answered before the question was asked!
-
The question was answered before the question was asked!
Then what was the answer?
-
What part of: we end up with differing calibrations per paper or and why, those of us serious about it use a reference display system that allows us to calibrate to multiple calibrations to do just that wasn't clear?. Whatever your understanding is, based on the above, I'm going to stick with my understanding. ;D
OP wrote: If I have multiple papers profiled with the same device (colormunki) why is it the images don't always match? Example: an image on Epson Hot Press is much warmer than the same image on photo paper, which appears much cooler. Shouldn't these images match? Isn't that the point of creating paper profiles?
This endless debate about "how to" implement and use color management at the end simply tells one simple truth: color managment doesn't work "out of the box". A lot of fine-tuning is required! A lot of testing and viewing "experience" is required. A lot!!
Be it fine tuning of the printer profiles (to be usefull for REALLY reliably softproofing) or be it fine tuning of the monitor calibration (to REALLY match a particular paper-white).
You can learn color managment. You can spend hours and hours of inspection. Hours and hours of fine tuning. And it will work REALLY great... for one particular paper... when you REALLY take the time to fine adjust your profiles.
But... color management NEVER works out of the box.
Now, the above is what I take from all this continous questions/answers (very often quite questionable answers...) and from the the very same questions/issues posted again and again. And I think it would be cool ... and smart... to simply admit that colormanagemt doesn't work as advertised... even if you set everything as it should be set.
IMHO ...
-
Then what was the answer?
I am also interessted in that very answer ... !
-
Then what was the answer?
What part of: The question was answered before the question was asked! do you not understand?
Either you're unable to understand simple English or this is another attempt of yours to start a color management rabbit hole of your own confusion like the Gamut and Color numbers post last year. I'm not going to play that game with you but I'd be happy to use Google Translate and provide the text I wrote today in any language you prefer over English. Further, there is an article here on LuLa for years that also explains it, albeit in English: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
IF that article isn't clear, start a new post asking questions so I can ignore it!
You've come here today and made several posts and the most telling was: Count me in the perplexed category. You've done nothing to aid the OP. You've asked repeated questions that don't need to be asked because the answers were provided already. I don't know what your agenda is, but I'm not wasting my time again playing that game. I don't think you're stupid but maybe I'm the one wrong in that opinion so I can't understand how you can fail to connect the dots here. Either way, this isn't your post so start one so you can own it, then I can steer clear of it.
-
This endless debate about "how to" implement and use color management at the end simply tells one simple truth: color managment doesn't work "out of the box".
But... color management NEVER works out of the box.
I agree with most of your points but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd say color management works out of some boxes better than no color management. But the results are far from what many of us who are picky desire. Color management is far from perfect. Color management has plenty of areas to improve.
And I think it would be cool ... and smart... to simply admit that colormanagemt doesn't work as advertised... even if you set everything as it should be set.
Most of what is advertised is marketing BS! Every time I read some color management vendor telling us their product will provide more 'accurate color' I want to smack some marketing person at said company. But they do have a job of selling to unsuspecting and less than informed customers. But then what does work exactly as advertised? Not impossible, but pretty rare!
-
I can only hope someone else will be kind enough to answer my, OP's and tho_mas' simple questions.
-
I can only hope someone else will be kind enough to answer my, OP's and tho_mas' simple questions.
Hope springs eternal, good luck. I'm here to assist the OP, you're own your own bud.
-
I agree with most of your points but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. I'd say color management works out of some boxes better than no color management.
Totally agree!
But the results are far from what many of us who are picky desire. Color management is far from perfect. Color management has plenty of areas to improve. Most of what is advertised is marketing BS! Every time I read some color management vendor telling us their product will provide more 'accurate color' I want to smack some marketing person at said company. But they do have a job of selling to unsuspecting and less than informed customers. But then what does work exactly as advertised? Not impossible, but pretty rare!
Very true! Unfortunately you are avoiding to respond to the topic...
What part of: The question was answered before the question was asked! do you not understand?
Either you're unable to understand simple English ...
Me I am German ... and my English is unfortunately not that good.
I am still interessted in the answer ... since this is what I have proclaimed over and over again here on the forums: make a monitor profile individually for each single paper (-profile). This is what I do and it works perfectly! Really reliably! But of course this is not what color managment is supposed to work like ... at least not completely ... as I do adjust the white point and luminosity for each paper visually BY EYE... and NOT by measurement... (this is - BTW - why I am still softproofing with paper simualtion disalbed ... only "black ink" enabled" ...).
I am totally with you that working with color managment is much, much better than without. But it still requires a lot of tuning and a lot of subjective/personal perceptual tweaking ... Well, as I said: it doesn't work out of the box. I am glad we can agree on this!
I would like to add: it doesn't work as supposed to. Human perception is too different from measurement devices...
-
I am still interessted in the answer ... since this is what I have proclaimed over and over again here on the forums: make a monitor profile individually for each single paper (-profile).
Exactly! That's what a good reference display system like the old Sony Artisan up to modern Eizo/SpectraView systems provide. One size doesn’t fit all (but I already said that today).
But of course this is not what color managment is supposed to work like ... at least not completely ... as I do adjust the white point and luminosity for each paper visually BY EYE... and NOT by measurement...
That is necessary and doesn't at all diminish what color management can and does do. Ever work with a profile editor? Mostly done visually. Ever edit by the numbers and find the numbers are incorrect? Happens all the time. Color management is based on colorimetry which has a slew of perceptual flaws. I think today I wrote that ICC profiles know nothing about color in context. They know nothing about images. They "see" the world, one pixel at a time based on that one pixel's values. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance!
If you examine say SpectraView where you can set the White Point, you are able to enter values. But you are also able to set WP visually! It's all fair game. In the end, our goal is WYSIWYG such the display and the print next to it properly illuminated, visually match.
If anything, we need more color management tools based on what we see, not based on what we measure. That only gets you so far.
-
Exactly! That's what a good reference display system like the old Sony Artisan up to modern Eizo/SpectraView systems provide. One size doesn’t fit all (but I already said that today). That is necessary and doesn't at all diminish what color management can and does do. Ever work with a profile editor? Mostly done visually. Ever edit by the numbers and find the numbers are incorrect? Happens all the time. Color management is based on colorimetry which has a slew of perceptual flaws. I think today I wrote that ICC profiles know nothing about color in context. They know nothing about images. They "see" the world, one pixel at a time based on that one pixel's values. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance!
If you examine say SpectraView where you can set the White Point, you are able to enter values. But you are also able to set WP visually! It's all fair game. In the end, our goal is WYSIWYG such the display and the print next to it properly illuminated, visually match.
If anything, we need more color management tools based on what we see, not based on what we measure. That only gets you so far.
(emphases by me...)
Great!! Many thanks for the reply!!! Now all stars align and we can agree to agree :-)
-
Hi Slobodan,
The answer to your question is Yes.
Digitaldog uses different calibrations for different paper and use a reference display system that allows him to calibrate to multiple calibrations.
As per Digitaldog
<snip>we end up with differing calibrations per paper or and why, those of us serious about it use a reference display system that allows us to calibrate to multiple calibrations to do just that<snip>
-
Hi Slobodan,
The answer to your question is Yes...
Thanks ognita. That is what I assumed, just wanted to double-check.
Which then raises a couple of questions for us mere mortals who do not work with said reference display systems. How do you profile a simple monitor with, say, Colormunki, for different papers? There are hundreds of different papers, so some grouping is in order, even with a reference system, no? Is it just matt, glossy, or it gets more complicated?
-
Hi Slobodan,
The answer to your question is Yes.
Digitaldog uses different calibrations for different paper and use a reference display system that allows him to calibrate to multiple calibrations.
As per Digitaldog
Thanks, it appears that if someone other than I try to explain this to Slobodan, even by pasting my own text, he 'gets it'. ;)
-
What if we just say:
In terms of profile conversion, white is just white. 255 remaps to 255 regardless.
The white (and black) point is not part of the color management chain - it defines the environment / framework for color management to work in. Hence you need different calibration targets for different papers.
Would that work?
Which then raises a couple of questions for us mere mortals who do not work with said reference display systems. How do you profile a simple monitor with, say, Colormunki, for different papers?
Simply put, this is why said reference display systems are worth the price.
-
..... How do you profile a simple monitor with, say, Colormunki, for different papers? There are hundreds of different papers, so some grouping is in order, even with a reference system, no? Is it just matt, glossy, or it gets more complicated?
It sometimes seems that some folk are more interested in technology than photography.
Why would anyone want to "profile" their monitor "for different papers" using a ColorMunki?
The whole purpose of using a Color Munki is to ensure as far as possible (and the absolute is impossible) that the printer prints what you see on your monitor.
Forget all the hype - whether from manufacturers or self-appointed "experts". Simplify the question.
We all edit our images on our computers, looking at our monitors. We edit until what we see on our monitors is what we want to see in our print.
That is why we need ICC printer profiles, such as we produce with the ColorMunki. Because different papers will show different results from each other if printed with the same standard profile.
We do not profile our monitors for different papers. We use different printer profiles for different papers - so that what we see in our prints is as close as possible to what we see on our monitors.
That is why, when using a ColorMunki, we need to repeat the process with each paper that we use. (and also with each different printer and ink set if we use more than one)
Only then will we be able to print on different papers without having to re-edit the image file to suit each paper.
-
We do not profile our monitors for different papers.
The only exception might be that we might calibrate the monitor for different white points for different papers and viewing condidtions, I suppose.
-
The only exception might be that we might calibrate the monitor for different white points for different papers and viewing condidtions, I suppose.
A monitor profile is created so that you can be reasonably sure that what you see displayed on the screen is as accurate as possible in terms of color and luminosity with respect to the image file whether the color space is sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB, etc. The monitor profile is not used to print.
A print profile needs to be created specific to the printer being used and the specific paper, to ensure what is in the image file is accurately processed by the printer. Lots of paper manufacturers offer printer profiles for their paper and many of the popular printers. If you have a proper matching profile then you may not necessarily need to create one for yourself.
-
A monitor profile is created so that you can be reasonably sure that what you see displayed on the screen is as accurate as possible in terms of color and luminosity with respect to the image file whether the color space is sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB, etc. The monitor profile is not used to print.
A print profile needs to be created specific to the printer being used and the specific paper, to ensure what is in the image file is accurately processed by the printer. Lots of paper manufacturers offer printer profiles for their paper and many of the popular printers. If you have a proper matching profile then you may not necessarily need to create one for yourself.
Yes, I agree - with a proviso. There is a choice to be made of the white point to which one calibrates one's monitor. Common choices are anything between D50 or 5,000K and D65 or 6,500K. If the use of the monitor is for preparation of images for online use, then 6500K or D65 are likely choices. But if the use is for preparing images for printing, then in some circumstances 5000K or D50 might be a better, depending on the light used to view the prints (and possibly the paper, though I'm not sure about that).
-
It sometimes seems that some folk are more interested in technology than photography.
This topic has nothing to do with photography and everything to do with color management and calibration of a display (at least the part of the discussion hijacked from the OP by Slobodan)
Why would anyone want to "profile" their monitor "for different papers" using a ColorMunki?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
The whole purpose of using a Color Munki is to ensure as far as possible (and the absolute is impossible) that the printer prints what you see on your monitor.
Exactly and that's why one calibrates a display for those papers and the reason D Fosse wrote what he did that some missed.
We do not profile our monitors for different papers
You mean you don't. Despite the capabilities found in high end reference display systems that have been available for decades.
-
There is a choice to be made of the white point to which one calibrates one's monitor. Common choices are anything between D50 or 5,000K and D65 or 6,500K. If the use of the monitor is for preparation of images for online use, then 6500K or D65 are likely choices. But if the use is for preparing images for printing, then in some circumstances 5000K or D50 might be a better, depending on the light used to view the prints (and possibly the paper, though I'm not sure about that).
Or none of the values you propose above since the paper and viewing conditions of the paper and print next to the display we hope to match is never defined in such discussions.
One of the biggest disservice one can provide in aiding others in this topic, one we see all the time, is a recommendation for calibration targets without having a clue about the way the print will be viewed next to the display we hope to see a visual match. Solux? GTI booth, something else? What's the luminosity of the illuminant striking the print? Don't know yet suggest the silly "always use D50" (or 5000K, they are not the same), "120cd/m2" we hear with no recommendation on contrast ratio since so few users have control over that. Does anyone here think a matt print with a 150:1 contrast ratio will produce the same acceptable color match to the display as a glossy print with a 300:1 ratio? As D Fosse can tell you, those of us who have both the control over this and other calibration attributes can account for such differences and produce a very close match, display to print.
Kind of shocking in 2015, in a color management forum like LuLa this would be a surprise, at least to the usual suspects who hang out here. Almost as shocking as the photographer who posts (and I see this all the time): I have $800 in the budget for a display, what should I buy? (and lately it also has to be 4K as if this is at all useful in producing a visual match to a print). Substitute a lens or a camera body or a piece of software for the word display above and it's usually a different story.
-
As a newbie who dove into color management by reading Martin evening's LR text and Schewe's "Digital Print" (both excellent books from which I learned much), I somehow came away with the impression that I could:
1) buy a ColorMunki and calibrate my display properly... once
2) install icc profiles for all my papers
3) expect LR softproofing to show me something close to what my print would look like on individual papers, and allow me to make adjustments to get the appearance fairly close to what I wanted.
My what a rude awakening I have had. I accept that there is no way the white on a warm paper will look like the white on a cool paper, but I thought LR soft-proofing would at least show me that. After spending countless hours and wasting $$ of paper making adjustments for each print (for which LR soft-proofing was almost no help), posting questions here on LuLa, and lying awake deep into the night, I have realized that one must..
make a monitor profile individually for each single paper
I think this would be a great topic for someone to write up a how-to essay for Lula. Before someone tells me that it's already been stated and if I knew how to read I would know the answer, please realize that not everyone is as intelligent, perceptive, and quick to catch on as some of the experts on this site. I, for one, would appreciate a clear and thorough explanation (bonus points if presented in a non-condescending manner) for the thought process and procedures one goes through when calibrating a monitor for individual papers. Any takers?
-
As a newbie who dove into color management by reading Martin evening's LR text and Schewe's "Digital Print" (both excellent books from which I learned much), I somehow came away with the impression that I could:
1) buy a ColorMunki and calibrate my display properly... once
Calibrate to what end purpose? For many here, it's to produce a calibration and profile that results in a match between screen and print. If you use one paper, you'll end up futzing around to get that goal and you are done. But what about differing papers? We should know the answer to that!
3) expect LR softproofing to show me something close to what my print would look like on individual papers, and allow me to make adjustments to get the appearance fairly close to what I wanted.
The printer profile only knows about the printer. It knows nothing about your display or how you view the print (it assumes D50).
I think this would be a great topic for someone to write up a how-to essay for Lula.
Sorry, been there, done that.
Here's a bit of text from the SpectraView manual that may help with respect to why they do what they do.
Multiple Calibration Sets - Different display monitor calibrations can be instantly loaded allowing quick and easy switching between different calibration settings without the need to re-calibrate the display. Each time a calibration set is loaded, the necessary monitor settings and ICC/ColorSync profiles are automatically updated.
Question 4: I’m trying to match my display to my prints in order to soft proof, however after calibrating using a standard Target white point such as D65 or D50, the screen still appears too pink/magenta/green compared to the print. What can I do to make them match?
Answer: Depending on many factors such as the lighting conditions used to view the prints, paper type, and the printer profiles used for the soft proofing, the display white point may not visually match that of the paper. It is important to remember that the preset white points such as D65 are not magic numbers that must be used regardless. The calibration Target white point can be adjusted as necessary in this scenario. This is especially true if a standard viewing environment such as a light box is not being used to view the prints.
Adjusting the white point using a Kelvin or Daylight value alone is adjusting the white point along the fixed Black Body curve as viewed on a CIE xy diagram, and can vary the white point from cool to warm.
However, the color cast between the print and display may be at right angles to this curve, so in this case no Kelvin value will be able to fully compensate. A white point that lies off the standard Black Body curve can be entered by specifying it in terms of CIE xy instead of as a Kelvin or Daylight value.
To get an idea of how CIE xy values relate to the actual White Point color, try zooming in on the Color Gamut diagram on the Information window. In the example below, the Black Body curve is shown. If for example the display appears to be too green, then the white point should be moved slightly towards the lower right - this corresponds to increasing the CIE x value, and decreasing the y value slightly. Modify the Target White Point values by making small adjustment (for example increments of +/-0.003) and recalibrate the display. Several iterations may be required to find the best values. In addition to this method, the Visual Match tool described in the previous answer can be used to interactively find a visual match between the print and display.
-
Think of it this way: In a print, white is just the absence of ink. There's no way a profile can account for that.
Black is maximum ink - all the paper can hold. It's not true black, and it's not determined by the profile either. It's just as much as the paper can take.
These are your absolute end points. This is what color management will have to work within.
Calibrating a display is setting the stage for the profile. There's no profile yet, but you're defining the environment. You're defining what pure white 255/255/255 will look like, and what pure black 0/0/0 will look like. Screen white isn't really white, and black not really black - except as context.
Now - and this is the tricky part, where you have to trust your eyes: You want the two to match. IOW, you want screen white to equal paper white, and screen black to equal paper black. Obviously this is a moving target where no fixed values can be given - you just need to experiment until you get a visual match. And moreover, they will vary with different papers. One paper is warm, another cool. One high Dmax, another lower.
Ergo - different calibration targets.
With all this set, icc profiles, soft proofing and all the rest can do its thing. White remaps to white; black to black. And the intermediate per channel values are distributed according to the profile.
That's the best I can do...
-
Digitaldog do you also per paper setting on your nec monitor also adjust black point to match the the paper contrast?
-
I, for one, would appreciate a clear and thorough explanation (bonus points if presented in a non-condescending manner) for the thought process and procedures one goes through when calibrating a monitor for individual papers.
... depends a bit on the hardware (monitor & measurment device) and software (calibration software and also image editing software).
The most critical part in all that is "paper white" IMHO. First: your perception of "paper white" depends on the viewing conditions... so the "ambient" light you are using to compare your monitor and your print is critical. This is why viewing boothes are useful (and of course ideally the entire room you are working in should be suited to do color critical work...). If you don't have contolled lighting for image editing/softproofing you should try to create an environment that comes as close as possible to said ideal. And the "ambient"-light should be fairly reproduceable.
Secondly: measurement devices "see" paper white" different than we humans do. Worst case is papers containing optical brighteners measured without UV-cut filter... in this case the measured "white" is actually "blue" (and since it's blue it's also much too dark as a reference).
To overcome non-ideal viewing conditions and "wrong" white points in paper profiles you can softproof without "paper-white" simulation enabled:
1- calibrate your display to match your preferred paper (both whitepoint and luminance) visually. Depending on your monitor & calibration software you can adjust the luminance and white point manually within the software ... otherwise you can use the luminance setting and the RGB-Gain of your display.
2- it's very hard to adjust the white point visually with pure white. Use a print of your prefered paper containing white and different grey patches...
3- softproof settings in Photoshop: set Photoshop's background to white. Softproof dialogue: Rendering Intend: perceptual or rel. colormetric. For the preview disable "paper white simulation" (since your monitor already matches the white point and luminance of your paper the simulation of paper white is not needed anymore). But enable "black ink" simulation so that the actual contrast range of the paper is taken into account.
This approach is not ideal either. But it takes out misleading white points in paper profiles out of the equation.
-
Think of it this way: In a print, white is just the absence of ink. There's no way a profile can account for that.
Black is maximum ink - all the paper can hold. It's not true black, and it's not determined by the profile either. It's just as much as the paper can take.
These are your absolute end points. This is what color management will have to work within.
Calibrating a display is setting the stage for the profile. There's no profile yet, but you're defining the environment. You're defining what pure white 255/255/255 will look like, and what pure black 0/0/0 will look like. Screen white isn't really white, and black not really black - except as context.
Now - and this is the tricky part, where you have to trust your eyes: You want the two to match. IOW, you want screen white to equal paper white, and screen black to equal paper black. Obviously this is a moving target where no fixed values can be given - you just need to experiment until you get a visual match. And moreover, they will vary with different papers. One paper is warm, another cool. One high Dmax, another lower.
Ergo - different calibration targets.
With all this set, icc profiles, soft proofing and all the rest can do its thing. White remaps to white; black to black. And the intermediate per channel values are distributed according to the profile.
That's the best I can do...
Thank you -- this is the clearest simple explanation I have heard yet in this entire discussion. However, where does soft proofing come into this picture? I thought the soft proof was the link which let the display show you more closely what the print will look like, taking into account paper white and black points. If this is wrong, what does the soft proof actually do?
-
Digitaldog do you also per paper setting on your nec monitor also adjust black point to match the the paper contrast?
Yes.
-
Thank you -- this is the clearest simple explanation I have heard yet in this entire discussion. However, where does soft proofing come into this picture? I thought the soft proof was the link which let the display show you more closely what the print will look like, taking into account paper white and black points. If this is wrong, what does the soft proof actually do?
You invoke the soft proof, THEN calibrate the display to match that.
-
Here's a bit of text from the SpectraView manual that may help with respect to why they do what they do…
Think of it this way: In a print, white is just the absence of ink...
Black is maximum ink - all the paper can hold...
Calibrating a display is setting the stage for the profile... You're defining what pure white 255/255/255 will look like, and what pure black 0/0/0 will look like...
...you want screen white to equal paper white, and screen black to equal paper black... you just need to experiment until you get a visual match... they will vary with different papers... Ergo - different calibration targets.
With all this set, icc profiles, soft proofing and all the rest can do its thing. White remaps to white; black to black. And the intermediate per channel values are distributed according to the profile.
...The most critical part in all that is "paper white" IMHO. First: your perception of "paper white" depends on the viewing conditions... so the "ambient" light you are using to compare your monitor and your print is critical... the "ambient"-light should be fairly reproduceable.
Secondly: measurement devices "see" paper white" different than we humans do. Worst case is papers containing optical brighteners measured without UV-cut filter...To overcome non-ideal viewing conditions and "wrong" white points in paper profiles you can softproof without "paper-white" simulation enabled:
1- calibrate your display to match your preferred paper (both whitepoint and luminance) visually. Depending on your monitor & calibration software you can adjust the luminance and white point manually within the software ... otherwise you can use the luminance setting and the RGB-Gain of your display.
2- it's very hard to adjust the white point visually with pure white. Use a print of your prefered paper containing white and different grey patches...
3- softproof settings in Photoshop: set Photoshop's background to white. Softproof dialogue: Rendering Intend: perceptual or rel. colormetric. For the preview disable "paper white simulation" (since your monitor already matches the white point and luminance of your paper the simulation of paper white is not needed anymore). But enable "black ink" simulation so that the actual contrast range of the paper is taken into account.
This approach is not ideal either. But it takes out misleading white points in paper profiles out of the equation.
Thank you!
-
where does soft proofing come into this picture?
The way I would like to phrase this, is that soft proof isn't concerned with black and white points. It doesn't have to. You've already dealt with that in setting the calibration targets, it's already covered. Assuming you use the same paper, that part of it is on permanent soft proof. But you need to change it with a different paper.
Soft proof deals with the other two dimensions in the color space, the chroma components (it may be useful to think in terms of Lab). Of course these are linked in the sense that the calibrated white point also defines neutral. D65 white also means that neutral values all the way down to black are pinned to D65. But again that's a way to define the environment that color management works in.
I don't have a lot of theoretical background in this, nowhere near what Andrew has, and the actual workings may be very different. But this is a way to look at it that I find useful.
-
You invoke the soft proof, THEN calibrate the display to match that.
I'm confused. As soon as you change the calibration of the display, you've changed the appearance of the soft proof. Do you mean that you invoke the soft proof, and then change the calibration of the display until the appearance of the soft proof matches the paper print?
-
I'm confused. As soon as you change the calibration of the display, you've changed the appearance of the soft proof. Do you mean that you invoke the soft proof, and then change the calibration of the display until the appearance of the soft proof matches the paper print?
Yes, the calibration of the display is based on producing a match to the soft proof.
The soft proof is supposed to be such that when you view it instead of the working space, it appears to match the print. So the calibration is based on this preview (soft proof).
-
Yes, the calibration of the display is based on producing a match to the soft proof.
still begs the question if you are refering to softproof with or without "paper white simulation" enabled.
While the approach with "paper white simulation" enabled is of course perfectly fine it requires really good (accurate) white points in the paper profiles you are using to softroof/print. Unfortunately somtimes such profiles are not available.
If you disable "paper white simulation" in the softproof settings (but enable "black ink" simulation) then you just as well calibrate your display to visually match paper white (and its contrast range) ... but you can be sure that there is no measurement "error" that distorts the calibration.
Either way... a visual match per paper is the key...
-
still begs the question if you are refering to softproof with or without "paper white simulation" enabled.
I'm doing it enabled. I'm not certain it would make much difference either way, I have to think about that. The net result is a match.
If you disable "paper white simulation" in the softproof settings (but enable "black ink" simulation) then you just as well calibrate your display to visually match paper white (and its contrast range) ... but you can be sure that there is no measurement "error" that distorts the calibration.
Either way... a visual match per paper is the key...
The advantage with soft proof simulation (with good profiles) is that while you'll still get a visual match either way, the WP adjustment from the display calibration is not as 'strong' or 'intense' so when soft proof isn't on, you don't have to see that effect. The advantage without using simulation is you're doing all the heavy lifting with the display profile. I suppose the capabilities of the calibration software needs to be examined too. SpectraView has something like 3 different methods of adjusting WB and can do so to a very precise degree numerically or visually. The same could be said for black. You can control the contrast ratio in the display or with the profile (or perhaps a bit of both).
Let's say we need a very warm color appearance to match display and paper. We'd see this warmth with or without soft proof if we build this into the display calibration and it would be invoked all the time. If we let the profile do most of the output simulation, with soft proof off, we wouldn't see this warmth. Only when paper simulation is on would the warmth would kick in more strongly than without. Again, we agree that the net result is a match. Using the paper profile as much as possible would take most of the burden off the display calibration which wouldn't be as visible if you're doing work without considering the final output (soft proof) while doing most of the editing. In that mode, the display is more output agnostic and with the soft proof on, it's more output specific.
-
In Lightroom, what is the point of soft-proofing with "Simulate Paper and Ink" unchecked? With this unchecked, I see no change in appearance of an image when I click on "Soft-Proof", regardless of which paper profile is selected.
-
I'm doing it enabled. I'm not certain it would make much difference either way, I have to think about that.
both ways must lead to the same final outcome (in theory as well as in practice).
The advantage with soft proof simulation (with good profiles) is that while you'll still get a visual match either way, the WP adjustment from the display calibration is not as 'strong' or 'intense' so when soft proof isn't on, you don't have to see that effect.
I think it depends on the papers and the respective profiles. With really "good" profiles I would most likely also think about enableing "paper white simulation" as a reference for my monitor calibration.
But personally I am mostly printing in a lab on photo-papers. These do of course contain lots of optical brightners. The guys running the lab make really good profiles (as good as it gets with analogue photo papers and the chemical process). Though they experimented a while with UV-cut filter they came to the conclusion to stay with the conventional way of profiling (so without UV-cut). While the UV-cut filter provided much better (="real world") white points for softproofing the saturation of the actual prints never came as close as with the profiles created without UV-cut. The UV-cut prints somehow looked "lifeless". For whatever reason.
I've also seen quite some vendor profiles for inkjet prints that showed green or magenta cast. "Paper white simulation" with such profiles is a pretty fruitless venture. This is why I think the main advantage of softproofing without "paper white simulation" is it makes you pretty immune against "bad" profiles (and it takes out one unknown variable out of the process).
-
In Lightroom, what is the point of soft-proofing with "Simulate Paper and Ink" unchecked? With this unchecked, I see no change in appearance of an image when I click on "Soft-Proof", regardless of which paper profile is selected.
In LR you can't seperate "paper white simulation" from "black ink simulation" (at least not in LR4... which is the latest version I am familar with). So either you turn on "softproof" (wich enables both "paper white" and "black ink" simulation... since this is the "academical" correct way... so the way softproofing should work in theory).
So when unchecked in LR you are only previewing a relative colormetric color space conversion to your printer profile (and since you see no change in the appearance of your image it either fits within the gamut of the printer... or both the image and the printer profile fit within the gamut of your monitor profile).
-
With really "good" profiles I would most likely also think about enableing "paper white simulation" as a reference for my monitor calibration.
I only use really good profiles. ;D
OBA's are a huge PITA. I just did a project with a paper who's bStar was -7! I had both UV cut and UV included data. For reasons I can't go into, I used UV cut due to the huge bStar value and all images expect the Roman 16 high key neutral image looked spot on. That one image under Fluorescent was real cool. Using UV included didn't help much either, time to start with the X-rite OBA visual compensation. This wasn't even a soft proofing issue, as yet, the output with that excessive OBA content was affecting mostly mid and high key neutrals.
Anytime excessive OBA's come onto the scene, trouble and extra futzing around is required.
-
I only use really good profiles. ;D
this is what I have expected... otherwise you would go nuts with your approach :-)
OBA's are a huge PITA (...) Anytime excessive OBA's come onto the scene, trouble and extra futzing around is required.
indeed.
The issue is also that the "blue" white and the "blue" black (without UV-cut) lead to a wrong representation of the luminance-levels (contrast ratio). "Blue" is darker than white and a blueish "black" is actually too bright. UV-cut on the other hand takes away the "energy" of the optical brightener. So one way or another fine-tuning (manual/visual adjustment) is required.
I am glad I don't have to create printer profiles :-)
-
Using the paper profile as much as possible would take most of the burden off the display calibration which wouldn't be as visible if you're doing work without considering the final output (soft proof) while doing most of the editing. In that mode, the display is more output agnostic and with the soft proof on, it's more output specific.
That makes sense. Philosophically, I like the idea of device independence in the monitor calibration, with dependence on the particular printer/paper combination taken care of by the soft proof mechanism. But apparently you do not find this sufficiently accurate?
-
That makes sense. Philosophically, I like the idea of device independence in the monitor calibration, with dependence on the particular printer/paper combination taken care of by the soft proof mechanism. But apparently you do not find this sufficiently accurate?
The problem with paper white simulation when softproofing is that all palettes or tools or ANYTHING on your monitor that is pure white will seriously affect your perception of the softproof (the softproof will always look "colored" if there is anything "whiter than white" on your screen). This alone is reason enough to adjust your display to visually match paper white (either way which approach you are choosing to start with).
The basic concept is really striking: adjust your monitor to look exactly as your paper ... and there will be nothing that is irritating or distracting.
Once you are there the only remaining issue is the adaption to the blackpoint. When you are working with a paper with a very low contrast you won't turn down the luminance too much (doesn't make sense anyway)... you have to lift the blackpoint. And it takes some time and also some test-printing to get used to a "black" that you initially would at best accept as a "grey".
What Andrew is talking about is a perfect match of monitor and print. And if this is what you are really aiming at you have to tweak your monitor for each paper individually. There is no better way. And it requires some work and effort.
But if you can accept small (sometimes maybe only minute) differences... than you can just as well work with an "averaged" monitor calibration: Adjust your monitor to match a "reference" paper (coated paper used in quaility catalogues for example... or simply your favorite photo-paper) and "estimate" how much "warmer" or "cooler" a certain other paper is. If you do so softproofing without "paper white simulation" (but with "black ink" simulation) is the easier (more fail-safe) way in any case.
-
Philosophically, I like the idea of device independence in the monitor calibration, with dependence on the particular printer/paper combination taken care of by the soft proof mechanism. But apparently you do not find this sufficiently accurate?
Again, one size doesn't fit all. With SpectraView, I can have as many as I want. I can build a general calibration that is output agnostic using the widest gamut and sufficiently bright for editing in an RGB working space, or I can emulate sRGB or setup a calibration for Luster paper going out to my Epson. That's the beauty of the system. Without this capability, you pick one target and you have to live with it. If the the soft proof doesn't match the print sufficiently, you either have to alter the calibration so it does (potentially at the cost of other uses) or live with a soft proof mismatch.
-
The problem with paper white simulation when softproofing is that all palettes or tools or ANYTHING on your monitor that is pure white will seriously affect your perception of the softproof (the softproof will always look "colored" if there is anything "whiter than white" on your screen).
Yes, I wish Adobe would fix that so we don't have to work in Full Screen mode. And better would be a gradual application of the soft proof like we see in Lightroom.
What I do now is have my mouse over the Customized Proof Setup I desire, turn my head so I'm not viewing the display and click the button. By the time I turn back, the soft proof looks OK. It's that alarming change going from no paper white to paper white that caused Jeff Schewe to nickname this the "Make my image look like crap button"
As for as full screen mode, the only time I'm really seriously looking this way is when I want to view print then display so I'm not editing. But it would be great if Adobe would work on making it so we could edit and see the soft proof without the white of the UI being an issue. To their defense, while they could probably alter the white of the palettes and such, there's the menu bar of the OS they have no control over.
-
Yes, I wish Adobe would fix that so we don't have to work in Full Screen mode (...) it would be great if Adobe would work on making it so we could edit and see the soft proof without the white of the UI being an issue.
Now, that would be a really, really great and useful feature!! Count me in for Adobe's next survey :-)
What I do now is have my mouse over the Customized Proof Setup I desire, turn my head so I'm not viewing the display and click the button. By the time I turn back, the soft proof looks OK. It's that alarming change going from no paper white to paper white that caused Jeff Schewe to nickname this the "Make my image look like crap button"
:-)) haven't heard that one...
Sometimes humans and technique seem to be a bad match. If you consider it takes us humans around 15 minutes (in average) to really adapt to a different white point it is at least not a stretch to state that color management is still in its infancy (well... at least when using color managment sometimes it may seem so ... see your example of turning your head away so that you don't have to see the switch in white points. Funny image: there's an imaging-professional sitting in front of his perfectly tuned high-end equipment ... and trying to fool himself just to get the work done properly :-)) ... ).