Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: robgo2 on September 27, 2015, 03:53:56 pm
-
Over at The Online Photographer, Ctein has recently been advocating using "printer manages color" rather than a software driver with custom paper profiles. This is contrary to everything that many of us have learned and believed about fine printing. Is Ctein right, or has he gone off the rails?
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/09/product-review-epson-surecolor-p800-printer.html
Rob
-
Note that Ctein is discussing his results with one particular printer and a small number of papers. I take his word for it…the guy knows from printing! What works…works. Nevertheless if I were to buy the printer in question—a likely occurence in the mid-future—I'd still experiment for myself, as I always do. In the end beliefs, claims & traditions mean nothing in the face of evidence & experience.
-Dave-
-
Over at The Online Photographer, Ctein has recently been advocating using "printer manages color" rather than a software driver with custom paper profiles.
Rob
Not quite if you read the caveats. The Mac users I know of have for years been putting a extra print through with "printer manages colour" for comparison's sake. Sometimes they like the result better. It's a moot point on Windows
-
He made this claim a couple of months ago in relation to his 3880:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/are-profiles-obsolete.html
but Andrew Rodney and Dave Polaschek convinced him otherwise:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/andrew-rodney-on-the-importance-of-custom-printer-profiles.html
Seems he's reverted to his original position. I'm not convinced, although I can image that printer manages colour may work well enough for some images.
The Windows issue with printer manages colour, resulting in an unwanted conversion to sRGB, was discussed in a thread about Printfab. If you're printing with Printfab and want it to manage the colours, then to stop Photoshop converting the image to sRGB you have to set the printer profile to be the document profile, and ignore what turns out to be a hollow warning from Photoshop:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103432.0
-
He made this claim a couple of months ago in relation to his 3880:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/are-profiles-obsolete.html
but Andrew Rodney and Dave Polaschek convinced him otherwise:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2015/07/andrew-rodney-on-the-importance-of-custom-printer-profiles.html
Seems he's reverted to his original position. I'm not convinced, although I can image that printer manages colour may work well enough for some images.
The Windows issue with printer manages colour, resulting in an unwanted conversion to sRGB, was discussed in a thread about Printfab. If you're printing with Printfab and want it to manage the colours, then to stop Photoshop converting the image to sRGB you have to set the printer profile to be the document profile, and ignore what turns out to be a hollow warning from Photoshop:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=103432.0
Yes, I read that initial post followed by his about-face, but now Ctein has made another 180 degree turn. It seems counterintuitive to believe that the properties of a given paper have no relevance to the final print, but that seems to be his current position. Soft proofing, he says, is a waste of time. Just let the printer do its thing, and you will get better output. But any good scientist knows that experimental evidence must be reproducible before it can be accepted as true. Hence, we need other "experts" and ordinary users to test his claim. As for myself, I am putting my money (literally) on ImagePrint and its profiles until I see convincing evidence that I should not.
Rob
-
Yes, I read that initial post followed by his about-face, but now Ctein has made another 180 degree turn. It seems counterintuitive to believe that the properties of a given paper have no relevance to the final print, but that seems to be his current position. Soft proofing, he says, is a waste of time. Just let the printer do its thing, and you will get better output. But any good scientist knows that experimental evidence must be reproducible before it can be accepted as true. Hence, we need other "experts" and ordinary users to test his claim. As for myself, I am putting my money (literally) on ImagePrint and its profiles until I see convincing evidence that I should not.
Rob
This is not one of his defining moments where he is demonstrating his advanced knowledge of real world printing. Switching opinions like he has would IMO underline his ignorance. He may be a great photographer, I do not know, but his expertise in the print is at this point very debatable.
PS I remember on Silicon Investor, back in its heyday, I did something similar to this without thinking it through. As a consequence, I had received allot of negative feedback, and this caused a hit to my reputation. I imagine this is what is going to happen to him. :(
Bob
-
This is not one of his defining moments where he is demonstrating his advanced knowledge of real world printing. Switching opinions like he has would IMO underline his ignorance. He may be a great photographer, I do not know, but his expertise in the print is at this point very debatable.
PS I remember on Silicon Investor, back in its heyday, I did something similar to this without thinking it through. As a consequence, I had received allot of negative feedback, and this caused a hit to my reputation. I imagine this is what is going to happen to him. :(
Bob
Ctein says that his definitive article on the subject will be forthcoming soon. I expect there will be much pushback and a lively discussion. Ultimately, he will have to publish samples to prove his point, but those samples may become targets for naysayers who will rebut with their own samples. It should be interesting.
Rob
-
Not quite if you read the caveats. The Mac users I know of have for years been putting a extra print through with "printer manages colour" for comparison's sake. Sometimes they like the result better. It's a moot point on Windows
Hmm, I never do that. Too much wasted time and paper.
Rob
-
Soft proofing, he says, is a waste of time.
Rob
I did not read the changes yet there but on this I can agree, at least when reproducing originals I think proof prints are needed, the more when your customer gets the two pieces for control. Preferably with matching viewing and display lights. Soft proofing is nice on subjects you can not compare the print with, like the landscape 5000 miles away. Edit the image as you think it should look like.
There is also the printer profile structure, the parts used for soft proofing or printing can be edited separately and both at input or output. This is not often discussed and many color gurus see profile editing as a rescue of an already broken profile. I agree more if it is on the printing part but wonder about the soft proofing part. Kodak Colorflow Custom Color Tools has a good description of this in the manual. Not available on the web I am afraid. A reference by Andrew; http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200503_rodneycm.pdf
The software is not compatible with any recent OS I think.
Edit; After reading the parts on color management in that printer review I think Ctein generalizes too much based on this printer experience. Certainly on the Windows limitation to sRGB when printer CM is selected. Other Windows printer drivers than the P800 driver show a much wider range of RGB spaces and even CMYK color spaces to choose from if the printer color management route is selected.
It would not surprise me if the reviewed Epson printer has improved driver CM LUTs etc for "AdobeRGB" space prints when AdobeRGB images are fed to it, OS-X only then. I wonder whether the next P800 is as consistent for the next user. What surprises me more is that he does not find the media preset choice important, not for third party papers either. Either the papers he used did not differ much and the Epson media presets differ little. Another thought, if Epson gave more choices of color spaces in the OS-X driver and improved the printer color management one may wonder whether it got frustrated with the OS-X interference on CM in the last decade.
We have to wait for the article but I also wonder whether he now advises to use the monitor manufacturer's calibration/profile for AdobeRGB instead of a custom calibration/profiling. There would be some analogy to this printer color management advice.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Hmm, I never do that. Too much wasted time and paper.
Rob
That last bit on every roll that usually can't be used I cut into A4 sheets. Very handy for checking things like rendering intent. It's never proved a waste of time, on the contrary.
-
There must be something I don't understand. I thought that whether you used your printing program to manage colors or the printer driver, they would use the same icc profile. Why then would the results differ? Is this not true?
-
There must be something I don't understand. I thought that whether you used your printing program to manage colors or the printer driver, they would use the same icc profile. Why then would the results differ? Is this not true?
The printer uses a media/paper type, not a specific profile. However, if Ctein is right in his recommendations, it may mean that there is little practical difference.
Rob
-
About 6 years ago I did tests with "photoshop manages colors" and "printer manages colors" and the results from the "printer manages colors" was superior. There was more "POP" in the results and details in the shadows. Since that time I have always used "printer manages colors". I have a 9900 and print only on Epson Exhibition matte canvas with matte black ink.
Gar
-
Is Ctein right, or has he gone off the rails?
For the prints he tested, he's right (it's his prints, I've never seen them in person). Otherwise, for those that want to soft proof (something he says doesn't work for him so take that as a data point!), those that want to control OOG gamut mapping via soft proof and selection of the Rendering Intent, post edit based on that soft proof, use ACE or BPC, he's in need of a rail alignment IMHO. :o
-
Hence, we need other "experts" and ordinary users to test his claim.
That's exactly the advise I advised Ctein to suggest to his readers (did he?). Run a test both ways with a number of difficult, wide gamut and non wide gamut reference images, make your own decisions. See how it affects your workflow. For someone who fails to produce an effective soft proof, the idea of color management becomes less useful begging the question, does soft proofing not work or just not work for some.....
-
About 6 years ago I did tests with "photoshop manages colors" and "printer manages colors" and the results from the "printer manages colors" was superior. There was more "POP" in the results and details in the shadows. Since that time I have always used "printer manages colors". I have a 9900 and print only on Epson Exhibition matte canvas with matte black ink.
Gar
Even so, doesn't this just beg the question as to which print version more closely resembles your on-screen version? Presumably, if you soft proof an image, you could dial in more pop and shadow detail, but it would be under your control, not the printer's. In any event, the printer cannot exceed its inherent gamut limits. I think that the great unknown in soft proofing may be the quality of the profile. I would welcome comments on this point from others.
Rob
-
There must be something I don't understand. I thought that whether you used your printing program to manage colors or the printer driver, they would use the same icc profile. Why then would the results differ? Is this not true?
I doubt that it is the case for all drivers' CM systems. What I understand is that printer driver's color management relies on driver or firmware baked in Look Up Tables for the conversion of assumed color spaces (sRGB, AdobeRGB and sometimes more spaces) with a fixed rendering type. The user has to specify the color space to be expected by the driver and make sure the image has that color space assigned. So simple color management aboard that does not even read the assigned color space. No more LUTs than the number media presets aboard either, maybe even less and so aimed at OEM media. I can not interpret the driver menu selections otherwise and the driver does not differ in choices when it is approached from an application without any color management aboard. I actually think that printer driver manages color is intended for that use. It could be that some drivers check the OS profile archive but that still does not give rendering choices or the use of custom profiles. One of things that make Ctein's advice so dangerous is that we do not know how sophisticated a driver CM is. Printer manufacturers do not inform users on the details either as I guess they think it is there for the great unwashed, another approach to fool proof color management.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
That's exactly the advise I advised Ctein to suggest to his readers (did he?). Run a test both ways with a number of difficult, wide gamut and non wide gamut reference images, make your own decisions. See how it affects your workflow. For someone who fails to produce an effective soft proof, the idea of color management becomes less useful begging the question, does soft proofing not work or just not work for some.....
I have a color managed workflow, and I can't get good enough soft proofing to put me anywhere but merely in the ballpark as to the final print appearance with my Epson 3880, using any paper. (I am perfectly willing to admit that my equipment, Dell U3011 and Spdyer Pro 3 are not the best.). I rely on a series of work prints to get me where I want to end up (it usually takes me 3 to get to final) and I have to believe that is the case for most of us here who are going for more that just "good enough" (which I can usually hit on the first try, applying the adjustments I know a particular paper will require based on my experience.
And I think that is Ctein's point; the difference between using printer manages color or not comes down to a decision of what looks better for the final look you are heading towards in the print, no different than choosing between choosing between a canned or custom printer/paper profile, or deciding with rendering intent you are going to use, and no matter what you do, or how good your profiling is, what you see on the screen will never match the print exactly because they are two very different media.
I think the guy has been printing long enough and at a high enough level so that he can make an informed decision about the optimal workflow for his needs.
-
I have a color managed workflow, and I can't get good enough soft proofing to put me anywhere but merely in the ballpark as to the final print appearance with my Epson 3880, using any paper. (I am perfectly willing to admit that my equipment, Dell U3011 and Spdyer Pro 3 are not the best.). I rely on a series of work prints to get me where I want to end up (it usually takes me 3 to get to final) and I have to believe that is the case for most of us here who are going for more that just "good enough" (which I can usually hit on the first try, applying the adjustments I know a particular paper will require based on my experience.
I'm curious as to what papers and profiles you use. Also, if you were to switch to letting the printer manage color, how many work prints do you estimate would be required to get the desired result. The only way to answer the question is to run your own trials. At least with a color managed workflow, you usually get in the ballpark on the first try.
Rob
-
The printer uses a media/paper type, not a specific profile. However, if Ctein is right in his recommendations, it may mean that there is little practical difference.
Rob
I don't know about windows, but on the Mac, when you select "printer manages color" you also have to go to the "color matching" menu in the driver interface. The default is "Colorsync" which then calls the corresponding Epson supplied ICC profile based on what you also chose as your media setting. However, Ctein is choosing the other option. Under the color matching menu, he is selecting "Epson color matching", often simply called "vendor matching" if one is using a printer other than an Epson.
There's a long backstory on this issue so I will be keen to read Ctein's upcoming "Part II" of the story once he posts it on T.O.P. But, to bring you up to speed you should go to this Ctein article first:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/09/kinda-interesting.html
That said, I will share some personal correspondence, as objectively as I can, that I had very recently with Ctein, and let you begin to draw your own conclusions. Ctein kindly sent me the source file that produced the print he likes using Epson color controls rather than ICC profiles. I replicated his result very nicely using printer manages color/Epson color controls on my Epson P600. So, printer-to-printer color consistency across Epson's P series of printers seems to be quite good. I also replicated the fact that a custom built profile applied via "PS manages color" made with PM5 using its "logo Colorful" rendering recipe indeed exacerbated the famous "blue-turns-purple" color reproduction problem in the image in question, and it produced an inferior "out of the box" print compared to the "printer managed color" version. The source file was also very difficult to fix with further edits in a soft proofing mode unless one was wiling to take heroic steps in Photoshop.
However, I then switched to a custom built PM5 profile using its original "logo classic" rendering recipe, and it gave me a much better starting point for the necessary additional edits ("classic" favors accuracy in tone over accuracy in colorfulness whereas logo colorful favors colorfulness at the expense of tonal accuracy). I didn't go much further with my experimentation than that, but I did convince myself this file can be successfully edited with an ICC workflow if you know what idiosyncracies to avoid in the perceptual and relative rendering flavors of various ICC profiles (yes, even relcol should be considered another vendor biased flavor of rendering), and you have competent PS editing skills. I applied a selective color layer followed by an additional hue/sat layer to get it looking good in a soft proof without the obvious cyan-blue magenta-blue hue shifting. In our subsequent discussions, Ctein did tell me he made numerous attempts to get a good print from an ICC profiled workflow, and was unable to do so. I wasn't really seeing that problem once I elected to use the Logo classic recipe, but this does beg the question: If you don't roll your own custom profiles and have a few profile making options in your bag of tricks, how good are generic profiles for the majority of printmakers who have to rely on vendor supplied canned profiles? Hence, I can't really disagree with Ctein doubling down on the virtues of his printer manages color workflow for the typical photographer who wants to bring printing in house. For many photographers just starting out in printmaking, it might be a great way to go on an Epson printer, but at the same time I do worry that painting ICC profiled workflows with such a broad brush is doing a disservice to Ctein's larger audience. Anyway, different strokes for different folks.
In further discussions, Ctein confirmed that he had made other specific color moves on the original scan in order to achieve what he desired in his "printer managed" workflow. Fair enough, but I will simply state this fact: On my calibrated wide gamut NEC Spectraview II monitor, his edited source file clearly already exhibits the classic "blue turns purple" reproduction problem baked right into it. Ctein appears to be using a factory calibrated IMAC 4K retina machine, so I'm not sure whether he sees this color error. The file was aRGB (the Spectraview shows 99% of that colorspace, whereas the IMAC is much closer to sRGB and may mask this color error for all I know). Anyway, the color error didn't just mysteriously appear in the final ICC profiled print. It is in the aRGB tagged image file Ctein sent to me. I also verified the hue shifting in the light beams of the image in question (see the article cited above) using the PS info tool set to LAB readouts. An absolutely perfect source-to-destination image reproduction pathway would dutifully reproduce the unwanted hue shift which exists in the source file, thus much of Ctein's empirical findings on printer manages colors should be understood in the context of a carefully edited image being expressly edited on an sRGB-like monitor for printing within the confines of a closed loop Epson printer system. Attempting a printer manages color approach for this file on any other printer brand would very likely lead to entirely different conclusions.
I hope Ctein wouldn't strongly disagree with my remarks I have made here, but he did say to me my findings about the source file color error are not germane to his particular printmaking environment. According to him, the fact that epson color controls are fixing his edited image's color errors in the night sky and that he can make easier edits to the file his way than with ICC profiles is indeed a fortunate outcome for him and for this challenging image. Hard to argue him, I guess. Still, I'm am very curious to know why from a technical perspective. My best guess is that the differences in the two methodologies are probably related to Epson's own hardwired internal rgb to CMYK mapping of the color space which probably bypasses a conventional PCS (profile connection space) used in the ICC color management approach. The PCS does indeed get weird in the blue sector because it's an inherent weakness in the CIE color model, hence one really does need to rely heavily on soft proofing when dealing with these rich deep blue gradients in today's digital imaging world or be prepared to make a lot of iterative prints to get what you want.
To summarize, Ctein's recommendation to use printer manages color on your Epson printer is unquestionably an easy workflow to master if you own an Epson printer and stick with select papers and media settings. However, I still personally prefer the outstanding practical merits of soft proofing and in open rather than closed loop color management approach, because I routinely print on different printer brands and with many different paper choices. There is no Epson color control setting on my Canon iPF8300. ;D
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
If you know what idiosyncracies to avoid in the perceptual and relative rendering flavors of various ICC profiles (yes, even relcol should be considered another vendor biased flavor of rendering), and you have competent PS editing skills.
Here's the differences in RelCol using identical spectral data with two products (i1Profiler and Copra):
--------------------------------------------------
dE Report
Number of Samples: 988
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (988 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.92
Max dE: 7.09
Min dE: 0.02
StdDev dE: 1.08
Best 90% - (888 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 0.61
Max dE: 2.01
Min dE: 0.02
StdDev dE: 0.47
Worst 10% - (100 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE: 3.60
Max dE: 7.09
Min dE: 2.07
StdDev dE: 1.28
--------------------------------------------------
935 patches converted without Dither in PS using the two profiles set for RelCol.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/i1PvsCopraRelColReport.jpg)
-
Here's the differences in RelCol using identical spectral data with two products (i1Profiler and Copra):
Andrew, I not withstanding the one patch with dE = 7 variance, i agree those two profile apps have excellent agreement between them. Yet I see much greater variance in logo Colorful versus logo Classic in their relcol tags, not just there perceptual tags (which would be expected). I suspect many third party media vendors still use this older PM5 software due to it's more liberal licensing. I also think if you open this comparative anaysyis up to Canon, Datacolor, Monaco, and others profile making apps, you are going to find more of what I was referring to in the performance of the relcol tag. I could be wrong, but relcol definitely wasn't best choice for Ctein's Apollo Soyuz image. Logo Classic Perceptual was my much preferred choice if I had to fix Ctein's image using a PS manages color approach.
I just bought i1Pro2 and have not had a chance to put i1Profiler through it's paces yet. Maybe I will find something new, but for now, I'm very familiar with PM5's three rendering recipes, and I routinely alternate between Colorful and Classic depending on image, and in this regard, this give me four flavors to try, 2 perceptual an 2 relcol variations because the relcol tags don't produce the same rendering. Go figure.
best,
Mark
-
Andrew, I not withstanding the one patch with dE = 7 variance, i agree those two profile apps have excellent agreement between them. Yet I see much greater variance in logo Colorful versus logo Classic in their relcol tags, not just there perceptual tags (which would be expected). I suspect many third party media vendors still use this older PM5 software due to it's more liberal licensing. I also think if you open this comparative anaysyis up to Canon, Datacolor, Monaco, and others profile making apps, you are going to find more of what I was referring to in the performance of the relcol tag. I could be wrong, but relcol definitely wasn't best choice for Ctein's Apollo Soyuz image. Logo Classic Perceptual was my much preferred choice if I had to fix Ctein's image using a PS manages color approach.
I just bought i1Pro2 and have not had a chance to put i1Profiler through it's paces yet. Maybe I will find something new, but for now, I'm very familiar with PM5's three rendering recipes, and I routinely alternate between Colorful and Classic depending on image, and in this regard, this give me four flavors to try, 2 perceptual an d2 relcols because the relcol tags don't produce the same rendering. Go figure.
best,
Mark
"According to him, the fact that epson color controls are fixing his edited image's color errors in the night sky and that he can make easier edits to the file his way than with ICC profiles is indeed a fortunate outcome for him and for this challenging image. Hard to argue him, I guess. Still, I'm am very curious to know why from a technical perspective. "
Perhaps more realistically speaking, something gets converted to sRGB before the image is printed?
The following is just my limited knowledge. I think that with the error stats between the two profiles, adding the possible error stats of each profile itself, depending on which profile is used, together with a possible Delta-E of up to one for the i1Pro (Chromix statement), to me says that at least one of those profiles can be IMHO virtually unusable. But I may be wrong here. Still, this may be an issue on how the profiler was configured, as stated earlier.
As an aside, what is this infamous "blue turns purple"? What causes it? I have had this problem many times in the past.
Thank you!
Bob
PS Now I can see the advantage of a wide gamut display using the equivalent color space, aRGB, which also encompasses most of the actual printers gamut. But then some suggest ProPhoto.
-
I think one of the greatest misconceptions of color-managed printer workflows is that they will just... work. Get yourself a nice monitor, profile it with a Spyder or an i1, use good printer profiles, pay attention to color management throughout the workflow, and you're good to go.
Didn't work for me. For years I'd see variance between what I saw on the screen - on my dutifully profiled monitor - and what came out of the printer. What you end up doing is, like Ctein, throwing darts at the wall. Something eventually works. Usually.
The epiphany for me was nine months ago when I bought two things I had resisted for years and years: An Eizo CG monitor; and a GTI viewing station.
I used Dell monitors for many years. And then Apple. Great panels, I thought. Evaluating prints was done in, well, whatever decent light I could find.
What I discovered was that the "color-managed" workflow I had carefully applied for so many years... wasn't so much. It was a revelation to find that you can, indeed, have a soft proof sitting there on your monitor and that what soon comes out of your printer is so close it's almost eerie. Instead of throwing darts at a wall - "let's print this one and see if it's any better" - you make changes in your editing software. You may or may not like what is staring back at you, at what the soft proof is telling you - Jeff Schewe in his book aptly called the soft proof option "make my print look like shit," or words to that effect. But the job of a proper soft proof is to impose the same constraints on contrast and dMax and luminosity that that paper you've chosen is going to give you. Its job is to be honest.
There are a bunch of crazy good monitors out there nowadays. 4K and retina and all that other good stuff.
Only, they ain't. To my knowledge, there are only two monitors sold to consumers that will accurately render pretty much all of aRGB, at the luminance and contrast levels that paper will ultimately present: the NEC Spectraview and the Eizo CG.
Ctein needs a new monitor.
-
As an aside, what is this infamous "blue turns purple"? What causes it? I have had this problem many times in the past.
Take a look at the attached image. It is in sRGB colorspace, but it first started out as a LAB image when I created it. It is fully in gamut for the sRGB color space, so if you convert back to LAB in PS and vice versa, it's not going to change in image appearance. And it should reproduce reasonably well on just about any calibrated display since all modern ones can reasonably render sRGB colorspace these days. I used the CIELAB color model to make the target. The goal was to create one single blue color of constant hue while varying lightness and chroma from black to very nearly white tonal gradient, all the while staying neatly within the sRGB color gamut. This target accomplishes that feat as far as the LAB color model is concerned. Mathematically in the LAB color space it has a constant hue. Yet to the human observer with reasonable color vision, the hue doesn't look the same as we go from the most vivid "cobalt blue" hue down to the lower chroma desaturated colors which inevitably have to occur when one heads toward pure white or pure black in any RGB color space. As the color desaturates it turns more purplish blue in appearance. Thus, in practice, vivid blue colors that are out of gamut or nearly out of gamut start getting remapped to lower chroma purplish blue colors as we attempt to remap this part of the color space into the printer color space. The cause of this, IMHO, is that the CIE color model, while incredibly good at mimicking human color vision under controlled lighting conditions, is not perfect. The biggest errors occur in the blue sector of the color wheel. There are lesser errors in yellow-red as I recall, but the one that trips up faithful digital image reproduction more often than not is in the blue sector.
I personally believe the problem stems from the CIE committee's use of a simple cubic power function to model the lightness curve of the human visual system. It's a pretty good approximation that makes the math easier, but work done in the 1950s by Bartleson and Brenneman at Eastman Kodak showed a more nuanced set of human "brightness curves" and lateral adaptation to scene luminance values that deviate significantly from the simpler cubic equation. Most profiling packages attempt to "fix" the problem by various fudge factors used in the perceptual rendering tables, but IMHO, it could be more elegantly fixed by eventually updating the lightness power function in the CIE math. Yeah, I know, that will take a lot of time. Someone please give me a a nice institutional grant to go off into the wilderness for a couple of years and work on it. ;D
Anyway, Ctein's Apollo Soyuz image is a great example of the blue turns purple issue in digital color reproduction (probably one of the very best examples I've seen) creeping into not only printer drivers and ICC profiles, but also very likely in the scanner output when the image was converted from film to digital. We expect the search light beams to be of a constant hue as they trail off into the night sky. That's what Ctein wanted to reproduce, not an unrealistic cyanish-blue to magenta blue transition that began in the file, and can either get amplified or nullified depending on the printer color conversion pathway. Ctein liked the nullified output that the Epson color controls gave him on his image. But print this target if you like using the Epson color controls. I did. This target's cyanish blues and purplish blues should all be preserved if we want an accurate rendition of this target image. We should reproduce the color gradient exactly. However, the Epson color controls start to "fix" this hue gradient, presumably because Epson engineers who constructed the embedded LUTS in the Epson color controls decided that this hue shift more often than not represents an unwanted error in the original file (as it was in Ctein's image) rather than a truly intended color gradient (as it is in this target image).
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
This is all excellent information! I have a question. how did you compress the color informatiin to be within the bounds of sRGB?
Bob
-
Ctein needs a new monitor.
Yep...when you get a quality display, you can use soft proofing very well. Most of the people who argue that soft proofing doesn't work are using cheap-ass displays. It's really hard to use a display that barely has sRGB and expect soft proofing to work. I can do it in a pinch but I much prefer my NEC displays. Sadly many of the "experts" don't use quality displays and don't really believe soft proofing works. It does and does so very well.
-
This is all excellent information! I have a question. how did you compress the color informatiin to be within the bounds of sRGB?
Bob
How I made that target is definitely not rocket science. A bit color geeky, but I believe I could teach the required steps to just about any one participating in this forum. It's just that it has a fair number of steps, and requires an additional explanation on how to use a hue-slice tool I created for photoshop, thus would require a more formal write-up then seems fitting for today's forum discussion. I've already been long-winded enough in my previous posts. I'm going to give you guys a break :)
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
The following is just my limited knowledge. I think that with the error stats between the two profiles, adding the possible error stats of each profile itself, depending on which profile is used, together with a possible Delta-E of up to one for the i1Pro (Chromix statement), to me says that at least one of those profiles can be IMHO virtually unusable. But I may be wrong here. Still, this may be an issue on how the profiler was configured, as stated earlier.
Don't understand. There's no error per se, there are differences and in theory, a RelCol conversion should be the same. It's not.
As an aside, what is this infamous "blue turns purple"? What causes it? I have had this problem many times in the past.
A lot has to do with the warts in Lab color space. More modern profilers adjust for this in their color engines, better, more modern profilers should not show this issue (much or at all).
-
Yep...when you get a quality display, you can use soft proofing very well. Most of the people who argue that soft proofing doesn't work are using cheap-ass displays. It's really hard to use a display that barely has sRGB and expect soft proofing to work. I can do it in a pinch but I much prefer my NEC displays. Sadly many of the "experts" don't use quality displays and don't really believe soft proofing works. It does and does so very well.
Speaking of displays, I am using a 23" Apple Cinema Display, which is about 8 years old. What are the best current displays for the purpose of editing photos? Are the new high resolution displays unsuitable for reasons of limited color space? Is a new generation right around the corner?
Rob
-
What are the best current displays for the purpose of editing photos?
I use NEC and I successfully soft proof with it.
-
I use NEC and I successfully soft proof with it.
+1 NEC Spectraview
-
I use NEC and I successfully soft proof with it.
+2, for mean years. It's a critical component for successful soft proofing. That and calibrating to that goal which I'm not sure is happening in this case.
-
+3 NEC Spectraview
-
+3 NEC Spectraview
+4! NEC wide gamut monitor with NEC Spectraview colorimeter.
This combination never lets me down unless I do something stupid in soft proofing.
I should also point out that I don't print client but make prints for myself. I seldom expect perfect color mapping. When skin tones look acceptable other slight color variations in clothing, etc. don't upset me.
Skies with heavy gradients can be upsetting so I go back to PS and back off on the density of gradient layer and that usually makes me happy. 99.9% of the time people viewing a print won't notice slight color errors anyway.
Don Bryant
-
+4 Spectraview
I've used the 27" Nec display with Spectraview software for about 5 years now and have found it excellent and very consistent and a great value.
I make all my icc profiles with the i 1 Pro 2 X-Rite package.
What I have found over the years is that the soft proofing for all the gloss and sen-gloss papers I use, whether fiber based or rc is really excellent from my display to the hard proof, and that includes the hue and tone of the paper base.
What I have found not so perfect is the paper base luminance on the screen when using matte media, like Canson Rag Photographique, Hahnemuhle rag media, as well as the coated kozo type papers or various fabrics. For me the soft proof on the screen is falling somewhere between having the paper white box checked on and having it checked off. I find the soft proof looks a little flat in the paper base with the paper white box checked on and too bright with it unchecked. So, I'm thinking somewhere between the two when using most matte media on all my printers. But it is definitely better in all cases using soft proofing than not using it at all! I am reluctant to share my profiles with clients who have poorly calibrated or cheaper displays. Even on my Apple displays I find soft proofing on matte media quite a bit less accurate than with the NEC.
john
+3 NEC Spectraview
-
+5 Spectraview
I've used the 27" Nec display with Spectraview software for about 5 years now and have found it excellent and very consistent and a great value.
I make all my icc profiles with the i 1 Pro 2 X-Rite package.
What I have found over the years is that the soft proofing for all the gloss and semi-gloss papers I use, whether fiber based or rc is really excellent from my display to the hard proof, and that includes the hue and tone of the paper base.
What I have found not so perfect is the paper base luminance on the screen when using matte media, like Canson Rag Photographique, Hahnemuhle rag media, as well as the coated kozo type papers or various fabrics. For me the soft proof on the screen is falling somewhere between having the paper white box checked on and having it checked off. I find the soft proof looks a little flat in the paper base with the paper white box checked on and too bright with it unchecked. So, I'm thinking somewhere between the two when using most matte media on all my printers. But it is definitely better in all cases using soft proofing than not using it at all! I am reluctant to share my profiles with clients who have poorly calibrated or cheaper displays. Even on my Apple displays I find soft proofing on matte media quite a bit less accurate than with the NEC.
I use somewhere in the realm of 2300 patches for the profiles.
john
-
Yep...when you get a quality display, you can use soft proofing very well. Most of the people who argue that soft proofing doesn't work are using cheap-ass displays. It's really hard to use a display that barely has sRGB and expect soft proofing to work. I can do it in a pinch but I much prefer my NEC displays. Sadly many of the "experts" don't use quality displays and don't really believe soft proofing works. It does and does so very well.
I agree with Jeff. Four years ago I got 2 NEC wide-gamut displays, Spectraview software, and a good puck. Within half a day I had my Epson 4880 (and now 7900) prints matching my display very closely and it has stayed that way ever since. I almost never have to make more that one print of any image to get it right, and I cannot imagine printing without softproofing.
I will also point out that this Ctien first had one opinion, then reversed it, and now seems to have re-reversed it. This tells me that whatever print differences he is talking about are subtle and unimportant, otherwise why would he be waffling?
-
Speaking of displays, I am using a 23" Apple Cinema Display, which is about 8 years old. What are the best current displays for the purpose of editing photos? Are the new high resolution displays unsuitable for reasons of limited color space? Is a new generation right around the corner?
Rob
There you go, Rob. Lots of NEC Spectraview users here, so if you get that one you'll have a nice support group. The only other panel that a serious printmaker would want to consider is an Eizo CG screen. Either will get you where you need to be. To my knowledge, that's it. There aren't any others.
Which isn't to say there aren't a bunch of really nice monitors out there. The problem is they're all designed for mainstream consumers. Video gaming. Watching movies/video. Doing web stuff. They're sRGB. They're built for high-contrast and high-brightness, the very things that sell a consumer when he walks into Best Buy or the Apple Store. And the latest extra premium models are ultra HD.
All of which is what you want when you're watching that Blu-Ray disk of Gladiator. Or the latest CGI flick.
And they'll work fine for screen-based photo editing. Which, let's be honest, is where most images end up these days.
But if your ultimate destination is paper, they will, at least part of the time, leave you wondering "what the hell happened?" Like Ctein.
Last thing is what Andrew mentioned ("That and calibrating to that goal which I'm not sure is happening in this case."). Color-profiling a NEC or an Eizo isn't enough. You have to calibrate your monitor for paper. Luminance and contrast have to come way down. So much that it hurts. I don't use my Eizo for anything other than printing. It's too dismal for anything else.
The flip side is, well, printing is glorious.
-
Thanks for all the replies regarding displays. Almost everyone here seems to use NECs rather than Eizos. Is there a reason for this other than price?
Rob
-
Rob my information (may need correction) is that the actual panels used by both Eizo and NEC are identical.
I know that my choice was informed by price.
Tony Jay
-
There you go, Rob. Lots of NEC Spectraview users here, so if you get that one you'll have a nice support group. The only other panel that a serious printmaker would want to consider is an Eizo CG screen. Either will get you where you need to be. To my knowledge, that's it. There aren't any others.
Which isn't to say there aren't a bunch of really nice monitors out there. The problem is they're all designed for mainstream consumers. Video gaming. Watching movies/video. Doing web stuff. They're sRGB. They're built for high-contrast and high-brightness, the very things that sell a consumer when he walks into Best Buy or the Apple Store. And the latest extra premium models are ultra HD.
All of which is what you want when you're watching that Blu-Ray disk of Gladiator. Or the latest CGI flick.
And they'll work fine for screen-based photo editing. Which, let's be honest, is where most images end up these days.
But if your ultimate destination is paper, they will, at least part of the time, leave you wondering "what the hell happened?" Like Ctein.
Last thing is what Andrew mentioned ("That and calibrating to that goal which I'm not sure is happening in this case."). Color-profiling a NEC or an Eizo isn't enough. You have to calibrate your monitor for paper. Luminance and contrast have to come way down. So much that it hurts. I don't use my Eizo for anything other than printing. It's too dismal for anything else.
The flip side is, well, printing is glorious.
Do not forget to calibrate the monitor to paper white, for a particular paper. I try to use a calibration, profile setup for each paper I soft proof. However, laziness gets in the way. LOL
Bob
-
Thanks for all the replies regarding displays. Almost everyone here seems to use NECs rather than Eizos. Is there a reason for this other than price?
Rob
Price was indeed an overarching factor. I can't tell you (because I simply don't know) whether there are other factors that distinguish between Eizo and NEC high end wide gamut monitors. I can only tell you that my purchase of a NEC monitor with corresponding Spectraview II calibration software was a huge step up from the Apple Cinema Display that i had previously used. Much of that improvement has to do with the internal 10 bit LUT that supercedes your computer's video card, the carefully mapped brightness uniformity edge to edge, and the tightly integrated calibration software performance that is difficult if not impossible to replicate on more general purpose displays combined with third party calibration software applications.
Truth be told, I got along pretty well with my older Apple Cinema display and third party calibration software. A good ISP panel combined with good third party calibration puck is a nice start that will help many novice printmakers up their game, but if you want to get truly serious about great quality soft proofing for predictable print output, an Eizo or NEC Specraview display is very likely in your future... total overkill for surfing the web or playing video games, but great for serous printmaking activities.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Thanks for all the replies regarding displays. Almost everyone here seems to use NECs rather than Eizos. Is there a reason for this other than price?
Rob
I use the NEC's, but have some Eizo's at my store. the Eizo's work well, but I prefer the NEC's with the spectraview II software. I use a manually adjusted calibration and work with 3 different NEC's, 2 30" side by side (301w and 302w) at my home where I do most of my image adjustments, and a third at my store (as I said I prefer the NEC's so I gave the Eizo to another user).
-
Yep...when you get a quality display, you can use soft proofing very well. Most of the people who argue that soft proofing doesn't work are using cheap-ass displays. It's really hard to use a display that barely has sRGB and expect soft proofing to work. I can do it in a pinch but I much prefer my NEC displays. Sadly many of the "experts" don't use quality displays and don't really believe soft proofing works. It does and does so very well.
I completely agree with this - Anyone who says Soft proofing doesn't work either doesn't understand how to use it, or, is using a poor quality display (or both). Soft proofing not only works, but it works exceptionally well if you know what you are doing.
In relation to Eizo vs. NEC. I suspect most people here choose NEC because its significantly cheaper but offers still excellent performance. There are some key differences between them - depending on what model you select.
I am just finishing up reviewing the new Eizo 4K 31.1" display and will post the review here soon. Its a game changer in terms of a displays capability for soft proofing in my experience with the panel (amongst other things).
Rob my information (may need correction) is that the actual panels used by both Eizo and NEC are identical.
I do not believe this is correct Tony. Or rather, it is not across the board true. Certainly the new 4K Eizo is a different panel to the UHD4K NEC.
I have great respect for Ctein and his dye transfer printing. His comment 'let printer manage color' makes me suspect his knowledge of the digital print process is more limited though. There are many factors that could lead to this false conclusion - not the least of which is a poor quality profile.
-
A NEC here, that now needs to be replaced, backlight degraded too much. Softproofing in art reproduction? There is no substitute for proof prints in my opinion. Too many color translations between original pigments etc and the printer pigments and both available at the end of the workflow to compare to one another in the same light shows that the RGB monitor in between is nice but not precise enough for that task. Discussions on camera profiling for reproduction tasks appear at regular intervals, in practice there will always be a shift of some color in the image and then often too subtle to see it on the monitor while they just corrupt a good reproduction in print. All IMHO, it could be my eyes. An electro-wetting CMY(K) monitor (light reflecting and/or transmitting) is still not around and may not solve it either.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
There is no substitute for proof prints in my opinion. Too many color translations between original pigments etc and the printer pigments and both available at the end of the workflow to compare to one another in the same light shows that the RGB monitor in between is nice but not precise enough for that task.
I don't disagree...evaluating the actual ink on the final paper is the ultimate evaluative tool...however if one does enough hard proofs (after soft proofing), one learns enough to transfer that eval to upgrade the soft proofing stage even further. But eventually, soft proofs need to be backed up by hard proofs...to get the best optimal output.
-
I don't disagree...evaluating the actual ink on the final paper is the ultimate evaluative tool...however if one does enough hard proofs (after soft proofing), one learns enough to transfer that eval to upgrade the soft proofing stage even further. But eventually, soft proofs need to be backed up by hard proofs...to get the best optimal output.
Like Polaroid to transparency film in the old days (it's better now).
-
It's really nice to read a thread that has no alternate and/or contentious views on display brands.
I just wish it was information I can use instead of what amounts to an NEC love in.
What I don't understand is why no one is offering as detailed a description as Ctein outlines in getting a better print using "Printer Manages Color" which I'm now starting to realize might be the trade off for paying for expensive Epson inks and paper. I wonder what the savings are between investing all that time and money in printer profiling, soft proofing on a more expensive wider gamut display vs just figuring out how to get a good print as demonstrated in that article.
Even I get decent print matches on my $50 Epson NX330 using Epson paper and inks using "Printer Manages Color". It's nice to know Epson is providing some improvement in their technology that justifies their expensive printing supplies.
-
I have zero expertise.
But Reading this makes me think
1) there is zero percent chance that a generic profile (Epson baked in profiles) will more accurate at reproducing accurate color from a file (not from screen, this is another matter), given individual product variability...especially with non Epson papers...but unless quality tolerance is super tight...each machine will have a small nuance. A custom profile will be more accurate.
What he sees on his display and what he likes as a print outcome is a different matter.
2) what he is suggesting is that rather then actually controlling the process (profiled printer and monitor, monitor capable of displaying as many printable colors as possible) that you understand the abstraction between the inaccurate version on the screen and potentially inaccurate print.
3) he says soft-proofing doesn't work, for him...which is a give away that what he sees on the screen never matches the print outcome.
While he might be a great photographer. Clearly the fine detail aspects of print making excellence is not his specific passion...he should probably stick to blogging about what he is an expert in.
-
It's really nice to read a thread that has no alternate and/or contentious views on display brands.
I just wish it was information I can use instead of what amounts to an NEC love in.
What I don't understand is why no one is offering as detailed a description as Ctein outlines in getting a better print using "Printer Manages Color" which I'm now starting to realize might be the trade off for paying for expensive Epson inks and paper. I wonder what the savings are between investing all that time and money in printer profiling, soft proofing on a more expensive wider gamut display vs just figuring out how to get a good print as demonstrated in that article.
Even I get decent print matches on my $50 Epson NX330 using Epson paper and inks using "Printer Manages Color". It's nice to know Epson is providing some improvement in their technology that justifies their expensive printing supplies.
If maximum economy and minimal effort are your highest priorities, then by all means, follow Ctein's lead. That assumes that you are pleased with the print output. Ctein seems to be in spite of the limitations of his process that have been highlighted in this thread.
-
If maximum economy and minimal effort are your highest priorities, then by all means, follow Ctein's lead. That assumes that you are pleased with the print output. Ctein seems to be in spite of the limitations of his process that have been highlighted in this thread.
Just wish Ctein would provide more print samples representing a broader array of image types encompassing various scene gamuts to check for consistency using "Printer Manages Color".
Can't imagine how much ink he's expended printing such a dark image that large which most likely used all color ink cartridges to get that level of dense night sky while providing a smoother and consistent color grade in the light beam. He's now had to toss the "Photoshop Manages Color" version along with all that ink and paper.
Maybe the "Printer Manages Color" version doesn't provide the closest to screen match, but just a google image search of the "Mona Lisa" will give at least ten different color renderings with quite a few looking pretty bad and yet no one's complaining.
-
Just wish Ctein would provide more print samples representing a broader array of image types encompassing various scene gamuts to check for consistency using "Printer Manages Color".
Ctein has promised a post specifically on this subject over at TOP. He is already aware of the opposing arguments, so it should be interesting to see what he has to offer.
Rob
-
Controversy is good publicity.
-
Controversy is good publicity.
Very true - But I would think Ctein was above that sort of click bait.
-
I have zero expertise.
But Reading this makes me think
1) there is zero percent chance that a generic profile (Epson baked in profiles) will more accurate at reproducing accurate color from a file (not from screen, this is another matter), given individual product variability...especially with non Epson papers...but unless quality tolerance is super tight...each machine will have a small nuance. A custom profile will be more accurate.
Perhaps true for 3rd party papers (although recently 3rd parties are providing pretty decent profiles) but I disagree when it comes to Epson papers in Epson printers. The unit to unit variations on Epson pro printers is miniscule. Also Epson can profiles are very good. I know, I've made a lot of profiles and it's unusual that my custom profiles are better. Usually that only happens with matt papers because then you can make of custom modifications while making the profile that can produce different (and perhaps better results). But for glossy papers, you would be hard pressed to make any substantial improvements. Really! See if Andrew agrees with me :~)
-
Perhaps true for 3rd party papers (although recently 3rd parties are providing pretty decent profiles) but I disagree when it comes to Epson papers in Epson printers. The unit to unit variations on Epson pro printers is miniscule. Also Epson can profiles are very good. I know, I've made a lot of profiles and it's unusual that my custom profiles are better. Usually that only happens with matt papers because then you can make of custom modifications while making the profile that can produce different (and perhaps better results). But for glossy papers, you would be hard pressed to make any substantial improvements. Really! See if Andrew agrees with me :~)
Thanks for chiming in. You've changed my understanding on this...there is so much conflicting info for a beginner like me. That said, despite owning an Epson printer for 2 months...I'm yet to use a single sheet of Epson paper...but on my third roll of Canson Baryta and starting to explore their textured matt papers.
The company I bought the printer from offers a custom profile service and gave me 5 with the purchase...so I guess they have a vested interest in the view on profiles
-
The company I bought the printer from offers a custom profile service and gave me 5 with the purchase...so I guess they have a vested interest in the view on profiles
So did you try the profile Canson has provided? And yes, services who provide custom profiles tend to have a vested interest in pushing custom profiles...
-
So did you try the profile Canson has provided? And yes, services who provide custom profiles tend to have a vested interest in pushing custom profiles...
To be honest, the way they talked about it, made it sound not worthwhile to bother with the generic profiles.
I've also been under tight time frames to deliver an exhibition of 15 panoramic images...a few 2m long.
In addition to small matted prints and Art cards for sale the show. Opened today.
So my 8 weeks of ownership has been filled with getting those right, when not doing my day job.
Now I'll have time....to really learn this aspect of my passion. And I think first off will be to try the Baryta generic vs custom profile and some sample packs of papers. I've been happy with the paper, but scratches easily.
-
Not all profiles, custom or otherwise are created equally!
Even canned profiles are kind of all over the map. Even Epson profiles! There are two sets or groups, one very good, one not so good. For example, the canned profiles from Epson for Luster paper are made in Japan and are not so great compared to say the Exhibition Fiber profile made in the US by Epson. Big, big difference in blues (they map to dark black in the Epson Japan profile, render blue in the better USA profile). Test!
The custom profile below is very similar to the Epson USA profile, the badly rendered blue is Epson Japan.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/EpsonVsCustomProfile.jpg)
-
Do not forget to calibrate the monitor to paper white, for a particular paper. I try to use a calibration, profile setup for each paper I soft proof. However, laziness gets in the way. LOL
Bob
this is an issue that deserves some clarification, and it's too bad we're in a thread with a somewhat unrelated title.. monitor profiling using white point to match paper white was something many of us did back before there were soft proofing tools in Photoshop. But now we have simulate paper color option in soft proof, utilizing known and measured criteria between color space, monitor profile, and paper profile. Given that, what are the actual pros and cons of making individual monitor profiles for different papers, trying to match the white point to each paper white, over soft proof options?
I've seen this recommended many times and opinions on why would be interesting..
-
For the prints he tested, he's right (it's his prints, I've never seen them in person). Otherwise, for those that want to soft proof (something he says doesn't work for him so take that as a data point!), those that want to control OOG gamut mapping via soft proof and selection of the Rendering Intent, post edit based on that soft proof, use ACE or BPC, he's in need of a rail alignment IMHO. :o
I find this whole thread to be highly confusing. Andrew has a lengthy and convincing (to me) movie demonstrating why one should use a wide gamut space and his findings are backed up by Jeff Schewe and other experts, and I have followed their advice with excellent results. Now Ctein says one should print using Printer Manages Colors, which clips the gamut to Adobe RGB or sRGB. The Adobe RGB option is said not to be available with Windows, but with Windows 10 Pro, the Adobe RGB options seems to be available (see screen capture below).
If one is working with Adobe Camera Raw and intends to use the Printer Manages Color option, it would make sense to render into Adobe RGB rather than ProPhotoRGB so that one could control saturation so as to avoid clipping of colors that are out of the Adobe RGB gamut. If one is using Printer Manages Colors, the colors would be clipped to Adobe RGB or sRGB using relative colorimetric with no control over the process. Colors that are outside of AdobeRGB or sRGB but within the gamut of a wide gamut inkjet printer would be lost. In my experience, it is often beneficial to permit some clipping of saturated colors so long as the resulting colors are not blocked up in the print. Soft proofing can be helpful here.
Personally, I don't have the time or expertise to conduct extensive tests of both methods, and will continue to render into ProPhotoRGB and print with Photoshop managing the colors, relying on the advice of more experienced users such as Andrew and Jeff Schewe.
Bill
-
I don't know about windows, but on the Mac, when you select "printer manages color" you also have to go to the "color matching" menu in the driver interface. The default is "Colorsync" which then calls the corresponding Epson supplied ICC profile based on what you also chose as your media setting. However, Ctein is choosing the other option. Under the color matching menu, he is selecting "Epson color matching", often simply called "vendor matching" if one is using a printer other than an Epson.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Mark, thank you for all the messages on the subject.
There's no intention to go the printer color management route here with my HP Z3x00 printers. The integrated calibration and profiling available on the printers + the default profile creators + the optional profile creators were satisfying so far for photography and already give a choice in profile tastes that can even be widened to more profile creators as the measuring data can also be exported as CGAT. I have another question on that but reserve it for the other thread.
I am curious though on the choices within printer driver color management on OS-X and Windows. I understand that in OS-X and selecting Colorsync the printer driver will use the OEM ICC profile that corresponds with the chosen media preset, rendering choice is absent. The same ICC profile would be used in application color management for that paper if no custom profile exists. In the other choice it will use LUTs in the driver itself that correspond with the chosen media preset and no use of the Colorsync color engine then. Ctein used that last one.
In my HP Z Windows driver PCL3 choices I see a selection for Application Managed Colors and Printer Managed Colors, the last gives a choice for the Source Profile; sRGB or AdobeRGB, say the color space assigned to the image you want to load. There is no choice for the Windows color engine ICM-WCS or a vendor matching system there. I had no clue what it uses then. It is similar for the Postscript PS3 driver but the Source Profile choices goes up to 4 for RGB and includes way more CMYK color spaces. Both can be set in view of PS PDF documents with both RGB and CMYK aboard. I think the choices of source color spaces are defined by the printer language, PCL or PS, and the limitation in source profiles supported is set there. I can not imagine that they all are converted to sRGB before going into driver color management as Ctein suggests for Windows' printer color management. It is more likely the printer language that defines the transfer states.
In the Printing Preferences>Advanced Document Settings tab/menu of both the PCL3 and PS3 driver there are choices for Graphic>Image Color Management>ICM method: ICM disabled, ICM Handled by Host system (ED: Windows I guess), ICM Handled by Printer, and PS3 only; ICM Handled by Printer using printer calibration. There is also an ICM Intent range of choices; graphics, pictures, proof, match, for all the 4 ICM management choices. The default setting in the driver is ICM disabled. My guess is that this range of choices matches the two choices Ctein was confronted with when he went for Printer manages color; Colorsync or Epson Color matching. HP offers more choices though, at least in my Windows system. The ICM choices represented in this menu of the driver only come in action if the user selects Printer managed color on the other menu page, I can not interpret it otherwise. Not that HP explains that carefully and worse, the driver's defaults are Printer Manages Color + ICM disabled, which should result in no CM at all. In the beginning I had the impression that it only applied to documents like PDFs etc but meanwhile I learned it works for Printer manages color on all what is thrown at it.
It would be nice to get a better understanding of what happens under the hood with those choices and where the differences are between OEM drivers + their OS-X and Windows versions. Again, not to use that CM route for Tiffs etc but for an understanding of the method. For PDFs etc with known RGB + CMYK color spaces assigned the PS3 driver offers at least a kind of RIP CM route this way and I know it is used by Z users for that task.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Just to toss in an observation - I do not have an expensive monitor and never have had one but soft-proofing works great for me.
Sharon
+1 ( Well it's not perfect but is v useful ).