Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: texshooter on December 04, 2015, 04:45:04 pm
-
I recently stumbled upon Mark Metternich's tutorials on master printing. I love it when doers (not debaters) share their secrets (whether for profit or not), so I'm liking and sharing his page. I don't want to give away too much (you'll have buy the videos), but it's radically changed my workflow. I no longer wait until the end of my workflow to soft proof (ideas I got from dusty old books). Rather, I start soft proofing from the get-go in ACR. It's twice the work because you must process your print file from scratch and separately from your web file. But it's worth it sometimes.
http://www.markmetternich.com
-
Rather, I start soft proofing from the get-go in ACR.
Soft Proofing for what and what do you do when either you don't know (yet) or the profile you'll be soft proofing varies all over the map (Ink jet output, press, etc)?
Mark's images are very nice!
-
Mark's images are indeed very nice
Soft Proofing for what and what do you do when either you don't know (yet) or the profile you'll be soft proofing varies all over the map (Ink jet output, press, etc)?
I guess that you have to start with a specific output in mind (paper, ink, etc.) but I have not seen the video yet
-
Soft Proofing for what and what do you do when either you don't know (yet) or the profile you'll be soft proofing varies all over the map (Ink jet output, press, etc)?
Mark's images are very nice!
Fujiflex Crystal Archive or the web. That's it.
-
Fujiflex Crystal Archive or the web. That's it.
OK, that's simple. But doesn't answer the question if you've got multiple output needs or don't know where, when or how you'll output those images. Like output sharpening, you can't apply this at the beginning or middle of the workflow, only at the end, when you know what to target. So I'm a bit confused about how this is radical.
As for the web, that's a huge crap shot considering who and how those images will be viewed. You can make it look as lovely as you can on your end, it can look awful depending how it's viewed; the guy with a 12 year old CRT and a browser that's not color managed, the fellow with a brand new wide gamut display, maybe too viewing through a non color managed browser (yuck). I'm not suggesting you should just toss up anything to the web, but the results other's see is totally out of your control.
-
I no longer wait until the end of my workflow to soft proof (ideas I got from dusty old books). Rather, I start soft proofing from the get-go in ACR. It's twice the work because you must process your print file from scratch and separately from your web file. But it's worth it sometimes.
Personally, I think that approach is wrong headed. What you want to do is create a "Master RGB Image" from your original capture and use that as a basis for soft proofing for print and web–much easier with Lightroom since you can easily create soft proof virtual copies.
Yeah, you are doing a lot more work. Perhaps this is a revelation to you but it's way, old school and more work.
-
Personally, I think that approach is wrong headed.
Then somebody should tell that to Mark Metternich because in the intro to his videos he says he read your books so many times the pages fell out.
-
Then somebody should tell that to Mark Metternich because in the intro to his videos he says he read your books so many times the pages fell out.
That's pertinent to Jeff (and other's) points about when and why to target a soft proof how?
-
Is the phrase "soft proofing" even meaningful without a defined target? I thought it was, by definition, "use this here monitor here to render an approximation of what this picture is going to look like on such and such a target"?
-
That's pertinent to Jeff (and other's) points about when and why to target a soft proof how?
If Metternich, who is demonstrably an expert (at least by my standards), always soft proofs in ACR (and continues proofing in PS), and if I have confidence in his advise (which I want to), then I'm left to wonder why I'm learning about this for the first time (Schewe, insert your comment here ;)). I know what y'all are saying. Soft proofing in ACR is extraneous work if you plan on printing to various media. And in principal I agree. But think about this. If soft proofing in ACR yields discernibly higher quality (ie, sharpness and color accuracy), as Metternich purports, then why would a masterful printer (And who doesn't want to be one of those?) follow the convention of proofing towards the end of one's workflow? It's all about the results isn't it? Moreover, if soft proofing at the beginning yields superior results, then THAT should be the convention taught by the scholars.
-
If Metternich, who is demonstrably an expert (at least by my standards), always soft proofs in ACR (and continues proofing in PS), and if I have confidence in his advise (which I want to), then I'm left to wonder why I'm learning about this for the first time (Schewe, insert your comment here ;) ). I know what y'all are saying. Soft proofing in ACR is extraneous work if you plan on printing to various media.
I don't know that anyone here is suggesting not to soft proof. Or to soft proof in ACR (or Photoshop) is difficult. Rather, don't burn in edits based on more than one 'view' of the data when there may be multiple answers based on the targeting of the data for output. So if I need to do X number of minutes or hours of editing on an image and don't know when or where it will be printed, I can't start the editing process by viewing a soft proof. A soft proof by it's very definition requires some profile based on some output.
If I need a master file for multiple output needs, at the time I know how I'll output that data, I'll soft proof and apply output specific edits. It's about not putting the cart before the horse, it's about a flexible workflow. It's about not painting yourself into a corner with edits that are specific to an output on a master digital image. It implies that output needs differ, so do edits for those output needs. Again, like output sharpening. Or resampling a file: I assume you work with the highest resolution data, you don't resize smaller based on the output at the beginning of the editing. I can't understand how that can be done first, just the opposite: target output specific edits towards the end of the entire image editing process.
-
I can't understand how that can be done first, just the opposite: target output specific edits towards the end of the entire image editing process.
But lets say for the sake of argument (and to rephrase my original question) that you plan to export to only one media type, say Fujiflex. Forget about flexibility for the moment. Do you or do you not agree that starting soft proofing in ACR (instead of waiting until the end just before printing to soft proof) will yield superior prints? Let me be specific by what I mean "starting soft proofing in ACR:"
Step 1: Inside ACR before you do anything, change the color space to your Fujiflex printer ICC profile.
Step 2: Do all your needed capture adjustments, such as capture sharpening and color correction, et. al.
Step 3: Whilst still in ACR, change the color space back to Adobe RGB (or Prophoto).
Step 4: Open image in PS and immediately go to View>Proof Setup>[select your Fujiflex ICC profile].
Step 5: Complete all edits, resizing and output sharpening.
I'm expecting you to say yes.
-
Since this is the coffee corner and not one of the technical forums, I feel OK saying that I haven't any interest in being a master printer. Once upon a time I did, but I don't any more.
-
Do you or do you not agree...
Seems tantamount to back-in-the-day drum scanning to a CMYK file for a particular press at a particular reproduction size, before the "scan once, output many" concept.
Kind of silly nowadays.
So, no. I don't agree.
-
If soft proofing in ACR yields discernibly higher quality (ie, sharpness and color accuracy), as Metternich purports, then why would a masterful printer (And who doesn't want to be one of those?) follow the convention of proofing towards the end of one's workflow?
If he is claiming that soft proofing in ACR results higher quality "sharpness" as a result of viewing the image in the printer color space, he's simply wrong...did he in fact say it impacts sharpness?
-
If he is claiming that soft proofing in ACR results higher quality "sharpness" as a result of viewing the image in the printer color space, he's simply wrong...did he in fact say it impacts sharpness?
I'll rewatch the video and get back to make sure I'm not conflating two separate lessons. Forbid I slander.
-
But lets say for the sake of argument (and to rephrase my original question) that you plan to export to only one media type, say Fujiflex.
What happens when you change your mind or an output option changes? Say Fujiflex is discontinued ?
Building files for just one or two specific outputs is a very short sighted approach.
-
If he is claiming that soft proofing in ACR results higher quality "sharpness" as a result of viewing the image in the printer color space, he's simply wrong...did he in fact say it impacts sharpness?
In his color management video he said one should soft proof inside ACR whilst using the printer profile as the color space. In his sharpening video he said one should capture sharpen to-be-printed images inside ACR. So no he did not.
Maybe I should start over and ask this question. When, if ever, should I soft proof in ACR using the printer profile as the color space?
-
But lets say for the sake of argument (and to rephrase my original question) that you plan to export to only one media type, say Fujiflex. Forget about flexibility for the moment. Do you or do you not agree that starting soft proofing in ACR (instead of waiting until the end just before printing to soft proof) will yield superior prints? Let me be specific by what I mean "starting soft proofing in ACR
Anything is possible but I don't see how this could be the case considering this is just the process of producing parametric instructions which are non destructive and can take place at any time. In Lightroom, thanks to virtual or proof copies, it makes even less sense. You can immediately spin off a proof copy after doing all the heavy lifting in terms of image adjustments if and when necessary and apply those output specific edits without polluting a master.
Step 1: Inside ACR before you do anything, change the color space to your Fujiflex printer ICC profile.
Step 2: Do all your needed capture adjustments, such as capture sharpening and color correction, et. al.
Step 3: Whilst still in ACR, change the color space back to Adobe RGB (or Prophoto).
Step 4: Open image in PS and immediately go to View>Proof Setup>[select your Fujiflex ICC profile].
Step 5: Complete all edits, resizing and output sharpening.
Step 1: That has zero effect on the data, it's a soft proof.
Step 2: Ditto, capture sharpening is output agnostics. That's why Bruce designed this multiple step sharpening workflow. Now here's where we could go down a divided trail in processing of color corrections, et. al. Do you edit based on the output (such as setting end points)? You could but don't have to, the edits again are simply instructions you can alter at any time and ideally, if you're editing for a specific target, you do this on an iteration such as a proof copy (advantage LR but you can use Snapshots in ACR: Check with Jeff about this workflow!).
Step 3: There's no changing of color space; all processing in ACR and LR occurs using a variant of ProPhoto RGB. What you're changing is the soft proof. That could affect your decisions yes, I'd suggest doing so on a master image is both unnecessary and limiting.
Step 4: Fine, that's an iteration of the master raw data. Any edits you make now can be both output specific or not, just do it on layers and label them as such.
Step 5: Fine.
I'm expecting you to say yes.
Sorry, the workflow implications are too simple for a yes or no answer.
-
Seems tantamount to back-in-the-day drum scanning to a CMYK file for a particular press at a particular reproduction size, before the "scan once, output many" concept.
Tantamount is a kind word ;) it's the same 'scan once' (edit in ACR once), 'use once' workflow.
-
If soft proofing in ACR yields discernibly higher quality (ie, sharpness and color accuracy), as Metternich purports...
The color accuracy claim is BS without some colorimetric feedback. Be careful when people use the term color accuracy instead of admitting they have a color preference which is totally subjective. I haven't seen the video (isn't it fee based?) but if the author states anything about color accuracy, he needs to back that up with actual measurement data and dE metrics. Which often has little to do with subjective color preference.
-
The color accuracy claim is BS without some colorimetric feedback. Be careful when people use the term color accuracy instead of admitting they have a color preference which is totally subjective. I haven't seen the video (isn't it fee based?) but if the author states anything about color accuracy, he needs to back that up with actual measurement data and dE metrics. Which often has little to do with subjective color preference.
He did not use the term "color accuracy." That was an inference made by me. Nontheless, he strongly recommends to start soft proofing in ACR. He did not say specifically why. He typically prints very large so perhaps his work flow minimizes interpolation artifacts. I'm not sure.
-
He did not use the term "color accuracy." That was an inference made by me.
Fine, don't use it ;D . As I said, the term is rather bogus.
He did not say specifically why. He typically prints very large so perhaps his work flow minimizes interpolation artifacts. I'm not sure.
Trust but verify...
-
He typically prints very large so perhaps his work flow minimizes interpolation artifacts. I'm not sure.
Did he bother to say how he up samples? In ACR? (hint, I do it in Lightroom because it's better).
-
Did he bother to say how he up samples? In ACR? (hint, I do it in Lightroom because it's better).
Bicubic smoother in PS. But then I forget which version of PS he was using at the time he made the video.
-
Maybe he soft proofs from the beginning because he always prints the same way on the same type paper and same printer. So for him that works.
-
Maybe he soft proofs from the beginning because he always prints the same way on the same type paper and same printer. So for him that works.
This still seems nonsensical to me.
What about output to the web or other electronic device?
Softproofing is not just about printing.
Much better to do what Jeff Schewe suggests: create a master image and then create softproofs from there for whatever output is required. It is very useful to softproof while comparing the master and the softproof copy - that is how one gets the softproof as close to the master as possible - and by extension the print or the electronic display version.
Tony Jay