Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: BobDavid on September 17, 2017, 12:17:37 am
-
I've been using Epson Stylus Pro wide format printers since 2006. I've owned a 9800, 7800, 9900, and a 7890. I loved the 7890 for its reliability and output. When my wife and I decided to move from Florida to Colorado, I sold the 7890. I didn't want to risk shipping it 1,800 miles. ... And at this point, a 17" printer is sufficient for my needs. I ultimately decided on the SureColor P800.
Going from a pro printer to a prosumer printer didn't thrill me. Epson's professional 17" printers are over twice the price of the P800. When I owned and operated a studio, the P800 would not have been up to the task, neither would any 17" printer.
There are really only two options for a 17" prosumer printer: 1) Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000; 2) Epson P800.
The P800 has exceeded my expectations: It makes stunning prints. The coolest thing about the printer is that I let it manage output rather than Photoshop. Who would have ever thunk that that would work. Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's.
-
Actually, there are three options for 17" printers: you didn't mention the SC-P5000.
I've reviewed both the SC-P800 and the SC-P5000 on this website, and I have tested "printer manages color". It's not bad, but it's not quite up to a high quality profile used in a proper colour management configuration.
You are correct that the P800 makes very high quality prints.
-
Actually, there are three options for 17" printers: you didn't mention the SC-P5000.
I've reviewed both the SC-P800 and the SC-P5000 on this website, and I have tested "printer manages color". It's not bad, but it's not quite up to a high quality profile used in a proper colour management configuration.
You are correct that the P800 makes very high quality prints.
The SC-P5000 was not a viable candidate. Orange and green are a waste for printing photos. Now if I wanted to match PMS colors, the SC-P5000 is a good choice.
I compared output from the "canned" Epson ICC profile for Ultra Premium Lustre Photo Paper using PS to manage the output versus letting the printer manage output. The latter has more snap. ... I have fairly good profiling tools, so I'll try a custom profile. ... My experience with the 7890 was the canned Epson profiles were better than profiles I created and those from my dealer. Of course, Photoshop managed the output.
-
The SC-P5000 was not a viable candidate. Orange and green are a waste for printing photos. Now if I wanted to match PMS colors, the SC-P5000 is a good choice.
I compared output from the "canned" Epson ICC profile for Ultra Premium Lustre Photo Paper using PS to manage the output versus letting the printer manage output. The latter has more snap. ... I have fairly good profiling tools, so I'll try a custom profile. ... My experience with the 7890 was the canned Epson profiles were better than profiles I created and those from my dealer. Of course, Photoshop managed the output.
I suppose you mean "not a viable candidate" for you, not in general.
Orange and Green are not necessarily a waste for printing photos. They add gamut. Whether it's needed depends on the colours in your photos.
"More Snap" may or may not be a good thing - again depends on the image. A good profile lets you dial-in the extent of vibrancy/saturation/contrast best suited to the photo according to taste. With a colour-managed work flow you have this choice. With Printer Managing Color it is not so malleable.
-
With Printer Managing Color it is not so malleable.
to me letting printer manage colors means display to print matching can get very challenging. So while output might be nice, it also becomes somewhat unpredictable and difficult to fine tune.
And good luck with those finished files if you decide to switch to a different printer, especially a different brand of printer at some point in the future.
-
For now, I print exclusively on Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper. So with that in mind, it makes sense that a SureColor printer is optimized for Epson luster media. The S/N ratio is higher than it is when PS manages the output.
Methodology: Start out by developing an A7r2 RAW file in C1. Export as an aRGB 16-bit TIFF. Open the TIFF in Photoshop CC for tweaking.( I use an Eizo CS2420 ColorEdge monitor / NVIDIA K6000 combo). No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB. In PS, go to print settings > Series Properties and specify Ultra Premium Photo Paper.
Drag the cursor over print and click.
-
For now, I print exclusively on Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper. So with that in mind, it makes sense that a SureColor printer is optimized for Epson luster media. The S/N ratio is higher than it is when PS manages the output.
Methodology: Start out by developing an A7r2 RAW file in C1. Export as an aRGB 16-bit TIFF. Open the TIFF in Photoshop CC for tweaking.( I use an Eizo CS2420 ColorEdge monitor / NVIDIA K6000 combo). No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB. In PS, go to print settings > Series Properties and specify Ultra Premium Photo Paper.
Drag the cursor over print and click.
I don't know what you mean by "S/N ratio" in this context.
Parts of the gamut of that paper used with the SC-P800 exceed aRGB. You may be better served using ProPhoto if you were to opt for application colour management.
I would re-emphasize what Wayne and I advised in respect of the comparative quality and advantages of a good profile and application colour management versus printer management.
Whatever colour space the monitor is set-up for, that doesn't deal with the purpose or need for soft-proofing. Soft-proofing is for the printer profile, the paper and the printer. It is useful with application colour management. You have much less control with Printer management.
In case you haven't done so yet, I recommend that you watch the "Camera to Print" videos done by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe.
-
to me letting printer manage colors means display to print matching can get very challenging. So while output might be nice, it also becomes somewhat unpredictable and difficult to fine tune.
Yup. Forget soft proofing and controlling the rendering intent per image and any output specific edits you desire, based on that soft proof.
-
No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB.
Sorry, that simply isn't true. The display's gamut, which is mostly smaller than the printers you are asking about requires soft proofing IF your goal is a decent print to display match while controlling the rendering intent based on the image content itself.
-
Give it a try: Epson SureColor printer, Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper, monitor and file displaying aRGB. ... Sure the printer's color gamut is wider than the monitor's.
Try this approach, then report back. I'm curious to hear about results rather than theory.
-
Give it a try: Epson SureColor, Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper, monitor and file displaying aRGB. ... Sure the printer's color gamut is wider than the monitor's.
I have! And I see a massive and visible difference in the soft proof ON so what you suggest doesn't make sense to me. I see a visual difference in many, many images toggling the soft proof from Saturation to RelCol to Perceptual and yet you see NONE of this. So explain how it works for me.
Do I need to post screen captures showing the visible differences in one image where a soft proof for the Epson is on with three different rendering intents versus off to illustrate that indeed, there IS a difference to be seen; on screen and on the print?
-
Try "absolute"
-
Try "absolute"
Now why would I do that?
Plus, the color appearance again changes using that rendering intent that is seen soft proofing that you do not see by avoiding it.
So can you explain how when soft proofing on a calibrated and profiled display, I see four different previews based on the conversion to the output device, you see none but state that by the display being in Adobe RGB (1998) (questionable), there's no need to soft proof.
The profiles previews are all lies?
-
Try this approach, then report back. I'm curious to hear about results rather than theory.
It failed. I'm curious to hear about your results where they all match, no need for soft proofing, rather than theory. Note you're viewing wide gamut screen shots reduced to sRGB to post here so the visual differences are even greater than you see below! NOTE that paper and ink simulation is NOT on which provides far, far greater visual differences based on the output profile!
-
Soft proof with just Adobe RGB (so no soft proof to output) vs. soft proof using RelCol and paper/ink simulation which is vastly closer to matching the print!
-
I'm viewing your tests on a Surface 3, so it's hard to differentiate your tests. ... Duplicate my workflow and see what you get.
-
Well, I don't want to get argumentive. But the specific workflow I mentioned, works. By the way, the Eizo is calibrated to match the color temp of the Solux lamp in degrees K.
-
I'm viewing your tests on a Surface 3, so it's hard to differentiate your tests. ... Duplicate my workflow and see what you get.
You're not even viewing on a color managed device, no wonder you can't soft proof!
-
Well, I don't want to get argumentive.
Just prove what you wrote makes sense now and is correct (it isn't):
No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB.
-
Duplicate my workflow and see what you get.
I did, and again, since you apparently didn't read what I wrote earlier: IT FAILED.
So again, the various and differing soft proof previews I see are a lie? And what you're seeing without soft proofing isn't?
-
I don't know what you mean by "S/N ratio" in this context.
Maybe Contrast Ratio which is hugely different. But that wouldn't surprise me.
-
I don't know what you mean by "S/N ratio" in this context.
Parts of the gamut of that paper used with the SC-P800 exceed aRGB. You may be better served using ProPhoto if you were to opt for application colour management.
I would re-emphasize what Wayne and I advised in respect of the comparative quality and advantages of a good profile and application colour management versus printer management.
Whatever colour space the monitor is set-up for, that doesn't deal with the purpose or need for soft-proofing. Soft-proofing is for the printer profile, the paper and the printer. It is useful with application colour management. You have much less control with Printer management.
In case you haven't done so yet, I recommend that you watch the "Camera to Print" videos done by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe.
I've been matching critical color output since the analog era ca. 1975. I've been printing with Epson Pro Stylus WF printers since the 9600 era. My color vision score on the X-Rite test comes out near perfect. ... I started my repro business in 2007 with a multi-shot Blad. I've created and purchased ICC profiles. ... Maybe the stars are aligned with my setup. As far as letting a SureColor Epson printer manage output on Epson Ultra Premiun Luster Photo Paper goes, I'm sticking to my guns.
-
Maybe Contrast Ratio which is hugely different. But that wouldn't surprise me.
Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's.
-
I've been matching critical color output since the analog era ca. 1975. I've been printing with Epson Pro Stylus WF printers since the 9600 era. My color vision score on the X-Rite test comes out near perfect. ... I started my repro business in 2007 with a multi-shot Blad. I've created and purchased ICC profiles. ... Maybe the stars are aligned with my setup. As far as letting a SureColor Epson printer manage output on Epson Ultra Premiun Luster Photo Paper goes, I'm sticking to my guns.
Yet what you state about soft proofing makes no written or more importantly, any visual sense. Can you explain that or not?
I HAVE provided examples of that what you've written not being the case; do tell us what I did wrong.
-
Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's.
That makes little sense but let's say it may be true; got any data to prove it you will share? Specifically data on the source signal and the resulting noise.
I'm curious to hear about results (proof, data) rather than theory.
-
Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's.
Specifically which and what algorithms? What truth?
-
Well, I don't want to get argumentive. But the specific workflow I mentioned, works.
For you ... for now.
This has been tested ad nauseam over many years. I have seen dozens of times where a customer comes in and buys a new printer, then complains because something is “wrong” with the printer because the prints don’t match what their previous printer produced, only to find out they don’t use a color managed workflow. I have customers who print something at home and can’t figure out why when we print it larger for them on our p20000 it doesn’t match. We’ve even tried using printer managed color to match what they are doing at home .... it doesn’t match.
I have no problem with those that decide to go this way. It isn’t a color managed workflow, but if it works for you, fine. But those who want true control, who really want to make sure what they are doing on the screen can translate to the paper won’t find this solution acceptable. And don’t be surprised when someday you print an image where it doesn’t print out very well, or when you change some hardware it suddenly isn’t working well at all.
-
Try "absolute"
Do you know what the purpose of Absolute Rendering Intent is? It's not for normal photographic printing. It is for proofing purposes. It can be used for certain special effects, as can Saturation Intent, but neither are a usual choice.
-
Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output. In the past, I've specified Absolute in PS for certain images.
A lot of my images are not easy to print--abnormal. Night Watchman (https://bobrosinsky.com/portfolio/night-watchman/)
-
Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output. In the past, I've specified Absolute in PS for certain images
That makes zero sense. And it's wrong.
-
I compared output from the "canned" Epson ICC profile for Ultra Premium Lustre Photo Paper using PS to manage the output versus letting the printer manage output. The latter has more snap.
Admittedly with some trepidation about wading into these boiling waters, but after reading all the posts in this thread I wonder if this might explain your affinity for printer-managed output:
I often print on Epson Premium Lustre ("Luster," in my neck of the woods). I've never experimented with letting the printer manage the colors. I've always been completely satisfied with the results when I soft-proof, using the Epson-supplied profile with Lightroom — I assume the results with Photoshop would be similar — and, frankly, I wouldn't want to abandon the control I get from soft-proofing.
But it occurs to me that the adjustment I need to make most frequently with that paper is to crank up the "Clarity" a bit. The second-most frequent adjustment is to increase the "Vibrance" slightly. Of course, sometimes some colors are out-of-gamut, but I suspect usually not by much, and usually changing the rendering intent takes care of the problem without further fiddling with the color controls. (Not always, of course.)
So I'm wondering whether the printer-managed-color setting automagically makes some of the changes to Clarity and Vibrance I'm accustomed to dialing-in manually — analogous to the way in-camera processing creates punched-up JPEGs. If it's primarily mid-range contrast and saturation that you like, maybe printer-managed color is the equivalent of an output preset.
-
So I'm wondering whether the printer-managed-color setting automagically makes some of the changes to Clarity and Vibrance I'm accustomed to dialing-in manually — analogous to the way in-camera processing creates punched-up JPEGs.
No, it does not.
-
You're not even viewing on a color managed device, no wonder you can't soft proof!
I cannot see the difference of what you've posted on my Surface 3, which is the device I use for surfing the web and email. I want to echo this phenomenon is unique to SureColor print technology. As outlined at the top of the thread, here's how I'm achieving great output with Epson Ultra Premium Photo Paper.
Methodology: Start out by developing an A7r2 RAW file in C1. Export as an aRGB 16-bit TIFF. Open the TIFF in Photoshop CC for tweaking.( I use an Eizo CS2420 ColorEdge monitor / NVIDIA K6000 combo). No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB. In PS, go to print settings > Series Properties and specify Ultra Premium Photo Paper.
Drag the cursor over print and click.
Unless you are using a SureColor series Epson printer and Epson luster media, it's moot to disagree. With the previous Epson printers I've owned and used, 2200, 4000, 9600, 9800, 9900, 7890, there's no way I'd have let the printer manage output--whether Epson media or not. I think the SureColor 800 is optimized for production paper such as ultra PLPP.
-
Guys, there's probably no reason to continue arguing about this. It seems like it has been pointed out that this is the wrong practice to follow so anyone finding this thread will quickly see that. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind it seems.
-
Guys, there's probably no reason to continue arguing about this. It seems like it has been pointed out that this is the wrong practice to follow so anyone finding this thread will quickly see that. Nobody is going to change anyone's mind it seems.
How are you able to say something is wrong unless you've tested it? I understand people are incredulous. If you haven't used SureColor technology with the Epson media discussed, it's not possible to comment on the matter.
I daresay a calibrated 10-bit wide gamut Eizo monitor in combination with Eizo's recommended graphics card may be a contributing factor. Within the scope of my workflow and toolset, I am getting excellent and predictable results letting the printer manage output rather than Adobe. If you want to come over to my studio for a demo, I'd be happy to accommodate.
Technology evolves. From an economic/business standpoint, it makes sense Epson developed a specific seamless printer/media combo geared towards printer management.
-
I cannot see the difference of what you've posted on my Surface 3, which is the device I use for surfing the web and email.
We've (I've) been over this silliness of your inability to view samples provided on a non color managed device.
So the profiles are a lie? Yes or no.
-
Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output. Try "absolute"
Wrong!
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/printing-color-management-photoshop1.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/printing-color-management-photoshop1.html)
For Color Handling, choose Printer Manages Colors.
(Optional) For Rendering Intent, specify how to convert colors to the destination color space. A summary of each option appears in the Description area at bottom.
Many non-PostScript printer drivers ignore this option and use the Perceptual rendering intent. (For more information, see About rendering intents (http://help.adobe.com/en_US/creativesuite/cs/using/WS6A727430-9717-42df-B578-C0AC705C54F0.html#WS6078C298-CB20-4dc8-ACD4-D344110AA026)
-
We've discussed this extensively before, most notably when C'tein over on TOP infamously recommended printer manages colors a couple of years back. MHMG gave the definitive debunking of C'tein's findings and I expect that the same would apply to Bob's:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104307.msg857415#msg857415
When someone thinks they've discovered the holy grail, like C'tein and Bob, it's pointless to try to convince them otherwise. The best we can do is to keep posting Mark's critique so that other's reading this thread have a more balanced view, and can see that printer manages colors is not the holy grail.
-
Wrong!
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/printing-color-management-photoshop1.html (https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/printing-color-management-photoshop1.html)
For Color Handling, choose Printer Manages Colors.
(Optional) For Rendering Intent, specify how to convert colors to the destination color space. A summary of each option appears in the Description area at bottom.
Many non-PostScript printer drivers ignore this option and use the Perceptual rendering intent. (For more information, see About rendering intents (http://help.adobe.com/en_US/creativesuite/cs/using/WS6A727430-9717-42df-B578-C0AC705C54F0.html#WS6078C298-CB20-4dc8-ACD4-D344110AA026)
Yep, and it works just fine on my Epson 9800 with Windows 10. I can print an image in ProPhoto RGB using a custom printer profile with any of the 4 Intents. However, the Windows driver requires that I specify the input profile (ProPhoto RGB) as well as the custom printer profile. The prints are identical with Photoshop Manages Color.
The one downside is that the 9800 printer driver does not have an option for BPC in Relative Colorimetric Intent, a rather significant deficiency.
Edit: left out BPC in original post.
-
We've (I've) been over this silliness of your inability to view samples provided on a non color managed device.
So the profiles are a lie? Yes or no.
Well Digital Dog, tonight I'll go to my studio and look at your jpgs on a current ColorEdge Eizo wide gamut monitor and look for whatever it is you want me to look at. I know what you're attempting to demonstrating, and I have no qualm with that. However, unless you've used SureColor technology in conjunction with Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper, your comments are unfounded.
And please refrain from condescending remarks such as "this silliness of your inability..." I have considerable academic and professional credentials. I designed and worked in a special effects studio, owned and operated a fine art reproduction business, taught college courses on color theory, worked on machine vision projects, have an MS in Visual Studies from MIT, and had a stint as a research fellow at MIT related to visual sensation and perception.
-
We've discussed this extensively before, most notably when C'tein over on TOP infamously recommended printer manages colors a couple of years back. MHMG gave the definitive debunking of C'tein's findings and I expect that the same would apply to Bob's:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104307.msg857415#msg857415
When someone thinks they've discovered the holy grail, like C'tein and Bob, it's pointless to try to convince them otherwise. The best we can do is to keep posting Mark's critique so that other's reading this thread have a more balanced view, and can see that printer manages colors is not the holy grail.
I never ever made a sweeping generalization about letting printers manage color. I began this thread with one specific observation: An Epson SureColor printer is able to manage output on Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo paper. That's all. Holy grails do not exist in the world of color management. There is however a balance between art and science.
-
We've discussed this extensively before, most notably when C'tein over on TOP infamously recommended printer manages colors a couple of years back. MHMG gave the definitive debunking of C'tein's findings and I expect that the same would apply to Bob's:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104307.msg857415#msg857415
When someone thinks they've discovered the holy grail, like C'tein and Bob, it's pointless to try to convince them otherwise. The best we can do is to keep posting Mark's critique so that other's reading this thread have a more balanced view, and can see that printer manages colors is not the holy grail.
very nice link. Mark did a nice job with this, I totally forgot about it.
-
I didn't think it was so hard.
Yes, you can (and do) get excellent results from Printer Manages colour. That's not new, but it is better with the newer hardware and drivers. What it doesn't do is provide a workflow which can cater for multiple media, varied images and gamuts, different monitors and viewing conditions and so on. It's a less flexible pipeline, but within its confines it's very good (even excellent).
The ICC workflow gives you a consistent, single workflow that caters for all the regular (and some irregular) variables and provides a means of controlling those variables in a predictable manner. And it can achieve the same results.
So, printer manages is 100% OK if you know what you're doing and you like the results. If you never step outside of the vendor prepared pipeline, it is entirely possible that you will have brilliant results without ever going near an ICC workflow. If you do ever use or need a different pipeline (certain media, particular images, a stylistic preference, repeatability on different hardware, and so on), then an ICC workflow can give you the same brilliant results across those variables which may not fit the vendor's pipeline. That's why, after all, the vendors provide access to that pathway, too.
Neither is right or wrong, per se, but the ICC workflow approach, for most photogs provides a better workflow for the same excellent results.
-
We've discussed this extensively before, most notably when C'tein over on TOP infamously recommended printer manages colors a couple of years back. MHMG gave the definitive debunking of C'tein's findings and I expect that the same would apply to Bob's:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104307.msg857415#msg857415
When someone thinks they've discovered the holy grail, like C'tein and Bob, it's pointless to try to convince them otherwise. The best we can do is to keep posting Mark's critique so that other's reading this thread have a more balanced view, and can see that printer manages colors is not the holy grail.
I've noticed on my Canon 9500 II and, to a lesser extent my Epson 9800, that letting the printer manage color and using the defaults, the rendered print's midrange luminance is boosted and some colors within the printer's gamut are increased in saturation.
If I just print a snapshot from my cellphone w/o any adjustment it often looks better on the Canon print than if I print using Perceptual with a custom I1Profiler generated profile using the Perceptual defaults. The Canon print is brighter and more colorful. Particularly in the greens. The Epson 9800, with the defaults, is also boosted but not nearly as much as the Canon. Both printers boost luminance less when using Photoshop manages color and their provided profiles but Canon still has significant boost as is allowed with Perceptual intent.
Needless to say, the same snapshot prints from the two printers look very different letting the printer manage color and using defaults.
However, using Relative intent and an image that is inside the printer gamuts, both printers produce visually identical prints on the same paper (outside of specular effects like bronzing) with Photoshop managing color and custom profiles.
I discussed this here.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107556.msg884963#msg884963
-
How are you able to say something is wrong unless you've tested it?
It just so happens that I have - extensively. See my article on this website titled "Printing Can be Fun and Easy".
This is not about what is "right" or "wrong". Nothing about this is absolutely and systematically right or wrong. It depends on the image, the paper, the printer and how much control you the user wants to be able to exercise over the fine details of the quality of the final output. Judging by what's on your website, this may be less critical for the kind of photos you make, because your colours are very strong, contrasts are stark, and the refinements of tonal gradations and subtle colour variations one can achieve with soft-proofing in a properly colour-managed workflow may not be critical for your kind of photography. But I wouldn't advise it for other people working with photographs that do benefit from refined image editing, and that would be the vast majority. Furthermore, I would only re-iterate the point that Wayne Fox made about the portability/consistency of results between printer models and papers, which is one of the main purposes of application colour management. But if that will never be important to you (hard to imagine, as technology evolves), then perhaps you in particular are not missing much with Printer Manages Color. But again, not advisable for the vast majority of others who may value this systematic consistency between media and equipment.
-
Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's.
Could you explain precisely what this sentence means? I'm baffled.
Just for beginners, please note that not all the "algorithms" deployed in a colour-managed workflow are either Adobe or Epson. There is something in your computer's operating system called a "CMM". Do you know what that means? Just in case you don't, let me help: it is the "Color Management Module". And within that CMM there is another processing module called the "PCS". Do you know what that means? Again, in case you don't, let me help. It is the Profile Connection Space. Do you now what that does? This time I'll let you look it up just in case you aren't fully tuned-in to the nature of these processes. A CMS (Color Management System) operates some functions in the application, some in the computer operating system and some in the printer. So yes, they are all "removed" from each other, but they are highly inter-dependent, and it would be wrong to assume that when you set your printer driver to Printer Manages Color that nothing is going on with the other two. Some processes still need to get the image file colour values from the file to the printer, and those processes matter to what the printer then does with them.
-
I didn't think it was so hard.
Yes, you can (and do) get excellent results from Printer Manages colour. That's not new, but it is better with the newer hardware and drivers. What it doesn't do is provide a workflow which can cater for multiple media, varied images and gamuts, different monitors and viewing conditions and so on. It's a less flexible pipeline, but within its confines it's very good (even excellent).
The ICC workflow gives you a consistent, single workflow that caters for all the regular (and some irregular) variables and provides a means of controlling those variables in a predictable manner. And it can achieve the same results.
So, printer manages is 100% OK if you know what you're doing and you like the results. If you never step outside of the vendor prepared pipeline, it is entirely possible that you will have brilliant results without ever going near an ICC workflow. If you do ever use or need a different pipeline (certain media, particular images, a stylistic preference, repeatability on different hardware, and so on), then an ICC workflow can give you the same brilliant results across those variables which may not fit the vendor's pipeline. That's why, after all, the vendors provide access to that pathway, too.
Neither is right or wrong, per se, but the ICC workflow approach, for most photogs provides a better workflow for the same excellent results.
The results of my research confirm the general thrust of this comment. But I wouldn't go as far as to say "100% OK". May or may not be. This is where judgment enters the picture. In terms of colour accuracy, high quality custom profiles in an ICC-managed workflow are hard to beat, but the last degree of that accuracy may not be visible to the average viewer. One must also be aware of possible printer drift. As you know Phil, when these machines leave the factory they are calibrated to a common standard and they can be pretty stable, but not 100% over an indefinite time period. I would surmise that as the printers drift from the initial standard (depending on what ways), the comparative results of Printer Manages Color could vary.
-
I've noticed on my Canon 9500 II and, to a lesser extent my Epson 9800, that letting the printer manage color and using the defaults, the rendered print's midrange luminance is boosted and some colors within the printer's gamut are increased in saturation.
If I just print a snapshot from my cellphone w/o any adjustment it often looks better on the Canon print than if I print using Perceptual with a custom I1Profiler generated profile using the Perceptual defaults. The Canon print is brighter and more colorful. Particularly in the greens. The Epson 9800, with the defaults, is also boosted but not nearly as much as the Canon. Both printers boost luminance less when using Photoshop manages color and their provided profiles but Canon still has significant boost as is allowed with Perceptual intent.
Needless to say, the same snapshot prints from the two printers look very different letting the printer manage color and using defaults.
However, using Relative intent and an image that is inside the printer gamuts, both printers produce visually identical prints on the same paper (outside of specular effects like bronzing) with Photoshop managing color and custom profiles.
I discussed this here.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=107556.msg884963#msg884963
I agree with your observation that printer colour management *can* produce a denser outcome showing as more saturated colour, as I've observed this in some of my testing. Not sure how far to generalize that however, and obviously it is not always the preferred result. And yes, colour management does work - one should/does get very similar results using the same paper in different printers of roughly similar colour reproduction capability provided the profiling and colour management set-up are good for both. I'm working between three different printer models just now (Canon Pro-1000, Epson P800 and Epson P5000) and I've printed the same photos in all of them with my own custom profiles for the papers being tested. Honestly, unless I labelled them, the next morning at first glance, and even the second, I wouldn't know which piece of paper came from which printer. I agree this should not be expected to hold with Printer Color Management. But perhaps for BobDavid this is not a relevant consideration.
-
.... I have considerable academic and professional credentials. I designed and worked in a special effects studio, owned and operated a fine art reproduction business, taught college courses on color theory, worked on machine vision projects, have an MS in Visual Studies from MIT, and had a stint as a research fellow at MIT related to visual sensation and perception.
Yes, I saw your credentials on your website - very impressive and respectable. But there remains room for honest and open debate between qualified people. The world would be a boring place if it were full of PhD's who agree with each other about everything. Let us not personalize the discussion.
-
Thank you Farmer... '... What it doesn't do is provide a workflow which can cater for multiple media, varied images and gamuts, different monitors and viewing conditions and so on. It's a less flexible pipeline, but within its confines it's very good (even excellent).'
As I clearly stated at the start of this thread, an Epson SureColor SP800 printer does an excellent job of managing output on Epson Ultra Premium Luster media. I never dismissed best practices re color management. I am however mighty impressed that a prosumer printer is able to manage output on one particular paper. One.
I get what it takes to optimize files for SWOP and fussy fine art media. Color management is not trivial, especially when a good part of one's living depends on running a tight ship.
I am amazed this thread has gone on as long as it has. If my initial statement came off as naive, I apologize.
-
One must also be aware of possible printer drift. As you know Phil, when these machines leave the factory they are calibrated to a common standard and they can be pretty stable, but not 100% over an indefinite time period. I would surmise that as the printers drift from the initial standard (depending on what ways), the comparative results of Printer Manages Color could vary.
I was going to mention this as well but how many of us do regular printer calibrations to measure drift? I think the newer Canon and Epson prosumer printers have senors that allow one to do this (there was another thread on the Epson printers several weeks ago). For my 3880 I have only two solutions, Epson ColorBase software which really only works with Epson papers and is very old software (first reviewed by Michael Reichman about a decade ago) or ArgyllCMS which does have tools to do calibrations.
-
I never ever made a sweeping generalization about letting printers manage color.
No, just this wrong, made up, theory about color management:
- No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB.
- Try "absolute
- Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output.
- Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's
- Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's. (Truth: You Bob of course didn't examine (understand?) the source code from those two companies).
- I'm curious to hear about results rather than theory.
Do you realize that the text above is simply WRONG yet and that's why you've been called out?
-
I have considerable academic and professional credentials.
None of which appear to aid you in backing up anything you've written here about color management and illustrate you are incapable of proving what you've written after being called out to do so!
Look, I have a degree too, but it isn't in medicine and I find it a massive mistake to argue with doctors on forums dedicated to medicine. You might want to examine your text as even particularly factual before posting.
-
I never ever made a sweeping generalization about letting printers manage color. I began this thread with one specific observation: An Epson SureColor printer is able to manage output on Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo paper. That's all. Holy grails do not exist in the world of color management. There is however a balance between art and science.
That's not what your original post said: "The P800 has exceeded my expectations: It makes stunning prints. The coolest thing about the printer is that I let it manage output rather than Photoshop. Who would have ever thunk that that would work. Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's." No qualifications about paper choice.
I didn't think it was so hard.
Yes, you can (and do) get excellent results from Printer Manages colour. That's not new, but it is better with the newer hardware and drivers. What it doesn't do is provide a workflow which can cater for multiple media, varied images and gamuts, different monitors and viewing conditions and so on. It's a less flexible pipeline, but within its confines it's very good (even excellent).
The ICC workflow gives you a consistent, single workflow that caters for all the regular (and some irregular) variables and provides a means of controlling those variables in a predictable manner. And it can achieve the same results.
So, printer manages is 100% OK if you know what you're doing and you like the results. If you never step outside of the vendor prepared pipeline, it is entirely possible that you will have brilliant results without ever going near an ICC workflow. If you do ever use or need a different pipeline (certain media, particular images, a stylistic preference, repeatability on different hardware, and so on), then an ICC workflow can give you the same brilliant results across those variables which may not fit the vendor's pipeline. That's why, after all, the vendors provide access to that pathway, too.
Neither is right or wrong, per se, but the ICC workflow approach, for most photogs provides a better workflow for the same excellent results.
Well said. Pretty much a summary of what MHMG said in response to C'tein (see above link).
-
And please refrain from condescending remarks such as "this silliness of your inability..."
You're using the wrong tool for the wrong job, better?
-
I want to thank BobDavid for starting this thread with his observations. It's a most interesting thread, for it is consistent with things I've noticed from my own experience as well as digesting comments from others here and elsewhere.
Having developed tools for analyzing ICC profile and printer performance I have some ideas on how to characterize more exactly how "printer manages color" performs. I strongly believe that, for obvious commercial reasons, there are material color shifts made to accommodate expectations of the larger market. These shifts are, I suspect, typically much stronger than those built in to the Perceptual table generation of I1Profiler. The ICC profile Perceptual Intent is designed for viewing under 500 Lux with a specific print media dynamic range, But the larger market is likely to compare printers under lower illumination levels and printer manufacturers are more driven to satisfying the larger consumer base, at whatever level of sophistication, than adhering to ICC requirements, let alone mere ICC suggestions. And Perceptual Intent mapping is a mere suggestion.
I am working on a set of tools to quantitatively characterize "printer manages color." Ideally, printer reviews would explore this untouched but significant area. Expect a specific thread on this topic in the future.
-
I want to thank BobDavid for starting this thread with his observations.
Including these observations?
No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB.
Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output. And then: Try "absolute" (begging the question about disabled RIs).
Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's. (still a total mystery of a comment despite requests for explanation).
Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's. (Where do you suppose Bob got the source code for these two products let alone as Mark suggests, the CMM and other OS attributes).
I'm curious to hear about results rather than theory. (So far, all theory, no results and no facts). I see the irony of that last comment, does Bob? More importantly his audience!
-
Yet what you state about soft proofing makes no written or more importantly, any visual sense. Can you explain that or not?
I HAVE provided examples of that what you've written not being the case; do tell us what I did wrong.
He can't. But I'll still wait but without holding my breath. I'm curious to hear about results rather than (made up?) theory :P
Verify, THEN trust.
-
Including these observations?
No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB.
Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output. And then: Try "absolute" (begging the question about disabled RIs).
Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's. (still a total mystery of a comment despite requests for explanation).
Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's. (Where do you suppose Bob got the source code for these two products let alone as Mark suggests, the CMM and other OS attributes).
I'm curious to hear about results rather than theory. (So far, all theory, no results and no facts). I see the irony of that last comment, does Bob? More importantly his audience!
They are quite odd statements from someone with the OP's stated background. And it is particularly odd given that he has done repro work professionally which is highly quantitative. One doesn't do repro and ask "how attractive it is" but how close it matches the original side by side under the same lighting and physical size/surround.
However, that said, his observation of a "stunning" looking print is clearly perceptual. It's due to whatever mapping or "secret sauce" the printer driver is doing. But it isn't magic. An ICC perceptual table that matched the device driver would produce equally "stunning" results on most printers since physical gamut limitation variation amongst printers are relatively insignificant even if hyped in marketing.
So it is this variation in device driver color mapping vendors are doing I find intriguing. So I'm pleased he brought up the topic. It is one that needs thorough exploring and understanding. I think the markets my be bifurcating between the graphic design folks where consistency and accurate color are baseline requirements and photography/art where pleasing appearance, even at the cost of vendor and model variance, is paramount.
-
They are quite odd statements from someone with the OP's stated background.
You are much more kind than I am ;D
Odd yes. Mostly wrong too.
-
I am working on a set of tools to quantitatively characterize "printer manages color." Ideally, printer reviews would explore this untouched but significant area. Expect a specific thread on this topic in the future.
I'll enjoy seeing that, but I also think it's adequate to compare the properties of well-known printer test pages to get a good appreciation of what's going on between these different approaches. Sometimes a few prints of some of the Romans 16 set also helps zero-in on more subtle distinctions.
-
You are much more kind than I am ;D
Odd yes. Mostly wrong too.
Don Quixote in the Color Management World? It's akin to the challenge Hercules had cleaning the Aegean stables, but without Herc's available solution.
-
Don Quixote in the Color Management World? It's akin to the challenge Hercules had cleaning the Aegean stables, but without Herc's available solution.
As I said, I'm more concerned with those reading (and accepting?) what Bob wrote that these others may believe is justified and correct. I've shown visually one of his ideas about color management (soft proofing with differing RIs) is simply ridiculous, outlined the oddity of his ideas about rendering intents, questioned his analysis of code, (the truth he believes about algorithms). Until he backs up any of the above with facts, my job is done. 8)
-
As I said, I'm more concerned with those reading (and accepting?) what Bob wrote that these others may believe is justified and correct. I've shown visually one of his ideas about color management (soft proofing with differing RIs) is simply ridiculous, outlined the oddity of his ideas about rendering intents, questioned his analysis of code, (the truth he believes about algorithms). Until he backs up any of the above with facts, my job is done. 8)
In my initial post, I was remiss about not specifying a particular paper. Since I now use one flavor of Epson media, the SureColor printer will manage output. ... Certainly, there are limitations. If it's necessary to source out a file to be printed on different media on another printer, then it's critical to use an appropriate ICC profile and soft proof.
Mea Culpa for jumping the gun and not being more specific in my initial post. However as the thread progressed, I disclosed workflow--sharing every aspect of the pipeline from soup to nuts (camera to final output).
I came across this a few weeks ago. It touches upon some of the issues that have been bandied about here. Advanced Graphic Communications (https://books.google.com/books?id=YuxyDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=adobe+algorithm+for+color+mapping&source=bl&ots=I8YV85HYYs&sig=pk9BvmRayi6nV5GUM-3SQs7uRe4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiEtZi1_7HWAhVFyFQKHd5wAVQQ6AEIRzAE#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Another point: When the printer takes control of output, rendering intent is handled by the printer. I tested relative, absolute, and perceptual in the Adobe dialog box. The output stayed the same.
To Mark Segal's point, I agree. It is important to have a free and open exchange of ideas without letting personalities and ego muddy the waters. ... If I've offended people, that isn't and wasn't my intention.
There have been some cocky and condescending comments hurled about here. And tempers have flared.
-
Another point: When the printer takes control of output, rendering intent is handled by the printer.
So what I provided from Adobe Photoshop is a bug?
And tempers have flared.
It can be upsetting for some I suppose, to be asked to prove one's point and not being able to do so.
-
Thanks. Well done Digital Dog.
I've always wondered about your logo: A dog, similar to RCA Victor's Nipper, with his face glued to a CRT display.
Supposing the scan rate of the CRT is less than 70-80 Hertz, a dog will see flicker. Dogs have significantly fewer cones than humans. They perceive muted blues and yellows. Dogs are farsighted. The longer the snout, the more farsighted they are.
Was Nipper in the RCA Victor logo partially or completely deaf?
-
Are you saying he's wrong ?
A simple yes or no ...
Who are you asking about what?
If you're asking me, the answer is here:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120632.msg1000473#msg1000473
It isn't a yes or no answer in total. It's a yes in a few specific areas.
-
But I wouldn't go as far as to say "100% OK". May or may not be.
I did qualify my statement: "if you know what you're doing and you like the results".
This is where judgment enters the picture. In terms of colour accuracy, high quality custom profiles in an ICC-managed workflow are hard to beat, but the last degree of that accuracy may not be visible to the average viewer. One must also be aware of possible printer drift. As you know Phil, when these machines leave the factory they are calibrated to a common standard and they can be pretty stable, but not 100% over an indefinite time period. I would surmise that as the printers drift from the initial standard (depending on what ways), the comparative results of Printer Manages Color could vary.
Sure, but unless you're trying to hit FOGRA certs or similar, most people don't regularly relinearize their profiles. I know some do, and they'll gain greater consistency. To Bob's original point, if you're using the vendors media, then there are tools to relinearize the printers (the hardware is even built into some of them).
We (many of us) had the "printer manages" discussion just recently here on LuLa. It's a viable option, but for all the reasons discussed on the other thread (and at various times over the years) it's not what I would recommend for most users.
-
Sure, but unless you're trying to hit FOGRA certs or similar, most people don't regularly relinearize their profiles.
There's really little reason to do so other than have a proof of concept the printer hasn't drifted visibly. At least with the many Epson's I've trended over the years. dE differences over time and units is remarkably tiny at least on the pro and sub pro line.
-
There's really little reason to do so other than have a proof of concept the printer hasn't drifted visibly. At least with the many Epson's I've trended over the years. dE differences over time and units is remarkably tiny at least on the pro and sub pro line.
Absolutely. The proofers I know who are doing certs are getting a print by print confirmation of the printer being within tolerances. They're extraordinarily picky, but relinearization often isn't required for long periods.
You're far more likely to get variances due to changes in temperature, humidity, substrate consistency, and so on, in my experience.
-
Thanks. Well done Digital Dog.
I've always wondered about your logo:
Cease wondering about that, work harder on color management concepts; that would be my suggestion.
-
Cease wondering about that, work harder on color management concepts; that would be my suggestion.
I think you are closed-minded, arrogant, and childish. I'd be happy to send you one a print of a file managed by the printer and then one managed by Adobe. I'll also send you the TIFF. PM me your address. ... I've been reading the "Printing:" forum for years. I've never seen you post your work. Why not put something up in the "critique" section. I'd like to see what your images are all about. My website is bobrosinsky.com. My prints are gorgeous--they were as a professional, and they are now.
As noted again and again, SP800 > Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper > printer management. As a few people on this thread have attested, the narrow pipeline is fine, but inflexible. For now, whatever I print is for personl use.
Again, I am not sure what to make of your logo. It's stupid.
-
I think you are closed-minded, arrogant, and childish.
But in terms of understanding this topic and dismissing yours, I think I did an excellent job.
I don't need a print from you showing how Printer Manage Color can produce a lovely print; I've done it.
What I don't need is someone telling others rubbish like: there's no need to soft proof or pick a rendering intent because someone is using an Adobe RGB display.
Or that they have uncovered which algorithm from two companies is superior when it's clear you do not have said code.
Or that I should try an Absolute RI after being told no RI will be used when invoking PMC.
And then there's that text about signal to noise ratio that more than just I found nearly impossible to take seriously.
You are entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to made up comments about color management that were very easily and visibly dismissed in this post. Telling is that you've completely ignored said facts, differences in how the RI's produce a preview and so forth.
The narrower pipeline is fine. And so is someone shooting JPEGs on an iphone but I don't recommend the same for someone with a DSLR or better go out of their way for 'fine' when much better and more capable is available. For you, PMC is OK and probably camera JPEGs in sRGB. For those of us implementing a full color managed path, it's a hack.
As for the logo, don't let it confuse you any more; examine what rendering intents and soft proofing actually do to an image preview on any kind of display, you'll find the time spent is far more worthwhile for you.
-
'As for the logo, don't let it confuse you any more; examine what rendering intents and soft proofing actually do to an image preview on any kind of display, you'll find the time spent is far more worthwhile for you.'
I know that stuff, have and still utilize tight color management ala Rodney Dog (duh soft proofing, custom ICC profiles, high-end Eizo monitor, viewing booth, a work area that's neutral grey, and a stockpile of esoteric paper.
You are an angry fellow.
-
You're a chicken.
And I'm the one being childish?
More a dog. But OK you are again entitled to that opinion. 8)
-
And I'm the one being childish?
More a dog. But OK you are again entitled to that opinion. 8)
Thank you for granting me the privilege of being entitled to an opinion.
-
I did, and again, since you apparently didn't read what I wrote earlier: IT FAILED.
So again, the various and differing soft proof previews I see are a lie? And what you're seeing without soft proofing isn't?
I've spent some time on your website. I watched your tutorial on soft proofing. Okay, nothing new. ... I love dogs, apparently you do too. So I watched your Whippets at White Sands. I love the Ry Cooder soundtrack. Are you paying a licensing fee to use it? I surmise you are clueless when it comes to photographing dogs in a studio setting. And I see that you have a Ken Burns fetish: pan to the right, zoom in.
If you want to showcase the beauty and the character traits of dogs, why not let a still image tell the story? BobDavid's Silent Picture Show of Pet Dogs (https://bobrosinsky.com/portfolio/dogs/)
-
Bob, Rodney is correct about what he is saying. I have read the forms here for many years but I really never comment. I understand Rodney can come across a bit harsh but he is very knowledgeable about colour management. I also can understand that your workflow works for you. Maybe in the future with different printers and different software may not work as expected. Discussion about this is good. It helps us grow and understand the technology that we have available to us. I appreciate this thread but please keep it civil. Both Rodney and you have interesting points of view to consider.
I understand the confrontation here, read some of Rodneys work and try out his techniques. If you come to a different conclusion then his or others bring it up to see if maybe there is a step missing in your testing or something he, or they might have missed.
-
Bob, Rodney is correct about what he is saying. I have read the forms here for many years but I really never comment. I understand Rodney can come across a bit harsh but he is very knowledgeable about colour management. I also can understand that your workflow works for you. Maybe in the future with different printers and different software may not work as expected. Discussion about this is good. It helps us grow and understand the technology that we have available to us. I appreciate this thread but please keep it civil. Both Rodney and you have interesting points of view to consider.
I understand the confrontation here, read some of Rodneys work and try out his techniques. If you come to a different conclusion then his or others bring it up to see if maybe there is a step missing in your testing or something he, or they might have missed.
Okay, agreed. No more rancor.
-
Thank you for granting me the privilege of being entitled to an opinion.
Hum...to quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”
I've read the entire thread and the facts are on Andrew's side. So far what you've provided are opinions–which is fine–as long as your opinions are not construed to be facts. So far, I've yet to see any proofs of your opinions...care to offer any?
So, Epson's print pipeline is better than Adobe's for the P800? Hum, not my experience...I will admit they are different but in my opinion (and my experience) you are wrong. Do you have any proof to offer that Epson's is better? Got any color charts you've measured and compared?
You claim for the P800 printer only (and not other printers) you personally don't see the benefit of soft proofing, and you use the Printer Manages Color option because, in your opinion it's better. Do you have any proof? Got any color charts you've measured and compared?
You say "I use an Eizo CS2420 ColorEdge monitor / NVIDIA K6000 combo", uh huh...and "the monitor is setup for aRGB" uh huh...set up for A RGB how? A RGB gamut? What about gamma? What about white point? What contrast ratio is the display set to? You say it matches your Solux bulbs, which bulbs? How have you measured that they match? What is your viewing environment?
What exactly does "The S/N ratio is higher than it is when PS manages the output." mean?
And personally, I wouldn't be exporting my raw images from C1 in A RGB...I'm pretty sure (opinion here since I don't have that camera) a Sony Alpha a7R II camera is capable of capturing a LOT more color gamut outside of A RGB so you are leaving color fidelity potential on the table by not using PP RGB–at least all my cameras can ONLY be contained by PP RGB.
So, I'm happy you are happy with your printer...I'm happy you are happy with your color management workflow.
However, I'm not happy with your opinions being presented as facts and the lessons you are espousing to other people reading this thread...that working in A RGB using Printer Managed Color and not bothering to soft proof is proper practice if your aim is the ultimate printed output of your images.
As for my creds? I have a few...maybe you've read my book: The Digital Print (https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Print-Preparing-Lightroom-Photoshop/dp/0321908457)
(personally, I thought Andrew was doing an excellent job of maintaining a civil tone)
8)
-
Okay, agreed. No more rancor.
Now you're moving away from the childish.
-
Great, but that's NOT what Bob originally said.
He said nothing about ultimate printed output, nothing about accuracy. The reality is that many care more about pleasing color than they do about accurate color. You may prefer Adobe's pipeline, Bob prefers Epson's ONLY as far as the P800 / Epson Ultra Premium Lustre Photo Paper goes - now who's to say he's wrong and you're right ?
I and other's have no beef with that opinion. Read the posts again! I've outlined specifically what technical points he's made that is unsound and incorrect from the perspective of color management. See the text with the specific bullet points that he made that are either totally and technically wrong or use language that is unclear and sounds made up (the bit about S/N and his ideas about algorithms is pure speculation).
Did anyone here say that PMC is poor or people should not use it? No.
As for being obnoxious, I really don't care what you think of my attitude. I do care that technically correct and factual text about color management and digital imaging are expressed here for those who need to learn the facts. Much of what Bob wrote doesn't fall into that camp. He's entitled to believe that science fiction but other's who know as little as he does on this subject need to get peer review comments that ARE accurate or they end up as confused and posting more technically incorrect text for others to read and unfortunately accept.
Do you really believe Bob has Adobe and Epson's source code, understands it if he did (he doesn't) and can actually post one is superior? If you do, you're in the same unreality bubble and none of us can help you. ???
-
Bob is happy with his workflow for that printer/paper combination. this really should be the end of the story but of course egos are too big to let it alone.
-
Bob is happy with his workflow for that printer/paper combination. this really should be the end of the story but of course egos are too big to let it alone.
Which would be fine if he didn't advocate a suboptimal CM workflow...sorry in this day and age, I don't accept the concept of "alternative facts"...
:-)
-
Which would be fine if he didn't advocate a suboptimal CM workflow...sorry in this day and age, I don't accept the concept of "alternative facts"...
:-)
Yup, it's the alternative 'facts' that were easily dismissed that some of us keep pointing out, not his use of PMC. Got zero issue with how he prints whatever he prints.
-
I just finished reading Mark Segal's impressive article on various MOAB papers and output from the Epson P800 and Canon Pro-1000. His methodology is tight, and no doubt the data has integrity.
I'm sticking to my guns: The extremely specific combo of letting the P800 manage output on Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper, is fine for pleasing color.
Incidentally, using a closed-loop and inflexible "printer managed" workflow, is an asset when running limited editions.
Finally, if my prints were worth $$$$, I wouldn't be using a prosumer printer and pedestrian media.
-
I'm sticking to my guns: The extremely specific combo of letting the P800 manage output on Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper, is fine for pleasing color.
Do so, that's fine as no one has said you shouldn't use PMC or not stick to your guns about what print path you desire.
What you should not stick to is the following (again) which is mostly wrong or if not wrong, ambiguous and without a lick of proof:
- No need to soft proof, the monitor is setup for aRGB.
- Try "absolute
- Rendering intents are disabled when the printer manages output.
- Higher S/N ratio: Adobe's algorithms are one step removed from the printer's
- Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's. (Truth: You Bob of course didn't examine (understand?) the source code from those two companies).
-
Schewe: 'Which would be fine if he didn't advocate a suboptimal CM workflow...sorry in this day and age, I don't accept the concept of "alternative facts"...
:-)'
I'm not advocating or recommending anything to anyone. Here's my original post:
'I've been using Epson Stylus Pro wide format printers since 2006. I've owned a 9800, 7800, 9900, and a 7890. I loved the 7890 for its reliability and output. When my wife and I decided to move from Florida to Colorado, I sold the 7890. I didn't want to risk shipping it 1,800 miles. ... And at this point, a 17" printer is sufficient for my needs. I ultimately decided on the SureColor P800.
Going from a pro printer to a prosumer printer didn't thrill me. Epson's professional 17" printers are over twice the price of the P800. When I owned and operated a studio, the P800 would not have been up to the task, neither would any 17" printer.
There are really only two options for a 17" prosumer printer: 1) Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-1000; 2) Epson P800.
The P800 has exceeded my expectations: It makes stunning prints. The coolest thing about the printer is that I let it manage output rather than Photoshop. Who would have ever thunk that that would work. Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's.'
It seems all the flap/arguments center around the comment 'I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's.' That that observation has rankled so many is interesting. Of course I qualified the observation by discussing one paper and one printer, in one particular situation.
Merely noting an observation-based opinion is not the same as pushing "alternative facts," or bending the truth to promote an agenda.
It is true that when the printer assumes management, it overrides rendering intents specified in the Photoshop printer dialogue box.
Unlike Rodney, I have not looked at Adobe's source codes. I suspect no one on this thread has recently, if ever, been allowed to delve into Epson's proprietary hard code (burned into the chip set) and every line of software code.
-
Truth is, I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's.'
Speculation. One may indeed produce a better print. There's a lot more going on just in the OS to make a print than the two other components you think you know is producing a 'better' algorithm!
It seems all the flap/arguments center around the comment 'I think the Epson algorithms are superior to Photoshop's.' That that observation has rankled so many is interesting. Of course I qualified the observation by discussing one paper and one printer, in one particular situation.
No, the flap is far more and has been shown to you and others multiple times here.
Merely noting an observation-based opinion is not the same as pushing "alternative facts," or bending the truth to promote an agenda.
It is an alternative fact when you bring algorithm's from differing companies you have no idea about into the discussion.
It is true that when the printer assumes management, it overrides rendering intents specified in the Photoshop printer dialogue box.
It is true expect when it's not. Because it depends. Even Adobe points that out!
Unlike Rodney, I have not looked at Adobe's source codes. I suspect no one on this thread has recently, if ever, been allowed to delve into Epson's proprietary hard code (burned into the chip set) and every line of software code.
I've never looked at the code and clearly we know you haven't either. You don't have to suspect further as you've done originally; no one here has been allowed to delve into any proprietary code or if they have, they work for the companies or have an NDA. Further, you will never see them making made up statements about the code, let alone statements based on fact concerning these algorithms. Those who know, don't talk. Those who don't know, talk a lot as we've seen here about who's algorithms are superior. It's simple a figment of the imagination of the writer based on speculation. Enough said.
-
Bob is happy with his workflow for that printer/paper combination. this really should be the end of the story but of course egos are too big to let it alone.
Alan, you're right. It's time to let it alone.
-
Alan, you're right. It's time to let it alone.
Yup, just ignore the bits that are factually wrong about color. After that, print any way you desire.
-
Yup, just ignore the bits that are factually wrong about color. After that, print any way you desire.
No more rancor from me.
-
I'm sticking to my guns: The extremely specific combo of letting the P800 manage output on Epson Ultra Premium Luster Photo Paper, is fine for pleasing color.
I'm curious about two things. Since the P800 Printer Manages results are quite pleasing to you, the gamut mapping they use could be interesting and I'm curious as to how much it differs from using canned profiles and Perceptual Intent.
Gamut mapping, that is not image dependent, could just as easily be included in a supplied profile Perceptual BtoA0 table but, for some reason, were not in the two printers I have. Perhaps the motivation is market segmentation and addressing customer expectation differences in them.
However, by not doing so the printer companies have removed the ability to soft proof against the printer driver gamut mapped prints and that's quite unfortunate and completely unnecessary.
In any case, if you have the tools to measure color charts it would be interesting to see how these colors are mapped. The following post has an attachment, LAB10Ref.tif, and if you print it using your preferred "Printer Manages Color" settings it will tell quite a bit about the gamut mapping the P800 defaults produce. If you don't have the tools to measure them I would be happy to scan them and post the results. I can send you a mailing address by PM.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=120679.msg1000735#msg1000735
-
Gamut mapping, that is not image dependent, could just as easily be included in a supplied profile Perceptual BtoA0 table but, for some reason, were not in the two printers I have. Perhaps the motivation is market segmentation and addressing customer expectation differences in them.
Image dependent how? You mean picking the RI by each image?
Yeah, the lack of soft proofing and selecting an RI isn't ideal.
-
On some images (many?) in some color spaces, going out to print, the visual differences between RelCol, Perceptual and even Saturation (Absolute, no) is significant. I can't see spending the ink and paper and money to make even an 8x10 without viewing those options before printing. Put output specific edits and paper/ink simulation aside and consider just those three options.
-
Image dependent how? You mean picking the RI by each image?
Yeah, the lack of soft proofing and selecting an RI isn't ideal.
Gamut mapping, which is what the Perceptual Intent does, is not image dependent. It's purely a function of each pixel's color. Here's a description of the terminology.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jan_Morovic/publication/236121201_The_Fundamentals_of_Gamut_Mapping_A_Survey/links/560511e108ae8e08c08adae2/The-Fundamentals-of-Gamut-Mapping-A-Survey.pdf
First, one of the most noticeable trends in the reviewed gamut mapping work is the agreement among different studies that image-dependent methods are preferred over medium-dependent methods, which is in some sense supported by a number of sources. At the same time, however, there is some work that suggests that while determining gamut mapping on an image-dependent basis gives better results, it is not an image’s gamut that determines how it ought to be gamut mapped.
Second, there is significant number of studies where clipping is given preference over compression
Perceptual intent can be and is used for gamut mapping though I1PRofiler's is rather minimalist.
-
Gamut mapping, which is what the Perceptual Intent does, is not image dependent. It's purely a function of each pixel's color. Here's a description of the terminology.
I would think the same is true of any RI. How does an ICC Profile know anything about an image? I'm I thinking of a different concept of image dependent?
-
I would think the same is true of any RI. How does an ICC Profile know anything about an image? I'm I thinking of a different concept of image dependent?
It's true but what's allowed varies with the RI.
Relative Intent is specified for all PCS colors not outside the device gamut so there is no flexibility there except for how out of gamut colors are mapped to the gamut surface. Perceptual and Saturation Intent allow for arbitrary gamut mapping though Saturation intent is supposed to favor preserving hue rather than clipping to the nearest gamut surface
ICC profiles in any RI can only do image independent gamut mapping*. Image dependent mapping can include things like comping for the dynamic range of a scene by decreasing or increasing contrast. But this really is subjective and people are better at knowing what they like in a picture than neural nets. So far.
I'm pretty sure I've seen you point that out several times but perhaps used different terms than "independent gamut mapping" as you have a very good understanding of how ICC profiles work in practice.
-
Gamut mapping, which is what the Perceptual Intent does, is not image dependent.
While the mapping isn't image dependent, the success of that mapping is...as is the starting color space. The only way to know what intent os best is either do a sample print or use soft proofing...
-
While the mapping isn't image dependent, the success of that mapping is...as is the starting color space. The only way to know what intent os best is either do a sample print or use soft proofing...
Indeed. And that's why people will often try Relative Intent w/BPC as well as Perceptual or even Saturation and pick what looks best. I've had a few cases where relative Intent w/o BPC is best. And that can only be done by soft proofing or killing more trees.
-
It's true but what's allowed varies with the RI.
Again, I can't understand how an ICC profile knows anything about image content. They don't even 'know' anything about an adjacent pixel do they? IOW, they examine a pixel value alone and convert it based on a number of assumptions perhaps and a lot of data is a guess (by the time the output profile comes into the scene, the data is usually in Lab, the source color space is unknown). IF an image is what I understand it to be, I still can't understand how a profile knows anything about it to alter a conversion based on content. Confused..... >:(
WE humans need to view pixels in context and view what really IS an image and decide what RI to use based on those pixels and color in context no? That's why we toggle the RI's and select the one we visually prefer. We humans that wish to control this mapping have to use a full color managed path which includes soft proofing and control over the rendering intent if we desire this kind of control. Going full circle as to why Printer Manages Color is a black box approach with less control for the image creator and/or print maker.
-
Again, I can't understand how an ICC profile knows anything about image content. They don't even 'know' anything about an adjacent pixel do they? IOW, they examine a pixel value alone and convert it based on a number of assumptions perhaps and a lot of data is a guess (by the time the output profile comes into the scene, the data is usually in Lab, the source color space is unknown). IF an image is what I understand it to be, I still can't understand how a profile knows anything about it to alter a conversion based on content. Confused..... >:(
Perhaps my words were unclear. ICC profiles are only for image independent color mapping. This means each pixel's transformation is independent of the pixels in the rest of the image. Your understanding is correct, a point I had noted earlier. It's just that you use different words similar to the above and I used "image independent" which is academic, mathematical terminology, and is the way I refer to things by default. They have the same meaning.
From a prior post of mine:
ICC profiles in any RI can only do image independent gamut mapping
I also agree with this:
WE humans need to view pixels in context and view what really IS an image and decide what RI to use based on those pixels and color in context no? That's why we toggle the RI's and select the one we visually prefer. We humans that wish to control this mapping have to use a full color managed path which includes soft proofing and control over the rendering intent if we desire this kind of control. Going full circle as to why Printer Manages Color is a black box approach with less control for the image creator and/or print maker.
-
Perhaps my words were unclear. ICC profiles are only for image independent color mapping.
What was unclear to me was this text: Gamut mapping, that is not image dependent...
That implies to me there is gamut mapping that is image dependent. Just caught my here.
-
What was unclear to me was this text: Gamut mapping, that is not image dependent...
That implies to me there is gamut mapping that is image dependent. Just caught my here.
Gamut mapping that is image dependent is believed to potentially offer better visual results than image independent gamut mapping. Here's a paper that explores it:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5918124_Image-Dependent_Gamut_Mapping_as_Optimization_Problem
My specification that Perceptual Intent did not use image dependent gamut mapping was just to emphasize the point as some may confuse that with Perceptual Intent not being Colorimetric. Of course all ICC profile usage is image independent. That is, a pixel color conversion is unrelated to the values of other pixels. As far as I am aware, all Printer Manages Color is also image independent and hence could be described, or duplicated, in the perceptual intent tables of ICC profiles and so could be soft proofed against. But printer manufacturers apparently choose not to do so. Perhaps the reason is financial. If consumers like the "pop" of printer manages providing a proofing profile would also allow duplication on other manufacturer's printers. Secret sauce becomes less secret.