Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: mdijb on January 19, 2019, 01:15:59 pm
-
My image looks great on the screen and the proof copy looks great. When I make the print, ugly green colors appear in many areas of the print that do not show on my screen. I have seen this regardless of what paper I use or what profile I select(appropriate for the paper choice). It occurs whether I use a profile supplied by the paper maker, or a custom profile I had made. I am printing on an epson P800 from a MAC using LR.
I attached a copy of the print proof and an iPhone copy of the print that results. The green colors in the print are greatly exagerated in the iphone image of the print but are clearly visible in the actual print. The geen colors are most prominent in the areas of sand detail.
Can anyone help diagnose this problem?
MDIJB
-
Possibly the VM and/or VLM channels blocking?
-
I do not know what Vm or VLM refer to.
MDIJB
-
Vivid Magenta and Vivid Light Magenta.
Do you do a nozzle check before each print job?
-
Just because the image looks great on screen doesn't mean it's an indicator of what's printing and the two match. That's part of the display calibration equation. After determining that indeed all inks are firing, output a color reference image and examine if or if not it matches the display while soft proofing.
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
-
My image looks great on the screen and the proof copy looks great. When I make the print, ugly green colors appear in many areas of the print that do not show on my screen. I have seen this regardless of what paper I use or what profile I select(appropriate for the paper choice). It occurs whether I use a profile supplied by the paper maker, or a custom profile I had made. I am printing on an epson P800 from a MAC using LR.
I attached a copy of the print proof and an iPhone copy of the print that results. The green colors in the print are greatly exagerated in the iphone image of the print but are clearly visible in the actual print. The geen colors are most prominent in the areas of sand detail.
Can anyone help diagnose this problem?
MDIJB
What do you mean by the term "proof copy". Is it an actual print, and are you using the same print profile on both the proof and the final print? Also, is the "proof copy" printed on the same paper that you use for the final print? If the answer to both is YES, then it could indeed be nozzle dropouts in one or both of the Magenta channels. And of course Andrews reply should be followed as well. And if you have a test image of some sort that you have printed on this paper you can print that file again and see if it matches the first one. Also make sure the profile and the "print settings" match. The profile is only as good as the print settings.
Gary
-
One more question, or perhaps two. Are these two images copies of the prints, proof and final print? If so, are these camera shots or scans of the prints? It would be good to know how you reproduced them for your initial post.
Gary
-
OK. Nozzle check looks fine--no gaps anywhere.
Printed the Digital dog test image with profile supplied with the paper and it looks great--no problems.
I have printed many other images with no problems.
It seems there is something about this particular dune image that is a problem.
ANy other ideas
-
Are you comparing a SOFTPROOF of your photo with the print? It may be a colour adjustment problem that shows up under softproof.
-
Are you comparing a SOFTPROOF of your photo with the print? It may be a colour adjustment problem that shows up under softproof.
That's what I was trying to get at in reply#5, but I probably didn't word it correctly. He was referring to "proof copy", which I wanted him to verify. Is it an actual print or the image on his display, soft or otherwise. If indeed he has first printed a "Proof Print", assuming he has changed nothing before printing the final print it should be identical to the "Proof Print". Therefore, something in "Print Settings" has changed or he has not selected the correct Print Profile. An image file is an image file, and unless it has been altered it would print the same every time if there are no issues with the printer itself.
Gary
-
In LR, proof copy is a soft proof with an output specific edit. The OP seems to understand that and he's comparing the soft proof (proof copy) to the actual print as I read his initial post. They don't match. He seems to be calling the output to the print, a print copy.
-
I do not understand and am confused by the comments above. Let me explain
I the LR window there is the original image on the left, and the proof copy on the right. I make come changes to the image on the right after applying the appropriate profile to it. I then make a print of this proof copy. The green stuff I described appears in Neither of these on the screen images but does appear in the print.
Does this help?
MDIJB
-
I do not understand and am confused by the comments above. Let me explain
I the LR window there is the original image on the left, and the proof copy on the right. I make come changes to the image on the right after applying the appropriate profile to it. I then make a print of this proof copy. The green stuff I described appears in Neither of these on the screen images but does appear in the print.
Does this help?
MDIJB
It makes sense and how I read it, so again, the issue is a mismatch between what you see on-screen and what you get on print, so see reply #5. IF everything prints correctly with the reference image but not this single document, be useful to see a low rez copy of it. It could contain a lot of out of gamut colors which cannot be seen on-screen. Or some other setting that maybe differed from the color reference output (double check).
-
A low rez copy of the proof copy is attached in my original posting.
There some OOG colors, especially the yellows, but the areas of OOG that appear on the screen do not correspond well to the areas of green discoloration in the print.
Again, I have printed many other images which have some OOG colors, because I like intense colors, without problems, but not this one.
MDIJB
-
I do not understand and am confused by the comments above. Let me explain
I the LR window there is the original image on the left, and the proof copy on the right. I make come changes to the image on the right after applying the appropriate profile to it. I then make a print of this proof copy. The green stuff I described appears in Neither of these on the screen images but does appear in the print.
Does this help?
MDIJB
This is going to sound rather strange and probably has no bearing on your situation, but I'll try to explain it as well as I can. I seldom work in LR and I never print from LR. For the variety of work I do I find Photoshop to be faster for printing. Now, one more question. What adjustments have you made to the original file before printing? I need the answer to that before I go on, and I will admit that my theory is probably way out in left field, but it almost makes sense to me.
Please answer ASAP!
-
This is going to sound rather strange and probably has no bearing on your situation, but I'll try to explain it as well as I can. I seldom work in LR and I never print from LR. For the variety of work I do I find Photoshop to be faster for printing. Now, one more question. What adjustments have you made to the original file before printing? I need the answer to that before I go on, and I will admit that my theory is probably way out in left field, but it almost makes sense to me.
Please answer ASAP!
Just to make sure this isn't a cause of further confusion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with printing from Lightroom. In fact, it's much more convenient and better set-up than printing from Photoshop, and is technically fine. I do ALL my printing from LR except when I need Absolute Rendering intent for proofing purposes.
From all that's been exchanged here, the problem seems something image-specific, and not generic to the application or the print pipeline.
-
Just to make sure this isn't a cause of further confusion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with printing from Lightroom. In fact, it's much more convenient and better set-up than printing from Photoshop, and is technically fine. I do ALL my printing from LR except when I need Absolute Rendering intent for proofing purposes.
From all that's been exchanged here, the problem seems something image-specific, and not generic to the application or the print pipeline.
OT but I absolutely agree and there's many workflow advantages to printing out of LR; the print module is worth the price of admission.
-
Just to make sure this isn't a cause of further confusion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with printing from Lightroom. In fact, it's much more convenient and better set-up than printing from Photoshop, and is technically fine. I do ALL my printing from LR except when I need Absolute Rendering intent for proofing purposes.
From all that's been exchanged here, the problem seems something image-specific, and not generic to the application or the print pipeline.
Hmmm .... I just reread my previous reply and I cannot see anything that refers to LR being inferior to Photoshop in any way. I simply expressed my opinion based on the variety and volume of prints job that I deal with. LR does a great job of processing and rendering files, but there are some things that PS does better in my opinion, and in my workflow printing is one of them. And there are also certain types of work that LR cannot handle, which is perfectly OK, since one can easily switch from LR to PS if necessary. In no way was I demeaning LR, or at least that was not my intention. Nor was I trying to convince anyone that LR's printing capabilities are inferior. In my setup PS is faster, that simple.
"From all that's been exchanged here, the problem seems something image-specific, and not generic to the application or the print pipeline." I'm not sure what you mean by that Mark. If the OP has done the softprofing in LR it's still that same image. That's why I asked my latest question. If his answer is what I expect it might be I have a theory, but I have to admit that I don't know how it could possibly have happened, especially in LR. I can see how it could happen in PS if one was in a rush and not paying attention, but not in LR. I hope I get an answer. And also, I asked him what he meant by "Print Proof Copy", but I think he meant the soft proofed image, not an actual print. As Andrew mentioned, that means nothing, since we don't know what his print settings were and exactly what the actual print looks like. I would hardly consider an iPhone copy to be a viable rendition of the actual physical print. What light source was he using for the copy shot? What settings on the phone? Simply not enough information in my opinion. I certainly don't doubt that the OP is having a problem with this image, but we are supposed to offer opinions based on two images from totally different sources. Apples and Oranges.
Gary
-
Hmmm .... I just reread my previous reply and I cannot see anything that refers to LR being inferior to Photoshop in any way.
In order to print anything in PS, you have to find and open it and load it into memory. In LR you can select one or hundreds of images and click "Print" and all will be printed.
In order to print anything in PS, you have to first render the raws before you can even start with #1 above. In LR, the rendering takes place as one prints. Select and print.
In Photoshop, if you want output specific edits, you have to soft proof and create the edits on layers (if you're smart), and do so for each output device. In LR, you build Proof Copies, something you don't seem to be aware of: they take up NO space, they contain only the output specific edits. The soft proof is memorized as is the rendering intent as this affects what you see of course. AND the output specific edits are all stored with metadata that takes up on space.
In the Print module, the edits and rendering intent is honored.
In the Print module, you can build as many print presets as you wish (again, virtually no space taken up) which saves EVERY print parameter including size of paper, paper type and all the stuff mentioned above so you can again, select any number of images, raw or otherwise and make a print exactly as the preset defines. That simply isn't possible in Photoshop.
The soft proofing in Develop is much better visually in LR than PS if for anything else, how the bkgnd is not as white as the GUI (the surround is grayed back if so set). To get this in Photoshop, you need to work in Full Screen mode.
LR provides adaptive print output sharpening! Based on the image size and output resolution AND the capture sharpening applied to the original; raw or rendered.. PS requires you do this on each image manually.
LRs Print module provides info such as page bleed, margins and gutters, dimensions on-screen. PS doesn't.
LR provides options for automate Rotate to Fit and Fill. PS doesn't.
LR provides metadata overlays ON the printed output you can select or even the users Identify plate. PS requires you manually type that in using a Type Layer.
Further, LR provides page options on the print (Page number, crop marks and page info).
You want to gang up 6 images on one page. Maybe the same size, maybe different sizes on one page You can build as many Print Packages or Custom Packages, again with all the preset stuff mentioned above. In Photoshop you have to open each document, size it, move it into a canvas etc. ANYONE making such packages will find LR to be vastly faster and superior than PS!
There is simply no comparison between what one can do in LR's print module vs. Photoshop which from day one has and continues to be a 'one image at a time' workflow. LR isn't.
I'm probably forgetting more features of the module and hopefully if so, others will chime in. Again, IF you print more than a few images per month, let alone week or day, LR's print module is worth the price of admission.
-
+1
-
I agree - and put some further thoughts in bold below for ease of distinction.
In order to print anything in PS, you have to find and open it and load it into memory. In LR you can select one or hundreds of images and click "Print" and all will be printed.
In order to print anything in PS, you have to first render the raws before you can even start with #1 above. In LR, the rendering takes place as one prints. Select and print. Important to add that this rendering happens on the fly and doesn't stick, so you still are left with a much more economical raw file in terms of storage, unless you intended to export a rendered version for keeps.
In Photoshop, if you want output specific edits, you have to soft proof and create the edits on layers (if you're smart), and do so for each output device. In LR, you build Proof Copies, something you don't seem to be aware of: they take up NO space, they contain only the output specific edits. The soft proof is memorized as is the rendering intent as this affects what you see of course. AND the output specific edits are all stored with metadata that takes up on space [Assuming you meant "no" space!]
In the Print module, the edits and rendering intent is honored.
In the Print module, you can build as many print presets as you wish (again, virtually no space taken up) which saves EVERY print parameter including size of paper, paper type and all the stuff mentioned above so you can again, select any number of images, raw or otherwise and make a print exactly as the preset defines. That simply isn't possible in Photoshop.[I would add to this in LR in the Custom Package Layout Style you can put together any manner of composite you want and then save the whole thing as a "Saved Print", so you don't need to recreate the layout next time you want more copies of it. It's very "RIP-like" in this aspect of its feature set, which is nice
The soft proofing in Develop is much better visually in LR than PS if for anything else, how the bkgnd is not as white as the GUI (the surround is grayed back if so set). To get this in Photoshop, you need to work in Full Screen mode.
LR provides adaptive print output sharpening! Based on the image size and output resolution AND the capture sharpening applied to the original; raw or rendered.. PS requires you do this on each image manually. [I'd go further just to note that the whole sharpening workflow in LR not only works very well, but only uses several bytes of meta data, whereas to replicate this in PS non-destructively you need to do at least two levels of sharpening on separate layers and file size grows like topsy.
LRs Print module provides info such as page bleed, margins and gutters, dimensions on-screen. PS doesn't.
LR provides options for automate Rotate to Fit and Fill. PS doesn't.
LR provides metadata overlays ON the printed output you can select or even the users Identify plate. PS requires you manually type that in using a Type Layer.
Further, LR provides page options on the print (Page number, crop marks and page info).
You want to gang up 6 images on one page. Maybe the same size, maybe different sizes on one page You can build as many Print Packages or Custom Packages, again with all the preset stuff mentioned above. In Photoshop you have to open each document, size it, move it into a canvas etc. ANYONE making such packages will find LR to be vastly faster and superior than PS!
There is simply no comparison between what one can do in LR's print module vs. Photoshop which from day one has and continues to be a 'one image at a time' workflow. LR isn't.
I'm probably forgetting more features of the module and hopefully if so, others will chime in. Again, IF you print more than a few images per month, let alone week or day, LR's print module is worth the price of admission.[Yes, since the time LR introduced soft-proofing it became the go-to Print vehicle]
-
But now, reverting to the OP's original problem, colour mismatch between screen and print in respect of a range of should-be yellows that are tinged with green, the more I think about this, the more I think it could be a profiling issue that only impacts certain parts of the colour spectrum and this particular image happens to be one so affected. I'd like to hear more from the OP about what paper and profile is being used.
-
I have this sequence before. No one has an answer to my problem. The explanations have been diverted to another separate issue with prejudices attached, and resulted in heated exchanges that do not answer my original question.
If no one has an answer, that's ok but let's keep on topic.
The problem and argument is NOT about the goodness of LR ans a printing tool, it about a specific printing problem that has nothing to do with LR being a good tool or not.
MDIJB
-
I have this sequence before. No one has an answer to my problem. The explanations have been diverted to another separate issue with prejudices attached, and resulted in heated exchanges that do not answer my original question.
If no one has an answer, that's ok but let's keep on topic.
MDIJB
Ideally we could get a raw (DNG) WITH the LR edits for analysis.
-
I have this sequence before. No one has an answer to my problem. The explanations have been diverted to another separate issue with prejudices attached, and resulted in heated exchanges that do not answer my original question.
If no one has an answer, that's ok but let's keep on topic.
The problem and argument is NOT about the goodness of LR ans a printing tool, it about a specific printing problem that has nothing to do with LR being a good tool or not.
MDIJB
Thanks for the scolding, but I thought Reply 21 was very much on topic.
-
This is really quite interesting, except for the fact that the OP still hasn't received what might be a possible answer to his initial query. With what I thought was a rather innocent statement on my part I seem to have kindled a barrage of fellow forum members who are trying to convince me that LR is indeed much superior to PS in every way, including printing. To many it probably is exactly that, but since I was of the belief that this was a democracy I stepped up and voiced an opinion. Actually that's not quite true. For me it is not an opinion at all, it is fact for my way of working and printing images. If that leaves me behind, so be it, but my very picky customers love the work I do and keep coming back for more of the same. There may come the day when I will develop the urge to change, in which case I might fire up LR again and spend most of my time hiding in the print module. I might eventually prove myself wrong as well, but until that time arrives I shall continue printing from PS. I know the rest of you good folks will definitely not do so, but oddly enough that doesn't bother me at all, and I would never try to steer you in any other direction.
"For the variety of work I do I find Photoshop to be faster for printing." Do you really find this sentence so revolting as to sidetrack the OPs initial question? He is correct, it was not about the app, it was about the rather strange results. I would still like an answer from the OP to my two questions. I'm probably the only one who believes my questions were valid, but they did have meaning for me.
Let's get back on track. You know, the one I apparently derailed. My apologies.
Gary
-
Yes, the O/P's question hasn't been answered and it remains a free world at least to the extent that everyone is free to use their own printing method and big brother will not be watching you. As they used to say on Air Farce "Chacun a son gout". (Sorry, that's a Canadian insider joke you need a bit of French to appreciate.) So, getting back to the OP's question, both Andrew and I have asked him to produce some data that could be analytically useful. So far we have received a scolding for wandering OT, but nothing else. I'm in no panic and have no vested interest in it one way or another, so whenever our O/P decides to make it possible to be of further assistance, will come back in if I have anything useful to say.
-
"For the variety of work I do I find Photoshop to be faster for printing." Do you really find this sentence so revolting as to sidetrack the OPs initial question?
I don't find it revolting, but I think providing data about the differences IN PRINTING between the two applications is appropriate to comment on and further, some of us are trying to help the OP and with the specific software product he's reported he uses FOR printing. He isn't using Photoshop from what saw but LR. So let's not get sidetracked about printing from Photoshop OK?
-
Yes, the O/P's question hasn't been answered and it remains a free world at least to the extent that everyone is free to use their own printing method and big brother will not be watching you. As they used to say on Air Farce "Chacun a son gout". (Sorry, that's a Canadian insider joke you need a bit of French to appreciate.) So, getting back to the OP's question, both Andrew and I have asked him to produce some data that could be analytically useful. So far we have received a scolding for wandering OT, but nothing else. I'm in no panic and have no vested interest in it one way or another, so whenever our O/P decides to make it possible to be of further assistance, will come back in if I have anything useful to say.
Hi Mark,
Thank you for putting my mind at ease. I can now continue working, knowing that the "evil eye" will not be lingering. Now, in case anyone is ready to pile on again, that was meant as a humorous reply to Marks ever eloquent "big brother" reference. Now on to better things, although not necessarily better in reference to the initial question posed by the OP. I believe we have all tried to illicit more in depth information from the OP concerning this rather strange situation with the image he has printed. It does seem that the OP has decided to give up on us and not bother to give us the proper information from which we might perhaps find a fix for his particular situation. Therefore, I too will check in occasionally to perhaps find more info coming along to help.
However, having said all of that, I do believe that Andrew answered the OPs question rather succinctly in Reply#4, given the information the OP had offered at that time, which really hasn't been added to in any fruitful way as this thread has progressed.
Gary
-
Yes, Andrew's suggestion is analytically useful because it would help determine whether the problem is generic or on account of some particularity of the O/P's specific photo that the colour management system isn't coping with. That would be a useful start to an analytical procedure for determining cause.
-
A low rez copy of the proof copy is attached in my original posting.
There some OOG colors, especially the yellows, but the areas of OOG that appear on the screen do not correspond well to the areas of green discoloration in the print.
Again, I have printed many other images which have some OOG colors, because I like intense colors, without problems, but not this one.
MDIJB
-
A low rez copy of the proof copy is attached in my original posting.
There some OOG colors, especially the yellows, but the areas of OOG that appear on the screen do not correspond well to the areas of green discoloration in the print.
Again, I have printed many other images which have some OOG colors, because I like intense colors, without problems, but not this one.
MDIJB
Yes, you have told us all that already, and we suggested some diagnostic steps and provision of further information, all of which you appear to be ignoring. Speaking for myself, I need to bow out of this for the time being because absent more data to work with I can't offer anything more that would be useful to you.
-
A low rez copy of the proof copy is attached in my original posting.
There some OOG colors, especially the yellows, but the areas of OOG that appear on the screen do not correspond well to the areas of green discoloration in the print.
Again, I have printed many other images which have some OOG colors, because I like intense colors, without problems, but not this one.
MDIJB
I will ask this question once again. Of course it's your prerogative to not answer it, which I will understand and abide of course. I do have a reason for this question. What adjustments did you apply to reach the "Proof Copy" in LR. A rather straight forward question I believe, but if it's not clear please let me know and I'll try to reword it.
Gary
-
A low rez copy of the proof copy is attached in my original posting.
Kind of useless and the reason you were asked for the raw with edit instructions. If you can't provide that's fine. We can't assist. Your call.
-
Here is the Original Raw fule. I used a day into night process but did not keep all the exact steps I took. What I can recall is an approximation as follows
LR-> large ^ in Contrast and ^shadows-> Large Decrease in Highlights-> added a significant curves-> White balance change->HSL adjustments_. transfer to photshop for additional work.
Here is a link to the video I watched to achieve this look https://jamesb.com/subscriber-perks/
The final result is what I posted i my original posting
MDIJB
-
Here is the Original Raw fule.
Is it a DNG with all the edits backed in with a preview? Do you know how to do this?
-
Here is the Original Raw fule. I used a day into night process but did not keep all the exact steps I took. What I can recall is an approximation as follows
LR-> large ^ in Contrast and ^shadows-> Large Decrease in Highlights-> added a significant curves-> White balance change->HSL adjustments_. transfer to photshop for additional work.
Here is a link to the video I watched to achieve this look https://jamesb.com/subscriber-perks/
The final result is what I posted i my original posting
MDIJB
Thanks for the link to the video made by Jamesb. Between Photoshop and Lightroom, that procedure involves a large number of really huge tone and colour adjustments. In these conditions, the first thing that comes to mind is that it is creating a lot of out of gamut colour that the printer profile is having a hard time representing either in softproof or on paper. This is a hypothesis which we can test by running the final image through ColorThink Pro. If I were to do this I would need a flattened version of the final product out of Photoshop, as well as the ICC printer profile you are using. The image is probaby too large to convey over this website. If you would like me to do such a test on it please send me a PM and I shall provide you with instructions for sending the image file and the profile.
-
Here is the Original Raw fule. I used a day into night process but did not keep all the exact steps I took. What I can recall is an approximation as follows
LR-> large ^ in Contrast and ^shadows-> Large Decrease in Highlights-> added a significant curves-> White balance change->HSL adjustments_. transfer to photshop for additional work.
Here is a link to the video I watched to achieve this look https://jamesb.com/subscriber-perks/
The final result is what I posted i my original posting
MDIJB
OK, quite a departure from the adjusted file, which is quite alright of course. Once you had the effect you wanted, did you then add any further adjustments for printing, or did you print directly from the Print Proof image that you included in your first post? Personally I've never seen a situation like this that was strictly due to OOG colours. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, only that I have my doubts. In my opinion, if OOG colours are the culprit it's the most serious example I've ever encountered.
EDIT -- Once again I've jumped in on Marks latest offering, both writing at the same time obviously. Mark, I hope the OP does send the file and perhaps you can track down the cause(s) for this problem. That would be yet another lesson, one that would be very useful as well.
Gary
-
I replied earlierlier but for some reason it does not appear so I am sending again.
I did find the file and have attached screenshots showing what changes I made. The file was then sent to photoshop for more work.
I printed on a Breathing color metallic paper and used their profile. I added a subltle curve adjustment, added a little clarity and move the white slider gently to the right.
For Mark--how do I send you a private message so I can send you the file?
MDIJB
-
Oh boy, if we're dealing with metallic paper that's a whole other kettle of (possibly rotten) fish! Profiles can have a real hard time with this kind of paper, which only reinforces my view that the problem could well be somewhere between the image file colours and the ICC profile gamut and gamut shape. We can do a fair bit of analysis on this.
MDIJB: I shall send you a personal message through this site with further instructions.
-
Thanks.
I have printed on epson premium luster paper and got the same ugly results.
MDIJB
-
That's useful information. Awaiting the rest.
-
Image and profile sent.
MDIJB
-
Yup - got them. BTW, that dunes photo is really nice. I can see why you would be concerned! I'll revert once I've done some stuff on the photo and the profile.
-
OK, I think this is becoming quite clear. According to what I see from ColorThink Pro (CTP) you have produced an unprintable photograph. Please see the accompanying screen grab of the CTP analysis. The original pixel size of your photo weighs-in at 166 million. For CTP to work with this, I had to reduce it to 8 bit, then resample it down to 10 x 6.6 inches at 240 PPI using BiCubic Sharper, giving me a revised image size of 16M. That worked fine, the two versions look the same (see accompanying illustration) and CTP can handle this much image data. So I could open the reduced one in CTP. All the gorgeous colors you see there is CTP's extraction and reproduction of every pixel in your photo. Mapped against that are two profiles' gamut volumes and shapes: one for breathing color metallic (the gray blob) and the other for Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (the wire frame) which has an even larger gamut than Epson Premium Luster. You can see from this illustration, that most of the colours in your photo are so far out of the gamut of ANY paper profile that the colour management system would have a hard time dealing with this, and therefore hue shifts have occurred. You could try playing between Relative and Perceptual Rendering Intent, but not at all clear it would make that much difference.
You need to perform less radical editing, doing it under softproof, to see as you go in real time what the printer/paper combination can handle; see whether approaching it that way produces both a good photo and correct colour for you.
-
PS. To Andrew Rodney - I was surprised to see the extent of the colour spread here. Should we have confidence that the CTP rendition is OK? Have you seen such cases before where wildly OOG colours produce hue shifts in a print that don't show on the display? The profile seems well-formed just to look at it. Could it be problems of disconnect between the B>A and A>B tables? (I haven't tried printing it with my own very good profiles - perhaps I should try one on IGFS and see what happens.
-
PS. To Andrew Rodney - I was surprised to see the extent of the colour spread here. Should we have confidence that the CTP rendition is OK? Have you seen such cases before where wildly OOG colours produce hue shifts in a print that don't show on the display? The profile seems well-formed just to look at it. Could it be problems of disconnect between the B>A and A>B tables? (I haven't tried printing it with my own very good profiles - perhaps I should try one on IGFS and see what happens.
I have compete faith in your gamut plots. A bit on the road today so didn't download anything; what working space was used?
-
We're OK there - source space is ProPhoto.
-
OK, I think this is becoming quite clear. According to what I see from ColorThink Pro (CTP) you have produced an unprintable photograph. Please see the accompanying screen grab of the CTP analysis. The original pixel size of your photo weighs-in at 166 million. For CTP to work with this, I had to reduce it to 8 bit, then resample it down to 10 x 6.6 inches at 240 PPI using BiCubic Sharper, giving me a revised image size of 16M. That worked fine, the two versions look the same (see accompanying illustration) and CTP can handle this much image data. So I could open the reduced one in CTP. All the gorgeous colors you see there is CTP's extraction and reproduction of every pixel in your photo. Mapped against that are two profiles' gamut volumes and shapes: one for breathing color metallic (the gray blob) and the other for Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (the wire frame) which has an even larger gamut than Epson Premium Luster. You can see from this illustration, that most of the colours in your photo are so far out of the gamut of ANY paper profile that the colour management system would have a hard time dealing with this, and therefore hue shifts have occurred. You could try playing between Relative and Perceptual Rendering Intent, but not at all clear it would make that much difference.
You need to perform less radical editing, doing it under softproof, to see as you go in real time what the printer/paper combination can handle; see whether approaching it that way produces both a good photo and correct colour for you.
Holy Cats! No wonder it won't print. I don't think I've ever seen anything quite like this "spread" of color data in ColorThink. Perhaps the OP could use this rendering as a reference image, and then reprocess using only curves, some local luminance adjustments, and global adjustments that don't include 100% on the contrast slider. In my experience the contrast slider not only increases contrast but can send saturation off into the stratosphere if pushed this hard.
Rand
-
Well, it depends on what printer and paper you are using as well. I decided to make a print of this photo doing no adjustments whatsoever. Using an Epson SC-P5000 printer and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper with my custom profile (gamut volume 985K), Relative Rendering Intent with Black Point Compensation, it produced what I would consider a fine print faithful to a soft-proof of the original, as you can judge from the scanned JPG version of it I prepared for posting here. MDIJB's printer/paper combination has a gamut volume of only 673K, a difference of over 300K, which makes a huge difference in how OOG situations would be handled. I am getting no such hue shift in the yellows as MDIJB reported in his opening post.
(edit for typo)
-
You need to click on the image to see the colours correctly. The thumbnail is not colour managed in this Forum structure.
-
Well, it depends on what printer and paper you are using as well. I decided to make a print of this photo doing no adjustments whatsoever. Using an Epson SC-P5000 printer and Ilford Gold Fibre Silk paper with my custom profile (gamut volume 985K), Relative Rendering Intent with Black Point Compensation, it produced what I would consider a fine print faithful to a soft-proof of the original, as you can judge from the scanned JPG version of it I prepared for posting here. MDIJB's printer/paper combination has a gamut volume of only 673K 9 difference of over 300K, which makes a huge difference in how OOG situations would be handled. I am getting no such hue shift in the yellows as MDIJB reported in his opening post.
Mark,
That's pretty amazing. Might have to try it myself on my P5000 w/ a custom profile I have for GFS. What does it look like when you hover over the gamut warning in the soft proof? (I know that doesn't tell you "how much out of gamut," but thought it might be "telling" in terms of what one is dealing with.) :-)
Rand
-
You need to click on the image to see the colours correctly. The thumbnail is not colour managed in this Forum structure.
Mark,
Looking at the ColorThink plot, do you think that using perceptual rendering intent might be the source of moving all that "not visible" green into the paper's gamut? Relative just chopped it off clean? Trying to learn from this, and sometimes my knowledge is "just enough" to get me into trouble in my conceptual thinking about this stuff.
Rand
-
Rand,
That Gamut Warning really isn't too useful so I tend not to bother with it. But just to answer your question, it flicked up some black here and there. I did play back and forth with Relative and Perceptual Intents before printing and saw under softproof that Relative would provide a more faithful result, but the difference wasn't that dramatic.
-
WOW! The print you made looks just like what I wanted. Thanks for diagnosing the problem and all the work you did.
Are the profiles supplied by the paper makers adequate to do this job? I recently tried a sample of Epson Baryta and liked what I saw.
MDIJB
-
You are welcome.
Manufacturers' profiles vary, but definitely an improving story over the years. For example, Epson's for the Legacy Baryta paper are good.
-
Good job solving the OP's problem. This is why LuLa is a valuable resource for us all!!!
-
Are the profiles supplied by the paper makers adequate to do this job? I recently tried a sample of Epson Baryta and liked what I saw.
Not all ICC profiles are created equally
In this 23 minute video, I'll cover:
The basic anatomy of ICC Profiles
Why there are differences in profile quality and color rendering
How to evaluate an ICC output profile
Examples of good and not so good canned profiles and custom profiles on actual printed output.
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4
Low resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdR_tIFMME&feature=youtu.be
-
OK, I think this is becoming quite clear. According to what I see from ColorThink Pro (CTP) you have produced an unprintable photograph. Please see the accompanying screen grab of the CTP analysis. The original pixel size of your photo weighs-in at 166 million. For CTP to work with this, I had to reduce it to 8 bit, then resample it down to 10 x 6.6 inches at 240 PPI using BiCubic Sharper, giving me a revised image size of 16M. That worked fine, the two versions look the same (see accompanying illustration) and CTP can handle this much image data. So I could open the reduced one in CTP. All the gorgeous colors you see there is CTP's extraction and reproduction of every pixel in your photo. Mapped against that are two profiles' gamut volumes and shapes: one for breathing color metallic (the gray blob) and the other for Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (the wire frame) which has an even larger gamut than Epson Premium Luster. You can see from this illustration, that most of the colours in your photo are so far out of the gamut of ANY paper profile that the colour management system would have a hard time dealing with this, and therefore hue shifts have occurred. You could try playing between Relative and Perceptual Rendering Intent, but not at all clear it would make that much difference.
You need to perform less radical editing, doing it under softproof, to see as you go in real time what the printer/paper combination can handle; see whether approaching it that way produces both a good photo and correct colour for you.
A hue shift should not have happened with a good profile. Saturation shift, yes, but not a hue shift.
-
This thread is an excellent example of the dangers lurking using ProPhoto RGB and adjusting colors to what looks good on a monitor.
OTOH, only ProPhoto RGB will allow you to print all the colors most printer/paper combos can do.
So, with great power comes great responsibility, Apologies to Stan Lee.
ProPhoto RGB has a huge gamut. So large some colors are imaginary. There can be big differences in both how an RGB color is displayed, and how it's printed.
The transforms from RGB spaces goes through a completely different process to the monitor v to the printer. OOG colors will usually be brightened to the monitor because the conversion produces negative numbers on one or more channels. These are clipped to 0 which raises the overall brightness as well as sometimes shifting the hue in addition to the expected clipping of saturation.
On the printer side things are more complicated. RGB colors are converted to a limited LAB space where a* and b* are first clipped to <= 128 magnitude. Then the profile maps these to somewhere on the printer gamut surface. This process is done w/o any knowledge of how the same RGB values are altered for display.
The general solution is soft proofing because this uses the printer profile to generate, then reverse, the printable colors then converting them to the display RGB colorspace. It's not perfect since some printable colors aren't displayable. Even on wide gamut monitors. These are clipped. But it's a big improvement over not soft proofing.
-
Soft proofing with a printer profile doesn't fix the issue you raise Doug as there are lots of colors we can print that are out of display color gamut.
The way to deal with this is when editing the image. As you move a control and which the effect on-screen, as the image stops changing as you move the slider or control, STOP. You might be affecting colors you can't see. Ditto if soft proofing and making output specific edits.
-
A hue shift should not have happened with a good profile. Saturation shift, yes, but not a hue shift.
It can, and does happen with some ProPhoto RGB colors. In fact hue shifts can occur purely on the monitor side from clipping to 0 of post monitor space RGB values conversion. However, profiles can and do induce their own alterations since how OOG mapping is not specified and printer profiles have no idea what shifts occurred for display purposes. However, good profiles will produce decent soft profiling results.
-
Soft proofing with a printer profile doesn't fix the issue you raise Doug as there are lots of colors we can print that are out of display color gamut.
Of course, as I pointed out. But soft proofing will get you a lot closer to what is printed than not soft proofing.
It's not perfect since some printable colors aren't displayable. Even on wide gamut monitors. These are clipped. But it's a big improvement over not soft proofing.
Your video tutorial is excellent Andrew.
The way to deal with this is when editing the image. As you move a control and which the effect on-screen, as the image stops changing as you move the slider or control, STOP. You might be affecting colors you can't see. Ditto if soft proofing and making output specific edits.
Yes, that's by far the best way to do it. While it can clip printable colors that aren't displayable, it retains fine texture that can be lost. This is a minimal effect with wide gamut monitors but can be significant with narrow, sRGB like monitors.
-
I realize the OP is talking about printing from LR and that Photoshop is outside the discussion regarding printing. However, photoshop does have a useful gamut warning function (View menu-> gamut warning) and this allows correction of such problems. I have not been able to get lightroom to show me out of gamut warnings. When I go to view -> soft proofing-> show proof and enable gamut warnings, I don't see the gray out of gamut areas I see in photoshop
-
I realize the OP is talking about printing from LR and that Photoshop is outside the discussion regarding printing. However, photoshop does have a useful gamut warning function (View menu-> gamut warning) and this allows correction of such problems. I have not been able to get lightroom to show me out of gamut warnings. When I go to view -> soft proofing-> show proof and enable gamut warnings, I don't see the gray out of gamut areas I see in photoshop
Photoshop's gamut warning function is pretty close to useless. It's binary - you have no way of knowing how serious an issue it is using this tool. What Andrew suggested above about editing under softproof is far more useful. Also, look for when image detail begins to evaporate under editing - a good indicator that perhaps gamut clipping is responsible.
-
Photoshop's gamut warning function is pretty close to useless. It's binary - you have no way of knowing how serious an issue it is using this tool. What Andrew suggested above about editing under softproof is far more useful. Also, look for when image detail begins to evaporate under editing - a good indicator that perhaps gamut clipping is responsible.
Exactly. Photoshop's gamut warning is not only binary, but doesn't trigger until the dE 1976 error exceeds 6. You can have significant gamut clipping that won't show up in PS. It's also completely meaningless with Perceptual printing as there isn't even a clearly defined notion of a gamut boundary.
-
I’m with Mark. Gamut warning in Photoshop as well as Lightroom is pretty useless. It treats a tiny OOG color and those massively OOG the same with just a ugly overlay. And it doesn't change based on the rendering intent. It could be greatly improved but until it ever is, pretty useless. Predates soft proofing introduced in PS 5.0, way back in 1997/8.
-
I’m with Mark. Gamut warning in Photoshop as well as Lightroom is pretty useless. It treats a tiny OOG color and those massively OOG the same with just a ugly overlay. And it doesn't change based on the rendering intent. It could be greatly improved but until it ever is, pretty useless. Predates soft proofing introduced in PS 5.0, way back in 1997/8.
PS's gamut warning has a different algorithm with RGB matrix profiles and printer LUT profiles. The former has zero margin and can show colors that convert with no dE error as OOG if they are on the target's gamut boundary. Printer profile gamut warning is different and requires that the dE 1976 be about 6 before showing a gamut warning.
Also, printer OOG warning does change with different intents using printer profiles. It's just meaningless with Perceptual and Saturation intents and close to that with Relative and Absolute due to it's binary nature and 6 dE required error.
-
Thanks to Mark's work, I decided to reprocess my image from scratch avoiding the very large contrast and other adjustments, as someone's post above suggested. I am getting nearly the same image as before( this was lesson in itself) and checking the histogram and soft proofing there are now NO OOG colors. When printing, all the green crap is gone!! Hurrah!!
SO, instead of switching papers, I think I will just rework this small series and stay with paper I have been using.
The problem is not the paper--it is me and the heavy overprocessing I was doing.
MDIJB
-
Super, good luck with it - and if you do run into gamut problems regardless, no harm trying a wider gamut paper for those photos that really need it.
-
Thanks to Mark's work, I decided to reprocess my image from scratch avoiding the very large contrast and other adjustments, as someone's post above suggested. I am getting nearly the same image as before( this was lesson in itself) and checking the histogram and soft proofing there are now NO OOG colors. When printing, all the green crap is gone!! Hurrah!!
SO, instead of switching papers, I think I will just rework this small series and stay with paper I have been using.
The problem is not the paper--it is me and the heavy overprocessing I was doing.
MDIJB
Care to share your final processing?
-
I’m with Mark. Gamut warning in Photoshop as well as Lightroom is pretty useless. It treats a tiny OOG color and those massively OOG the same with just a ugly overlay. And it doesn't change based on the rendering intent. It could be greatly improved but until it ever is, pretty useless. Predates soft proofing introduced in PS 5.0, way back in 1997/8.
Just curious: has a request for a fully functional soft proof display feature ever been requested?
-
Just curious: has a request for a fully functional soft proof display feature ever been requested?
Yes, awhile ago.
-
Rand,
That Gamut Warning really isn't too useful so I tend not to bother with it. But just to answer your question, it flicked up some black here and there. I did play back and forth with Relative and Perceptual Intents before printing and saw under softproof that Relative would provide a more faithful result, but the difference wasn't that dramatic.
Mark,
I get it re the gamut warning. Learned that a long time ago from Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney. But with those colors being "way" outside the GFS gamut as indicated by ColorThink, I would have thought the gamut warning would have lit up like a Christmas tree. Just a curiosity.
Rand
-
Thanks to Mark's work, I decided to reprocess my image from scratch avoiding the very large contrast and other adjustments, as someone's post above suggested. I am getting nearly the same image as before( this was lesson in itself) and checking the histogram and soft proofing there are now NO OOG colors. When printing, all the green crap is gone!! Hurrah!!
SO, instead of switching papers, I think I will just rework this small series and stay with paper I have been using.
The problem is not the paper--it is me and the heavy overprocessing I was doing.
MDIJB
Very cool. I had a hunch that wasn't helping things!
Rand
-
Mark,
I get it re the gamut warning. Learned that a long time ago from Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney. But with those colors being "way" outside the GFS gamut as indicated by ColorThink, I would have thought the gamut warning would have lit up like a Christmas tree. Just a curiosity.
Rand
Many of the colours that show up in a CTP plot are not individually visible in a print at normal magnifications, so what you see with the Gamut warning doesn't tell you much about what's happening in great detail at the individual pixel level under the hood.
-
Many of the colours that show up in a CTP plot are not individually visible in a print at normal magnifications, so what you see with the Gamut warning doesn't tell you much about what's happening in great detail at the individual pixel level under the hood.
Mark,
Once again, thanks for the insight.
Rand
-
You are welcome.
-
Indeed. Excellent work tracking it down Mark. You are always quite the gentleman too.
-
Thanks Doug, appreciated. We're here to learn from each other and be helpful.
-
PS. To Andrew Rodney - I was surprised to see the extent of the colour spread here. Should we have confidence that the CTP rendition is OK? Have you seen such cases before where wildly OOG colours produce hue shifts in a print that don't show on the display? The profile seems well-formed just to look at it. Could it be problems of disconnect between the B>A and A>B tables? (I haven't tried printing it with my own very good profiles - perhaps I should try one on IGFS and see what happens.
Regarding Mark's image attachment: <<Sand Dunes vs Printer Profiles.jpg>>
Because I've seen this thousands of times, to me this is indicative of assigning the ProPhoto RGB profile to a file in Adobe RGB (1998), for example, intentionally or not. Somewhat of an old method used to open shadows and increase saturation especially in landscape images, ill-advised and not without shortcomings.
The image clearly shows gamut hitting the "flat wall" limits of ProPhoto RGB (or some other large space.) Easily reproducible.