Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: walter.sk on February 03, 2019, 03:48:05 pm
-
It's been over a year since I had some prints made by Costco (Yonkers, NY) and I don't remember some of the details for the procedure. Last time the prints came out fine, matching the version on my monitor with the one in my print viewer, both matched to each other, so I must've done it right. My questions:
1) I edit in ProPhoto space, and 16-bit color, and save the file in PSCC, which goes back to Lightroom. Before I softproof in LR with the Costco profile, do I need to convert to 8-bit color?
2)Can I leave the file in ProPhoto editing space, or do I need to convert to aRGB?
3) I copy the files into a folder on my desktop to link to and send to Costco. Do I export the softproofed files from LR to the folder, or do I edit them in PSCC as copies with LR adjustments and them save them to the folder?
3) After softproofing in LR, should I convert the file to the Costco profile before sending it to Costco to print? Or would that end up double-profiling the file?
Thanks much...
-
You can send the final document in 8-bits per color.
You ideally want to send it in the output color space using the supplied profile with your preferred rendering intent. Those parts are probably easier to do in Photoshop (convert to Profile, Convert to 8-bits per color).
All this only works if you have the actual output profile and this one lab allows it's use.
-
You can send the final document in 8-bits per color.
You ideally want to send it in the output color space using the supplied profile with your preferred rendering intent. Those parts are probably easier to do in Photoshop (convert to Profile, Convert to 8-bits per color).
All this only works if you have the actual output profile and this one lab allows it's use.
Thanks. I do have the correct profile, downloaded specifically for the Costco store I use. So, if I understand you right, I would actually convert the file's profile from Prophoto to Costco.
-
You can send the final document in 8-bits per color.
You ideally want to send it in the output color space using the supplied profile with your preferred rendering intent. Those parts are probably easier to do in Photoshop (convert to Profile, Convert to 8-bits per color).
All this only works if you have the actual output profile and this one lab allows it's use.
Also, when you save the file after converting to the Costco profile you have the option to embed or not embed the profile. In the example dialog shown below, the Costco profile is checked and the profile will be embedded in the JPG file. If unchecked, the file will be saved as untagged and will be 1.9 MB smaller, since the Costco profile for my local store is 1.9 MB.
If I open the file without the embedded profile in Photoshop it is listed as untagged. The original color space was ProPhotoRGB and Bridge continues to list the color space as ProPhoto rather than untagged. This would appear to be a bug to me. From distant past, I seem to recall that PS allowed an image to merely be tagged with the color space without actually embedding it in the saved file. Are my assumptions correct?
Regards,
Bill
-
Thanks. I do have the correct profile, downloaded specifically for the Costco store I use. So, if I understand you right, I would actually convert the file's profile from Prophoto to Costco.
Yep, provide images converted to the their profile with whatever conversion intents you prefer (usually either Rel.Col. w/BPC or Perc) Make sure you follow the Drycreek directions.
https://www.drycreekphoto.com/
-
If I open the file without the embedded profile in Photoshop it is listed as untagged. The original color space was ProPhotoRGB and Bridge continues to list the color space as ProPhoto rather than untagged. This would appear to be a bug to me. From distant past, I seem to recall that PS allowed an image to merely be tagged with the color space without actually embedding it in the saved file. Are my assumptions correct?
Regards,
Bill
The file can't be tagged with the profile w/o embedding it.
-
The file can't be tagged with the profile w/o embedding it.
Doug,
That seems to be the case, but why does Bridge continue to list the file as ProphotoRGB rather than untagged?
Bill
-
Doug,
That seems to be the case, but why does Bridge continue to list the file as ProphotoRGB rather than untagged?
Bill
IF it's listed as Prophoto, it's NOT untagged!
-
It's amazing that Costco is more professional than 99.9% of "pro" photo labs out there, by allowing you do the conversion to the output space yourself.
-
IF it's listed as Prophoto, it's NOT untagged!
One would think so, but that is not what I am observing. When the file with no embedded profile is opened in Photoshop, it is correctly listed as untagged as shown in the attached screen capture.
However, when the file is viewed in Bridge, the color space is listed as ProPhoto as shown in the second screen capture.
BTW, this is in Windows10. On my MacPro laptop, bridge lists the image as untagged.
Regards,
Bill
-
One would think so, but that is not what I am observing. When the file with no embedded profile is opened in Photoshop, it is correctly listed as untagged as shown in the attached screen capture.
However, when the file is viewed in Bridge, the color space is listed as ProPhoto as shown in the second screen capture.
BTW, this is in Windows10. On my MacPro laptop, bridge lists the image as untagged.
Regards,
Bill
Show us your PS color settings.
Something isn't setup correctly between Mac and Windows.
-
Yep, provide images converted to the their profile with whatever conversion intents you prefer (usually either Rel.Col. w/BPC or Perc) Make sure you follow the Drycreek directions.
https://www.drycreekphoto.com/
I read them a couple of times until it became clear. Thanks.
-
Has the Simulate Paper option in LR changed? I used to adjust my images on the softproof copy using that when printing on my own printers, but after getting my test images back from Costco it turns out that the Simulate Paper choice is overkill, and that leaving it unchecked gave better results. Is there any reason that Adobe doesn't produce a more accurate simulation?
-
Has the Simulate Paper option in LR changed? I used to adjust my images on the softproof copy using that when printing on my own printers, but after getting my test images back from Costco it turns out that the Simulate Paper choice is overkill, and that leaving it unchecked gave better results. Is there any reason that Adobe doesn't produce a more accurate simulation?
No change that I know of. Could be the profile, could be your display calibration. Did you calibrate for a visual match with the simulation ON?
-
No change that I know of. Could be the profile, could be your display calibration. Did you calibrate for a visual match with the simulation ON?
I adjusted the match between my print viewer and the display using the softproofed image, if that's what you mean. I use the NEC Spectraview II to profile my PA302W, but that is with no other software loaded.