Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: PeterAit on April 17, 2014, 10:25:59 am
-
I am going to give Bay Photo a try for some of the things I cannot do at home, like prints on metal. I am unclear on the color management part of the process. I want to manage color myself, but they provide only a single ICC profile for soft-proofing. I can't believe that one profile will be correct for all the various types of prints they do. Their support has been unhelpful (so far), but I hope someone here can clue me in. Thx.
-
I can't believe that one profile will be correct for all the various types of prints they do.
It isn't so soft proofing is a waste of time. They have as such, basically no color management you can be involved with. Either go that route and hope for the best or find a lab that fully supports color management. That means providing you the output profile for the process and allowing you to use that profile to soft proof and convert to the output color space using the rendering intent you prefer.
-
It isn't so soft proofing is a waste of time. They have as such, basically no color management you can be involved with. Either go that route and hope for the best or find a lab that fully supports color management. That means providing you the output profile for the process and allowing you to use that profile to soft proof and convert to the output color space using the rendering intent you prefer.
Any recommendations for a good lab that permits full color management?
-
I run a metal photo lab in south florida. Every photo gets converted with our own ICC profile that was calibrated using our very own mix of paper/ink and press time and temperature.
The profile is made to ensure the most accurate prints....regardless of the colorspace you worked with. The only time where we would need to do anything to the photo is if we at the lab had to make adjustments to the photo before printing in which case we would simply convert to your embedded colorspace.
Once the file is in print ready format, the RIP software converts it and uses the ICC profile to ensure the end result is a metal print that matches what you see on your (hopefully calibrated) monitor as much as possible.
Will
-
Every photo gets converted with our own ICC profile that was calibrated using our very own mix of paper/ink and press time and temperature.
Once the file is in print ready format, the RIP software converts it and uses the ICC profile to ensure the end result is a metal print that matches what you see on your (hopefully calibrated) monitor as much as possible.
So the end user can get access to this profile? They can use it to convert using a rendering intent they prefer (since this IS image specific)? If so, they then have control over Black Point Compensation (I hope the RIP provides that) and can post edit the image after conversion if the profile is supplied. They can soft proof based on whatever RI they intend to use since this will alter the preview.
-
I think Chris is closer to a real world explanation of how most labs handle files from their customers. Each of my devices has a specific color profile whether it's my Noritsu 3501 silver halide printer or my Canon IPF 8300. There is a profile generated for each printer/paper combination. Yes the customer does not get to pick the rendering intent or the black point compensation. However considering that most customers are not using calibrated monitors, but are instead sending files from their laptops, phones, tablets and over bright computer screens, it's the best way to do it. Our lab provides a consistent output. You can make corrections based upon the proof print you receive from us, and be certain that the final print will only reflect the changes that you have made.
-
Each of my devices has a specific color profile whether it's my Noritsu 3501 silver halide printer or my Canon IPF 8300. There is a profile generated for each printer/paper combination.
True, getting multiple but the same device to behave the same and use one profile is a lot harder. I've done it with multiple digital presses so I'd expect lab's could do it with the devices you mention IF they try real hard. What is being admitted here is that it's hard work to take say 2 or more Canon's or Noritsu's and make them behave the same and keep them that way. Of course it's doable!
Yes the customer does not get to pick the rendering intent or the black point compensation.
Making this a less than ideal color managed workflow. For the customer. But then, if the goal is to make as much data flow through the various devices instead of making them behave the same, it's kind of obvious what route a shop will take. Doesn't mean it can't be done. I guess maybe that's why the one lab I worked with in the past that did have a full color managed path for their customers (Pictopia) is no longer in business. I don't know what the cause was but I do know they had the ability to fully color manage the lab and provide the output profile to the customer to output prints like most of us here do with our desktop color printers. Hardly rocket science!
However considering that most customers are not using calibrated monitors, but are instead sending files from their laptops, phones, tablets and over bright computer screens, it's the best way to do it.
It's the best way for you or other's to do so, not the customer who does have a calibrated display and wishes to handle the color through a lab as they would if they were working with their own Canon or similar output device. IOW, that's a pretty lame excuse for not providing process control among the same devices and providing those who want a profile that profile! This isn't a technological issue, it's a political (business) decision so let's not place the excuse for not doing it where it belongs. Please.
You can make corrections based upon the proof print you receive from us, and be certain that the final print will only reflect the changes that you have made.
And I could do all my image editing on a grayscale display, send the numbers to an output device I own and futz around until I get a print I like. That's what one does without color management in the first place! Color management is simply a means to an end. If your idea of a good color workflow is print until you get what you like, with no regard to the time that takes or the cost, then you do not need color management.
-
Not sure if it's miscommunication... It is a color managed workflow.
Exactly! Maybe I didn't explain it well. There isn't just one profile there is a unique profile for each printer/paper combination. There's a profile for Epson luster on the ipf 8300 and a different profile for BC Lyve on the same printer. The same with my Noritsu, a different profile for each paper surface. The goal is to get all the printers and papers to print the same file the same way (as much as possible).
-
There isn't just one profile there is a unique profile for each printer/paper combination. There's a profile for Epson luster on the ipf 8300 and a different profile for BC Lyve on the same printer. The same with my Noritsu, a different profile for each paper surface. The goal is to get all the printers and papers to print the same file the same way (as much as possible).
Fine, so why not supply each profile for the intended output to the customer to convert the data as they desire? And why would one take a wide(er) gamut device like an 8300 and dumb it down to have the same gamut and thus color appearance as a Noritsu? IF you profile both to their best abilities, they should still appear the same if done correctly but wider gamut data the ink jet can produce is utilized. And even if you do dumb down all devices to produce the same color and tone, there is still no reason not to supply each profile to anyone who wants to use them.
Of course, there's the silly "save everything as sRGB" mindset in many labs which would deal a huge blow to the wider gamut devices like the Canon. But even so, one could supply each profile for each device and substrate combo to the end user. The customer could then soft proof, convert as they desire and send output ready RGB to you for that printer. FWIW, that's how the CMYK world (digital and non digital press) has been done for years and years. Only the RGB aimed at photo lab world seems to feel it is necessary to demand sRGB then funnel every and all files through some RIP (despite the fact the file is raster data) and then claim because there's an ICC profile somewhere in the mix, they are 'color managed'. The issue is the end user isn't color managed as they either have no access to the profile or they can only use it for soft proofing (silly).
-
I'm sending you a 25% Cyan swatch for my print, but the printing device needs to receive an adjustment to print 30% cyan - in order to measure the C25 on the actual printed piece. Do I need to know that as a customer? No!
Yes if a customer wishes to both soft proof and properly convert the data for output. Further, the so called 30% adjustment will be handled in the first place from RGB with that profile. Assuming the profile is indeed correct and describes the output conditions (something I suspect isn't always the case). Otherwise there's no reason not to supply the profile unless one is chasing their process control tails, building new and differing profiles all the time. Hardly what I'd call a color managed workflow.
If I can get dozens of digital presses to produce the same color appearance down to an average dE of less than 4, it should be quite simple to do with any of the devices mentioned. But it does take a lot of work on the printer side. Lots of printing test patches and measuring them, comparing them to a reference (the profile's color aim), shutting down production when a dE level exceeds what is deemed acceptable, making sure the people running the machines are constantly examining the output and values. It's work but it's doable. The 8300 at a lab and the 8300 I've got like other's here being color managed are no different and keeping the output consistent is a piece of cake. The analog process is harder but equally doable.
Edit for clarification and disclosure: FWIW, it's a Canon 5000 I had among many such digital ink jet printers (currently a 4900 and 3880). Super easy to profile, very consistent from machine to machine hence the reason why many of the canned profiles work so well. When I built the Epson Exhibition Fiber profiles for Epson, we used half a dozen differing printers around the country to print the profile targets. With 5000 patches, the average dE was about 0.5! IF Epson can supply the profiles for their customers, there's on reason anyone in a lab can't either.
-
If the files are supplied in wide enough gamut, then each press will shine on it's own abilities. Supplying the soft proof icc and linearized files for the device, sure - send it to the customer on an individual basis. If they're asking for it, they know how to use it..
We're talking presses now? Because I also deal with differing digital press technology that have to match each other. Doable, no reason a profile still can't be supplied to anyone who needs to use them. And what are you talking about in terms of linearization? That's done long before a profile is created. All a customer needs is the ICC profile and the promise by you or the lab that they will produce the same output the profile defines. Has nothing to do with linearization at this point. IF you've got an issue with linearization drifting, you've got major issues no ICC profile can address. That's hardly a color managed situation!
-
Fine, so why not supply each profile for the intended output to the customer to convert the data as they desire? And why would one take a wide(er) gamut device like an 8300 and dumb it down to have the same gamut and thus color appearance as a Noritsu? IF you profile both to their best abilities, they should still appear the same if done correctly but wider gamut data the ink jet can produce is utilized. And even if you do dumb down all devices to produce the same color and tone, there is still no reason not to supply each profile to anyone who wants to use them.
I'm not sure why you think I'm dumbing down the gamut on the 8300. If you give me a 16 bit tiff, I'll print it as a 16 bit tiff on the Canon. The Noritsu can't handle 16 bit files, so I do have to convert them to 8 bit. As Chris said, each device will print the file to the best of it's abilities.
I have no problem with giving a customer the ICC profile, it's just that 90% would not use it correctly. What good is a soft proof if you don't have a calibrated monitor?
Bottom line, if a customer knows what they're doing and has taken the time to calibrate their equipment, I have no problem working with them to get the best result.
-
I'm not sure why you think I'm dumbing down the gamut on the 8300.
An assumption perhaps, my bad. Didn't you say you were attempting to match it to a lower gamut device (certainly the Noritsu)?
If you give me a 16 bit tiff, I'll print it as a 16 bit tiff on the Canon
What does that have to do with gamut? That's the encoding of the bits.
The Noritsu can't handle 16 bit files, so I do have to convert them to 8 bit.
Again, this has nothing to do with bit depth. I've got custom ICC profiles from such printers and I'm referring to the size of their color gamut. I can supply a 2D or 3D gamut map if you like. Based on those maps, a modern ink jet has a wider gamut in many areas of color space compared to the Noritsu.
I have no problem with giving a customer the ICC profile, it's just that 90% would not use it correctly. What good is a soft proof if you don't have a calibrated monitor?
That's good news! And I suspect it's excellent reason many here will ask for it as they do have calibrated displays, they do soft proof and they do expect a fully color managed opportunity.
So to clarify, if I asked for a profile for the Noritsu or the Canon, you'd send me the profile. I could send you the RGB data converted from my working space of choice TO that output color space and you'd be fine sending those numbers directly to the output device?
-
So to clarify, if I asked for a profile for the Noritsu or the Canon, you'd send me the profile. I could send you the RGB data converted from my working space of choice TO that output color space and you'd be fine sending those numbers directly to the output device?
The Noritsu profile is hard to get to. It is generated internally by the machine's hardware/software when your are initially balancing a particular paper type. I'm also not sure if you could actually send those adjusted files to the printer.
On the Canon, sure. I'll be honest, I've never had a customer ask me to do that (30+ years in the biz). However, if you'd walk me through it, I'll give it a go.
-
The Noritsu profile is hard to get to.
I've built them, so it has to be something someone provided at some point, it's just a file.
On the Canon, sure. I'll be honest, I've never had a customer ask me to do that (30+ years in the biz).
Many here on LuLa would probably ask for it as evidence of the OP's request. You'd probably get a lot more business and requests if this kind of audience knew you'd even supply the profile and allow them to use it fully.
-
Opening your lab and supplying the "promised" WYSIWYG profile for all photographer customers on all their various "calibrated" monitors?
Your only concern is to provide the output profile. How the user may or may not calibrate their display doesn't need to be on your radar and yes, based on the audience here, a lot do calibrate and profile their displays to provide a good soft proof.
So they can run 1 print?
I (and the OP) only want an email with a 1.5mb ICC profile. Asking for a small file you have and use to output a digital file isn't much to ask for. How many prints get made isn't and shouldn't be an issue. Or are you saying you're building profiles all the time and the end user would need a new one for each order? If so, we don't want that profile, the process control is all over the place.
If you want the ad-agency, top-end level with supplied profiles and time for that kind of support, you won't find it in gang-run websites like Bay or MPix or etc.
Again, we're asking for a stinking ICC profile, what's the big deal? What's ad-agency, top-end level anything have to do with simply putting a tiny file on a web page for download? No one is asking for anything further, support or otherwise. We simply want a color managed lab to act like a color managed lab and provide a tiny file that's darn useful for soft proofing and converting data for output. No further hand holding is requested.
You wrote the book but what you demand simply isn't realistic for the majority of labs
Bullshit! The profile is either defining the output process or it isn't. If it is, why not provide it as a download? We're not asking to see your books or client list, we're asking for a tiny file that Photoshop has used since 1995 as an important part of the imaging workflow.
How many photographers lurking this thread have a clue what we're talking about?
Many more than 2! And how does that matter? Are you in the service business? As someone with over 8000 posts on this forum, over 10 years of hanging out here, I have a pretty good idea of how many photographers here would use the profile IF you supplied it. You've made what, 50 posts? I think you need to better research just who hangs out here! Further, I don't treat them as too uneducated to use it either, an interesting perspective you seem to have of this group.
How many photographers lurking this thread have a clue what we're talking about?
Why not go into the dedicated color management forum we have here and start a poll, you'll find out instead of assuming a simple request for an output profile is an unfair request from a service provider.
-
The people posting on this forum have an interest in learning and growing in photography. It certainly isn't all of the photographers out there.
Post a website link for a lab that provides downloads of each of their machine's profiles, please.
What's your point? The OP specifically asked for an ICC profile and a lab that would supply one. This is some huge anomaly in your book? And the bit about other labs, we have someone in this post alone who's stated he'd provide the profiles (well for one device and if he tries real hard, the other). That all the labs with web pages don't provide profiles, that's in some way a good workflow for the end user? Just what lab do you represent with that kind of service attitude?
Again, just what justification do you have for your lab (assuming you are associated with one which it sounds like) or other lab's in NOT providing a small file that are claimed to define the lab's output conditions for use in Photoshop, Lightroom, C1, and a boatload of other applications people use in terms of color management?
-
Good Luck getting the profile and better luck if it matches!
Why wouldn't it match? The RGB numbers I send today and the same set in a year don't alter like bad cheese and neither does an ICC profile. Are you suggesting they and many such labs have awful process control?
-
Do you want me to PM my resume? No problem! It will satisfy you I'm sure.
I'm not interested, I'm simply trying to assist the OP who clearly wrote in the very first post:
I want to manage color myself, but they provide only a single ICC profile for soft-proofing
Now you boys running Lab's can satisfy him and many other's here by simply providing an ICC profile for whatever output device a customer may wish to use. My goal is to assist them and dismiss silly blowback as to why such a profile simply cannot be supplied. It can, it should and that's about it. You guys want some new customers? Rather than tell those here who understand color management like the OP all the reasons they can't get one, tell them where and how to get the profile, and move on.
-
My only point of opinion is the lab who gives you the profile is generally the lab that will cost more $$$! Not bc the profile costs more, but bc the level of service and support for it is different!
Chris has indeed identified the problem. It's not the profile. It's the cost of providing more customized service. Even when the customer is highly knowledgeable about color managed workflows and knows exactly what to do with a supplied ICC profile, inevitably a more lengthy discussion must still take place between that customer and the lab staff. And this client hand holding must be factored into the cost of the job. For example, a couple of years ago, I built my own custom profile for my local Wallmart store's Fuji Frontier machine. Those machines have excellent day-to-day process calibration/linerarization procedures staff is trained to perform So, successful profiling of this system by me was a highly doable project, but not before I personally visited the store and spoke with staff. I went to the day shift operator and said, "can you help me turn off any of your machine's "auto-enhancement" features? I want my files to print without any further color correction on your part". The operator got a "deer in the headlights look" and said I'd need to speak to the KEY operator who would be in later that day. So, I did speak to that operator, and he did know what to do. He had to go into their own software with his administrator privilege and turn off the auto color correction feature manually. That feature is there because this Fuji minilab typically defaults to this mode, the idea being that the Fujifilm minilab software could more often than not color correct most consumer digital files better than the jpeg quality coming from most consumer digicams.
Once the lab manager and I got on the same page, I printed a color target, built a profile, and I achieved the print quality exactly as I wanted. But each time I went to the store for prints, I had to personally speak to key operator about turning off the auto correction features. And the manager had to remember to turn them back on after my job was completed! This manager tolerated me because he took a personal interest in my imaging expertise, but nonetheless, I was definitely a higher maintenance client for that store! A couple years later my local Walmart then switched over to a new Fuji dry lab machine. The workflow changed. On the good side, the kiosk where the consumer selects and crops his/her images now had a checkbox for "auto enhance" so that now the consumer gained control of whether to "enhance" the image or not without having to wait for the lab manager. But by that time, a new lab manager was running the show and he freaked out when I uploaded the ICC color target to print. The Xrite color target looked to him like a professional image file that surely I had no copyright clearance to print! He was wrong, but I couldn't convince the new manager to let me print the target! More conversation, more discussion, I was rapidly going from "higher maintenance client" to really high maintenance client when I certainly didn't want to be. Bottom line: Something as simple as a software feature like auto enhancement on the output device can wreak havoc on a color managed workflow, so client and staff must work closely together to iron out the workflow issues as different choices are made on which printing system will be used for the job. That takes time, and time is money.
I have totally given up trying to work with budget labs. It's not fair to them at the price point they are trying to deliver services, and it's certainly too much effort on my part as well :)
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
Even when the customer is highly knowledgeable about color managed workflows and knows exactly what to do with a supplied ICC profile, inevitably a more lengthy discussion must still take place between that customer and the lab staff.
I've got zero problem with a 'budget' lab saying: we don't provide the profiles and further, you must send us sRGB for all output. I really have no problem at all with that.
I've got zero problem with a 'budget' lab saying: we will provide the profiles but the print fee's raise to (fill in the blank). I really have no problem at all with that.
I'm not expecting a lab that would normally do a $1 print to do so for 50 cents. Lab's should make a good profit and if as a service business they expect compensation for further service, great.
I have a problem with lab's that say: here's a profile and you can only use it for soft proofing and further send us sRGB for all output.
Then that lab sends a single profile that we're supposed to believe defines all their processes which it doesn't. That's just a big fat color management lie!
The OP asked a very specific question and now he's got perhaps a lab or two here that can assist him. The pricing is between the OP and the lab.
IF a lab can supply a true output profile and allow customers to use it, and if they want to charge a bit more, I suspect a fair number of LuLa subscribers would pay for that additional service.
-
I am relatively new compared to most on here in regards to ICC profiles. I understand the basics and have created my own through my rip software but here is what I know. If this is not whats being talked about in this thread then forgive me, as I said I still have a lot to learn about managing color spaces.
The profiles we use in the lab when printing on metal are 100% useless for the consumer. These profiles are created specifically for printing on aluminum. When we first print the image on transfer paper, it does not match the image that we see on our monitor. It looks very faded and nobody would pay for this.
Its not until it gets pressed into the metal that you see how accurate it is.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any metal printing lab to get as accurate prints as printing directly onto high quality paper because 1 degree difference, 1 second longer pressing time everything makes the colors different. Most of this goes un-noticed to the human eye. For example pressing a 16 x 20 aluminum panel requires about half the pressing time than a 60 x 40 would require. I doubt companies have profiles made for every single size.
The ICC profiles that are made for aluminum sublimation if you applied them to an image on your monitor would look like crap. When you send your photo to a metal printing lab ready to print...meaning they take that exact file you sent them ran it through the rip software, printed it then pressed it....their ICC profile are designed to match what you sent...so I see no need for any consumer to be able to have access to an ICC profile.
The only thing I can possibly see is ordering a small proof sample to see exactly how your photo looks on metal at that particular lab.
-
...so I see no need for any consumer to be able to have access to an ICC profile.
And being able to see if anything is out of gamut, how much is out of gamut, and where (if there are any) the out of gamut areas lie - that wouldn't be useful?
Brian A
-
I have a problem with lab's that say: here's a profile and you can only use it for soft proofing and further send us sRGB for all output.
Then that lab sends a single profile that we're supposed to believe defines all their processes which it doesn't. That's just a big fat color management lie!
I do know plenty of labs that insist on sRGB files only. Specifiying sRGB keeps it simple for them and holds off a lot of customer handholding about why the customer should or shouldn't choose different color models for jpeg output from his/her dSLR, and what it all means.... Never encountered a lab that will give out a profile but then insist it only be used for soft proofing. Would seem to me that labs willing to give out profiles would have workflows in place that recognize an embedded profile, so if I convert my image with my own choice of rendering intent to device output profile rather than keeping the file in a working color space like sRGB, the lab has no additional work to do, and no conversion errors would be introduced.
FWIW, the" keep it simple" sRGB approach works not only for labs, but for folks like me who are sometimes asked by non color savvy clients to repurpose their custom edited image files and email to some offset print provider I've never worked with before. I typically send an sRGB converted file. I figure if that print shop doesn't know how to print sRGB images with it's own secret sauce CMYK workflow or whatever, then it will be clear to my client where disappointment with the final printed output lies. Obviously, if my conversation to sRGB produces a significant hit on colorfulness of key image colors, i'll run it by the client first, but that rarely happens. Most images are reasonably within sRGB color space. People are much more tolerant of less vibrant color as long as hues haven't shifted dramatically and overall color balance and tonality are good. (I learned that while I was developing the I* color and tonal accuracy metric).
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imagng.com
-
Thanks for the explanation of how metal printing works. However, I don't understand why ICC profiles are impossible for metal printing. A profile connects a digital image rendered on my computer to final physical print, and whether that final print in on paper, canvas, or metal should not make a difference (at least as I see it). What's stopping someone from printing an ICC test target onto metal and then measuring the squares with a spectrophotometer (or whatever it is) to generate a profile?
-
The profiles we use in the lab when printing on metal are 100% useless for the consumer. These profiles are created specifically for printing on aluminum. When we first print the image on transfer paper, it does not match the image that we see on our monitor. It looks very faded and nobody would pay for this.
Its not until it gets pressed into the metal that you see how accurate it is.
You're wrong about just about everything written above. I just built a profile for a lab that creates Metal Prints using the sublimation process. The profile process has absolutely nothing to do with the steps to produce a print until the transfer is complete, and that is what I measured, the final metal print! I had to supply a special target so I could read the patches using a handheld Spectrophotometer, the metal is far too thick to be measured with the iSis Spectrophotometer. The soft proof looks perfectly fine as seen here:
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/MetalSoftProof.jpg)
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any metal printing lab to get as accurate prints as printing directly onto high quality paper because 1 degree difference, 1 second longer pressing time everything makes the colors different. Most of this goes un-noticed to the human eye.
If it's invisible to the human eye, then the profile will be equally fine and usable! No printer is totally immune from slight differences and if you are correct and the deltaE values are less than 1 (invisible to the eye), you're doing far better than a heck of a lot of output devices!
The ICC profiles that are made for aluminum sublimation if you applied them to an image on your monitor would look like crap.
The soft proof above looks just fine. Maybe you need the assistance of someone who has a better ideal how to build then use said ICC profiles.
I don't understand why ICC profiles are impossible for metal printing.
It's not impossible, the lab I built the profile for was ecstatic with the results. What you're being told about the impossibility is submited by someone who also wrote:I am relatively new compared to most on here in regards to ICC profiles. I understand the basics and have created my own through my rip software but here is what I know. If this is not whats being talked about in this thread then forgive me, as I said I still have a lot to learn about managing color spaces.
Going on after that, saying this or that is impossible should be taken with a grain of salt.
-
Specifiying sRGB keeps it simple for them and holds off a lot of customer handholding about why the customer should or shouldn't choose different color models for jpeg output from his/her dSLR, and what it all means.... Never encountered a lab that will give out a profile but then insist it only be used for soft proofing.
First off yes, it is totally about making it easier for them. It's all about them <g>. There are customers who expect and will pay for better but that's another story.
I've seen dozens and dozens of posts over the years from people who have a lab supply a profile only for soft proofing and not for final output. They are told they can soft proof but can only use the profile for that use, data must be sent in sRGB. Here's one example from a pretty big lab:
http://www.whcc.com/resources/downloads
Get the best possible screen to print match by soft proofing with our output profiles on a properly calibrated monitor. Output profiles for our Kodak Professional Supra Endura VC papers are available below. Do not embed these profiles in your files. Only use them with Photoshop's "Soft Proofing" function.
A non RGB lab that does this is Blurb. They supply a generic CMYK profile for all their processes. I suppose they could just go from that to a device link. Not ideal.
-
One more Mark (as I said, this behavior is rather prevalent):
http://simplycolorlab.com/soft-proofing-profiles.html
This will show you how it will look when printed with our ink , spray, canvas or paper type.You can toggle this on and off with the view colors dialog.These profiles are for viewing for accurate adjustments only. Image files should not be embedded or converted to these profiles.Please leave your files embedded with the native color space profile.Acceptable color spaces are sRGB, Adobe RGB 1998 and Pro Photo
Great. A single profile that defines all their print processes but only for soft proofing. Anyone want to by a bridge too?
At least they accept Adobe RGB and ProPhoto. Color management progress to some degree.
-
I dont know why im being attacked here. I specifically stated how what I was saying might be wrong as I have limited experience as far as color profiles go. There is no need to be a Mr know it all. I am simply repeating things based on my training with the same experts that have trained major photo labs.
I would like to understand what it is that customers want. That is why I am getting myself involved in this thread. There is no other ICC profile other than the ICC profile that we have from the ink supplier or the company that you work with.
In order for a lab to get access to that ICC profile, you need to be a consumer of that product. They are VERY strict that you can not distribute that ICC profile to anyone.
I personally have calibrated my own ICC profile based on that very icc profile to calibrate my own specific process. This took hours to create and I will not simply give it away. This is the only profile that is being used in the process. I am trying to understand why the consumer would need to have access to it. I asked this very question to both wasatch (rip software company) and sawgrass (sublimation ink supplier) and they both said the same exact thing that I just said. Thats all I was simply repeating.
I would think these 2 big players in this industry would have a better understanding than I would.
Again, I am not pretending to be a knowledgeable person when it comes to ICC profiles. I stated that before replying.
-
I dont know why im being attacked here.
I'm not trying to attack you, sorry if you feel this way. What you wrote doesn't jive, that's all. Saying something is impossible that isn't needs to be corrected.
In order for a lab to get access to that ICC profile, you need to be a consumer of that product. They are VERY strict that you can not distribute that ICC profile to anyone.
That totally depends on the profile manufacturer. For example, Epson has no problems distributing their profiles. The two labs below that provide profiles for soft proofing have no such issue. Pictopia didn't have any such issue. That's a straw man argument.
This took hours to create and I will not simply give it away.
That's silly, it's of no use to anyone but you and your customers.
I asked this very question to both wasatch (rip software company) and sawgrass (sublimation ink supplier) and they both said the same exact thing that I just said.
OK then, all three of you are wrong.
-
I am not wrong. I can not be wrong if I am keeping my mind open and trying to understand the reasoning behind a customer having access to the ICC profile.
I never said I was right...I don't know how many times I have to state that I only know what I was told by these companies.
I think there is probably a very small number of photographers who are interested in having access to the ICC profile. That doesn't mean I dont want to offer the absolute best service to my customers. So if offering up my ICC profile to a client is going to help my business then that's exactly what I need to consider.
This is the first time I have heard of a customer wanting access to an ICC profile so its something I would like to be prepared for in the future.
The thing is...as far as I can understand the ICC profile I am using for example is a combination of things. There is an ICM file and then there are other files that hold the calibration curves and other things that alter the icc profile. These files are only readable by the RIP software as far as I know.
What I am having hard time making sense of is how a customer would be able to even make sense of these files. They would need to buy a license for a $1500 RIP software to read it.
-
I am not wrong. I can not be wrong if I am keeping my mind open and trying to understand the reasoning behind a customer having access to the ICC profile.P software to read it.
If you wrote the following, it's wrong:
The profiles we use in the lab when printing on metal are 100% useless for the consumer.
It looks very faded and nobody would pay for this.
The ICC profiles that are made for aluminum sublimation if you applied them to an image on your monitor would look like crap.
I've got the profile and soft proof that illustrates that's incorrect. Sorry. If pointing out a statement as incorrect is attacking you, I'm again sorry. You're welcome to your opinions but not your own facts.
I think there is probably a very small number of photographers who are interested in having access to the ICC profile.
Over the years I've built custom profiles for hundreds of photographers and there are others just on this list that provide such services. Are all these people an anomaly?
Photoshop has provided the ability to use ICC output profiles for soft proofing since 1998! Lightroom has provided it since version 3. Adobe is providing this functionality because it's useful to their customers. If you want to know how many photographers might want an ICC profile for a process, simply search the forums here, there happens to be a dedicated forum just for color management and there's a heck of a lot of photographers here* that build their own profiles, buy profiles or just use manufacturer supplied profiles. You'll see in just this set of posts alone, two labs that supply ICC profiles for soft proofing (not that they are worth anything. It does illustrate some lab's are aware customers want them). Epson, Canon, HP and a slew of paper manufacturers supply ICC Profiles with their products. Based on these facts, I don't know how you can say a very small number of photographers are interested in having access to the ICC profiles! What data points do you have to backup that claim? You've got the profile, if someone asks for it, why not provide it?
This is the first time I have heard of a customer wanting access to an ICC profile so its something I would like to be prepared for in the future.
This is probably the first time you've heard a number of facts about color management and ICC profiles so don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because you can't soft proof with your metal profile doesn't mean it can't be done, it most certainly can. Peter asked you a question about why you can't profile your process, can you explain to him why this is impossible? Because my experience indicates it is not only possible, like other good ICC output profiles, it's quite useful.
What I am having hard time making sense of is how a customer would be able to even make sense of these files.
Do you believe that many photographers calibrate their displays and that is a good idea? IF yes (and that's the correct answer), why? The same reasons are why they want and need an ICC profile for an output process. To see what they will get. To control the rendering intent which is image specific. To post edit after conversion if they desire.
hey would need to buy a license for a $1500 RIP software to read it.
Absoutly not the case. We can go there if you wish. But you have other areas of color management to first understand, namely what an ICC profile provides outside your shop. Perhaps then you'll refrain from statements like: This took hours to create and I will not simply give it away, to this took hours to create and I will give it away as it is useful to my customers and no one else.
*Lula currently has more than 1.1 million unique readers each month; 3.5 million page views from some 50,000 people a day. This is a larger circulation that any print photographic magazine in the world and exceeded on the web only by some of the dedicated camera review sites.
-
digitaldog you are missing the entire point completely. I think you are far too concerned with making sure everyone knows you're right rather than trying to present your arguments in a way we can understand. Yes, you are the superior color management person here. Heck you could be the best at what you do in the world for all I know.
The statements I made came with a disclaimer that pretty much said "I know nothing, simply repeating what I was taught from industry experts". So am I wrong? I never claimed to be right about anything. I am not concerned about right or wrong. I am concerned about learning and understanding. Something that you are not doing a very good job at.
Remember now, professionals on this forum probably are an anomaly. The very fact that there are professionals here sharing information is a testament to how much they are wanting to continue and expand their trade. I don't think the average professional on here represents the average person who orders from the common photo lab.
What is being talked about here is something that is an additional service and will require more customer handling. Maybe the best photo labs should and do have a special department for handling customers that are requesting this type of service.
However these labs set prices and try to remain competitive. They have a very specific scope of service that they offer with the prices. To go out of that price range I would assume a client would have to be placing a significant order or be an ongoing customer who does a lot of business. If that is the case I do not see any way a lab will not want to accommodate a customer like that. But those are special circumstances that have to be worked out with that particular lab. I doubt any lab is going to just start offering up additional services and files for someone about to place a $50 order.
In order to get that profile into the customers hands, it will need to be directed to someone in the company who has the capacity to deal with something like that.
-
Remember now, professionals on this forum probably are an anomaly.
How did you come to that conclusion?
-
Some people on this thread are saying that providing ICC profiles to the user so that she can enjoy a color-managed workflow is expensive to support, and not appropriate for cost-sensitive environments. As a counterexample, I'd like to give a nod to Modern Postcard, which operates in a very price-sensitive part of the printing market. If you go to their website:
https://www.modernpostcard.com/downloads (https://www.modernpostcard.com/downloads)
You can download their printer profiles. When you open up the zipped file, here's what you see:
(http://www.kasson.com/ll/ModernPC_ICC.PNG)
There are three profiles, for three different printing regimes, CMYK color, CMYK B&W, and K B&W. There are instructions for installing and using the profiles.
I haven't used Modern in a couple of years, but when I did use them, the actual printed copy was what I expected. No soft-proofing regime is perfect, but theirs seemed to be perfectly adequate. They provide a proof for an extra charge if you're not feeling lucky.
So here's someone that can't afford to spend a lot of time with each customer, who takes many orders every day, who can make this work.
Why can't it work for a company like Bay Photo? I can think of two reasons. They may not have their process totally under control, so a standard profile might be off because their process has drifted.Or maybe, they haven't educated their staff in how to properly support a color-managed workflow.
If the customers' results are going to come close to what they see on their monitor, they're going to need a calibrated monitor whether they're sending sRGB files to the print shop and guessing on the gamut (and not being able to use the part of the printer's gamut that's outside sRGB's gamut), or sending files in the printer's color space (or an RGB translation of it).
Jim
-
Why can't it work for a company like Bay Photo? I can think of two reasons. They may not have their process totally under control, so a standard profile might be off because their process has drifted.
I suspect that's it too. It's pretty easy to track this too if you have the equipment like an iSis and sent the lab a target say every couple weeks.
-
https://www.modernpostcard.com/about/terms-conditions
Gang-run service. in one sentence they guarantee 85-90% accuracy, in the next sentence, they accept no responsibility for color. They gave you the profile, but that's really about it.
Lawyers! Don't confuse the weasel-words with what 's really going on.
If you have your process under control, there's nothing wrong with "gang-run". It just means that everybody gets the same {hopefully time-invariant) process. The "neighboring image ink requirements" phrase is worrisome, and implies that they might tweak the process dependent on what else is going on on the web.
I've never seen any enforceable guarantees from a printer. Either you accept the results or you're into a negotiation.
That said, this thread is not about the T's&C's; it's about where you -- if you're a printer -- want your relationship with your customer's file to start. With a generic file, or one that's got a chance of being optimized for your printer?
Jim
-
They print on one device, mostly one stock, and one inkset, which is simple to provide. Most big shops have multiple devices, several stocks, and product offerings, which compounds the whole thing to support.
I think this is a "pay me now or pay me later" situation. If you have many different devices and stocks, do you want your customer going through the process of finding out what's best for him by trying on different profiles and soft-proofing, or sending files to you, telling you to print them on different devices and different stocks, getting back the physical proofs, and seeing what works? What's going to make your customer happier? What's going to cost you less in the long run?
Jim
-
I've seen dozens and dozens of posts over the years from people who have a lab supply a profile only for soft proofing and not for final output. They are told they can soft proof but can only use the profile for that use, data must be sent in sRGB. Here's one example from a pretty big lab:
http://www.whcc.com/resources/downloads
Wow, Andrew, I stand corrected. I have visited the whcc website within the last couple of years and never saw any policy like this. Thiings appear to have changed dramatically in recent years. So, perhaps this "soft proof only" policy is a newer trend, but nonetheless a particularly disturbing one. Indeed, this entire thread just convinces me that printing my own work on my own printers in house makes far more sense than trying to develop a good long term relationship with an outside lab. The traditional photographic print is under siege from a lot of different technological innovations these days, but print providers shouldn't be stepping all over themselves to be killing off their own customer base.
thanks for the heads up.
best,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
True, they provided the profile and educated.
The profile is worthless if the output conditions don't produce what the profile predicted (within reason, let's say an avg dE 2000 value of 5 or less on say an ECI2002 target). Color management demands good process control or there's nothing to manage from a wavering device.
A perfect color managed workflow still needs on-the-fly adjustments due to variances in press conditions.
Yes, to reflect the target values expected and defined by that ICC profile.
-
I think you are far too concerned with making sure everyone knows you're right rather than trying to present your arguments in a way we can understand.
The statements I made came with a disclaimer that pretty much said "I know nothing, simply repeating what I was taught from industry experts". So am I wrong? I never claimed to be right about anything. I am not concerned about right or wrong. I am concerned about learning and understanding. Something that you are not doing a very good job at.
Suppose there was a forum dedicated to lab owners. I come along and write:
Metal prints contain lead which can harm people and the sublimation process continues to emit gas that people can breath. I'm not an expert but it is impossible not to be affected by this condition of metal prints.
Then suppose you or someone that actually knows about the process stated:
You are wrong. Further here's proof that what you wrote isn't correct. (Then you provided some illustration that the statement was incorrect).
Further, what if the facts showed that indeed, what I wrote was incorrect?
Then I wote "I'm not wrong and you're attacking me"? And all that stuff above about me having to be right, or how I present the argument. There's nothing to argue about in terms of the process profiling my customer's metal print process, it worked. That said, YMMV. But what is clear to me and my customer is this: It isn't impossible to profile the metal print/sublimation process and the soft proof doesn't look like crap (your words).
That's where we're at here. Yes, you did write you may not have the facts straight and basic understanding correct, I'm agreeing with you. Your facts are not correct, at least for all metal print processes. Again I'm sorry if being shown the error based on an actual metal profile and soft proof dismiss what you wrote about them. Or the process in which one builds such a profile; we measure the final product, not the intermediately product that you say looked poor. The facts are this: a lab asked for a custom profile for their metal process. I have no idea how that process may differ from yours, what RIP is used (which isn't pertinent) but do know I was able to measure the actual metal output, the soft proof looks fine as shown here and the lab was extremely happy with the results. I'm actually more concerned with you examining that possibility than me being correct. At least in the experience I have with this process and the output and profile that resulted, it may be impossible for you, it wasn’t impossible for me or my client. Again, YMMV.
I'm not sure how else to better explain this process. Output a target with patches onto the final metal process. Have someone measure that and build a profile. Use the profile in Photoshop or elsewhere. Examine the soft proof as shown here.
From there, one can get very exacting information about how much and where in color space the process may deviate over time. By measuring the same target again and comparing it to the reference or what is called a color aim. That would be the predicted values of the original profile. This is not ambiguous in reporting the differences like saying: It is IMPOSSIBLE for any metal printing lab to get as accurate prints as printing directly onto high quality paper because 1 degree difference, 1 second longer pressing time everything makes the colors different. Most of this goes un-noticed to the human eye. We have the tools and the color science to do this analysis. Just as we have the tools to profile this process. IOW, I could tell you exactly where in color space 1 degree difference results in the output. Or if a new batch of metal or sublimation 'paper' deviates from the last. None of this is impossible unless you can answer Peter's question: I don't understand why ICC profiles are impossible for metal printing.
IF you really want to get to the bottom of this inability of yours to profile your process, I'd be happy to measure a small patch target and build a quick and dirty profile for you to test. The profile I built for the other customer using 1700+2500 patches is far more work than I'm willing to do as a simple proof of concept test but I'd do something that can be measured in a few minutes of my time that would take less work on my part than trying to prove it's possible with further writings here. Your call.
-
When I visited the place (Old 110,000 sq./ft. Seagate Hard Drive building in Scotts Valley north of Santa Cruz) the girl said they liked to work off sRGB profiled images. They use the ROES software too which might be suited to that. I had a huge TIFF file and had to convert it down for the ROES software too, but enough so that I could get a metal plate 16x20 off it. They have some very large, maybe 5x9 foot, metals on the lobby walls.
I do note some issues of the yellows with very fair skin with the metal plate (Chromalux?) transfer. Didn't ask about their ink choice and color amounts as they seem very hushed about the way they do it.
Overall I'm satisfied with their work and for the cost of the metal plate and frame they do, it isn't bad considering a custom framer alone, aside from the plate, would be far more expensive by a factor of maybe five.
I did add a layer to two of "Renaissance Wax" to the plate that seems to help with people touching the surface for whatever reasons. Sort of slow process using it though, and not at all suited to some inkjet papers alone either (Dark smudges and difficult to remove!).
SG
-
As is the nature in gang-run printing. Gang-run process doesn't really apply to what the OP is requesting. You may have followed all the rules and submitted a perfect file using their provided icc, but the rest of the imposition artwork may be ink heavy on press. Will they keep the 1 perfect piece of 50 in-spec for the whole run while the rest of the impo prints like crap? Or would the pressman pull back and normalize for the majority? 50 customers with 50 different ways the artwork was built. True, they provided the profile and educated. Some use it others don't and your artwork is in the mix with them. A perfect color managed workflow still needs on-the-fly adjustments due to variances in press conditions.
So here we have a company with a hard time staying consistently close to the process aim point because of the vicissitudes of web offset printing offering ICC profiles of their presses and, I believe, having mostly satisfied customers. The metal print process does not have any color dependencies associated with whatever images might be next to others when they're RIP'ed, AFAIK. So it should be easier to offer ICC profiles to the customer if the process itself is tightly under control.
One possible downside of offering a color managed process to your customers might be that some of them might measure the print they get back with a spectrophotometer and compute DeltaEs. If you're submitting sRGB files, you won't know if a color is off because the process is drifting or it's just out of gamut.
Jim
-
One possible downside of offering a color managed process to your customers might be that some of them might measure the print they get back with a spectrophotometer and compute DeltaEs. If you're submitting sRGB files, you won't know if a color is off because the process is drifting or it's just out of gamut.
Depends on the target you send for the analysis. One could produce a target for this that falls totally within sRGB. Then if you see high dE values, and we should define what we feel is high, it's a problem with process control.
When I create special targets for trending process control, I build them with smaller patch samples than what I'd use for building a profile to speed up the measuring process and further, depending on the device, I target the gamut so there are no OOG colors. Easy to do with say ColorPort. With a profile target, we don't know (yet) it's gamut so the patches are designed to be father out gamut wise and of course there are a lot more patches needed to build a good profile. For process control, depending on the type of device (ink jet versus digital press), one could build a target with 500 patches or far less, 200 or so. Plenty to gauge process control issues. Pad that with more grays or 'customer logo colors' etc.
Any lab could (and should) do this too! If they are serious about process control. The people who make ColorThink have an awesome web based product for process control called Maxwell. Hook up an iSis, build what is called a track for a device. Once a day, 3 times a day, whatever you feel is necessary, you send a target through the insturment, it is uploaded to Maxwell and it builds a very complete report much like you see in ColorThink. You can tell it to send you an email if say the max dE is over 5. Stop the presses or device, fix the issue, run another test through Maxwell. But again, one has to be really serious about producing the best and consistent output to go that route. Some do thankfully.
-
Customers can get hold of profiles for all the papers I use by emailing me, they can use the profiles for soft-proofing on their own machines but I'm asking them to send me the files in sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB along with instructions which rendering intent to use when I print their files.
Why can't they use the RI they prefer based on the image and send the output color space to you?
-
All depends on the print lab/studio. Customers can get hold of profiles for all the papers I use by emailing me, they can use the profiles for soft-proofing on their own machines but I'm asking them to send me the files in sRGB, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB along with instructions which rendering intent to use when I print their files.
Well, at least you allow them to use color spaces that probably encompass the gamut of your printer, not just sRGB. If they use the same rendering intent for their soft proofing with your device profile, and if the color processing engine in their software is the same as the one in yours, the printer should get the same colors when you perform the conversion to printer color space as it would had the customer done the conversion. Depending on the color engine being the same is an opportunity for error, though. I'm not sure what the advantage of your approach is. Maybe you change your printing profile as your device drifts rather than correcting some other way?
Jim
-
This is my approach and to be honest I prefer this instead of embedding specific paper profiles to images, for two reasons:
That's legitimate in those cases. But should someone want to send you the data in the output space, you could do that right? As long as the custom instructions were: send numbers to your device as is, that's doable.
-
Wow, amazing. So many making something so complicated. Buy your own printer, for crying out loud. But, then again, you can be one of the "hundreds" of photographers the dog has written profiles for. I guess. Yeah, that will work.
WalMart? Somebody went to WalMart and asked them to toy with software? Stunning.
-
For what it's worth, the metal print lab I use had no problem providing their in-house created ICC profile. This has made a significant difference in the prints they produce for me (and for my clients, for whom I prep files for printing). All it took was a simple polite, informed, conversation with the owner.
Rand
-
Wow, amazing. So many making something so complicated. Buy your own printer, for crying out loud.
And the expensive equipment to make the sublimation transfers.
But, then again, you can be one of the "hundreds" of photographers the dog has written profiles for. I guess. Yeah, that will work.
It works quite well. Hundreds of satisfied customers. Thanks for that!
-
And the expensive equipment to make the sublimation transfers.
If only everyone had such a desire to blah blah blah to amateurs. Then you'd have competition.
"Sublimation transfers". Really. You wouldn't last a week in a real print shop.
-
If only everyone had such a desire to blah blah blah to amateurs. Then you'd have competition.
Amateurs like you who don't understand what a sublimation transfer (or what sublimation) is? If that's true, I'd have no worries Dr. Profane.
And are you not the silly fellow from Retouch Pro* who didn't know what a contract proof was? You work in a real print shop!
*http://www.retouchpro.com/forums/input-output-workflow/37200-certified-contract-proofing-budget.html
-
I was referring to the term. "Sublimation Transfer". It would elicit giggles and smirks among the pros.
And, yep, that's me, the one and only. Good luck with your consulting.
-
I was referring to the term. "Sublimation Transfer". It would elicit giggles and smirks among the pros.
Much like the giggles I emitted when you wrote (after starting you're such a big shot in prepress):
01-12-2014, 08:51 PM
A basic question before this goes any further. What is this "contract proof*"? Who is the "contract" between? What parties? What is the responsibility, and to whom? How does that work?
The bit about spending 8 long years as a photo assistant was good for a few smirks too. The one and only certainly!
Now, do you have anything to add to the post or you're just here to be annoying?
* (answers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prepress_proofing
http://www.swop.org/certification/systemlist.asp
http://desktoppub.about.com/cs/proof...tractproof.htm
http://www.fogra.org/en/fogra-fograc...-creation.html
-
WalMart? Somebody went to WalMart and asked them to toy with software? Stunning.
What's stunning is you have no idea who you're sparing with (again). The fellow who mentioned Walmart has far more creditably in terms of printing, color science and an understanding of this topic than you do and if you had a brain in your head, before steping into this forum with senseless posts, you'd check out who you're dealing with: http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
Don't you have some lunch to deliver to a photographer or a proof to deliver to a real life retoucher?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sublimation_printer
A dye-sublimation printer (or dye-sub printer) is a computer printer which employs a printing process that uses heat to transfer dye onto materials such as a plastic, card, paper, or fabric.
As dye-sublimation printers utilise heat to transfer the dye onto the print media, the printing speed is limited by the speed at which the elements on the thermal head can change temperature.
http://www.skmfgprintshop.com/dst.html
We Specialize in Dye Sublimation Transfers.
-
Do they have one of those at WalMart?
I know what the damn thing is. sheesh. You sure can type. Consulting biz a little slow?
-
Do they have one of those at WalMart?
Maybe not for printing on metal, but your local big box stores like Walmart often run complete photo finishing systems provided by Fujifilm, HP, etc., and these systems are engineered to have very reliable linearization and process control that is performed by employees with a minimal amount of training. I have never really seen the point in doing 4x6 photos or greeting cards on a home printer since it quickly gets very time consuming and is usually not cost effective. Hence, my interest in color managed workflows for higher volume printing equipment I have access to at my local Walmart, Staples, etc.
So, if an advanced amateur or pro photographer obtains a profile for said systems, your local big box store can be a great place for fully color managed low cost photo finishing. Call me crazy, but much of the discussion here has revolved around getting more personally involved with one's print provider to ensure better quality than often what happens when the personal contact is missing. High end labs do charge for higher levels of customer care as well they should. Nevertheless, on a more modest scale this approach can be taken with any lab manager who is open to giving customers a little personal assistance. You never know. He or she might be on the evening shift at your local Walmart, Staples, etc. :)
cheers,
mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
You never know. He or she might be on the evening shift at your local Walmart, Staples, etc. :)
And then they'll be sleeping in their car in the next county within a month. Sorry, but, WalMart is not exactly a place I would expect decent service for printing. Hell, I go there for perverse entertainment at times, just to watch the freak show. It's especially interesting on Saturday night, late.
I'll do my own prints and buy bulk cleaning supplies there, thank you. If they even have it on the shelves, that is.
-
And then they'll be sleeping in their car in the next county within a month. Sorry, but, WalMart is not exactly a place I would expect decent service for printing. Hell, I go there for perverse entertainment at times, just to watch the freak show. It's especially interesting on Saturday night, late.
I'll do my own prints and buy bulk cleaning supplies there, thank you. If they even have it on the shelves, that is.
That was your take away conclusion from my last post? One needs to put all the posts in this thread within the context of working with print providers at different levels of expertise, both on their part and on the part of the customer. I merely attempted to point out that even the most basic photo finishing providers (like Walmart) who offer low cost automated volume printing and don't normally paint outside the lines too much will sometimes step up their game if asked politely. For the OP, it may just be a simple phone call to Bay Photo. For others, some skills in diplomacy may need to be acquired first :)
good luck,
mark
-
That was your take away conclusion from my last post?
You have to put "Benny Profane" (a made up alias) into the right context. Just examine his first, middle and last posts here. He's not here to aid the OP or anyone else. Like his post on RetouchPro, dismissing the idea of a contract proof only to ask "what's a contract proof." Then when that is explained to him, and despite a number of links that also illustrate the term, he goes on about how much he knows about prepress and dismisses them. This guy is as dumb as a bag of hammers and not nearly as charming.
-
Hi Andrew,
Even trolls are in some perverse way trying to "win friends and influence people". I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. A reclaiming of civility so to speak. Probably not worth the effort, but I still try.
best,
Mark
-
Boy, that whole contract proof thing is quite an obsession for you, isn't it? Will this be a special topic at the next workshop in some exotic locale? Over Mai Tais?
-
"Benny Profane" (a made up alias)
Is there any other kind <g>?
-
No, really, that's my real name. Please stop insulting it. My mother is crying in heaven.
-
As the original poster, I am happy to report that my metal print order with Bay Photo worked out fine. I soft-proofed using the ICC profile they provided, requested no color correction at their end, and the colors of the resulting prints are an almost exact match to my own prints made on paper.