Color Management Statements

[32BT]

When preparing images for inkjet print in a properly colormanaged workflow:

1. profiling works for 90% of all images

2. Display softproofing fully helps to recognize and correct the remaining 10% images in advance.

[sgwrx]

well, i just took some photos with blue sky and as soon as i soft proof with whatever profile, the nice cyanish bluish sky turns to some pale magenta-blue. anything i do to try and compensate turns the faint vaporuous clouds into patches of blown out cyan and bands.

so if by fully helps to recognize and correct you mean - here's what you want and here's what you're going to get, then yeah!

in fact, i don't mean to hi-jack, but this might tie in with what i'm wondering?  i'm wondering if any of the pro's here (who go to print)

a) quickly soft-proof before editing any images because it's your output that you are trying to make look good

 make an image look "killer" on your monitor and then try to match with a soft-proof copy

is there a point where you give up and say 'well that's the best i can do'

[digitaldog]

When preparing images for inkjet print in a properly colormanaged workflow:

1. profiling works for 90% of all images

2. Display softproofing fully helps to recognize and correct the remaining 10% images in advance.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64718\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A lot depends on the profiles in the chain (for soft proofing, there's two of course). As for the output profile, it has two tables: One controls the soft proof, one controls the output. One could be spot on, the other could need adjustments. This is often necessary for the preview portion (soft proof table). In a prefect world, both tables and the display profile would be working fine so maybe 90% is reasonable. Then there's the viewing conditions of the print and how it syncs up with the display. That might account for a few more percent. 100% is impossible. You've got an emissive display and a reflect print. The dynamic range may or may not be a factor.  And what about the gamut mismatch of the display and the output color space. When all your ducks are in a row, a mid to high 90% should be doable (and of course, I'm pulling these numeric values for percentage out of my behind here; guesstimating a number).

[Jonathan Wienke]

My experience tracks pretty well with opgr's statements. With good monitor and printer profiles and decent viewing conditions, most images (90% seems to be a good ballpark percentage) can be sent directly to the printer and will print as desired the first time. The exceptions are images that do not fit into the monitor or printer gamut; these will always require tweaking to achieve the least objectionable compromise. Sunsets, flowers, car shows, and gelled stage lighting are often troublesome due to the saturated colors of the subject matter, but portraits, B&W, and toned images are rarely difficult due to their more limited gamut. Good color management is a hassle to set up properly, but is well worth the effort to learn and implement.

[32BT]

well, i just took some photos with blue sky and as soon as i soft proof with whatever profile, the nice cyanish bluish sky turns to some pale magenta-blue. anything i do to try and compensate turns the faint vaporuous clouds into patches of blown out cyan and bands.

If different printer profiles give you more or less the same pale-magenta-blue, then this is most likely a result of the source color blue not quite fitting your monitor gamut. Photoshop will apply channel clipping which unfortunately shifts the hue. The original color may well be pale-magenta-blue, and changing this in the source space simply produces more artifacts in the monitor preview.

Does softproofing to your printer profile show the pale-magenta-blue color? Or is it only visible in actual print? In the former case, simply correct the color while previewing in softproof mode.

in fact, i don't mean to hi-jack, but this might tie in with what i'm wondering?  i'm wondering if any of the pro's here (who go to print)

a) quickly soft-proof before editing any images because it's your output that you are trying to make look good

b ) make an image look "killer" on your monitor and then try to match with a soft-proof copy

It is both: first you make the image "look" as good as possible in its source space. Unfortunately you only have your monitor preview to guide you, but setting white-balance, black-point, levels and contrast should preferably be done as early in the process as possible, using the source space or working space of choice.

Note that if you set most of this in ACR, a lot of this processing is done on the source data and during the conversion to your working space.

Then when preparing for a print or for the web, you can best use the softproofing feature to adjust for potential degradation. (preferably on a copy or using layers, of course).

[sgwrx]

thanks.  that's right i forgot about that! it could be that what i'm seeing is the result of the monitor not being able to display the color.

If different printer profiles give you more or less the same pale-magenta-blue, then this is most likely a result of the source color blue not quite fitting your monitor gamut. Photoshop will apply channel clipping which unfortunately shifts the hue. The original color may well be pale-magenta-blue, and changing this in the source space simply produces more artifacts in the monitor preview.

Does softproofing to your printer profile show the pale-magenta-blue color? Or is it only visible in actual print? In the former case, simply correct the color while previewing in softproof mode.
It is both: first you make the image "look" as good as possible in its source space. Unfortunately you only have your monitor preview to guide you, but setting white-balance, black-point, levels and contrast should preferably be done as early in the process as possible, using the source space or working space of choice.

Note that if you set most of this in ACR, a lot of this processing is done on the source data and during the conversion to your working space.

Then when preparing for a print or for the web, you can best use the softproofing feature to adjust for potential degradation. (preferably on a copy or using layers, of course).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[bjanes]

If different printer profiles give you more or less the same pale-magenta-blue, then this is most likely a result of the source color blue not quite fitting your monitor gamut. Photoshop will apply channel clipping which unfortunately shifts the hue. The original color may well be pale-magenta-blue, and changing this in the source space simply produces more artifacts in the monitor preview.

Does softproofing to your printer profile show the pale-magenta-blue color? Or is it only visible in actual print? In the former case, simply correct the color while previewing in softproof mode.
It is both: first you make the image "look" as good as possible in its source space. Unfortunately you only have your monitor preview to guide you, but setting white-balance, black-point, levels and contrast should preferably be done as early in the process as possible, using the source space or working space of choice.

Note that if you set most of this in ACR, a lot of this processing is done on the source data and during the conversion to your working space.

Then when preparing for a print or for the web, you can best use the softproofing feature to adjust for potential degradation. (preferably on a copy or using layers, of course).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the original sky displayed correctly on the monitor before softproofing, that would indicate to me that the sky's colors are not out of the monitor gamut. As Andrew stated, the printer profiles have two sets of lookup tables, one for the soft proof and another for the output.

If the monitor appearance of the sky is wrong, but the print appears fine, does that not indicate that the soft proof table is bad?