Soft proofing for canvas

[marcgoldring]

I've been soft proofing images for a while and have the hang of it for the most part. But this canvas is quite another matter. I've got the profile from the ,printer and when I set up soft proofing the image becomes very muddy with minimal contrast. None of my usual tricks do very much. I get close but not very and it requires a ton of adjustments.

I generally print on luster, which I know is easier, and I've seen similar problems with matte paper but this is lots worse. Any idea of why it seems so much harder to soft proof or any strategies for approaching it?

Thanks

Marco


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Mark D Segal]

The issue is that the soft proof may be fine - just that for the canvas you are using you need a different set of image edits than you are accustomed to for luster. Also the maximum black of the canvas is likely much less than black on luster, accounting for the comparative muddiness.

[PeterAit]

The unavoidable fact is that canvas just does not have the Dmax or dynamic range of even mediocre papers. It has its own plusses, but a print on canvas will rarely if ever stand up to a print made on paper if they are directly compared. But, a print made on canvas can look great if seen on its own! When softproofing for canvas, I think you need to give up the idea of getting it to look exactly the way you want it. Your goal is to get it as good as you can. And of course the canvas makes a big difference. I have loved Breathing Color Lyve for years.

[marcgoldring]

Thanks for these comments. I suppose I can take some comfort in the fact that it's really hard/different and not just me. And I suspect it doesn't help that the image in question is very dark so the lack of black blacks is even more problematic.

Perhaps I'll start with the raw file and work it up with soft proof on from the get go. Sounds odd but maybe that would work.

All best,

Marc

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for these comments. I suppose I can take some comfort in the fact that it's really hard/different and not just me. And I suspect it doesn't help that the image in question is very dark so the lack of black blacks is even more problematic.

Perhaps I'll start with the raw file and work it up with soft proof on from the get go. Sounds odd but maybe that would work.

All best,

Marc

Yes to all of that. And there is nothing "odd": starting with the raw file and editing it under softproof is the most reliable way of knowing what you can extract from those files on that canvas. You cannot avoid the dMax issue both Peter and I mentioned, but this will help you to mitigate/manage it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I send my files to an outside lab in sRGB mode. The resulting canvases are rich, saturated, colorful and with deep blacks. I do not softproof at all.

Have it printed (eat the pudding ) and see for yourself.

[digitaldog]

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

I send my files to an outside lab in sRGB mode. The resulting canvases are rich, saturated, colorful and with deep blacks. I do not softproof at all.

The proof you've provided is:

• You don't soft proof.  You don't get a match from print to screen.  You like the prints (great).

Got nothing to do with the OP's goals, soft proofing or for that matter, a lick about color management or image processing.
Let's not even start with "I send my files to an outside lab in sRGB" for many here who care about the depth of saturation of their images upon a print. Because sRGB is suboptimal for that task for huge numbers of captured images from raw.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I am just being pragmatic, Andrew. My prints do match my profiled screen and yes, I do like them (just as the customers that buy them do). Isn't that the point?

Too many people never end up with a final print, being paralyzed by fear of inadequacy of this or that step in the process (I know that for sure, I was one of them). Too many people get obsessed with certain technical parameters, e.g., "the depth of saturation" to actually enjoy the totality of the printed image.

How many times I heard from people, admiring my 24"x36" canvases and learning it was made from an 8 Mpx, crop-sensor camera: "But, but...it is impossible, you can't print this big from a file that small."

[Mark D Segal]

I am just being pragmatic, ..........

Except that none of this has anything to do with the topic. The topic is about soft-proofing for canvas, and it arose because the OP, unsurprisingly, found the soft-proofed images looked like crap compared to what he was accustomed to when soft-proofing luster paper, and he wants to know whether this is normal, and/or if there is anything he can do to improve it. So indirectly you're advising him to forget about all that process and just send it away for printing. One doesn't improve a properly conceived workflow by abandoning it, notwithstanding your particular experience of using less technically capable solutions that just may happen to work well enough for a variety of photos and papers.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... One doesn't improve a properly conceived workflow by abandoning it....

Have you noticed more and more instances (and expert advice) in which "let printer manage colors" is preferred to the "properly conceived workflow"?  Which used to be anathema for any self-respecting printer, until recently.

[Mark D Segal]

Have you noticed more and more instances (and expert advice) in which "let printer manage colors" is preferred to the "properly conceived workflow"?  Which used to be anathema for any self-respecting printer, until recently.

Yes - one person by the name of Ctein. And for most serious printers apart from him <Let Printer Manage Colors> is still anathema. If it were that good we'd see user colour management going the way of the Dodo bird, but we aren't.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Yes - one person by the name of Ctein...

But hey, what a name!

I am simply saying, Mark, there is more than one way to get to a decent result. And I am simply suggesting to the OP to give it a try. Don't like it (the result)? Fine, go back to the "properly conceived workflow."

[Mark D Segal]

But hey, what a name!

I am simply saying, Mark, there is more than one way to get to a decent result. And I am simply suggesting to the OP to give it a try. Don't like it (the result)? Fine, go back to the "properly conceived workflow."

Slobodan, I've learned over many years to trust my eyes and experience more than names, no matter who they are. But I agree there is more than one way to get a *decent* result and there are surely cases in which Printer Managers Color does a *decent* job. However I'm unaware of reliable alternatives to softproofing the raw file using quality profiles in order to obtain *optimal* results from the widest variety of photos. In support of the advice you are offering, and given the subject of the thread, have you actually tested printing canvas with Printer Manages Color and achieved fully satisfactory results with it?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... have you actually tested printing canvas with Printer Manages Color and achieved fully satisfactory results with it?

No, as I said, I send it to a remote lab as sRGB.

Just to clarify, I was not suggesting to the OP to use Printer Manages Color to print his canvas. I mentioned that simply as a rhetorical parallel.

[Mark D Segal]

You send "it" - what is "it" tat you send out? Canvas or something else? Now, it's quite conceivable that you don't miss much working in a narrow colour space like sRGB if the media you are printing on has a colour space no larger than sRGB. I guess the misunderstanding arises from the fact that many people are printing to media and using printers for which the available colour space exceeds even ARGB(98) in some regions of the colour spectrum that fit within the boundaries of human visual perception. I suspect, though a I don't know for sure, that canvas has a rather narrow colour space (and not all canvases are the same), but even so, there is no particular advantage to working in sRGB - just in case some parts of the available colour gamut exceed it. As for sending prints to a lab, sure it can work fine, but here again one is usually more assured of better results if there is collaboration between the lab and the client on the most basic colour management parameters.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

You send "it" - what is "it" that you send out? Canvas or something else? Now, it's quite conceivable that you don't miss much working in a narrow colour space like sRGB...

"It" is a file. I don't work in sRGB space, I work in Lightroom CC, thus in (a variant of) ProPhoto RGB, and only convert to sRGB on export.

[Mark D Segal]

"It" is a file. I don't work in sRGB space, I work in Lightroom CC, thus in (a variant of) ProPhoto RGB, and only convert to sRGB on export.

I'm still confused about whether the end-result you are working toward is a print on canvas (the OP's concern) or print on matte or gloss paper, but setting that aside, you have no control over what gets clipped between the working version you see on your display and the version that ends-up on your HD as an sRGB because the former has a wider colour space than the latter. Then, if you were to migrate further away from user control and adopt Printer Managers Color, you have no control over what comes out because the printer would need to assume an Epson media type and Epson media, which may or may not be a good match for the actual media being used. So you see Slobodan, much of this has to do with managing mismatches and maximizing media options through user-controlled workflow, and the more of that you strip away the less control, the fewer the options and the higher the risks of disappointment with outcomes. I'm still not disputing your satisfaction with what you are doing - it may be fine for you and your photos; all I'm saying, and I think Andrew as well, is that as a general proposition it doesn't reflect the standards of well-managed workflows that most printers really serious about their craft would be using.

[marcgoldring]

Thanks for the dialogue(s), very informative. As the OP, one observation - the notion of "try it to see if you like it" is a tad problematic - if I am getting a fairly substantial canvas, we're talk somewhere between $100-$200, which is not my price range for experiments, sad to say...

Marco

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks for the dialogue(s), very informative. As the OP, one observation - the notion of "try it to see if you like it" is a tad problematic - if I am getting a fairly substantial canvas, we're talk somewhere between $100-$200, which is not my price range for experiments, sad to say...

Marco

Hi Marc, I agree with this. That is why we have soft-proofing and user-controllable colour management - to avoid wasteful expenditure. Use them to optimize the appearance of your photos on display before committing that kind of money to actual printing on canvas. BTW, I visited your website and I appreciate your photographic vision and style. Good stuff.