Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing  (Read 13556 times)

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« on: December 28, 2017, 10:14:08 am »

I do soft proof, but find I still tweak my images after printing/drying.  As imagined, it gets expensive printing on Epson EFP or other premium paper.  Now that my P800 is on the way, larger paper is even more expensive.  Is there a way to proof on less expensive paper rather than burn more expensive paper?  I usually use EFP by Epson, Museo SR, Ilford Galerie and Somerset Velvet.   I am unable to find the answer so have resorted to displaying my ignorance here. 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12525
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #1 on: December 28, 2017, 10:45:26 am »

What kind of display are you using? Is it properly calibrated and profiled? What are the main deficiencies you find between the soft proof on your display and the photo that comes out on paper? How good are the printer profiles you are using? In what lighting conditions are you examining the prints? I'm asking these questions because more often than not the difficulty you are having relates to improper colour management, and the cheapest solution in the long run would be to improve your colour management. It is difficult to find significantly cheaper paper that will correctly render the same appearance you see in the soft-proof and you want from a higher quality paper, whereas correctly calibrated colour management will usually suffice to match your expectations from the soft proof with the results on paper.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2017, 11:07:31 am »

Thank you Mark.  I'm using a NEC 2490 WUXi display with their color profile software Spectraview along with their brand new colorimeter.  I use the factory or paper manufacturer profiles.  I am also viewing under Solux track lighting (I forget the bulb...I believe 3500K I'm not at home right now).  Usually what I find is the print is rather accurate but I always seem to have to increase exposure in the final print.  While rendition is true, I always seems to need to increase exposure in PS about 1/2 stop, then may fine tune levels/blacks/highlights.  I would say for a print I really want right I print it about 3x until I'm very satisfied. 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12525
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2017, 11:59:39 am »

OK, useful info, you have the right kind of stuff. The remaining questions are about the optimality of settings. I'm quite fussy about print quality - for example, the other day I rejected an otherwise fine 13*19 print of the Deustche Bahn HQ at Potsdamer Platz Berlin at night, because on the print, I found the redness of the very small flourescent "DB" logo at the top of the building somewhat over-exposed. I just missed examining that closely enough on my monitor. So with that in the background, when I tell you my waste ratio is about 1.3% for over 500 sq. ft. printed since April 1, you'll know what I mean by a good standard of colour management. I would not tolerate reprinting anything 3 times. It's a clear sign of a need to drill down on the colour management settings, because while it's not perfect, the science is good enough that for the most part you will find yourself reprinting only because you missed something on your display that was correctable. As for the prints needing increased exposure, that sounds very much like the display being too bright. Perhaps you've read Andrew Rodney's article on this website about "Why Are My Prints Too Dark?" If not, well worthwhile. If you use one paper more than the others, perhaps have a custom profile made, though these days the better manufacturer profiles are actually pretty good. BTW what printer are you using? That said, I kind of suspect without knowing too much about your settings and set-up that perhaps most of the problem will be resolved with different monitor calibration settings for brightness, black point, white point and contrast ratio. It's worthwhile doing some controlled experimenting.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2017, 12:16:45 pm »

Wow, 1.3% is pretty impressive.  I am using an Epson R2400 now, but the P800 is on it's way.  I wonder if I could just adjust screen brightness during calibration?  I'll look at it this weekend and perhaps that will help.  But I agree, some controlled experimenting (on smaller paper of course..) will be in order. 
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12525
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #5 on: December 28, 2017, 12:21:05 pm »

I don't know how that particular software works, but usually one has the ability to adjust certain parameters such as brightness, white point, black point and gamma to calibrate the display BEFORE profiling it. This would be the way to go, because once a calibration parameter is changed, it is usually necessary to reprofile with the new calibration settings. But perhaps different software packages work differently in this regard.
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Damon Lynch

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 323
    • http://www.damonlynch.net
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #6 on: December 28, 2017, 12:25:09 pm »

Perhaps you've read Andrew Rodney's article on this website about "Why Are My Prints Too Dark?" If not, well worthwhile.

Has the article been deleted? I can't locate it on the site.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21652
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #7 on: December 28, 2017, 12:28:49 pm »

Has the article been deleted? I can't locate it on the site.
It's gone from here but a video (much better) exists for free:
Why are my prints too dark?

A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013

In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:

Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem


High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #8 on: December 28, 2017, 12:40:51 pm »

Has the article been deleted? I can't locate it on the site.

Appears to not be appearing : (
Logged

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #9 on: December 28, 2017, 12:41:48 pm »

OK got it, thank you!  I'll watch it later.
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #10 on: December 28, 2017, 02:51:08 pm »

https://luminous-landscape.com/videos/master-charles-cramer/

Check out the videos on Post Priduction Techniques. You might find something interesting.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Eric Brody

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 516
    • http://www.ericbrodyphoto.com
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #11 on: December 28, 2017, 03:29:27 pm »

I've had the true privilege of doing a few workshops with Charlie Cramer and his new videos on LULA are spot on. One of the simplest things he talks about is using a white background in both Lightroom and in Photoshop. He even demonstrates what a difference it makes in the videos. He also reminds us that reflected light from a print is quite different than transmitted light on a monitor regardless of profiling and other soft and hardware adjustments, and.. print early, print often. I have no stock in Epson ink but it's not uncommon for the first print, no matter how carefully made, to benefit from some minor adjustments. This was certainly true in the wet darkroom days. I usually print work prints 6x9 on 8 1/2x11 paper. I'll often spend a few days with a work print before committing to larger sizes. Some people have no problem spending thousands on cameras and lenses and then choke up over spending another $1-2 making a really nice print better by adjusting and redoing it. Have fun whatever you do.
Logged

John Nollendorfs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 623
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #12 on: December 28, 2017, 03:35:14 pm »

I find the only sure fire way to proof with out wasting paper is using test strips.  Of course this means you have to learn to pick proper areas of the image to test, and you will still get fooled sometimes!
Logged

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #13 on: December 28, 2017, 03:42:39 pm »

All great suggestions.  Sometimes the obvious is so stupid.  I used to darkroom print and use test strips.  I suppose I could print on 8x10 before resizing larger.  That's a cost savings.  I don't mind spending money, but at $100 for 25 sheets of paper it seems wasteful to use 3-4 sheets to get a final print.  Now, my wife thinks I'm crazy as she thinks they all look the same.  And we all know, most people won't notice much difference.  But I do, and I'm the most important person when it comes to this.  I don't do this for money or income, purely for pleasure.  Thank God.  I'd be broke.
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2017, 06:25:41 pm »

Now, my wife thinks I'm crazy as she thinks they all look the same.  And we all know, most people won't notice much difference.  But I do, and I'm the most important person when it comes to this.  I don't do this for money or income, purely for pleasure.  Thank God.  I'd be broke.

Your wife and anyone else that says they all look the same is indicating you are chasing your tail due to your eyes adapting to what you are editing on the display. I have the same dark print problem even with an Epson All In One and printing to my local Walmart Fuji Frontier.

You need to be mindful of your eyes adapting quickly to what you're editing. I ran a darkroom professionally for several ad specialty screenprinters that didn't rely on visual judgement but the use of a 14 step Stouffer step wedge with fixed exposure usually 5 seconds at f/22 on RC paper and went for a number open 5 in the developer before switching to stop bath.

Now that you are relying on minute long edits on a transmissive display you don't see your eyes adjusting that quickly. And it requires huge edits to lighten the image to make a noticeable dent on the print. The larger the print the more light you'll need to keep up with the bright display.

It's the same thing that happens in a darkened movie theater where the black points when the lights go on are so washed out they're almost as bright as mid gray. When the theater lights go off, the blacks are quite dense. Reflective light from track lights function the same in regards to contrast appearance which can make prints look dark because transmissive displays show more detail ramping up out of very dense black.

This LuLa thread shows what I'm talking about...

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=79948...
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2017, 06:45:45 pm »

I just came across an image I originally edited back in 2013 and was trying to make it look good with dramatic contrast to show all the detail in the ground not realizing that the shot was taken in bright sunlight.

Clearly the one on the left is going to produce a dark print crushing a lot of detail that hides the nutria's hands that evoke a kind of sad and needy characteristic in the animal vs the one the right when my better judgement told me it's a shot taken in noon day light, not dusk. Who cares about the ground detail anyway.
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2017, 07:30:33 pm »

I've had the true privilege of doing a few workshops with Charlie Cramer and his new videos on LULA are spot on. One of the simplest things he talks about is using a white background in both Lightroom and in Photoshop. He even demonstrates what a difference it makes in the videos. He also reminds us that reflected light from a print is quite different than transmitted light on a monitor regardless of profiling and other soft and hardware adjustments, and.. print early, print often. I have no stock in Epson ink but it's not uncommon for the first print, no matter how carefully made, to benefit from some minor adjustments. This was certainly true in the wet darkroom days. I usually print work prints 6x9 on 8 1/2x11 paper. I'll often spend a few days with a work print before committing to larger sizes. Some people have no problem spending thousands on cameras and lenses and then choke up over spending another $1-2 making a really nice print better by adjusting and redoing it. Have fun whatever you do.

Charlie's videos are excellent but this needs clarification. There is no intrinsic difference between light that is reflected and transmitted light. What makes the difference is knowing one comes from a monitor. This makes a really big difference - I've done personal tests on this - but it's virtually all psychological. Jim Kasson, who Charlie mentions, has also pointed out that when a monitor is carefully set up so people don't know the image is coming from a monitor and compared to a properly illuminated print side by side people can't identify any difference.
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12525
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #17 on: December 28, 2017, 09:34:22 pm »

Charlie's videos are excellent but this needs clarification. There is no intrinsic difference between light that is reflected and transmitted light. What makes the difference is knowing one comes from a monitor. This makes a really big difference - I've done personal tests on this - but it's virtually all psychological. Jim Kasson, who Charlie mentions, has also pointed out that when a monitor is carefully set up so people don't know the image is coming from a monitor and compared to a properly illuminated print side by side people can't identify any difference.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. For one thing, Canon's engineers and scientists have committed large amounts of time and resources to studying the conditions in which different ways of configuring reflected light make a large difference to Black shading appearance particularly when dealing with matte papers. Absent soft-proofing, the contrast ratio of a display is usually greater than what matte paper can usually reflect. The comment attributed to Jim Kasson's as stated here is tautological when you think about it. Yes, with very good soft-proofing you can overcome much of the difference between monitor appearance and paper appearance, but that is by design!
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #18 on: December 28, 2017, 10:53:16 pm »

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. For one thing, Canon's engineers and scientists have committed large amounts of time and resources to studying the conditions in which different ways of configuring reflected light make a large difference to Black shading appearance particularly when dealing with matte papers. Absent soft-proofing, the contrast ratio of a display is usually greater than what matte paper can usually reflect. The comment attributed to Jim Kasson's as stated here is tautological when you think about it. Yes, with very good soft-proofing you can overcome much of the difference between monitor appearance and paper appearance, but that is by design!

Charlie was specifically referring to the psychological limitations involved with soft proofing when you know the image in on a monitor. He wasn't referring to the image prior to soft proofing. Kasson referred to an example where the image was soft proofed so it was colorimetrically the same as the actual print beside it but the fact the monitor was displaying the image was hidden from the viewer.

That said, I quite agree that a good softproof setup and matching hard proof set up can work quite well. The key is to get the illuminant and monitor at the same lever and white point. But many have problems and it's often ascribed to some mythical difference between emitted light and reflected light. Light is light. But people do perceive things differently when they know one is from a monitor and one from a print. It's particularly significant when they aren't matched and especially when comparing a monitor to a print illuminated with room light.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 11:04:21 pm by Doug Gray »
Logged

Mark D Segal

  • Contributor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12525
    • http://www.markdsegal.com
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #19 on: December 28, 2017, 11:27:21 pm »

The differences between transmitted and reflected light are not mythical and while obviously "light is light", to put the matter more correctly, different kinds of light (i.e. transmitted or reflected in various ways) can produce different kinds of visual appearance depending on the materials light interacts with.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 11:40:35 pm by Mark D Segal »
Logged
Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....."
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up