Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing  (Read 13590 times)

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2017, 12:04:47 am »

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.

It's certainly true that specular reflections off glossy or similar prints can and does alter appearance in ways that can't be easily modeled on a monitor. OTOH, if a glossy print is viewed on a hard proof stand properly lit w/o specular reflection then its reflected light has the same character as emissive from a monitor.

Surface characteristics can alter print appearances dynamically in quite pleasing ways. Especially if one is handling the print. I think we agree there. Color management is, in some ways, quite limited. It's accurate only when an image is illuminated at 45 degrees from both sides and viewed head on. Beyond that things vary. They vary the least with matte prints and the most with glossy and especially things like metallic paper prints. For those soft proofing is much less useful. One of the things I like about Canson Rag Photo is that it's such a good matte paper with virtually no specular reflections or sensitivity to the illuminant position. In fact, every Colorchecker I have from X-Rite or even an older GMB one exhibits more specular reflection than the Canson. I was rather surprised to see any and had thought it an attribute of the CC SG only. It's negligible viewed head on but at an angle you can get some weird color shifts.
Logged

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2017, 12:10:36 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.

I like to see what I'm doing on print too. It's not because I don't get what I see on my monitor - it's because a print is different than a monitor and I like to see the print. I use cheaper papers first like Epson semi gloss.
Logged

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2017, 11:15:23 am »

I appreciate this discussion and thank everyone.  I tend not to to get overly scientific (that sort of stuff is my day job...) so this is a release.  Perhaps what I'll do is spend this weekend with some good IPA's in hand running tests.  There's a linear relationship whereby the increasing volume of IPA ingested producing increasingly pleasurable prints, so I'll see how that works out for me : )  I'll first adjust monitor brightness as I suspect that is an issue. 
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21652
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2017, 11:59:22 am »

If you're not viewing a sample print, (controlling that viewing condition next to the display, controlling the display as well), with the goal of a close visual match between the two, soft proofing is moot.

Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #24 on: December 29, 2017, 01:41:46 pm »

If you're not viewing a sample print, (controlling that viewing condition next to the display, controlling the display as well), with the goal of a close visual match between the two, soft proofing is moot.



I agree. I meant to write that I use cheaper papers for first proof...not for the final print.
Logged

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #25 on: December 31, 2017, 11:21:59 am »

Andrew, I have snouts on my lights to there isn't any spill onto the LCD monitor. However, in your photo, you say you match the booth luminance to the monitor, how do you do this?  I should also mention I edit on the display with ALL lights off in the small room I work in, so wondering if this is my problem??  Going to watch your video this afternoon. Thank you.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21652
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #26 on: December 31, 2017, 11:39:28 am »

Andrew, I have snouts on my lights to there isn't any spill onto the LCD monitor. However, in your photo, you say you match the booth luminance to the monitor, how do you do this?
Trial and error. A bit easier when you can control both display and booth intensity.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Laminarman

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 68
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #27 on: December 31, 2017, 12:00:16 pm »

Trial and error. A bit easier when you can control both display and booth intensity.

Just watched your INCREDIBLE video, thank you.  It clears up a lot.  I think sometimes we assume it's all measuring and computers and meters...etc and I'm a bit relieved to see that just using your eyes and doing trial and error still counts for a lot.  I'm fortunate I have a good NEC display and the software and some control over my lighting.  Thanks again for all your help.
Logged

luxborealis

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2809
    • luxBorealis.com - photography by Terry McDonald
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #28 on: December 31, 2017, 12:04:08 pm »

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.

I know a lot has been said about soft proofing, but, like you I do like to see something tangible, so I print a “test strip” of the photo I’m working on. After I think I’ve finished processing, I bring the photo into the Print module and sit and have a good look at it “on the paper” to ensure colour and tonal values are correct. This is where I’m now looking at the image as a finished print and not a processing file. I think this is a step many people miss. You need to step back and take the whole thing in with a white border around it: check to see how the highlights relate to the “paper white”, how deep the shadows appear, and the overall colour cast, again, compared to paper White. A large, accurate monitor helps with this as well as an understanding of how your printing system works.

I’ve set up LR to print a 2.75” strip on the size of paper I’ll be using for the final print. In the Print module, I drag the image to show a section that includes the brightest highlight and, if possible, the darkest shadow area and hit Print. Two minutes later, I have a single strip of the photograph to evaluate, usually up in my living room where I have typical home mixed lighting.

Typically, without softproofing or a calibrated monitor (but using a Benq wide gamut SW2700PT monitor, calibrated using Apple’s system on my MacBook Pro), I print one test strip, rarely two, before I print an artist’s proof, which I put up on the piano to live with for a while. That being said, I use the same paper for my work (MOAB Entrada Rag Natural), so I know how it prints.

My belief is, and I know it’s counter to the techno-culture of calibration and softproofing helpfully espoused here, if you learn your craft well, your printing system - your monitor, printer inks and paper - and you slow down to carefully assess colours and tones on a white background, then make corrections, photographers will have greater success printing. They will also develop an eye for what’s correct. Yes, there’s an element of trial and error, and a learning curve, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch, either. These are the same principles I used in black-and-white and colour wet darkrooms for years and they are as important today as back then.
Logged
Terry McDonald - luxBorealis.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21652
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #29 on: December 31, 2017, 01:06:10 pm »

I think sometimes we assume it's all measuring and computers and meters...etc and I'm a bit relieved to see that just using your eyes and doing trial and error still counts for a lot.
Colorimetry and the dE testing is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. The reason why viewing a print is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices can't provide. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. Colorimetry based on solid  colors in very specific ambient and surround conditions.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1902
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #30 on: December 31, 2017, 02:50:11 pm »

Quote
Colorimetry and the dE testing is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. The reason why viewing a print is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices can't provide.

Man, this should be engraved in stone somewhere.  This is where science meets art.  And says, that in our world, you can't "get to" the art part, without some understanding and application of the science part.

Thanks Andrew . . .

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

pearlstreet

  • Guest
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #31 on: December 31, 2017, 03:10:54 pm »

Terry, I like your piano viewing station.   :) Your prints looks great.
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #32 on: December 31, 2017, 04:53:33 pm »

Colorimetry and the dE testing is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. The reason why viewing a print is more valid than measuring it is because measurement is about comparing solid colors. Color appearance is about evaluating images and color in context which measurement devices can't provide. Colorimetry is about color perception. It is not about color appearance. Colorimetry based on solid  colors in very specific ambient and surround conditions.

There is no red in a 700 nm light, just as there is no pain in the hooves of a kicking horse.

Here's a detailed chapter on color appearance, perception and stimulus. With lots of examples showing various things that impact color appearance. It's a really good chapter, apparently part of coursework yet not too long or overwhelming. Check out the rings example the above quote introduces. Huge apparent color shift yet each of the three rings have the same colorimetric color.

http://faculty.washington.edu/sbuck/545ColorClass/ShevellCh4.pdf
Logged

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #33 on: December 31, 2017, 05:48:57 pm »

There is no red in a 700 nm light, just as there is no pain in the hooves of a kicking horse.

Here's a detailed chapter on color appearance, perception and stimulus. With lots of examples showing various things that impact color appearance. It's a really good chapter, apparently part of coursework yet not too long or overwhelming. Check out the rings example the above quote introduces. Huge apparent color shift yet each of the three rings have the same colorimetric color.

http://faculty.washington.edu/sbuck/545ColorClass/ShevellCh4.pdf

Apparently those rings (orange and greenish gray) have been edited in post to look different within their given blue/grayish green surround. I checked the RGB data on a zoomed in view of the rings. Are they suppose to be exactly the same color by the numbers within their surrounding rings? Or is this just a demo of this visual effect?

Maybe I'm missing something or looking at the wrong rings.

I'm a bit disappointed there's not one actual photo of a scene to explain color appearance behavior, only a bunch of flat color squares, graphs and Plankian Locus diagrams. We are all photographers. Shows this happening in an actual photo.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 05:53:31 pm by Tim Lookingbill »
Logged

Doug Gray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2205
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #34 on: December 31, 2017, 10:56:19 pm »

Apparently those rings (orange and greenish gray) have been edited in post to look different within their given blue/grayish green surround. I checked the RGB data on a zoomed in view of the rings. Are they suppose to be exactly the same color by the numbers within their surrounding rings? Or is this just a demo of this visual effect?
The image in the pdf looks to be a scan from text for the college class. However, the visual effect is real. I copied the ring onto the two right hand circles so the circle colors, as ratty as they are, shows the same apparent color shift.
Quote
Maybe I'm missing something or looking at the wrong rings.

I'm a bit disappointed there's not one actual photo of a scene to explain color appearance behavior, only a bunch of flat color squares, graphs and Plankian Locus diagrams. We are all photographers. Shows this happening in an actual photo.

The effect is in many colorful images but is not noticed because we don't normally compare the way a color looks in a scene with one isolated from its context. Put another way, the context a specific RGB triplet exists in determines its color appearance. The same triplet in a different context can appear to have a different color. The rings are just a simple way to demonstrate the effect.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2018, 12:45:42 am by Doug Gray »
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #35 on: January 01, 2018, 12:54:00 am »

If you want an example from a photograph, look at any inkjet print.  All the appearances are due to the placement of various colours next to each other so that they appear together as some other colour at an appropriate viewing distance.
Logged
Phil Brown

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #36 on: January 01, 2018, 03:06:50 am »

The effect is in many colorful images but is not noticed because we don't normally compare the way a color looks in a scene with one isolated from its context. Put another way, the context a specific RGB triplet exists in determines its color appearance. The same triplet in a different context can appear to have a different color. The rings are just a simple way to demonstrate the effect.

This isn't a color appearance effect that we have to deal with as photographers seeing and capturing what is in front of us and post process on our computers. There would not be a situation where we'ld have to keep this in mind when we edit images because we're not trying to recreate exactly what was there within the scene. I know that sunlight will make colors look warmer while shade will make them appear cooler.

When would we as photographers encounter a color appearance situation with what is happening with the rings?

These perception/appearance anomalies are just showing a trick of the eyes. Technically it doesn't help us make better photos knowing this.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 21652
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #37 on: January 01, 2018, 10:56:06 am »

This isn't a color appearance effect that we have to deal with as photographers seeing and capturing what is in front of us and post process on our computers. There would not be a situation where we'ld have to keep this in mind when we edit images because we're not trying to recreate exactly what was there within the scene. I know that sunlight will make colors look warmer while shade will make them appear cooler.

When would we as photographers encounter a color appearance situation with what is happening with the rings?

These perception/appearance anomalies are just showing a trick of the eyes. Technically it doesn't help us make better photos knowing this.
Since you don’t appear to understand the differences how can you write with this such certainty!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Garnick

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2018, 11:56:22 am »

I know a lot has been said about soft proofing, but, like you I do like to see something tangible, so I print a “test strip” of the photo I’m working on. After I think I’ve finished processing, I bring the photo into the Print module and sit and have a good look at it “on the paper” to ensure colour and tonal values are correct. This is where I’m now looking at the image as a finished print and not a processing file. I think this is a step many people miss. You need to step back and take the whole thing in with a white border around it: check to see how the highlights relate to the “paper white”, how deep the shadows appear, and the overall colour cast, again, compared to paper White. A large, accurate monitor helps with this as well as an understanding of how your printing system works.

I’ve set up LR to print a 2.75” strip on the size of paper I’ll be using for the final print. In the Print module, I drag the image to show a section that includes the brightest highlight and, if possible, the darkest shadow area and hit Print. Two minutes later, I have a single strip of the photograph to evaluate, usually up in my living room where I have typical home mixed lighting.

Typically, without softproofing or a calibrated monitor (but using a Benq wide gamut SW2700PT monitor, calibrated using Apple’s system on my MacBook Pro), I print one test strip, rarely two, before I print an artist’s proof, which I put up on the piano to live with for a while. That being said, I use the same paper for my work (MOAB Entrada Rag Natural), so I know how it prints.

My belief is, and I know it’s counter to the techno-culture of calibration and softproofing helpfully espoused here, if you learn your craft well, your printing system - your monitor, printer inks and paper - and you slow down to carefully assess colours and tones on a white background, then make corrections, photographers will have greater success printing. They will also develop an eye for what’s correct. Yes, there’s an element of trial and error, and a learning curve, but there’s no such thing as a free lunch, either. These are the same principles I used in black-and-white and colour wet darkrooms for years and they are as important today as back then.

Hi Terry,

I find your approach quite interesting, mostly because it's also my approach, and has been since I first wandered out of the darkroom and into the light of digital/inkjet printing back in 2003.  Of course this technique is referred to as "hard proofing", a procedure that seems to be much maligned by many.  I do have a wide gamut NEC PA27W display, and I use the NEC Spectraview software to calibrate it with the i1 Display Pro Colorimeter.  I do that because most of my printing is for my customers, as well as some of my own work.  I want to know that what I am seeing on my display is what it should be for any particular file I receive, and the only way I can be certain that is the case is to properly calibrate my display.  If I find problems I can then get in touch with the customer and discuss the issue, and determine if the their display is calibrated as well.  If not I will offer some suggestions.  However, in my opinion, getting totally immersed in the minutiae and science of the act of producing a more than acceptable print, takes the ART out of Fine Art Printing.  It's true that the numbers don't lie, but I believe it's equally true that total perception of those numbers is always necessary for one to produce a Fine Print from any good digital file.  After soft proofing, a test strip of a critical area of the image should, in most cases, supply enough information to perhaps make another slight adjustment and take it to print.  I was first introduced to this procedure in 1968 when I started working at a custom colour lab in Toronto, and it has always stayed with me through my own lab business, from type "C" prints etc. to digital.  Of course it works equally well for silver B&W printing, and digital B&W also.

Here's a quote from you post Terry, and I have inserted one more word, as you will notice.  "These are the same principles I used in black-and-white and colour wet darkrooms for years and they are as important, and relevant  today as back then".  I believe that to be the case as well, but we also required the numbers back then for QC, now referred to as Colour Management, even though it "manages" a lot more than just colour.

Gary               

 
« Last Edit: January 01, 2018, 11:59:56 am by Garnick »
Logged
Gary N.
"My memory isn't what it used to be. As a matter of fact it never was." (gan)

Tim Lookingbill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2436
Re: Stupidest question ever : ( Hard proofing
« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2018, 02:53:16 pm »

Since you don’t appear to understand the differences how can you write with this such certainty!

I didn't say I don't understand the differences. I asked when would knowing this optical effect be useful when photographing and processing a scene? I've never encountered it with the thousands of Raws I've shot in the past ten years.

I guess you didn't read that part of my point, Andrew.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up