Unexpected result after converting image profile to softproof profile

[digitaldog]

The OP doesn't seem to be engaged in his own thread or even interested in offering specifics and answering questions on where he sees "horrible results" in the print or soft proof preview.

Probably because Ray answered this correctly way back in post #55 (45 posts ago) which was shown again (post #79) to you and which you again ignored. The OP is pretty smart to avoid the later nonsense posted by at least one person here who believes printers print in sRGB, believe that the OP was referring to the print and not the preview (obvious to some here) etc. Why the rest of us are engaged in the hijacking of the thread is questionable but it goes to the heart of this question: what do we own people who are wrong? Repeatedly I would add?

[Tim Lookingbill]

Andrew, what printer is the OP using at Costco? Can you provide the post number where this is stated by the OP? I couldn't find it in this thread. Also can you confirm if the OP sees horrible results in the print or in the soft proof?

I couldn't find it stated by the OP.

Not interested in third party speculation.

The OP only states Fuji Frontier but doesn't indicate whether it's a Dry Lab or old silver halide printer.

[digitaldog]

Not interested in third party speculation.

Then stop posting sir.
The unnecessary questions you ask have answers provided more than once. That you can't find them, even after it was pointed out to you multiple times indicates you're not paying attention and I can't help you with that issue.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Then stop posting sir.
The unnecessary questions you ask have answers provided more than once. That you can't find them, even after it was pointed out to you multiple times indicates you're not paying attention and I can't help you with that issue.

No, they have not been answered or else I wouldn't have asked. But I can see you're not going to help as usual.

I've given valid information that is relevant to this topic that is based on what I seen happen with Fuji Frontier Dry Labs and not on theory or speculation. But I'ld still like to know why Fuji would implement such a lame approach to Color Management and not provide any data on how to use it.

That info (and lack there of) on that European Fuji site is clearly meant for photo lab operators who may have to know about the inner workings of the Frontier software to know how to use those profiles. That site is clearly not for photography hobbyists. But I did my best to test it on a Walgreens Fuji DL. Walgreens got rid of their Dry Lab and went dye sub. Color looks like it's render from a VHS video feed.

[digitaldog]

No, they have not been answered or else I wouldn't have asked.

They haven't been answered to your understanding, that's clear. Not speaking for Mark, speaking for myself and Stephen Ray who answered the question (unlike you did for him), most of us here understand the OP's issue and fix. If you must dig yourself into a rabbit hole, do so yourself sir.

I've given valid information that is relevant to this topic that is based on what I seen happen with Fuji Frontier Dry Labs and not on theory or speculation.

I believe only you think it's valid. If you would read the replies to your posts, you might see that too (including some good info from Doug).
Would your time not be better served working on your 'photography'? Or reading the book(s) on color management, the fundamentals two of us here suggested you work on?
Enough said.

[Doug Gray]

Andrew, what printer is the OP using at Costco? Can you provide the post number where this is stated by the OP? I couldn't find it in this thread. Also can you confirm if the OP sees horrible results in the print or in the soft proof?

I couldn't find it stated by the OP.

Not interested in third party speculation.

The OP only states Fuji Frontier but doesn't indicate whether it's a Dry Lab or old silver halide printer.

I asked for that as well and the OP didn't respond with the info. His initial post implies a difference between printed images but it turned out the second image wasn't printed but just viewed, presumably in the wife's Costco account. Here's the clarification he posted:

Fortunately, I didn't have them print it.  I just uploaded the file to my wife's "album" and clicked on the image to view it.  It was horrible.  I checked her account preferences, and she has set as a default "Auto Correct Off."  I opened the same file in LR and it was garish, although it did look a lot more reasonable when I checked the Softproof box again.

In a subsequent post he said he was going to have Costco print it and see what happens. No update about that since.

One of the very few actual uses of "Preserve Color Numbers" in Photoshop's view proof dialog applies here. The proper way to do a view proof of a file AFTER it has been converted to a printer's colorspace is using this and selecting the same printer colorspace the image is in. It's possible Lightroom does this automatically when loading such an image. I haven't explored that but Photoshop does not though it shouldn't be hugely off.

[digitaldog]

Here's the clarification he posted:

Hopefully 4th time's the charm for Tim to grasp that fact. Meaning that exact text has been posted four times Tim!

[walter.sk]

Probably because Ray answered this correctly way back in post #55 (45 posts ago) which was shown again (post #79) to you and which you again ignored. The OP is pretty smart to avoid the later nonsense posted by at least one person here who believes printers print in sRGB, believe that the OP was referring to the print and not the preview (obvious to some here) etc. Why the rest of us are engaged in the hijacking of the thread is questionable but it goes to the heart of this question: what do we own people who are wrong? Repeatedly I would add?

Thank you, Andrew.  I have been reading the responses with interest, but yes, I received the information I had been asking for and was able to submit properly processed and profiled images, with prints that came back the way I had hoped for.  I don't mind the thread being "hijacked," as I found all of the subsequent discussion more or less related to the topic and interesting, if sometimes amusing.  I also don't know whether the Fuji Frontier was a newer or older model, and it would not have made any difference to me as long as I had downloaded the latest profile and used it properly.

[Mark D Segal]

Thank you, Andrew.  I have been reading the responses with interest, but yes, I received the information I had been asking for and was able to submit properly processed and profiled images, with prints that came back the way I had hoped for. .........

Walter - this whole discussion got so tangled-up - could you briefly review with us what you did differently as a result of various suggestions here that solved the problem for you?

[digitaldog]

Thank you, Andrew.  I have been reading the responses with interest, but yes, I received the information I had been asking for and was able to submit properly processed and profiled images, with prints that came back the way I had hoped for.  I don't mind the thread being "hijacked," as I found all of the subsequent discussion more or less related to the topic and interesting, if sometimes amusing.

Good deal.
As per hijack, mostly text that's colorimetrically wrong but heck, there were plenty of well provided and sound rebuttals from multiple posters to dismiss them. 
Over and out....

[walter.sk]

Walter - this whole discussion got so tangled-up - could you briefly review with us what you did differently as a result of various suggestions here that solved the problem for you?

I am still not sure just what it was that I did wrong, except that I  had reduced the files to 8-bit, softproofed in LR with one intent but forgot to check what the intent was in PS when I converted to the Costco profile.  At any rate, what worked now was:  Process the files in LR and PS at 16-bit in Prophoto, softproof in LR at 16-bit in Prophoto using the Costco profile, usually with Relative Colorimetric and Simulate Paper Color checked, sending the softproofed and adjusted file back to PS, where I converted the profile to the Costco one using the same intent as I had in the softproofing, and then converting to 8-bit Tiffs as mentioned on the Dry Creek website. 

Yes, when I viewed these correctly processed files on the Costco website they were a bit garish because, I suspect, they were not being viewed in a color-managed environment.  Viewing the Costco-made prints in my Just-Normlicht viewer, they compared very favorably to the files viewed in LR with the softproof checked, on my old NEC 3090 monitor.

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Walter - all sounds right and as to be expected. Glad for you that it's resolved.

[Stephen Ray]

Yes, when I viewed these correctly processed files on the Costco website they were a bit garish because, I suspect, they were not being viewed in a color-managed environment.  Viewing the Costco-made prints in my Just-Normlicht viewer, they compared very favorably to the files viewed in LR with the softproof checked, on my old NEC 3090 monitor.

Note "correctly processed." For the file to have displayed correctly you would have to embed the Costco printer ICC profile in your upload IF Costco's web software and / or your browser is color managed to interpret the colors from the printer space back to sRGB for browsers.

(I have not yet read Dry Creek methods but I hope to do so soon.)

However, seems all is well. Thanks for getting back to us!

[Tim Lookingbill]

I am still not sure just what it was that I did wrong, except that I  had reduced the files to 8-bit, softproofed in LR with one intent but forgot to check what the intent was in PS when I converted to the Costco profile.  At any rate, what worked now was:  Process the files in LR and PS at 16-bit in Prophoto, softproof in LR at 16-bit in Prophoto using the Costco profile, usually with Relative Colorimetric and Simulate Paper Color checked, sending the softproofed and adjusted file back to PS, where I converted the profile to the Costco one using the same intent as I had in the softproofing, and then converting to 8-bit Tiffs as mentioned on the Dry Creek website. 

Yes, when I viewed these correctly processed files on the Costco website they were a bit garish because, I suspect, they were not being viewed in a color-managed environment.  Viewing the Costco-made prints in my Just-Normlicht viewer, they compared very favorably to the files viewed in LR with the softproof checked, on my old NEC 3090 monitor.

So this whole thread was started over the OP "Correctly Processing" a file to print on a Costco printer and then speculating why it looked "garish" on a Costco photo account website.

Clearly Walter knows quite a lot about color management processes, but I'm having a hard time understanding why he didn't mention his suspicions about web generated previews.

Thanks to Mark for asking Walter to report back with specifics.

[Doug Gray]

Note "correctly processed." For the file to have displayed correctly you would have to embed the Costco printer ICC profile in your upload IF Costco's web software and / or your browser is color managed to interpret the colors from the printer space back to sRGB for browsers.

(I have not yet read Dry Creek methods but I hope to do so soon.)

However, seems all is well. Thanks for getting back to us!

While a color managed application will likely show a printer profile tagged file reasonably well, it also may not. The best way to view what a printer tagged print will print is to use the view proof menu in Photoshop. Select the printer profile and "Preserve Color Numbers," then select show paper color and/or show paper blacks. This always correctly displays what the prints should look like and is the same as doing the usual soft proof from a standard RGB space in Photoshop prior to conversion. It also works if the converted file is converted but untagged.

Here's the DryCreek page describing how to use their profiles for printing.
https://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm

[digitaldog]

So this whole thread was started over the OP "Correctly Processing" a file to print on a Costco printer and then speculating why it looked "garish" on a Costco photo account website.

Well had you read all four comments specifically stating this, you wouldn't have to ask (again)!

Clearly Walter knows quite a lot about color management processes, but I'm having a hard time understanding why he didn't mention his suspicions about web generated previews.

Yes, he does know, and yes, you are having a hard time understanding. Fortunately three of us didn't. That an image doesn't appear correctly on a web page isn't anything experienced users of color management find at all difficult to fathom. Maybe this will help you assuming viewing video isn't as difficult as reading FOUR copied and pasted sets of text that for three of us, clearly expressed his issue:

sRGB urban legend & myths Part 2

In this 17 minute video, I'll discuss some more sRGB misinformation and cover:
When to use sRGB and what to expect on the web and mobile devices
How sRGB doesn't insure a visual match without color management, how to check
The downsides of an all sRGB workflow
sRGB's color gamut vs. "professional" output devices
The future of sRGB and wide gamut display technology
Photo print labs that demand sRGB for output

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBMythsPart2.mp4
Low resolution on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyvVUL1gWVs

[Tim Lookingbill]

Has anyone ever come across a big box store printer such as the Costco mentioned in this thread where the photo lab printer driver actually needed the final image tagged with the appropriate profile where the printer driver uses it to make the conversion or honor the color space to insure a print match much like photo hobbyists and pro's do at home where Photoshop manages colors?

The reason I ask is because in all this confusion in discussion such as this I keep seeing recommendations to tag the image but I don't know for what purpose other than I'm assuming so the Photo Lab tech can view it on their assumed calibrated/profiled display.

[digitaldog]

Has anyone ever come across a big box store printer such as the Costco mentioned in this thread where the photo lab printer driver actually needed the final image tagged with the appropriate profile where the printer driver uses it to make the conversion or honor the color space to insure a print match much like photo hobbyists and pro's do at home where Photoshop manages colors?

The reason I ask is because in all this confusion in discussion such as this I keep seeing recommendations to tag the image but I don't know for what purpose other than I'm assuming so the Photo Lab tech can view it on their assumed calibrated/profiled display.

Before asking, going OT once again, just RTFM!
https://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm
Using Printer Profiles with Digital Labs
#17, bullet 3 to focus your attention on the facts from yet another very knowledgeable color management individual! 


“Smart people learn from their mistakes. But the real sharp ones learn from the mistakes of others.” ― Brandon Mull, Fablehaven

[Doug Gray]

Has anyone ever come across a big box store printer such as the Costco mentioned in this thread where the photo lab printer driver actually needed the final image tagged with the appropriate profile where the printer driver uses it to make the conversion or honor the color space to insure a print match much like photo hobbyists and pro's do at home where Photoshop manages colors?

The reason I ask is because in all this confusion in discussion such as this I keep seeing recommendations to tag the image but I don't know for what purpose other than I'm assuming so the Photo Lab tech can view it on their assumed calibrated/profiled display.

Tagging the image is optional and makes the file larger. Since the file is already converted to the RGB values needed for printing it is not used by the printing process.  It's main value is that color managed programs like Photoshop can interpret those RGB values and inverse convert them for display purposes. If it's not tagged it will depend on the options selected as to how it interprets the image and results are unpredictable. Even if tagged, it may automatically convert back is some arbitrary manner. Photoshop. for instance, will do a Colorimetric inversion but with BPC selected. This isn't awful but the best way is to use the soft proof mechanism I described a few posts ago and select Show Blacks. Show paper white can be useful if the paper has a lot of OBAs and one will be viewing it outdoors or with window light. This also works fine even if the image is untagged or arbitrarily assigned a working space when loaded. "Preserve Color Numbers" tells Photoshop to use the RGB values only for soft proofing and skip conversions which would occur with normal soft proofing.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Tagging the image is optional and makes the file larger. Since the file is already converted to the RGB values needed for printing it is not used by the printing process.  It's main value is that color managed programs like Photoshop can interpret those RGB values and inverse convert them for display purposes. If it's not tagged it will depend on the options selected as to how it interprets the image and results are unpredictable. Even if tagged, it may automatically convert back is some arbitrary manner. Photoshop. for instance, will do a Colorimetric inversion but with BPC selected. This isn't awful but the best way is to use the soft proof mechanism I described a few posts ago and select Show Blacks. Show paper white can be useful if the paper has a lot of OBAs and one will be viewing it outdoors or with window light. This also works fine even if the image is untagged or arbitrarily assigned a working space when loaded. "Preserve Color Numbers" tells Photoshop to use the RGB values only for soft proofing and skip conversions which would occur with normal soft proofing.

That didn't answer my question, Doug. I asked if you or anyone reading here has come across a big box store printer where they required the final image to be printed be tagged with the appropriate profile? And was told why it needed to be tagged whether for the photo lab tech's use and or printer driver conversion.

No point mentioning Photoshop since I haven't seen any big box store printer have Photoshop on their system.

I'm wondering if there's been an advancement in newer big box store printers where they are clearly able to implement some color managed workflow.