When is it good enough?

[rabanito]

After preparing an image for printing and being satisfied with what I see on the screen I soft-proof the image.
What I see is not what I was satisfied with before. So I have to do some changes
I make some corrections while comparing the original w the proof.
Usually, I am told, one should not expect that they will ever be identical and there are reasons why.
So one should stop at some "good enough" point.
My question is. How can one determine when to stop tweaking?

There is another point to my question.
I've been recommended to look at the prints after a while. I've read that the colors of a photo print change over the first hour or so of drying.
So the print after that time will look again different from the soft proof or what comes from the printer at first.

In B&W (wet) one could dry the test print with a microwave oven to see the density changes immediately before doing a definitive one and drying it by hanging.

Any opinions? Advice?

How can one manage (reasonably) this?

[digitaldog]

Pigmented inks by and large 'dry down' much quicker than dye based but it's not a bad idea to give each maybe an hour before visually inspecting, 24 ideally before measuring. Last time I did some colorimetric tests, dark blues for Epson were a few deltaE different right out of the printer versus an hour later but many individual colors were far below a dE of 1.
You do want to let either dry 'thoroughly' (for outgassing) before framing! Analog darkroom B&W prints were much more different in terms of dry down between 'wet and dry'.


Here's an old report of a target measured right out of a printer vs. 1 hour later:



ExpPremiumXP620_ETC1728_UltraPremGlossy first meaurment compared to 1 hour later with Claria Premium Ink versus 24 hours:


dE Report
Number of Samples: 1728
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (1728 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   1.07
Max dE:   8.59
Min dE:   0.04
StdDev dE:   0.90


Best 90% - (1554 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0.84
Max dE:   2.06
Min dE:   0.04
StdDev dE:   0.45


Worst 10% - (174 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   3.19
Max dE:   8.59
Min dE:   2.06
StdDev dE:   1.14
--------------------------------------------------


ExpPremiumXP620_ETC1728_UltraPremGlossy 2nd meaurment (1 hour dry down) compared to 24 hours later:


dE Report
Number of Samples: 1728
Delta-E Formula dE2000
Overall - (1728 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0.21
Max dE:   0.95
Min dE:   0.01
StdDev dE:   0.12


Best 90% - (1554 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0.18
Max dE:   0.35
Min dE:   0.01
StdDev dE:   0.08


Worst 10% - (174 colors)
--------------------------------------------------
Average dE:   0.45
Max dE:   0.95
Min dE:   0.35
StdDev dE:   0.11
--------------------------------------------------

[John Nollendorfs]

Seems to me you are over thinking it. Soft proofing is a guide, but the only real way to proof an image is to print it! Some people make test strips, others print a small version of the whole file. Kind of depends what you find critical in your image. I also find after making a print, it helps to "sleep" on the image before making critical adjustments--not for ink drydown, but to get over being "over critical".

[rabanito]

Thanks for the info.
Again I stress that I am only a newbie in digital printing (or else  )
I am aware that  "you'll never get a perfect match".

After the print comes out of the printer I can compare it with what I have on the screen
If that were all, I could do (or not) some correction based on these results until i like the result.
I can make many tries in a relatively short time

But after one hour or so (each try) ...
I cannot compare the "dry" print with the fresh one unless I print again a comparison image.
Or I can extrapolate (mentally) the results of the now dry print with the soft-proofed image on the screen and come to some conclusion about what to do if I am not satisfied and try again.
This is probably a time and patience consuming way to go.

Of course I can live very well with that.
On the other hand I'm trying to understand how this thing works just out of curiosity or to understand better what I am doing.

I find that sleeping on the image is good advice too

[Garnick]

Thanks for the info.
Again I stress that I am only a newbie in digital printing (or else  )
I am aware that  "you'll never get a perfect match".

After the print comes out of the printer I can compare it with what I have on the screen
If that were all, I could do (or not) some correction based on these results until i like the result.
I can make many tries in a relatively short time

But after one hour or so (each try) ...
I cannot compare the "dry" print with the fresh one unless I print again a comparison image.
Or I can extrapolate (mentally) the results of the now dry print with the soft-proofed image on the screen and come to some conclusion about what to do if I am not satisfied and try again.
This is probably a time and patience consuming way to go.

Of course I can live very well with that.
On the other hand I'm trying to understand how this thing works just out of curiosity or to understand better what I am doing.

I find that sleeping on the image is good advice too

John has boiled it down to the finest point in my opinion.  Soft proofing is indeed simply a guide, a reference to what the print might look like taking into account certain parameters.  As I always did in the darkroom whether printing colour or B&W, a small test strip of an essential part of the image offers a lot of pertinent information once you get used to using that procedure.  If the final print will be large one I will start with a small strip and gradually work up to something a bit larger to take in more information, but usually up to 16x20 a 2x8" strip provides enough info to work with if done properly.  Of course as John mentioned, the "proof" is always in the final print.  And you are quite correct, if you're looking for a perfect match from display to print you'll be eating up a lot of time, energy and consumables in the process.  It's like trying to match a print to a transparency.  They do not a share the same type of light source, same as your display vs the print.  For most of the work I do my customers would not be very happy if I were to take a couple of hours for prints to dry and inks to cure etc. before finally producing their print, and yet they always seem to be very happy with the final product .

Again I would stress the point that John made about overthinking this procedure. "After the print comes out of the printer I can compare it with what I have on the screen. If that were all, I could do (or not) some correction based on these results until i like the result. I can make many tries in a relatively short time"  The only proper way of matching the printer output to you display is using a "viewing booth" in close proximity to your display for reference.  Then you can set the lighting to the same Kelvin value and intensity as your print viewing area.  Otherwise it's just a guess.  However, what isn't a guess is the fact that once you are satisfied with the print you are viewing and perhaps even using the overnight routine, it's probably a done deal.  What you have to keep in mind is that there will be times when you simply have to let it go and be satisfied with what you have at that moment.  Even Ansel Adams, when reprinting some of his negatives, would eventually produce a somewhat different approach to the final print than he had the first time around.  You will probably do the same after viewing your prints for a long period of time, and the great aspect of digital is the flexibility and the possibility that as the apps improve and offer more and better adjustments you will be able to take advantage of that as well by reprinting the image you have today.

Gary           

[rabanito]

John has boiled it down to the finest point in my opinion.  Soft proofing is indeed simply a guide, a reference to what the print might look like taking into account certain parameters.  As I always did in the darkroom whether printing colour or B&W, a small test strip of an essential part of the image offers a lot of pertinent information once you get used to using that procedure.  If the final print will be large one I will start with a small strip and gradually work up to something a bit larger to take in more information, but usually up to 16x20 a 2x8" strip provides enough info to work with if done properly.  Of course as John mentioned, the "proof" is always in the final print.  And you are quite correct, if you're looking for a perfect match from display to print you'll be eating up a lot of time, energy and consumables in the process.  It's like trying to match a print to a transparency.  They do not a share the same type of light source, same as your display vs the print.  For most of the work I do my customers would not be very happy if I were to take a couple of hours for prints to dry and inks to cure etc. before finally producing their print, and yet they always seem to be very happy with the final product .

Again I would stress the point that John made about overthinking this procedure. "After the print comes out of the printer I can compare it with what I have on the screen. If that were all, I could do (or not) some correction based on these results until i like the result. I can make many tries in a relatively short time"  The only proper way of matching the printer output to you display is using a "viewing booth" in close proximity to your display for reference.  Then you can set the lighting to the same Kelvin value and intensity as your print viewing area.  Otherwise it's just a guess.  However, what isn't a guess is the fact that once you are satisfied with the print you are viewing and perhaps even using the overnight routine, it's probably a done deal.  What you have to keep in mind is that there will be times when you simply have to let it go and be satisfied with what you have at that moment.  Even Ansel Adams, when reprinting some of his negatives, would eventually produce a somewhat different approach to the final print than he had the first time around.  You will probably do the same after viewing your prints for a long period of time, and the great aspect of digital is the flexibility and the possibility that as the apps improve and offer more and better adjustments you will be able to take advantage of that as well by reprinting the image you have today.

Gary         

+1 
Thanks

[Garnick]

rabanito,

Just one more thing I forgot to mention.  Nothing personal here of course, but I've always cringed when I hear the term "Good Enough". I also have a small sign on my wall that I made a number of years ago which my new customers seem to appreciate.  It reads "Good Enough is seldom Good Enough".  Something you might discover as you make more prints and become more proficient at the process.  You may look back and wonder why you thought it was good enough at the time, but perhaps not so with a more educated eye.

Just a thought 

Gary

   

[rabanito]

rabanito,

Just one more thing I forgot to mention.  Nothing personal here of course, but I've always cringed when I here the term "Good Enough". I also have a small sign on my wall that I made a number of years ago which my new customers seem to appreciate.  It reads "Good Enough is seldom Good Enough".  Something you might discover as you make more prints and become more proficient at the process.  You may look back and wonder why you thought it was good enough at the time, but perhaps not so with a more educated eye.

Just a thought 

Gary

   

Of course you are right
Thanks again