Processing images for outside printing service

[GreggP]

As I predicted, they only want you to use them for soft proofing, not conversion. So half baked color management, not ideal.

If they accept my adjusted TIFF with ProPhoto RGB profile, do you forsee any problems when they print to the paper/ink combo I select?

[digitaldog]

If they accept my adjusted TIFF with ProPhoto RGB profile, do you forsee any problems when they print to the paper/ink combo I select?

Well you can't select a rendering intent which is kind of useful. Do they accept ProPhoto RGB?

[GreggP]

Well you can't select a rendering intent which is kind of useful. Do they accept ProPhoto RGB?

I thought rendering intent was based on the recommendation of the paper manufacturer. As for accepting ProPhoto RGB, I don't know yet. I will ask tomorrow.

[digitaldog]

I thought rendering intent was based on the recommendation of the paper manufacturer.

No. There are four possibilities within an output profile for RI and the right one is the one that you prefer visually based on a soft proof.

[Stephen Ray]

I don't know why they don't want their own profiles embedded in the files you submit, but their approach, although common, is not the best

Question; Have you personally created your own output profile for a printer / ink / media combination of yours and, if so, how many different versions have you generated?

If you were to have published any of those (as from the context as a service provider), how would those versions be managed over time? If they were significantly different over time, what would the consequences be? If they were negligibly different, what would the consequences be?

...just asking.

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Question; Have you personally created your own output profile for a printer / ink / media combination of yours and, if so, how many different versions have you generated?

If you were to have published any of those (as from the context as a service provider), how would those versions be managed over time? If they were significantly different over time, what would the consequences be? If they were negligibly different, what would the consequences be?

...just asking.

Yes, I have. I don't own the hardware, but I rented an X-Rite spectrophotometer (through LensRentals.com) and made a dozed or so profiles. Mostly there was only one version for each printer + paper, but the X-Rite software lets you use use a slightly different process to make a profile specifically designed for B&W. So I think I made 10 regular color profiles plus 3 profiles intended specifically for B&W for some of the same papers. I have not noticed any changes in printer behavior that would invalidate these profiles or suggest re-profiling. But these are just for my personal use, and I'm sure my eyes are less critical than some.

As far as service providers and what they do--IMO it's reasonable to expect more from a professional service--they probably ought to generate new profiles from time to time, and always make the current profiles available on the Internet. As a lower-end example that is to be commended, from time to time Costco has Dry Creek Photo make new profiles for every printer + paper combination in every store, which are posted on the Dry Creek website by Costco location (https://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/). Unfortunately my local Costco no longer has an in-store photo lab, and generally they seem to be disappearing. When my local Costco had an in-store photo printing operation, new profiles did appear from time to time. I don't know how different they were from the previous profiles for the same printer + paper combinations (the store had a Fuji inkjet minilab with two or three paper options plus an Epson pro photo inkjet with two paper options).

[datro]

Question; Have you personally created your own output profile for a printer / ink / media combination of yours and, if so, how many different versions have you generated?

If you were to have published any of those (as from the context as a service provider), how would those versions be managed over time? If they were significantly different over time, what would the consequences be? If they were negligibly different, what would the consequences be?

...just asking.

This is an excellent question and very appropriate IMHO.  As a collaborative printer for a small number of local artists/photographers, I can make the observation that in the end, a hard proof is the only way to go when dealing with a printing service.  It's really no different than if you are printing for yourself:  a soft proof is useful, but an actual print is ultimately needed to verify you will get what you want, especially when it comes to color considerations.  (I provide a free 8.5x 11 proof print for print sizes up to 17x22, and two free proof prints for anything larger as part of my normal fees.)

So while I agree with Andrew that the "ultimate" scenario would be a fully color-managed workflow, I think that certain realities (as suggested by Stephen Ray's post quoted above) dictate that usually the best approach when dealing with a printing service is to soft-proof with their profile but use their hard proof to do the final evaluation.  A fully color-managed workflow is of course what you want when you do your own printing.

[Benny Profane]

Therefore, print it yourself.

I'm pretty sure that it's been proven to this point, soft proofing to exact results is not possible.

[Jim Kasson]

I'm pretty sure that it's been proven to this point, soft proofing to exact results is not possible.

True,. in practice. Soft proofing can be pretty good if the surround, brightness, size, and viewing distance are matched with the hard proof or final print, except for those printable colors which are outside the monitor's gamut. Performing this matching is quite difficult, and matching the surround well usually requires partially blocking the monitor with a mask and artfully setting up the viewing station so that the monitor does not appear to be self-luminous. I've only seen this done well in labs. So the best proof is a hard proof. I have successfully used an Epson 4900 as a hard proofing device for a GRACoL-compliant 2006 printer.

[Edit. Also, soft proofing won't work unless the observer has color-normal vision.]

Jim

[Benny Profane]

Well, also, in the end, you have two different sets of eyes trying to match an image on paper.

Who do you want to be? Ansel Adams or Annie Leibovitz? Ansel controlled the entire process. He could put a print in front of you and say, I made this. Annie, maybe more famous, could really care less about technical issues, left most if not all of it to others. Refuses to acknowledge that, or at least be polite and acknowledge the team she assembled, but, works for her, I guess.

[digitaldog]

I don't want to be Leibovitz, I've met her, and no thanks. 
Never met Adams but he seems like he was a nice enough fellow.

[deanwork]

I was able to spend an hour with Ansel back in 1980 when I was a student in Tucson who showed his wok from the archive  to researchers . He was a kind, highly intelligent master who treated his assistants like respected colleagues. I could say some things about the other photographer, told to me by someone who assisted on a project and another who witnessed a shoot, but it isn’t worth taking the time. I hate to see them mentioned in the same sentence. One was interested in using his passion and talent to preserve the best thing about our country, the natural ecosystem. And he was way ahead of his time. That other person in my opinion was interested in personal fame and getting famous people to take their clothes off. She is no Avedon, that is for sure.

John

I don't want to be Leibovitz, I've met her, and no thanks. 
Never met Adams but he seems like he was a nice enough fellow.

[SharonVL]

I have a calibrated monitor and profiles for all my papers to my Epson. I send larger photos to Digital Silver Imaging to be printed. I soft proof to my printer send this file to DSI and they send me a printed proof. The  results from the printed proofs I get back from them are always spot on. I have on only one occasion only had to adjust the proof for the final print.  I know some of you will faint over that method but it works in sending files to them. BTW, they are excellent printers and are always willing to work with you on getting the print you want.  www.digitalsilverimaging.com

Sharon

[Jim Kasson]

I was able to spend an hour with Ansel back in 1980 when I was a student in Tucson who showed his wok from the archive  to researchers . He was a kind, highly intelligent master who treated his assistants like respected colleagues.

As well he might. Consider who they were. Partial list: Pirkle Jones, Don Worth, Ted Orland, Alan Ross, John Sexton, Chris Ranier.

I've spent time with all of them, and done workshops with four of them, and they are an exceptional group.

[Benny Profane]

I have a calibrated monitor and profiles for all my papers to my Epson. I send larger photos to Digital Silver Imaging to be printed. I soft proof to my printer and the results from the proofs I get from them are always spot on. I have on only one occasion only had to adjust the proof for the final print.  I know some of you will faint over that method but it works in sending files to them. BTW, they are excellent printers and are always willing to work with you on getting the print you want.  www.digitalsilverimaging.com

Sharon

I think you're confused about the term soft proofing. Sounds to me that you have a nicely calibrated system in your studio that gives you prints that match your monitor. Are you saying that you send one of these hard proofs from your printer to this company to match? That's hard proofing. A soft proof would be sending a file that you think they will see the same way you see it on their equipment, and will print the same as it does on your printer, if all the calibrations and profiles are in order. No paper proof sent.

[SharonVL]

I think you're confused about the term soft proofing. Sounds to me that you have a nicely calibrated system in your studio that gives you prints that match your monitor. Are you saying that you send one of these hard proofs from your printer to this company to match? That's hard proofing. A soft proof would be sending a file that you think they will see the same way you see it on their equipment, and will print the same as it does on your printer, if all the calibrations and profiles are in order. No paper proof sent.

I'm saying I proof the print like I was printing it here. I get the file ready like I'm printing it here and send it to them.

Sharon

[SharonVL]

Actually, I realize I wrote my original response poorly. DSI sends me printed proofs before they make the final print. Those are what are spot on.

I soft proof the file to my printer profile.. Send the file to them.. They send back a printed proof.

Sharon

[SharonVL]

I edited my original message to hopefully  make more sense.

[digitaldog]

Actually, I realize I wrote my original response poorly. DSI sends me printed proofs before they make the final print. Those are what are spot on.

I soft proof the file to my printer profile.. Send the file to them.. They send back a printed proof.
Sharon

I don't think you're at all confused about soft proofing if what you're saying is, the prints and display match to an acceptable level (it will NEVER be perfect or "100%*)
"*Have no fear of perfection-you'll never reach it".  -Salvador Dali

[SharonVL]

Yes that is what I am saying.