Soft Proofing Question

[John V.]

Question about soft proofing in Photoshop

Consider that my monitor is profiled..
Suppose I produce a print from within Photoshop on Epson Premium Luster 260, using the Premium Luster 260 profile.
If I am checking for color accuracy, by comparing the print to screen, should I be looking at the soft-proofed image on screen? (Proof Colors enabled in Photoshop)
Or, just the original image displayed using the original color space?

John

[John V.]

Most significantly, should I be comparing the print to my screen with the "Simulate Paper Color" option enabled in the Proof Setup..

[Rand47]

Question about soft proofing in Photoshop

Consider that my monitor is profiled..
Suppose I produce a print from within Photoshop on Epson Premium Luster 260, using the Premium Luster 260 profile.
If I am checking for color accuracy, by comparing the print to screen, should I be looking at the soft-proofed image on screen? (Proof Colors enabled in Photoshop)
Or, just the original image displayed using the original color space?

John

I use Lightroom for soft proofing, but the concept is the same.  Here’s my opinion.  Since your “final screen image” is arguably what “you like” - then that’s the image you compare your print to.  And when I do this, I will create a “tunnel” with my hands while looking at my screen to isolate the image and “burn what I’m seeing into my brain”... and then I swing 90 degrees to look at my print under my 4700k print viewing area.  I’ll often do this several times looking at color, overall luminance, etc.  (This is assuming of course, that you’ve done the work to get good “screen to print match” using a printed standard evaluation image, under your print evaluation area, as you dialed in your monitor calibration / profiling.)

Now, if you watch Kevin Raber (the summarily executed former editor of LL) and Jeff Schewe’s video on soft proofing, Jeff makes the point that often (for a given expression on paper) he might take the soft proof farther in various ways than his “finished” file.  So it isn’t “science” as much as it is art and what you want for the particular image/paper/printer.

One man’s opinion.  And let me add that if you ever try soft proofing in Lightroom you’ll never want to do it in Photoshop again!  🤓

Rand

FURTHER NOTE: You mention a calibrated monitor, etc.  Here’s another though re soft proofing.  I’m using pretty decent equipment.  I edit on a 30” NEC monitor, calibrated w/ Spectraview II to my preferences.  The monitor is very close to 100% of AdobeRGB in what it can display.  But, using ColorThink Pro to examine my files, compared with the ICC profile’s gamut volume of some papers and inkset/printer combinations, I realize that I can often print colors that exceed AdobeRGB 1998.  In other words, I can print colors I can’t even see on my reasonably high end monitor.  So, sometimes my prints are “better” than the image on my monitor (often in more subtle tonal transitions).  All this to say that soft proofing is just a tool to enhanced expression of your vision, and enabling you to “not leave any image quality on the table.”

[degrub]

John V,

There are tutorials, both in posts and in separate articles, on here by "digital dog" and others on how to set up a monitor to emulate what you will see in the print.
They give specific guidance.

Have you read through those yet ?

[Rand47]

John V,

There are tutorials, both in posts and in separate articles, on here by "digital dog" and others on how to set up a monitor to emulate what you will see in the print.
They give specific guidance.

Have you read through those yet ?

+1   No better source, IMO.

Rand

[digitaldog]

If I am checking for color accuracy, by comparing the print to screen, should I be looking at the soft-proofed image on screen?

You’re checking for a visual match such that you achieve the goal of WYSIWYG: your edits, either original or output specific (both) produce a print that you expect thanks to the soft proof showing you how the current RGB numbers will ‘translate’ to a print. It isn’t perfect but it can be very close so the results are, no surprises when you view the print. It’s what you expected from editing on a vastly different device; your display. As such, this has nothing to do with color (colorimetric) accuracy.

[John V.]

It's been a while since I've posted around here. I completely forgot and didn't realize that there is a Color Management forum...

I thought there was an easy answer here. I'll look more closely at the info available.

Thanks all,
John

[Garnick]

It's been a while since I've posted around here. I completely forgot and didn't realize that there is a Color Management forum...

I thought there was an easy answer here. I'll look more closely at the info available.

Thanks all,
John

Hi John,

I think one aspect of soft proofing in Photoshop has been overlooked.  I believe this procedure is covered in LR but not so in PS.  The hole point of soft proofing is to let you know approximately what the printed image will look like on the paper type you'll be using.  When you have processed an image to the point that you are satisfied with the look, you will then want to print it.  However, without soft proofing it's somewhat of guess, since the paper will not likely render what you were seeing in your original processed image.  Following is my procedure for soft proofing:

1. Create a duplicate of the original processed image.
2. Set the duplicate image close to the original processed image.
3. Soft proof the original processed image, which then will look somewhat different from the duplicate image.
4. Adjust the soft proofed image to match as closely as possible to the duplicate, which is what the original processed image looked like
    before it was soft proofed.
5. Once you are satisfied that the soft proofed file matches the duplicate as closely as possible, delete the duplicate file and print the soft 
    proofed version, either a small cropped area as a test or the full image.
6. Proceed from there and make whatever adjustments necessary to accomplish the print you have envisioned.

I hope I have made this as understandable as possible. If so, I hope it helps.