Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Rant 23  (Read 39193 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Rant 23
« Reply #120 on: October 07, 2009, 05:29:28 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
it doesn't make sense to argue from a certain example to the next certain example. As long as you want to print high saturated colours (either way yellow, blue, red, magenta or whatever) a wide gamut display makes sense. As long as you want to see fine transitions without artefacts (especially for black&white) a display with hardware calibration and at least 10bit, better 12bit LUT and 16bit processing makes sense - a lot of sense. Your TV simply can't show what these displays can show. That's pure physics.

I'm finding it difficult to reconcile what I see on my monitor with your test results. You seem to be implying that with a better monitor my prints will be better. Could you please elaborate.

I've mentioned more than once that my monitor produces far more vibrant colors than the print. I continually have to reduce the saturation of my images to get them into gamut before printing. In proof colors in PS I have to work hard to get the image as good as the monitor rendition without proof colors. If I then toggle between proof colors and no proof colors, after boosting contrast and saturation etc, the monitor display with proof colors unticked still looks better

It's the print which, on balance, is the weak link, not the monitor, unless one has a really cheap monitor like a laptop screen or an Acer P244w, or any low quality LCD display.

The only issue which might be a concern is a mismatch between proof colors on monitor and the final print. I don't have such a mismatch that I can distinguish from the inherent differences between the transmissive nature of the monitor and the reflective nature of the print.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #121 on: October 07, 2009, 05:36:05 pm »

Quote from: Ray
If my 6 bit CRT monitor can display colors that a professional Epson printer cannot, then there's something that doesn't quite gel, don't you think?
you should understand that the shape of monitor profiles and printer profiles are basically different. Monitor profiles have the shape similar to a pyramid upside down - high saturated colours and lot of differntiation in bright and mid tones, less in dark tonal values. Printer profiles have a different shape - they look "bellied". Less differentiation in bright tonal values but more saturation in mid tones and dark tonal values.
Working spaces in the form of matrix colour spaces are monitor profiles as well: all matrix colour spaces represent self illuminant virtual display devices and mostly include wide ranges of nonprintable colors in bright tonal values.
So - your "observation" applies to all monitor color spaces. But that doesn't help you with your low bit display and its small color space. The smaller the gamut of a certain monitor the less you can see of a certain printer color space. Your monitor might have a wider gamut in bright tonal values... but at the same time a smaller gamut in printable colors.
Here's your monitor compared to a paper I use frequently (Innova Fiba ultrasmooth) - as you clearly see your monitor color space exceeds the printer only in the bright tones, but not in the midtones (and at the low end of course as there is no printer profile with pure black):
[attachment=17046:sony_innova.jpg]

Here's a short article. The topic is actually a tablebased working space but the article adresses the problem short and quite clear: http://photogamut.org/E_idea.html
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 05:51:49 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #122 on: October 07, 2009, 05:45:37 pm »

Quote from: Ray
I'm finding it difficult to reconcile what I see on my monitor with your test results. You seem to be implying that with a better monitor my prints will be better. Could you please elaborate. (...)
actually already adressed in my last post.
I don't say your prints will be better. I am saying with a better monitor you could see more of the printable colours.

Quote from: Ray
I continually have to reduce the saturation of my images to get them into gamut before printing. In proof colors in PS I have to work hard to get the image as good as the monitor rendition without proof colors.
this indicates that you are working with too high saturated colours (especially in bright tonalvalues) from the start. Too, your setup is apparently not adjusted for print related editing. I literally do no editing prior to print (little of course but not a big deal) and the prints match the monitor view. This is what a monitor is for, no?
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 05:54:53 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Rant 23
« Reply #123 on: October 07, 2009, 07:19:33 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Jack,
Are you just playing politics?
SNIP
If my 6 bit CRT monitor can display colors that a professional Epson printer cannot, then there's something that doesn't quite gel, don't you think?

I believe it's more about *WHERE* your monitor and my printer colors differ inside the human visual space that can make all the difference in the print; not just the total volume of their gamuts.  But you are welcome to disagree.  And yes, I am engaging in the politics of being polite instead of arguing

Bottom line Ray, if you are getting prints you are happy with, I say good on you!

Best,
« Last Edit: October 07, 2009, 07:30:05 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Rant 23
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2009, 09:49:37 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
But that doesn't help you with your low bit display and its small color space. The smaller the gamut of a certain monitor the less you can see of a certain printer color space. Your monitor might have a wider gamut in bright tonal values... but at the same time a smaller gamut in printable colors.
Here's your monitor compared to a paper I use frequently (Innova Fiba ultrasmooth) - as you clearly see your monitor color space exceeds the printer only in the bright tones, but not in the midtones (and at the low end of course as there is no printer profile with pure black):
[attachment=17046:sony_innova.jpg]

Look Tho_mas, I understand the concept here quite well, if not the specific detail. I'm also a firm believer in the principle of using the best tool for the job, not the best tool for some future imaginary purpose.

On the basis that I am not delusional, not color blind, not given to seeing apparitions, and taking into account the fact that I've experimented with various colorimeters over the years, including the Spyder, ColorEyes, Eye-One and recently a ColorMunki, is it difficult for you to understand that my Epson Enhanced Matte prints made on an Epson 7600 wide-format printer really do not show any shades of color, whether bright, mid-tone or low-tone, that are not visible on my 10 year old Sony CRT.

Now I understand the argument, that maybe the prints I made of Jack's evaluation test image, actually do show certain shades that are outside the gamut of my monitor and that they are perhaps just too subtle for me to notice. Perhaps only someone with super keen eyesight like Jack or yourself would notice them. There's really not much I can do about that. But I can tell you, when I toggle between proof colors on, and proof colors off, there's a huge difference in vibrancy across the whole tonal range, that one would be blind not to see.

In other words, the shades that even a 10 year old CRT can produce which are not visible on the print, are far more significant than the shades that might be visible on the print but not visible on the monitor, and as you've mentioned, there's no printer profile with pure black, so on that count alone, the monitor excels, even my 10 year old CRT.

As a matter of interest, I compared those gray squares within the black frame, bottom left of Jack's test image. On both the print and the simulated print on my monitor (proof colors enabled) the darkest gray that is clearly visible is 20. The match between print and monitor (proof colors enabled) is so close that there's the barest hint of a gray square at 18, but nothing darker which is not effectively black.

If I untick 'proof colors', the monitor clearly shows several shades darker. The darkest which is clearly visible is 8, with the barest hint of a shade at 6.

Now it would be interesting if I happened to have a roll of Premium Lustre or Premium Glossy at hand that I could switch with my current roll of Enhanced Matte. Unfortunately I would also have to flush the matte black ink out of the system. This is troublesome and expensive, so you can understand why I'm not prepared to do this for the sake of a comparison. This is a major inconvenience of the x600 series.

What I've learned from this exercise, and your analysis of my profile, is that an upgrade to an x900 series Epson printer might cause some dissatisfaction with my current monitor if I start seeing different shades on my prints that are not apparent in proof mode on my monitor. My first reaction would be that the Epson profiles bundled with the new printer are not as good as the Bill Atkinson profiles I currently use. However, as a result of this conversation I would now consider that this might not be the true reason and that there's a possibility that the wider gamut of the new printer and/or paper has simply outstripped the gamut of my monitor in a practical and visible manner (as opposed to a theoretical diagram). When that time comes, I'll be ready to upgrade my monitor.  
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Rant 23
« Reply #125 on: October 08, 2009, 11:41:06 pm »

Quote from: Ray
What I've learned from this exercise, and your analysis of my profile, is that an upgrade to an x900 series Epson printer might cause some dissatisfaction with my current monitor if I start seeing different shades on my prints that are not apparent in proof mode on my monitor. My first reaction would be that the Epson profiles bundled with the new printer are not as good as the Bill Atkinson profiles I currently use. However, as a result of this conversation I would now consider that this might not be the true reason and that there's a possibility that the wider gamut of the new printer and/or paper has simply outstripped the gamut of my monitor in a practical and visible manner (as opposed to a theoretical diagram). When that time comes, I'll be ready to upgrade my monitor.  


By all means, if you update from a 7600 to a 7900 (the 7600 being a full THREE generations old) you would do well to look at updating your image display. The fact is that the 7600 is way old tech whose gamut of color did not stress a modern LCD let alone a "good" LCD with Adobe RGB color gamut. The 7900 color gamut can NOT be contained in Adobe RGB (let alone sRGB).

But, if your images are in Adobe or sRGB, you might want to question the upgrade to the 7900. Cause small gamuts of a working space won't really push these new printers...in fact, it would be a waste, seriously...
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Rant 23
« Reply #126 on: October 08, 2009, 11:48:49 pm »

Quote from: Ray
As a matter of interest, I compared those gray squares within the black frame, bottom left of Jack's test image. On both the print and the simulated print on my monitor (proof colors enabled) the darkest gray that is clearly visible is 20. The match between print and monitor (proof colors enabled) is so close that there's the barest hint of a gray square at 18, but nothing darker which is not effectively black.
If you were to print that image on PPPLuster from an x800 or x900 printer, you would see grays down to 8 or 6, and could measure 4 and probably 2 with your spectro.  You would also see up to 253 or 254 on the high grays.

Bottom line is your chosen printer/paper combo's gamut is pretty narrow.  This is not inherently bad, especially if you like the result, but relevant to this discussion as it limits what you can lay down in on a print.  The fact that your monitor matches it simply indicates that the monitor is equal to or perhaps slightly larger than the paper/ink you use.  However it does not mean your monitor can accurately render the gamut of a larger paper/ink combo.

On another tack, given what you've stated about your satisfaction with your prints and monitor, you could probably take up a total sRGB jpeg workflow from capture to output and not lose much of anything at all to a 16-bit raw workflow; your needs simply don't require a larger gamut.   Huge workflow convenience advantage for you as it would eliminate the entire raw conversion process.  Heck, I'm actually a little jealous of that!

Cheers,
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #127 on: October 09, 2009, 03:54:06 am »

Quote from: Ray
Now I understand the argument, that maybe the prints I made of Jack's evaluation test image, actually do show certain shades that are outside the gamut of my monitor and that they are perhaps just too subtle for me to notice.
  the image contains high saturated colours of ProPhotoRGB. There is nothing "subtle" - it's a hughe difference.

Quote
the shades that even a 10 year old CRT can produce which are not visible on the print, are far more significant than the shades that might be visible on the print but not visible on the monitor
that might be true regarding your setup. Still: I think that your workflow and calibration is not accurate. Apparently your images contain too much differentiation in bright tonal values and too less in midtones. Otherwise you would see certain colours in the prints your monitor can't display.
Even sRGB is much too "big" in the brightest tonalvalues for every printer. But - again - it's far too small in the tonal range printers produce. See again your monitor compared to the Innova paper (on Epson 11880 with ultrachrome K3) which is actually not a very big printer gamut.
You are probably working with a too dark monitor and this is why you are probably shifting all the relevant data in too bright ranges. Specualtion.
Convert your images in the above mentioned color space "PhotogamutRGB". It will render the colors of your images in a tonal range that is reproducable in prints.
The color space is a bit dated as today there are printers with more differentiation especially in dark tonal values. But for your printer Photogamut should be fine as working space.
So your workflow could be like that:
- RAW (in ProPhoto... I don't mind)
- convert a copy of the TIF to PhotoagmutRGB with perceptual RI (Photogamut is tablebased)
- edit the image
- use perceptual RI for printing
- re-think this workflow when you are going to upgrade your printer and monitor

And forget about the "paper simulation" in the soft proof settings. Your display should be calibrated visually to paper white and if so the colour mangement has no reason to spin this white to the white of the paper. The blueish/grayish apperance of paper white in softproof mode has nothing to do with the color of "white" of the respective paper - this is just an error of the measurement devices in conjunction with papers that contain optical brighteners (if this is hopefully the correct term). But you should use "simulate black ink" (i.e. - a simluation of the print that is displayed relative colormetric on the monitor).

I think you have enough info now, no?





Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Rant 23
« Reply #128 on: October 09, 2009, 11:35:49 am »

Quote from: Jack Flesher
If you were to print that image on PPPLuster from an x800 or x900 printer, you would see grays down to 8 or 6, and could measure 4 and probably 2 with your spectro.  You would also see up to 253 or 254 on the high grays.

Not according to my softproof setup. Even Premium Glossy (Bill Atkinson profile) doesn't show darker grays. I went to the trouble of swapping black cartridges when I switched from Premium Lustre to Enhanced Matte a couple of years ago.

Quote
On another tack, given what you've stated about your satisfaction with your prints and monitor, you could probably take up a total sRGB jpeg workflow from capture to output and not lose much of anything at all to a 16-bit raw workflow; your needs simply don't require a larger gamut.   Huge workflow convenience advantage for you as it would eliminate the entire raw conversion process.  Heck, I'm actually a little jealous of that!

Not quite   . I like those golden yellows. The stronger yellows of ProPhoto RGB have been apparent to me for a few years now. Did I also mention the lack of differentiation, in the sRGB print of your test image, of two shades of green which were clearly apparent in the ProPhoto print and clearly apparent on my monitor in both soft proof mode and out of soft proof mode?
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Rant 23
« Reply #129 on: October 09, 2009, 11:48:58 am »

Quote from: Schewe
By all means, if you update from a 7600 to a 7900 (the 7600 being a full THREE generations old) you would do well to look at updating your image display. The fact is that the 7600 is way old tech whose gamut of color did not stress a modern LCD let alone a "good" LCD with Adobe RGB color gamut. The 7900 color gamut can NOT be contained in Adobe RGB (let alone sRGB).

But, if your images are in Adobe or sRGB, you might want to question the upgrade to the 7900. Cause small gamuts of a working space won't really push these new printers...in fact, it would be a waste, seriously...

Jeff,
I've been using ProPhoto RGB for several years now. I was persuaded by the argument, 'even if one can't see any difference now, one probably would some time in the future'. On my 7600 it's the strength of the yellows that became apparent soon after I bought the machine.

Upgrading to a 7900 has now been complicated by the fact that my current monitor may not be adequate. A 7900 plus the best quality Eizo monitor will set me back quite a bit. The economic principle of 'Opportunity Cost' comes into play here.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Rant 23
« Reply #130 on: October 09, 2009, 12:01:51 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
the image contains high saturated colours of ProPhotoRGB. There is nothing "subtle" - it's a hughe difference.

A huge difference between what? I keep telling you, there's no observable difference between my print of Jack's test image with embedded ProPhoto profile using Epson Ehanced Matte, and the image as displayed on my monitor with proof colors enabled prior to printing. I hold the print next to the monitor and compare. There's no difference; zilch, nada.

However, there is a difference between the the sRGB version amd the ProPhoto version. Not a huge difference but a noticeable difference. Principally, the yellows in the autumn forest scene are more golden in the ProPhoto version, and two of the green squares in the lower section of the test image have merged into one shade in the sRGB print. I see no differences elsewhere. The strawberries are equally red. The sunset looks identical in both images as do the portraits of the children. However, it's possible if this test image were significantly larger, I might discern a few other differences.

Such differences as I observe, between the sRGB print and the ProPhoto print, are also apparent on my monitor with proof colors enabled.

Quote
I think that your workflow and calibration is not accurate. Apparently your images contain too much differentiation in bright tonal values and too less in midtones.

I never print my images without viewing the images first in Photoshop with proof colors enabled, and adjusting the image to taste to compensate for loss of vibrancy. (Except for Jack's test image.)

The purpose is to get a result on print which matches as closely as possible the view on the monitor. My prints give me that match, but only with proof colors enabled. They always look less vibrant than they appear on the monitor after unticking 'proof colors'. As I mentioned before, this can be frustrating if you like vibrant colors and you start off with an image that has not been adjusted for printing but adjusted for viewing on the monitor. I print only a very small proportion of my images. The vast majority have not been soft proofed.

Quote
You are probably working with a too dark monitor and this is why you are probably shifting all the relevant data in too bright ranges. Specualtion.

Why would you think that when I mentioned in my previous post that the darkest shade of grey, on Jack's test image, was exactly the same as on my monitor, in proof color mode.; 20,20,20 with the barest hint of 18,18,18.

Quote
Convert your images in the above mentioned color space "PhotogamutRGB". It will render the colors of your images in a tonal range that is reproducable in prints.

PhotogamutRGB? What's that? I've been using the ProPhoto RGB color space for years.

Quote
And forget about the "paper simulation" in the soft proof settings. Your display should be calibrated visually to paper white and if so the colour mangement has no reason to spin this white to the white of the paper. The blueish/grayish apperance of paper white in softproof mode has nothing to do with the color of "white" of the respective paper - this is just an error of the measurement devices in conjunction with papers that contain optical brighteners (if this is hopefully the correct term). But you should use "simulate black ink" (i.e. - a simluation of the print that is displayed relative colormetric on the monitor).

Selecting 'simulate black ink' (for me) produces a print which is slightly darker that the appearance of the image on my monitor. This is why I prefer 'simulate paper color'. It gives me a more exact match.

Quote
I think you have enough info now, no?

I have absolutely no problems with my current state of color management in relation to my 10 year old CRT monitor, 5 year old Epson 7600 printer, Epson Enhanced Matte paper, Bill Atkinson profiles and Eye-One monitor calibration. But thanks for your advice.  

Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #131 on: October 09, 2009, 12:42:01 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Selecting 'simulate black ink' (for me) produces a print
The selection of "simulate black ink" doesn't affect the print. It affects the preview of the print softproof on the monitor.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 12:43:54 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Rant 23
« Reply #132 on: October 09, 2009, 01:15:33 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
The selection of "simulate black ink" doesn't affect the print. It affects the preview of the print softproof on the monitor.

Exactly correct! The print will look the same whether you select 'paper color' or 'simulate black'. But the image on the monitor with proof colors ticked, will not (necessarily) look the same as the print.

That's the difference which is a critical point. One edits on the monitor and one expects (or hopes) that the print will be the same.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 01:20:14 pm by Ray »
Logged

Jack Flesher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2592
    • www.getdpi.com
Rant 23
« Reply #133 on: October 09, 2009, 01:21:21 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Not according to my softproof setup. Even Premium Glossy (Bill Atkinson profile) doesn't show darker grays.

Try PPPLuster instead of glossy .  If you still can't see it after that, then there is something wrong with either your proof set up or your monitor.   Bottom line is printing that test image on PPPLuster with an x800 or x900 printer with a good profile, you can see at least 8 and usually 6 on the print, and measure down to 4 or 2...  

(Perhaps irrelevant since I use a different monitor than you and my own profile, but I can see down to 6 with maybe a hint at 4 and up to 253 in my proof view for Epson PPPLuster, which very closely mirrors how the print on PPPLuster looks for me after it's dried down.)    

Cheers,
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 01:56:52 pm by Jack Flesher »
Logged
Jack
[url=http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #134 on: October 09, 2009, 01:21:49 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Exactly correct! The print will look the same whether you select 'paper color' or 'simulate black'. But the image on the monitor with proof colors ticked, will not look the same as the print.
That's the difference which is a critical point. One edits on the monitor and one expects (or hopes) that the print will be the same.
so the simulation of "paper" produces a brighter preview than the simulation of "black ink" only?
(-> "Selecting 'simulate black ink' (for me) produces a print which is slightly darker that the appearance of the image on my monitor. This is why I prefer 'simulate paper color'. It gives me a more exact match.")
Logged

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3368
Rant 23
« Reply #135 on: October 09, 2009, 01:27:22 pm »

Quote from: Ray
Jeff,
I've been using ProPhoto RGB for several years now. I was persuaded by the argument, 'even if one can't see any difference now, one probably would some time in the future'. On my 7600 it's the strength of the yellows that became apparent soon after I bought the machine.

Upgrading to a 7900 has now been complicated by the fact that my current monitor may not be adequate. A 7900 plus the best quality Eizo monitor will set me back quite a bit. The economic principle of 'Opportunity Cost' comes into play here.

Even if you upgrade to the best Eizo monitor which covers 98% of the Adobe RGB gamut, there would still be a gamut mismatch between the monitor and printer gamuts. Shown below is a gamut map comparing aRGB and the X900 printers. There will still be colors in gamut for the printer which can not be shown on the monitor and colors that are in the gamut of aRGB which can not be printed. If you upgrade printers, you can make use of the expanded gamut and print the colors which are out of gamut of the monitor. However, soft proofing would be a problem. I don't have a profile for the Eizo, but it apparently is similar to aRGB as shown in the thread comparing Eizo and NEC.

[attachment=17070:7900_aRGB.png]

If money is a concern (as it is for most of us) have you considered getting a NEC instead of Eizo?

NEC vs EIZO
« Last Edit: October 09, 2009, 01:28:09 pm by bjanes »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Rant 23
« Reply #136 on: October 09, 2009, 02:04:33 pm »

Quote from: bjanes
If money is a concern (as it is for most of us) have you considered getting a NEC instead of Eizo?

Bill,
I've considered many options. It's so easy to get attracted by advertising spiel. I've simply got no problems with my current set-up regarding color accuracy. However, I feel I am hampered with my 7600 which doesn't allow switching between matte paper and glossy paper without an ink purge. The main attraction of the current x900 series is the facility to switch paper types without having to flush one's sytem of ink.
 
I've considered getting an LCD as a replacement for my magnificent Sony CRT, and I've bought a couple. A 17" Sony LCD for my partner, a 24" Acer for my laptop, and a an Eizo FlexScan S1010 which I bought at the same time as my Eye-One colorimeter a few years ago.

I'm ashamed to admit, the Eizo is still sitting in it's box. Why is this? It's an enigma to me also.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10280
Rant 23
« Reply #137 on: October 09, 2009, 09:54:05 pm »

Quote from: tho_mas
so the simulation of "paper" produces a brighter preview than the simulation of "black ink" only?
(-> "Selecting 'simulate black ink' (for me) produces a print which is slightly darker that the appearance of the image on my monitor. This is why I prefer 'simulate paper color'. It gives me a more exact match.")


No. Wrong way round. Selecting 'simulate black ink' slightly lightens the preview on my monitor, compared with 'simulate paper color'. If A is lighter than B, then it follows that B is darker than A.
Logged

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Rant 23
« Reply #138 on: October 10, 2009, 10:49:48 am »

Quote from: Ray
Wrong way round.
ah, okay, I've confused that. Sorry.

Problem here is what I've mentioned above.
Paper white in paper profiles is often blueish/grayish - at least if the profiles are measured by devices without UV cut filter.
This is due to optical brighteners in papers (not all papers of course, but most photographic papers contain optical brighteners).
But blueish white is not white. It is not only bluer than white it's at the time darker than white.
But your Paper is visually … white.
What happens with your softproof if use paper simulation?
I've taken the profile a FUJI paper (RGB printer / C-print) because these papers contain a lot of optical brighteners so the problem is quite obvious.

This is crop from a sky with clouds - screenshot of the original file:
[attachment=17097:01_sp_off.jpg]

This is the file with softproof relative colormetric + BPC / simulation of black ink:
[attachment=17098:02_sp_rcm_black.jpg]

This is the file with softproof relative colormetric + BPC / paper simulation.
Due to the relative colorimetric RI you can see quite well the blueish white of the paper - and it's darker.
[attachment=17099:03_sp_rcm_paper.jpg]

This is the file with softproof absolute colorimetric / simulation of black ink.
Color management spins the blueish paper white to the warmer white point of the display.
(too, the contrast range is compressed to the level of the paper contrast but is displayed at the luminance level of the monitor - so no compenstion).
[attachment=17100:04_sp_acm_black.jpg]

This is the file with softproof absolute colorimetric / paper simulation:
[attachment=17101:05_sp_acm_paper.jpg]

In the last screenshot the white point compensation works fine so far but where are the transitions of the clouds?
They are suppressed on the monitor preview - but they are visible in the print (as in screenshot #2).
The blueish (and therefore darker) white (which is nothing else than a measurement device error) compresses the transitions in bright tonal values.
You'll find the same effects of compression all over the tonal range of the image… just less obvious in less bright tones.
This effect is clearly visible with papers containing a high amount of optical brighteners and less visible in papers with a small amount of optical brighteners - but still there.
This is why it is not a bad idea to calibrate the monitor to paper white (both luminance and white point) and set the softproof to relative colorimetric RI + BPC (or perceptual RI) and simulation of black ink only - the monitor white already matches paper white so there's no reason to adapt white points for the preview.



Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19268
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Rant 23
« Reply #139 on: October 10, 2009, 01:44:08 pm »

Tho_mas,

That's a very nice and effective demonstration of the effects of rel col vs abs col and especially of the "simulate paper color" effect.

Thanks for showing it.

Eric

Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up