Topic: Soft proofing doesn’t work (Read 56680 times)

Czornyj · « **Reply #80 on:** February 21, 2011, 04:37:08 am »

Quote from: papa v2.0 on February 19, 2011, 08:05:09 pm

To answer Andrews question "soft proofing doesnt work'.
Yes

Go look at colour space viewing conditions and you will find your answer.
I recommend Mark Fairchild's book on Colour Appearance.

As a matter of fact, I can softproof with devicelink profile calculated to the specific environment viewing condition. But I also agree it could be more straightforward...

Iliah · « **Reply #81 on:** February 21, 2011, 12:17:25 pm »

I think it is about personal preferences and tone/colour perception. When I softproof and the customer tells me that the print is an excellent match to the monitor I still see tremendous difference.

With monitors, printers, profiles, CMMs getting better and better and with experience of using hardware and software the need for soft-proof for me is not so immediate; but for working with a customer sitting by my side it is still a viable option, much due to their belief in soft-proofing. I'm also expecting soft-proofing technology to evolve, and that may increase its value for me once again.

digitaldog · « **Reply #82 on:** February 21, 2011, 12:21:57 pm »

In terms of working with customers, its a really good idea to have soft proofing on (including in some cases, the simulation for paper and ink) before they arrive and never let them see the data in the working space (especially on a wide gamut display). Never show something you can’t produce, many clients will prefer what you can’t reproduce.

Iliah · « **Reply #83 on:** February 21, 2011, 12:53:27 pm »

> In terms of working with customers, its a really good idea to have soft proofing on (including in some cases, the simulation for paper and ink) before they arrive

Well, my customers know what soft-proofing is, and in any case I can't switch soft-proofing on when they are selecting raw files for a future catalogue

On a side note, while preparing images for web presentation I found soft-proofing to generic monitor profile extremely useful.

Photo Op · « **Reply #84 on:** February 21, 2011, 01:58:48 pm »

Not intending to hyjack the thread in any way, but I have a question. I'm still soft proofing my photos from LR3 in CS4. (I've been waiting for SP in LR4

). Am I missing anything with SP by not upgrading to CS5?. Thanks, Dave

Schewe · « **Reply #85 on:** February 21, 2011, 02:36:29 pm »

Quote from: Photo Op on February 21, 2011, 01:58:48 pm

Am I missing anything with SP by not upgrading to CS5?.

Nope...no differences in soft proofing since, well, pretty much since soft proofing was added (as far as I can recall).

Iliah · « **Reply #86 on:** February 21, 2011, 07:28:56 pm »

Quote from: Schewe on February 21, 2011, 02:36:29 pm

Nope...no differences in soft proofing since, well, pretty much since soft proofing was added (as far as I can recall).

Somewhere along the way black point compensation checkbox was added as far as I recall (CS3?)

Wayne Fox · « **Reply #87 on:** February 22, 2011, 11:44:07 pm »

Quote from: Schewe on February 15, 2011, 03:05:32 pm

Well, I'm still hanging on. If you went to PSW Vegas last year, I wasn't there because of a conflict between PSW and PODUS Iceland. First one I've missed in a while...but I'm back at PSW Orlando (although I hate Orlando more than Vegas) and will be doing two printing sessions; Printing in Lightroom (and of course soft proofing in Photoshop) and The Art of the Perfect Print which is all about taking a raw image and perfecting it for the final print. Soft proofing is of course involved...also doing Real World Image Sharpening too. So at least there will be one person there who knows how to print :~) Actually JP Caponigro is there too but he's not doing a printing session...

That is good news, because I always enjoy your sessions (and JP's). I look forward to seeing you in vegas this year

digitaldog · « **Reply #88 on:** February 25, 2011, 01:02:37 pm »

Nearly one week after posting the identical poll about soft proofing on the NAPP (subscription only) forums, here’s the results:

No, never use it      4   17.39%
Sometimes       4   17.39%
Better than no SP, not a match      6   26.09%
Yes, always use it      6   26.09%
Just make a print      3   13.04%

36 replies (some damning me for asking the question and “baiting” Matt), 481 page views.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #89 on:** February 25, 2011, 01:40:06 pm »

Quote from: digitaldog on February 25, 2011, 01:02:37 pm

Nearly one week after posting the identical poll about soft proofing on the NAPP (subscription only) forums, here’s the results:

No, never use it      4   17.39%
Sometimes       4   17.39%
Better than no SP, not a match      6   26.09%
Yes, always use it      6   26.09%
Just make a print      3   13.04%

36 replies (some damning me for asking the question and “baiting” Matt), 481 page views.

Andrew, I find two things disturbing here: (i) the small number of people who have taken an interest in the poll despite how little effort is required to vote, and (ii) the fact that NAPP members would take you to task for questioning instructors' advice about the use of this tool. Either we live in an environment which tolerates and facilitates open inquiry or we don't, and if we don't we are that much the worse off for it - the Cave Man mentality is unfortunately still alive and well, as we've seen in the past on another forum over numerous issues where interests vested in legacy practices were at loggerheads with technical progress. It's really fair-ball to have a free-wheeling discussion about the merits of soft-proofing, and I would have expected a higher level of interest, given its usefulness. Maybe discussions like this will prove useful if they help to expand awareness.

Alan Goldhammer · « **Reply #90 on:** February 25, 2011, 01:49:16 pm »

Quote from: Mark D Segal on February 25, 2011, 01:40:06 pm

Andrew, I find two things disturbing here: (i) the small number of people who have taken an interest in the poll despite how little effort is required to vote, and (ii) the fact that NAPP members would take you to task for questioning instructors' advice about the use of this tool. Either we live in an environment which tolerates and facilitates open inquiry or we don't, and if we don't we are that much the worse off for it - the Cave Man mentality is unfortunately still alive and well, as we've seen in the past on another forum over numerous issues where interests vested in legacy practices were at loggerheads with technical progress. It's really fair-ball to have a free-wheeling discussion about the merits of soft-proofing, and I would have expected a higher level of interest, given its usefulness. Maybe discussions like this will prove useful if they help to expand awareness.

Mark, you forget that you live in Canada. Things are much more enlightened north of our border!

Alan

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #91 on:** February 25, 2011, 01:56:44 pm »

Quote from: Alan Goldhammer on February 25, 2011, 01:49:16 pm

Mark, you forget that you live in Canada. Things are much more enlightened north of our border!

Alan

Really? And how many Canadians are taking part in this poll or discussion? :-) (But thanks for the confidence!)

digitaldog · « **Reply #92 on:** February 25, 2011, 02:12:54 pm »

The one person venting the most at my expense is located in Florida I believe <g>.

Quote

Either we live in an environment which tolerates and facilitates open inquiry or we don't,

We don’t. Well I was told that posting a poll here and on NAPP was all about me, my beliefs about soft proofing and forcing CMS on people and had nothing to do with gauging how users feel about soft proofing. I figured the opposite. I don’t know how asking people about the satisfaction and usage of their tools is anything more than gathering data points.

At least over on those forums, its more a religious argument (the term was used) than one of inquiry and science. What is disturbing to me is the number of users who have issues with print matching and soft proofing who would rather ignore the problems. If you ask about the problems or try to assist, you get shot down. Kind of like the photographer who unknowingly has his exposure compensation set to minus 2 stops, just builds a preset in LR to adjust for this and when someone suggests there might be an issue elsewhere, is told all is fine, there’s no reason to investigate why all captured images are dark. All while a much larger group has no such issues (for obvious reasons, they are using the tools correctly).

I guess ignorance is bliss.

na goodman · « **Reply #93 on:** February 25, 2011, 03:28:29 pm »

Andrew I'm sorry that some people are making this "all about you". Really, posting a poll about a process and opening up discussion seems to me that is what a forum is all about. Do I use softproofing - yes. Did I take the poll, yes. Do I know it's not perfect, yes. But it is a tool to use if you understand its limitations. Aside from that, I personally appreciate your effort on this forum not only in this area but the effort you have put in on certain other topics that directly affected my workflow. So, I just wanted you to know I do appreciate when you take on a topic and follow it up to the end. Have a good weekend. I'm sorry, but my ignorance is bliss thing has never worked very well for me.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #94 on:** February 25, 2011, 03:48:15 pm »

Quote from: na goodman on February 25, 2011, 03:28:29 pm

ignorance is bliss thing has never worked very well for me.

Me neither. It usually comes back to bite, so best be informed, then decide what to do about it.

Czornyj · « **Reply #95 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:07:57 pm »

I think it's not about ignorance, it's lack of interest. Most people just don't print anymore, so they don't really care about soft proofing.

There are countless digital photography forums, with countless members and topics about cameras, lenses and photo editing software all over the internet - so why there's so few color management & printing discussions?

Alan Goldhammer · « **Reply #96 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:13:20 pm »

Quote from: Czornyj on February 25, 2011, 04:07:57 pm

I think it's not about ignorance, it's lack of interest. Most people just don't print anymore, so they don't really care about softproofing.

This could be what is going on. More being done with electronic media where the limitations are with the monitor and the JPG is king. It would be interesting to know how many prints Kelby and Kozloski sell each year.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #97 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:33:02 pm »

Quote from: Alan Goldhammer on February 25, 2011, 04:13:20 pm

This could be what is going on. More being done with electronic media where the limitations are with the monitor and the JPG is king. It would be interesting to know how many prints Kelby and Kozloski sell each year.

Those guys at NAPP are probably making money hand-over-fist writing and selling books, which has to be just about a full time pre-occupation to look at the number of titles. There's no way they'd ever manufacture the volume of business they're probably doing if they were making and selling prints.

It's likely true that many more people are posting JPEGs on the internet rather than printing, but there must still be a very large number of folks printing pictures. I can't for a moment believe that the printer divisions of Epson, Canon and HP are investing in a dead-end proposition. There's simply too much money at stake to be making those kind of miscalculations over a long period of time.

Czornyj · « **Reply #98 on:** February 25, 2011, 05:06:09 pm »

Quote from: Mark D Segal on February 25, 2011, 04:33:02 pm

I can't for a moment believe that the printer divisions of Epson, Canon and HP are investing in a dead-end proposition. There's simply too much money at stake to be making those kind of miscalculations over a long period of time.

They're selling tons of LF printers for CAD, GIS, display signage etc. High-end photographic printers are only by-products - also used in pre-press proofing, and graphic fine art.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #99 on:** February 25, 2011, 06:07:28 pm »

Quote from: Czornyj on February 25, 2011, 05:06:09 pm

High-end photographic printers are only by-products

You know this for sure?

And I might add not all the photographic printers they invest tons of money in are so "high-end".

Poll

Is soft proofing effective?

Author Topic: Soft proofing doesn’t work (Read 56680 times)