Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wierd Print Bureau Experience  (Read 14357 times)
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646


« Reply #20 on: December 25, 2007, 12:27:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Assumed, behavior? Depends on the device?

I don't care what you convert it to, it's still generic on another printer.

Sometimes?

What if the lab is using a carefully linearized rip as most do or a different rip than the clinet? That doesn't effect the way ink is laid down? The way ink is laid down doesn't effect color content?


john




 That's ridiculous and wrong.

The lab builds a profile of a stable device, provides it to customer, customer uses to convert output color space, lab prints the doc. What makes it canned?

What makes a canned profile no good? It doesn't describe the device. Good canned profiles work when the device they represent are fixed in that assumed behavior. The canned profiles from Epson K3 unit, when that unit is behaving as it should (and it will remain that way handled correctly) are excellent and in some ways, indistinguishable from a custom profile.
We don't (always). Sometimes you do. Depends on the device.
For Epson profiles, that's IS the case!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163034\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Logged
DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 25, 2007, 12:47:01 PM »
ReplyReply

While personally I agree mostly with deanwork I thought his first, original, message was not exactly as Jesus would put it and I see the christmas elves have cleaned it up.

My question would be what exactly are you correcting for by altering an image in soft-proof mode?  In the end you are still trying to guess what an illuminated image on a monitor is going to look like printed on someone else's printer using a rip or driver (and most likely NOT photoshop)  with all the details out of your control.  There are so many variables in this that I think it's pointless -- monitor types, monitor profiles, viewing conditions, photoshop vs imageprint/colorbyte etc, etc, etc.   If the profile is decent it will be reasonably close without "tweaking" and if it was perfect no tweaking should even be required.  I would also let the printer do the colour space conversion and send the image tagged in aRGB or sRGB (as required  by the printer) which would insure that the correct and most current profile is used.   For an exhibition print a hard proof is going to be essential and often will need to be altered depending on both the finished mounting (I.E. glass, laminate, etc) and lighting -- none of which can be accommodated by softproofing in photoshop.   But that is of course only my opinion and the christmas elves are telling me that ranting on xmas day gets the eggnog cut off.

At any rate I think that for the original poster having access to the profile is pretty much irrelevant and that there are other issues: he doesn't need to pay a premium to print this on a brand new 11880 -- any decent pro printer that takes roll paper will do fine --    Pay for postage and I'll print and send you one tomorrow as an xmas present.     Banding and the mostly blown sections to the right are going to be bigger printing challenges than matching the subdued colors in the image.

Not to wreck the holiday spirit but I think another issue is that there is a belief in something magically image-enhancing about using a certain workflow (or printer, or paper, or ink) when for the majority of images this simply isn't true unless you want the viewer to admire the media rather than the message (to borrow a cliche).

Hope everyone is enjoying the holidays.......................
Doug
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 12:55:52 PM by DougMorgan » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 25, 2007, 12:59:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My question would be what exactly are you correcting for by altering an image in soft-proof mode? 

Assuming good profiles for display and output, the soft proof can and often does look different when you properly set up the simulation (that means Paper White/Ink Black and preferred rendering intent). You want this to look as much like the original corrected master (in your RGB working space) as possible. You may find some small adjustments to layers will accomplish a lot of this as described already.

Quote
In the end you are still trying to guess what an illuminated image on a monitor is going to look like printed on someone else's printer using a rip or driver (and most likely NOT photoshop)  with all the details out of your control. 

The profile should account for everything going on to produce the print.

The soft proof with simulation accounts for the dynamic range of the print on a display that grossly over exceeds the print range, one reason some like to call it "make my image look ugly" button. But that's a closer reality using the technology we have at hand today.

An emissive display will never match a reflective print (for that matter, you could replace transparency in that sentence), it hasn't stopped us from making prints from non transmissive materials that we feel match.

The profile is the key in showing you what the service provider is supposed to give you. If they can't calibrate and profile their devices (or are too lazy), you've got bigger problems here than what is being used as an excuse for not providing profile.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 25, 2007, 01:12:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Assuming is an interesting word.   My biggest point is that you aren't going to know if you are correcting for inaccurate profiles -- monitor (yours or theirs) or printer -- or correcting for the actual printer/paper combination, not without an actual print in hand.

I'd also like to point out that anyone that is following this discussion should have a decent knowledge of photoshop.   I'm sure we all know how layers work.

Doug
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646


« Reply #24 on: December 25, 2007, 01:45:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Right Doug,

He keeps saying things like "should" account for, which it probably will not.

And saying things like most devices respond this way, or that way, etc. just muddies the water. Life is not as simple as Epson would have you believe. I don't assume anything in this business. Especially with ink on paper.

j







quote=DougMorgan,Dec 25 2007, 02:12 PM]
Assuming is an interesting word.   My biggest point is that you aren't going to know if you are correcting for inaccurate profiles -- monitor (yours or theirs) or printer -- or correcting for the actual printer/paper combination, not without an actual print in hand.

I'd also like to point out that anyone that is following this discussion should have a decent knowledge of photoshop.   I'm sure we all know how layers work.

Doug
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Logged
TMcCulley
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 107


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2007, 01:47:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Why is this a contentious issue.  The whole idea being discussed is about the rights and responsibilities of the artist.  The artist needs to give to the printer the highest quality representation of their intent and the printer needs to make sure that the output matches that intent.

The profile the printer will use (regardless of quality) is therfore very important to the Artist trying to provide the best possible image to the printer.

The printer responsibilities do not include deciding the quality of the artist workflow or their intent for the image.  Maybe the artist wants banding and blown highlights. Provide the profile and move on.

IMO
Tom

PS It is also the Artist responsibility not to complain when they have to pay for a reprint because they messed up.
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 01:50:16 PM by TMcCulley » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2007, 02:08:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
He keeps saying things like "should" account for, which it probably will not.

And saying things like most devices respond this way, or that way, etc. just muddies the water. Life is not as simple as Epson would have you believe. I don't assume anything in this business. Especially with ink on paper.

I can tell you with empirical numbers how various sampling's of Epson pro printers respond and I can point to user experience with Epson canned profiles, both indicate that these are well behaved consistent devices that anyone willing can profile and supply to others to use.

Then there's the significant difference in these kinds of devices and offset presses (although modern, computer controlled presses can work in exactly the same consistent and repeatable way across a press sheet).

I say should because there are all kinds of ways to hose the proper use of profiles and output devices. Some don't have a clue about process control. There's no reason to even look at profiling such a situation.

If you've got a stable output device, as you should, you can profile it and you can supply that to anyone that finds that of use. Those that don't, great.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646


« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2007, 02:52:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't work with empirical numbers I work with prints. Comparing this to offset printing is totally comparing apples to oranges and has no bearing on this discussion.

I'm sure in some cases one might get lucky and have a complete match when exchanging rgb profiles like that, occasionally, maybe. More often than not it is just going to waste my time when they send that file back to me and confuse the client.

The great thing about working for yourself is that you can set the rules. My rules, and vast majority of my colleagues who actually do this for a living now, say no, to exchanging profiles that would only complicate our work and encourage unrealistic expectations among clients. To tell you the truth in all the time I've been doing this, the topic has never come up. I'm certainly not worried about loosing work over it. That wouldn't happen.

John





quote=digitaldog,Dec 25 2007, 03:08 PM]
I can tell you with empirical numbers how various sampling's of Epson pro printers respond and I can point to user experience with Epson canned profiles, both indicate that these are well behaved consistent devices that anyone willing can profile and supply to others to use.

Then there's the significant difference in these kinds of devices and offset presses (although modern, computer controlled presses can work in exactly the same consistent and repeatable way across a press sheet).

I say should because there are all kinds of ways to hose the proper use of profiles and output devices. Some don't have a clue about process control. There's no reason to even look at profiling such a situation.

If you've got a stable output device, as you should, you can profile it and you can supply that to anyone that finds that of use. Those that don't, great.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163059\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8101



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2007, 03:23:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My rules, and vast majority of my colleagues who actually do this for a living now, say no, to exchanging profiles that would only complicate our work

Stop right there, we get that. Its all about YOUR workflow.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
DougMorgan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 144


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 25, 2007, 03:25:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Gentlepeople:  I've got two panos stitching and my computer has become unresponsive so I'll bid you all a merry xmas and bow out.    I've got easter eggs to hide.

Doug

PS:  it looks like the lawyers have shown up (this thread is about rights and responsibilities?) and, to paraphrase Bukowski:  It's not that I hate lawyers: I just feel much better when they're not around.......just kidding
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646


« Reply #30 on: December 25, 2007, 03:43:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh, Mouy, Gowd,

You got that right. Yea. It took you awhile, but you finally got it. I'm the printer, I'm the decider, I make the rules and you abide by em. It's my way or the highway Mr. Dog. That is exactly why people come to me, because I'm the decider, and that is exactly what they pay me for.

john






Quote
Stop right there, we get that. Its all about YOUR workflow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163067\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 10:11:18 PM by deanwork » Logged
David Amos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 24


« Reply #31 on: December 25, 2007, 03:59:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Popcorn anyone  
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 25, 2007, 07:00:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You got that right. Yea. It took you awhile, but you finally got it. I'm the printer, I'm the decider, I make the rules and you abide by em. It's my way or the highway Mr. Dog. That is exactly why people come to me, because I'm the decider, and that is exactly what they pay me for Mr. Dog.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163070\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wow. . .that's a tough one to pass up.

So, who are you and what creds do YOU bring to the party? You don't have a personal profile or link to an atelier service, so I guess we're just supposed to believe your words? Well, about your words...

So far, what you've written has been a lot of things but useful. I guess you don't do a lot of soft proofing? But you claim to be using "custom profiles" (course, you don't mention how you made them) and that they are far better than Epson's canned profiles?

Well, for non-Epson papers, you would of course be correct. But for the 800 and 880 series printers and Epson papers, I think you are kidding yourself (or trying to kid us).

I used to make custom profiles for my printers with either ProfileMaker or Profiler whenever I got a new printer or paper. When the 800 series printers came out, I tested Epson's SP profiles vs my own and found there was very little difference nor benefit to making my own.

The Delta E difference between the 800 & 880 series printers is small enough to be within the scope of print to print variations(or measurement accuracy)...it's certainly possible to have a really screwed up printer that is out of control but very unlikely (unless it's been abused).

The OP didn't understand why the printer refused to freely give out a standard ICC profile for Luster on the 11880. I don't either and the way the printer responded makes me think that printer may not really understand the process. On the other hand, your attitude gives me EVERY reason think you may be in the same boat.

I sure hope you don't print for others or do this as a service cause your attitude would tend to drive away work...course, that's maybe why you don't post a link to your biz nor give any indication who, what or where you you are...prolly a good idea you remain anonymous.

:~)
Logged
deanwork
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 646


« Reply #33 on: December 25, 2007, 07:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

First of all Schewe,

I don't need to post a link as to my client base and technology because my services are none of your business and we don't read your books. And, unlike you Epson and Adobe consultants, I don't need to advertise my services through user groups daily to chase up business becaue I have all the work I can do. Anyone who wants me to print on Epson media is going to have to look elsewhere regardless. The plastic crap I hate and the cotton papers and canvas are made much better by others. I don't need Epson media. My clients don't want it.  Never have.

I'm sorry, but none of us out here need the Epson Print Academy to know which way the wind  blows. Didn't they used to call it Epson Ultra-Giclee stamp of approval ( how embarrasing).

It's is kind of a shame that it would take two of you Photoshop mafia geniuses to take down one ordinary art printer like me.
john




quote=Schewe,Dec 25 2007, 08:00 PM]
Wow. . .that's a tough one to pass up.

So, who are you and what creds do YOU bring to the party? You don't have a personal profile or link to an atelier service, so I guess we're just supposed to believe your words? Well, about your words...

So far, what you've written has been a lot of things but useful. I guess you don't do a lot of soft proofing? But you claim to be using "custom profiles" (course, you don't mention how you made them) and that they are far better than Epson's canned profiles?

Well, for non-Epson papers, you would of course be correct. But for the 800 and 880 series printers and Epson papers, I think you are kidding yourself (or trying to kid us).

I used to make custom profiles for my printers with either ProfileMaker or Profiler whenever I got a new printer or paper. When the 800 series printers came out, I tested Epson's SP profiles vs my own and found there was very little difference nor benefit to making my own.

The Delta E difference between the 800 & 880 series printers is small enough to be within the scope of print to print variations(or measurement accuracy)...it's certainly possible to have a really screwed up printer that is out of control but very unlikely (unless it's been abused).

The OP didn't understand why the printer refused to freely give out a standard ICC profile for Luster on the 11880. I don't either and the way the printer responded makes me think that printer may not really understand the process. On the other hand, your attitude gives me EVERY reason think you may be in the same boat.

I sure hope you don't print for others or do this as a service cause your attitude would tend to drive away work...course, that's maybe why you don't post a link to your biz nor give any indication who, what or where you you are...prolly a good idea you remain anonymous.

:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163103\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]
« Last Edit: December 27, 2007, 10:14:11 PM by deanwork » Logged
John.Murray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 893



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 25, 2007, 09:09:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks!  I got what I needed from this thread - go to a lab who *will* share their profiles *and* feel comfortable discussing possible profile issues / pitfalls with their clients.

The picture I posted is a HUGE reduction of the original image - the banding and blown highlites are a *perfect* example of converting the image to a lower gamut space - neither are present in the original.  As I mentioned in my orginal post, I was barely able to get this to print on my B9180 with acceptable result.  With MY workflow (thanks to Bruce, Jeff & Andrew's books & of course this site), softproofing was the only rational way to get that.  I'm looking forward to seeing the result on a wider gamut device, like the Epson 11180

Cheers - John
« Last Edit: December 25, 2007, 09:13:27 PM by Joh.Murray » Logged

hilljf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 25, 2007, 09:38:29 PM »
ReplyReply

John,
     I agree with your final conclusion.   Considering only what has been talked about on this forum.  I would conclude that the printer you were talking to does not have custom profiles and is attempting to cover up that they just got this printer and frankly are trying to figure out how to get the most out of it.    Not willing to share the prifiles they plan to use is bad busines in my view.

     Either they open up and work with you or work with someone else.

good luck,  John
Logged

walkerblackwell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 25, 2007, 09:41:29 PM »
ReplyReply

We run an 11880. On Black Point's website we have been providing profiles for the last few months. Our luster profile is beta but working well. We are going to make a better x-rite profile soon (better shadow rendition) so take the one up there with a grain of salt. With the way the 11880 was calibrated in-factory, the canned one might still be better. (We can put that up too but then again, that might be illegal.) Our printer # is 47 if anyone needs to know.

I am a printer first and a photographer second.

My whole idea about profiles and output follows two rules.

1. Get as calibrated as you can.
2. Never forget that photography is always a general soupy kind of thing and if it's all going to end up a print, than a proof will always be better than a fancy calibrated light-bulb called a monitor.
3. There is always variables that you will not for-see including the eyeballs of the client and how their eyeballs interact with their "monitor."

I've noticed that many profiles do NOT proof correctly on many screens/apps and giving an ICC profile away may give the customer a false sense of security. This is NOT a theory. This is something I've experienced. Without clear communication on my end on the limitations of soft-proofing in today's world, problems crop up down the road.

I provide profiles free for anyone who is interested in downloading them and looking at them. I point clients to them for soft proofing ONLY if I know they have a calibrated monitor and after I've talked with them on phone or email and told them that it's not an end-all-be-all kind of thing. That in-fact it may show worse on screen than print.

Proofs. If you want a really good print, you still have to see a proof. It's a physical thing. Get over it. A 60x40 that will last 4 times longer than a c-print for $200.00 is cheap as well.

I have many clients who I've printed for so much that they just give me the files and we have a conversation on phone and I tweak the images which way I see fit (or don't do anything at all) and it just works. But this only happens after over a year of printing. Can't happen on one print.

In regards to Luster, soft-proofing is not as big a deal. The paper can show more than you can see on screen. Soft-proofing for more limited gamut paper/ink is more relevant. If you do blue night-shots on chrome, soft-proofing becomes more relevant as well.

So, well, that's my two cents.

take care all,
Walker Blackwell
Black Point Editions
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5258


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 25, 2007, 11:02:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't need to post a link as to my client base and technology because my services are none of your business and we don't read your books.


Well, that kinda says it all right there bud. Long term, you ain't gonna like it around here. Because if you want to have _ANY_ credibility, you gotta have _SOME_ credibility and so far, what you've done with your posts is lose any you may have had in these forums...

I'm a big boy, and I think I can go through life knowing that YOU don't like me. (actually, based on your attitude, I'm GLAD you don't have any of my "books", wait, oh yeah, I only have one book with my name on it along with Bruce's).

It prolly is a lot better that you hide behind anonymous screen name with no profile because, ya never know who may be reading forums posts (due to Google and other caching). Maybe one of your clients may actually see what kinda attitude you sling in public.

Either way, you are what I would call a lost cause, so I'll just go ahead and ignore you as a user here (that way I don't have to worry about seeing any more of your posts–your first 12 have been pretty useless).

Jon, in the meant time, I think where you are at now is better than when you first came to ask your question? I hope so. As you know, I feel that soft proofing is critical to determining optimal tone curve and color prior to printing (notice what's his name hasn't said he uses soft proofing). In particular, making sure the contrast range of the image will reproduce as expected in the dynamic range of the print.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2007, 12:54:10 AM by Schewe » Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 26, 2007, 12:30:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Walker - you can further calibrate your machine using Colorbase (free download from Epson) if you wish.  You can also have a technician do the factory level calibration for you (at whatever they charge) if you have any concerns or want to see if you can get a touch of improved performance.
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1608


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 26, 2007, 12:39:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I wanted to add something about post on the internet.

I've been on the 'net since 1989 in one form or another, so I like to think that I have a bit of a clue.

When people like Andrew or Jeff post and publically identify themselves or when they publish a book or a website or speak in public etc, they allow for peer review.  This is the same as one would find in the scientific community or, even, in the arts community (yes, even photographers :-)

That simple act - making yourself subject to peer review - adds credibility.  Not everyone will make themselves completely publically known.  I haven't, for example, and there are reasons for it.  I expect people to place less credibility on my comments as a result.  That's my choice.  I won't get upset by it :-)  At any rate, there are people here far more knowledgable than I, which is why I come here to read and learn and (after a couple of years of lurking) participate.

But then I wouldn't dream of telling someone they're wrong just because I said so, without providing substantial proof or detailed argument.  That's what you did, Dean.  You expected us to take your word for it when we don't know what it's worth.  Maybe you're right and maybe everyone else is wrong, but you've neither presented a strong argument, presented proof, or given us reason to accept your word on the subject.  All of that is fine, but don't get upset when this is pointed out to you.

I hope your business flourishes and your customers are delighted with the results.  I hope, also, that you may be gracious enough to consider that perhaps folks have a point and look into what they're saying and if you don't understand it ask them to clarify.

As for your comments about Epson papers.  Well, take a look at EFP and tell me it's garbage (it's most definitely anything of the sort).  And bear in mind that Epson doesn't own a paper manufacturing plant and that some of the other papers that you are using probably come from the same factories.  Some of us can tell just by looking at the "made in ..." label who makes them in some cases.  Sure, they may be different, but they're hardly rubbish, even if you don't like them.

Perhaps if you understood and applied color management practices you'd obtain results that would change your mind :-)
Logged

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad