Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Cathy's Profiles  (Read 7360 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 05, 2008, 09:11:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've worked my way down to 90 cd/m˛ on mine.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193698\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not surprising - I'm at 110 and I've been tempted to reduce further when I was using matte, but with Ilford GFS 110 works - what kind of paper are you relating it to?
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
idenford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 128


« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2008, 09:28:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure where to check this, I use a Huey to adjust the display. I am thinking of getting a better display calibrator as I noticed in the tutorial, They are talking about this. Where do I check it?
I think the post on the curves adjustment is a good one. I really studied the tutorials recommended. Did the soft proofing in the custom view. tweaked the images til they looked about as close to the original after selecting the paper profile in custom view. But I imported the image back into Lightroom and printed from Lightroom. I attemted one print on Ultra Smooth Fine Art in Photoshop and it was ghastly. When I imported the soft proofed and tweaked image back into Lightroom, using Perceptual as the rendering intent, I had better success. But then I got even better prints using Watercolour paper. I spent my whole day on this thing. I will await Cathy's Profiles before I go back to the Ilford paper.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2008, 09:29:41 PM by idenford » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2008, 09:59:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not sure where to check this, I use a Huey to adjust the display. I am thinking of getting a better display calibrator as I noticed in the tutorial, They are talking about this. Where do I check it?
I think the post on the curves adjustment is a good one. I really studied the tutorials recommended. Did the soft proofing in the custom view. tweaked the images til they looked about as close to the original after selecting the paper profile in custom view. But I imported the image back into Lightroom and printed from Lightroom. I attemted one print on Ultra Smooth Fine Art in Photoshop and it was ghastly. When I imported the soft proofed and tweaked image back into Lightroom, using Perceptual as the rendering intent, I had better success. But then I got even better prints using Watercolour paper. I spent my whole day on this thing. I will await Cathy's Profiles before I go back to the Ilford paper.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

OK, let's do this step-by-step:

(1) Display calibration and profiling: Yes, from what I've read, it would appear a reasonable idea to get something better than Huey for more reliable results. Integrated Color Corporation (www.integrated-color.com) provides ColorEyes Display software with Monaco DTP-94 colorimeter hardware package - excellent value for very high quality stuff. When you use this software, it provides the cd/M2 measurement and allows you to set that parameter. Many displays only show luminance as a percentage - not very useful.

(2) For each paper type you are using: (a) set-up the soft proof for that paper; ( make sure that paper or the nearest type correspoding to the paper profile is selected in the printer driver; © print from Photoshop and make sure the correct printer/paper profile is selected in the Photoshop print manager; © make sure printer colour management is OFF and Photoshop Manages Colors is ON.

If you do all that, you should get good results regardless of which paper you are using.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2008, 10:32:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Not surprising - I'm at 110 and I've been tempted to reduce further when I was using matte, but with Ilford GFS 110 works - what kind of paper are you relating it to?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193700\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I use InkJetArt MC Luster — very similar to Epson Premium Lustre.  I've never heard of setting different luminance levels for different papers, but I guess that's could make some sense if the brightness of the papers varies significantly.  The ambient lighting in your work environment has more effect on it, though, I believe.  I work in a fairly dim room, so the monitor needs to be dialed down a lot.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2008, 07:24:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I use InkJetArt MC Luster — very similar to Epson Premium Lustre.  I've never heard of setting different luminance levels for different papers, but I guess that's could make some sense if the brightness of the papers varies significantly.  The ambient lighting in your work environment has more effect on it, though, I believe.  I work in a fairly dim room, so the monitor needs to be dialed down a lot.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193713\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nill, I agree ambient light is the more important variable and I also work in a dim environment with a dim display, but the reflectivity and dMax between Matte and Luster/Gloss really varies substantially (also the role of OBAs impacts the appearance); so when soft-proofing with "Simulate Paper White" activated, the screen to print match is improved by fine-tuning the display luminance accordingly.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2008, 10:49:11 AM »
ReplyReply

That makes sense.  

I've never gotten into soft-proofing as I've pretty much stuck to the one paper.  Is there no other parameter in the soft-proofing process that takes the reflectivity of the particular paper into account?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged
neil snape
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1432


WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2008, 11:11:32 AM »
ReplyReply

The profile for the paper should record the white point of the paper. When soft proofing the simulate white of paper should show this. I don't find it's all that accurate as I like the way human vision adapts so quickly to the viewing light, hence the perception of the print always looks better than the soft proof via ICC profiles. It is however relative and in that case it is a tool to be used as such.
Logged
Nill Toulme
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 741



WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2008, 11:20:44 AM »
ReplyReply

That suggests to me then that one should not change the luminance of the monitor for different papers.  No?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8619



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2008, 11:23:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The profile for the paper should record the white point of the paper. When soft proofing the simulate white of paper should show this.

Further, and maybe more important is it simulates the dynamic range of the print on a device that has progressively been developed to exceed this target by a huge amount. Marketing thinks we end users believe a 800:1 contrast ratio in a display isn't as good as a 1000:1 contrast ratio which clearly isn't useful in this case. And with the inability to really control both black and white, as we had in much older CRT technology, or, as we had in the Sony Artisan, the ability to actually affect the contrast ratio by controlling both black and white, something that isn't happening in an ICC profile, we are finding it even harder to properly soft proof. So its no wonder that the simulate paper white makes the image look so crappy, especially when you view the rest of the UI not undergoing that simulation. That means, you really do need to be viewing in full screen mode.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2008, 12:41:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew, what I've been finding is that the "crappiness" of the Simulate Paper White "look" depends very much on what paper you are simulating. With Epson Enhanced Matte (or whatever they call it today), the effect was VERY noticeably more crappy looking from turning this on. With Ilford GFS, given the impact is visible but much less so. We're dealing with big differences of DMax and tint between these papers.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad