Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: View>Proof Setup  (Read 6103 times)
FrankG
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« on: April 09, 2009, 07:34:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Mac OSX, CS4, calibrated monitor.
View>proof setup questions:

Q:
Where is the default check - on macintosh RGB, or Monitor RGB, adobeRGB(1998), or is it irrelevant and has no impact on the image file preparation/display ?
Or where should it be 'in general', before one needs a soft proof view which is based on output requirements?
I was messing around selecting different options to how the image changes with each,  and lost track of where I started out from.
In prefs>col settings>I always prepare my photos in AdobeRGB(1998).

I have two different scenarios at the moment:

Job 1.

I am preparing RGB Tif photo files which will be delivered digitally (not printed) to a photo stock agency, and they've asked for them to be prepared in AdobeRGB(1998) col space.

As I said above, my PS preferences > Color Settings > default working space for all files is AdobeRGB(1998).

Should I be going to View>Proof Setup> Custom> & selecting AdobeRGB (1998) from the dropdown ?

Or, can I just leave it checked at Macintosh RGB or wherever else It is 'by default' ?

Job 2.

I am ordering a batch of small C prints from a lab and they have asked for them to be converted to sRGB. I know how to do that (edit > convert to profile) . However, I have already done all my contrast and col corrections in AdobeRGB(1998). So if I want to see how they will look as sRGB then I would go to View>Proof Setup> Custom> & select sRGB. If the image changes & I need to make another adjustment until it looks right, I would do that while viewing in that sRGB soft proof ? (assuming I want to keep a copy in adobeRGB(1998)and not convert them all first & make adjustments.)

These are two very different 'output' needs, or end results, & that is why I am wondering where the 'default' is before it is changed to a specific end/output requirement
If someone can clarify for me please.
Logged
jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2009, 11:15:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Here's how I do it:
 When I want to soft proof an image, I go to View>>Proof Set Up>>Custom. In that pull down I select my paper profile, and rendering intent. Then I hit the 'OK' button. When I am done evaluating/editing the image, I go to back to the 'View' menu item again. However, you will now notice that the item right below 'Proof Set Up', called 'Proof Colors', now has a check next to it. Simply click on 'Proof Colors', and it automatically disengages the soft proof you turned on earlier.  Whatever the case, any of your your selections in the 'View' menu has no effect on how your file gets tagged and saved.

If your incoming image is already an AdobeRGB image, you are good to go. If it is another colorspace, you will need to 'Convert to Profile' to Adobe RGB. (Then make sure that when you save your image, the check box that reads 'embed profile' is checked.)

Regarding your last question, unless you have a very large gamut image, and are viewing on one of the new wide gamut AdobeRGB capable monitor, you will not really see any difference soft proofing that AdobeRGB image in sRGB, as most monitors are only capable of displaying a gamut similar to sRGB anyway.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2009, 12:39:38 PM by jjlphoto » Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
FrankG
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 194


« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2009, 01:08:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you.
Is preserve RGB numbers to be checked when you soft proof ?

Quote from: jjlphoto
Here's how I do it:
 When I want to soft proof an image, I go to View>>Proof Set Up>>Custom. In that pull down I select my paper profile, and rendering intent. Then I hit the 'OK' button. When I am done evaluating/editing the image, I go to back to the 'View' menu item again. However, you will now notice that the item right below 'Proof Set Up', called 'Proof Colors', now has a check next to it. Simply click on 'Proof Colors', and it automatically disengages the soft proof you turned on earlier.  Whatever the case, any of your your selections in the 'View' menu has no effect on how your file gets tagged and saved.

If your incoming image is already an AdobeRGB image, you are good to go. If it is another colorspace, you will need to 'Convert to Profile' to Adobe RGB. (Then make sure that when you save your image, the check box that reads 'embed profile' is checked.)

Regarding your last question, unless you have a very large gamut image, and are viewing on one of the new wide gamut AdobeRGB capable monitor, you will not really see any difference soft proofing that AdobeRGB image in sRGB, as most monitors are only capable of displaying a gamut similar to sRGB anyway.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2009, 01:33:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: FrankG
Job 2.

I am ordering a batch of small C prints from a lab and they have asked for them to be converted to sRGB. I know how to do that (edit > convert to profile) . However, I have already done all my contrast and col corrections in AdobeRGB(1998). So if I want to see how they will look as sRGB then I would go to View>Proof Setup> Custom> & select sRGB. If the image changes & I need to make another adjustment until it looks right, I would do that while viewing in that sRGB soft proof ? (assuming I want to keep a copy in adobeRGB(1998)and not convert them all first & make adjustments.)

These are two very different 'output' needs, or end results, & that is why I am wondering where the 'default' is before it is changed to a specific end/output requirement
If someone can clarify for me please.


sRGB is not the printer space for devices printing to silver halide papers such as Noritsu, Lamda's and Chromira.  When the lab asks you to do this they are simply requiring a working space conversion.   The reason most labs ask for sRGB is the printers themselves are designed around sRGB, and the conversion to the printer's colors is a proprietary internal process which assumes an sRGB file coming in.

However, most of the better labs are embracing a more robust color managed workflow for their clients and offer a printer profile designed to allow you to soft proof to their printer.  WHCC now does not require the file to be in the sRGB space but allows you to send it in AdobeRGB as well. This trend will continue as professional labs understand they need to provide professional level color management capabilities to their clients.

Short answer, no you don't need to soft proof to the sRGB space.  As long as you convert from aRGB to sRGB the resulting file on your monitor will rarely change visually as was mentioned.  Most of these printers do a pretty good job with output since they are designed around sRGB, but you may want to see if your lab offers a profile you can use for soft proofing.
Logged

francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6730


« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2009, 05:11:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: FrankG
Thank you.
Is preserve RGB numbers to be checked when you soft proof ?
No! Preserve RGB  is only to show you how your photo would look if sent to your printer without conversion.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 05:11:54 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8590



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2009, 08:56:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
The reason most labs ask for sRGB is the printers themselves are designed around sRGB, and the conversion to the printer's colors is a proprietary internal process which assumes an sRGB file coming in.

I'd rephrase that a bit because it sounds like the printers are designed for sRGB when the front end processing is designed to assume all data passed to it is in sRGB. The native behavior of a printer is just that. In all likelihood, its nothing like sRGB which is a color space that describes the theoretical behavior of a CRT display.

What you wrote is correct, I'd just hate to see people read it quickly and assume that such printers have any actual relationship to sRGB. They don't. The software that passes the data to the printer, produces a (hopefully good) conversion for that printer assuming the RGB numbers are in the sRGB scale.
Logged

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

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2009, 12:19:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: FrankG
Where is the default check


By default, View>Proof Setup is set to Working CMYK. You can change the soft proof setup by going into the Customize Proof Conditions and selecting whatever options you want. It should be noted however that V2 ICC profiles of "working spaces" don't do anything other than Relative Colormetric transforms. You can select Perceptual in the dlog but it will always be RelCol.

If you want to change the View>Proof Setup's default proofing condition you can change the default by closing all documents and then navigating to the View?Proof Setup and selecting a different condition to proof. If you create a custom proof setup and actually save that out so it shows in the main drop down, you can choose to have that custom proof setup be the default. The key is to change the proofing while no document is open.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2009, 12:39:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
I'd rephrase that a bit because it sounds like the printers are designed for sRGB when the front end processing is designed to assume all data passed to it is in sRGB. The native behavior of a printer is just that. In all likelihood, its nothing like sRGB which is a color space that describes the theoretical behavior of a CRT display.

What you wrote is correct, I'd just hate to see people read it quickly and assume that such printers have any actual relationship to sRGB. They don't. The software that passes the data to the printer, produces a (hopefully good) conversion for that printer assuming the RGB numbers are in the sRGB scale.

Point well taken.  In fact it seems the front end could be rewritten so these printers could be used much like other devices within a color managed workflow. Probably a little more challenging than an inkjet printer, but should be doable.  Perhaps this wouldn't yield any significant improvement in print quality, so it's not worth the effort.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 04:52:25 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8590



WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2009, 12:59:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
In fact it seems the front end could be rewritten so these printers could be used muck like other devices within a color managed workflow.

Absolutely. Some say you have to send sRGB to a Fuji Frontiers but they offer a front end that is fully color managed that would accept any RGB working space.
Logged

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

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2009, 01:11:51 PM »
ReplyReply

The Noritsu, Durst, ZBE and Express Digital systems now all have the ability to honor embedded profiles and convert to destination profiles. Wether or not any given lab has their system setup this way using decent out profiles is another matter. And these newer color managed front end systems aren't always available for older models. Users should confirm that their lab can handle it if they want to send files in anything other than sRGB, including greyscale, which can be a problem.

As for soft proofing, I think Adobe should take (another) look at Express Digital's Darkroom software. In Darkroom, one can enable soft-proofing and it stays enabled after that point forward, for all images and sessions. Photoshop's soft proofing per-image, per-session limitation is annoying in comparison. Adobe might also consider adding a parametric "retouch" module to Lightroom as Darkroom has had for several years...

p.s. Fuji's minilabs are now all Noritsu systems with Fuji's own front end software and green accent paint color.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8590



WWW
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2009, 01:53:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Onsight
As for soft proofing, I think Adobe should take (another) look at Express Digital's Darkroom software. In Darkroom, one can enable soft-proofing and it stays enabled after that point forward, for all images and sessions. Photoshop's soft proofing per-image, per-session limitation is annoying in comparison.

Except its a really good idea to edit the master and then draw a line in the sand when you wish to edit output specific tweaks and pop em in Adjustment layers within layer sets.

If soft proofing were always on, one could edit based on an output device they are not using on the master.
Logged

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

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2009, 02:35:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Onsight
Photoshop's soft proofing per-image, per-session limitation is annoying in comparison.


Photoshop's ability to soft proof per window is actually very powerful as you can add new views and set each view to be soft proofing it's own profile which can be useful when editing use-neutral master images while seeing what various output such as B&W, CMYK and various inkjet papers will look like. I guess making an action to call up a specific proof condition and assigning it to an F key is too difficult?
« Last Edit: April 10, 2009, 02:35:50 PM by Schewe » Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2009, 03:04:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
Except its a really good idea to edit the master and then draw a line in the sand when you wish to edit output specific tweaks and pop em in Adjustment layers within layer sets.
Lightroom's snapshots and presets can accomplish the same thing nicely. I think we have have to find a way to do all of this parametrically.

Quote from: digitaldog
If soft proofing were always on, one could edit based on an output device they are not using on the master.
Still, the option of an always-on soft proof would be nice (and easy to implement). Lots of people only output to one printing process, and would appreciate it.

Quote
I guess making an action to call up a specific proof condition and assigning it to an F key is too difficult?
If you're working on significant amounts of images every day even having to hit an F key for each and every one is annoying, especially if you've used Darkroom in the past. I know guys in photolabs that hit command-Y or the F key I've setup for them for soft proofing 100+ times a day and it drives them nuts having to hit that all day long. Cheers to possibility of a more elegant solution(LR3+)...
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5416


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2009, 03:25:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Onsight
If you're working on significant amounts of images every day even having to hit an F key for each and every one is annoying, especially if you've used Darkroom in the past. I know guys in photolabs that hit command-Y or the F key I've setup for them for soft proofing 100+ times a day and it drives them nuts having to hit that all day long. Cheers to possibility of a more elegant solution(LR3+)...

Then you need to learn how to use the Script Events Manager and have it automatically turn soft proofing on every time you open an image...
Logged
Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2009, 04:02:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
use the Script Events Manager and have it automatically turn soft proofing on every time you open an image...
Excellent idea, but it just shouldn't be this complicated for the average user....
Logged

Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2009, 04:57:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Onsight
Still, the option of an always-on soft proof would be nice (and easy to implement). Lots of people only output to one printing process, and would appreciate it.

Isn't this basically the same thing as setting Photoshop's working space to the printers output space?  Not elegant, and to Andrew's point you are limiting your edits to a specific device which may be disastrous later on, but I have heard of some that do this and it sounds like the functionality you describe in Darkroom.
Logged

Scott Martin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1311


WWW
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2009, 10:14:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Wayne Fox
Isn't this basically the same thing as setting Photoshop's working space to the printers output space?  Not elegant, and to Andrew's point you are limiting your edits to a specific device which may be disastrous later on, but I have heard of some that do this and it sounds like the functionality you describe in Darkroom.
No, not at all. Soft proofing while working in the original working space (like sRGB) vs. working in the device space are two very different things. For example, a photo lab tech might soft proof with a Kodak Endura profile but print 4x6s, 8x10s and 16x20s to three different silver halide machines each requiring their own profile. For soft proofing purposes (gamut and dynamic range purposes), any of the three Endura profiles will do but for printing one would need a custom profile for each of the three machines. Darkroom's implementation is very elegant and effective for this type of workflow. And it's easy for new users to grasp, understand and implement. Plus it's all parametric (has been since 1994) so one can easily revisit images and apply output specific tweaks for future printing processes, and the file stays in it's original color space all the while. It's no more disastrous than saving output specific adjustment layers - it's in fact easier, faster and parametric. Lightroom's snapshots and develop preset features are really smart and will likely prove to be better than PS and DR in terms of saving and organizing different output specific tweaks.

If you haven't used Darkroom in demanding workflows it might be hard to grasp how elegant their solution is, in this respect. My point is to give credit where credit is due and suggest that Adobe could learn from this, thats all. Photoshop is very powerful, yet clunky, slow and cumbersome at times. Hopefully LR3 will have soft proofing that the best of both worlds in terms of ease of use and powerful flexibility.
Logged

jjlphoto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 467


« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2009, 10:31:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Schewe
By default, View>Proof Setup is set to Working CMYK.

True, that is what always appears in the scroll down menu when you go to it, but if you do not hit 'OK' and hit 'Cancel', it has no effect. The Menu item under it, 'Proof Colors' still remains unchecked. The Proof Set-Up feature only become engaged when the user hits 'OK".




Quote from: Wayne Fox
Isn't this basically the same thing as setting Photoshop's working space to the printers output space?

Perhaps..... if you are in a closed loop system, but those are not RGB neutral spaces. That in of itself creates more problems during editing. Also, the Soft proof's best feature is the 'Simulate' function you can toggle on or off. Unless your output space you are soft proofing to in notably smaller than your monitors gamut (very rare), the image will simply look the same using your suggestion.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2009, 10:34:35 AM by jjlphoto » Logged

Thanks, John Luke

Member-ASMP
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad