Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Editing After SoftProofing?  (Read 11024 times)
CarolynC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #20 on: October 30, 2010, 06:22:20 PM »
ReplyReply

RobWalstrom - Thanks for your input!

Quote
No, you need to send the files in the output color space described by the profile used to soft proof.

How do you know what output color space the profile has?  The WHCC profile I'm using is called WHCC-Lustre up to 12x18.  Does it show up in PS somewhere when you apply it?

Quote
Sending you an output profile solely for soft proofing, then demanding you not fully use it is a half baked idea of color management.

When you say "fully use it" does that mean I should be able to actually embed their profile in my files?  So far the labs I've looked at and tried, WHCC and MPix, both say you do not embed the profile, it's just meant for softproofing.  WHCC's site says..."Do not embed these profiles in your files, only use them with Photoshop's "Soft Proofing" function."  So this is the half-baked approach to color management you were talking about?  I always thought the point of softproofing was just to apply it to your images to see how they'll print on the lab's printers, then edit the image to get it to look better and send it that way in the color space's they accept...RGB or AdobeRGB.  This isn't how it works?

If I am supposed to be embedding the lab profile, first how do you do that and second, what labs allow you to do that??
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 30, 2010, 06:52:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How do you know what output color space the profile has?  The WHCC profile I'm using is called WHCC-Lustre up to 12x18.  Does it show up in PS somewhere when you apply it?

Presumably the profile supplied for soft proofing is what you’d use to convert. You should ensure that. And again, if the lab demands sRGB, you can’t use the profile supplied for soft proofing for conversions.

Quote
When you say "fully use it" does that mean I should be able to actually embed their profile in my files? 
Convert (and embed).

Quote
So far the labs I've looked at and tried, WHCC and MPix, both say you do not embed the profile, it's just meant for softproofing. 

Right, that’s stupid. If you supply a profile for soft proofing, you should be able to use it for conversion and embedding. They don’t want you to do that. Forget soft proofing (forget using them as a lab if your aim is a full color management path).

Quote
WHCC's site says..."Do not embed these profiles in your files, only use them with Photoshop's "Soft Proofing" function." 
They don’t have a clue about color management, that’s my point.

Its like giving a staving dog a rubber bone and telling the dog “don’t eat the bone”. Its silly.

Quote
I always thought the point of softproofing was just to apply it to your images to see how they'll print on the lab's printers, then edit the image to get it to look better and send it that way in the color space's they accept...RGB or AdobeRGB.  This isn't how it works?

Part of the process is seeing the effect of the profile. The options have to be selected by the user, for example the rendering intent. You have no idea if the lab even use that profile for conversion let along what rendering intent. And if the DO use the profile (which I doubt), why not allow you to use it, pick the CMM, rendering intent, etc? Because their idea of color management is half baked.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
CarolynC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #22 on: October 30, 2010, 08:47:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Presumably the profile supplied for soft proofing is what you’d use to convert. You should ensure that. And again, if the lab demands sRGB, you can’t use the profile supplied for soft proofing for conversions.

Digital Dog, do you know of any helpful articles you could point me to online that explain "converting" because I am not clear on what it is and when to do it.  Maybe you've written an article explaining this??

Quote
They don’t have a clue about color management, that’s my point.

Do you know of any reputable labs online that would allow me to fully use the profile like you're referring to?  If anyone else has any labs they could point me to, please chime in.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #23 on: October 31, 2010, 11:31:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Digital Dog, do you know of any helpful articles you could point me to online that explain "converting" because I am not clear on what it is and when to do it.  Maybe you've written an article explaining this??

Do you know of any reputable labs online that would allow me to fully use the profile like you're referring to?  If anyone else has any labs they could point me to, please chime in.

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200406_rodneycm.pdf

Pictopia supplies and allows you to actually fully use their output profiles. Try www.pictopia.com
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Frankomatic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2010, 04:06:07 AM »
ReplyReply

In the below link it is said....
"Please note: You do not need to convert your files to our profiles. This is done automatically by our Chromira. Leave your files in their RGB workingspace."

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/FAQ/faqprintlab.html

Below is another link to an article titled "The Hard Truth about Soft Proofs".  Where it is said....
"We use ICC profiles with all of our output devices to achieve accurate and repeatable color. To get the most from our color management, your file should be tagged with its workingspace profile. There is no need to convert your file to our output profiles, since our printing software does it for you."

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/photoshoptip/tip35.html

I do soft proof (using profiles supplied by them) to try to offset the effects of paper & black point to some degree, but don't usually look for exact color matching as the proof colors are generally acceptable.  I also submit my files in a working color space, usually aRGB.  Although I don't use their Chromira as much as their Epson inkjet, I assume their printing software would automatically convert my aRGB working space to the inkjet profile as well.

Their printer profiles I've been using to soft proof appear to have a Relative Colorimetric rendering intent by default.  Is it correct to say that as long as I don't change the rendering intent, I can submit my files in aRGB and the tweaks I've made while soft proofing will have the desired effect, because they are automatically converting to the same profile and rendering intent I used?

Is it also correct to say that if I preferred to change to the Perceptual rendering intent on an image, that to see the same changes in the print I would then have to convert my aRGB image file to their printer profile while it was set to use the Perceptual intent?  Presumably because if I didn't, when they automatically convert my file from aRGB to their printer profile, their profile would be using the Relative Colorimetric intent by default.  Would such an embedded printer profile in fact override their default when the file is sent to the printer?  IOW Their printing software wouldn't convert my embedded (Perceptual) profile back to their default (Relative) profile.

Regards,
Frank
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2010, 09:39:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Below is another link to an article titled "The Hard Truth about Soft Proofs".  Where it is said....
"We use ICC profiles with all of our output devices to achieve accurate and repeatable color. To get the most from our color management, your file should be tagged with its workingspace profile. There is no need to convert your file to our output profiles, since our printing software does it for you."

They should change the title to “Our Bullshit about Soft Proofs".

Quote
I do soft proof (using profiles supplied by them) to try to offset the effects of paper & black point to some degree, but don't usually look for exact color matching as the proof colors are generally acceptable.  I also submit my files in a working color space, usually aRGB.  Although I don't use their Chromira as much as their Epson inkjet, I assume their printing software would automatically convert my aRGB working space to the inkjet profile as well.

So when you soft proof, do you pick a rendering intent? If so which one (its image specific) and how do we know what the lab uses?
Do we know the lab actually used the profile you provided for soft proofing to convert to the output color space?
Do we know if they used Black Point Compensation?
Do we know what CMM they used?
Do we know the profile actually reflects the current conditions of the output device? Or its a profile built years ago and is the device still producing the behavior the profile describes and by how much?

Quote
Their printer profiles I've been using to soft proof appear to have a Relative Colorimetric rendering intent by default.  Is it correct to say that as long as I don't change the rendering intent, I can submit my files in aRGB and the tweaks I've made while soft proofing will have the desired effect, because they are automatically converting to the same profile and rendering intent I used?

No because we don’t know what the lab is doing after you send them sRGB. Nor why you can’t just convert using their profile, as you desire and they simply refuse to send the numbers as is to the output device. And why do you have to funnel your original data into a tiny, pretty piss poor RGB working space just to get to that output color space?

Quote
Is it also correct to say that if I preferred to change to the Perceptual rendering intent on an image, that to see the same changes in the print I would then have to convert my aRGB image file to their printer profile while it was set to use the Perceptual intent? 

Since we don’t know what the lab is doing with the sRGB data as mentioned above, all bets are off.

Here’s the deal. Either the lab is clueless about modern color management, or they want you to think they are implementing sound color management when what they really want to do is crank out as many prints as possible without alerting their front end workflow. I have no problem if a lab wants a pure sRGB front end workflow and demand you send them sRGB. When they put out pure BS messages about color management, send you profiles you can’t fully use, pretend they are color managed, it pisses me off as it should their customers. Either do the process correctly and provide profiles you can use fully, or don’t provide profiles, tell users its sRGB and be done. This half ass approach is simply a big lie to customers who think they are getting a color managed work flown when in fact they are not. And there are labs that do fully implement a color managed process, provide profiles you can fully use, work real hard to maintain process control so the profiles are sound and useful.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
CarolynC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39


« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2010, 01:37:46 PM »
ReplyReply

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200406_rodneycm.pdf

Pictopia supplies and allows you to actually fully use their output profiles. Try www.pictopia.com

Thanks for the link and lab suggestion.  Pictopia looks good, I'm gonna give them a whirl.  Only downside I noticed is they don't support 16-bit images.  I read an article saying you get better image quality with 16-bit versus 8.  Do any labs out there take 16-bit?  Do you guys notice a difference in printing 8 versus 16?  Wondering if it would help with color banding, etc.

I noticed Pictopia takes TIFF's as well as JPEG.  Am I correct in assuming you get better image quality if you send in TIFF versus JPEG?  Advice?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2010, 02:12:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Only downside I noticed is they don't support 16-bit images.  I read an article saying you get better image quality with 16-bit versus 8.

For editing images, you want to be working in 16-bit. For output, should make little if any difference and in fact, only a few output device drivers fully support a high bit print path. The vast majority convert to 8-bits per color going to the printer anyway. Convert to the output space, then convert to 8-bits per color and send. If the JPEG quality is high, you’ll probably see zero differences from a TIFF IF file uploading speeds and sizes are an issue. If not, just send them a TIFF.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Frankomatic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #28 on: November 04, 2010, 01:16:42 AM »
ReplyReply

They should change the title to Our Bullshit about Soft Proofs".

I can appreciate that they would want to promote hard proofing since that's how they make their money.  But it does seem somewhat disingenuous not to mention the benefits of using soft proofing simply to help mitigate the negative effects of the "make my image look ugly" button.  I think my first post was somewhat misleading in that I didn't make it clear that's all I wanted to do.  I got wrapped up in rendering intents simply because they're in the same dialog as the Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink settings.

I guess you could say I wasn't looking to "fully use" their profile but rather "temporarily" use it just to display the effects of the Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink settings on my monitor so I could make edits to my AdobeRGB image that would offset those effects to some extent.  I admit to being somewhat naive about how the other settings (rendering intent and BPC) would be passed along to the printing service, but again it wasn't my intent to do that.  It can get somewhat confusing when most of the tutorials and info found about soft proofing are for people who print to their own printer.  Sending to a print lab is a different animal and not nearly as straightforward.

What you say about converting to the printer profile makes perfect sense for all the reasons you mentioned.  Thanks for giving me a better understanding of how rendering intent and BPC are passed along to a printing service.

However, I'd like to straighten out a thing or two and ask a couple more questions.  I'm a bit late responding because I emailed the lab and that took some time.

-I didn't say I sent the lab sRGB, it was aRGB.  They request a working space, not necessarily sRGB.  Please note that I'm using their PrintLab service, it's less expensive than their custom service in that it's for images that have already been post-processed.  And yes it is likely set up to crank out as many prints as possible, hence the lower cost.

-With the understanding that my sole purpose for soft proofing was to mitigate the effects of the Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink settings and NOT to pass the rendering intent on to the printing service, would you agree that sending the file to the lab in my aRGB working color space would reflect my soft proofing edits in the print?  IOW The print would be more ugly without the edits <g>

-The lab uses perceptual intent with black point compensation as the default settings for their PrintLab printers.  I suspect that they request files for this service to be in a working color space because it is an automated environment, because people are more likely to have files in a working space, and because it's less complicated than fiddling with a printer profile (especially for those who don't soft proof or haven't any other reason to use a printer profile).  However, that they request a working space isn't to say they demand one.  People who do soft proof and want to override the PrintLab's default perceptual intent can do so.  It was explained to me like this...
1-Convert the aRGB (or whatever) working space to the printer profile using the relative colorimetric intent
2-Save the file UNTAGGED (with no embedded profile)
3-Upload the file to the PrintLab
4-On the order form you fill out, note those changes so the lab can output your file properly.

-With regard to the age of printer profiles.  Their Chromira profiles are dated 10/28/10 (1 week old), the previous one was dated 11/08.  An Epson inkjet profile I requested back in June was dated 11/07.  FYI I just downloaded Pictopia's profiles and they are dated 3/18/2010.  In your experience, would the age of a profile make a difference when one is soft proofing only to mitigate the effects of the Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink settings?  And if so, how old would be too old?  Would the same apply if one wanted to change the rendering intent, or would the age limit be different.  I suspect the rendering intent could be more sensitive to dated profiles but would love to hear what you have to say about it.  Given that you recommend Pictopia, and that their profiles are 8 months old, it seems there's a good deal of wiggle room when it comes to dated profiles.

I hope this clears up some of the confusion I might have caused and answers most of your questions.  And thanks again for enlightening me on these issues.

Regards,
Frank
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 04, 2010, 09:32:11 AM »
ReplyReply

But it does seem somewhat disingenuous not to mention the benefits of using soft proofing simply to help mitigate the negative effects of the "make my image look ugly" button. 

Soft proofing is a wonderful capability that I fully support (unlike some out there). But you need to use the profile that was used for soft proofing to convert the data. This is where some labs mess up.

Quote
I guess you could say I wasn't looking to "fully use" their profile but rather "temporarily" use it just to display the effects of the Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink settings on my monitor so I could make edits to my AdobeRGB image that would offset those effects to some extent. 

Why bother if the profile isn’t used as you setup the soft proof (or used at all)? Might as well pick a profile for your Epson printer, soft proof and send off the sRGB data to the lab.

Quote
-I didn't say I sent the lab sRGB, it was aRGB.  They request a working space, not necessarily sRGB. 

IF its not the actual output space you used for the soft proof, output using the settings for rendering intent, BPC etc, it doesn’t matter. You either fully embrace the color management workflow or don’t do it at all because once you hand off that Adobe RGB (1998) document, we have no idea what happens to those RGB values.

Quote
-With the understanding that my sole purpose for soft proofing was to mitigate the effects of the Simulate Paper Color & Simulate Black Ink settings and NOT to pass the rendering intent on to the printing service, would you agree that sending the file to the lab in my aRGB working color space would reflect my soft proofing edits in the print?  IOW The print would be more ugly without the edits <g>

I would not agree. We simply have no idea what happens to that data after you send it. We have no idea if the profile even reflects the conditions of the output device on the day they sent the RGB values to the device.

Quote
-The lab uses perceptual intent with black point compensation as the default settings for their PrintLab printers. 
So if you soft proof and prefer the Relative Colorimetric intent (which many of us prefer most often but its image specific), now what do you do?

Quote
I suspect that they request files for this service to be in a working color space because it is an automated environment, because people are more likely to have files in a working space, and because it's less complicated than fiddling with a printer profile (especially for those who don't soft proof or haven't any other reason to use a printer profile). 

IOW, its kind of a machine print. Labs should be up front and just tell you its a machine print. Then just skip sending ICC profiles, taking about soft proofing etc and just crank the working space files through the system and be done.  Either conduct the process correctly or treat the workflow like a machine print. I have no issue with either.

Quote
1-Convert the aRGB (or whatever) working space to the printer profile using the relative colorimetric intent
2-Save the file UNTAGGED (with no embedded profile)
3-Upload the file to the PrintLab
4-On the order form you fill out, note those changes so the lab can output your file properly.

OK so you CAN send the data in the printer output space using the printer profile with (for whatever reason only) the RelCol intent? IF so, just do that. Then you KNOW (well hopefully) the RGB values will be sent to the output device in that output color space as you soft proofed it.

Quote
-With regard to the age of printer profiles.  Their Chromira profiles are dated 10/28/10 (1 week old), the previous one was dated 11/08.  An Epson inkjet profile I requested back in June was dated 11/07.  FYI I just downloaded Pictopia's profiles and they are dated 3/18/2010.  In your experience, would the age of a profile make a difference when one is soft proofing only to mitigate the effects of the Simulate Paper Color and Simulate Black Ink settings?  And if so, how old would be too old?

The date of the profile isn’t important, what IS important is the device continues to reflect the conditions the profile describes. Look at the date of say a paper profile from an Epson 2200. As long as the printer remains in the condition when the profile was made, the age is not at all important. Device stability is the key.
Regards,
Frank
[/quote]
Logged

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

Posts: 686


« Reply #30 on: November 04, 2010, 12:36:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Frank, I’ve had prints made by West Coast Imaging. They do a wonderful, professional job and are a pleasure to work with.  At my request WCI happily made the conversions to their profiles using relative colorimetric.  (Like you, I was using their PrintLab service but my prints were made using their Epson printers.)

On one occasion, WCI mistakenly made a couple of large prints using perceptual intent.  When I brought this mistake to their attention, they immediately offered to send me new prints.  I told them that after seeing the first prints that I also wanted to make a couple of minor changes to the photos.  WCI said that that was fine, I could make the changes, and they would still send me the new prints at no cost. 

I have no relationship with WCI other than as a very satisfied customer.  Give them a try, Frank.  I expect that you’ll be as impressed with them as I am.
Logged

Dean Erger
Frankomatic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #31 on: November 04, 2010, 05:43:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
OK so you CAN send the data in the printer output space using the printer profile with (for whatever reason only) the RelCol intent? IF so, just do that. Then you KNOW (well hopefully) the RGB values will be sent to the output device in that output color space as you soft proofed it.

digitaldog,

OK, understood.

But in that case I would be using a rendering intent (RelCol) that I know is NOT their default.  What if I soft proofed using perceptual intent and knowing they would print with that intent by default, would it then still be necessary for me to convert to their printer profile from AdobeRGB when I know they would be using the same profile to convert the same AdobeRGB file automatically?  I mean, it seems to be the same conversion taking place using the same profile, but it's just a matter of who's doing the work.  The difference is that I don't have to make a conversion, or save without an embedded profile, or retain a backup of the untagged file, or give them special instructions for printing.  All I have to do is send them the AdobeRGB file and let them make the conversion automatically.  Simple is better unless it's the wrong thing to do.  Your guidance would again be appreciated.

Quote
The date of the profile isn’t important, what IS important is the device continues to reflect the conditions the profile describes. Look at the date of say a paper profile from an Epson 2200. As long as the printer remains in the condition when the profile was made, the age is not at all important. Device stability is the key.

This seems to be where an element of trust is involved.  FWIW I do trust this printing service to maintain their machines in a stable condition.  And should the condition change, I trust they will furnish new profiles, as they recently have with their Chromira.  Having said that, I do believe that they and I are using the same profile to make conversions.

Regards,
Frank
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 04, 2010, 08:38:07 PM »
ReplyReply

But in that case I would be using a rendering intent (RelCol) that I know is NOT their default. 

The idea its a default seems goofy. IF you can convert the data using their profile (and not embed the profile), there is zero reason why you can’t use Perceptual or RelCol. They are just sending the converted RGB data to the output device, it has no idea what the rendering intent is.

Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Frankomatic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2010, 01:48:12 PM »
ReplyReply

The idea its a default seems goofy.

I don't think it's goofy.  After all, their PrintLab service *IS* an automated environment.  I would guess that >90% of their PrintLab customers don't care about color mgmt, don't use profiles to soft proof, and likely don't even know what an ICC profile is.  Why should they burden or confuse the vast majority of customers with conversions when all the customer wants to do is submit their aRGB or sRGB files and have them printed?  Surely they'd lose customers if they made it too hard or confusing for them.

They say up front that they automatically convert to the printer profile FOR the customer (just so the customer doesn't have to do it).  Which brings us to this default stuff.  When they convert automatically they MUST choose a rendering intent (no?), so they decided to use Perceptual as a default.  Surely they're not going to make a judgment call as to which intent looks best for each image, that would be a job for their custom service not the PrintLab service.  Also, a default guarantees that subsequent reprints at a later date would be handled the same as the first, a judgment call IMO would lead to some unhappy repeat customers who had the same file printed at different times but with different intents being applied by the printer operator.  Customers would complain that their 2nd print is different than the 1st.  Again, it's an automated process, if anything begs for a default it would be that.

The remaining 10%, who want to depart from the Perceptual default and use RelCol can do so by furnishing special instructions with their PrintLab order.  Understandably these customers would not have their files mixed in with the others because it would obviously slow down the production of prints (eg: this one gets automatically converted, that one doesn't, etc), such decisions also beg for operator error.  At the beginning of the work day I suspect they may queue all the files to be automatically converted together, then start the printer and let it run its course using the default Perceptual intent.  Then they'd queue all the files that don't get automatically converted (where customers already converted themselves and didn't embed any profile in the file), send them straight to the printer and let them run their course.  The only decision is which batch of files to run first.  Although I'm not in the business and haven't the foggiest idea how any lab would actually set up their production, I think the use of a default would be in the interest of efficiency and repeatability, and makes ordering prints much easier/simpler for the vast majority of PrintLab customers.

Quote
IF you can convert the data using their profile (and not embed the profile), there is zero reason why you can’t use Perceptual or RelCol. They are just sending the converted RGB data to the output device, it has no idea what the rendering intent is.

I agree, I can use either, and would certainly convert and not embed the profile for images using RelCol.  But my question was...

If I want an image to use Perceptual, why should I even bother to convert to their profile when they would automatically convert for me AND BY DEFAULT print with Perceptual intent as well? 

With this scenario the same conversion would be performed, using the same profile, and using the same Perceptual intent -- it's just a matter of WHO does the work since either way the same RGB data would be sent to the output device.  Would you agree?

Regards,
Frank
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2010, 03:28:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Andrew, maybe some clarification would be good.

When you talk about converting to the printer profile, you're talking about when prints are being made with Frontiers, Chromiras and the like, yes?  You're not talking about prints made with inkjets which would (or should) go through a workflow like what we do when we print our own, right?  Because I don't think I've heard of anyone suggesting converting to the paper profile when printing to an inkjet in a properly colour managed workflow.  Or have I missed something along the way?
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2010, 03:48:30 PM »
ReplyReply

When you talk about converting to the printer profile, you're talking about when prints are being made with Frontiers, Chromiras and the like, yes?  You're not talking about prints made with inkjets which would (or should) go through a workflow like what we do when we print our own, right?  Because I don't think I've heard of anyone suggesting converting to the paper profile when printing to an inkjet in a properly colour managed workflow.  Or have I missed something along the way?

Any of the above. When you print to your ink jet, when you select the output profile in Photoshop’s Print dialog (or in Lightroom‘s Print module), the working space gets converted on the fly to the output color space during printing. Obviously with an outside lab, you have to use Convert to Profile to save off an iteration that can be sent to the lab.
Logged

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

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2010, 03:51:35 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think it's goofy.  After all, their PrintLab service *IS* an automated environment.

Frank, if they tell you they will provide a profile and will allow you to use it and send them the data in the output color space, it make zero sense they tell you want rendering intent you must use. The output color space (the new RGB values) are what they are and should get sent to the device. The device has no idea what rendering intent was selected and used. Its just a big pile of new, RGB values. So if the lab tells you that you can utilize the profile, you should be able to use RelCol or Perceptual (even Saturation) if you prefer that soft proof and want to send those RGB values to the printer.

Quote
If I want an image to use Perceptual, why should I even bother to convert to their profile when they would automatically convert for me AND BY DEFAULT print with Perceptual intent as well? 
IF the lab demands sRGB or some working space and will not allow you to use the profile as you wish, we’re back to an even goofier non color management workflow where the end user has to assume that the profile will be used.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2010, 07:31:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Any of the above. When you print to your ink jet, when you select the output profile in Photoshop’s Print dialog (or in Lightroom‘s Print module), the working space gets converted on the fly to the output color space during printing. Obviously with an outside lab, you have to use Convert to Profile to save off an iteration that can be sent to the lab.

Right.  Exactly.  So if the print is being sent to an external service provider and it's being printed on an inkjet and you're confident that the lab uses a properly colour managed workflow and uses the proper paper profile in sending the image to the printer, then there's no need to convert to the paper profile.

I get the need to do it for Frontiers.  As I understand it, there's no way to invoke a profile in the printing process with a Frontier so converting to the printer profile is necessary.  I'm not familiar with Chromiras or Lamdas so dont' know if they work similarly. 
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8636



WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2010, 08:04:20 PM »
ReplyReply

As I understand it, there's no way to invoke a profile in the printing process with a Frontier so converting to the printer profile is necessary. 

No, it depends on the front end software being used.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Frankomatic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #39 on: November 08, 2010, 02:54:37 AM »
ReplyReply


digitaldog,

Thanks for being so patient.

Quote
So if the print is being sent to an external service provider and it's being printed on an inkjet and you're confident that the lab uses a properly colour managed workflow and uses the proper paper profile in sending the image to the printer, then there's no need to convert to the paper profile.

BobFisher has essentially described what happens when a working space is sent to WCI's PrintLab service, I would only add that WCI would convert such a file using Perceptual intent due to the PrintLab's automated nature.


Frank, if they tell you they will provide a profile and will allow you to use it and send them the data in the output color space, it make zero sense they tell you want rendering intent you must use. The output color space (the new RGB values) are what they are and should get sent to the device. The device has no idea what rendering intent was selected and used. Its just a big pile of new, RGB values. So if the lab tells you that you can utilize the profile, you should be able to use RelCol or Perceptual (even Saturation) if you prefer that soft proof and want to send those RGB values to the printer.
IF the lab demands sRGB or some working space and will not allow you to use the profile as you wish, we’re back to an even goofier non color management workflow where the end user has to assume that the profile will be used.

My point is that when using a Perceptual soft proof, the same big pile of new RGB numbers would be sent to the device whether I did the conversion or they did it.  At least that's how I see it, we're using the same profile, and doing the same conversion, and using the same Perceptual intent.

Another way to put it is that they offer two options for a file soft proofed with the Perceptual intent.  Either they automatically convert the file from its working space using the Perceptual intent, or I do it manually and send an untagged file and give them special instructions NOT to do the same thing automatically.



Quote
IF the lab demands sRGB or some working space and will not allow you to use the profile as you wish, we’re back to an even goofier non color management workflow where the end user has to assume that the profile will be used.

Actually you could say WCI's PrintLab service does both, as they don't "demand" a working space but offer options to send either a file with a working space -OR- an untagged file converted to the printer profile.

a) When sent a file with a working space, they will automatically convert to the proper printer profile using the Perceptual intent.

b) When sent an untagged file already converted to the printer profile, as instructed they will not convert before sending it to the printer.

I want to use a) above when soft proofing with Perceptual because I don't need to convert, store or save a special iteration in order to maintain the Perceptual intent.  And I want to use b) when soft proofing with RelCol so my file won't be automatically and inadvertently (double) profiled with the wrong (Perceptual) intent.

Regardless of how goofy this all sounds, what I need to know is "what is wrong" about sending them a file in a working space when I soft proofed using Perceptual and we know they will convert using Perpetual, and we know they will convert with the same profile I would use to convert.  Would the print not be the same regardless of who converted the file?  If not, then something is wrong and I'm just not getting it.  To me the obvious answer is to use a) when soft proofing with Perceptual simply because it's less work on my end.  However, doing the obvious did get me into a jam over rendering intents, and this color mgmt stuff is quite tricky and not as intuitive as it seems.  So, as goofy as it sounds, and as goofy as it may be to confirm the obvious for me -- would the prints not be the same? And if not, why.

Regards,
Frank
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad