Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Editing After SoftProofing?  (Read 12170 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2010, 08:32:19 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

Yes, assuming they used the same profile, CMM, BPC etc. And any hope of applying output specific edits after conversion is off the table here.

Quote
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.

I’d go Option 2. I want to fully control the conversions and post editing, I want to know that the output values are being sent to the printer that I generated.

Quote
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.

I was speaking generally of all labs, not WCI specifically in terms of best practices.

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

Again, I’d use B. And it should make no difference if I use RelCol here.

Quote
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.

That will (should) work.

Quote
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. 

What would be goofy is a lab demanding you use Perceptual for workflow B (it would make no difference). What’s super goofy is providing you a profile you can’t use.

Quote
Would the print not be the same regardless of who converted the file? 

Unless you hit a bug with some CMM (and you’d have to ask the lab what CMM they use), that option would not make a big difference. But Black Point Compensation could. If the didn’t use it and you did, there could be an issue or lets say a disconnect between you and them doing the conversions. If you wanted to post edit the image after conversion, well then you have to use option B.
Logged

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

Posts: 20


« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2010, 07:16:14 PM »
ReplyReply


That will (should) work.

Unless you hit a bug with some CMM (and you’d have to ask the lab what CMM they use), that option would not make a big difference. But Black Point Compensation could. If the didn’t use it and you did, there could be an issue or lets say a disconnect between you and them doing the conversions. If you wanted to post edit the image after conversion, well then you have to use option B.

Thank you very much digitaldog.  BTW They do use Black Point Compensation.  Now I feel more comfortable using option A, and should some sort of a disonnect arise I can always resort to using B for everything.

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

Posts: 540


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2010, 11:44:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Ok, since I'm new to printing, I need some advice here.  I thought using a lab like WHCC was a good move.  However, after reading the following two things in replies, I'm wondering if this isn't the way to go or if I should rethink things...

WHCC in my experience is not a very good lab. They're more interested in volume. They used to be better but when they switched from Kodak to Fuji paper (I think that happened around 2006ish), everything went downhill quality wise (in a very major way) and their attitude towards the user feedback they were getting was pretty poor. When that happened, a lot of wedding and portrait studios (myself included) switched over to Fotoworks whose output was much better. Around the beginning of 2008 I switched to using Pro DPI for all of my RA-4 prints (for both print sales and album printing). They use Fuji paper and their profiles are absolutely brilliant (at least in my opinion). In dealing with them they've always struck me as a lab that is more concerned with offering a quality product than they are with tons of volume.

They are Adobe RGB friendly. I believe they'll actually take any profile you throw at them (at least I seem to remember exchanging some emails with the owner to that effect... don't quote me, call 'em up to verify).

http://www.prodpi.com

Cheers, Joe
« Last Edit: November 10, 2010, 11:46:43 AM by shewhorn » Logged
Robert Boire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 16, 2010, 08:08:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Digital Dog

I am new to this thread and am trying to work my way through the more contentious (and perhaps esoteric) view points. But in the meantime you provided the link below in an earlier post in this thread which I found a really helpful concise summary.

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

Would it be possible to provide the links to the complete series?I tried to go to the source but could not easily find it.

Thanks
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9225



WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2010, 08:09:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Would it be possible to provide the links to the complete series?I tried to go to the source but could not easily find it.

They are all on my web page.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad