Ad
Ad
Ad
Poll
Question: Is soft proofing effective?
No, never use it - 1 (1.1%)
Sometimes - 18 (19.4%)
Better than no SP not a match - 18 (19.4%)
Yes, always use it - 51 (54.8%)
Just make a print! - 5 (5.4%)
Total Voters: 92

Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Soft proofing doesnít work  (Read 29879 times)
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739


WWW
« Reply #100 on: February 26, 2011, 06:49:21 AM »
ReplyReply

You know this for sure?

And I might add not all the photographic printers they invest tons of money in are so "high-end".
Mark, you can see the Epson 3rd quarter report here.  They state "unit shipments were hurt by fierce competition in Asia. In the business printer category, unit shipments of large-format printers grew, in large part due to the effects of new products for the signage market in North America."  You can go through the exercise of seeing what % of total corporate sales printers were (I'm too lazy to do so since this is really not a company I'm interested in investing in for a variety of reasons).  They also note that consumer printers are subject to extraordinary price competition (no surprise there) and that their sales fell.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #101 on: February 26, 2011, 08:09:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark, you can see the Epson 3rd quarter report here.  They state "unit shipments were hurt by fierce competition in Asia. In the business printer category, unit shipments of large-format printers grew, in large part due to the effects of new products for the signage market in North America."  You can go through the exercise of seeing what % of total corporate sales printers were (I'm too lazy to do so since this is really not a company I'm interested in investing in for a variety of reasons).  They also note that consumer printers are subject to extraordinary price competition (no surprise there) and that their sales fell.

Alan, we're getting way OT, but just as a footnote, one quarter or even one year isn't necessarily determinative of anything. Epson is part of Seiko and they've been in this game for the long term. That doesn't look likely to change any time soon.
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
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739


WWW
« Reply #102 on: February 26, 2011, 10:53:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, we're getting way OT, but just as a footnote, one quarter or even one year isn't necessarily determinative of anything. Epson is part of Seiko and they've been in this game for the long term. That doesn't look likely to change any time soon.
I'll conclude by agreeing with you.  I think HP is much more in danger of exiting this market than either Epson or Canon.
Logged

Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1450



WWW
« Reply #103 on: February 26, 2011, 11:01:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll conclude by agreeing with you.  I think HP is much more in danger of exiting this market than either Epson or Canon.

HP is currently #1 in water based LF unit sales, ahead of Canon (2) and Epson (3)
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #104 on: February 26, 2011, 12:09:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Either we live in an environment which tolerates and facilitates open inquiry or we don't, and if we don't we are that much the worse off for it - the Cave Man mentality ...

Hereís a caveman attitude found on the blog post that started this (http://lightroomkillertips.com/2011/did-you-know-lightroom-can-soft-proof/#comments):

Quote
RC February 24, 2011 at 9:14 am:
250-300cd/m2
*eyes roll into the back of his head and foam comes out the mouth*
*Thud*

Geeze, youíd think this guy could calibrate his display and RTFM in order to educate himself about the scale used for luminance but apparently thatís so difficult it makes foam come out of his (or others as he suggests) mouths. Its not enough these guys have zero curiosity as to why some of their members have difficulties with soft proofing (while even the poll on their forms show most do not). Or that they have zero interest in understanding how a tool thatís been in Photoshop since 1998 works. Now just learning about a different scale of measurement makes at least one guruís eyes roll into the back of his head. What a role model for an educator!
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 03:17:06 PM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author ďColor Management for PhotographersĒ
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #105 on: February 26, 2011, 12:27:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Hereís a caveman attitude found on the blog post that started this (http://lightroomkillertips.com/2011/did-you-know-lightroom-can-soft-proof/#comments):

Geeze, youíd think this guy could calibrate his display and RTRF in order to educate himself about the scale used for luminance but apparently thatís so difficult it makes foam come out of his (or others as he suggests) mouths. Its not enough these guys have zero curiosity as to why some of their members have difficulties with soft proofing (while even the poll on their forms show most do not). Or that they have zero interest in understanding how a tool thatís been in Photoshop since 1998 works. Now just learning about a different scale of measurement makes at least one guruís eyes roll into the back of his head. What a role model for an educator!

OMG, what kind of confused discussion is that? He's (talking about Matt's original comment and responses) got previewing sharpening mixed-up with softproofing, whereas in fact the one has NOTHING to do with the other. He likes his display real bright because he doesn't do much printing with it and wants his iTunes and video games to be snappy; well fine as far as that goes - but beside the point - the issue here is the display brightness appropriate in the context of printing. And because soft-proofing doesn't help resolve the "prints too dark" issue or the sharpening issue which are the two things he says most people care about most of the time, soft-proofing isn't too useful *for him* - well maybe it would be better to discuss softproofing in the context of what it is meant to resolve for the people who want to resolve it, rather than what it isn't meant to resolve and relative to those people who aren't interested in really predictable printing. But he was honest enough to recognize that these are his own opinions and he did recognize that other peoples' MMV. Nothing wrong in that, but what is disturbing is the muddled thinking in terms of logic, context and relevance. People who have trouble with reading between the lines and doing some independent thinking may be tempted to set aside both proper display calibration and soft-proofing simply because of a prominent instructor's say-so, no matter how contorted the underlying thought processes leading to those conclusions. Then when they get crappy prints, they'll start new threads in places like this wondering what on earth could be wrong. Sigh.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 12:53:50 PM by Mark D Segal » 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
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1739


WWW
« Reply #106 on: February 26, 2011, 12:43:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Hereís a caveman attitude found on the blog post that started this (http://lightroomkillertips.com/2011/did-you-know-lightroom-can-soft-proof/#comments):

Geeze, youíd think this guy could calibrate his display and RTRF in order to educate himself about the scale used for luminance but apparently thatís so difficult it makes foam come out of his (or others as he suggests) mouths. Its not enough these guys have zero curiosity as to why some of their members have difficulties with soft proofing (while even the poll on their forms show most do not). Or that they have zero interest in understanding how a tool thatís been in Photoshop since 1998 works. Now just learning about a different scale of measurement makes at least one guruís eyes roll into the back of his head. What a role model for an educator!
My read of the quote is that RC is agreeing with you!!!  It was his only post on the thread and I think he was mocking others.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #107 on: February 26, 2011, 12:54:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I think RC was just being tongue-in-cheek - trying to defuse a hot discussion.
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
Anthony.Ralph
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #108 on: February 26, 2011, 02:32:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm not so sure... RC Conception is a work colleague of Matt Kloskowski's and a co-presenter of various Kelby TV shows and I think it unlikely he would openly disagree in that way on a public forum.

Anthony.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #109 on: February 26, 2011, 02:46:31 PM »
ReplyReply

You may well be correct; the comment can be interpreted a number of ways - hard to know for sure.
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
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #110 on: February 26, 2011, 03:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I think RC was just being tongue-in-cheek - trying to defuse a hot discussion.

He said the same thing on the NAPP forums and is the guy in Florida I referred to. He is defending Matt for Matt on the forums. The behavior is, you disagree with one of the choir members, someone else there comes out of the woodwork and tells you that you are baiting the issue, or you are forcing the issue etc. I was told the poll here was created to push my agenda, that Lula is a website dedicated to talking about the things I care about, that only 66 people at the time replied to the poll so in essence, the poll itself is meaningless and a vehicle for me to ďforce color management on peopleĒ. IOW, donít rock the boat, donít ask questions (donít question authority or the religion). Now it seems that even posting to the blog is moderated (my last post today, explaining how cd/m2 isnít necessarily the cause for eyes rolling into your head isnít being posted). So now censorship has reared its ugly head. Basically this blog is a vehicle to propose personal ideas and marketing, you can vocally agree with the blog post, but donít dare question or ask if the opinions are scientifically sound.

I donít think its my place to copy and past RCís comments towards me here but I can assure you, its not tongue-in-cheek. His posture is rather nasty, he seems to have no desire to discuss this subject in any kind of scientific or constructive way. Its all a defensive stance and I donít understand why he feels he needs to go this route. If he can demonstratively show how and why SP doesnít work (for him or others), Iím willing to go there. My experience so far with a number of these guys is, they simply donít want to investigate this topic. Their minds are made it and trying to help them get past what I believe are technical issues (like driving your display 100%, improper calibration targets, deciding that using a metric like cd/m2 is just too difficult), isnít on their agenda. I canít explain what appears to be the anti-soft proof, color management agenda. I donít see how that is helpful.

FWIW, I when pushed about why I keep discussing this, I made it clear I do have a mission statement, one thatís been on my web site since 1995: The Digital Dog is devoted to the understanding and adoption of color management. There are some members that are having SP difficulties and Iíd be willing to assist in helping them. But the blow back is an issue.

Iím kind of embarrassed to be a member of NAPP, and need to seriously consider renewing my membership after nearly 5 years. Although Iíll miss the community and members Iíve encountered over the years. There are some great people there.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author ďColor Management for PhotographersĒ
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #111 on: February 26, 2011, 03:16:12 PM »
ReplyReply

My read of the quote is that RC is agreeing with you!!!  It was his only post on the thread and I think he was mocking others.

Expect last week on the NAPP forums where the SP poll resides, he said his personal hypothesis is that most people's eyes roll into the back of their head when talk of Colorimeters, Soft Proofing, ICC, Gamut, and Gamma appears. So no, heís simply taking that closed forum post to the blog. Heís baiting me <g>.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author ďColor Management for PhotographersĒ
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #112 on: February 26, 2011, 03:41:17 PM »
ReplyReply

FWIW, I when pushed about why I keep discussing this, I made it clear I do have a mission statement, one thatís been on my web site since 1995: The Digital Dog is devoted to the understanding and adoption of color management. There are some members that are having SP difficulties and Iíd be willing to assist in helping them. But the blow back is an issue.

Iím kind of embarrassed to be a member of NAPP, and need to seriously consider renewing my membership after nearly 5 years. Although Iíll miss the community and members Iíve encountered over the years. There are some great people there.

I wouldn't give up membership over this one issue just because a few of their staff don't get it. In your position, however, if they are censoring blogposts, it's bad and they deserve to know that. Better to push for correct behaviour from within than to walk out and *lose the baby with the bathwater*. You may recall similar issues with one other forum - in that case the prospects for reason and reasonableness became utterly hopeless; but this is a much bigger and far more diversed show, nowhere near that point. As you say, lots of good people and good stuff there. Just work on them gently - maybe you'll get them to start soft-proofing one of these days - if they ever make prints!  :-)
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #113 on: February 26, 2011, 03:58:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Expect last week on the NAPP forums where the SP poll resides, he said his personal hypothesis is that most people's eyes roll into the back of their head when talk of Colorimeters, Soft Proofing, ICC, Gamut, and Gamma appears. So no, heís simply taking that closed forum post to the blog. Heís baiting me <g>.

Not a reason to keep people in the Cave. What's the poll on that site showing? Should be possible to determine objectively how much rolling of eyes there is.
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
jedbest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


« Reply #114 on: February 26, 2011, 05:18:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Not to add fuel to the fire but has anyone view Matt's tutorial on Kelby Training about sharpening. He seems to spend alot of time discussing just smart sharpen and not helping to define what to look for when doing creative or output sharpening. Maybe it is that the NAPP group don't print very much nor worry about the extra improvement soft proofing and shrpening workflow can provide.

Just my 2 cents.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 08:06:30 PM by jedbest » Logged
jpegman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 111



« Reply #115 on: February 26, 2011, 07:21:07 PM »
ReplyReply

On Feb 10th Matt K wrote:
"The whole brightness/calibration thingÖ my issue with it is that if you calibrate your monitor and set your brightness where it should be (so that the print looks like your screen) then you end up setting your brightness on your screen to around 20-40%. I donít know about you, but I like my bright screen. See, I donít print for a living. My guess is that not many people following this blog do. I email, surf the web, creative videos, write articles, surf iTunes, etcÖ on my computer. I donít want to set (and I think most people donít either) my monitor brightness down for something I only do once in a while. I paid a lot of money for a nice bright screen. I like the way it looks. So Iíd rather do a test print to get the print to look right, rather than reduce my whole computer experience. Thatís just me though Smiley"

I don't think you can argue with Matt K. premise - just that he doesn't remind everyone of his specifics when he makes a global statement as he did in the blog opening on on Feb 9th "The main issues that I hear when it comes to printing revolve around a) the prints being too dark and, b) not being able to proof your output sharpening. Well, soft proofing doesnít really solve either of these. But you know what does? A test print Smiley"

1) Don't know where Matt ever thought print output sharpening has ever been connected to soft proofing, 
2) Under his typical monitor use conditions limited to "email, surf the web, creative videos, write articles, surf iTunes, etc, as well as assuming "not many people following his blog (print) and he himself only prints "once in a while", then maybe a bright screen for his non-printing monitor use 99% of the time makes perfect sense, as does his rare printing not need soft proofing.

If one doesn't print, then one does not need soft proofing, and why not enjoy his bright monitor in his (probably) bright PC room - so he can see the screen better.

So it seems to me the original argument (Feb 9th) was taken out of context, since Matt presumed (Feb 10th) that both he and his blog followers don't or very infrequently print, so why worry about soft proofing, when a hard proof is rarely even needed for the even rare print.

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #116 on: February 26, 2011, 07:39:04 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't think you can argue with Matt K. premise

Ah, sure you can. I have superb print to display match, driving my SpectraView at 150cd/m2. And that settings is just fine, no issues what so ever, viewing other content. Web, video, text editing, everything!

Maybe Mattís too young to have worked on CRT displays where new, out of the box, you might be hard pressed to hit anything over 95cd/m2. The world didnít come to an end and people didnít complain even 5 years ago that such displays were too dim to surf the web or view videos.

Assuming he really is driving a modern LCD at 100%, thatís got to be a good 250cd/m2. Its a waste of energy, it ensures the display will wear out much faster, its unnecessary. His idea that anyone needs to drive a modern LCD at 100% is bogus.

Quote
If one doesn't print, then one does not need soft proofing, and why not enjoy his bright monitor in his (probably) bright PC room - so he can see the screen better.

For the reasons Iíve expressed above.

Quote
So it seems to me the original argument (Feb 9th) was taken out of context, since Matt presumed (Feb 10th) that both he and his blog followers don't or very infrequently print, so why worry about soft proofing, when a hard proof is rarely even needed for the even rare print.

Print infrequently or never? His stance, clearly outlined on the blog is, just make a print. If its off, adjust and make another. Sounds like someone who either hardly ever prints (hence take the advise with a grain of salt) or someone who never needs to pay for paper and ink (in which case, take the advise with a grain of salt).

And his comment twice on the blog that soft proofing doesnít ďsolveĒ or help the prints are too dark issue, completely fails to recognize that the issue is improper display calibration! Or maybe he doesnít even calibrate his display. That make more sense based on his take on how displays and prints correlate.

Anyone that suggests and recommends they drive their LCD at max brightness is about as irresponsible as someone recommending you turn your water heater up as high as it will go (then taking a hot shower) or driving on the highway as fast as the car will go. Just because you can, its probably a very bad idea that you do.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 07:57:04 PM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author ďColor Management for PhotographersĒ
http://digitaldog.net/
davidh202
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 586


« Reply #117 on: February 26, 2011, 08:10:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't know how highly regarded Rob Sheppard is in the printing world, I haven't been into 'digital' long enough to be familiar with him but,I mentioned this before and will quote his comments on the subject, taken from page 64 of his "New Epson Complete Guide To Digital printing which was released a few months ago. He states...

 "Make a work print"
   "As discussed earlier in the book,a print is a very different animal from an image on a monitor.You must judge what a print needs by looking at the print as it's own entity,rather than simply comparing it to the monitor.I really part company with some of the more computer oriented folks on this subject.They believe all you need to do is soft proofing on the computer and that prints are not necessary.I do not believe it is possible to get the best possible image without making a print to evaluate.
    I think it is unfortunate too that the internet breeds a certain cynicism that is not always based on real-world experience. There is an idea out there that making more prints is just a sell out to Epson so they can make more money. This is a disservice to photographers who really want to go beyond a good print to a magnificent print.The historically great printers such as Ansel Adams and W.Eugene Smith, would sometimes make hundreds of prints until they got one they liked,refining each print one at a time.
   You don't need to make a multitude of prints because you can evaluate an image on the monitor,but you cannot use the monitor as your ultimate judge of a photo without at least some work prints.After looking at your prints,you will be able to refine your earlier adjustments to make an even better print."

I take his statement as meaning, in essence...
As with other endeavors in life, it really depends on just how far you want to go to achieve something close to "perfection"
I don't take his statement as meaning that "soft proofing doesn't work" but rather don't depend solely upon it .
« Last Edit: February 26, 2011, 08:14:14 PM by davidh202 » Logged
jedbest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 352


« Reply #118 on: February 26, 2011, 08:17:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Perhaps it would have been appropriate for Matt to state if true, that he does not print often. Otherwise it seems a bit irresponsible not to notify those that take his advise that there are other methods that have benefits, ie soft proofing. Even if you make test prints, soft proofing gets you closer to the final product faster and reduces the number of prints that are necessary and the subsequent ink usage.

It is as if a surgeon dismisses a technique that he/she needs to discuss with a patient just because that surgeon doesn't use it. That would be a violation of informed consent and if you are teaching, is there not a responsibility to discuss all relevant issues and not dismiss them. If you give your opinion when teaching you still must list the pros/cons of all available techniques and allow the participant decide what is best for them.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #119 on: February 26, 2011, 08:20:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, make a work print (or maybe its the final print). It does allow you to see the proof (the proof is in the print). It shows you the sharpening which we canít Ďsoft proofí.

I donít think anyone is suggesting you not make a print (work or final). The question is, does soft proofing eliminate a lot of guess work? In fact, how do you even decide a rendering intent without a soft proof?

Why calibrate the display? Ask Matt or RC. Color management is totally unnecessary if you believe that one edits and prints until a desired print appearance is produced. Thereís zero reason to calibrate the display or even use output profiles. Just alter the RGB values until you get something on print you like.
Quote
I don't take his statement as meaning that "soft proofing doesn't work" but rather don't depend solely upon it .

Iíd agree, its not something to solely depend upon.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author ďColor Management for PhotographersĒ
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad