Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: LR Softproofing disappointment  (Read 3438 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9167



WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2013, 07:37:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Indeed...much uglier than the print.

No, much uglier than the soft proof without the simulation on. The simulation should better match the print.
Logged

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

Posts: 150


« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2013, 07:48:12 PM »
ReplyReply

No, much uglier than the soft proof without the simulation on. The simulation should better match the print.

I know I did understood your statement. However the soft proof without the simulation is a closer fit. The soft proof with the simulation is way to drab compared to the actual print.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9167



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2013, 07:50:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Could be the display calibration, the preview table of the profile, all kinds of possibilities.

You've read this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml
Logged

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

Posts: 2129


« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2013, 07:58:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Robert you do have to understand that there are certain differences that cannot be overcome when comparing the image on your monitor compared to your print.
The media are completely different, transmissive compared to reflected.
So while a close approximation is possible the print can never be identical to the monitor.

Perhaps you know of someone who prints professionally and you could observe the process and how closely the print approximates the monitor. This would allow you to 'calibrate' your experience.
The bottom line is that experience counts and at the end of the day the whole soft-proofing concept is all about getting reproducible results ie as long as you know what the result will be, based on the monitor appearance, that is all that counts.

Tony Jay
Logged
CASpyr
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 33


« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2013, 04:31:49 AM »
ReplyReply


I cannot adjust luminance (or temperature for that matter) on my "shitty display", just brightness and contrast. One of the reasons I was thinking of upgrading.


You will need to adjust luminance via the brightness setting of your monitor, but to be able to do that, you need to have a calibration software that tells you the luminance that your calibration device sees. I can't recall the details of the Spyder 2 software and whether it shows you luminance values. If not, I can recommend the Argyll CMS-based DispcalGUI (http://dispcalgui.hoech.net/) which in any case is nice and flexible.

Kind regards
Christian
Logged

----------------
Christian Spyr
RobertBoire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 150


« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2013, 05:06:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Robert you do have to understand that there are certain differences that cannot be overcome when comparing the image on your monitor compared to your print etc etc.


Thanks Tony. I totally understand this. And you are right, it would be a good idea to find a way to "calibrate" my expectations which are based largely on what I have read.

That being said, I am reasonably happy with the latest results (with the paper simulation turned off) and can only expect them to improve with a better monitor.

But I do have a question... and perhaps the Digital Dog can chime in here as well... that is more motivated by curiosity and my recent (in fact quite decent) comparison results.

My understanding is that a printer profile is based on a specific combination of printer, paper and ink. Doesn't that mean that the printer profile implicitly takes into account whatever the "simulate paper and ink" button does? If not, what is the profile profiling when the option is not selected? How can the colorimeter that is used to create the profile possibly not take the paper into account? In other words am I not in effect double counting by selecting the option ? If I need both the profile and the paper simulation, why does LR make paper simulation an option and where does it get the information from if not from the profile?

Ok that's more than one question but its all the same theme.

Thanks for your help.



Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad