Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Soft Proofing in Lightroom  (Read 2883 times)
jemsurvey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« on: April 28, 2013, 07:31:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all, need a bit of help as I'm not sure I'm going about this properly.  After making all my adjustments in Lightroom then just prior to sending to printer I soft proof with options to simulate paper and ink checked.  When I go to do a side by side comparison the before photo comes up as the imported photo before any adjustments.  In order to get a photo with adjustments to compare to I need to make a virtual copy.  Is this the way it should work?

Also I am seeing little if no difference in the before and after versions on the screen.  I am on a calibrated NEC PA271.  My test prints are printing way too yellow compared to the soft proof.  I am viewing my prints under an Ott Light, which I believe is a D65 light.

I should also mention that I am printing on both Epson Exhibition Fiber and Canson Baryta Photographique using the manufacturer's profiles on an Epson R3000.  The prints on each paper look very close to each other.

Thanks for the help,
John Marrocco
« Last Edit: April 28, 2013, 07:36:45 AM by jemsurvey » Logged
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2110


« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2013, 09:19:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all, need a bit of help as I'm not sure I'm going about this properly.  After making all my adjustments in Lightroom then just prior to sending to printer I soft proof with options to simulate paper and ink checked.  When I go to do a side by side comparison the before photo comes up as the imported photo before any adjustments.  In order to get a photo with adjustments to compare to I need to make a virtual copy.  Is this the way it should work?

Yes, if you try to make Develop adjustments while soft proofing is enabled, Lr should automatically prompt you to make a virtual copy or "proof copy".

Quote
Also I am seeing little if no difference in the before and after versions on the screen.  I am on a calibrated NEC PA271.  My test prints are printing way too yellow compared to the soft proof.  I am viewing my prints under an Ott Light, which I believe is a D65 light.

I should also mention that I am printing on both Epson Exhibition Fiber and Canson Baryta Photographique using the manufacturer's profiles on an Epson R3000.  The prints on each paper look very close to each other.

If you're getting a strong cast there's a possibility there's a glitch in your printer/paper settings (e.g., in the Print module, or in the driver settings).  Perhaps you can share the settings you're using?
Logged

Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2013, 10:47:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I often use the canned Exhibition Fibre profile, for the Epson 3800 printer and find there is a difference, but after softproofing get a decent screen to print
match but I find side by side comparisons much harder than just using the single screen comparison and repeatedly pressing the (\) backspace key to toggle between the original image and the softproofed image. This shows differences much better. If your prints are coming up different to the screen there must be a fault in your settings I think.
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1996



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2013, 11:35:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't see the value of comparing the before and after versions when soft-proofing. After all, the goal is to get the print you want, and the extent to which the proofed image is different from the original does not seem relevant. For example, when I print on EF paper, with its great Dmax and bright whites, the proofed image usually is very similar to the original. When using canvas, however, there are much more drastic changes.

If your prints are yellow, or off in any other major way, then there is almost surely some error in your calibration or workflow. You are not double-managing, perhaps (a very common error, believe me I know). This means to have both the program and the printer manage colors.On r the other, but not both!
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2013, 02:01:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I don't see the value of comparing the before and after versions when soft-proofing. After all, the goal is to get the print you want, and the extent to which the proofed image is different from the original does not seem relevant.

Surely the point of soft proofing is to add extra corrections to the image to compensate for any deficiencies in the image caused by a specific ink/paper
combination. Therefore it is important to get the original image and the soft proofed version, with extra corrections, looking as similar as possible.
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
jemsurvey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2013, 02:12:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the replies.  Prints are definitely printing too yellow from what I see on screen.  I've checked my settings and can't find anything out of order.  See below.  My monitor is calibrated for D65 white point, 2.2 gamma and 140 cd/m2 intensity.

Settings in Lightroom Print module:
Print Resolution - 720
Print Sharpening - Standard
Media Type - Glossy
Color Management:
Profile - ICC profile for paper from manufacturer (in this case Epson)
Intent - Perceptual (Get basically same result with relative)

Settings in Printer Properties Dialog:
Media Settings:
Ink - Photo Black
Media Type - Exhibition Fiber
Color - Color
Print Quality: Super Photo 5760 x 1440
                     High Speed Off
Mode - Off (No Color Adjustment)

Again, I am getting the same basic result using different papers with the respective manufacturer's profiles.  Should I consider using different calibration settings for the monitor?

Thanks again for taking the time to look at this.
John
Logged
PeterAit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1996



WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 28, 2013, 02:34:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Surely the point of soft proofing is to add extra corrections to the image to compensate for any deficiencies in the image caused by a specific ink/paper
combination. Therefore it is important to get the original image and the soft proofed version, with extra corrections, looking as similar as possible.

Yes, I see your point. That's not the way I generally work, however. I have decided that spending a lot of time getting the original image as good as it can look, without regard to printing, is a waste of effort (that's what I used to do). After all, you'll never see that "perfect" image in a print, only on your monitor. Instead, I do only the basics on the original image, things that are not dependent on printer and paper, such as cropping, spot removal, white balance. I get into all the other fine points of "development" only when I know the printing details, and then I do them in soft-proof mode. My goal is to get the best possible print for that printer/paper combination, not to match the proof to some "master" image that can never be put on paper.
Logged

Peter
"Photographic technique is a means to an end, never the end itself."
View my photos at http://www.peteraitken.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2013, 02:44:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Surely the point of soft proofing is to add extra corrections to the image to compensate for any deficiencies in the image caused by a specific ink/paper
combination.

At the very least, and maybe as visually critical is selecting the rendering intent. It's image specific! If you view this and with simulation on, you're happy, make a print. There's no rule that says you have to apply edits.
Logged

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

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #8 on: April 28, 2013, 03:14:23 PM »
ReplyReply

John,

If I were you I'd recalibrate your monitor, maybe do one at D50, and see if that works better for you. It could be that your calibration device is on the blink, possibly. You haven't mentioned what hardware/software calibration combination you are using.

Peter, While I understand what you are saying, and it may work for you, your method would drive me nuts. I always take what I see on the screen with "a pinch of salt", knowing that there will be trade off's when printing, but I prefer to have something working well on the screen before I deal with going to paper. For what it's worth though, I don't print to difficult media like canvas or matte papers, so I suffer less problems when printing.

Andrew, yes of course, although I have to say that making the choice between rendering intents is the hardest decision. A lot of the time I find there is little difference between the two, or if there is it's difficult to know which way to go. I always have a coin on hand....
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2162


« Reply #9 on: April 28, 2013, 06:37:27 PM »
ReplyReply

John,

If I were you I'd recalibrate your monitor...

Pete may be correct here but I would concentrate on looking at the luminance of your monitor.
140 cd/m2 may be OK if you are working in a very bright environment.
I personally set luminance to 95 cd/m2.
There is no one ideal luminance but I would drop yours to say 110 cd/m2 as an experiment - edit an image to taste, softproof, and then print: see what the result looks like.
Even if it is not good you will still learn from the process.

If you are way ahead on this BTW, then my apologies.
Let us know how you go.

Tony Jay
Logged
jemsurvey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2013, 04:18:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Tony and Pete, I will recalibrate and experiment some.  I'm using the Spectraview software and sensor, all new and latest versions.
Logged
Pete_G
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 236


WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2013, 07:54:13 AM »
ReplyReply

If you're using Spectraview then you are in a good place. Remake the calibrations, I agree about dropping the luminance to 110cdm. That's the setting I use.
You should be fine after a bit of experimenting.
Logged

___________________
http://www.petergoddard.org
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad