Colour managed workflow when the printer ignores ICC info

"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

I’m going to send a few JPGs off to the oft-recommended Photobox.co.uk, an online print shop. Photobox has this to say on colour management:
http://www.photobox.co.uk/quality.html#profile

Basically they print on Frontiers, which ignore any ICC info in the image. They recommend sRGB. For what I want that approach is good enough, but I’d still like my prints to look as close to my screen image as possible.

So, what workflow do I use? My monitor is calibrated with a Spyder so things should be OK my end, but I’m not sure how to prepare the images for printing. I’m thinking along the lines of soft proofing with the "device to simulate" being set to ‘sRGB IEC61966-2.1’ which I guess is what’s closest to what the Frontier machine will put out. When I’m happy I then convert the image to that same profile and do a "Save As" as a JPG file with no ICC profile. Does this sound reasonable? If not, what approach should I be using?

Your workflow will work, though It is simpler to just use sRGB as your working space for this project. Leave the profile embedded to remove any ambiguity. Include a test print imprinted with the date of the order that includes a gray ramp, and any particularly critical colors you might have to make sure you are in the right ballpark. You can use these to check the consistency of each run.

Frontiers are calibrated, its just that the default is to treat incoming images as sRGB. DryCreekPhoto has a list of Frontier profiles – if you’re lucky they may have one for photobox. They have a procedure documented on the settings that the operator must use for using the custom profile with the Frontier – IMHO this is overkill for a small result – sRGB is probably adequate for printed photographic material.
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Your workflow will work, though It is simpler to just use sRGB as your working space for this project.

Thanks for the help Mike. In fact, my working space for these photos has always been sRGB, since that’s how they came out of the camera, and that’s the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work). In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no soft proofing required – correct?

I seem to have got myself a bit confused by the simplicity of the situation… :o}

—
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

Your workflow will work, though It is simpler to just use sRGB as your working space for this project.

Thanks for the help Mike. In fact, my working space for these photos has always been sRGB, since that’s how they came out of the camera, and that’s the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work). In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no soft proofing required – correct?

Hi Derek,

It will be very close – certain colors will be changed a bit, I find particularly that deep purple/violet colors tend to go blue.

I seem to have got myself a bit confused by the simplicity of the situation… :o}

You’re not the first! Try having them printed at your local drug store to get an idea.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Derek Fountain wrote:

Your workflow will work, though It is simpler to just use sRGB as your working space for this project.

Thanks for the help Mike. In fact, my working space for these photos has always been sRGB, since that’s how they came out of the camera, and that’s the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work). In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no soft proofing required – correct?

No, unfortunately it’s not that simple. What happens is that the icc profile of the *file* is ignored, and sRGB is assumed for all files. That *doesn’t* mean however that the Frontier is an sRGB printer! It only means that all *input* is assumed to be sRGB.

If you want to see what comes out of the printer, you still need to do a soft proof of your image, with a Frontier profile. That profile could be (and probably will be) quite different from sRGB, so your soft proof will be different than what you see on screen without a soft proof.

I seem to have got myself a bit confused by the simplicity of the situation… :o}

It’s not that simple, I’m afraid.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Derek Fountain wrote:

… In fact, my working space for these photos has
always been sRGB, since that’s how they came out of the camera, and that’s the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work). In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no soft proofing required – correct?

Two potential problems are out-of-gamut colors, which the printer may not handle well, and the fact that in Photoshop you are viewing the image via your monitor’s ICC profile … if the profile is accurate then you’re in good shape, but if not then you can also get some unexpected mis-matches when you get the print back.

Bill

Bill Hilton wrote:

… In fact, my working space for these photos has
always been sRGB, since that’s how they came out of the camera, and that’s the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work). In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no soft proofing required – correct?

Two potential problems are out-of-gamut colors, which the printer may not handle well, and the fact that in Photoshop you are viewing the image via your monitor’s ICC profile … if the profile is accurate then you’re in good shape, but if not then you can also get some unexpected mis-matches when you get the print back.

A far bigger problem is that the input profile and the printer profile have nothing to do with eachother. The Frontier workflow ignores the *input profile* and assumes sRGB for everything. That doesn’t say anything about the Frontiers own color space, which could be (or could not be) very different from sRGB. And that means that there is no way you can be certain that the prints will look as they did on screen, unless you do a soft proof with a *Frontier ICC-profile*.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Derek Fountain wrote:

Your workflow will work, though It is simpler to just use sRGB as your working space for this project.

Thanks for the help Mike. In fact, my working space for these photos has always been sRGB, since that’s how they came out of the camera, and that’s the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work). In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no soft proofing required – correct?

As you can see, advice varies. There is considerable controversy over the value of soft proofing. I happen to believe a soft proof can be useful for spotting potential problems with specific intense colors, as Bill Hilton mentions. For overall brightness, shadow detail, and judgments about color aesthetics, a soft proof is not really important. Adobe RGB and sRGB are both perfectly good working spaces, and you can get excellent photographs in both.

Johan is correct about requiring a good profile for a specific Frontier to get exact results. I would add that for soft proofing, where, for example, your concern is whether a particular deep purple will look good or not, any Frontier profile will give you an idea of potential problems with particular colors.

In sorting through the advice you get here, I suggest you stick with what you can see in your work, take reasonable care in adjusting your monitor, and not worry overmuch about being perfectly calibrated. I happen to think your current sRGB workflow is ideal for the situation you describe. One of the big benefits of this is that you can reserve more of your time and money for your images.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Mike Russell wrote:

As you can see, advice varies. There is considerable controversy over the value of soft proofing. I happen to believe a soft proof can be useful for spotting potential problems with specific intense colors, as Bill Hilton mentions. For overall brightness, shadow detail, and judgments about color aesthetics, a soft proof is not really important. Adobe RGB and sRGB are both perfectly good working spaces, and you can get excellent photographs in both.

That’s correct, but that is not the point here. The point here is that whatever color space you use, the Frontier will assume it’s sRGB. In that case you *must* send them sRGB images. If you send them AdobeRGB images, the prints will look washed out, even if you tag them correctly with the AdobeRGB color profile. Yes, AdobeRGB is a perfect working space as well, but not in this Frontier workflow.

Johan is correct about requiring a good profile for a specific Frontier to get exact results. I would add that for soft proofing, where, for example, your concern is whether a particular deep purple will look good or not, any Frontier profile will give you an idea of potential problems with particular colors.

I agree, but there’s a catch here. We do know that embedded profiles are ignored and that sRGB is assumed for every image. But what happens next? Is the Frontier wokflow color managed, so are the images converted from sRGB to ‘FrontierRGB’? Or are they just sent to the printer without any conversion at all (no color management). I wouldn’t be surprised if the second option was the case. Actually, given the fact that icc-profile are ignored upon input, I would be surprised if it wasn’t. In the latter situation, it’s like you use ‘Assign Profile’ and assign the Frontier icc-profile. It may be an idea to do that, just to see how much the image will change…

In sorting through the advice you get here, I suggest you stick with what you can see in your work, take reasonable care in adjusting your monitor, and not worry overmuch about being perfectly calibrated. I happen to think your current sRGB workflow is ideal for the situation you describe. One of the big benefits of this is that you can reserve more of your time and money for your images.

It’s the *only* workflow for the situation described. But it would still be wise to get hold of a Frontier profile (I agree that any Frontier profile will do fine) just to get an idea what happens if you ‘Assign Profile’ and what happens if you ‘Convert to Profile’ (which is the same as a soft proof). Then at least you understand *WHY* your prints are different (if they are different), and *HOW* you can solve that problem next time.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Mike Russell wrote:

As you can see, advice varies. There is considerable controversy over the
value of soft proofing. I happen to believe a soft proof can be useful for
spotting potential problems with specific intense colors, as Bill Hilton mentions. For overall brightness, shadow detail, and judgments about color
aesthetics, a soft proof is not really important. Adobe RGB and sRGB are both perfectly good working spaces, and you can get excellent photographs in
both.

That’s correct, but that is not the point here. The point here is that whatever color space you use, the Frontier will assume it’s sRGB. In that case you *must* send them sRGB images. If you send them AdobeRGB images, the prints will look washed out, even if you tag them correctly with the AdobeRGB color profile. Yes, AdobeRGB is a perfect working space as well, but not in this Frontier workflow.

Absolutely – in more general terms, either sRGB or Adobe (and several others) will work fine as a working space.

Johan is correct about requiring a good profile for a specific Frontier to
get exact results. I would add that for soft proofing, where, for example,
your concern is whether a particular deep purple will look good or not, any
Frontier profile will give you an idea of potential problems with particular
colors.

I agree, but there’s a catch here. We do know that embedded profiles are ignored and that sRGB is assumed for every image. But what happens next? Is the Frontier wokflow color managed, so are the images converted from sRGB to ‘FrontierRGB’? Or are they just sent to the printer without any conversion at all (no color management). I wouldn’t be surprised if the second option was the case. Actually, given the fact that icc-profile are ignored upon input, I would be surprised if it wasn’t. In the latter situation, it’s like you use ‘Assign Profile’ and assign the Frontier icc-profile. It may be an idea to do that, just to see how much the image will change…

Absent any other information, you are correct about the alternatives. Most, if not all Frontiers are set up to use internal color management to convert before printing. There is an operator procedure discussed at the Dry Creek Photo site that allows you to bypass the normal sRGB treatment, and use the profile of the specific Frontier:
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm .

This begs the question of whether this procedure, if available, is worth the extra trouble, and increased possibility of error? IMHO probably not, hence I agree with you about providing sRGB images.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Mike Russell wrote:

I agree, but there’s a catch here. We do know that embedded profiles are ignored and that sRGB is assumed for every image. But what happens next? Is the Frontier wokflow color managed, so are the images converted from sRGB to ‘FrontierRGB’? Or are they just sent to the printer without any conversion at all (no color management). I wouldn’t be surprised if the second option was the case. Actually, given the fact that icc-profile are ignored upon input, I would be surprised if it wasn’t. In the latter situation, it’s like you use ‘Assign Profile’ and assign the Frontier icc-profile. It may be an idea to do that, just to see how much the image will change…

Absent any other information, you are correct about the alternatives. Most, if not all Frontiers are set up to use internal color management to convert before printing. There is an operator procedure discussed at the Dry Creek Photo site that allows you to bypass the normal sRGB treatment, and use the profile of the specific Frontier:
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm .
This begs the question of whether this procedure, if available, is worth the extra trouble, and increased possibility of error? IMHO probably not, hence I agree with you about providing sRGB images.

I agree. If the Frontier workflow includes the conversion from sRGB (whatever the image really is) to ‘FrontierRGB’, there is little reason to download the Frontier profile and do that yourself. There is no difference, except that you are able to see (and to influence a bit by choosing the intent) how out of gamut colors are remapped.

Just make sure you supply sRGB images, that *is* important.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com