Views
316
Replies
8
Status
Closed
Hello all,
After recently printing some photos on my Epson R1800 inkjet printer and finding them darker and less contrasty than the screen image of either my calibrated LCD or calibrated CRT, I began to explore softproofing as a way to try and assess my images prior to printing. In short, what I found was that softproofing my images against the same canned Epson media profiles that I use for printing, the proof view was markedly different than the normal workspace (AdobeRGB) view. Efforts to create a custom profile for my print media yielded very similar results for the same media type (Epson Enhanced Matte). As is, while my prints are not matching the workspace view exactly, they are still much closer to that than to the proof view. In other words, the softproof approach seems useless. Some sample images can be seen at <http://ambress.com/photoshop/softproof>.
Taking the same image file to work and viewing it on my calibrated CRT there, the proof view is still less accurate relative to the print than is the workspace view, but the proof view is better in tonality (there is a greater range of color tones) than my system at home.
So, a few questions:
1. Given two monitors, an Iiyama CRT and BenQ LCD, calibrated to a 6500°K white point and profiled using Monaco EasyColor and an OptixXR colorimeter, and given media profiles from Epson that are reportedly said to be good profiles, can anyone suggest what factors would contribute to a proof view being so different from the workspace view, where the latter is actually providing the better print matching? Visually, I would say the LCD and CRT color rendering on-screen appears very similar. I can’t fault the Epson media profiles either, since my custom-created profile yielded a similar response.
2. Given two separate PCs, each with its monitor calibrated to 6500°K with the same Monaco profiling package and with the proof view of the same image with the same media profile, what factors would contribute to a visual difference in the proof views?
From what I’ve read about softproofing, the key ingredients are an accurate monitor calibration & profile, an accurate media profile, and a properly defined workspace. My color settings are for the AdobeRGB color space, Relative Colorimetric intent, and Black Point Compenation enabled. When printing, I disable ICM in the Epson print driver, choose the desired media, and then use the Print with Preview option in Photoshop, where I specify "let Photoshop determine colors" and choose the appropriate media profile. Again I select Relative Colorimetric and set Black Point Compensation enabled; I’ve tried Perceptual intent with no significant difference, ditto for disabling Black Point Compensation.
The close photo of a whale shark in the above-referenced link is the particular photo I’m not obtaining quite the printed results I expected. However, the more colorful photo of the fish printed out with excellent results. This leads me into my last question:
3. Does an image with a narrower color range or gamut tend to be rendered more poorly in a proof view than an image with a broad color range?
Thanks,
Daryl
After recently printing some photos on my Epson R1800 inkjet printer and finding them darker and less contrasty than the screen image of either my calibrated LCD or calibrated CRT, I began to explore softproofing as a way to try and assess my images prior to printing. In short, what I found was that softproofing my images against the same canned Epson media profiles that I use for printing, the proof view was markedly different than the normal workspace (AdobeRGB) view. Efforts to create a custom profile for my print media yielded very similar results for the same media type (Epson Enhanced Matte). As is, while my prints are not matching the workspace view exactly, they are still much closer to that than to the proof view. In other words, the softproof approach seems useless. Some sample images can be seen at <http://ambress.com/photoshop/softproof>.
Taking the same image file to work and viewing it on my calibrated CRT there, the proof view is still less accurate relative to the print than is the workspace view, but the proof view is better in tonality (there is a greater range of color tones) than my system at home.
So, a few questions:
1. Given two monitors, an Iiyama CRT and BenQ LCD, calibrated to a 6500°K white point and profiled using Monaco EasyColor and an OptixXR colorimeter, and given media profiles from Epson that are reportedly said to be good profiles, can anyone suggest what factors would contribute to a proof view being so different from the workspace view, where the latter is actually providing the better print matching? Visually, I would say the LCD and CRT color rendering on-screen appears very similar. I can’t fault the Epson media profiles either, since my custom-created profile yielded a similar response.
2. Given two separate PCs, each with its monitor calibrated to 6500°K with the same Monaco profiling package and with the proof view of the same image with the same media profile, what factors would contribute to a visual difference in the proof views?
From what I’ve read about softproofing, the key ingredients are an accurate monitor calibration & profile, an accurate media profile, and a properly defined workspace. My color settings are for the AdobeRGB color space, Relative Colorimetric intent, and Black Point Compenation enabled. When printing, I disable ICM in the Epson print driver, choose the desired media, and then use the Print with Preview option in Photoshop, where I specify "let Photoshop determine colors" and choose the appropriate media profile. Again I select Relative Colorimetric and set Black Point Compensation enabled; I’ve tried Perceptual intent with no significant difference, ditto for disabling Black Point Compensation.
The close photo of a whale shark in the above-referenced link is the particular photo I’m not obtaining quite the printed results I expected. However, the more colorful photo of the fish printed out with excellent results. This leads me into my last question:
3. Does an image with a narrower color range or gamut tend to be rendered more poorly in a proof view than an image with a broad color range?
Thanks,
Daryl
Related Tags
MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥
– in 4 materials (clay versions included)
– 12 scenes
– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups
– 6000 x 4500 px