Softproofing Dilemma

DP
Posted By
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 17, 2007
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

MacBook Pro 16” Mockups 🔥

– in 4 materials (clay versions included)

– 12 scenes

– 48 MacBook Pro 16″ mockups

– 6000 x 4500 px

G
gowanoh
Jan 17, 2007
My take:
The simple answer is that soft proofing does not work, particularly for inkjet printing. This observation has been made ad infinitum by many Photoshop users.
How can changes in a monitor image demonstrate in any way the physical characteristics of different papers viewed under varying reflective light sources? It is not possible and that is why you see wildly varying mismatches.
Also matte paper is harder to print reliably than glossy papers in my experience, possibly because the surface characteristics of glossy paper are more similar to a monitor than matte paper.
As you are aware color management should reliably yield a good print on the first try but not necessarily the best print. If particular papers consistently yield a slightly too dark or contrasty image then one needs to make adjustments accordingly.
If you have not already done so the Monaco Optix Xr system allows you to create custom paper profiles using a premade target and flatbed scanner. Although not as accurate as profiles made with a densitometer these are worth experimenting with as you may find them useful. I did not find any real improvement using Epson printers/papers but saw significant improvements using Canon printers/papers over the canned profiles. Your results may be different as individual perceptions vary.
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 18, 2007
Death to the dilemma! 🙂

One option I failed to take notice of and change, not knowing what it was and not investigating it, was the source of the "bad" proof colors…"Preserve RGB Numbers". That option was checked, so my out of whack proof was just Photoshop showing me approximately how my image would appear if printed without use of a media profile. Apparently the default setting in Photoshop is to have that option checked, and I had left it as so. Unchecking it, I now see a more more realistic proof representation of my prints and I can get to work on resolving other color issues.

Daryl
E
Exaspera
Jan 18, 2007
Rats! I was going to tell you that exact same thing but you beat me! Carry on. 🙂
C
chrisjbirchall
Jan 18, 2007
Rats! I was going to…

You sound Exaspera…

Hmm. Is your real name TED? 😉
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 18, 2007
Exasperating is when you write up some long post detailing various issues, to find the solution was so very simple! I’ll look more closely at ALL options next time!

🙂

Daryl
TA
Tim_Andersen
Jan 19, 2007
….not that this has anything to do with the dilemma you described…but…I couldn’t get my prints to match my monitor until I checked the paper white box, then adjusted the overall brightness to get back to the original look of the image. Until I used this method all my prints were slightly darker than the monitor.

Tim
DP
Daryl_Pritchard
Jan 19, 2007
Tim,

Thanks….while that wasn’t a factor affecting the proof view’s largely different appearance from the workspace view, it may well help me work out the brightness/contrast issues I observed in my print. At the time, I wasn’t using the softproof approach, so anything to help it be more representative of the final print is a plus. I’ll explore the paper white impacts.

Thanks again,

Daryl
BL
Bill_Lamp
Jan 19, 2007
I have a somewhat similar problem. Sony G400 CRT monitor, ColorSpyder2 Pro calibration, CS, Epson 2200, ProPhoto color space.

Out of gamot warnings until I soft proof for the paper. Then they are gone. Paper white and perceptual checked. I have looked for the nasty red spots and blotches at 100% zoom.

The print, after a couple of hours dry/cure time, is way more saturated than the soft proof screen view.

Or is this as simple as the out of gamot warning not working/not applicable under soft proof?

Thanks,
Bill

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections