There have been some interesting discussions about icc based color management and workflow latey and range of different viewpoints on what the objectives of color management are, both by design and in practical usage.
I come from a background of working with conventional color separation and CYMK offset printing for over 25 years before ever owning a digital camera which captured RGB files. There was color management back in those days, but it took the form of everyone making proofs with the same ink and paper or pre-press proofing systems and viewing those proofs under the same controlled 5000K viewing conditions. Early computer-based color was entirely print-centric with 5000K. 1.8 gamma Radius ColorMatch monitors the de facto standard.
The introduction the icc profile based color management in the mid-1990s occurred at the same time as graphic web browsers revolutionized the Internet, which like color management had been in existence since the 1970s but in a different form. The segment of graphic arts doing magazine and other offset printing remained Macintosh print centric with a CYMK / ColorMatch 5000K "match the press" workflow, but there was a new need to also distribute information on the web, then as now a mostly PC sRGB environment. Color separations prepared in the print-centric Mac-based workflow did not display correctly on a browser running on a PC. The icc profile based ColorSync color management introduced to the Mac OS in 1992 was the ideal solution, but not one which was easily understood or effectively implemented. I recall a great deal of reluctance in the printing segment of graphic arts upgrading from PS4 to PS5 because of the way profile based color management had been implemented as a default. Also from the perspective of the color separator and printer still working with transparencies and CYMK workflow what they had been using - matching monitor to press sheet - wasn't broken and didn't need to be fixed.
Why the history lesson? Because it reveals that digital photography, which was still in its infancy eally had no role at all in the development and early implementation of color management. Early RGB based workflows came primarily from transparencies scanned on CCD based scanners, not cameras. Profiling tools like the IT8 targets came in photo print and transparencies version on Kodak and Fuji products for profiling scanners.
Proofing had always been an expensive and time consuming process, but a vital one from a communication point of view. Its rare that anything gets printed on an offset press without the person paying the bill viewing and signing off on a proof. The proof was made by the separator or printer from the same film used to make the press plates is a way which simulated the production press where there would be as much as 20% dot gain and a host of other chemical and mechanical variables. All that really mattered was how the color in the magazine ad looked and the proof predicted outcome. The proof was both communication and contract between the parties.
One of the early promises of icc based color management was the elimination of hard proofs, at least in the preliminary stages. By putting the profile of the printer/paper combination in the icc color management electronic workflow a "soft proof" simulation of the output can be created on screen: Lab = translation space
The arbitary RRR.GGG.BBB values are first mapped to Lab coordinates, then to the gamut the CYMK ink and paper can produce, back into Lab coordinates, which are then mapped back into RGB values per the monitor profile.
At this point some I'm sure some may asking why the heck you'd want to do that. The answer is simple: regardless on how rich the color is on the screen, that is how the print will look by direct comparison.
What the icc color management has done is remap the maximum color values the screen can display to the maximum color values the ink and paper can reproduce. Nothing can make the print look any better. The soft proof is simply predicting and communicating the actual outcome in advance. It has the net effect of lowering expectations and reducing unrealistic "Why doesn't my print match my monitor". The soft proof looks dreadful by comparison with the original screen image but the thing to also realize is that color vision is so adaptive that if you never actually directly compare print to screen the print will actually look fine - PERCEPTIONALLY That is the magic and genius of icc based color management; anticipating how human perception will adapt to different output media.
Its a given most screen images will lose saturation and contrast when printed. A soft proof will show how much so other things, like increasing the internal contrast with the middle slider or levels or applying a bit more USM can be done to compensate. How accurate and useful a soft proof is depends on how accurate the printer profile is, the gamut of the monitor (i.e. a high end AdobeRGB gamut monitor will show more of the colors the ink can print) and how well the icc process works.
This isn't a pro- anti- poll. I'm doing it simply because my impression from discussing color management is that photographers don't use soft proofing much. So please vote whether you do or not and if you do use soft proofing please share the details such as: type of photos (i.e. portraits / landscapes / nature), working space gamut, type of printer and any other information you'd like to share.
I do all of our file prep for any sort of printing and soft proof extensively before the actual printing. Depending on the destination, I will either export from Aperture and work with 8-bit TIFFs in aRGB (for WHCC as a destination) or 16-bit TIFFs in ProPhoto RGB (for the home printer as a destination). If someone purchases digital files from us, they receive them as JPEGs in sRGB because we're assuming they have no understanding at all of color management unless they say otherwise. It's safer.
We have ICC profiles for every printer/paper combination we use and all prints come from only one computer/monitor pair, keeping everything consistent. I can't recall which printers WHCC uses offhand, but that can be looked up. Here we have a Canon Pro9500, which produces very good results but someday I would like something that can hold more ink.
Photo types printed include portraits/weddings, landscapes, nature, and action sports.
One other thing that caught me up a bit at first is HOW the soft proofing conversion is made. It has to match the rendering intent used by whoever prints the file or it will be off. WHCC uses relative colorimetric with black point compensation so for them I use that. Here I will sometimes proof in both that and perceptual (with black point compensation off) to see which looks better and use whichever.
I always use the same paper and printer, so I just leave my proof setup on all the time. I rarely encounter out of gamut colors, and the prints are pretty much identical to the screen except for intense oranges, which are over saturated in print.
I shoot landscapes/wildlife, and have been using an epson 4800 (have a 7880 on the way) and print on Harman glossy FB Al.
I'm with you floris... Except for some predictable differences like the orange in your case, I just leave it alone. Such restricting pigments and inks are gladly lost and forgotten in these modern times.
I have found that for portrait work my screen and prints match very closely. Even if I duplicate the image, and apply softproofing for my paper type on one of them, the difference is so minimal there is no need to try and correct it. So I no longer soft proof portrait work.
I soft proof all of my landscape work, and have found it to be very useful. How well it matches the screen varies greatly depending on image type and paper type ... I find it more difficult to use with mat papers, but it is still helpful.
Typically when ready to soft proof I duplicate my image so I have what I want next to what I am about to print, and if I feel I need to make some corrections because the printed version appears it will drift too far out of acceptable tolerance, I create a new group, name it the paper type, and create adjustment layers to match as closely as possible the image I created.
Because most of my landscapes are printed large and on expensive paper such as Epson Exhibition Fiber, I always print a sample print on Epson Premium Luster. On most images the two papers are similar enough that once I like the Luster version, the EEF version will be good. But before printing on the EEF, I always duplicate the image, use soft proofing set to Luster Paper on one, soft proofing set to the EEF on the other to try to predict how the EEF might be different, and if necessary make some adjustments to bring the EEF closer to what I want.
I have never printed on anything other than photographic paper and high end inkjet, so I have no experience in the CMYK world. I would assume it would be even more valuable.
I believe there is an art to soft proofing ... I think some people are wired in a way their brain can get more out of it than others - they not only see what the display shows, but their brain can translate that into a real world benefit more than other people. It could be a background such as Chuck's helps here. I will admit that while I use soft proofing and believe it is a good tool, I do not feel I am that skilled at it.
Adobe really needs to take Gamut Warning out back and shoot it so it stops coming back from the dead.
But the press inks can't reproduce those rich purples. Apply the press profile (in this case an 8/C HP printer on premium gloss paper) the soft proofing reveals what the printed output will look like with all the out of gamut colors grayed-out
Gamut warning, rather than soft proofing, does they greying-out. Gamut warning hasn't done much since good soft proofing appeared circa Photoshop 6—it doesn't show you anything. As soon as you turn on soft proofing, anything that's out of gamut is mapped into gamut, preserving the color relationships according to the rendering intent you've chosen. Assuming you're working in a color-managed workflow (or converting your source images to the destination space), in other words there are no out-of-gamut colors. And by and large, the color conversion engines do a far better job mapping OOG colors than a human being can do by hand.
The gamut warning is operating on the pre-conversion data, and when combined with soft proofing only shows you colors that were out of gamut. If your profiles are valid, what's on the screen is what's coming out of the printer or off the press; there's no need to tweak formerly-OOG colors unless you don't like the way the color engine did the conversion.
For most Photoshop users in 2008, gamut warning is akin to your appendix: Vestigial, with the potential for causing great harm. There's a reason it defaults to being turned off.
My experience / understanding doesn't track with your take on the OOGW.
The underlying RGB image values not change when soft proofing is turned on as in my example above. The CYMK profile alters the image, the OOGW grey out showning me where the RGB gamut will be clipped by the printer. For example her face didn't get grayed out because it was in gamut both in the working space and printer. I think its value is providing a clue which working space colors are OOG, especially when using a working space larger than the monitor gamut where you can actually see the change.
The bottom image without the gray still has the OOGW turned on, but as I reduced saturation in blues, changing the underlying RGB file values, the OOGW gradually disappeared. Its analogous to the over-exposure warning in the playback of a camera: as you correct the condition the warning goes away. Once the RGB file is at that state, compensating measures can be taken such as bumping up the mid-tones. Sometimes when that is done it will push the RGB file values to the point where they are out of the printer gamut again and the OOGW appears again. Of course the altered RGB file is not longer suitable for screen display but when sent to the printer there will be out-of-gamut colors for the CMM to remap if photoshop is managing the colors and no remapping in the printer if it manages color.
Colin nailed it. I'm surprised that gamut warning made it into CS4 ... I have heard there are many at Adobe that want to remove it because they feel since soft proofing it's pretty useless. I guess it's hard to take anything out because of legacy users, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's gone when CS5 shows up.
cgardner wrote:
the OOGW grey out showning me where the RGB gamut will be clipped by the printer.
Chuck
I think the term "clipped" is misleading - maybe you didn't mean it literally. The grey colors are not clipped, they are the colors that are out gamut and thus need to be pushed in. You don't know how far out of gamut they are, just that they are out. Obviously the grayed out colors are not just pushed into a single color - which would be the equivalent of clipping. And they are not the only colors changed ... most of the colors in the image will be changed when remapping into a new space, both in gamut and out of gamut colors.
Using the gamut warning and then adjusting your image to eliminate the gamut warning is doing color management manually. While you can use curves and other tools to push everything into gamut yourself, it would take considerable skill to do it well, not to mention all of the extra time to do this with every image. The OOGW doesn't even help you know how far out of gamut. So as you start shoving things in, lots of colors are affected, and some of that can easily be detrimental.
I would just prefer to let the profile do its job, and map the colors of my image into the output space, using the rendering intent of choice, trying to preserve the relationships of color and luminosity. By softproofing you see an attempt at what the result of all this would be. If you have proof colors enabled there are no longer any out of gamut colors. Easy to demonstrate for any that are curious. With an image containing out of gamut colors, enable soft proofing using an output profile and rendering intent. Enable both proof colors and gamut warning, and you get a bunch of grey showing the colors that are out of gamut. Now select convert to profile and select the same output profile and rendering intent as the proof setup. Grey is gone. Toggle the preview button ... grey is back.
I don't use it as I rarely print anything other than with a frontier which doesn't really print less than my sRGB work shows.
However could I ask a question? Why not leave SP turned on throughout the processing so you are always working with the final image in mind and never having to go back and tweak after you've done all the hard work?
Beni wrote:
However could I ask a question? Why not leave SP turned on throughout the processing so you are always working with the final image in mind and never having to go back and tweak after you've done all the hard work?
Some do - I believe that is what floris said. This would assume you are only interested in the results of one output space, such as one printer/paper type, both now and in the future.
But tweaking it isn't a big deal ... on some paper types the difference between screen and soft proof is imperceptible, no need to tweak. On others maybe it is, but the soft proof image still looks just fine (maybe better). I've found that images that look dramatically different when soft proofed aren't going to match the output very well anyway (not saying that is a general problem, just how it works for me), so sometimes I would prefer tweaking the file based on the final output. Most of the time whatever tweaks are needed are consistent ... for example Epson Exhibition Fiber always looks a little darker when soft proofed, and an adjustment layer set to screen at 5% opacity corrects it perfectly, both on screen the final print.
Recently at Photoshop World I attended several classes that had some information about soft proofing, and it is obvious the opinions on color management and soft proofing are pretty wildly varied. Andrew Rodney teaches it by the book, Jeff Schewe is a firm believer and quite good at it. Noted landscape photographer Stephen Johnson teaches and practices sound color management, but says soft proofing is a waste of time, the only way to get exactly what you want is print test prints and adjust accordingly. Finally Randy Hufford, who is mainly involved in art reproduction not only believes in it but teaches to get real accuracy you have to tweak you monitor profile to match your viewing conditions.
Interesting that Aspen Creek, WCI's "consumer" print service, recommends against it and puts the premium on calibrating/profiling the monitor. And WCI tends to have pretty good profiles.
"Noted landscape photographer Stephen Johnson teaches and practices sound color management, but says soft proofing is a waste of time, the only way to get exactly what you want is print test prints and adjust accordingly. Finally Randy Hufford, who is mainly involved in art reproduction not only believes in it but teaches to get real accuracy you have to tweak you monitor profile to match your viewing conditions"
You need to have three things in order for soft proofing to work well. The first is to have great, not just good monitor calibration and profiling. This means understanding all of the parameters that are involved and using the best monitors and calibration hardware and software.
Second, you need output profiles that are just as good. Most of the time this means making your own custom profiles and knowing how and where to look for bugs in the software and edit them out when necessary. If you're printing to any kind of inkjet, custom profiles are the only way to do. Manufacturers canned profiles are better than they used to be but they're still not good enough if you are hypercritical. If you are printing to U.S. magazines, you can generally get away with using Adobe's SWOPv2 profile after check that the publication actually prints to SWOP. Unfortunately, those Adobe profiles only come with a medium black generation and often you need to alter that. If you have ColorLab and ProfileMaker, it's no problem.
Thirdly, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it here - you need to have the proper viewing conditions. In prepress houses this usually means a MacBeth or Just/Normlicht D-50 light booth. Inkjets need to have a broader spectrum illumination to view properly, so you either need to use D-50 Tungsten or a lighting combo that includes both fluorescent and tungsten in tandem. The best inexpensive light source for photographers seems to be the Solux tungsten lamp.
When you combine all three factors together, you should be able to have an extremely accurate soft proofing environment. If you don't, the chances are that at least one of these is less than optimal.
Peter Figen wrote:
Thirdly, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned it here - you need to have the proper viewing conditions. ... Inkjets need to have a broader spectrum illumination to view properly, so you either need to use D-50 Tungsten or a lighting combo that includes both fluorescent and tungsten in tandem. The best inexpensive light source for photographers seems to be the Solux tungsten lamp.
Not only is it really not mentioned here, many that teach color management cover it briefly ... they pretty much just say have a good viewing set up.
Randy Hufford teaches and emphasizes (correctly in my opinion) with out a good viewing station soft proofing will be hit and miss. He adds one step ... he believes if you set up everything correctly, to get a near perfect match you will probably have to tweak your monitor profile (since it is the only thing that can be adjusted).
This is heresy to some, but quite some time ago I was frustrated that my prints just sort of matched, so I made a few monitor profiles varying the gamma and white balance, and found that a 2.1g and a 6100k white point monitor profile matched my prints almost perfectly in contrast and color.
Probably a better solution might be modifying my viewing station ... It's a standard PDV from gti. I've never heard about the problem with this type of light source and inkjet printers that you mentioned, so maybe my alternative monitor profile settings are just helping make up for a less than adequate viewing station. I would be interested in more information as to why inkjet exhibits this problem.
I come from printing where a 5000K viewing environment was the the main form of color management. We did all critical color evaluation in light booths and our entire printing plant had 5000K fluorescents - not a cheap undertaking.
I have 5000K bulbs in my kitchen but not the office with my computer and printer its more a wife / decorating issue than a techincal one. I just go upstairs to the kitchen to view prints....
Regarding printer profiles its my understanding they have two separate tables, one which is used for soft proofing, and a separate one for printing which allows the soft proof table to be tweeked to better match the printer output, rather than changing the monitor profile to match the printer.
It would be nice to have a simple tool option in Photoshop which would allow adjust of the soft proofing profile interactively while looking at screen and print, not directly in the profile, but in a "sidecar" file attached to it to account for the individual monitor characteristics. In other works when you selected soft proofing with that printer profile with that monitor the sidecar file file would apply the tweek.
When you refer to "tweaking" a monitor profile, most experts in the digital color industry would think you were referring to editing the monitor profile, which, of course, is something you should never have to do. What it appears you are really referring to is calibrating to a different standard - in your case both gamma and white point. The gamma will make absolutely no difference in your on screen viewing, although there are reasons to keep it close to 2.2 and the native gamma of your screen. The white point color temperature however, can have an effect on soft proofing, particularly when you're trying to match an exact paper white. The real way to do it is to try different color temperature settings - usually between 5500 and 6500K until the white of your screen matches the white of your paper as close as possible visually. The exact color temperature that works can also be affected by monitor luminence - the brighter your screen is, the lower the correct temperature will be.
Chuck,
You are correct in that most profiles have two "sides" to them - Source to PCS and then PCS to Output. The best tool I've seen for profile editing is Gretag's Profile Editor module, as part of the ProfileMaker package. I also have the Kodak Custom Color profile editor, but it's completely non-intuitive, contrary to the opinion of as least on "expert" in the field. The biggest problem with editing is knowing when to edit which side of the profile. It's not always apparent, particularly when you want to affect the soft proof, and especially when you are trying to tweak how a hard proof prints. To put that type of tool into Photoshop would create chaos. Think about how confused so many are already. If you feel you need to edit your profiles, pony up the $500 for the Kodak package or take the plunge for ProfileMaker. Play with PM for a couple of years and you'll be amazed at what it does to your understanding of this.
One of the most difficult edits to accomplish is tweaking the white point of the Absolute Colorimetric tables - the ones you use when you are using your inkjet to simulate your offset. If you're proofing without a RIP, you want to convert from your press CMYK back to your inkjet RGB. If your inkjet proofing paper is considerably whiter than your press sheet, Absolute Colormetric will attempt to put the color of the press sheet into the white of your inkjet stock. Unfortunately, it doesn't take much instrument error in the whites to throw the AbCol tables off for that simulation. In my experience, it can take many rounds of trial and error to arrive at a place where the whites match perfectly, and your eyes are the best measurement tool for that job.
Yes you are right - tweak means remake the profile with a slight change in white balance. This is actually what Hufford was talking about at Photoshop world, making different profiles for your monitor to achieve a match. I hadn't thought about trying to match the whites ... it could be that would have provided the same result but have been much quicker.
Whatever I did, it works quite well. Using a gamma of 2.1 instead of 2.2 visually seemed to slightly lower the monitor contrast which was also a problem when trying to match to my prints... you indicated I shouldn't have seen a difference. Guess I'm not sure what I'm seeing if that is the case.
The only place where you would see a difference when calibrating to a different gamma is in viewing images in non color managed programs - those programs that do not use the monitor profile for display. For apps like Photoshop the compensation is automatic using both the working space and monitor profile. If your monitor profile is good and describes the actual state of hardware calibration, then it becomes a wash. You can actually calibrate pretty much anywhere from about gamma about 1.8 to 2.3 and not see any meaningful difference. There are some hi-end reasons for using something close to native gamma - usually somewhere around 2.2 especially with monitors that do all the calibration with lookup tables in the video card. If you're targeted gamma is too far off the native gamma, you can see on screen posterization in subtle gradation, which can drive you crazy if you're trying to get rid of them. That was one of the big things that pushed hi-end users to the early Radius PressViews, Barco Calibrators and Sony Artisans, and now to the the Eizo's and HP Dreamcolor screens.
> The real way to do it is to try different color temperature settings - usually between 5500 and 6500K until the white of your screen matches the white of your paper as close as possible visually.
Right, there are no fixed rules, just use whatever setting works best for you.
I've seen values between 5500 and 6500K and also users that have adapted to D50.
UGRAs current recommendation for matching a display to a D50 viewing booth, is a display color temperature between 5600K - 6000K (5800 average).
Their recommendation is based on research from Munsell Color Science Laboratory.
On an emissive display, chromatic adaptation (discounting the illuminant) isn't full, hence the need for more bluish whitepoint vs D50 of viewing booth.
The only place where you would see a difference when calibrating to a different gamma is in viewing images in non color managed programs - those programs that do not use the monitor profile for display. For apps like Photoshop the compensation is automatic using both the working space and monitor profile. If your monitor profile is good and describes the actual state of hardware calibration, then it becomes a wash. You can actually calibrate pretty much anywhere from about gamma about 1.8 to 2.3 and not see any meaningful difference. There are some hi-end reasons for using something close to native gamma - usually somewhere around 2.2 especially with monitors that do all the calibration with lookup tables in the video card. If you're targeted gamma is too far off the native gamma, you can see on screen posterization in subtle gradation, which can drive you crazy if you're trying to get rid of them. That was one of the big things that pushed hi-end users to the early Radius PressViews, Barco Calibrators and Sony Artisans, and now to the the Eizo's and HP Dreamcolor screens....Show more →
Ah. So even though my profile shows a change in contrast when clicking back and forth in the monitor control panel, photoshop is actually compensating. As long as the white balance is the same, the image wouldn't actually change in PS. Does Photoshop do this on the fly, or does it use the monitor profile that is active when you start the program? (just curious)
but not the office with my computer and printer 
its more a wife / decorating issue than a techincal one. I just go upstairs to the kitchen to view prints....