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 says its 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.
Nov 02, 2008 at 02:57 PM
Previous versions of Wayne Fox's message #6339268 « Soft Proofing - Do you use it? »
