I use Capture NX for my raw conversions. Suppose i want to convert a raw to a jpg for publishing on the web. I want to turn on soft proofing. I have calibrated my screens with a colorvision spyder. When i turn this soft proofing on i can't see a difference. (my image is in adobe rgb). when i convert the image to srgb and watch it in a browser the colors are different.
If i do the same trick in photoshop the colors are ok. so i convert the image to tiff and then i open it in photoshop do some other adjustments (while softproofing is on). Saving the file as a jpg with the srgb profile shows the image in my browser as i saw it in photoshop with the softproofing on. (i convert the image to srgb). I guess that's right. it at least gives me a predictable result. I just can't get NX to do what photoshop does with softproofing.
Am i missing something or am i completelly screwing up with either tool?
Raymond: I have heard of "soft proofing" but still do not know what it is. If you really want to get frustrated, try color management.
I have been discussing this with John McFadden, an experienced photographer that has demonstrated to me that he knows what he is doing. Like you, most photographers are using Adobe RGB because of its wide color gamut but if you take your file to a Service Bureau, at least in this country, the majority of them print sRGB. We are now talking about two different color spaces that obviously do not match. This conflict means that you could not necessarily be happy with a print from that particular Service Bureau. Using your printer it is a different story because, at least with Epson, you can set the printer for Adobe RGB output. I am assuming you set Photoshop already for Adobe RGB or it will open a window upon checking your file asking what do you want to do with it.
Keep in mind that sRGB is the default color space for printers, Service Bureaus and cameras. I have always wondered why if Adobe RGB has a wider color gamut; at least in practice, it is not the default color space.
I have done prints with my printer (Epson 1280) using both color spaces and the reproduction of colors, if you have a critical eye, appears better with Adobe RGB, once again assuming you do not have a mistmatch and Photoshop has been set to Adobe RGB output. Try with your printer set to either color to output the other and see total disaster.
Same goes with prints at the Service Bureau. If I take an Adobe RGB file to my Service Bureau, their colors are set for sRGB, my print is dull and lacks vibrancy to the critical eye. If the file was shot sRGB then the colors pop. This has been my experience.
Conversion from one color space to another will always produce artifacts since the conversion has to expand or contract the colors. Your eye, if critical, should be able to discern the difference, especially with big enlargements. If I am going to enlarge a print that I take to my Service Bureau I simply shoot sRGB and never have to take aspirin for a headache. Quality of colors using sRGB? Spectacular in my opinion.
Most probably my opinions are not necessarily what you are looking for but at least gives you a clue to what "color management" can do to your prints.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
hmm thanks foro your reply... i'm trying to get my colormanagement right. I know about the aRGB space and sRGB space. In fact i have a special color profile from my service bureau (the place where i print my stuff). I get very consistent colors, what i see in photoshop, is what i see on print... that's great!
Now for screenwork i have another problem. when i watch a image with a aRGB profile in my non color aware browser, it will look less saturated, just as you described. So according to the colormanagement rules i should first convert the file to sRGB... but there is my problem. the srgb file looks ok in photoshop, but it still looks different in non color aware applicaties. it almost look allright tough. i have managed to get my work acceptable for presentation on the web.
But now comes the NX part: the soft proofing only seems to work for printer profiles... i just can't get this softproofing done for my screen work. example: an aRGB mage in photoshop soft proofed against my monitor profile shows me what it will look in non color aware applications. If i do the same trick with a picture containing a printer profile, it will result in an ugly looking picture on screen, makes sense since those profiles just don't match. But i can't get the same visible in capture NX. Soft proofing to screen profiles just don't show any difference. The help speaks about 'soft proofing for printers'. So maybe this is different from photoshop.
Somehow capture nx does not recognize my calibrated profile... or something like that. it shows up in blue skies. i dunno
Raymond, soft proofing in NX is for approximating the printed output, not the screen work as you put it. If your output is for screen or another program don't turn it on. You only turn it on to approximate what it will look like from the printer. If you don't like what you see after turning it on then make further adjustments before printing. If you aren not printing don't turn it on.
camerapapi wrote:
Raymond: I have heard of "soft proofing" but still do not know what it is. If you really want to get frustrated, try color management.
I have been discussing this with John McFadden, an experienced photographer that has demonstrated to me that he knows what he is doing. Like you, most photographers are using Adobe RGB because of its wide color gamut but if you take your file to a Service Bureau, at least in this country, the majority of them print sRGB. We are now talking about two different color spaces that obviously do not match. This conflict means that you could not necessarily be happy with a print from that particular Service Bureau. Using your printer it is a different story because, at least with Epson, you can set the printer for Adobe RGB output. I am assuming you set Photoshop already for Adobe RGB or it will open a window upon checking your file asking what do you want to do with it.
Keep in mind that sRGB is the default color space for printers, Service Bureaus and cameras. I have always wondered why if Adobe RGB has a wider color gamut; at least in practice, it is not the default color space.
I have done prints with my printer (Epson 1280) using both color spaces and the reproduction of colors, if you have a critical eye, appears better with Adobe RGB, once again assuming you do not have a mistmatch and Photoshop has been set to Adobe RGB output. Try with your printer set to either color to output the other and see total disaster.
Same goes with prints at the Service Bureau. If I take an Adobe RGB file to my Service Bureau, their colors are set for sRGB, my print is dull and lacks vibrancy to the critical eye. If the file was shot sRGB then the colors pop. This has been my experience.
Conversion from one color space to another will always produce artifacts since the conversion has to expand or contract the colors. Your eye, if critical, should be able to discern the difference, especially with big enlargements. If I am going to enlarge a print that I take to my Service Bureau I simply shoot sRGB and never have to take aspirin for a headache. Quality of colors using sRGB? Spectacular in my opinion.
Most probably my opinions are not necessarily what you are looking for but at least gives you a clue to what "color management" can do to your prints.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida. ...Show more →
William
if you are going to invoke my name , please show you have a grasp of the concepts that I have patiently tried to explain. The reply here proves you still have so far to go. Soft Proof is something you and I have not talked about yet
Forget softproofing Raymond, it is for Printing, and seeing a "representation" on your monitor of the image on your screen as it would look when Printed on a certain paper and how much trouble you have going from your edit space of sRGB or ProFoto or Adobe 1998 RGB etc thru your printers inkset and on to a Specific paper
Oh man , one day I am going to have to write a book about all this stuff
don't bother writing a book. i think it's best that i go get myself a nice film camera. sheesh man.
You know what the biggest issue is? i just want to get my pictures look as great on every single screen possible. But that's just insane. how can my picture look good on a crap screen. Well not that my screens are that great, but at least i calibrated and that's a first step to consistent results. Sometime i visit some friends and they tell me how they follow my work... then they show me their set up. sheesh man my pictures look ruined. Maybe i better don't publish anything. i really have no idea how people look at it. Seems i have my printing workslow quite right, i get consistent results. That's what this is all about right?
on the other hand: that soft proof thing... hm in photoshop it seems to work a bit different right? i can see some color shifts going on there even if i chose a screen profile
how about this: i have a srgb picture... when i softproof in photoshop to my screen profile it looks different. guess it makes sense... but how do people see my image... just as the srgb version? or as the proofed version? huuhaaarghh
every screen out there Unless it has been calibrated will look different. I gave up a long time ago on doing anything to make my work look other than how I like it esp on the web
A "screen" proof is worse than worthless too many variables in the equation and beside if you adjusted the file to look "good" on that crappy "screenproof" you would be guaranteed that it would now look much worse on every other screen save the one you see at that moment
edmanet wrote:
John, when you write your book...Can I be your agent
anytime bro, you are one of the true gentlemen of these parts. Your listening skills have made you no small amount of money by now and it is me who would ask You for the loan to write the book
All I can say is..If you hadn't been so kind to share your knowledge with
me when I first picked up that D100 [Can you believe its almost been 4 years ?] I wouldn't be where I'm at now.
As long as I stop buying $5000 lenses I should have some spare $$$
laying around.
Like John said, soft proofing is for printing, and that's a whole 'nuther world. You're literally viewing what your print should look like, through the 'eyes' of whatever print profile you've chosen.
NX will show you a soft proof, you just have to assign/select a printer/paper profile, just like 'Custom' soft proofing in Photoshop.
Learning how to make fine prints is not easy. I had to wrap duct tape around my head to keep it from exploding, but then blood spurted out of my eyes.
jacko wrote:
Like John said, soft proofing is for printing, and that's a whole 'nuther world. You're literally viewing what your print should look like, through the 'eyes' of whatever print profile you've chosen.
NX will show you a soft proof, you just have to assign/select a printer/paper profile, just like 'Custom' soft proofing in Photoshop.
Learning how to make fine prints is not easy. I had to wrap duct tape around my head to keep it from exploding, but then blood spurted out of my eyes.
you know... i don't think it's so hard to get a print right. i have calibrated my screens and i am able to work with the profile of my photolab. i get very nice results. The hard thing is to get the grainy look right, i experiment on screen with. i have to add more/larger grain to get the same results.
hm maybe you are right. i had crappy prints for years, even with film. most of the time to yellow. especially with digital. every single print turned out to warm... maybe that's just because my screen looked way to blue anyhoo i spent several $$$ on prints to get really frustrated. So we're all in the same boat i think...
since i worked more on this, the prints are fine. But now i'm struggling with sevral screens. now that's quite frustrating too
