I guess some of you can tell I'm getting into printing "Finally".
Anyway in the quest to get my display closer to the final print look I have been sending out to WHCC and Costco.
I got a Costco 20x30 that did better than I expected but feel I can get closer. It's a bit darker. I am using a display profile with 110 Luminance.
So when fiddling with the proof setup in CS4 I went through the intent options and see that Absolute Colorimetric seems to be the closest of the lot.
I have read if you are using Absolute colorimetric you are most likely a seasoned PP kind of person and don't need to ask about it.
What do you guys think? Should I stick with it?
The profile is a Costco large print house lab in Beltsville MD.
I use a EyeOne Display2.
I have a Samsung 215TW display. It validates @ .94.
Absolute is typically for cmyk proofing or for cross rendered proofs. For general photo printing of continuous tone RGB images, use Relative or Perceptual. Relative keeps the midpoint the same and basically clips off out of gamut colors. Perceptual tries to keep as many of the original tones as possible by moving the fit of the gamuts around a bit so the fewest colors are lost. This often results in a midpoint shift.
You've got some confusing information here regarding rendering intents.
JJLPhoto is correct that Absolute Colorimetric is generally used for cross rendered proofing but not quite right on the differences between Relative and Perceptual.
Relative Colorimetric rendering leaves all colors that are in gamut when converted to the destination space unchanged in how we see them. Any colors that are out of gamut in the destination space are clipped to the closest in gamut color. In extreme cases, this clipping can lead to a perceived loss of detail in saturated areas.
Perceptual Rending, which can vary from profiling software to profiling software, attempts to maintain the relationship between the colors by moving saturated colors near the gamut limit slightly further within gamut, making room for the out of gamut colors to be moved just inside gamut, maintaining tonal and color separation between them. Perceptual always results in in-gamut colors being shifted regardless of whether out of gamut colors are present or not, and often results in a slightly lighter and warmer image than Relative.
A dozen years ago or so, we all thought that Perceptual was always better because Photoshop only used Relative and Linocolor only used Perceptual and Lino was THE pro application at that point, but we gradually grew out of that fantasy, realizing that for the vast majority of images, Relative really is the better choice. It does not result in darker images. If that's happening to you, then you have a different problem that needs to be addressed.
Peter Figen wrote:
It does not result in darker images. If that's happening to you, then you have a different problem that needs to be addressed.
Thanks,
Well, I'm a real noob when it comes to this. Please hear me out. My work flow may be a biggie here.
I shoot a 50D raw Canon RGB. Then PP in CS4 ACR, convert & save as .jpg / sRGB 300 ppi and finalize in CS4 and save.
So the embedded or working profile is sRGB.
Then I have a look in proofing with the print house's profile and get some strange looks but send out anyway because I'm experimenting (between Costco and whcc).
I get prints that are a bit darker but will pass to anyone but me because I know what I was shooting for.
I know not to expect the same as a LCD but if I do a side by side using CS4 I can brightness down about -20 to get the LCD to resemble the print.
I guess I could try saving copies and bumping them up +20 and see what happens or calibrate the display differently or something.
now that most print houses work with Adobe RGB I may start working with it if it will help in proofing on the gamut thing.
I personally don't know but from what I read (over and over from everyone with an EDUCATION and a website) they all three have a specific purpose. "So which is the best rendering intent for digital photography? In general, perceptual and relative colorimetric are best suited for photography because they aim to preserve the same visual appearance as the original.
The decision about when to use each of these depends on image content and the intended purpose. Images with intense colors (such as bright sunsets or well-lit floral arrangements) will preserve more of their color gradation in extreme colors using perceptual intent. On the other hand, this may come at the expense of compressing or dulling more moderate colors. Images with more subtle tones (such as some portraits) often stand to benefit more from the increased accuracy of relative colorimetric (assuming no colors are placed within the gamut mismatch region). Perceptual intent is overall the safest bet for general and batch use, unless you know specifics about each image."
As mentioned, for photography really only perceptual and relative colorimetric are useful.
Peter is right in the fact that relative tends to push out of gamut colors into gamut while trying to retain those that are in gamut. It isn't a complete clip, in reality it will push all of the colors, but it attempts to preserve the relationship of those in gamut at somewhat of the expense of those out of gamut.
Perceptual attempts to retain a visual relationship of the colors so the final appearance in color relationship is preserved.
I myself used to use perceptual all of the time, but discovered recently that I actually prefer relative colorimetric most of the time. The idea that perceptual is the best for photographs is actually a little bit of myth. For example, if you buy Harman Gloss FB paper it will tell you to use perceptual ... in reality which rendering intent to choose is a judgement call and needs to be made for each image.
To confuse things even further, there are several algorithms that can be used when building a profile which affects how the colors are mapped when using the perceptual intent. This means you can build several profiles from the same data and have differences in how the profile renders an image when using the perceptual intent. From a practical perspective I'm not sure this is important, but it can make one profile perform better with specific highly saturated colors than another.
Jeff Schewe in the From Camera to Print Luminous Landscape video says what I feel is a pretty good description of when to use which. To paraphrase, he says if color and the relationship to other colors is the most aesthetically important, generally using perceptual will be the best. If tone, lightness and darkness and those relationships are most aesthetically important, generally relative colorimetric will often be the best. However, he is a strong believer that soft-proofing and varying the rendering intent is something that you should always do, so you can have some idea of how the choice will affect your print.
What has surprised me is images where I think color is far more important than tone often turn out that relative it actually better. I assume it is because we perceive changes in density much more than we perceive changes in color. I actually use relative colorimetric about 75% of the time now, and have reprinted images that look much better using relative colorimetric.
After saying all of that, I would also say that a great many images will look good with either intent.
For printing at Costco, visit http://www.drycreekphoto.com, which was contracted by Costco to profile its printers. There is a database where you can download the Gloss and Luster custom profiles for printer at your local store for soft proofing and file conversion.
The printers at Costco do not read the profile tags so for best results you need to convert the file in Photoshop using the machine profile from Dry Creek. The file preparation tutorial on at Dry Creek outlines the steps very clearly. Reading it you will become aware that native resolution on the printers, usually Noritsu, can vary with model; either 300, 320 or 400ppi. To edit the file for correct output size without having the machine resize it you need to know which it is. The printers are typically are set at 103% to eliminate any white borders, so its necessary to pad the images by expanding the canvas slightly. There is a chart in the Dry Creek tutorial showing suggested canvas sizes for various brands / models of printers.
Don't use the kiosk or upload. Burn your prepared files on a CD and give to the technician, telling him you've used the Dry Creek profiles and don't want any corrections. Establishing a good relationship with the tech will yield better results.
"Perceptual intent is overall the safest bet for general and batch use, unless you know specifics about each image"
Seriously, it's just the opposite that is true. For someone that doesn't understand the ramifications, they're much better off overall with Relative. Trouble is, there are a lot of folks out there still clinging to old beliefs without really understanding why - you know - things like Apple screens should be at gamma 1.8. EPS files are the only way to deliver files. Color management doesn't work. Perceptual is alway best.
As Wayne points out, it really comes down to an image by image basis. I process hundreds and hundreds of images every months, sometimes more, for all types of output, and I have to say that the percentage is more like 95 to 5 or more in favor of Relative, but I'm even more likely to make two separate conversions and combine the best part of both when I do have to use Perceptual. Too many times, it's great for part of the image and sucks for the rest, so I do what's necessary. Adds about 30 seconds the the process overall. This is especially useful for things like lime greens being converted for press CMYK.
Wide gamut inkjet printers, especially when using gloss or semi-gloss paper have even less need for Perceptual, as the wider gamut is already reproduceable to a large degree without any gamut compression.
Not covered earlier was the difference between Relative and Absolute. They both use the exact same conversion tables, only that the source white point in Relative is mapped automatically to the media white point of the destination whereas in Absolute, the source white point is maintained regardless of media white point. That's why using Absolute on RGB to RGB conversions, the whites go cyan. It's also why when cross rendering CMYK back to Epson RGB, AbCol attempts to put paper white of the press sheet into the Epson proof (or Canon or HP, etc.)
attempt_at_humor(
Yup, it's clear to me now for sure. Let's see... It's the opposite of "Perceptual in general without the recommended consideration of each image" and "it really comes down to an image by image basis." But I'm just having fun with yall. As I said, I don't know anything about this stuff but it sounds like I had it right by accident as I was just doing whichever looks best for the specific image. Err, no wait, it's the opposite of that?
);
Wayne Fox wrote:
What has surprised me is images where I think color is far more important than tone often turn out that relative it actually better. I assume it is because we perceive changes in density much more than we perceive changes in color. I actually use relative colorimetric about 75% of the time now, and have reprinted images that look much better using relative colorimetric.
Perception of tone or color all depends on whether or not there is an external frame of reference available for comparison. For example if you took a photo and rendered it three different ways and put the three images side-by-side nearly anyone would be able to see the difference. But take the same three photos and hang them in three separate rooms and ask another group of people who has never seen them to judge and odds are most will likely say they look the same.
If you make lots of your own prints, as you do, you know what your equipment is capable of in terms of color purity and contrast and to some extent your memory will become an external frame of reference which is responsible for the "Hey this doesn't look as good as it should" reaction. But I not not knowing what your printer is capable of might look at same print, which is no doubt way better than my modest printer can produce, and say "Wow, great color".
That's not to say that someone like yourself in the business of selling fine art prints shouldn't strive for a workflow which tweeks the last iota of gamut out of the printer, but rather to point out how you might see the results may differ quite a bit from that of the customer viewing the images without your frame of reference, both from memory and side-by-side comparison with the best you know the printer can produce.
Tweeking the last 10% of perfection out of any color reproduction workflow usually requires about 100% more of an investment in time, equipment and materials used for testing. Sometimes the difference in the view isn't really worth the effort of the climb. For example, what I observed over the years working in offset printing, trying to meet the expectations of magazine designers and editors back in the days when they would the transparency used for the separation to proof and then final run on the web press was the importance of first having a full tonal range from pure black to pure white and neutrality in objects the viewer would expect to be neutral: white shirts, gray ships or pavement, dark shadows. If the highlights are too dark or the shadows too light, or the neutrals have a color cast it will adversely affect perception of everything else. But if you nail the neutral tonal range with respect to maximum contrast the output medium can produce (which varies) and keep the perceptual reference objects neutral a wide range of color will be judged to be acceptable.
So as a practical matter for evaluation of printing for personal use by someone like the OP, I'd suggest using the "different rooms" test rather than direct comparison as an overall gauge of print quality. That is to say of you put two versions of the print in different rooms and can notice a difference between them the difference matters, but if you can't, then any minor differences you can see in direct side-by-side comparison could be considered to fall within the range of perceptual variation. In other words, don't sweat the small stuff
Let me ask you if it can be as simple as this...... keep in mind I'll not give up trying to get a closer representation between display and print, it's a labor of love.
Knowing what my prints look like as compared to my display and finding if I -20 in the brightness setting it becomes very close, would it be slob like for me to try bumping up +20 brightness on a copy and printing expecting it to print closer to what I see on the display? Do any of you guys do any of this kind of thing? I believe curves may be a more technical way of adjusting also.
You should not have to make that sort of adjustment. If your prints are consistantly too dark, then either your monitor is calibrated too bright, your ambient lighting is too low, your viewing light is too dim or your profile is not right. Simply knocking your monitor down without recalibrating doesn't really help the matter and brightening up every file, while it may work sort of, is an inconsistant and inaccurate workaround. Better to have the right calibration and profile to begin with.
On my system, I never have to do this - hardware calibrated Artisan's, Solux viewing lamps and custom profiles. Works like a charm. Has been for many years.
camey wrote:
For most real world photo work use Perceptual. Relative colorimetric is technically more accurate but visually usually ends up with a darker image.
Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. It seems to depend on the paper and profile. On my old R1800, relative colorimetric worked well on glossy papers while perceptual sometimes looked flat, but enhanced matte seemed to retain more detail if I printed in perceptual. And all of this goes to what Peter was saying above.
My 3800 is dead on when printing on ilford GFS with their profile in relative colorimetric.
Unfortunately, it seems that even in a color managed envrionment, a little experimentation is still required.
mrladewig wrote:
Unfortunately, it seems that even in a color managed envrionment, a little experimentation is still required.
Absolutely. There is simply no substitute for testing and experience.
All these things may work in theory on a chalk board, but due to rounding errors, ink deficiencies, etc., (or just real life happening), we need to be flexible.
Remember, C+M+Y is theoretically supposed to make black.
mrladewig wrote:
Sometimes it does, sometimes it does not. It seems to depend on the paper and profile. On my old R1800, relative colorimetric worked well on glossy papers while perceptual sometimes looked flat, but enhanced matte seemed to retain more detail if I printed in perceptual. And all of this goes to what Peter was saying above.
My 3800 is dead on when printing on ilford GFS with their profile in relative colorimetric.
Unfortunately, it seems that even in a color managed envrionment, a little experimentation is still required.
That's likely true and hinted at by the scope and variance of the answers so far. To say that Relative Colorimetric 'does not' produce darker prints is a bold statement. I can produce a whole bunch of prints where the same print with Perceptual maintains the overall exposure level much better than Relative Colorimetric. You might get away with 'should not' but I doubt that it's anything to do with my flow, I'm just using a commercial program (CS4) to print on widely used printers (Sony UP-DR150, Epson R1800, Epson 4000) on stock papers (Premium Luster, Premium Glossy).
The effect is most noticeable on the Sony which predictably has the smallest color gamut (sRGB). At then end of the day you just have to print a few samples and decide which one you like better. Which one is correct is always going to be subjective, since both are a calculated compromise necessitated by the limitations of the output device.
But I'm just having fun with yall. As I said, I don't know anything about this stuff but it sounds like I had it right by accident as I was just doing whichever looks best for the specific image. Err, no wait, it's the opposite of that? 