Skip navigation

Soft Proofing

Jan 10, 2012 2:50 PM

  Latest reply: Kiwi-Al, Feb 11, 2012 1:56 PM
Replies 1 2 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 12:32 PM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    P.S. as I noted above, I do think that having the OOG warning for the source data being out of display gamut is useful outside of the soft proof arena and for other reasons but in the softproof area it should show where the proofed image is outside of display gamut of course.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,391 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 12:39 PM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    P.S. as I noted above, I do think that having the OOG warning for the source data being out of display gamut is useful outside of the soft proof arena and for other reasons but in the softproof area it should show where the proofed image is outside of display gamut of course.

    Yup. If I were king of the (Adobe) world, the current behavior would be accessible outside the soft proof mode. There would be a similar little tick box. You’d be editing in Develop using Melissa RGB, you could toggle on the OOG display to see that, oh crap, you over did it with Vibrance because you hit the gamut limit of your display as you kept moving that slider. The current behavior would be awesome because you are editing in Melissa RGB. As soon as you move into the Soft Proof mode, Melissa RGB is replaced by whatever ICC profile you select for OOG to the display (and of course output).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 12:48 PM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    The current behavior is a bug and will be fixed.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,391 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 12:50 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    Excellent! Now I can stop pulling my hair out.

     

    If only we could have come to this understanding/conclusion elsewhere and earlier ....

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 1:07 PM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    While we are unlikely to build a special UI mode for the display gamut warning outside of SP mode ...

     

    ... I may still be able to pull off your request by special-casing choosing your monitor as the profile in SP mode.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 5:56 PM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    But then what would the Beta and this forum be for?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:40 PM   in reply to Photo_op8

    Photo_op8 wrote:

     

    But then what would the Beta and this forum be for?

     

     

    Proof of concept and fine tuning the LR4 1.0 release.

     

    This process–even though many don't understand it–is important and does improve the final release.

     

    Don't sell yourselves short. While major changes prolly won't occur, a lot can happen between beta and the final release of LR 4.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 29, 2012 10:28 AM   in reply to Jay Mitchosky

    I am getting very strange effect when I try to softproof the image with the profile for Moab Slicrock Metallic Pearl  paper for my Epson. I do not get the same effect for other profiles, however with this metallic paper something goes wrong. I wondered if anyone of you can replicate it. You can get the profiles from Moab page http://moabpaper.com/slickrock-metallic/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,391 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 29, 2012 11:12 AM   in reply to mmlux

    mmlux wrote:

     

    I am getting very strange effect when I try to softproof the image with the profile for Moab Slicrock Metallic Pearl  paper for my Epson. I do not get the same effect for other profiles, however with this metallic paper something goes wrong. I wondered if anyone of you can replicate it. You can get the profiles from Moab page http://moabpaper.com/slickrock-metallic/

    Yes I see it too on a Mac. There is something seriously wrong with this profile. If I soft proof in Photoshop, I see a different effect than LR but the perceptual table looks butt awful in CS5. I don’t know why the LR engine and the Photoshop engine both produce different and odd previews but it is something inside the profile.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,391 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 29, 2012 11:16 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    When I turn off the Simulate check boxes in LR, the preview is better (closer to PS).  The Perceptual table produces a real ugly, over saturated preview in both LR and PS with the simulation off. Is the output OK? If so, the preview table in this profile is junk.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2012 5:36 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    It is possible the BtoA tables in the profile are ok (used to determine output) but the AtoB tables (needed for SP) are bogus ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,391 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2012 8:02 AM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    MadManChan2000 wrote:

     

    It is possible the BtoA tables in the profile are ok (used to determine output) but the AtoB tables (needed for SP) are bogus ...

    It is still odd how Photoshop and LR treat the previews so differently. But I agree, the profile seems to be screwy.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2012 8:12 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    Andrew Rodney wrote:

     

    It is still odd how Photoshop and LR treat the previews so differently. But I agree, the profile seems to be screwy.

    I've already reported here that apart from the sRGB soft proof bug (it doesn't actually soft proof the displayed image when you select sRGB) almost every profile I try to softproof against, whether it is for the HP wide format printer or for printing services, the soft proof is subtly different in Lightroom from the same in Photoshop. There is probably some fine tuning that needs to be done. The conceptual implementation is great though and I can see this being very very useful.

     

    P.S. When I went the download the slickrock profile mentioned above, there was a mention that said to use the relative intent for this profile. The only paper for which it says this. Moab is probably aware there is an issue with the perceptual tables for this profile.

     

    MOAB Slickrock Metallic Pearl Epson 4800 EPL.icc

    (1.6M)

    Media Type: Premium Luster. ****Be sure to use the Relative rendering intent when printing for best results.***

     

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2012 11:46 AM   in reply to BobDiN

    Bob

     

    Back on Jan 20th (post #26) - I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the table - %/Satisfaction-nothing adds up to 100% ?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2012 12:00 PM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Hi Jao,

     

    We have found (and now fixed) the sRGB soft proof bug.  Thanks for your help.

     

    Eric

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2012 12:36 PM   in reply to MadManChan2000

    We have found (and now fixed) the sRGB soft proof bug.  Thanks for your help.

    Fantastic! Looking forward to using it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2012 6:41 PM   in reply to Pookie_butt

    Sorry for the confusion.  I was trying to communicate the feedback I get at my workshops.  I ask what level of color management folks used and the satisfaction with their print output. Below is a “revised” table with my estimate of %satisfaction  vs. level of color management used.  Hope it is clearer.

     

    Level of Color Management                       % Users Satisfied with print

    • Managed by Printer                                                           10
    • ICC Profile Color Management                                       65
    • use a calibrated monitor                                                  15
    • use “soft-proofing”                                                             10                                     

                                                                                 Total    100% 

     

    As I said, the numbers are estimated but there is little doubt about the trend. People who use a correct ICC profile workflow and a calibrated monitor are satisfied with their print output a high percentage of the time.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 11, 2012 1:56 PM   in reply to BobDiN

    Calibrate the monitor, use ICC color profile, and use soft proofing at a minimum. Managed by printer is way down my list!

     
    |
    Mark as:
1 2 Previous Next
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points