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 9:51 AM   in reply to Rene-)

    Rene-) wrote:

     

    Yeah, you can change the color, but the options to choose from are different. Not a big issue though IMO.

    A bigger issue (IMO) is that the "lights out" mode when softproofing makes the screen go white (instead of dim) and that behaviour cannot be changed (at least, not that I can find)

     

    When in Softproofing ... before you go to Lights Out mode, right-click in the white matte area and you can select any shade from white, gray to black for the Softproofing matte ... it defaults to Paper White I believe for the profile selected ... assuming you picked a printer/paper combination profile ...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,393 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:16 AM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

    I am not so sure why you are confused about the display OOG warning. The point is simply to caution the user that is using soft proofing that even though you are soft proofed, you will not see a preview of the printed color in those areas as your display simply cannot show them.

    The proofed (DISPLAY) color overlay tells me that Melissa RGB is OOG. That has nothing to do with the print or exported data unless it is exported as Melissa RGB. If I soft proof in say sRGB, and I have a wide gamut display, there should be NO OOG overlay (sRGB is smaller than my display gamut). That isn’t what is happening. Why and where is Melissa RGB pertinent when I’ve asked to see a profile that isn’t Melissa RGB?

     

    The data is after all in Melissa RGB so LR would have to in essence “convert” from Melissa RGB to the selected profile then use that profile and the display profile for a gamut overlay.

    That is exactly what LR does as I understand it. I

    Not as I understand it. If that were the case, toggling other color spaces in soft proof would update the OOG for the display. That does not happen. This is exactly what does happen in Photoshop FWIW. Setup a Customize Proof setup. Turn on the Gamut overlay. Change the profile in Customize Proof Setup. The OOG updates based on that new profile selection. The only difference is in that case, the OOG is current working space + customized proof setup profile. There is nothing here that takes the display gamut into account. That is a new idea in LRb4 that I think could be useful but only if the OOG + display take the currently selected profile into account. It doesn’t. It only takes Melissa RGB into account. Why? How is that useful?

     

    Look at the other OOG overlay for output (right side of histogram). It takes the editing space (Melissa RGB) and whatever profile you select to produce the overlay. As you alter the profile, the OOG updates as it should. So this is editing space + soft proof space. Great. Love it. Do the same for the display. Current soft proof space + display. If I am viewing a soft proof for my Epson 4900, show me the OOG colors in that output space that cannot be seen on the display.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:21 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    We picked paper white as the default background for SP mode because that is the context under which most prints are actually made (i.e., there is a margin with paper white surround, or a light mat, etc.).  One of the reasons why users often find prints are darker than the screen preview is that their images on screen are always seen against a dark background, whereas their printed images are often viewed against a light background.  Editing your images and viewing them on screen against a light background helps tremendously.

     

    That said, the background can be customized (as explained earlier).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:41 AM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    If I soft proof in say sRGB, and I have a wide gamut display, there should be NO OOG overlay (sRGB is smaller than my display gamut). That isn’t what is happening. Why and where is Melissa RGB pertinent when I’ve asked to see a profile that isn’t Melissa RGB?

    Are you sure about that? my wide gamut display is much wider than sRGB on a 2D gamut plot but in 3D you can see that there are areas where sRGB penetrates outside of my monitor's gamut:

     

    monitor-vs-sRGB.jpg

    These are the typical colors (the bright yellow greens) where I see OOG display warnings in LR 4 even when soft proofing for sRGB.

    Not as I understand it. If that were the case, toggling other color spaces in soft proof would update the OOG for the display. That does not happen.

    You are right. It doesn't behave like I would expect it to. I think what is happening is that the blue warning shows you where the source data is OOG of the display profile and that Lightroom does not use the image after the final conversion but generates the display OOG mask from a conversion to the display profile directly from the melissaRGB source. I don't know why they would do this as it is extra work. It would be better to show you the result from source->soft proof profile->display profile cnversion as what you are interested in is whether the softproofed display is accurate not whether the source is out of display gamut. My guess is that this is either a bug or a design decision. There are some bugs with the soft proof anyway (compare an sRGB softproof to the same from a prophotoRGB tiff in Photoshop, you'll see they are not the same even though they should be!)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:46 AM   in reply to Butch_M

    Ah. Thanks. Totally missed that the "lights out" was actually the same BG color. Thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 10:51 AM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Thanks for the helpful discussion.  I will look into it.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,393 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 11:02 AM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

     

    Are you sure about that? my wide gamut display is much wider than sRGB on a 2D gamut plot but in 3D you can see that there are areas where sRGB penetrates outside of my monitor's gamut:

     

     

    It doesn’t matter when the facts as I believe them to be: the overlay is Melissa RGB. Can you confirm or deny this? If you toggle any profile in soft proof, does the Display OOG change? If it does not, as I see on my end, then what is the OOG based upon? I thought Eric said Melissa RGB.

    Jao vdL wrote:

    You are right. It doesn't behave like I would expect it to. I think what is happening is that the blue warning shows you where the source data is OOG of the display profile and that Lightroom does not use the image after the final conversion but generates the display OOG mask from a conversion to the display profile directly from the melissaRGB source. I don't know why they would do this as it is extra work. It would be better to show you the result from source->soft proof profile->display profile cnversion as what you are interested in is whether the softproofed display is accurate not whether the source is out of display gamut. My guess is that this is either a bug or a design decision.

    Again, unless the OOG is tied to a single profile (Melissa RGB), there should be some change as we toggle various color spaces in soft proof. I see zero difference. I think the fundamental design is that display OOG is always display profile + Melissa RGB. This is the area that makes no sense to me.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,393 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 11:05 AM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

    There are some bugs with the soft proof anyway (compare an sRGB softproof to the same from a prophotoRGB tiff in Photoshop, you'll see they are not the same even though they should be!)

    Yup, in my last video, I exported an image to sRGB, re imported it into the library and the OOG for sRGB shows some overlay. Open the same document in Photoshop, setup the Customize Proof Setup to sRGB, ask to see OOG overlay, nothing shows. Photoshop behaves as expected. An sRGB document should not show OOG for sRGB!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 12:28 PM   in reply to Andrew Rodney

    It doesn’t matter when the facts as I believe them to be: the overlay is Melissa RGB. Can you confirm or deny this? If you toggle any profile in soft proof, does the Display OOG change? If it does not, as I see on my end, then what is the OOG based upon? I thought Eric said Melissa RGB.

    Yeah I noted that above but I think we are using slightly different terminology so you might have misunderstood what I meant. The blue overlay appears to show where the source data (which is in melissaRGB of course) is out of the display's gamut. In my opinion, it should show the areas where after conversion to the destination profile the color is still out of display gamut. This is a subtlety but I think an important one. There are cases where converting the image to the output profile will bring colors into display gamut and so you do get an accurate display of the softproofed image on your display even though Lightroom currently will show you a blue (or purple) OOG warning. This is especially true for soft proofing using perceptual rendering intent which tends to desaturate colors and has a higher probability of bringing the softproofed image within the gamut of your display and so no display OOG warning should be shown.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Andrew Rodney
    1,393 posts
    Apr 16, 2009
    Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 20, 2012 12:32 PM   in reply to Jao vdL

    Jao vdL wrote:

    The blue overlay appears to show where the source data (which is in melissaRGB of course) is out of the display's gamut. In my opinion, it should show the areas where after conversion to the destination profile the color is still out of display gamut.

    Exactly! That is my opinion too.

     

    Eric, is this behavior as designed or a bug?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • 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
    1,393 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
    1,393 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
    1,393 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
    1,393 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
    1,393 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