sRGB or Blurb icc profile better for soft proofing prior to Book module?

[Rockshead]

As I understand it images destined for Blurb are converted by the Lr engine into sRGB behind the scenes. To achieve best chance of colour accuracy in the finished Blurb book, is it better to softproof using a sRGB profile or the icc profile* offered on the Blurb Support website. On the surface this icc profile is recommended (by them) for their Booksmart process. Anyone know if that is similar to the Lr Book module process? There is no mention of Lr anywhere on the Blurb color management pages.

It would be great to pin down the answer to this. I cannot find any recommendation for best work practice aimed at getting good colour reproduction in these books; and trial and error, whilst acceptable in making inkjet prints, is a very expensive route when applied to printing a Blurb book.

* And even then, as far as I can see, there is no method for differentiating between the Blurb papers. It is just one profile to fit all.

[john beardsworth]

You understand correctly - not least the point about Blurb's profile being a single one for all their papers and all their printers too. It's also CMYK profile, so it won't work in LR's RGB process.

The best you can do in LR seems to be to soft proof in Develop using sRGB. I'm tending to stick to one paper and produce a small version of a book before committing to more cost.

[Rockshead]

I'm sure your approach is right - except.... From what I can make out - and its not crystal clear - the Blurb profile they offer for their BookSmart option is not a CMYK version. If you have a moment to spare, maybe you could have a look at their page on this and see if you come to the same conclusion.

http://www.blurb.com/guides/color_management/image_prep_booksmart

It seems to be compatible with Photoshop, and there is a specific line in there saying not to put CMYK images into BookSmart. I have no idea how close BookSmart is to the Lr process; but this profile might be compatible. Interested in any comment you have. Cordially, dk

[john beardsworth]

I didn't think it was a profile for BookSmart - isn't it for Photoshop? That article is about preparing files in Photoshop, for BookSmart.

[Todd Shaner]

Blurb only provides one (1) printer profile for all paper types. It is CMYK and not useable in LR, only PS:

http://www.blurb.com/resources/color_management

I sent an email to Blurb Tech Support concerning the use of only one (1) printer profile. There response was that "they adjust the images" at the CMYK printer engine for the different paper types. If you soft proof in PS using the one (1) Blurb CMYK profile the benefit is questionable, since we do not know which paper it is targeting. Most out of gamut colors shouldn't look significantly different in the printed Blurb book compared to LR's sRGB soft proof image.

IMHO – Monitor calibration accuracy, luminance setting (100 cd/M typical), and room lighting (subdued) will affect your printed book image matching more than anything else.

[TheDigitalDog]

trshaner wrote:

Blurb only provides one (1) printer profile for all paper types. It is CMYK and not useable in LR, only PS:

http://www.blurb.com/resources/color_management

I sent an email to Blurb Tech Support concerning the use of only one (1) printer profile. There response was that "they adjust the images" at the CMYK printer engine for the different paper types.

Which makes the idea of using the profile for soft proofing pretty idiotic even IF LR could use it. What’s the point? Other than to try to convince users Blurb is somehow color managed.

If you can’t load the profile used to convert the data, if you can’t control the rendering intent, if you can’t control the CMM (for Black Point Compensation), then you don’t need a profile. Just pretend it is pre 1995 and Photoshop and most other applications don’t have a clue what an ICC profile is.

[grandad37]

I tried Blurb via Lightroom 4.1 for the first time last week and I confess that I am pretty impressed with the results. Previously, I have produced my own books using a Spyder 3 calibrated flow from IMac through to printer. My IMac settings are 120cd/M and 5800. Comparing book to monitor, the Blurb images look to be slightly more saturated in the blues and greens but there is nothing that gives me any concern. Moreover, I used an Adobe RGB colour space rather than sRGB with the occasional photo soft-proofed in Photoshop with the Blurb icc profile. Would I use Lightroom and Blurb again - the answer is 'yes I would'.

[web-weaver]

It is a CMYK profile. You can use it for softproofing in Photoshop because Photoshop works with CMYK profiles and lets you softproof them.

But you can't get Lr to display it or work with it. Even if you install it and it works in Photoshop it doesn't show in Lr.

I used it for softproofing a book in Photoshop and the results of the printed book were very good, practically identical to what I got on my own printer. The softproofing in Photoshop is slow and tedious, since you have to load every image into Photoshop and softproof it. But in my opinion it's well worth the effort.

[As_Seen__by_Janine]

I'm super frustrated that, despite all the intense marketing and advertising to promote Lightroom, specifically for the fact that it included the Blurb Book module, still in Feb. 2014, NOBODY can give a straight up answer on how to assure the best color when ordering books directly through Lightroom.

Extremely annoying that when writing to Blurb tech support, they refer you to an article about how to color profile and softproof in Photoshop or InDesign, and totally ignore that your said you are using LIghtroom.

They also tell you Lightroom can't support their profiles, yet at the same time, Blurb actually advertises Lightroom on their site and gives you a chance to order LR directly from their site. I find it unimaginable that they are actually promoting sales of Lightroom, yet they can't offer a single piece of tech support on how to get the best color when using Lightroom.

So what gives????  What is the best way to assure accurate color when ordering Blurb books directly from Lightroom.

My instinct is to save images as sRGB JPEGs, softproof (which thankfully we can now do in Lightroom), and hope for the best. I hope somebody can advise me because I have a HUGE wedding album book order, which I spent countless hours preparing in Lightroom, and now I'm afriad to place the order because Blurb can't seem to answer my simple question about how to get the best color.

Has anyone had good success with Blurb Books using the book module in Lightroom and if so, what color profile did you submit?

Janine Fugere

As Seen by Janine: Eyes of the World Images

[TheDigitalDog]

As_Seen_ by_Janine wrote:

I'm super frustrated that, despite all the intense marketing and advertising to promote Lightroom, specifically for the fact that it included the Blurb Book module, still in Feb. 2014, NOBODY can give a straight up answer on how to assure the best color when ordering books directly through Lightroom.

Lightroom sends Blurb the data in sRGB. Nothing you can do about that. And while I'd prefer a larger color space such as Adobe RGB (1998) based on my understanding of Indigo CMYK, it isn't a hill worth dieing on.

What gets sent through a RIP to the printers is CMYK and CMYK isn't supported in LR. Soft proofing without having the actual ICC profile of the output device is really a waste of time. If it makes some users feel better (or they charge by the hour <g>) go for it. sRGB and what comes off these presses are not even remotely the same so why soft proof using a profile that's based on a theoretical CRT circa 1994 and not the actual output device?

Robust color management isn't on Blurb's radar. If it were, they would supply the actual ICC profiles for the various press technologies and papers they offer. One could use those profiles outside of LR (Photoshop comes to mind). They don't. So basically find another provider or send them the data they force you to send them out of LR.

[web-weaver]

I have made several books in Lr 5 and had them printed with Blurb, the last one just a week ago.

My monitor is calibrated and set to an intensity (brightness) of 110 cd/m2.

Within reason the Blurb-printed colors match what I see on screen. Within reason means that you have to expect some color changes since not all colors that you see on screen can be printed. In my recent book the most notable color shift was from a turquoise (think a lovely blue-turquoise of an iceberg) to a darker turquoise-green.

I always use my Raw images (NEFs) directly in the Book Module. I don't make any conversions or saves as sRGB JPGs. The best way to color-proof your images is by softproofing them in Photoshop to the Blurb profile. Be sure that you have "simulate paper color" checked to give you an indication of the printed image.

Since softproofing in Photoshop is a bit cumbersome, I do it only for some images.

Before the upload to Blurb I check my books by exporting them as PDFs and viewing the created PDF. This I do particularly to see if my sharpening is (a) enough but (b) not too much.Since the printing process softens the images, your images may look a tiny bit over-sharpened in the PDF.

For the export to PDF I change the Book Settings (right side, top panel) from "Blurb" to "PDF". The Blurb-logo page will then disappear. I use these settings for the export to PDF: JPG quality - 100; Color Profile - sRGB; File Resolution - 300 ppi. I check the box "Sharpening" and select "High" and "Glossy" for Media Type.

On my system (quad Xeon and 12 GB RAM) the export to PDF for a large book (13 x 11) with over 200 pages takes about 1 hour. The upload to Blurb took about 2.5 hours. This certainly depends of the upload speed that you are getting.

[Todd Shaner]

web-weaver wrote:

Within reason the Blurb-printed colors match what I see on screen. Within reason means that you have to expect some color changes since not all colors that you see on screen can be printed. In my recent book the most notable color shift was from a turquoise (think a lovely blue-turquoise of an iceberg) to a darker turquoise-green.

Blue-turquoise (i.e. deep blue-green) is the predominant color area that falls outside of sRGB gamut. I'm guessing if you sent the same images to Blurb with conversion from ProPhoto to the Blurb.icc CMYK profile the color would be a lot closer.

Here's my results using InDesign with the Blurb ID plugin and ProPhotoRGB placed images. The images were converted to the Blurb.icc generic profile using Blurbs Export to PDF X-3 preset from inside InDesign CS6.

The below is a ProPhotoRGB profiled JPEG. Click on image, right click, save, and open in LR or PS to see the full gamut. Only the two blue patches on the last two rows are rendered slightly off-color, but notice they are not darker as web-weaver experienced.

On the left side is a CCPP image placed in the Blurb book on standard paper and on the right side is the actual CCPP.

[web-weaver]

trshaner,

Thank you for this tip. Unfortunately I don't have InDesign, so can convert to Blurb-icc only in Photoshop.

Although Lr will display a TIFF converted to Blurb-icc in Photoshop, the problem is what Lr does with the Blurb-icc profile - if it does anything at all.

I assume it will just disregard it when I upload to Blurb since it is a CMYK profile.

[Todd Shaner]

I tried using 'Export Book to PDF' in the LR Book module with 'Book' set to 'Blurb' and the PDF images are all tagged as sRGB profile and 8-bit color.

SUGGESTION
If you set 'Book' to 'PDF' under 'Book Setting' you can use Adobe RGB profile, 300 ppi, and your own Sharpening selection, which as Andrew Rodney mentioned is a better choice. You can submit the LR Exported PDF at Blurb's 'PDF To Book' upload page and they will do the proper CMYK conversion on their end. The only issue is that the images are still exported in the LR Book module as 8-bit color JPEGs. This may cause banding with a wider gamut profile, but that should be apparent when reviewing the exported book PDF.

Here are some comments from Blurb concerning using Blurbs 'PDF to Book' workflow, which is similar to what I just described:

From Me:

My Workflow Details:

My objective is to process all images in LR4 and then export them as 300 dpi, ProPhoto RGB profile, 16 bit TIFF images for layout in InDesign using Blurb's InDesign plugin (Blurb Book Creator CS6 v2.0.2.34d8). I will soft proof the placed images inside InDesign using its 'Proof Colors' tool and the Blurb_ICC_Profile.icc profile. Once the InDesign layout is complete I will do the RGB to CMYK Blurb_ICC_Profile conversion during the export to PDF process using the Blurb PDF X-3 Export Preset v1-1.

Blurb's Resonse:

Response Via Email(David) - 07/18/2012

Using InDesign and our Blurb InDesign Plug-in does mean you're using the PDF to Book Workflow. This is because your InDesign files will ultimately be exported/uploaded as PDF files.

Regarding, "Once the InDesign layout is complete I would like to do the RGB to CMYK Blurb_ICC_Profile conversion during the export to PDF process":

  Unfortunately, there is no option for this and it's actually unnecessary during the export process. Our printers convert and process all images as CMYK using the Blurb ICC Color Profile, so even if you upload/export them with an RGB color profile, they'll be converted to CMYK for the production process.

My Response:

Customer By Email - 07/19/2012 05:10 AM Thanks for the explanation David. It sounds like I can just upload the PDF file using my ProPhoto RGB profiled PDF, but I would prefer to do the conversion from ProPhoto RGB to Blurb ICC CMYK profile. This way I can see the results before uploading the file to Blurb. Can I use the Blurb PDF X-3 Export Preset v1-1 with Output > Color Conversion to Destination > Blurb CC profile, and then upload the PDF file myself? If so please advise where I should upload the file on the Blurb website.

Blurb's Response:

Response Via Email(David) - 07/20/2012 03:49 PM Hi Todd,

If you do end up exporting your PDFs with the workflow you're referring to, you can upload your files here:

http://www.blurb.com/make/pdf_to_book

IMHO there's no reason why Adobe and Blurb couldn't work together so ProPhoto RGB 16-bit images can be used in the book PDF that gets uploaded (or exported!) to Blurb's website. Blurb then handles the CMYK conversion using full-gamut 16-bit images and not clipped sRGB 8-bit images.

[web-weaver]

trshaner,

This is most excellent. I did not know that there is an option for using the 'PDF to Book' workflow outside of InDesign.

Thanks so much for this, and also for the links.

I'll try it next time.

[As_Seen__by_Janine]

This all sounds very technically helpful; however, I must admit sounds pretty daunting and time consuming.

Most of all, it still begs the question of what the heck is the point of Adobe & Blurb partnering up an building a Blub Book module directly into Lightroom if we need to use all these other programs and processes to get a good book???

Exhausted just from trying to read all that I might need to do, let alone actually DOING it....  Grrrrrrrrr!

[As_Seen__by_Janine]

Thanks web-weaver,  I have a couple of questions about your advice:

You mentioned:

<< My monitor is calibrated and set to an intensity (brightness) of 110 cd/m2. >>

My monitor is calbrated using an X-Rite Color Munki and a webinar I took to learn how to use it recommened setting it to a brightness intensity of 100. Can you explain to me the reason you are going with 110? My understanding is that if my monitor is too bright, I stand a greater risks of printed products coming out too dark. Curious how you arrived at the choice of 110.

A bit confused about how soft proofing to the Blurb ICC profile in Photoshop helps if I'm ultimately bringing those images back into Lightroom to create & upload the book, since Lightroom can't handle the Blurb ICC profile because it's CYMK. Am I missing something in my thinking here?

LOVE your suggestion of exporting to PDF first and checking the PDF for results before uploading to Blub. Thanks for the tech tips for settings when exporting to PDF. You mentioned that you specify "Glossy" as media type. I wondered about that since none of the paper choices is truly "glossy" though I'm guessing you ultimately plan to print to the ProLine Pearl, which is the most glossy of their choices. Would you still recommend setting to glossy if the client only wants to pay for the Premium Lustre, which is slightly less glossy?

[TheDigitalDog]

As_Seen_ by_Janine wrote:

My monitor is calbrated using an X-Rite Color Munki and a webinar I took to learn how to use it recommened setting it to a brightness intensity of 100. ]

Sad that X-rite would disseminate such nonsense! The correct values for any calibration target (aim point) are those that produce a visual match from display to print. Since the viewing conditions are not defined, it's simply impossible to provide a 'correct' intensity value. Same for white point. The company makes good products but their information in this case simply isn't correct. See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

I think that article will explain that the values you set your display to can vary and without any knowledge of the method a print is viewed next to a display, any recommendation is suspect.

A bit confused about how soft proofing to the Blurb ICC profile in Photoshop helps if I'm ultimately bringing those images back into Lightroom to create & upload the book, since Lightroom can't handle the Blurb ICC profile because it's CYMK. Am I missing something in my thinking here?

Even in Photoshop it's not going to help because as I've outlined, the ICC Profile doesn't define the output conditions. It's a generic CMYK profile. You could just as easily picked SWOP V2 or another CMYK profile and maybe you'll be close to their output, maybe not. Just forget the soft proof process here, it's ill defined.

As for clipping, you can only verify this outside of the non bogus output profile from Blurb. That means sRGB since that's what is sent to Blurb from LR. Since we have no idea what the print conditions are due to a lack of a true output profile, we also don't know how sRGB will be transformed to CMYK. What may appear as no clipping could result in clipping after a conversion which unfortunately we are unable to simulate.

Additionally, don't assume clipping is necessary bad. It depends on the image and you as the image creator. It is useful to see what's clipping such you can if so desired, avoid this but if the image appears better with clipping, so be it! This is especially true for black clipping. No rules here. Take a look at say the work of Greg Gorman (http://www.gormanphotography.com) a man who has a serious disregard for shadow detail, and amazing images! Render the images as you desire.

[D Fosse]

Andrew Rodney wrote:

Take a look at say the work of Greg Gorman

A useful reminder. Those blacks make my hair stand on end, but...it sort of works   (just kidding; great shots) (incidentally, those movie posters pop up in the Photoshop forum all the time: how do I get this effect...and they all start talking about HDR).

Goes to show how paradigms change. This is pretty much the same effect as the old Kodachrome / underexpose trick. The colors would just explode, with blacks that nothing could penetrate. And that was perfectly OK.

Of course back then you coudn't have both, so you picked the part of the dynamic range that the film could reproduce, about 5 stops for transparency film, 4.5 for Kodachrome. Today the sensor records up to 12 stops, so we feel we have to use them all.

Anyway, black clipping is one thing, gamut clipping another. The latter often gives a heavy-handed, unpleasant effect lacking in "air" and light.

[TheDigitalDog]

twenty_one wrote:

Anyway, black clipping is one thing, gamut clipping another. The latter often gives a heavy-handed, unpleasant effect lacking in "air" and light.

I find Gamut clipping vastly more useful in deciding what color space to encode within. In terms of black/white clipping, the image/overlay technique (alt click on various sliders) is the way to go, not with the Histogram (since we don't have a "Luminance" histogram in LR). Convert to grayscale and you'll get pretty close to a "Luminance" histogram as we have in Photoshop. But seeing on the image where pixels clip is far more useful IMHO. Histograms in that respect are so 20th century .

[As_Seen__by_Janine]

Andrew Rodney wrote:

As_Seen_ by_Janine wrote:

My monitor is calbrated using an X-Rite Color Munki and a webinar I took to learn how to use it recommened setting it to a brightness intensity of 100. ]

Sad that X-rite would disseminate such nonsense! The correct values for any calibration target (aim point) are those that produce a visual match from display to print. Since the viewing conditions are not defined, it's simply impossible to provide a 'correct' intensity value. Same for white point. The company makes good products but their information in this case simply isn't correct. See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark .shtml

I think that article will explain that the values you set your display to can vary and without any knowledge of the method a print is viewed next to a display, any recommendation is suspect.

Andrew,  Thanks for helping understand how to "break out of the box" and not assume any recommended calibration target is best.

Just to clarify, the tutorial which recommended a target brightness setting of 100 was not directly from X-Rite, but rather a webinar put on by Mac Groups (in partnership with X-Rite) many years ago. But you've helped me recall that 100 was a suggested starting point, not necessarily a brightness target for good and forever!

The good news is that for 3 years now, I've successfully used the X-Rite to Calibrate to that desired brightness level and I've successfully printed both at home and pro lab prints which come back EXACTLY as desired, so their "recommended starting point" has been working for me, up to now.

My concern has arisen becase now I'm moving from the realm of conventional photo prints to press books and there seems to be soooooo much hub-bub about the problems getting color, shadow, and highlight accuracy. All because Blurb does not offer any "real" information about specific profiles for specific papers.

I also agree, based on all the logic presented, that it is a moot point to even bother trying to soft-proof to Blurb's ICC profile, since it is a bogus, generic profile which is not specific to the individual papers on which the book is to be printed.

Ultimately, I'm coming to believe my best bet for getting good results is to follow the advice for #1 - a small test book of some of the most vital photos, including ones most likely to be out of gamut, and also #2, once the full book is created, uploading to PDF first to see how happy I am with the results.

Thanks to all who've given advice!

Janine Fugere - As Seen by Janine 

www.asseenbyjanine.com

[As_Seen__by_Janine]

Andrew Rodney wrote:

Additionally, don't assume clipping is necessary bad. It depends on the image and you as the image creator. It is useful to see what's clipping such you can if so desired, avoid this but if the image appears better with clipping, so be it! This is especially true for black clipping. No rules here. Take a look at say the work of Greg Gorman (http://www.gormanphotography.com) a man who has a serious disregard for shadow detail, and amazing images! Render the images as you desire.

Once again, reminders not to get trapped into being stuck in a box! No question, there are many times that there are photos I truly love, which have black clipping, and reducing it to the point that "no clipping" shows in the histogram destroys the image I had in my mind's eye.... 

Also appreciate the reference to Greg Gorman for inspiration, who also happens to be a photographer near me - Greg is in Denver & I am in Boulder/Louisville, Colorado. Many of his images would, as I mentioned about some of mine, be completely transfigured into something far from Greg's vision for the images if black clipping were eliminated...

[As_Seen__by_Janine]

Andrew Rodney wrote:

See: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark .shtml

I think that article will explain that the values you set your display to can vary and without any knowledge of the method a print is viewed next to a display, any recommendation is suspect.

What an excellent and comprehensive article!  Very helpful.... thanks!  Janine

[web-weaver]

Janine,

You wrote "My monitor is calibrated using an X-Rite Color Munki and a webinar I took to learn how to use it recommened setting it to a brightness intensity of 100. Can you explain to me the reason you are going with 110?"

I am going with 110 because at that setting my prints done on my printer match what I see on screen. If 100 works for you, then that is the correct setting for you. The "correct"  intensity (brightness) setting is not a value that can be determined mathematically. Generally it is recommended to choose a value between 100 and 110. Any setting in that range that works for your monitor is fine.

You also wrote "A bit confused about how soft proofing to the Blurb ICC profile in Photoshop helps if I'm ultimately bringing those images back into Lightroom to create & upload the book, since Lightroom can't handle the Blurb ICC profile because it's CYMK. Am I missing something in my thinking here?"

It is a test only. It doesn't do anything for the image(s) in Lr. If I have an image with critical color, I send it to Photoshop and softproof it to the Blurb icc-profile. Just for viewing on my screen and to give me an idea. I don't convert to Blurb CMYK and use the converted photo in Lr. That would indeed be futile since Lr cannot handle CMYK - as you correctly say. And ... I don't do this for every image.

And you wrote "I wondered about that since none of the paper choices is truly "glossy""

As far as I understand the settings "Glossy" or "Matte" determine how much sharpening is applied on export to PDF. Matte paper needs more sharpening since a print on matte paper is softer. I would select "Glossy" also for the Premium Lustre" paper.

You are right, I mostly select the ProLine Pearl. The paper is much thicker than the Lustre.

[D Fosse]

And just to add that proofing to sRGB is generally a waste of time unless you have a wide gamut monitor. If not, what you see on-screen is already soft proofed to sRGB (or something so close to it that the difference doesn't matter).

If sRGB really was your target, just look at the screen.