I’m beginning to think that many of these red shades are pushing the limits of pigment ink in general. In general, I’ve pushed the brightness in LR as high as I can push it because the contrast ratio of a print is so low that details in the shadows can be left out. However, with the jacket, at least half the jacket was out of gamut until I reduced the brightness slider. Given that the gamut of my monitor is lower than the inks, it will be unrealistic to expect a perfect match between monitor and print. I’d love to just try one of those NECs to see how much better the match would be for the reds.
Thanks for your offer earlier Brian. If you think it would improve the final output of the reds, I’m willing to try. However, if I’m profiling to get my print to match a monitor that is even farther out of gamut than pigment ink, (you can correct me if I’m wrong), that is perhaps not useful in the end.
Perhaps I’ve been too picky!
I may be better off focusing more on ensuring colours are pleasant to view, and I can achieve a decent contrast in the print.
I discovered in LR5 I can split the screen to a before/after profiling in the proof view. This makes it easier to see the effects during proofing.
What does Martin Evening suggest about handling out-of-gamut colours? You could desaturate just that colour. You can also try another rending intent.
For colour work, the issue with your monitor, compared to the Eizo or NEC, is likely to be how large or small its gamut is. ConeColorPro has a smaller gamut that Epson inks (JeffG and I measured and compared them), so that may partly compensate for the screen to print match. However CCP may make it harder to print out-of-gamut colours.
It’s hard to say how much of a difference a custom profile will make, but it’s worth a try. My experience in using Epson inks and then Cone inks is that the soft-proofs looked a little different, but that the prints were quite similar, unless you’re printing with images with colours that push the gamut. So if you have Red River profiles for your papers using Epson inks then that’s going to give you a reasonable profile for printing and soft-proofing, unless your printer is out of spec. That can happen as a printer ages, and in that case a custom profile may help.
I do think you need to be realistic about real-world color matching, but even with consumer level gear, we should be able to get you a reasonably acceptable screen-to-print match.
Yes, Evening does suggest desaturating, but his book is more about the technical aspects of LR, how to use soft proofing.
I decided to try printing Jon’s test image to try to eliminate as many variables as possible. Unfortunately, the instructions are for programs I don’t use. (It took me a long time to find the instructions… they’re hidden quite well!) Lightroom doesn’t have any colour settings as shown in CS3. Also, LR may not have the ability to print with no colour management. When I tried using “managed by printer”, I tried using the Adobe Print utility, and both gave me prints with colour very desaturated. The faces looked almost black and white. There was no detail in the shadows behind the flowers. What am I doing wrong?
I’m a little lost here. Which image is Jon’s test image? We are talking about printing in colour, are we not? Generally you’d only use the Adobe Color Print Utility for printing profiling charts with colour management completely off. For an actual image, you need some sort of colour management somewhere.
The closest I could find for appropriate instructions was this link:
Printing With a Color Profile.pdf
on the page:
The closest instructions I can find are those for Windows XP with Photoshop CS3.
Open Adobe Photoshop CS3: I have to open LR5.
2-4. Select Edit>Colour Settings: LR5 does not have Colour settings. This is where I had some of my difficulty I think.
Open an image that you want to print.
6-7. Embedded Profile Mismatch… moot here again.
Selecting your Print Settings:
Preview: I can use the proofing checkbox in LR. Now here is my biggest confusion:
According to the page that contains the image link, there is this statement:
“The test image has an embedded ICC source profile of Adobe RGB 1998. We opened it in Photoshop and we did not convert it to another color space”. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting this. I wasn’t sure if I was to choose Adobe RGB 1998 in the soft proofing because of the embedded ICC, or if I was to choose the ICC for my paper I was going to print to. I see more out of gamut destination (print) areas using Adobe RGB 1998 softproofing than the paper choice. Most of the out of gamut areas are in the lighter shades. Yellow seems good.
I have simulate paper and ink, perceptual, but no black point compensation.
Select File> Print: I go to print module.
“With the pull down list on the upper right hand side of the window set to Color Management, check Proof, which will list the profile name selected in the Proof Setup window in step 1 above. Select No Color Management in the Color Handling pull down list and Current Custom Setup in the Proof Setup pull down list as shown below. Do NOT check the Simulate Paper Color box.”
This is another point of confusion. Why, at the print stage, am I asked to select no colour management? Or is this just telling the printer to not manage colour? The proof instruction is confusing me as well, because I thought I already did the soft-proofing?
Select printer model… that’s easy enough
Push the Advanced button for Epson Printer Properties… easy enough.
In paper and quality, …easy enough… I select sheet, quality, 1440 dpi, uncheck high speed, choose no colour adjustment.
Push OK, Print
Bottom line I get from these instructions is that I’m being instructed to choose NO colour management at all, neither by the printer, neither by the computer. I would have thought that I should have chosen colour management by the computer to use the paper I’m using.
I’ll make two prints, one with no colour management, and one with colour management by the computer. I’ll print on 4x6 Epson Premium glossy. I’ll post again with both results.
I just printed using the computer to control colour. I only have 4x6 Epson premium glossy, so it’s kind of small, but it seems accurate. I’m not going to bother using the no colour management because I don’t think I was supposed to do that. It must have been something special in CS that I would know about if I had the program. I’m going to try some of my Red River paper next.
Larry
My results on Red River paper seem very similar to that on the Epson Premium Glossy.
I still don’t see a lot of shadow detail behind the flowers. I wonder if this could be a LR setting? The Epson WFPro 4530, while not as accurate colour wise, produced a much brighter print overall that had more shadow detail.
OK, I just printed from Paintshop Pro, turning off colour management in the program and leaving colour management to the driver. Exact same image. I was going to try leaving management up to Paintshop, but it would only load Epson printer profiles, not Red River profiles. It would load Red River profiles for proofing. Strange.
Anyway, sorry about all the posts here. Perhaps I should order an actual print from IJM to compare my prints with theirs.
I understand your confusion. It’s hard enough with Photoshop, as Adobe have regularly changed the operation of printing UI from version to version. The principles are still the same, although some features have been removed (colour management off), and the appearance is different. The principles are much the same in LR, but the UI is very different. E.g. soft-proofing is done in the develop module by pressing the “S” key, rather than the print module.
My suggestion is that you search out some resources specifically on printing using LR, rather than trying to use instructions written for a much earlier versions of Photoshop. That’s an exercise in frustration.
Here are a couple of suggestions, although I’m sure that there are plenty of others:
Regarding the test image that you printed with the shadows behind the flowers, I’ve had similar experiences. I’ve doubted my own colour profiles for similar reasons. I got some help from JeffG to do some testing. We came to the view that the issue was the viewing conditions. On the screen, the shadows appear to have good detail, esp if the screen is fairly bright. You need pretty good front lighting for the print to get a match in the shadows for the back-lighting of the screen. Once you do, then the match is alright. Even so, for colour images I find that I often have to raise the shadows a fair bit if the viewing conditions aren’t going to be bright enough.
But first we need to ensure that you have CM working properly when printing from LR.
I have already done that search for LR, and seen various solutions. There have been several very heated arguments about it. I’ll take a look at the two links you provided later. I’m up at 3 a.m. with the flu and thought I’d check in. I’ve been trying to check out for the last 5 hours!
I’m beginning to think there’s nothing wrong with my printing workflow. Some of the weird things I tried (printing using the Adobe RGB instead of a profile… who knows what that’s actually doing since Adobe RGB isn’t a print profile!) are my attempts to blend the CS instructions with LR, and also to just see what effect it would have.
I tried printing in multiple ways from LR5:
disable CM at the driver, enable paper profile in LR print module.
disable CM in LR, enable paper profile in print driver.
instruct LR to print Adobe RBG, then have printer driver treat the input profile as Adobe RGB, then printer profile as my paper profile.
Then I tried printing from Paintshop Pro, disabling CM in PS, and instructing the driver to use the print profile for my paper.
All 4 methods produced identical results. I submitted a request for a sample print from IJM of that test print to see if that’s what I’m supposed to get. If their print shows more shadow detail, I’ll get a pack of Epson paper and repeat the process again. But I’m beginning to believe that the background is really supposed to be that dark and my monitor is really that bright.
For most of my family pictures, shadow detail isn’t an issue because I’m not usually aiming for any artistic effects with shadows. However, it will be good to know what the limiting factor is.
As for print illumination, I’m not about to install track lighting around my home to illuminate all my prints! I will want to print them so they are pleasing to view under ambient lighting.
Sorry if this is incoherent… fever, lack of sleep… Sorry…
Sympathies. I was surprised to see you awake at this hour. It’s the hour when a certain other young person in your region arrives home from work.
Clearly you’re ahead of where I thought you were. #1 sounds good to me, and if #2-#4 provide identical results then so much the better. I doubt that the links I provided will add much to your state of knowledge or your prints.
I suspect so. I find soft-proofing deep shadow detail harder in colour work than I do with piezography. I doubt that changing paper is going to help all that much, it’s surprising how similar they are. Same coating probably.
I think your issues may lie in how well your screen is calibrated for print, and in expectations.
I haven’t installed track-lighting - I edit my images for the display conditions. Often that means raising the shadows much more than you’d think necessary, based on the soft-proof, and that’s using an Eizo calibrated for print.
I just received IJM’s prints of their test image on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper, and one on Ultra Premium Presentation Matte.
I’m comparing just the glossy with my print on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper printed from my R3000 from LR5. I reset all settings to help ensure I was printing things in the same way as possible as IJM.
On the IJM print, I can clearly see a difference between 0 and 5 on the grey scale series from 0 to 100. On my print, I can barely see the difference between 0 to 5. Also, the dark image beside the Photodisc image has MUCH more shadow detail in the IJM print than my print. I don’t have Photoshop elements, but I do have Paintshop Pro and can print with profiles there. I’ll try a print using Paintshop Pro later and see what I get.
When comparing the IJM print to my monitor, I actually had to brighten my monitor a little to get the shadow detail to match the print.
Either I’m doing something wrong in my printing workflow, LR is doing hidden things during the print process that I’m unaware of, or ???. It’s not JUST my monitor that’s causing this, although I’m sure it’s partially to blame.
Adobe Photoshop arguably has better color management than LR5 - although Adobe is trying hard to equalize them in more recent versions of LR. In LR5 you are unable to set the working space as Adobe RGB 1998 - but you are able to select the output profile to our ICC for the R3000 and Epson PGPP paper and the rendering to relative. Are you doing that? What are you doing?
Photoshop is to printmakers what LR is to imagers. It is better suited to the task. Let us know how PaintShop goes. As I recall Corell lets you assign Adobe RGB as a working space to print from and then the printer profile, but their color engine is not highly regarded as is Adobe’s ACR. Will be interesting if it out performs LR5.
[QUOTE=jon;9742]Adobe Photoshop arguably has better color management than LR5 - although Adobe is trying hard to equalize them in more recent versions of LR. In LR5 you are unable to set the working space as Adobe RGB 1998 - but you are able to select the output profile to our ICC for the R3000 and Epson PGPP paper and the rendering to relative. Are you doing that? What are you doing?
Photoshop is to printmakers what LR is to imagers. It is better suited to the task. Let us know how PaintShop goes. As I recall Corell lets you assign Adobe RGB as a working space to print from and then the printer profile, but their color engine is not highly regarded as is Adobe’s ACR. Will be interesting if it out performs LR5.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Jon,
I set the output profile to SPR3000 Premium Glossy. I cannot find an ICC on your webpage http://www.conecolor.com/icc/EpsonR3000.html for the Epson premium glossy photo paper, so I used the ICC from Epson (SPR3000 premium Glossy). I set the intent to perceptual. I’ll try rendering to relative and see if there’s a difference.
I do have Qimage, but I’ve not figured out how to use it yet.
[QUOTE=jon;9742]Adobe Photoshop arguably has better color management than LR5 - although Adobe is trying hard to equalize them in more recent versions of LR. In LR5 you are unable to set the working space as Adobe RGB 1998 - but you are able to select the output profile to our ICC for the R3000 and Epson PGPP paper and the rendering to relative. Are you doing that? What are you doing?
Photoshop is to printmakers what LR is to imagers. It is better suited to the task. Let us know how PaintShop goes. As I recall Corell lets you assign Adobe RGB as a working space to print from and then the printer profile, but their color engine is not highly regarded as is Adobe’s ACR. Will be interesting if it out performs LR5.[/QUOTE]
Jon,
Your response suggests that conecolor has an ICC for Epson premium glossy, PGPP. I have never seen this on your website. Does it really exist and I’m not looking in the right spot?
Larry
I don’t know why Jon is so negative about printing from LR. Although I don’t use it for printing myself, on the forums that I read, people whose views I respect often recommend it, even after editing in Photoshop. Has something to do with the sharpening algorithms I think. The CM should work.
Based on my experience, I would not trust anything from Corel. Qimage is good, but uses LCMS as its CM engine rather than the Adobe engine, and so will print a little differently to PS & LR.
Epson have a nasty habit of renaming papers, so choosing the correct profile is not always easy, e.g. note: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supAdvice.jsp?type=highlights¬eoid=89563
For Epson Premium Glossy, I’d have chosen the IJM Epson Premium Presentation Paper Gloss (PK) ICC, as at least it’s glossy and may well have the same coating as PGPP but just not be as thick (lower GSM). (Actually, I don’t know what “Epson Premium Presentation Paper Glossy” is, as it seems to mix matte and gloss naming terminology, but I assume whatever the paper that IJM profiled was, at least it was glossy.)
There is an IJM curve for PGPP on the 3880. Given the print head is supposed to be the same, that may also be an option. Try soft-proofing the IJM print with it, and if that’s a match, try printing with it.
Sounds like you’ve getting closer to a match using IJM profiles. Nonetheless, the offer still stands.
I don’t know why Brian thinks I am so negative about LR. :rolleyes: I am not negative about LR. I use it myself. I teach it in our workshops. Controlled use of LR is one of the more valuable aspects of our Piezography Digital Printmaking Workshops. Those who come only with LR, definitely leave armed with PS.
If anyone wants to talk about the merits of LR over PS - or their workflow over another workflow - it would be great in the General Discussions. There is a lot to learn from that. There is no one way of doing things. In fact it would be great to expand the General Discussions to include all manner of topics.
This forum has certainly grown since we launched it as a tech support site. We appreciate members like Brian who participate and help others!
I didn’t sense any negativity from Jon about LR5. I guess from a printers point of view, or Jon’s at least, the ability to work in a specific colour space (Adobe RGB 1998) is valuable. I did notice that LR doesn’t allow me to choose the workspace. From my point of view, I just want a decent print.
Jon, I still don’t have an answer to one of my questions. In one of your previous replies, you stated I should be using Conecolor’s ICC for the R3000 and Epson PGPP paper, yet I cannot find this ICC exactly. Am I to use the Epson presentation glossy ICC? The photo lustre ICC? Or do you have a Premium Glossy Photo Paper ICC hidden somewhere?
Larry
InkjetMall Information
Why buy from us
My InkjetMall account
Contact Info