Saving piezography soft proof images as jpegs in PS?

piezography

#1

I am trying to save a soft proofed piezography image in PS CC to a .jpeg for web viewing. It appears that there is no direct way to do this (if someone knows a solution please let me know). Otherwise does anyone have an adjustment layer(s) that I could apply to the non-soft proofed image to simulate, say, a SPED print?

Thanks!
Michael


#2

If you download our soft-proof profiles from the piezography.com website and then “Convert” to that profile in photoshop, you can then convert to sRGB and the hue of that piezography ink will be represented in the image.

best,
Walker


#3

Walker, thanks for the quick reply! I have, and use, the P2 profiles. Are there soft proof profiles for a K7 configuration?


#4

both K7 and K6 soft-proofs will look identical.

best,
Walker


#5

[QUOTE=walkerblackwell;11264][QUOTE=Michael;11263]I am trying to save a soft proofed piezography image in PS CC to a .jpeg for web viewing. It appears that there is no direct way to do this (if someone knows a solution please let me know). Otherwise does anyone have an adjustment layer(s) that I could apply to the non-soft proofed image to simulate, say, a SPED print[/QUOTE]
If you download our soft-proof profiles from the piezography.com website and then “Convert” to that profile in photoshop, you can then convert to sRGB and the hue of that piezography ink will be represented in the image.[/QUOTE]

This is an issue that used to annoy me about the Grey Gamma 2.2 workflow, until I realised that I could [U]assign[/U] the image to the soft-proofing profile and then convert to sRGB. Walker - are you sure you mean “convert” rather than “assign”? Convert is going to do something quite different in my experience, especially for matte papers.

You won’t be able to replicate the simulate paper colour or simulate black ink soft proof settings, but assigning to the soft-proofing ICC will in effect give you a soft proof without these settings.


#6

I hope I’m not intruding on a discussion here, but Brian has exposed yet another colour-management issue for me to learn. From what I can gather, I’m not alone in this. I did a little reading on the difference between assign vs convert to a colour profile. Most explanations are confusing, and I suspect more confusing than the actual concept itself. So far, the best description I can find in a fairly short order is the one by robc in:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?19043-Assign-Profile-vs-Convert-to-Profile

It seems that, if you like the soft-proof, and want to produce a jpg image for viewing that looks as close to the soft proof as possible, you should “convert to profile” which will alter the colour numbers in the file so that they look as close as possible to what you see in the soft proof. If you “assign to profile”, the colour numbers will be maintained. As an example, if you have an image in RGB with a red-255, and it looks good in the soft proof of an sRGB profile, then you assign it to the sRGB profile, the new red-255 will be more saturated. In other words, the image saved with the new profile will look different.

Please correct me if I’m wrong. If I’m so wrong that I’m confusing the issue, feel free to delete this post, or ask me to do so.

Larry


#7

In the absence of a response from Walker, I’ll attempt a short explanation. A digital image file mostly contains lots of numbers - for an RGB image all the RGB values and for a greyscale image all the gray values. I regard assign and convert as opposites.

If you [I]convert[/I] to an ICC then the numbers in the file change, but the appearance in Photoshop won’t (soft-proofing off). Why not? Because the numbers have changed, but so has their interpretation - the ICC.

If you [I]assign[/I] an image to an ICC then the numbers in the file [U]don’t[/U] change, but the appearance in Photoshop will change, because the interpretation of those numbers, the ICC, has changed.

So assigning an image to a soft-proofing ICC will result in Photoshop in effect giving you most of a soft-proof without turning on soft-proofing, because it will interpret those numbers in the file in much the same way as the printer will. (This is an over-simplification, but I think the general idea is correct.)

Perhaps we should wait and see if this helps the OP, rather than continue to hijack his thread. You can contact me off-forum Larry if you want further elaboration.