Soft Proofing confusion

[Ben Rubinstein]

I'm thinking about going inkjet. I have printed until now using 3 seperate labs using frontiers (fuji crystal archive) and one using a kodak LED printer (kodak endura and Ilford Hi Gloss). So far the colours from my calibrated screen have been consistent throughout the 4 seperate machines and 3 very different paper bases.

I'm interested in the Kodak pro luster inkjet paper as a relatively seamless way to transition between the traditional chemical prints I'm used to and the inkjet world. I downloaded the Kodak custom profiles from the pro section of their site, and soft proofing them seems to show that the prints will be approximatly 1000K too warm, possibly more.

I don't have a printer yet but am trying to educate myself in advance, with the manufacturers custom profile made for a specific printer, why would I be seeing such a huge colour shift with soft proofing? I know my monitor to be accurate as I mentioned above, is it the profile that is at fault eventhough this is a custom profile made by Kodak Pro services?

Many thanks,

Ben

 

[JohanElzenga]

A soft proof shows you a simulation of what your print will be, so if the soft proof is too warm, it means that the paper is a very warm type of paper (in combination with that particular printer). If you don't like what you see, it's not because the profile is 'wrong' somehow, but because that is what will happen if you don't edit your image to suit that paper. With soft proof on, correct your image until it looks right to you. Then use this version for printing to that particular inkjet paper/printer combination.

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

That is strange though, why would a printer profile not automatically correct the colours sent through to the ink heads to compensate for the paper/printer combo? I thought that a profile did just that, i.e. it should be taking what is on screen and using the profile to make sure that the printer gets the colours the same. If all a profile does is to show me how the printer is going to get it wrong....

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Hi Ben,

As a short answer, I have to say that I agree with what Johan has written.
For the long answer, you can better read what is written in this link:

http://www.steves-digicams.com/techcorner/September_2005.html

As Mike Chaney explains in great detail, soft proofing is not a very reliable method. The proof of the pudding is in the eating (i.e. actually printing). Good luck with your research

Regards,

Cem

 

[JohanElzenga]

That is strange though, why would a printer profile not automatically correct the colours sent through to the ink heads to compensate for the paper/printer combo? I thought that a profile did just that, i.e. it should be taking what is on screen and using the profile to make sure that the printer gets the colours the same. If all a profile does is to show me how the printer is going to get it wrong....

I think you misunderstand what a profile is and how it is used. A profile is the description of a color space, in this case the color space of that particular printer/paper combination. A profile is not some kind of correction program that corrects for differences between the image on screen and the image you print.

You use profiles to 'translate' between color spaces, and soft proof is a simulation of that process. Soft proof shows you what the print will look like (within the limitations of your screen), so you can correct the image if you don't like what you see.

 

[Don Lashier]

I thought that a profile did just that, i.e. it should be taking what is on screen and using the profile to make sure that the printer gets the colours the same. If all a profile does is to show me how the printer is going to get it wrong....

But the printer typically isn't capable of getting the colors the same because the gamut is smaller.

But I agree that the appearance shouldn't be wildly different - tint introduced for instance. However, with my inkjet I find soft proofing somewhat inaccurate and of little use. Also note that the quality (accuracy) of the soft proofing is dependent on the profile and can vary wildly depending upon who and what tool made the profile.

- DL

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

If as you say the profile is converting the editing profile (sRGB, Adobe '98, etc) to the profile of the printer + paper, why should there be any significant change? When I convert from Adobe '98 to sRGB for web usage there is give or take no visible change to the image. So why would changing from Adobe '98 to the printer+paper profile show any global change of hue/saturation/luminosity, especially global colour?

 

[Don Lashier]

When I convert from Adobe '98 to sRGB for web usage there is give or take no visible change to the image.

What you see on your monitor is being converted to your monitor profile. Your monitor is mostly capable of only sRGB gamut so when you view an image in Adobe RGB it's already being mashed into sRGB so of course you won't see any difference. Typical printer gamuts are somewhat smaller than even sRGB so can't reproduce some colors, particularly the saturated greens, purples, pinks, etc. Not only that, but the dynamic range is smaller also, so blacks won't be as black, and whites not as white. This is what soft proofing attempts to emulate on the screen.

- DL

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

So I return to my question, why any global colour shift?

 

[Don Lashier]

So I return to my question, why any global colour shift?

Bad profile. Many manufacturer's profiles are horrendously bad. For instance, Arches profile for their Infinity paper gives a bad green cast. I don't understand this as it's not that difficult to make a half decent profile.

- DL