Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/10/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Herbert, the viewing light and even the surrounding environment can profoundly affect what you 'see' when you look at a print. If you look at your monitor screen and you are wearing a green shirt or your walls are bright colours etc etc you will get a different perception again. Put a white or black broad border around the print or have different paper 'white' and things look different again. The same print will look very different as those variables change. In a professional environment (say for a high end advertising campaign) the prints might be looked at in a dedicated, specific viewing station with light sources of exact measured white balance and all of the rest of it. For hanging in a gallery with down-lights on each exhibit you might want something different again. LEDs by the way are likely to be very 'cold' white and very bright and would completely alter what you see, as would various fluorescents or tungsten lamps etc etc. Of course the media itself varies quite a bit in 'white' as well. The whole topic is pretty complex and you have to ask yourself, how much you NEED to understand or what is important to you as well. Being pretty technical geeky I spend way too much time trying to learn more on this sort of stuff when I ought to be getting better at taking photos! Really the best you can do is to look at your prints after they dry down in perhaps indirect window light. But if you were say planning to make some nice large prints to put on the wall, you might want to look at them in that location etc. If you would like to understand more I do recommend that Knowledge area on the site I posted. Cheers, Geoff http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman On 11 October 2012 16:30, Herbert Kanner <kanner at acm.org> wrote: > Hi, Jeff. You helped me once before with regard to avoiding the importing > of duplicates. I seem to specialize in overlooking items near the top of > the r.h. panel of LR, as I failed to notice the appearance of a print > profile pop-up when I checked marked the soft proofing check box. Richard > Man pointed that out. > > So I tried an experiment. My monitor is an iMac calibrated with a Spyder > Express. My printer is pretty good, though not to professional standards: > an Epson Artisan 50. For this relatively inexpensive printer, Epson > provides profiles only for Epson papers. > > My experiment was to print the picture of the orchids that I posted last > week as a Friday Flower. First I established, as expected, that there was > no discernible difference between telling the LR print module to use 16 > bits or 8 bits. Then I compare Perceptual to Relative. The orchids had a > slight bit more red in their purple hue in the Perceptual case. I then soft > proofed. A few bits of the green and all of the orchid petals were marked > as out of gamut. Small changes in purple hue did not help the petals. A > small reduction in saturation put everything in gamut and when printed, the > petals looked paler, the green looked unchanged. > > Then, I decided to compare the prints to the picture on the monitor. The > prints were viewed under an LED light. I now decided it's time to throw in > the sponge. While the difference between Perceptual and Relative, for this > picture, was extremely subtle, the purple on the prints was clearly much > more red than that on the screen. Strangely, all the background colors: > wall, furniture, air inlet grate matched quite closely between monitor and > screen, and, in general, I've felt in the past that my prints pretty well > matched the monitor. > > C'est la vie. > > > Herbert Kanner > kanner at acm.org > 650-326-8204 > > Question authority and the authorities will question you. > > > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 2:57 PM, Geoff Hopkinson wrote: > > > And you need to have created and installed those profiles from elsewhere > > before you can select them for printing or soft proofing. Those may be > the > > 'canned 'profiles from the paper manufacturers or custom profiles. > > Notice the perceived difference when a 'white' border is displayed in > that > > soft proof mode though. > > > > Actually the new LR changes effectively duplicate Photoshop's printing > > capabilities with more smarts added (resolution and colour space > background > > automation for two). > > With most monitors in any case the luminance and contrast will not echo > > well what the print displays (not even considering the transmissive vs. > > reflective conditions). Few monitors can cover more than sRGB as well but > > good inkjets can approach AdobeRGB. > > A print on good Photorag might have a contrast ratio of maybe 150:1 > > compared to maybe 10000 :1 of a common LCD screen. > > > > High end monitors like the best Eizos and NECs confer a lot of > advantages, > > including in these areas but maybe that is another conversation. > > > > Cheers, > > Geoff > > http://www.pbase.com/hoppyman > > > > > > > > On 11 October 2012 06:39, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> > wrote: > > > >> Herb, on the upper right of the Develop panel, if you enable "Soft > >> Proofing," it has "Create Proof" and you can select which profile you > are > >> soft proofing. Most of the time, you would select your paper/printer > >> combination that you are printing on. > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Herbert Kanner <kanner at acm.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Even after seeing Adobe's tutorial on the subject, I'm really puzzled. > >>> Allegedly, Soft Proofing is supposed to show you areas of a picture > that > >>> are "out of gamut" and enable you to make minimal changes in hue or > >>> saturation to put those areas back into gamut. But doesn't gamut depend > >> on > >>> media? That is, doesn't the gamut that can be presented depend, e.g. on > >> the > >>> printer/paper combination or the limitations of a monitor? > >>> > >>> Since I'm viewing the picture on a monitor, what I get to see is, by > >>> definition, in gamut. Just for fun, I clicked the Soft Proofing box on > >> the > >>> recent picture of some orchids, The blossoms were indicated to be "out > of > >>> gamut" and went into gamut after I reduced the saturation to the extent > >>> that they were pale ghosts of their former beauty. > >>> > >>> The Soft Proofing option is in the Develop Module, which, to my > >> knowledge, > >>> has no way of specifying the profile of a printer/paper combination. I > >>> can't image how one would effectively use Soft Proofing. > >>> > >>> Herbert Kanner > >>> kanner at acm.org > >>> 650-326-8204 > >>> > >>> Question authority and the authorities will question you. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Leica Users Group. > >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >