Message
Re: Lightroom and QTR for Windows -- advice for an export for QTR strategy
2016-02-15 by rdeloe1@...
Logically a custom ICC should be more accurate than a generic one like RGB_Matte_Paper. I totally agree. However, when I compared soft proofing with RGB_Matte_Paper and custom profiles, I saw the histogram changing ever so slightly, but the image itself did not change in a way that was apparent to my eye. Similarly, when I exported from Lightroom with custom profile and with RGB_Matte_Paper and then printed, looking carefully for differences, I didn't see any. I'll be the first to admit that this isn't conclusive evidence of anything. What I did notice was that with the custom ICC for the optically brightened paper, Lightroom reported that the image was out of gamut for both screen and printer. Given that the generic one seemed to be handling my shadows properly, I simply chose to not bother finding out what the issue was. So for me, "better" simply means "it seems to work and produces results I like with no issues". It's a personal call.
You're correct that I'm definitely in the camp that says what matters is the final print. This clearly is a hangover from my darkroom days! Keith Cooper's claim that "the usefulness of soft proofing is frequently overplayed, and used as an excuse not to really get a feel for how printers perform with different papers" is pretty strong. He was writing about Photoshop. If soft proofing in Lightroom helped me make better prints, I'd be using it religiously. I would be happy to find out that I'm doing something wrong and not getting the full benefit of soft proofing in Lightroom. In the meantime, I can make prints that meet my expectations.
Happy printing.