Datacolor User to User Support Group.

Hi,

I have been working with the PrintFix Pro for a few months now and 
have been generally happy with the results.  I can get the colors to 
match but the preview and the print are muted compared with the 
original. I have been working around the problem by opening the 
original and a copy in PhotoShop, previewing the copy and modifying 
the previewed copy until it looks like the unpreviewed original.  
Another work around was to do the same thing with a MacBeth color 
checker and develop a curves correction which I save and apply to the 
photo before print. This works well for landscapes but produces red 
faces in photos. Also, the "punched-up" version tends to lose shadow 
detail.

I just read the review by PerpetualVisions referenced on the 
DataColor Homepage. About halfway through the review is a comparison 
between a soft-proofed and original DataColor test image. The soft-
proofed image is faded compared to the original.  This is exactly 
what I am seeing. The PhotoShop soft proof is better, which also 
corresponds with my experience. And, if you look at the soft proof in 
the review and notice the girl's face in the third photo top row it's 
a little red; if you punch-up the image the face will take on a 
reddish cast.

Do you have any suggestions for "punching-up" the profile other than 
what I am doing?  I also tried building the profile with my 
PhotoShop "curve" correction but applying it to the photo instead of 
the profile gives better results. 

Thanks for your help.

Bob Schoner

I always expect soft proofs to look 'faded', since it's an attempt to show what the print will 
look like.

Prints -always- look different, the nearest I can get is with a print in a matched viewing 
cabinet/stand and setting everything up quite carefully (inc. room lighting)

I get so many people ask about this when I've been giving talks about printing and colour 
management that I even wrote an article "Why don't my prints match my screen" :-)
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/match_prints_to_screen.html

I find that once I let go of thinking of the image on the screen as anything other than an 
intermediate stage in getting to a print, I worry far less about the perceived mismatches. I 
have the equipment to get very good soft proofing, and still only use it for giving me an 
idea of what my prints are going to look like. The moment I take one out of the viewing 
box and hang it in normal room lighting, it will look different anyway :-)

Take time producing a set of prints of the Datacolor test image with different profile 
settings and papers and get a feel for how prints look - this is far more important (IMHO) 
than chasing after (an illusory) precision in soft proofing...

bye for now
Keith Cooper

>opening the original and a copy in Photoshop, previewing the copy and modifying 
the previewed copy until it looks like the unpreviewed original.

Bob,

Your above workflow is exactly what is recommend by many. So you are right on with your 
observation that the softproof makes the image look flat...especially with matte paper 
softproofing. I also use the same method. 

Though one could build profiles to add saturation or mute colors or tone an image. That's 
the beauty of building your own profiles.

Best,
John

I would be interested in hearing if what I am about to suggest is wrong or
if there is a way to achieve a printed output that has the same punch and
vibrance as the monitor display.  However, in the meantime, I will suggest
that monitor displays are transmissive presentations while printed outputs
are reflective.  This may account for the dulling down of the appearance
between the monitor display and the printed output.  I would also suggest
that, while the soft proof display - which is also a transmissive output -
may be punchier than the actual printed output, it is probably slightly
duller and less punchy than the working space preview or standard desktop
versions of the image display to replicate what the printed output might be
- i.e., to take into account dulling down of reflective outputs.

From: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of rschoner
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:27 PM
To: colorvision_group@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [colorvision_group] PerpetualVisions Review/Faded preview, print

 

Hi,

I have been working with the PrintFix Pro for a few months now and 
have been generally happy with the results. I can get the colors to 
match but the preview and the print are muted compared with the 
original. I have been working around the problem by opening the 
original and a copy in PhotoShop, previewing the copy and modifying 
the previewed copy until it looks like the unpreviewed original. 
Another work around was to do the same thing with a MacBeth color 
checker and develop a curves correction which I save and apply to the 
photo before print. This works well for landscapes but produces red 
faces in photos. Also, the "punched-up" version tends to lose shadow 
detail.

I just read the review by PerpetualVisions referenced on the 
DataColor Homepage. About halfway through the review is a comparison 
between a soft-proofed and original DataColor test image. The soft-
proofed image is faded compared to the original. This is exactly 
what I am seeing. The PhotoShop soft proof is better, which also 
corresponds with my experience. And, if you look at the soft proof in 
the review and notice the girl's face in the third photo top row it's 
a little red; if you punch-up the image the face will take on a 
reddish cast.

Do you have any suggestions for "punching-up" the profile other than 
what I am doing? I also tried building the profile with my 
PhotoShop "curve" correction but applying it to the photo instead of 
the profile gives better results. 

Thanks for your help.

Bob Schoner

In a message dated 7/13/2008 3:23:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
laurie@... writes:

I  would be interested in hearing if what I am about to suggest is wrong or 
if  there is a way to achieve a printed output that has the same punch and  
vibrance as the monitor display.  However, in the meantime, I will  suggest that 
monitor displays are transmissive presentations while printed  outputs are 
reflective.  This may account for the dulling down of the  appearance between the 
monitor display and the printed output.  I would  also suggest that, while 
the soft proof display - which is also a transmissive  output - may be punchier 
than the actual printed output, it is probably  slightly duller and less 
punchy than the working space preview or standard  desktop versions of the image 
display to replicate what the printed output  might be – i.e., to take into 
account dulling down of reflective  outputs. 
Laurie:
It's not just "dulling down"; you will often have colors or  tones that are 
un-printable.... out of gamut. Oftentimes, snappy, brilliant  colors fall into 
this category, so what you get is duller, more muted  colors.        The color 
space you're working  in has a lot to do with the final result on paper. 
Assuming your profiles are  accurate, you have to do tests to determine the limits 
of your  printer/paper/inkset combinations to reproduce your images to an 
acceptable  degree.
 
HTH,
Richard Massie



**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!      
(http://www.tourtracker.com?NCID=aolmus00050000000112)