Thanks, David, for the fast reply. When I softproof in Photoshop, I select the new profile and check "show paper white". It is an excellent preview of the actual print. However, within the Spyder software (version 4.2.1) the softproof is very washed out. However, the print looks just like it does when printed in Photoshop. Only the softproof is drastically different. Obviously, I am way more concerned that the softproof in Photoshop & Qimage are accurate, and they are. As it is, the softproof in the Spyder software is not even close for both matte & luster papers. Any other ideas?
--- In datacolor_group@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 23, 2011, at 1:29 PM, johnlill2 wrote:
>
> > I have recently purchased a Spyder3Print SR and am THRILLED with the results. One small complaint - when I create a profile and then check the "SoftProof" option on the "Preview & make optional adjustments" screen, the sample looks VERY washed out. When I softproof the image in either Photoshop or Qimage, it looks like the actual printed image. So I guess it's not a big deal since the profile works very well when actually printing. However, I would like to use SoftProofing in the Spyder software so that I can tweak the profile based on the softproof, although I have not had the need to do that yet. I'm just curious if others have experienced this. I have the same result for all 4 paper/ink/printer combinations that I have profiled, and have tried both Perceptual and Relative Colormetric rendering intents. I have a calibrated and profiled monitor (Spyder 3 Elite) and am running Win XP. Any ideas?
>;
> What you are seeing is the ink black and paper white simulations that are automatically part of our preview (after all, the tone of the paper and how dark the ink is, is part of what you are softproofing). Check the equivalent features in Photoshop's softproof view and the result will be similar. But people get scared by what they see and turn those features off. Not ideal.
>
> It can be disturbing is to see just how weak your black ink looks softproofed to a matte art paper (where the L* is about 20, as opposed to under 5 on a good gloss media). Thats in part because the display's black is not an absolute black, so softproofing "up" from there is weaker than what you see in the proofing box. But that varies with each paper, and the answer is not to turn ink black softproofing off, but to tune it to match your visual result (which will vary with your proofing setup, lighting angle, whether you proof behind glass to simulate a framed image, etc). There are controls for adjusting the softproof's black in the upper right of the profile adjustment screen to a different L* value. There is even a preset that will make a precalculated correction for blacks, but you may want to custom tune your own correction. That way, instead of abandoning the advantages of ink black emulation, you can tune them to get the most accurate possible softproof.
>
> Much of this also applies to paper white, though the usual issue there is the degree of whitener in your paper, and the degree of UV in your light source. Tuning the white proof to a different b* value controls that, and again, there is a preset available that may help, but you may want to custom tune for the best match, since we can't estimate in advance how your paper will interact with your lighting.
>
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
>
>
> Datacolor
> 5 Princess Road
> Lawrenceville, NJ 08648, USA
> 609.924.2189
> www.datacolor.com
>
> Phone: 207.685.9248
> Mobile: 207.312.0448
> Fax: 207.685.4455
> Email: cdtobie@...
> Skype: cdtobie
>