printer ICC profiles

<p>I'm getting back into photography after a number of years. Now that I have a fully digital workflow, I decided that color management would be a good thing. So I went ahead and profiled all of my computer equipment. Though I have a mid-range photo printer sitting next to me, there's various reasons I would want to send things out to be printed (most notably would be larger prints).</p>

<p>I'm trying to figure how to properly use the ICC profiles from the labs. Most of the stuff I've read says to convert the image to the appropriate profile. I've found that I need to do that to make my own printer print correctly. However, the comments in Adorama's FAQ imply that the profile should <em>only</em> be used for soft proofing:<br>

<a href="http://forums.adoramapix.com/entries/228224-color-calibration-and-custom-correction">http://forums.adoramapix.com/entries/228224-color-calibration-and-custom-correction</a><br>

So, should I or should I not <em>convert</em> the image before sending it out to be printed? I'm using linux, so if anyone has instructions specific to GIMP, that'd be great.</p>

<p>If I am sending them to the usual cheap photo labs/kiosk - yes I convert to sRGB. Same goes to a no. of labs where I am b/c they don't publish a printer ICC file.</p>

<p>For my own printer, I download the printer profile from the manufacturer. I use a calibrated monitor. I disable the printer driver ICM (color mgmt) and enable it by selecting the paper profile for my printer. One can also get them custom calibrated too (DIY yourself tool or by a color professional or sent away).</p>

<p>Question is does your printer have these profiles to be downloaded online? It also depends how good they are, my printer profiles weren't great, I got a color pro to do it for me in person ... </p>

<p>I profiled my printer myself and I seem to be getting good results. If I simply print something, I don't get what I see in the soft proof. However, if I convert it to the printer profile, then print, I get what the soft proof says I should get. Of course, the printer driver doesn't use ICC profiles, so I guess it makes sense that I have to do it manually. Though, I'm still a little fuzzy on exactly how all of this works.</p>

<p>If the lab provides me with an ICC profile, I know what their printer is capable of doing. However, they're expecting a file in sRGB (and from what I've read, some printers have serious problems if you embed a different profile). So, what do I have to do to get a print that looks like the soft proof? Do I send them the raw sRGB file? Do convert to <em>their</em> profile, then convert back to sRGB to take care of out of gamut colors? I could also convert to their profile, but not embed it so that they assume it's sRGB.</p>

<p>----------------------------------------------<br>

In case anyone is curious:<br>

Linux has everything you need to have a fully color managed workflow. The only proprietary software I had to use was the factory program for my scanner (I couldn't figure out how to tell the native linux programs to no do any color correction). I even found an open source colorimeter (that's right, open source hardware). I profiled my monitor with the colorimeter. Then, I got an IT8 target to profile my scanner. I then used my profiled scanner to profile my printer. I got satisfactory results, but I'm not a pro, so I may have no idea what I'm talking about.</p>

<p>After you install argyll, they have a nice tutorial here: <a href="http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Scenarios.html">http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Scenarios.html</a><br>

Wolf Faust in Germany makes some cheap (but supposedly high quality) IT8 targets: <a href="http://www.targets.coloraid.de/">http://www.targets.coloraid.de/</a><br>

For your open source colorimeter needs, you can turn to ColorHug: <a href="http://www.hughski.com/">http://www.hughski.com/</a></p>

 

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>I am not an expert, but here is what I do. It works fine.</p>

<p>As Ray said, turn off the printer's management of color and turn on color management in your software.</p>

<p>Download ICCs for every paper you want to use (the manufacturers usually post them), and request ICCs from any labs you use.</p>

<p>the point of softproofing is for the software to try to emulate on screen what the image will look like with the printer and paper you will use. This includes the reduction in gamut that you can expect, especially for matte papers. For example, I use lightroom to print, and I most often print at home. I create a proof copy, assign the appropriate ICC, and put the original (edited, but no softproofing) and the proof copy side by side. I add edits to the proof copy to try to bring it as close to the original as possible. Then I print from that.</p>

<p>I haven't yet softproofed for the lab I sometimes use (Bay Photo, which has given me great results), but I believe it would be the same process. The only difference is that at the end, I would export the proof copy, with its edits, as a jpg.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Philip, you are overthinking this. You don't need their ICC profile. You only need it if you want to soft proof the image beforehand. If you have a properly color balanced monitor then what you see will be pretty well what you get when you send the file off to the printer (that is what their ICC profile installed for their printer does). So don't sweat it. You will only need to soft proof if your image contains precise color matches (e.g clothes, paints) that you need to get very accurately or you are using an unusual paper (canvas, coarse rag etc etc). For most images on lustre or glossy paper this is just not necessary. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I profiled my printer myself and I seem to be getting good results. If I simply print something, I don't get what I see in the soft proof.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Start here:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</p>

<p>IF your lab demands sRGB, you can forget soft proofing and for that matter, proper, modern color management. <strong>Their output device does not output sRGB!</strong> Instead, such labs want sRGB documents to speed up the preprocessing for output. They may provide some ICC profile they tell you to use for soft proofing, but that's a waste of time and only an effort on their part to give you the impression they understand and use color management. <strong>They don't.</strong> If you <strong>can't</strong> use that profile to convert to the output color space, pick a rendering intent (which is where soft proofing is pretty critical), and edit based on that soft proof (again critical), then being given a profile you can't use is just silly. You can't pick the rendering intent, if Black Point Compensation is used (it should be). You don't even know if the lab uses the profile they supply, how the profile defines the print process (does the lab upkeep process control so the profile is valid? With the right tools, easy to evaluate). </p>

<p>You are not over thinking this! You either have full control of the color management or you don't, and the later is not an ideal situation by a long shot. There are labs that fully implement proper color management, provide output profiles and let you use them (www.pictopia is one example). </p>

<p>Double post delete</p>

<p>I purchased a HP Z3200ps specifically because it has a built in spectrophotometer to create profiles on any paper I want to use. With a previous printer, I tried using a Spider device, sheesh what a pain.</p>

<p>If shipping costs are not an issue do try Westcoast Imaging <a href="http://www.westcoastimaging.com/">http://www.westcoastimaging.com/</a><br>

They give you full control over your color management.</p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>They give you full control over your color management.</p>

</blockquote>

Do they? They state:

 

 

<blockquote>

Please note: You do not need to convert your files to to our profiles. This is done automatically by our Chromira. Leave your files in their RGB workingspace.

 

</blockquote>

At least they don't force sRGB on you. You can send them something in a larger gamut that will convert more appropriately to their output color space. Not sure they let you use their profiles however....

 

<p>Disclaimer: I'm an engineer, so I'm hesitant to use any process that I don't fully understand.</p>

<p>The issue is that a color space conversion WILL take place at some point between us sending the file to the lab and the operator pulling a print out of the printer. This will happen either in software because the operator intentionally converts it (or the printer is smart enough to know its limitations), or in hardware because the printer simply isn't capable of printing certain colors due to ink limitations.</p>

<p>Now, if the color space conversion happens intelligently (not just the printer trying to do something it can't), then we have the issue of different conversion methods producing different results. We'll get a different result with the relative colorimetric intent than with perceptual (or with absolute colorimetric or saturation). So, when we soft proof, we need to know which intent is going to be used when printing. Without knowing that, you only have a 1 in 4 chance of having the print match the soft proof on your screen.</p>

<p>If you don't believe me, try it yourself on your home printer (as I just did). Soft proof an image and watch how the different rendering intents change the image. Then print the same image using the different rendering intents. If you get the same results as I did, you should find that the print only matches the soft proof on your screen when both use the same intent.</p>

<p>Selecting a rendering intent can have a pretty significant effect on the rendering of the print. Each company that builds software to create an ICC profile has free rein over how they build a Perceptual Rendering intent. Much like how various E6 films looked different from each other. You'd pick based on a visual preference (much like you pick which rendering intent visually).</p>

<p>What I was getting at is that using a profile <em>only</em> for soft proofing is useless without additional information. You also have to know which rendering intent will be used for printing. Based on what I've read (and experiments with my home printer), different rendering intents can make a big difference in the amount of detail you get in saturated areas (certain strong colors) and shadows.</p>

<p>Since I'm likely to be using Adorama and I'm sure others here have used them too, maybe I should ask a more specific question. Can I get Adorama to not do <em>any</em> correction whatsoever? I'm capable of applying their ICC profiles on my own, so I don't want them to apply the profiles a second time. Their FAQ page about this is unclear.</p>

<p>You have to first ask if the service provider will accept the file in output color space. If not, you could ask them what settings are used (Perceptual? Black Point Compensation? Etc. But if they don't really use the profile sent for soft proofing, and that's a possibility, you don't know the outcome, the soft proofing isn't useful. </p>

<p>I stand by what I say. Send them a what you think is the correct file, color balanced on your monitor, output in the color space they prefer, and then check the print when it returns. You should ask for no color correction. Most good labs allow this (it'll be cheaper too)</p>

<p>My bet is it will be fine. If it isn't you are probably doing something wrong, because they print 1000s of images every week, many probably for professionals, so they should get it right 95% of the time. They will print using their ICC and the rendering intent that works best for the majority of files they receive for their printing systems. If you are critically matching colors then that is perhaps a different game and may require further information as Andrew says. But in my experience for most images this is not necessary.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My bet is it will be fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If all works out yes, it should be fine. Ideal? Nope. You get what you pay for, the reason there <strong>are</strong> pro labs that let us <strong>fully</strong> control the color management process. And there are labs that don't. Useful to educated consumers to understand the differences. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>They will print using their ICC and the rendering intent that works best for the majority of files they receive for their printing systems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually no. ICC profiles with their various rendering intents know nothing about images, color in context or anything other than how a single color pixel will map when converted from Lab to the output color space (it doesn't even understand nor know about the source color space at this point). That's why we have soft proofing and 3 options for a rendering intent when doing this kind of printing. IF one size fit all, we'd only have one option. Further, the Perceptual rendering intent is vastly different based on how a profile was built. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you are critically matching colors then that is perhaps a different game and may require further information as Andrew says...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is far more than matching colors. Again, just look at the differences in a lot of images as you toggle rendering intents and you'll see, <strong>one looks better than the others</strong>. No automatic process can make this kind of decision. Now again, you may not care about how your images look Perceptual vs. RelCol vs. Saturation and that's fine. But for those who care and want the control, the '<em>send us sRGB and forget the rest</em>' is not ideal, especially when the request is solely to aid the lab's ability to crank out prints. You again get what you pay for. <br>

Such labs should just demand sRGB and when asked about profiles simply state "<em>we don't support them</em>" and be done. Then customers would know, based on their knowledge of color management if they want to go down that route or not. Unfortunately, a lot of labs are just lying to their customers while taking advantage of their misunderstanding of color management. Either do it right or don't do it at all. Expecting to please somewhat color management savvy customers with a profile they can't really use is just an exercise in marketing and sales. It is a disservice to their customers! </p>