Are the Lightroom print adjustments for contrast and brightness just hacks?

Recently, The Digital Dog and I had an exchange about the brightness and contrast adjustments that are at the bottom of the Lightroom print module controls. Andrew said he considers them hacks because you can't see the effects except by printing and that you can't replicate the effects in another edit.

 

I understand that point, but after doing some additional test prints, I have a different view. I think they have a function that is separate from the monitor-based editing process.

 

First, I am editing on a good monitor (wide-gamut NEC), edit under reasonably good conditions (dimmed, high-end Soraa bulbs, and the monitor set to a suitably low value) and soft-proof for the papers and printer I use (a Prograf 1000, and primarily Canson and Moab papers). I wouldn't call myself an expert printer, but I am reasonably competent at it.

 

For my most recent test of these two functions, I took an image that I had edited to my satisfaction and printed two test prints, one with those adjustments turned off and the other with both set at +10, a value I chose some years ago after viewing a bunch of prints. I printed them on Canson Baryta Photographique, which is the paper I use most often. I then compared the two prints with what I saw on the screen. The print with adjustments of +10 was considerably closer to what I saw on the screen.

 

In a nutshell, I think that these two adjustments are a useful way of compensating for the difference between an emissive screen and a reflective print. Because they have no effect on the image on the monitor, one can evaluate them only with test prints, but if you do test prints anyway, this isn't a huge inconvenience.

 

Just my two cents.

Nothing that you can actually make use of is a "hack" . . . It's only the results that count. In this case, you're using these tools to compensate between your display system and your printer. Why would you want to see the results on your screen?

Why would you want to see the results on your screen?

For WYSIWYG and that's where Soft Proofing comes into play*.

If you don't care about making test print (after test print?), you don't need soft proofing. It's a great workflow for those who charge by the hour and by the test print but not so great if you're paying for ink and media. Soft proofing doesn't guarantee no test prints but when properly setup, can reduce (or eliminate) such test prints. It also allows you to produce output specific edits for a more ideal print. But again, you don't have to do this.

 

*Soft proofing in Adobe Photoshop CC

In this 33 minute video, I'll cover soft proofing in Adobe Photoshop CC:

What is sof proofing.

Setting up a soft proof.

Saving soft proof presets.

What the simluate ink and paper check boxes do, why to use them.

Making output specific edits in layer sets.

Working with soft proofing in full screen mode.

The Out of Gamut Overlay and why to ignore it.

 

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/SoftProofingInPhotoshopCC.mp4

Low resolution (YouTube):

I use soft proofing with every print. For example, I find that even coated papers typically have a bit less contrast than my final edit, so I boost that while soft-proofing. I typically do this by looking separately at bright and dark areas to see where in the histogram some stretching is needed. Generally, even more adjustment is needed with fine art and matte papers.

 

But my point is that soft proofing only gives you an emulation on screen of what the image will look like on paper. It's not displaying on paper and can't exactly replicate the print. What I am finding is that small positive adjustments on these two sliders provides prints that look more like my soft-proofed emulation.

 

I'm not trying to persuade anyone to do things my way. I just thought that my experience with this might be useful for some people who are experimenting with Lightroom's print module.

Edited July 15, 2019 by paddler4

Very few calibration products allow control over display contrast ratio but for soft proofing, it's kind of important. Consider the spec's where we're told a display has a 1200:1 contrast ratio or whatever (as if that's useful for this work). Best you'll get out of a print is maybe 350:1. So unless you have control over the calibration of black independent of white (cd/m^2), it's hard to get a good visual match on a display with respect to CR:

X-Rite i1Display Pro Advanced Features | Contrast Ratio with Coloratti Andrew Rodney - X-Rite Photo Blog

For WYSIWYG and that's where Soft Proofing comes into play*.

 

If you read what I wrote . . . I indicated that we are not talking about a WYSIWYG situation . . . So . . .

If you read what I wrote . . . I indicated that we are not talking about a WYSIWYG situation . . . So . . .

Read what YOU wrote, a question with a supplied answer.

The question: Why would you want to see the results on your screen?

I indicated that we are not talking about a WYSIWYG situation . . . So . . .

You indicated that exactly where?

So.... :D

When I said that you are compensating for differences between the display and the printer . . . If there are differences in calibration, you are never going to see on your display what you will get on your printer.

 

Bugger off . . .

When I said that you are compensating for differences between the display and the printer . .

So you didn't state what you suggested you stated: I indicated that we are not talking about a WYSIWYG situation

No compensation is necessary when soft proofing properly. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.

Don't ask questions (Why would you want to see the results on your screen?) if you don't want correct answers.

Bugger off . . .

Request denied. This of course isn't your thread, it's Paddler4's. If you insist on coming into a thread and asking questions, don't tell those who can answer them to Bugger Off.;)

Global adjustments in Lightroom are a "hack" to the extent you can't see the results until you print them. One size doesn't fit well with various printer and paper combinations. Soft proofing has a relatively good correlation between the monitor and printer by "reverse engineering" the print profile. Adjustments you make in "soft proof" mode translate well to the print. As long as you have a good print profile, you don't even need to own the printer.

 

It also helps to have a good lamp for viewing the prints. Available room light, or even sunlight from a window, doesn't cut it. I bought a Fiilex LED lamp in lieu of a viewing booth, which may not be perfect, but it is consistent.

Global adjustments in Lightroom are a "hack" to the extent you can't see the results until you print them.

And, only LR will honor that 'edit' if I can be so kind. So you decide to move on from LR, or print the file elsewhere, the edit IF necessary is long gone.

How do you implement soft proofing if you send the file to a pro print lab?

How do you implement soft proofing if you send the file to a pro print lab?

They must supply an actual output profile they would use (good luck with that request). They would have to allow you to actually convert to that profile; letting you select your desired rendering intent and perhaps if necessary, output specific edits. So yeah, when a lab says "download this profile for soft proofing but send us sRGB", what they are telling you in reality is "we want you to believe we implement actual color management but no, we really don't".

How do you implement soft proofing if you send the file to a pro print lab?

Some labs will send you a print profile if you request it. If you know which printer and paper will be used by the client, you can also lift profiles from the internet. It is possible to create a profile for a local mini-lab, provided they are consistent. Most of the time I just submit a cropped, JPEG file, adjusted on my calibrated display. For CMYK printing at a service bureau, I send an RGB TIFF file and a print for reference. Pressmen prefer to do their own CMYK conversion.

I rarely use labs, but both that I have used provide an ICC profile.

 

If you softproof in Lightroom, you have the option to print the file with the softproof exits to a JPEG file. You can also export the soft-proofed file, and if you use export rather than print-to-file, you have the option to choose sRGB or Adobe RGB. So, one could presumably do that to provide the lab with a file soft-proofed with their ICC file, no?

You can also export the soft-proofed file, and if you use export rather than print-to-file, you have the option to choose sRGB or Adobe RGB. So, one could presumably do that to provide the lab with a file soft-proofed with their ICC file, no?

The problem is, neither sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) are the output color space of the lab's printers. So they convert but how? Using what rendering intent, black point compensation? Is the output profile actually used that was provided? Kind of a ('hack" :)) workflow from the lab who could simply allow you to convert as you please, and send the numbers as is, to the output device. As you would if you were making the actual print yourself. They kind of what you to believe they are using sound color management but it's not... not really.