1D MkIII---> iMac ---> Lightroom/DPP---> HP Photosmart. Help :-)

[mvw photo]

Hello all,

 

Any quick tips,

links, etc for me? I

have the flow as

described above and

I have trouble

getting great prints

and JPGs out of it.

I find that if I use

Canon DPP it's

better but still not

good. My back of

camera display will

show me the picture

accurately as I

recall it. But

prints/jpgs: not so

much.

 

On the PC, I do not

have these issues. I

see the same as on

my camera and when I

publish I get the

same again. But on

the Mac, printing is

never as good, and

even displaying on

the web is not as

good. Dull colours,

and dark prints.

 

I shoot RAW, and use

sRGB. When printing

I use the most

expensive paper.

When reviewing I use

multiple computers.

 

Even when I do no

adjustments in DPP,

i.e. I completely

ignore what the

monitor looks like,

I still don't get

the right colours on

web or in print. So

it's not monitor

calibration.

 

I know this is a

complex matter and I

expect no simple

answers, but I would

really appreciate it

if anyone could get

me started on colour

workflow in the form

of:

 

- Basic settings

(what is a good

starting point on

camera/mac/apps?)

- Web links

 

Cheers,

Michael

[yannig]

It's important that you print your pictures using the same colour space as the one in your file. If you shoot in sRGB, and don't convert to something else, make sure you print them in sRGB.

 

Where do you print from? Straight out of Lightroom?

 

I'm very aware of colour management, and i find the results i get from Photoshop much better than what i get from Lightroom. Btw, i use an HP Photosmart B9180, and my complete workflow is AdobeRGB.

[mvw photo]

Well, I use sRGB because both my printer and PC screens render this better - correct? Or should I be using AdobeRGB throughout? (Of course since I shoot RAW it's simple to change).

 

And yes, I print from Lightroom - or from Canon DPP.

 

And yes, I find this complicated. Why can;t I just leave everything default and get reasonable colours for most shots? I do not mind adjusting, but surely the default should be close enough when I make no adjustments?

 

Michael

[stewart_randall]

Hi Michael, this could be a problem with the version of OSX and Lightroom that you are running and an issue with the

older print drivers from printer manufacturers.

 

Have a read of this...

 

http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2007/12/printing_on_leopard_with_light.html

 

Your issues may be solved with either of the following; wait until LR v2 (cups driver issue resoled), upgrade to the latest

printer drivers, export the images from lightroom and print from Photoshop.

 

Hope this helps,

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>Any quick tips, links, etc for me? I have the flow as described above...</I><P> 1.) are you saying you go from Lightroom to DPP or alternate between using DPP and Lightroom?<P>

[godfrey]

1: what screen calibration tool are you using?<br>

2: what settings are you calibrating your screen to?<br>

3: are you using a profiled print workflow from Lightroom?<br>

4: what model printer are you using?<br>

5: what profiles and paper are you using? <br>

6: are you using the print settings the papers were designed for?<br>

7: do you have the correct print drivers for the specific version of Mac OS X you are using?<br>

<br>

If your screen is calibrated, you have good profiles and set up the print process properly, prints made with Lightroom

should be identical to prints made with Photoshop on either Windows or Mac OS X.

<br><br>

BTW, if you are capturing in RAW format and processing RAW image files in Lightroom, and printing from Lightroom,

you're editing and printing with originals in ProPhoto RGB (or a slight variant thereof) colorspace, not sRGB.

<br><br>

Godfrey

[ronald_moravec1]

http://www.radiantvista.com/tutorials

 

here is a nice 4 part series on color mgt.

 

Also make sure sure LR is in RGB. Make sure the printer profile is loaded in the file-print sequence you follow to print from the Mac. One of the tutorials goes thru it exactly.

 

You probably want perceptual rather than relative colormetric checked nad be sure black point is checked.

[godfrey]

Ronald,

<br><br>

Lightroom is *always* operating in ProPhoto RGB colorspace. (It's actually just a bit higher gamma than ProPhoto RGB

but close enough.) There are no adjustments to it, there are only colorspace settings for exporting rendered image files

(sRGB, Adobe RGB (1998), and ProPhoto RGB).

<br><br>

Most of the issues of colorspace management and setup vis a vis Photoshop usage are nonexistent in Lightroom as it is

simplified to what photographers need. The important parts to understand when it comes to working with Lightroom are

very simple:

<br>

1- Calibrate the monitor using a calibration tool<br>

2- Learn how to get what you want from color and tonal adjustments.<br>

3- Print with a profiled print workflow using papers and profiles designed to work properly together, and with the proper

settings in the print driver.

<br><br>

Step one is a no brainer: buy a good calibration tool and use it. Step three is a simple, repeatable process particularly if

you set up a template and simply apply it to the image files you want to print.

<br><br>

Step two is what takes some time and insight to develop. It cannot be easily automated, although once you understand

what needs to be done you can create presets that do a lot of the coarse adjustments for you in an automated fashion.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

[mvw photo]

Wow, that is very useful.

 

(And still complicated: ideally (and I know this is probably a pipe dream) I would just like, as a default, what I shoot to be printed the way I saw it. And that is the way I see it on the camera back. It's so far out now. )

 

I.e. I do not mind doing a million things whenever I adjust colour. That is a given: when I adjust, the monitor needs to be calibrated, etc etc. But when I shoot, transfer ad print, with no adjustments, how do I set it all up so it is as close as possible?

 

I also think a lot of my issue is the printer and the printer drivers. But the other day I went in and looked at expensive Canon pro photo printers and straight from the camera we still did not get the right colour etc.

 

Your help all very useful: now off to read the above again, and to read the links as well.

 

Michael

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>"it's important

that you print your

pictures using the

same colour space as

the one in your

file. If you shoot

in sRGB, and don't

convert to something

else, make sure you

print them in sRGB.

" -Yannig Van de

Wouwer</I><P>

 

Not even close to

being right. When

printing you need to

convert (not assign)

the color space of

the file to the

profile for the

printer, ink and

paper you are using.

<P>

 

Michael since it

appears you

alternate between

DPP and Lightroom

that question is

resolved. I'll

concentrate on

Lightroom for the

rest of my answer.

<P>

 

1.) Is your display

calibrated and

profiled with an

external device

(Spyder 3, i1

Display 2, etc.)? If

it isn't then you

don't know how

accurate or in

accurate what you

are seeing on your

computerﾒs display

is. <P>

 

2.) How do you know

that your camera's

LCD preview screen

is an accurate

depiction of the

file? Most likely it

is not, especially

if you shoot raw

(Canon cr2 for

example). <P>

 

3.) sRGB is a very

small color space or

gamut. In a small

gamut the subtle

differences in

bright and saturated

colors are just not

there and the

massive JPEG

compression

magnifies this

process of

elimination. sRGBﾒs

purpose is to be a

lowest common

denominator -- to

be able to show some

color on a pie chart

and other similar

graphics as viewed

on the most worn

out CRT in the worst

viewing conditions

(a bright

environment with

lots of glare)

possible). It was

not adopted with

photographers in

mind. Attached is a

mosaic showing the

three most commonly

used color spaces

sRGB, Adobe RGB

(1998) and finally

Pro Photo. For

reference Pro Photo

is slightly larger

in gamut,

particularly in the

blues, than healthy

human vision. While

a raw photo doesn't

have a color space (

or even bit depth)

assigned, it is

pretty safe to say

that the information

recorded in the file

is closer in

potential gamut

range and bit depth

to pro Photo at 16

bits per R,G, and B

channels than it is

to 8 bit sRGB or to

either 8 bit or 16

bit Adobe RGB

(1998). "Potential":

obviously not all

subjects contain the

same colors some

photographs are just

more colorful than

others. <P>

 

<I>"My back of

camera display will

show me the picture

accurately as I

recall it."</I><P>

4.) There are two

things at work

here:<P>A) What you

see on your camera's

LCD is a much

compressed JPEG

rendering of the

information in the

file and by the

quality of the LCD.

JPEGS are 8 bit per

channel and

depending on how

you've set your

camera up it is

either an sRGB

rendering or an

Adobe RGB(1998)

color space

rendering. Neither

of which really show

you what is actually

in your "raw" photo.

Other JPEG

processing settings

on your camera also

control the

rendering. Finally:

How is the

brightness

adjustment on the

LCD set?<P>B.) Human

vision and memory is

a malleable

thing.<P> The way I

use my camera's

preview screen is

pretty basic: I use

it to check focus,

composition, framing

and I use the

histogram as a worse

case scenario

exposure meter. I

don't advise using

as anything more

than a crude color

check.<P>

 

Lightroom uses a

variant of the Pro

Photo color space ,

the gamut is the

same but the twist

they added is that

it is rendered at a

gamma (contrast

gradient from blacks

through mid-tones to

highlights ) of 2.2

rather than the Pro

Photo specification

of 1.8. The tone

curve is not a

linear 2.2 curve

either. Adobe chose

to do this as it is

a closer match to

healthy human visual

perception. So, if

your computer's

display is

calibrated and well

profiled, what you

see in Lightroom is

a pretty accurate

version of what

your photo actually

looks like when

rendered in an RGB

color space. <P>

Here's a great link

to take you further:

<A HREF =

http://www.creativedigitaldarkroom.com>

The Creative Digital

Darkroom by Katrin

Eisman and Sean

Duggan</A> . It is a

book you really

should have.

 

 

 

[godfrey]

Michael,

 

The notion of "the correct color" is an arbitrary one unless you doing scientific or forensic image acquisition, at which

point what you need to do is first calibrate the camera and then calibrate the printing process for authentic reproduction

accuracy. In pictorial photography, the notion of "correct" is "pleasing to the eye" ... which can vary considerably from

"accurate" or correct in a technical sense.

 

If you find what's on the camera's LCD pleasing, you should take a few reference exposures that you find pleasing and

create a Lightroom Develop preset that matches as closely as possible what you see on the LCD. You can apply that as

a default when you import your RAW files into Lightroom, at which point making the small individual adjustments needed

for a good looking print should be simplified.

 

One thing to note: each RAW/image processing system has its own notions of what "correct" means by default. Adobe's

notions of correct differ from Canon's DPP ... Canon's DPP should render the image based on the camera settings to be

quite close to what you would get in an in-camera JPEG capture where Lightroom will honor the white balance setting but

otherwise processes the image file with its own calibrations for the camera model. You can use the camera calibration

panel in the Develop module to create a preset with a different calibration curve if you prefer a different set of defaults

too.

 

Then the only thing left is to develop a clean, consistent print methodology. This is where the monitor calibration and the

profiled print workflow becomes essential. Another thing to realize is that not all paper profiles are of the same quality ...

I've had custom profiles created for a couple of Hahnemühle papers on my printer because I wasn't happy with the

consistency I was seeing when using Hahnemühle's profiles.

 

And not all papers are equal either ... each printer/print driver/inkset/profile/paper combination has its own specific gamut

and rendering qualities, creating its unique look.

 

Putting photograph to paper is always a tricky business. ;-)

 

Godfrey

[mvw photo]

GREAT response. Reading more. But one thing to quickly respond to:

<P>

<i>How do you know that your camera's LCD preview screen is an accurate depiction of the file? Most likely it is not, especially if you shoot raw (Canon cr2 for example)?</i>

<p>

Because I see the object and then I see the LCD and they look the same. Then I see the print and it's dull. For example here:

<p>

<a href="http://www.willems.ca/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/SPEED_2057.JPG">Recent Sign</a>

<p>

 

That looked BRIGHT. And on the LCD it looks as bright as in real life, but this picture looks DULL. All I did was load it into LR, and export. I had to artificially up the saturation and re-export to get colour that looks remotely like what I see on LCD or in the street.

<p>

But now will read your post properly - thanks ever so much for the time.

<p>

-Michael

[mvw photo]

Godfrey - points taken.

 

Oh and I realise that producing JPGs is not the same as printing! It's just that I cannot show you prints here on the forum... ;)

[godfrey]

Michael,

 

You shouldn't "load it into Lightroom and export" and think that by default you are going to get anything close to what

appears on the LCD in a print. That's an inappropriate expectation. What the camera does internally to create the JPEG

rendering has no relation to what Lightroom does with the RAW data because they are developed by two entirely different

teams of people who have different ideas about calibration and adjustment. Also, a print on paper is a completely

different animal in gamut and gamma from a backlit LCD display.

 

The right expectation is that you can take a capture that is properly exposed and use the adjustments in the image

processing environment to produce a good match in a print to what you saw on the preview screen. Once you learn how

to do that, you capture those settings as a Develop preset and apply them to all imported photos as a starting point, a

new default that matches your wishes.

 

Godfrey

[ellis_vener_photography]

do you know how to use the right profile for your printer, ink and paper combination? I ask because I do and I don't have the problems you seem to be inflicting on yourself.

[mvw photo]

OK, agreed. I was naive, of course, in expecting that this (a somewhat close rendering of the original scene) would be the default. But I can follow instructions, and follow [all your collective] instructions I shall.

 

Michael

[mvw photo]

Ellis,

 

Well, I have set the printer driver to the right profile and options as far as I know them (e.g. matched to the -highest quality- paper, etc).

 

And um, no offense - but surely calling my expecting the printer to produce reasonably accurate prints as me "inflicting problems on myself" is a tad unfair? I am willing to learn, and I am doing it. :-)

 

In my previous workflow (1D and 5D to PC/DPP and from there using DPP to same printer) I had no such problems. Colour -without adjustments- was always spot on. OK, so in a sense I did bring this upon myself, by switching to a Mac. But surely that's not a bad thing to do when working with media! :)

 

Anyway, I hear you about the different teams and their different approaches to colour. I'll get going. Worth every ounce of effort, since I am sure that with everyone's help here I will get it working.

 

BTW- I do have a mini spider, the small thin one, whatever it's called, but I cannot find the driver/app disk :)

[ellis_vener_photography]

your printer is fine. What profile are you using? What paper? How are you setting as the rendering intent? What about black point compensation?

[ellis_vener_photography]

If you are not using

HP paper, whose

paper and do you

have a good profile

for that paper? is

your computer

display calibrated

and profiled with a

colorimeter or

photospectrometer?

 

Color Spaces : sRGB,

Adobe RGB (1998),

and Pro Photo are

NOT device specific

profiles.<div></div>

[mvw photo]

Hi Ellis,

 

I am using HP paper: the most expensive one (Super Glossy Photo Paper, or whatever it is called), and I use that paper's profile supplied in the driver. The display is not calibrated - but I made no adjustments ex camera. (I now know from the above that Lightroom did). Now sure what rendering intent and blackpoint compensation are.

 

Michael

[ellis_vener_photography]

"The display is not calibrated" Then how can you know what the photo should look like? Most computer displays and monitors come from the factory with the brightness set to high (for starters).

[yannig]

Well, color

management isn't a

simple matter,

that's why these

things aren't

simple. And that's

why giving a simple

answer isn't always

possible.

 

A colour profile

(.icc, or .icm)

defines the

collection of colors

a device can show,

print, measure, ...

Every single device

can handle a certain

collection of colors

("gamut"). There can

be very big

differences between

devices.

 

sRGB is often the

default profile for

several reasons.

Here are a two; it's

pretty limited, and

it often more or

less matches the

gamut of your

screen. Adobe RGB is

a lot bigger, but

most screens can

only show a small

part of this gamut.

 

So what's the reason

not to use sRGB?

Well, your printer

probably can print a

lot of colors that

sRGB doesn't

contain. So, when

you take pictures in

sRGB you're probably

discarding colors

that could be saved

when you were using

AdobeRGB. AdobeRGB

for example contains

more saturated

greens, blues, and

lighter shades of

magenta and red.

 

Look at this image:

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3115/2590745920_a955b6653f_o.jpg

 

The yellow blob/line

is sRGB, the blue

line is AdobeRGB.

 

You should use

AdobeRGB if you know

what you're doing,

if you can configure

every link in the

process to use

AdobeRGB. When you

are using cheap

photo paper, it's of

no use to use

AdobeRGB, since the

paper will prevent

having a large

gamut.

 

Here's a pic that

shows the difference

between the gamut of

my high-end CRT

screen, and the

gamut of my HP B9180

on HP Advanced

Glossy PP:

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/2589911307_05c10bb6df_o.jpg

 

The white blob/line

is the printer, the

red is my screen.

 

Btw, when judging

colors on your

screen, you'll need

to have proper

lighting, and have

your screen

calibrated (or use

the right profile).

When this is not the

case, good luck ;)

 

Why is this so

difficult? The

amount of different

colors that we

encounter in life is

endless. When we

take a picture our

camera renders these

colors to a small

selection (sRGB or

AdobeRGB). We then

would like to see

them on our screen,

which can show only

a small collection

of colors as well.

So a conversion will

have to be made to

choose how the out

of gamut colors will

be rendered on our

screen. Then we'd

like to print the

photo with a certain

printer, with some

kind of ink, and on

some kind of paper.

Each part has an

effect on the color

gamut we can

achieve. Color

management is a

complicated system

that tries it's best

to make sure that we

loose as little

colors as possible,

and at the same

time, tries to show

these colors as

lifelike as

possible. Of course

this is only

possible when all

devices are properly

configured, and when

the environment is

appropriate.

 

If our world, our

screens, our

cameras, our

printers, our

scanners, etc would

work in sRGB,

everything would be

easy. And dull.

 

Godfrey; i'm using a

completely

calibrated workflow

(from my lamps, to

my screens, to my

paper, ...), and i

get different

results from

Lightroom and

Photoshop. There are

still some things i

could check, but

i've wasted enough

photo paper ;)

Are you sure

Lightroom works in

ProPhotoRGB?

[yannig]

Oh man, i was late with my answer :) I opened this thread a few hours ago, and didn't see the responses until answering.

 

You might ignore some things i said, i was just trying to give a "birds and bees" explanation ;)

[godfrey]

Yannig,

<br><br>

<i>... "Well, color management isn't a simple matter, that's why these things aren't simple. ..."</i>

<br><br>

I agree that color management isn't simple, but there's no reason to make it more complex than it needs to be. I see vast amounts

of unnecessary complexity being added to what people think they have to know in many of the responses to these sorts of

questions. Lightroom in particular was specifically designed to minimize these complexities, pointed exclusively at the photographic

workflow and printing to inkjet printers.

<br><br>

Moreover, I believe that Michael's issues are not basically color management issues: his issue is that he's trying to get what he

sees on the camera's LCD to be rendered to a print. To do that takes not only color management but the appropriate adjustments to

the RAW data required to reproduce what he sees on the LCD. The required color management he needs is a one time, "do the

calibration and learn the printing setup" issue. The effort to reproduce the camera's rendering is the larger effort required.

<br><br>

<i> ..."Godfrey; i'm using a completely calibrated workflow (from my lamps, to my screens, to my paper, ...), and i get different

results from Lightroom and Photoshop. There are still some things i could check, but i've wasted enough photo paper ;) Are you sure

Lightroom works in ProPhotoRGB?" ... </i>

<br><br>

Without knowing precisely what your workflow is and how you've done your calibrations, what printer you're using, what papers and

profiles, etc etc, I cannot tell you why your results are different. My set up is also completely calibrated/profiled, etc, and I get

virtually identical results printing from Lightroom and Photoshop, but it's much easier and more consistent to get the setup right for a

number of prints with Lightroom due to the printing templates.

<br><br>

And yes, I'm absolutely certain that when you're working in Lightroom the colorspace is ProPhoto RGB, with the gamma 2.2 variant

as described above. All images imported into Lightroom are promoted in the environment to a 16bit per channel, ProPhoto RGB

working colorspace environment.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

[yannig]

Godfrey,

 

I'm not looking for an answer why my prints are different from Photoshop and Lightroom. My prints from Photoshop are exactly what i want them to be. When i got this printer (HP Photosmart B9180), i tested all the possibilities; printing from different apps, using software CMS, hardware CMS, etc. The difference might be caused by the fact that i print straight from RAW in Lightroom, and that i print from an AdobeRGB JPG in Photoshop. Anyway, i'm not looking for a solution or anything.

 

I justed wanted to help Michael, but if i had read your posts prior to posting, i wouldn't have posted in the first place.

 

FYI: My color managed workflow is like this: the room i'm in is painted white (3x5mﾲ) illuminated by a 58W/965 TL lamp. I have a dual monitor setup, the main screen is an old LaCie CRT, the other one is a cheap LG CRT. The screens are calibrated using an Eye-One Pro (not the i1display) in Monaco Profiler 4.8.3. I used to make my output profiles myself, but since the B9180 that's no longer necessary. The profiles made by HP respond very well to the results i'm used to during my day job. I check the results with Altona Visual (...).

 

Anyway, i've got the feeling i can still learn a thing or two from you guys ;)