ICC Profile Editor?

[nathan_b]

<p>I've done quite a bit of homework, and have come to the conclusion that I need to create some custom ICC <em>device</em> profiles to match a few various reproduction methods. So what I need is a reasonably user friendly ICC editor.<br>

What I need to do at the moment is lower the center of the response curve for a specific output profile. Such that when I <em>soft proof for that specific output</em> in Photoshop, the <em>relative </em>brightness of each pixel is accurate <em>in relation to the print response. </em>For example my prints from one preferred lab are black in the blacks, white in the whites, but the dark midtones are just much too dark. I'm losing shadow detail <em>in the print</em>.</p>

<p>So I need to be able to see if that's going to happen <em>on my monitor</em> before I spend a lot of money on an enlargement.<br>

Yes my monitors are all calibrated. I own an Eye one Display 2 and use it regularly. D50 Gamma 2.2 .<br>

Yes I have all of the custom ICC device profiles for my reproduction methods.<br>

Yes I maintain a color managed workflow.<br>

Yes I have contacted the labs and such. Their advice is no longer helpful. It amounts to "Just adjust your monitor to match our print". Well that's a load of bull for a long list of reasons. My monitors are calibrated. I need <em>device profiles</em> that will accurately simulate the output.</p>

<p>Yes I have a fairly solid understanding of gamma, color spaces, relative contrast, fluorescence, and color temperature.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>So I need to edit the actual device profiles.</p>

<p>I would be happy to be wrong, and discover an easier solution, but I am reaching this conclusion pretty solidly by process of elimination. It is rather frustrating in fact.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>I wouldn't use 5000˚K to calibrate to in the first place unelss you are running aclosed loop CMYK printing process. If you are not a pre-press house you might try using 6500˚K as an experiment and see if it helps,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but the dark midtones are just much too dark. I'm losing shadow detail <em>in the print.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>(At this point I'm starting to question the accuracy of their profiles!) </em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

Instead of trying to edit the ICC profile (which is going to add a huge level of complexity and a rather intense learning by iteration (i.e., trial and error) curve to your work) try creating an action that creates either a Hue, Saturation and Luminosity layer and adjust the luminosity to taste; or create a curves or levels adjustment layer to adjust those midtone value. </p>

<p>Still if editing a profile is something you really want to pursue, look at ColorThink 2.2 or ColorThink Pro from http://www.chromix.com </p>

[nathan_b]

<p>Ellis,<br>

Actually my interim solution is just that, I created an action that adds an adjustment set to simulate the print appearance, and then an adjustment set to counteract it. I'm not entirely pleased with the results. It's a bit like airbrushing with can of Krylon.<br>

Actually one of my monitors is set to D50 and the other to D55. I find that 5500 is the hottest I can go to get a good match under normal diffuse sunlight viewing. I'm not sure where 6500 comes from, but when I use 6500 it's WAY too hot compared to the prints from White House, who I am currently trying to match. Mpix actually recommends 5500K but I've had trouble with incorrect quantities and crops with them. Adorama gets it pretty close at 6500 and 2.2, but their lead time and interface leave something to be desired.<br>

P.S. - I just bought the book you recommended. Thanks.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>What I need to do at the moment is lower the center of the response curve for a specific output profile. Such that when I <em>soft proof for that specific output</em> in Photoshop, the <em>relative </em>brightness of each pixel is accurate <em>in relation to the print response.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don’t edit an output profile to match a soft proof, you alter the display calibration targets to match the print while you soft proof with said profile. see:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Nathan, I would just use labs that employ color mgmt. Simple.</p>

<p>I wouldn't want to use a lab who tells you to adjust it at your end to match them. Just use a color mgmt lab which they know how to work the system. You don't even need to embed any profiles etc .. cos the color mgmt labs equipment are already set up.</p>

<p>I have calibrated my monitor with a cheapier when I didn't know that they cannot do luminance so I just drop the brightest down using my LCD buttons and recalibrate. It works.</p>

<p>I did however got a printer ICC file done poorly and someone here in my country, gave a seminar at my camera club so she offered to edit the profile for me, so its quite usable. Some printers don't work very well in terms of ICC provided by the manufacturer, I had a 2003 ish printer. They do need lots of experience and they are not cheap (to use the editor). I think the original JPEG/TIF target file viewed on a calibrated monitor and get the customer (you) to print it out of the printer you are using. The specialist will then need to alter the ICC based on their experience etc ..</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>If it's a brightness issue. I had a issue with this using the recommended settings when I borrowed a friend's Eye One Display 2. Actually in some way I prefer my cheapier and altering the LCD controls. </p>

<p>With the Eye One thingie, you can go into the advanced controls which it does have alter it and generate a JPG/TIF file for a 6x4 inch print for your lab. Do a series of them and then pick which one prefer and stick to that setting. <br>

You may wanna write the settings on the center of the image like using Lightroom. <br>

Using a outside lab you need to be assured they are not employing auto settings or changing any setttings ..</p>

<p>I just do it with my own printer which is easier. </p>

[nathan_b]

<p>Updates for everyone:</p>

<p>@Ray - I use highly color managed labs. No they do not apply any adjustments at all unless I specifically ask (and pay) for it.</p>

<p>@Ellis and Andrew - After serious reading, and speaking in person with a local high end enlargement lab in their facility, they basically told me to give up on "soft proofing" getting anywhere close to a real print, and learn how to guesstimate what settings will produce what results. They showed me in person how they DO soft proof for gamut and clipping, but not for saturation or response curve. They have their own custom soft proof profiles made exactly for their equipment by them.</p>

<p>Also, editing soft proof ICC profiles is valid, and desirable, but not within my scope of work, time, or operating budget right now. There are several high end packages made to do just such a thing. All of the low-end packages are abandonware now and no longer functional.</p>

<p>So the acceptable solution remains, I just received some prints where I created an adjustment set to <em>display</em> the result I was getting, and then a second adjustment set to push it back to where I wanted it. My results are much better now. It looks bad on screen when I send the file, but the print is much closer to the target.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>After serious reading, and speaking in person with a local high end enlargement lab in their facility, they basically told me to give up on "soft proofing" getting anywhere close to a real print, and learn how to guesstimate what settings will produce what results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right, IOW, <em>we don’t have a clue about color management workflows, we don’t support them, give up</em>. Or give up on the lab and find one that does this correctly (Nancy Scans, Pictoipa etc)</p>

[nathan_b]

<p>Well Andrew, out of context that would be true, but it's a misunderstanding of the situation here. Actually I was wholly impressed by their attention to detail in color management, and they ARE correct about soft proofing being a false comfort.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>...they ARE correct about soft proofing being a false comfort.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, if you two want to believe that (despite the efforts of Adobe, Apple and others who produce soft proofing in their products, and the huge number of users who successfully use soft proofing). </p>

<p>With that mindset, why even calibrate the display? </p>

[nathan_b]

<p>P.S. - Just FYI, when I went to their lab, and looked at one specific problematic image on their editing station, in their controlled editing environment, it was substantially closer to the print results I had been getting, as opposed to what I saw in my editing environment. So one important piece of the puzzle is in fact to consider a correction in my physical editing environment. That's not the whole answer, but its a pretty good piece.</p>

[nathan_b]

<p>Well, the simple answer is that (as you very well know), an luminous source is completely different than a reflective source, and never the two shall meet. Thus the need (no matter how close one tries to get in "soft proofing") for a trained eye to make the interpretive jump from monitor to print.<br>

And I did say that they DO soft proof, with custom profiles for each distinct output. They even gave me their profiles, and cautioned that the only real proof is in the print.<br>

But alas, I won't drag out a potential argument any further. I appreciate your input, and everyone's here. I just want to present the best possible results to my clients.<br>

BTW - Color Management for Photographers needs to be at the top of everyone's reading list. I had not heard of it till recently, and so I assembled my knowledge only in chunks as I went along. It is however just a tiny bit out of date. Some of software and hardware discussed is getting to be critically obsolete.<br>

So thanks again. I think I have gotten what I needed.</p>

[digitaldog]

<p>If your take is, an emissive display and a reflective print will never produce 100% match, I’d agree. I’m striving for high 90’s in terms of percentage. Without a soft proof, the RGB working space you see on screen, is well below that figure and a completely unacceptable mismatch. Plus I have zero idea which rendering intent to use to map out of gamut colors. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>So after all that's been discussed, what have you settled on doing with all these different labs that don't deliver a print match to your calibrated screen?</p>

<p>Are you going to edit their device profile or are you going to edit your image to correct for their mismatch?</p>

<p>Sounds like a lot of work.</p>

[nathan_b]

<p>@ Andrew - Rendering intent for gamut mismatch is a perfectly valid thought. Since when we send images to a bulk lab, we do not get to choose the rendering intent, it's partially moot. One lab told me that their conversion is perceptual with black point compensation, so If I am using that lab, then my soft proof has to reflect that conversion intent. If I am doing any enlargement 16x20 and up, I will almost certainly use my local lab, since I can have that conversation on a case by case basis if necessary. In fact, if I am doing anything of any real value, I can even go in and actually talk to the tech about the best adjustments and rendering method right before final output. That's a really huge selling point that justifies the higher cost.</p>

<p>@Tim - In general I will choose first the lab(s) that produce what I consider to be the best overall results, taking into account time and service. Then I will be pushed to the next best lab that produces the product I need, if not provided by my #1 choice. As stated above, it would be preferable to have better soft proofing, but there are ways to get my general preview close enough without that time and expense. One rather successful method has been to have a specific adjustment action for a specific output. I won't need that many really. I'm not as hyper critical as it may sound.<br>

I don't want to use ten providers, I want to use 2 or 3 at most.</p>