Soft Proofing with Lightroom 4 Beta and Printers

[tonybrown]

<p>PIXMA PRO-1 & ADOBE LR-4 BETA<br>

The current BETA release of Lightroom 4 is not yet the final product and not to be used for "production". However, its soft proofing capabilities have delighted this photographer as a very useful tool in the quest for a new printer. My Canon i9900 is nearing its end of life, like a good old friend that has served many years of nature photography. My candidates for a new printer include Epson R3000, Canon Pixma pro 9500 and 9000 and the new Pixma Pro-1. All except the Pixma Pro 9000 are pigment ink technology. The 9000 is said to offer slightly wider colour gamut than its 9500 cousin. But the more stable pigment inks are a definite attraction. I "tested" all these printers with an array of papers with published ICC profiles using the LR-4 soft proofing capability. Using a test photograph taken with my 1DsmkIII and Adobe RGB colour gamut I found all the printers performed well with a suitable choice of paper. In fact I would be pleased to own an Epson R3000, a Pixma Pro 9500 or indeed a Pixma Pro-1. My monitor is calibrated to Adobe RGB (the Dell u3011). If the visual results are to be believed, the Pixma Pro-1 has an edge on the other two contending pigment printers. Notably, shadows and blacks seem to have a wider gamut with the Pro-1 and the Lucia inks with the chroma optimizer promises stunning colour gamut and definition. One point worthy of note is that all printers failed to achieve a wide gamut on a regular matte paper, but performed exceedingly well with a premium fine art paper. I suspect the regular matte papers have a tonal bias that throws the colour gamut off base. In conclusion, the soft proofing capability of LR-4 is a very useful tool, enabling the photographer not only to choose his next printer but also to optimize its prints and avoid the pitfalls of so much control in post-processing raw photographs. My Pro-1 is on order. One critique of this survey is that the beta version results are not guaranteed. However, even as a beta version, the results are believed to be valid on a comparative basis. Comments much appreciated.</p><div></div>

[digitaldog]

<p>The Out Of Gamut overlay isn’t really all that useful, don’t put too much into what you see. It is a crude feedback (and a bit buggy). <br>

This is illustrated in the following videos:</p>

<p>http://digitaldog.net/files/LR4_softproof.mov</p>

<p>http://digitaldog.net/files/LR4_softproof2.mov</p>

<p>The soft proofing features are a welcome and needed addition to LR4, don’t get me wrong. The OOG, like Photoshop’s, not really that useful. It certainly isn’t a very good way to evaluate the gamut of an output device. </p>

[michael_young3]

<p>Soft proof has been part of PS since well before the CS series. One presumes Adobe has the functionality figured out by now. It is a long awaited, very welcome addition to LR. I suspect the reason for not introducing it earlier was to distinguish the products. Before the recent and continuing glut of PS goodies, such as context-aware edits and beyond, there was very little reason for me to use PS at all. LR served almost all my needs, and actually has helped convince me that soft proofs are not so completely necessary after all. Not that I don't welcome it, of course.</p>

 

[tonybrown]

<p>Andrew & Michael: thank you both for your responses. And, Andrew, thanks for the links to the videos. Very interesting. Yes one can push the printer evaluation too far. To make a meaningful comparison of two printers I chose a single wide gamut photograph as my golden standard and viewed the soft proof with published ICC profiles from Canon, Ilford, Hahnemuhle and Moab. LR-4 confirmed observations noted elsewhere. For example the dye based printers showed wider gamut than the pigment based printers although the differences for the Pro-1 printer were small. The Pro-1 had much better blacks and shadows than the Pro-9500. These were not unexpected results. Of course colour gamut is not the only criteria for choosing a printer, but at least LR-4 (beta) gives me a sense that colour reproduction with these printers is reasonably controlled and the ICC profiles are something the leading paper manufacturers are prepared to stand behind. I think I should visit this subject again when I have a Pro-1 in my basement.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>on a side note...</p>

<p>i saw a print made from Canon Pro 1 vs Epson R3000 today.. i still prefer what i have seen front the R3000.. </p>

<p>The Canon BW out of the box print look too warm, the color where too *vibrant* even when printing a test image with out of gammut color, skin tone, gradient, deep shadow etc.. the skin tone kind of glow.. like 20-30% too much saturation. Other than that, i like the whole look of it, almost 60pound so you need a serious table or something to put it on.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>Patrick, wouldn't the over-saturation be an issue with the profile, not strictly speaking a quality of the printer?</p>

 

[patricklavoie]

<p>well, didtn make extend test.. but using Canon profile with Canon paper if this is what the result out of the box i find it disapointing, at least for skin tone.. i dont mind saturated color, and i know that Canon and is user seem to like that for years.. but theres a difference between a healthy looking skin and a vibrant orangy one ; )<br>

even the BW look warm as in no subtle 5% brown or so. Printer was brand new, out the box, ink just install with there new little bright red light on them (why?) .. and profile was use. I will have a second look today because immcurious that this printer seem to produce print of less quality then the 9500.. and that is strange.</p>

[tonybrown]

<p>Patrick,<br /> I have a few questions:<br /> 1) did you print from the Lightroom 4.0 Beta version?<br /> 2) was the Canon profile specific for the Pixma Pro-1 and the Canon paper (which paper please?)<br /> 3) obvious I suppose, but did you shake the ink cartridges before installing them?<br /> 4) if you have a calibrated monitor, how does a soft proof compare to the printed result?<br /> I do agree, considering the general acclaim for this printer, your results are indeed strange and I do hope you can get to the bottom of this.<br /> Best wishes,<br /> Tony</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>1_no, from CS5</p>

<p>2_yes</p>

<p>3_yes, well not me but my friend who is the reseller</p>

<p>4_yes calibrated monitor, i dont softproof, bw are dead neutral on screen and on epson r3000. And color on monitor and on epson r3000 are identical. On Pro1 the color look over saturated by 25% .. but the gray are neutral, blue print good etc... it was the skin tone from the getty type test image that i find unnatural .. and the bw where not neutral at all.. too warm. As i say, i did have time to make more test as i was stopping by to get the new spider4 and test it.. im lucky enough to have good connection at this store so i can mainly get anything i want / need for test purpose.. maybe i will get this Pro1 and test it my way ; )</p>

[tonybrown]

<p>So Patrick: you have influenced my printer decision more than you know! Today my neighbour Jim Cowan showed me his Epson R3880 with its 80mL ink tanks (tanks is the right word) and 17" x 22" maximum print size AND its easily replaceable $20 waste ink collector and as a result the Pro-1 does not shine so brightly. Your comments on skin tones are well received - I took a look at your work and became an instant fan! I soft proofed my golden standard photo on both the R3880 and Pro-1 with Hahnemuhle Museum Etch Fine Art paper and both proofs appeared identical. But I do like those bigger prints. Any more observations anyone?</p>