Use one display profile for editing and another for printing?

[russellcbanks]

In Rocco Ancora's video about using EIZO's ColorNavigator 7 for calibration, he makes a display profile with a D65 white point for editing and adjusting the image, and another (with brightness, white point and gamut manually adjusted for a specific paper and viewing lighting) to use when printing.

 

But I don’t understand how would you use these two profiles in an actual workflow:

 

1. Use the editing/adjusting profile when making the "master" Photoshop file.

 

2. Then make a copy of the master file and switch to the printing profile and make further adjustments to optimize for that paper? But isn't that what Photoshop's soft proofing (View>Proof Setup) is supposed to do? You wouldn’t want to do both, would you?

 

Thanks,

Russell

[digitaldog]

A print-centric display calibration for the best screen to print match isn't unusual if the right display calibration tools are provided. All are outlined here:

 

Why are my prints too dark?

Why doesn’t my display match my prints?

A video update to a written piece on the subject from 2013

In this 24-minute video, I'll cover:

 

Are your prints really too dark?

Display calibration and WYSIWYG

Proper print viewing conditions

Trouble shooting to get a match

Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem

 

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

Low resolution:

[russellcbanks]

A print-centric display calibration for the best screen to print match isn't unusual if the right display calibration tools are provided. All are outlined here:

 

Why are my prints too dark?

Why doesn’t my display match my prints?

A video update to a written piece on the subject from 2013

In this 24-minute video, I'll cover:

 

Are your prints really too dark?

Display calibration and WYSIWYG

Proper print viewing conditions

Trouble shooting to get a match

Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem

 

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

Low resolution:

 

Thanks! So it’s OK to use a display profile that takes into account the paper's white point AND also do Photoshop soft proofing that uses the profile supplied by the manufacturer (Canson, in my case). I just thought that seems like correcting twice... and might overdo it.

 

 

Best,

Russell

[digitaldog]

All that matters is a visual match.

[paddler4]

I don't quite understand your question.

 

The monitor calibration is not stored in the image, so there is no reason for a copy of any particular image. It's stored either in the OS or, in the case of high-end monitors, in the monitor hardware, and it is applied to all images when you view them on that monitor.

 

The profile for printing is paper- and printer-specific, and its application is image-specific. When you soft proof, you are altering the file or making an altered copy.

 

So the basic workflow I use is:

 

1. Calibrate the monitor and leave it.

2. Soft proof every print for my printer and the specific paper I decide to use.

 

A number of people here look down their noses at printing via Lightroom, but I almost always do, even with images edited in Photoshop, and that makes this very simple: when you soft proof, there is an option to "create proof copy". That is then stored as a virtual copy with the name of the paper ICC you used for softproofing, which is automatic and takes up essentially zero space. I have some images that have two or three different soft-proofed virtual copies stored with them because I have printed them on different papers.

[digitaldog]

Yes, the display and its profile are image agnostic and divorced from the color space. But the profile IS used of course for previewing all image data.

The question is about the calibration targets for that display profile. When you say Calibrate the monitor and leave it, that's not what's the workflow here with smart display systems; you can have multiple calibrations and profiles and switch on the fly to as many as you've built.

You can have a calibration and profile that are configured for the best, ideal display to print matching for matte paper with a lower DR and cooler paper white than a glossy paper with lots of OBAs. You can switch on the fly between the two depending on which you're soft proofing.

Can you leave the calibration fixed one way and just use the Soft Proof options (simulate paper white and ink black)? Yes. Will you get the ideal matching between the two papers with one target? Unlikely. This is why high-end reference display systems like SpectraVew and Eizo provide the options to have multiple calibration targets, and profiles it can load based on the user's needs.

 

As for LR, anyone that looks down on it for printing doesn't understand printing let alone LR. Same image, profile, settings for output; identical to Photoshop or any properly coded color managed image editing application.

 

For me, the Print Module is worth the price of admission.

Edited July 31, 2022 by digitaldog

[russellcbanks]

Thanks, everyone for your input. I’ll be traveling for the next week and will have time to think about it,

 

Best,

Russell

[invisibleflash]

OP... every paper prints diffidently. Viewing via transmitted light is not the same as reflected light.

[digitaldog]

OP... every paper prints diffidently. Viewing via transmitted light is not the same as reflected light.

 

The question is about the calibration targets for that display profile.

[paddler4]

As for LR, anyone that looks down on it for printing doesn't understand printing let alone LR. Same image, profile, settings for output; identical to Photoshop or any properly coded color managed image editing application.

 

For me, the Print Module is worth the price of admission.

 

I completely agree with your last sentence. Admittedly, it does give slightly less control in some respects than Photoshop, like being unable to see the effects of print sharpening settings without a print. However, it's amazingly easy, and the templates alone are worth it. I have a bunch of templates for all the configurations I use often. For example, for my main papers, I have templates not only for paper sizes, but also for wider margins (for signatures) and narrower margins (to maximize print size). Selecting one of these templates sets everything, including both parameters set in LR and parameters set in the Windows print dialog. Not only is it fast; it also lessens errors of omission.

 

If someone asks me for a copy of a photo I've already printed on a paper I've used, all I have to do is call up the soft proof virtual copy and the relevant template.

[digitaldog]

Print Sharpening isn't WYSIWYG and one reason the output sharpening in LR, based upon PhotoKit Sharpener doesn't show it. Capture and Creative Sharpening need to be seen as they are configured in the product by the user but not output sharpening (in LR you get three strengths).

[paddler4]

Print Sharpening isn't WYSIWYG and one reason the output sharpening in LR, based upon PhotoKit Sharpener doesn't show it. Capture and Creative Sharpening need to be seen as they are configured in the product by the user but not output sharpening (in LR you get three strengths).

 

Yes. I've found that the standard level of output sharpening is almost always excellent for coated papers.

 

As you know but others may not, LR has two other output adjustments that aren't WYSIWG: the "output adjustment" sliders for brightness and contrast. I know you consider them a kludge, but I like them. After experimentation, I found that certain values (+10 on both) does a good job of compensating for my subjective difference in viewing emissive and reflective surfaces. That is, setting them at +10 gets me prints that seem to me to be closer to my soft-proofed version on the screen.

[digitaldog]

That is, setting them at +10 gets me prints that seem to me to be closer to my soft-proofed version on the screen.

Which could (should) be achieved with 'better" display calibration for print to display matching. ;)