louis_greene

For an update, it was something with the PS software. I printed from PS and the print look fine, totally different (better) than the preview. There was a update out for PS so I just uninstalled it and re-installed it and "voila" - spot on soft proofing. LR has been good from the get-go. 

Thanks for the thoughts and input.

 

Here it is side by side. It is especially apparent in the bottom landscape image where in PS the pink sky is almost void of any pink hue. In LR it is diminished, but not gone. Also the chiilies in the upper right and even the green in the skyline is significantly less when proofed in PS VS LR. 

Photoshop side by side:

 

Lightroom Side by side:

 

Well, maybe, maybe not. The main issue is still there. I can clearly print a file and get a consistent response from either program. However, Soft proofing is still markedly different from one program to another (GPU on or off). In PS the soft proof crushes the reds and some blues. In LR, the red loses some saturation, but only a fraction of what happens in PS. I suppose I can compensate by boosting the red saturation in PS, but why would there be SUCH a dramatic difference? Should I have to boost saturation in one program but not another for the same image using the same profile? In PS with the first test target from Digtaldog I still get the banding in the red GPU on or Off.

I will have to print this test target and see if it desaturates the PS  image as much as the soft proof suggests it will. 

 

 

Well, maybe, maybe not. The main issue is still there. I can clearly print a file and get a consistent response from either program. However, Soft proofing is still markedly different from one program to another (GPU on or off). In PS the soft proof crushes the reds and some blues. In LR, the red loses some saturation, but only a fraction of what happens in PS. I suppose I can compensate by boosting the red saturation in PS, but why would there be SUCH a dramatic difference? I will have to print this test target and see if it desaturates in PS as much as the soft proof suggests it will. 

Ok, so I got the paper. I made 4 prints. 2 from PS and 2 from LR, one with the GPU disabled and one with it Enabled from each program. All of the prints look nearly identical. The PS ones seem a "tad" brighter, but only in the shadows of the people's faces. On the graded B&W strip across the top it's actually hard to discern a difference. They all seem slightly darker than my display which is set to 110cd/m.

I attached copies of my print dialog settings, but i seems like that all is working ok and setup OK, but a quick glance my prove me wrong..

The soft proof for the Epson Gloss Paper in PS, even with the GPU off has the same harsh banding and crushing of the magenta and blue.

 

5 hours ago, digitaldog said:

The Photoshop screen capture* doesn’t look right to me but see comments below. The middle one doesn’t make sense to me, we want apples to apple comparisons in all cases. 

The two applications when setup correctly and bug free (GPU/profile handling etc) should preview identically. 

* The screen captures are ending up in sRGB to upload so I can't comment on the quality of the colors seen, only how the differ, side by side from each other and indeed, for some reason, the printer profile softproof looks really bad. 

Do you see oddities like this to printer profiles if you pick a totally different profile, even for a different printer?

The middle one was just to show that the PhotoRGB was in fact capable of showing larger gamut (but even here the magenta gets cut and banded). Yes, not apples to apples but I didn't have PhotoRGB available in LR.

I thought they should preview identically, thus the confusion. I need to figure out the GPU aspect.

Opps, I exported as sRGB for the web. I can export again in Adobe but i think you can see what I am seeing in that with the color paper profile the difference is dramatic in PS and less so in LR.

I will re-try it tonight using different paper profiles. (I think) the PS softproofing is not printer dependent - it just soft proofs a specific profile (such as a paper type or color space). Though, I need to double check that - clearly color management is not my forte 🙂 . I actually felt like I had a good handle on it some years ago when i got the new monitor (thanks to your help I might add - many years ago on this very forum) but since it was dialed in I have not revisited this topic in years.

 

As I look at the images and the test prints I did do last night that pinks, reds and blues seem to take the biggest hit. Both in the printing (PS worse vs LR) and the soft-proofing as noted above.

17 hours ago, digitaldog said:

You should always test output using good color reference images designed for that task. The color reference images RGB values are such that they are set for output and are editing and display agnostic. Test the output this way and examine for the same color issues so we know it's not your image-specific issues causing the problems:

Thank you for the suggestions and info. I did use a test target, but downloaded the one you linked too. Un fortunately I ran out of paper 😞 - but have some order. I did a screenshot recording though, hopefully I can post it. The monitor is set to Adobe RGB so when I proof to that, as expected no change. The difference in the crushing of the colors in PS VS LR is quite evident going to the paper profile. MUCH worse than in LR.  Oddly if I do ProPhoto in PS it expands the colors, but in LR here is not much change.

Anyway, It will be interesting to see what happens printing from both programs once I get the paper. I am pretty sure I have the color management set to printer=off and PS manages color in PS. I'll have to double check the settings in LR. I will also have to figure out the GPU on or off that you mentioned.  I very much appreciate the input! 

Won't let me upload the video. I'll post some screen shots. I notice the biggest changes in the Latin woman's face (left) and color swatch.

I had my system dialed in for years using a NEC PA240 monitor calibrated with the Spectraview software. I always used PS (might have been PS 6) to soft proof and had good accuracy to my Epson 4000.
Now, I have the same monitor (just recalibrated it), but I'm using LR Classic and PS via the online creative suite and a brand new Epson P900 (My Epson 4000 finally kicked it).. What perplexes me is when I soft proof in LR, there is a subtle change (as I'd expect) going from Adobe RGB color space to the Epson glossy paper profile. However, when I soft proof to the same paper in PS, there is a dramatic change in contrast and color saturation (both significantly reduced). The change is so much that I don't trust it all. (However, see below - turns out it was fairly accurate).

Any thoughts on why there would be such a difference between these two programs using the same monitor settings and same paper profile? That seems very odd to me.

So, I just printed a print test target. One from the LR print module and one via PS. Neither are spot on (but they are not way off either), but the PS is one much more washed out (color wise) VS the LR one. However, on a good note I guess that is what the soft proofing sort of suggested would happen. I just am not exactly clear on why it varies so much from one program to the other keeping all the variables the same (I think). 

So:

A - why there would be such a difference between these two programs using the same monitor settings and same paper profile?

B - I read a lot about QImage for its soft proofing. If it's worth it I'd drop the $100, though surely I shouldn't "need" another program outside of LR and/or PS. I can sharpen and DeNoise with my Topaz Lab stuff so if I got it, it would be solely for printing.

C - I need to re-educate myself about color management. Open to suggestions and links to get me up to speed. It's been years but I recall DigitalDog had some good stuff so I will check out his site again.

 

<p>So you guys have me sold on the NEC. So the next question is whether or not to go with the dedicated puck, or get the XRite i1 Display separately? Or, can I even use my ColorMunkin from my colormunki photo? My understanding is if I get the spectraview software (that I will need for the hardware calibration) I can use the NEC/Xrite puck (but it will <em>only work on the NEC. </em>Or I can use another calibration tool that I will be able to use on other monitors besides the NEC.<br>

Thoughts on that? Will the i1 or the NEC dedicated puck be <em>that</em> much better then if I used the colormunki? I'm not a pro and I'd just assume save the $250 if I can.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>thanks for the input and link. I would rather go lower in price then higher, but I will take a look at and appreciate your suggestion. This is a serious hobby for me, but the truth is I have been getting by (with some additional tweaking and trial and error) with an old Dell. I think just going to an IPS screen would be a good upgrade :).</p>

<p>I'm looking for a new monitor. It will be for both Web and Photo-editing (using LR and/or PS).I have dual monitors so 24" should be enough (I'll have 2 of them - one new one the old one).<br /> Seems to me the ideal option is something with a wide color gaumet, but with hardware calibration so I can jump back to sRGB for web viewing. I am understanding that hardware calibration really takes the video card out of it and allows me to switch my view (ie. from Wide gaumet to sRGB) with the click of a button or two via the monitor. Apparently my Colormunki photo won't work with the hardware calibration so I will need the X-Rite 1 pro. So what if anything else might I be missing here?<br /> I don't need bleeding edge. These 3 seem to be around the price point I'd like. Looking for input or suggestions from you guys. My plan is to use the Colormunki photo still for the printer profiles and then as above with this new monitor. Options 1 - ASUS PA 249Q at $470, Ben Q SW2700PT at $629 or one of the Dells like the 2413.<br /> Comments, thoughts or suggestions</p>

<p>beautiful, it's corrected. Thanks Chas and Mac.</p>

<p>Thanks Chas - yes, Windows XP. "All control panel tems"? Forgive my lacking computer skills, where is that option? I got all sort of options but that one is not visible to me. I tried selecting all the items but no dice. Could you guide me to that area?</p>

 

<p>So I downloaded Luminance HDR and now all my tiles are the Luminance HDR tiles. I actually removed the program but I still have those icons. I'd really to see my default Raw tiles that show me they are cannon files. How do I revert this back to the way it was?</p>

<p>I have an Epson 4000. Tried some B&W prints. (monchorome from DPP then 100% desturated in PS). I got a magenta tint to the print anyway. I have no time and won't do B&W often enough to invest in RIP. So, who do you recommend with resonable price for me to outsource the B&W work too? I live in Alaska so there will be shipping involved . There must be many companies these days with printers set up dedicated to B&W where tints and color hues would not occur but I usually print at home so I don;t know any of them! Thanks.</p>

<p>hmmm, how come using the IMG tags from Photobucket I can't put an image directly into the thread?</p>

<p>Contrast on the wing to the body, center focus point, yet look at the sharpness of the knot on the rail behind the post the bird is on (which is considerably softer). What could I have done differently here? This can't be all me....<br>

<a href="http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RR1.jpg">http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RR1.jpg</a><br>

<a href="http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RR2.jpg">http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/RR2.jpg</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Good points guys.<br>

The beaver was moving slowly, I didn't even think of using Al Servo but you are probably correct I should have done that.</p>

<p>I did a "field test" with some soda cans and for the most part it was maybe a 5% error and even then it was marginal.</p>

<p>It's shots like this one that baffle me. The entire sensor is on the moose yet the background brush is sharp. <a href="http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/3-11.jpg">http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/3-11.jpg</a></p>

<p>I am open to other ideas or input. I think there are some technical things I can do to improve my success. I'll make some changes like trying to use the Center point more often, lock it and recompose. Maybe Al Servo should be used more often too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Using the 1DsMk3 I am finding that sometimes I get shots that are soft. Not from camera shake, because there are areas of the image tack sharp. More like back or front focusing, but it is not consistent. I am thinking it is my 300F4 lens, but I am not sure. I am trying to decide if I should send the body or the lens, or both in to Canon. The test shots I did with cans came out pretty good though. Here is what I am talking about...these were taken in burst mode with the focus set to "one shot". You can see the same sensor was illuminated.<br>

good : eye is sharp<br>

<a href="http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/focus-1.jpg">http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/focus-1.jpg</a><br>

off : distant foot sharp<br>

<a href="http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/focus-2.jpg">http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/focus-2.jpg</a></p>

<p>another example:<br>

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk319/IPTalaska/5-8.jpg</p>

<p>I did the 1/2 day cruise and liked it (out of Seward). My sister is coming up to AK and wants to do a cruise. Her husband is a photog (so am I). She found the 9hr Captains choice cruise they gear to photographers.<br>

Anyone here ever do it? My concerns are, a smaller bost (worse in bad weather- will be late August) and being on a bost for 9hrs. ANyone have any thoughts of this longer cruise on a smaller boat geared to "photographers" verse the regular half day cruises out of Seward?</p>

<p>Moose can be dangerous. Many up here fear moose more that bears. That being said I have been within 20ft and been fine. You need to really pay attention to their behavior. All good recommendations. The glacier by Seward is the Exit glacier. It has receeded quite a bit but you can still get some awesome shoots. Hike up to the top of the ridge to the Harding Icefild. Often there are bears up in the medow, marmot on the rocks, and a sprawling icefield that is amazing.<br>

There are some pretty active wolves by Tek this year. There have been lots of wolf sightings in recent years. I always keep my telephoto lens on when in the park. I'll switch to the wide stuff fo landscape but animals can come and go in the Tundra pretty darn quick. Have an awesome trip.</p>

<p>I was just up there in Nov (at Churchill) on the Tundra Buggies. I had everything from a 24mm to 420 (300mm with a 1.4x). I also used all of those focal ranges. If you have a 500mm I'd bring it. There were several bears a ways off and I would have liked the reach. Then there were bears standing right next to us that filled the frame at 24mm's.<br>

Tha Arctic foxes are expecially small so you'll want a long lens for them. There are also sort of hyper if they are on the move, so faster is better. If you really are on snowmachines (that you strattle it will be quite the challenge!).</p><div></div>

<p>Guess I have some experimenting to do. Thanks for the info. I like to idea of choosing a point and adding the 6 additional assist points. I will also try the Al-servo with the auto selection and see how it does. My fear with that is that the camera will just hunt and find the area of higest contrast, like a wing against a the background sky. Of course I'd rather lock on the eye is given the oppotunity to actually do so. </p>

<p>Posted this on the Canon thread but no bites. Maybe this is a more approriate place.<br>

In the past with my 5D when shooting birds in flight I always chose Al-servo and a pretermined focusing point (box). Then I would just try and get that to line up so the eye was in focus.<br />Now I have the 1Ds MK3 and I am planning to shoot eagles. I see that there is a choice to have the focusing point "expanded" on the 1DsMK3. I am thinking about using this and seeing how the system does at getting the focus point on it's own.<br>

<br />Your thoughts on this? Would you manually set the point or see how the cemera does? Expanded focus points or standard? What's you choices for birds in motion?</p>

<p>In the past with my 5D when shooting birds in flight I always chose Al-servo and a pretermined focusing point (box). Then I would just try and get that to line up so the eye was in focus.<br>

Now I have the 1Ds MK3 and I am planning to shoot eagles. I see that there is a choice to have the focusing point "expanded" on the 1DsMK3. I am thinking about using this and seeing how the system does at getting the focus point on it's own.<br>

Your thoughts on this? Would you manually set the point or see how the cemera does? Expanded focus points or standard? What's you choices for birds in motion?</p>