emil_ems5

Thanks a lot, Andrew. Concise and to the point, as always!

Cheers

Emil

Hello,

It’s been more than five years since I visited the forum last, with a lot of questions concerning tritone printing. After my book “Stockholm/Brussels” came out, I was quite satisfied with the state of affairs in printing. However, a new book is in preparation, in color this time. I recently heard about a new printing standard for my favorite Lumisilk coated sheet paper, called Fogra 51. Alas, unable to choose it from among the alternatives provided by Adobe in the Photoshop menu "Color settings”. Could someone more experienced walk me through how to install this new standard in all my versions of Photoshop, CS5, CS 2017 and CS 2021?

Cheers

Emil

emsvision.com

<p>I am working on a color managed system and am preparing, off and on, slide shows from my various travels. For this I am using iPhoto. I usually also convert those slideshows to movies with iPhoto, showing them with Apple Quicktime and exporting the movies to Youtube.<br>

Whilst I have control over luminosity, saturation and contrast in my originals (due to my color managed system!), I find that the above mentioned conversion regularly results in movies, where the pictures are much darker and (partly due to that fact) appear more contrasty and saturated. I know from experience now, what type of curve adjustment to my (optimal) pictures have to be made before the conversion, to make their counterparts in the movies appear as close as possible to the originals.<br>

1 Does anyone in the Community have similar experiences?<br>

2 Could anyone point me to an easy way to prepare a script, through which I could apply my correction curve automatically to the numerous originals involved? I am a newcomer as concerns scripts, so please explain in simple terms!<br>

Thankful for all suggestions!</p>

<p>I am curious: what does Photo Ninja do that Lightroom cannot (or does worse)?</p>

<p>Thank you all for your useful responses. The Gentleman in question was quite well off. So I think I will stick with the Bergheil, especially since he started taking pictures only in 1916, according to his son who still lives! I will mention, however, that he could have used similar models or makes, but that they all looked more or less like the Bergheil.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I am currently writing a book based on glass negatives taken between 1912 and 1918 with a 9x12 camera in Sweden. Unfortunately, I do not have any information about the camera having been used. However, the pictures are of good quality, with vertical lines kept parallel and pictures sharp overall. Since this is Europe, I gather that the Gentleman in question owned a Voigtländer folding camera. I would like to present one of those in the book but don't know whether a Bergheil or an AVUS wold be the most representative. Could someone knowledgeable about these cameras please tell me the difference between them, assuming that the camera was bought around 1912? The gentleman came from a middle class family that was reasonably well off.</p>

<p>Edward,<br>

With due respect to your processing methods, permit me to point out that one of the greats, Ansel Adams, subjected his negatives to all kinds of after processing, like dodging, burning in etc. He considered the negative to be the score and the processing to be the actual music making. You can get results more to your liking by processing even optimal negatives! Don't overlook this opportunity!</p>

<p>OK, I tried the test proposed by John and Andrew, using absolute colorimetric and the profile for Baryta Photographique, when printing the file after conversion to CMYK. The result is: no difference to the earlier prints. </p>

<p>I am forced to conclude that the HARD PROOF function in Photoshop is not working (at least not in co-operation with Epson 3880). Although I am able to soft proof the file in CMYK on screen, which shows a sizable decrease in black and contrast (w SIMULATE PAPER COLOR checked), I do not get a Hard Proof that looks like the soft proof. Rather, the printed HARD PROOF looks identical to the normal RGB print.</p>

<p>I might add that the original file, although in the sRGB color space, is a black and white picture. It may be that the HARD PROOF is accurate as concerns color rendition, but it definitely fails as concerns to replicate how a b/w file would look in offset print. </p>

<p>Andrew, have you ever tried to make a corresponding HARD PROOF with a b/w picture and gotten a result that resembles what you are seeing on the screen (w "Simulate Paper Color" checked)? It may be that there is a bug only in my system.</p>

 

<p>John and Andrew,</p>

<p>When printing the copy, converted to CMYK with absolute colorimetric, shall I use "Photoshop controls colors", as well as apply the printing profile for Baryta Photographique?</p>

<p>Thank you John for your comments. Unfortunately, it is not that easy.</p>

<p>To your first question: Of course I did!</p>

<p>To your second question: You can't convert to the CMYK Profile with the black and paper simulations checked!</p>

<p>I plan to print a Photo book with b/w pictures in offset, using CMYK printing.</p>

<p>When preparing the pictures for print, I am proofing them in Photoshop, using the Fogra 39 Soft Proof Profile, taking care to have the "Simulate Paper Color" checked.<br>

In addition, I would like to make Hard Proofs with my Epson 3880 printer, using the Hard Proof Facility of Photoshop CC. Photoshop provides for this in the Print Dialogue. </p>

<p>In the Print Dialogue I first chose "Photoshop Manages Color"; then I enter, under PRINTER PROFILE. the profile for my paper (Baryta Photographique) "cifa_3880_baryta310_p_bk.icc". Finally i chose "Hard Proofing" and enter, under PROOF SETUP "Custom set-up". Therein i put "Coated Fogra 39"; "Relative Colorimetric"; and "Simulate Paper Color".</p>

<p>When I am printing with this configuration, the result is, to my surprise, the same as if I had printed normally, choosing "Normal Printing" instead of "Hard Proofing". This is in clear contrast to the screen, where the soft proof shows a sizable difference in contrast to the unproofed picture. </p>

<p>Is there a bug in Photoshp CC, preventing me from Hard proofing? Permit me to add that I have also checked SEND 16-BIT DATA, but that should not have any influence on the hard proofing.</p>

 

<p>Sorry, my earlier comment was addressed to Alice, not Emily!</p>

<p>Emily,<br>

A pity that Ansel Adams is not among us any longer. He would have needed your advice not to mess around too much with the original, be it in the darkroom or in the lightroom! ;-) </p>

<p>There are two ways to approach Photoshop as newcomer: the systematic way and the creative way. Which road you choose depends on your stamina and personal characteristics. I myself did not succeed in learning the trade through studying "Classroom in a book". It was too abstract for me and too remote from the real picture tasks I wanted to carry out.</p>

<p>After various frustrating attempts to read and learn other books in the same vein, I discovered THE WAY of starting the process that worked for me. The solution was a book written by Scott Kelby "7-point system for Adobe Photoshop CS3". This genial book starts out with 20 "so so" pictures. For each of them, Scott shows us the steps he took to make them great (or at least acceptable). I spent a month (half-time) on this book, taking each step together with him, and thereafter was able to have a go at my own raw files and develop them with good spirit. </p>

<p>The question posed by Emily is for instance answered by following the steps he took for picture (lesson) 18.</p>

<p>Even if the book deals with an outdated version of Photoshop, this did not prevent me from following and understanding the various steps. The big difference was actually rather small; in my newer version of Photoshop I had no longer to confirm by pushing "Enter" when manipulating layers. In addition, you would have to go back to the RAW conversion of 2010, but you have that as a choice in ACR.</p>

<p>To the best of my knowledge, the Canson Baryta Photographique comes closest to the look and feel of former glossy silver paper that was air dried. </p>

<p>Us old-timers, who used to make our prints in the dark-room, adore it for that reason. Furthermore, it is an archival paper. Together with Epson pigment inks, the prints will last at least as long as (well-processed) silver prints on Baryta paper (100 years?)</p>

<p>I have very good experience with Canson Baryta Photographique and the profile they provide for the printer.</p>

<p>Thank you kindly, Mendel and Howard, for your links, which are useful. However, they do not seem to answer all my questions, which stem from trying to prepare myself optimally before contacting any printer. In particular, Qu 2 and 4 are not really answered in the publications in question. </p>

<p>I had hoped to get some response from a fellow photographer who has been through the practical aspects of preparing photos for tritone printing himself. But maybe this is an art that is not practiced anymore? If there would still be some practicing expert out there somewhere, I would highly appreciate some help!</p>

<p>I am working on a photo book with b/w prints that I would like to print in tritone mode.<br>

My method of working is as follows:</p>

<p>1 I make an original print in the book size, using my Epson 3880 in ABW mode.<br>

2 Starting with that file (optimized and sharpened for offset print), I convert it to greyscale. Thereafter I use duotone mode and choose the Adobe standard form [black; Pantone Cool Gray 9CVC; and Pantone Cool Gray 2 CVC).<br>

3 I do not adjust the curves for the three colors. Instead i use an ordinary curve adjustment layer to bring lightness values as close as possible to those in the file for print (1) above. <br>

4 To "proof-print" that version, I convert back to mode RGB and print the file again in Epson 3880 in ABW mode. if print (4) equals print (1) I assume that I have a file optimized for offset printing. </p>

<p>Since I never have done such separations for offset printing before, I would like some advice from the Community, before communicating with the printer so as to ensure that I get a result in the book as close as possible to my print.</p>

<p>Question 1: In Adobe's Duotone Dialogue there is a box called "Overprint colors". Since I chose one of Adobe's standard forms, this dialogue is already filled in. But what is the meaning of this Dialogue? Should settings be adjusted after talking to the printer?</p>

<p>Question 2: The black color in Adobe's standard form is just ordinary "Black". Is this OK in a book, where ordinary black is also used for text? Or should I replace it with a Pantone Color?</p>

<p>Question 3: The Duotone file can be saved as a PSD file in Photoshop. Is it OK to place this file in the Indesign file for the book? Or should another saving format be chosen? Or should I ask the printer for the right format?</p>

<p>Question 4: How to ensure that the maximum ink-limit for the offset printer is not surpassed, given the maximum value obtained from the printer. Is there a fool-proof warning to be found in Photoshop (the warning in InDesign is not reliable)?</p>

<p>Any additional advice on how to communicate with the printer would of course be extremely valuable and welcome!</p>

<p>Michael,<br>

no need to copy anyone's action. Just enlarge the Canvas in Photoshop to fit it the enlarged print you need. This will leave blank space around your picture. Select this blank space and go to EDIT/FILL/CONTENT AWARE. This will do the trick!<br>

Hope this helps</p>

<p>What the earlier respondent said about Epson pigment printers does not seem to hold anymore. I own an Epson 3880 and use it only once or twice a month. Never had problems with the printer. In very rare cases, nozzles get blocked (can happen also after having printed many copies). One nozzle cleaning exercise always takes care of that. Don't hesitate to buy this printer even if you use it only sparingly.</p>

<p>After searching the internet extensively, I finally found a Kluge that helped me to install the NIK filters in Photoshop CC. I present the solution here as well, since others in the Community may also be fumbling around with this:</p>

<p>1 Uninstall the NIK Collection</p>

<p>2 When re-installing it, there is a window where it asks for the hosts to install it in. Your earlier hosts (CS6) are still indicated therein. Push the (+) sign and choose APPLICATIONS/PHOTOSHOP CC/PLUG-INS/PANELS. </p>

<p>3 Push the (+) sign once again and choose APPLICATIONS/BRIDGE CC/PLUG-INS</p>

<p>That should do it for you, as it has done it for me!</p>

<p>I have today downloaded Photoshop CC. Everything went OK after some fumbling. However, there is still an annoying problem left. I am using NIK Output sharpener for all my prints and for preparing files for books. I find it a splendid instrument and had it downloaded from Google and installed as a filter into Photoshop CS6 since a year back.</p>

<p>Today, after downloading Photoshop CC, I first un-installed the NIK filters and then tried to re-install them, hoping that they could be integrated in CC – as filters – as easily as in CS6 before. But the installer refuses to recognise Photoshop CC! Has Google failed to update NIK so that it does no longer integrate into Photoshop CC?</p>

<p>Has someone out here found a solution to this problem?</p>

<p>Tim, further, I think that downloading only Photoshop, Bridge and Lightroom, together with the other programs you are allowed to install with the favorable photographers' offer, will be much much smaller than the 2GB you are referring to. The latter number will surely include all the programs Adobe has in CC, such as InDesign, Dreamweaver asf.</p>

<p>Rich, thanks for your comment. As a result, I clicked on the icon Creative Cloud in the Applications Folder and got, as result, a list of all the programs included in CC. There I could also see the programs I could install (Bridge among them) and the remainder of the programs that I could only "Try". I installed all the programs I could "install" and as a result, I now have Bridge as well as Photoshop and Lightroom, plus a host of other programs I don't really know if I need. There is one program however that seems essential. It is called "Exchange Panel (for CS6 co-ordination)". I am not sure about this program's functions, since no information is given by Adobe. But I hope this means that some valuable functions, for instance, co-ordination of color settings, will carry over into my InDesign CS6, if I set them in Bridge CC.</p>

<p>Tim, the installing of CC took some 5 minutes. So no big deal for me. However, I have broadband (slowest Swedish version), not a telephone cable connection. </p>

<p>I took up Adobe on its offer to subscribe only to Photoshop CC and Lightroom. My intention is to continue working with my CS6 InDesign and CS6 Dreamweaver programs. I have two questions in this context, which may interest others who have a similar inclination:</p>

<p>Question 1: When downloading the above two CC programmes, I somehow seem to have missed downloading Bridge CC. Is that function not included in the offer? If it is, how can I get access to it? If it is not, then Question 2 becomes relevant.</p>

<p>Question 2: I can use Bridge CS6 to get entry into Photoshop CC. I can also use Bridge CS6 to co-ordinate my color settings from CS6 with those in Photoshop CC. However, ACR accessed directly from Bridge CS6 gives me the older ACR (7) version that came with CS6. This is not a problem at present, but will increasingly become so, when Adobe will continue updating the ACR conversion machine in CC. Is there a Kluge that will allow me to access the newest version for ACR directly from Bridge CS6?</p>