Allow Soft Proofing - allow selecting printer profile

The claim to fame purports to make LightRoom a one-stop processing shop for Photographers.
Most photographers prefer to send their post-processed files to the lab. And if they really know their stuff, they are probably profiling their images to the lab printers. This is where LR fails miserably.
To make my point, I will start off by explaining how RawShooter worked (RawShooter was purchased by Adobe and after major surgical procedure sold as Lightroom):
For Rawshooter:
1. Open the RAW file.
2. Choose the profile of the printer I wish to use for the final output. This results in a significant color shift to the image as seen on the screen. After all, the benefit of the profile is to ensure that What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG).
3. Make changes to the image so that the final output is to your liking. (remember, the RAW files themselves are never modified. All you do is create offset points and save that data seperately)
4. Export to JPG
5. Send image to the lab with an assurance that WYSIWYG.
With Lightroom:
1. Open the RAW file
2. No ability to choose a printer profile.
3. Make changes to the image with no idea how the final output is going to look. (remember, the RAW files themselves are never modified. All you do is create offset points and save that data seperately)
4. Export to JPG
5. Send image to lab with the hope you like what you get (HYLWYG)
So, LR cannot be a one-stop shop for processing and printing RAW files. Any one who understands the importance of printer profiles would demand a WYSIWYG image to which one can apply the changes.
Rawshooter was much better at this.

>Here's the scoop. The reason for Lightroom is as a repsoitory for all your ORIGINAL ARCHIVE FILES...in a single place and single condition. The idea is that you DON'T need to keep track of all your "consumable file"-files that are made for a single consumption.
Here's another scoop, the idea as you describe it, doesn't really work.
The parts I'm having particular difficulty with :
1. There seems to be some fixed assumption as to what's "archiveable" and what's "consumable".
2. There also seems to be a double standard wherein some JPEGs and PSDs and TIFs can live happily aside their original RAW counterparts. Whereas other formats and color spaces can't. This is the abritrariness I was referring to in your earlier defense of LR being just for digicam snapshots.
Would it be more appropriate to ask at what point does a derivative of the original photo become a new archiveable format? How much value needs to be added -- or for that matter removed?
For example, I like to vectorize raw photos in Illustrator (which, incidentally, does an excellent job) -- then modify them as my master copy. This procedure modifies my photo into a new master derivative of the original photo -- not entirely unlike the way your friend John Paul modifies his photos into new master archiveables using Photoshop.
If I were to convert the new archievable, say, from PDF to PSD ... it turns it into a consumable with a narrower intention -- but not a master copy as it wouldn't be in it's original higher quality PDF, AI or EPS formats.
Another situation is where I get a CMYK scan back from the service bureau. An author may have had a photo hanging on the wall or in their photo album -- scanned. It would be more appropriate to inventory those master copies in the same project folder as digicam snaps (mixed archivable media) that the original author/photographer send me.
I also get other project pieces produced in other Adobe suite software. If an Adobe application generates a master digital snapshot of those archiveables, why couldn't they also be ingested into LR too?
IMO, having LR keep track of ALL derivative works makes a lot more sense than arbitrarily selecting subsets of what is deemed "archiveable." Why not let the customer decide that?
>So, that means that your "Library" is very simple and very organized.
It also means it's inaccurate. Right now LR is only ingesting 75% of what I would call my library. Of the 40,000 or so files I've attempted to inventory -- only slightly more than 30,000 are ingested. That means about 25% are falling through the cracks.
This might be acceptable for non-critical photography ... but falls short of enterprise expectations. And maybe -- click -- that's the intention? Maybe this product was never meant to address enterprise level photography. Is that it? Have I just over-shot your target market?
I've gone on the record as stating that LR is a valuable product, and I still highly recommend it for "many" things. However, IMO, it would be better to look a little over the horizon rather than digging in one's heals and prejudging what's archiveable.
The view that digicams are the only archiveable format is, IMO, sooooo yesterday ... dude ... :~)

Similar Messages

  • Soft proofing for online printing - CS5

    After using PSE since V1 and LR since it was beta I've added CS5 and I'm a bit overwhelmed.  Right now I'm trying to set up CS5 to soft proof for online printing.  I read a bunch of online tutorials including Dry Creek Photo's, then downloaded and installed the ICC files for my local Costco.  When I select one of the Costco printers under View - Proof Setup - Custom - Device to Simulate, I get an error message:  "Could not complete your request because the ICC profile is invalid."  I've repeated this with profiles from other Costcos - including one across the country from me - and from Adorama.  No joy.  I'm running CS5 V12.1 x64; it's the same story in 32 bit.  OS is Vista 64 Home Premium (fully updated).  Interestingly, I had no problem when I downloaded ICC profiles for a couple of paper-printer combinations; it's the online services that are giving me grief.  Any idea what I can try next?

    Keep in mind that your monitor puts limits on how useful soft-proofing is. If you have a standard-gamut monitor, what you see on-screen is already soft-proofed to sRGB (more or less). If your target profile has a larger gamut, you won't see any difference on-screen.
    If you want to do this in Lightroom, just soft-proof to sRGB and you'll probably be fine. The histogram will show you if there is substantial channel clipping, and you can adjust to that. However, since you have Photoshop, my choice would be to do it there, using the Blurb profile.
    Printing conditions vary widely around the world and CMYK-profiles likewise. To give you an example, US Web Coated (SWOP) v2, which is the Photoshop default, has a gamut much smaller than sRGB. In Europe the corresponding standard is ISO Coated v2 300% (ECI), which has a gamut that practically corresponds to Adobe RGB. To soft-proof effectively for this you need a wide gamut monitor.
    Where the Blurb profile places in this I don't know.

  • What happened to the soft proof function for printing???

    What happened to the soft proof function for printing???

    Edward Sozinho wrote:
    Thanks Jim.  It's no longer located there.  I miss spoke I'm running Lightroom CC now.
    Then you must not be seeing the toolbar. Press the letter T to display the toolbar. I'm using Lightroom CC.

  • Soft-Proofing with .icc color profiles

    Hello!
    I'm currently working on a book in InDesign. I've calibrated my monitor with X-rite, and have installed an .icc profile from my outside printer (Blurb Books). Of course when I use it to soft-proof, I see a change on my monitor, so if I dion't like what I see (how it will print), I would have to go back to my working space and make changes, etc and keep rechecking. This seems so weird to me yet nowhere in all the forums and internet have I run across an answer to my question:
    Why not just work entirely in this .icc profile so one doesn't have to go back and forth? You'd see immediately what you're going to get, even though it may not look as pretty on the monitor set in another color space?
    It seems so obvious to me that I know I must be missing something here (as I usually do the obvious), as no-one has addressed it that I can find, anywhere, even Blurb support. They don't even understand what I'm asking!
    thanks!

    In fact, that is one perfectly valid method of working, and I would not have a problem at all using that profile as the working space in ID (I have a number of printer supplied profiles that I rotate, depending onthe destination of the job).  But there's a downside to working on images in a device-specific output space. It limits your ability to use the same image in multiple output scenarios, and many (most) output profiles have a smaller gamut (sometimes significantly smaller) than a device-independent RGB space like Adobe RGB, so you lose some colors. That's going to happen no matter what when you convert for output, but if you do your editing and save in the output space, those losses are permanent, even if you later want to ooutput on a different device with larger gamut capability. Profile-to-profile conversion never adds new colors.

  • Can one set up Lightroom to allow use of manufacturer's printer profiles and Advanced Color Settings

    I like the effects that I can apply to my B&W images using Advanced Color Settings, but understand that I get best print quality using the manufacturer's paper profiles. However, I get locked out of Advanced Color Settings unless I choose "Managed by Printer". Can I do both - select a specific paper profile and use Advanced Color Settings? Thanks

    I don't know what printer you are using. But if you want to use all of the controls in the Lightroom print module you need to let Lightroom manage the color. For my printer, this requires making that choice in Lightroom and then disabling color management in the printer driver. Then, using Lightroom, I am able to use all of those settings and choose the appropriate profile provided by the paper manufacturer.
    With my printer, if I choose to let the printer manage the color, I can make all of those choices in the printer driver. But you cannot split your management between Lightroom and your printer.  You have to go one way or the other.

  • Printing, Soft Proofing & Color Management in LR 1.2: Two Questions

    Printing, Soft Proofing, and Color Management in LR 1.2: Two Questions
    There are 2 common ways to set color management in Adobe CS2:
    1. use managed by printer setting or,
    2. use managed by Adobe CS2 program.
    I want to ask how Color Management for Adobe LR 1.2 differs from that in CS2?
    As is well known, Color Management by printer requires accurate printer profiles including specific model printer, types of ink and specific paper. It is clear that this seems to work well for LR 1.2 when using the Printer module.
    Now lets consider what happens one tries to use Color Management by Adobe LR 1.2. Again, as is well known, Color Management by printer must be turned off so that only one Color Management system is used. It has been my experience that LR 1.2 cant Color Manage my images correctly. Perhaps someone with more experience can state whether this is true or what I might be doing to invalidate LR 1.2 Color Management.
    Specifically, I cant use Soft Proofing to see how my images are changed on my monitor when I try to use the edit functions in LR 1.2. Martin Evening states in his text, The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book that it is not possible to display the results of the rendered choices (Perceptual or Relative) on the display monitor. While it is not clear in Evenings text if this applies to LR 1.2, my experience would suggest that it still applies to the 1.2 update even though the publication date of his book preceded this update.
    Can someone with specific knowledge of Adobe LR 1.2 confirm that Color Management and Soft Proofing with LR 1.2 hasnt been implemented at the present.
    The writer is a retired physicist with experience in laser physics and quantum optics.
    Thanks,
    Hersch Pilloff

    Hersch,
    since just like me, you're a physicist (I am just a little further from retirement ;) ) I'll explain a little further. computer screens (whether they are CRT or LCD) are based on emission (or transmission) of three colors of light in specific (but different for every screen) shades of red, green, and blue. This light stimulates the receptors in your eye which are sensitive to certain but different bands of red, green and blue as the display emits, making your brain think it sees a certain color instead of a mix of red green and blue. Printers however, produce color by modifying the reflection of the paper by absorbing light. Their color mixing operates completely differently than displays. When you throw all colors of ink on the paper, you get black (the mixing is said to be subtractive) instead of white as you get in displays (the mixing there is additive). The consequence of this is that in the absence of an infinite number of inks you cannot produce all the colors you can display on a monitor using a printer and vice versa. This can be easily seen if you compare a display's profile to a printer profile in a program such as Colorsync utility (on every mac) or
    Gamut vision. Typically printers cannot reproduce a very large region in the blue but most displays on the other hand cannot make saturated yellows and cyans.
    Here is a flattened XY diagram of a few color spaces and a typical printer profile to illustrate this. Most displays are close to sRGB, but some expensive ones are close to adobeRGB, making the possible difference between print and screen even worse.
    So, when the conversion to the printer's profile is made from your source file (which in Lightroom is in a variant of prophotoRGB), for a lot of colors, the color management routine in the computer software has to make an approximation (the choice of perceptual and relative colorimetric determine what sort of approximation is made). Soft proofing allows you to see the result of this approximation and to correct specific problems with it.

  • Soft Proof for Third Party Printing?

    Julieanne's great training video covers Soft Proofing for monitors and local printers.  How about using it for exports to third party Printers?  All my work is exported to my Zenfolio sponsored website.  From there is purchased for print by further exporting it to MPIX who in turn ship it directly to the buyer.  How can I use Soft Proofing to optimize those photos.  With LR3 my highly random and guesstimate solution was to add +5 with the brightness slider.  I don't know why but its seemed to work even though the images were overly bright on my iMac monitor.

    In terms of Blurb, unless you know for a fact that they use only one profile, then the soft proof debate is moot. And I seriously doubt they have one profile for all their papers (that is basically impossible).
    This is correct. Blurb uses different printers/presses for different run sizes. You really cannot predict which one they will use and soft proofing to their one profile is really not useful. In fact I have tested this before and had two identical books printed with them, one using their (indeed cmyk) profile and one leaving all the images in sRGB. The sRGB one came out much closer to the original and the cmyk one came out too dark. In fact the cmyk one looked like what happens when I apply generic US web coated to images in their profile, so if you want to print with blurb, you're better off completely ignoring their profile and sending everything in sRGB as Lightroom appears to do. Of course you could have guessed this as they only offer a single profile, while they offer quite a few different papers as well as use multiple printers/presses.

  • How to export soft-proofed image?

    Hi !
    Maybe I'm completely off but I didn't find any info on the subject.
    I have soft-proofed image with a profile that a specific printer provided me.
    I want to export the image that I soft-proofed to be displaying them as an album in Photoshop.
    I didn't find any way to export the soft-proofed files.... Is it something that makes sense ?
    Let me know.

    Dorin Nicolaescu-Musteață wrote:
    Just export it and select the soft proof profile in the Export dialog.
    To add to this for the OP, you might need to select Other... option from the color space popup to access the profile. It will remain within the list now.
    And if it isn’t RGB, it isn’t going to show up (LR only supports RGB profiles).

  • Can I soft proof in LR4 like I can in PS CS5?

    I haven't used LR 4 yet, but did view the soft-proofing tutorial.
    I applaud Adobe for adding this functionality in LR4.  It was one of the most obvious lacking features in the previous version, and I've still been mostly doing all my printing through PS CS5.
    While soft-proofing is not a perfect replacement for test printing, I've been mostly satisfied with proofing in CS5.
    Proofing in LR4 seems a  little different, but by using a virtual copy it looks like if I use my printer/paper profile I should theoretically be able to not only be able to deal with color gamut issues, but also adjust contrast & brightness to more closely match my original developed image, and could compare the original with virtual copy in compare mode.  Is it that simple?  And if so, why is there a contrast & brightness adjustment in the Print module?  That latter adjustment would be similar to what one goes through in PS CS5 when soft-proofing prior to printing.  However, why have it if it can be done in the Develop module......and regardless, from the video tutorial it looks like you can't preview the image after making those adjustments in the print module nor compare it with the original......thus forcing one to make multiple prints until the result is satisfactory.
    Just seems to me there is a bit more tweaking to do in LR4 to make the soft-proofing more functional.  Or, perhaps I'm too stuck with the paradigm set forth for soft-proofing in PS and need someone to clarify how I can achieve the same result in LR just as confidently.

    Beaulin Liddell wrote:
    BTW, I've benefited immensly from your and Martin's Evenings books.......you've never steered me wrong.
    Thanks for the kind words...but LR4's soft proofing is worth the effort to use. It really is better than Photoshop's soft proofing. I'm still on the fence regarding VCs vs Snapshots for soft proofing It's a tossup but the VC part has been built in while making a snapshot wasn't.
    The advantage of LR4's soft proofing is you get the ability to do a Before/After while still using the full range of LR4's controls to adjust the printed version. Makes it really easy to nail great print (assuming you have good print profiles).
    As for the Print module Brightness and Contradt...that's really a special case that doesn't involved color managed output. It's a crutch for those who don't have a locked down system. It's east to tweak but you have to make example prints since the controls don't actually display but only impact the output. I tend to avoid that.

  • Soft proofing to sRGB not working as expected

    I've gone through three customer reps via chat on this, and none of them had a clue.
    I recently discovered the soft proofing capability in Lightroom 4, and watched an Adobe video about it. Looked pretty cool. I experimented with soft-proofing for printing to an Epson Artisan printer. I'd always struggled a little bit with prints being too dark, etc., but now I was able to produce the best prints I've ever had.
    But then I started to experiment with soft proofing for sRGB. My photo club takes photo submissions as sRGB, and they then show them on a monitor during meetings. Sometimes they don't look so good. So, I figured soft-proofing them first would help correct that.
    So, I've got a photo that has a lot of red in it (a flower). The soft proofing indicated pretty much all of the reds were out of gamut. I tried reducing the saturation, but they had to go pretty much completely desaturated (black and white) before Lightroom said they were in gamut. I also experimented with change the hue, but still no luck.
    I then deleted the soft proof virtual copy, and just exported the original as sRGB. Looked fine.
    This would seem to make the soft proofing to sRGB to be somewhat useless for me (at least for reds - seemed okay for the small number of other photos I experimented with that didn't have that much red).
    Just wondering if anyone else has had issues with this, or if I'm doing anything incorrectly, etc.
    Thanks!
    P.S. Update...  Last chat rep had me try something that seemed to work better. My photos are stored in Lightroom as JPGs with a color space of RGB and a color profile of ProPhoto RGB. If I export that photo to JPG / sRGB, then re-import it into Lightroom, and then do the soft proofing again, it works much better. The downside of this that the two-step process makes it a bit unusable for me.

    > if I'm doing anything incorrectly,
    You should not really try to do the bringing of the colors into gamut too much. I know the videos you see online show this but it is really counterproductive in many cases. You'll often completely desaturate or get really disagreeable hue shifts if you trust the out of gamut warnings as you have noticed. What you should do is turn on the softproof and check whether your image looks good and the colors don't shift too much. If they do or you lose essential detail, try to correct it using the HSL tools or local desaturation. The out of gamut warning is more useful when you are proofing to a printer profile and you might have colors that your display cannot show but your printer can print. For sRGB, not so much in my experience.
    > Last chat rep had me try something that seemed to work better. My photos are stored in Lightroom as JPGs with a color space of RGB and a color profile of ProPhoto RGB. If I export that photo to JPG / sRGB, then re-import it into Lightroom, and then do the soft proofing again, it works much better
    That's a silly answer that rep gave you. What happens when you export to sRGB is that all your colors will get truncated hard(it uses a relative coloremtric conversion) to the sRGB profile, so if there was detail there that you wish to preserve you just lost it and you won't be able to get it back. Of course if you then soft proof the sRGB jpeg to sRGB, you will have an easy time conforming it to sRGB, since it already is! The out of gamut warning it might show you on sRGB jpegs without any correction is not correct - a known bug or strangeness with how Lightroom handles these and just tiny touches on the sliders will make them disappear. It is fooling you and in fact you were better off not even trying to soft proof and simply exporting to sRGB and ignoring soft proofing.
    P.S. the monitor problems you have noticed in your photo club are probably more an issue of the monitor not being calibrated and probably not using a color managed application to show the images. If your monitor is calibrated and that one is too and using a color managed app to show the images should give you very good correspondance in color between your monitor and that one regardless of what color space you choose for the images. That might perhaps be a good thing for the club. You really need to be calibrating monitors and use only color managed apps for display.

  • Soft Proofing: may not work on my screen

    First of all: Thanks so much for implementing soft proofing! Especially in such an easy way! I was really hoping you'd do it exactly like that.
    Anyway, I've got a wide gamut monitor (Thinkpad W520 laptop screen). And I've got an image with a lot of strongly saturated reds (PowerShot S95, RAW).
    Now, if I switch between Loup View and Develop View, I can see a huge difference in the reds because the Loup preview is sRGB (medium quality). I can also see the same difference when exporting to sRGB vs. exporting to AdobeRGB.
    However, if I engage soft proofing and select sRGB, the image still looks the same. Only the little preview in the upper left changes to what I would expect.
    That's not exactly what I would expect ^^
    On the other hand, if I select a custom profile (AdoramaPix, lustre paper), the whole rig seems to work.
    More information:
    - Windows 7, 64 bit with 64 LR4 beta
    - Whether relative or perceptual doesn't matter
    - Only seems to affect sRGB
    - The image shows very, very clear differences between sRGB and AdobeRGB on my monitor, so it's definitely not a visual problem on my end
    - The histogram changes when switching between sRGB and AdobeRGB in soft proofing mode
    - I really cannot see the slightest change in the image when switching
    I hope you can find a fix or point out what I'm doing wrong because I would really like to use soft proofing for images published on the web, which is of course in sRGB.

    I went on about this a little more scientific by creating an image with three rectangles: red, blue and green.
    All of them are 100%, e.g. (255, 0, 0). Colorspace: ProPhoto RGB.
    Results when exporting the images to AdobeRGB and sRGB, concentrating on the reds:
    - sRGB looks very washed out
    - AdobeRGB looks a bit washed out
    - Original ProPhoto has so much red that it almost drives me nuts
    Now, I would really expect similar results when activiating soft proofing.
    But when selecting either AdobeRGB or sRGB, the reds always drive me nuts.
    There is just no difference at all to the original ProPhoto image!
    Conclusion 1: Dorin, you were right, previews are in AdobeRGB. What I saw in the reds was the difference between ProPhoto and AdobeRGB. Somehow my screen seems to have extreme reds (calibrated recently with an X-Rite ColorMunki Display).
    Conclusion 2: Soft proofing with AdobeRGB and sRGB really DOES NOT WORK!

  • Costco and soft proofing show dull washed out image

    OK, so I am trying to utilize my nearest costco to print some images from lightroom 5. I am getting back dull washed out prints.
    Facts:
    I shoot in RAW in manual mode
    I am using sRGB when I do my post processing
    I export to jpg for printing
    I used the costco LR5 plugin from Alloyphoto to upload to Costco
    I have installed the printer profiles from drycreek for the specific location/printer and have chosen the correct profile as I export
    I made sure that I chose to have Costco NOT autocorrect the color
    Even when I use LR5's soft proofing, I get the same result on my monitor
    I checked the print I got back and it says that they did NOT autocorrect (taken with a grain of salt)
    The machine they are using is a Noritsu QSS-A, so I know my profile is correct
    I have attached a screen shot of what I am seeing.
    Why am I seeing this on my soft proofing as well as my prints?
    How can I solve this and get vibrant prints?
    Any advice would be helpful.
    Message was edited by: moviebuffking

    moviebuffking wrote:
    I have calibrated my monitor as good as I can get without specific hardware. I have 18 years experience calibrating monitors (via optical media and my eyes), so I know that mine is very close.
    It is virtually impossible to "accurately" set the Luminance, Gamma, and Color temperature "by eye." This is most likely the cause of your prints not matching the screen image you see in LR. That being the monitor's Luminance (i.e. Brightness) level is too set to high.
    http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/colour_management/prints_too_dark.html
    To see if this could be your problem I downloaded the posted screen shot and cropped out the 'Copy' image, which has your adjustments applied to it. Here are my results:
    Click on image to see full-size
    I needed to apply a full F stop (+1.0 EV) of Exposure correction to achieve a good midtone brightness level for the print image. You'll notice I also added -50 Highlights and +50 Shadows along with +25 Vibrance. I bet the image with my adjustments added looks way too bright on your uncalibrated monitor.
    You have two (2)  issues–Monitor Calibration and LR Basic Panel Control Adjustments
    Monitior Calibration
    I would highly recommend investing in a hardware monitor calibrator such as the X-Rite i1 Display and ColorMunki, or Datacolor Spyder models. If you tell me what make and model monitor you are using I can recommend specific calibrators.
    Temporarily you can try adjusting the monitor "by eye" to get it closer to the desired 120cd/m2 Luminance, 2.2 Gamma, and 6500K Color Temperature using the test patterns at this site:
    http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/
    When the monitors Brightness and Contrast controls have been correctly set the screen image should look much closer to the prints you have recently made with the LR Soft Proof adjustments. So in fact you will be adjusting the monitor to make it look bad with the LR adjustments you applied. The proper monitor settings will make the Lagom test patterns look correct AND should make your bad Costco prints now match the screen image using you original LR settings.
    After changing the monitor's Brightness and Contrast settings try readjusting a few of the  image files you had printed and send them to Costco as check prints. Compare them again to your monitor's screen image. They should be much better!
    LR Basic Panel Tone Control Adjustment
    LR's PV2012 Tone controls can provide much improvement to your raw image Highlight and Shadow detail. Start with all of the Tone controls at their '0' default settings and adjust them from the top-down in the order shown below.
    1. Set Exposure for the midtone brightness ignoring the highlight and shadow areas for now. Setting Exposure about +.5 EV higher than what looks correct for the midtones seems to work best with most images.
    2. Leave Contrast at 0 for now. You’ll adjust this after the first pass.
    3. Adjust Highlights so that blown out areas are recovered and “fine tonal detail” is revealed.
    4. Adjust Shadows to reveal fine detail in dark areas. For most normal images simply setting -Shadows = +Highlights (Example -50 and +50) works very well.
    5. The Whites control sets the white clipping point, which you can see by holding down the ALT key as you move the slider. Adjust it to the point where you see clipping just appear with the ALT key.
    6. The Blacks control sets the black clipping point, which you can see by holding down the ALT key as you move the slider. Adjust it to the point where you see clipping just appear with the ALT key.
    7. Now go back and adjust the Contrast control to establish the best midtone contrast.
    8. Lastly touchup the Exposure control for the best midtone brightness.
    9. If necessary “touch-up” the controls using the same top-down workflow.
    moviebuffking wrote:
    Am I correct in assuming that the soft proof (with a certain profile) is a "preview" of what that print will look like?
    Soft Proof does two things. It shows you what the image's colors will look like in the target color space (i.e. printer profile). You can see what (if any) colors are "out of gamut" by clicking on the small icon in the upper-righthand corner of the Histogram. You can also see if any of the colors fall out of your monitor's gamut by clicking on the small icon in the upper-lefthand corner of the Histogram.
    When you check 'Simulate Paper & Ink' the Soft Proof image's contrast and color saturation are changed to make it look closer to what the "reflective" print image will look like when held next to the monitor for comparison. Many people have difficulty using 'Simulate Paper & Ink' since it requires using precise light levels for viewing the print and a well calibrated monitor.
    In summary my best suggestion is to purchase and use a good hardware monitor calibrator on a scheduled basis to insure you have an "accurate" screen image inside LR and other color managed applications like PS.

  • Add printer profile to Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0

    Hi
    I have Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 running on a Windows/7 64 bit system.  I print to an epson 1400. 
    I wish to print a photo from the PSE editor.  Unfortunately the editor does not allow me to choose the appropriate printer profile for the epson 1400 & the paper I have loaded. 
    The profiles are correctly installed in C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color; and they are available to other programs, like MS Photo Viewer.  But PSE editor does not display them as a choice.
    PSE 7.03 does allows me to specify a printer profile.  After pressing control-P I am presented with a PRINT dialog box.  Among other things, I choose:
    Color Handling: Photoshop Elements Manages Colors
    Printer Profile: presents many options, including:
    - working RGB - Adobe RGB (1998)
    - working CMYK - U.S. Web Coasted ....
    - working Gray
    - and many others,
    but no Epson profiles.
    For Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy I want to use the SP1400 1410 PGPS profile provided by epson.
    Does anyone know how to get PSE 7.03 to allow this choice?
    thanks
    John

    Colin
    Thanks again for the helpful reply.
    I have not previously calibrated my monitor.  I am looking at that now.  but
    have avoided it because:
       1. Adobe recommends (http://kb2.adobe.com/cps/333/333356.html) that LCD
       displays not be calibrated.
       2. The colors on my Dell 2007WFP are the same as on the back display of
       my Nikon D80 within my ability to differentiate.  And they are good!
       3. The colors produced by the Epson 1400 were way off for some skin
       tones (specifically brown skinned people - about half of the folk who I
       photograph).  This was not a minor adjustment issue.  And sometimes they
       were off in the Green direction, other times they looked red or orange, more
       in shadows than in highlights.
       4. The skin tones printed from Picasa were very good (short of excellent)
       while the skin tones from PSE 7.03 were completely inferior - I did not
       suspect a problem with the monitor calibration or the printer - PSE was at
       fault.
    Ok, now I used the calibration tool that seems to be part of Win/7 - I got
    to it via the control panel:display.  I made no adjustments to the monitor -
    it seemed fine.
    I would like the printer to duplicate what I see on the monitor.  prints are
    a bit lighter than what I see on the screen.
    I am printing now with the following parameters:
       1. from PSE Editor
       2. Photoshop Manages color
       3. Printer Preferences
          1. Premium Photo Paper Glossy (I use epson paper & inks)
          2. Color Management: ICM & No Color Adjustment
       4. Printer Profile: SP1400 1410 PGPP (thanks!)
       5. Rendering: Relative Colourimetric
    John Kinne

  • Soft Proof view mode problem for MOAB Slickrock Metallic Pearl Paper

    I use the Soft Proof mode in Lightroom (LR) for editing printed output, and use either custom color profiles that I make (Spyder Print) or profiles supplied by the paper manufacturer.  This feature works very well, much like the Custom View mode in Photoshop (PS).  MOAB/Legion makes a neat paper called Slickrock Mettalic Pearl, that mimics the old Cibachrome prints, and the supply a color profile that works well in PS.  However, when I toggle on the Soft Proof mode using this profile in LR, the image goes completely white, except for deep blacks which show up as bright green.  When I actually make the print from LR, the print comes out okay, but there's no way to know if it's true to the proof view, since the proof view is unusable.
    Viewing, editing and printing the same image in Photoshop (PS) 5.1 works fine.  Editing and printing when view mode (Proof Setup > Custom) is to the same profile produces a print that's true to the proof view.   So it seems that the problem is between LR and the .icc file.  Here's the link to the profile file:  Go to MOAB Slickrock Metallic Pearl Epson R2400 EPL.icc.
    http://moabpaper.com/icc-profiles-downloads/epson/epson-stylus-photo-r2400/
    iMac; OSX 10.7.5
    LR 4.2
    Photoshop CS5 12.1
    Printer:  Epson Stylus Photo R2400 (Photo Black ink)

    Looks like a compatibiitly issue with Adobe LR soft proof:
    http://moabpaper.com/display/Search?moduleId=3387293&searchQuery=Lightroom+soft+proof
    ...and PS soft proof:
    http://moabpaper.com/moab-support-forum/post/2109935#post2144949

  • Colormunkie Photo printer profile (*.ICM and *.ICC ) are not seen by LR4.2 in the Print Job section

    Colormunkie Photo printer profile (*.ICM and *.ICC ) are not seen by LR4.2 in the Print Job section
    I used Colormunkie Photo to create an .ICM file for printer calibration.   When that failed I tried changing the suffix to .ICC.  Under neither circumstance did LR4.2 display the file in the menu to select printer profile.  There were several display files with both suffixes but no printer files at all.  I tried three times with no success and cannot think of what else to try. The first two were the same.  I varied the file creation name suffix in the third.  Help will be appreciated. My OS is Win 7 ultimate SP1  Printer is HP 2550L laserjet.

    Tillman
    Glad you found your answer, Colormunki is smart enough to figure out the color space for the printer as I found out - But for quality work the latest generation of inkjet printers from Epson and Canon are hard to beat, and compared to a laserjet the quality is like night and day. The other benefit of changing up to an inkjet printer is the choice of papers available which you could not put through a laserjet.
    I had a colleague that tried printing on Photoglossy paper through his color laser and it fried the fuser, and HP, while they replaced the fuser unit under warranty, made it very clear that that was a daft thing to do.
    So if I were in your position I would go with an inkjet and you will then enjoy the benefits of better quality output, better paper choices and with your Colormunki be able to make custom profiles that will work in LR
    Cheers
    Mike

Maybe you are looking for