Soft Proofing: Aperture vs Photoshop

I'll start by saying that I,m no expert in this area...
So why do I see such a difference in soft proofing in Aperture vs PhotoShop?
The difference between my calibrated screen and a printer's ICC profile is much bigger in Aperture then it is in Photoshop.

They are totally different apps but with a small amount of overlap.
You need (inexpensive) Photoshop Elements for individual image editing. PE is poor for management of batches of images.
Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom are (a bit more expensive) apps for the management of batches of captured digital images. You will want one of them (here we prefer Aperture) as you get into shooting substantial batches of DSLR captures. Aperture will deal with the editing issues of 98% of your images, but you definitely want PE for the 2% which will likely include your best shots.
-Allen Wicks

Similar Messages

  • Soft Proofing in Aperture vs Others

    I posted this in another thread, but didn't get a reply so I thought I'd try another Subject title. Sorry.
    Someone was having a problem with Aperture to Photoshop using CYMK. I'm having the same problem Adobe RGB images. I use Gretag/Macbeth to calibrate my monitor. When I proof in Aperture, the result is VERY desaturated compared with the soft proofs in Photoshop (direct from Aperture), C1, and Canon DPP. The others all soft proof identically. I haven't had a chance to print anything yet from Aperture, but I know my onscreen versions are very accurate compared to my printed output when using the other programs. If I leave Aperture proofing off and proofing off in the other programs, then the screen versions are pretty close. But I really would like to use proofing. Anybody else found this problem and worked it out? Thanks.

    Ian,
    AFAIK, profiles should be computed using the specific printer, inks, and paper—you don't apply the paper type afterward. I use an online print lab and have separate profiles for different printer types.
    Cheers,
    Andreas

  • Soft Proofing in Aperture 2

    Am I missing something, there doesn't seem to any option to simulate paper colour whilst soft proofing in Aperture 2. If it doesn't do this I still need to go into Photoshop to soft proof properly?
    Thanks
    Ian

    Ian,
    AFAIK, profiles should be computed using the specific printer, inks, and paper—you don't apply the paper type afterward. I use an online print lab and have separate profiles for different printer types.
    Cheers,
    Andreas

  • Soft proofing in Aperture

    Is it possible to apply a printer profile in Aperture to soft proof an image, then adjust color settings, hue/saturation, etc, in Aperture and then export that profiled image into Photoshop for final image management before sending the image to my ImagePrint RIP software for printing on my 2200?
    Thank you.

    First, go to "View --> Proofing Profile -->" and select the printer profile you want to use.
    Then, do "View --> Onscreen Proofing" which will then have a check mark next to it.
    Be careful to remember you're in "proofing" mode, or you may get confused. I spent a whole day, wondering why all my images were B&W, before realizing I had a grayscale profile selected and "Onscreen Proofing" on.

  • Changing color profile in Lightroom 5 Soft Proofing from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB is not showing any changes, changes in Photoshop CC are dramatic

    I am working with  the color profile ProPhoto RGB in both Lightroom 5 and Photoshop CC. In preparing for my first Blurb book I have tried to generate pictures in sRGB in Lightroom, using the Soft Proofing feature, but there are no changes at all. Then I transfer the same pictures into Photoshop, change the color profiles and the results are dramatically different.
    What can I do to achieve the same results in Lightroom

    With an average monitor what you see on-screen is already soft proofed to sRGB (or something very close to it), because that's all the monitor is capable of displaying anyway. So soft proofing to sRGB won't tell you anything. You won't see any difference.
    In Photoshop it sounds as if you assign profiles. That's not the way to do it. If you convert correctly you won't see any difference. Same principle as above: there may be clipping in the process, but what you see on screen is already clipped, so no visual on-screen difference.
    With a wide gamut monitor soft proofing becomes slightly more useful. But still you won't see any changes occurring outside Adobe RGB. You'll get a better idea by keeping an eye on the histogram. Ideally, all three channels should taper gently off towards the endpoints. If any one or two channels are backed solidly up against the endpoint, on either side, that's gamut clipping.
    If Blurb gave you a real profile, one that reflected their actual printing process, you could soft proof to that. But apparently they don't.

  • Does Photoshop support N-Color ICC profiles for soft proofing?

    Hi All,
    Does Photoshop support N-Color ICC Profiles for soft proofing? If yes, then can anyone guide me?
    Thanks!

    No, it does not.

  • Photoshop CC quits when setting up soft proof for Moab Slickrock paper

    I use a Mac Pro with Mountain Lion and Photoshop CC, all with current updates. I had no problem downloading and using the Moab Slickrock icc profile from their website to make a test print. When I try to set up soft proofing, view-proof setup-custom, and choose Slickrock as the device to simulate, Photoshop quits suddenly. I tried it multiple times, restarted the computer, restarted Photoshop, removed and re-installed the profile all to no avail. I then installed the profile for Moab Lasal, and was able to set up soft proofing for Lasal with no problem. I can set up Slickrock with my copy of Photoshop CS6 with no problem and also with Lightroom 5.3 it will soft proof. I wrote to Moab and they said it was a known bug with no current solution.
    Do you have any idea what is going on?
    Soft proofing is not critical, but I do like to use it when I can.
    Eric Brody

    I am having this issue as well.  I tried lightroom, but the soft proof is buggy there - it's a known bug I saw written up on MOAB's page.  Supposedly Photoshop CS5 worked OK softproofing with this profile, but evidently, CC does not. 

  • Soft proofing/photoshop elements 8

    I bought what was suppose to be the plus to Photo Elements 8 through share it/com/Digital River. The publisher was simplephotoshop.com. Somehow I thought I was buying through Adobe. It is lined out in my printer and doesn't work. Is their really a plus addition to photo elements 8 that allows you to soft proof.
    thanks

    You will need to talk to the folks at simple photoshop about this, since it's nothing to do with adobe, which has nothing to do with elements+. As far as Adobe is concerned the only addition to PSE is the extra storage space at photoshop.com that you can buy.
    In my experience all that elements+ can do is to force the soft proof window to appear, but since PSE has no CMYK mode, it's of limited usefulness.

  • Rendering intent when displaying, exporting or soft proofing?

    I am trying to make use of soft proofing to adjust my images for a given output device for which I have ICC profiles. The two profiles I am playing with are for a Lambda and a Fuji Frontier. The Lambda working space almost fits within Adobe RGB, it exceeds it in only a few places but is noticeably smaller for a number of other colors. The Frontier working space is for most colors a bit smaller than the Lambda and about equal for only a small number of colors. The Frontier working space would also almost fit into sRGB (to give you an impression of its size).
    When soft proofing with Aperture, dark greens desaturate more with the larger Lambda working space than with Frontier one. If the rendering intent were relative colorimetric, colors should be clipped more and limited by the smaller working space of the Frontier. If perceptual is used then colors would in general be somewhat more compressed (ie, desaturated) with the smaller Frontier working space. But I see rather the opposite. In short, neither explanation makes sense.
    So I tried exporting from Aperture into Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB hoping that both would be big enough to contain most of the internal gamut of Aperture in order not to require much compression or clipping when converting from the internal color space of Aperture (I saw no difference between Adobe RGB and ProPhoto RGB in the exported files, so I guess both are large enough for my purposes). And I then converted/soft proofed these files from Photoshop into my two output profiles. More options (different rendering intents, black point compensation) but none seemed to really match what Aperture was soft proofing. I still have a lot of ideas what to try out but if anybody could shed some light on rendering intents and soft proofing with Aperture, it would be very much appreciated.
    (A related question, what rendering intent is used when converting colors, let's say defined in the Lab space in Photoshop, to the screen? I guess this is defined in the monitor profile, which in turn is created by the monitor calibration software, and therefore might depend on the latter. I would guess some kind of perceptual, but how the colors are really fitted and converted from the larger Lab color space into the smaller monitor one might very noticeably been different calibration software and will be different again for the monitor profile supplied by Apple.)

    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!

  • Soft Proofing?

    For those here who are having success with their printing. What if anything are you doing about lack of soft proofing in LR.
    My current situation is, I get acceptable prints only 50% of the time. Everything is color managed of course and I'm printing to Epson R2400 using Velvet Fine Art Paper and Epson current icc profiles.
    What happens is I can make Develop adjustments to two similar images and when I print one comes out fine and the other does not.
    Following advise of others I have set up presets for my printing and still check settings after clicking print button. All appears good but result are unpredictable.
    I have managed to get some very nice prints on VFA paper so I know it's possible. Just seems like something in the settings is not sticking from one print to the next. Any thoughts on this issue? Like many others here I can print from Aperture or PS with 100% perfect results every time.
    I have tried doing preview after starting the print dialog (osx) but the previews are always very oversaturated and very bright. I understand from reading elsewhere that OSX preview is not reliable. I've also tried printing to pdf first and opening in Acrobat however the result is still bright and oversaturated but not as much as the preview version.
    I really want to stick with LR but this unpredictable printing thing is making it tough for me to do so. Trying to get consistent prints has so far cost me almost as much in paper/ink as I paid for LR. Since print output is my main goal it's important to me that I get this working. Otherwise LR will become a doorstop.
    For the record: (in case Andrew Rodney weights in) I'm shooting with a Nikon D200, Raw in AdobeRGB, Macbook Pro with monitor calibrated with spyder2, using paper/ink icc profiles from Epson (I know their canned, but their the same ones used in PS with perfect results)in LR for my R2400 printer connected directly to my Macbook Pro using firewire.
    Is there something I'm missing?
    THH

    "P.S. when a print comes out bad is always muddy, blocked up in the shadows and somewhat washed out overall(looks like its foggy). Is that a clue to anything?"
    It's a clue that your image needs the contrast range of a glossy paper vs a watercolor paper...or that you need to go into the shadows to "open" them up so they print.
    The d-max of a glossy paper (like Luster) can hit 2.39/2.4 on Luster but a watercolor paper can only hit 1.7 or so d-max. What that means is that between max white (paper white) and max black )d-max) a watercolor paper is gonna plug up from the midtones down to the shadows...black will be black which is the d-max.
    And yes, having a soft proof function in Lightroom would greatly aid in evaluating how much "opening" of the shadows you need to do. Which is why I tend to round trip from Lightroom to Photoshop back to Lightroom very important fine art type prints. While in Photoshop, I can take advantage of local tone/color corrections while doing sharpening and image enhancements such as a mid-tone contrast adjustment, saving the -EDIT file back into Lightroom for printing. While in Photoshop (before saving) I will softproof using the paper profile I'll be using and add an ajustment layer or two (usually a curve and a Hue&Sat adjustment).
    The imprtant factor here is to separate out problems using Lightroom functionality such as not using OS X saved presets, remembering to update LR templates and using the correct settings to print from issues of printing difficult to print images on low d-max papers.

  • Massive colour variation from Aperture to Photoshop

    Hi there
    I have experienced a startling colour variation when exporting an image form Aperture to Photoshop 3 (for a bit of tweaking).
    Please see this screen grab which shows the variation - particularly the desaturated reds in p/shop:
    http://www.white-adams.co.uk/white-adams.co.uk/ScreenGrab.tif
    (although the screen grab is less dramatic varied than the reality on screen here).
    Some background:
    File is a raw file with some basic adjustments made in Aperture
    I then right-clicked on the version made in Aperture and selected "edit with" Photoshop CS3
    Can anyone help me explain the variation?
    If I want to get this image printed and I export it from Aperture will it retain the lovely saturated reds - or look more like the photoshop version?!
    Help!
    Kind regards
    Robert

    have checked soft-proofing is off in Photoshop
    Configuring Photoshop for compatible assumptions is complex. The first ICC-enabled version was 6 and it introduced dialogues including Colour Settings, Proof Setup, Proof Colours, Print with Preview > Colour Management on top of the old PostScript colour management model and the even older PostScript level 1 model where transfer curves and frequency algorithms get programmed into Encapsulated PostScript and change the calibration of the raster image processor at runtime.
    The controls are here and there technically non-sensical. A couple of critical controls are Simulate > Paper White and Simulate > Ink Black. The English is non-sense, so the localisations are non-sense. If EU localisations are inverted back into English, they read Simulate > White Paper and Simulate > Black Ink - including the German localisation that one would suppose the good people at Heidelberg, FOGRA and Bundesverband Druck und Medien would have had their beady eyes on.
    Why is the English technical non-sense? Because in a colour test chart there is a null colourant patch where the spectrophotometer measures the colour of the paper itself (its L* lightness and its ab hue and chroma); a patch where the colourant combination is C100 M100 Y100 K100 which is where the spectrophometer measures maximum process black; and a patch where the colourant is K100 where the spectrophotometer measures black solid and solo.
    Process black in C100 M100 Y100 K100 is what Photoshop uses in Simulate > Ink Black and the colour of paper measured in the null colourant patch is used in Simulate > Paper White. There were discussions with Adobe in 2004 and again in the following, but I stopped trying to get them to change either their localisations or their source English - let alone the multiple modal dialogues for controlling rendering intent configurations.
    With regard to Aperture, the idea of allowing the enduser to apply a gamma correction on top of the colour management input-output is not a good idea. It helps the one person who doesn't have proper studio lighting for a display-print match, but it does not help the colour management process with other people in a workgroup.
    /hh

  • Prints from Aperture vs Photoshop Different

    When I make a print from Aperture the color is off and the print is too light. When I take that same photo and Open With External Editor to Photoshop, the print comes out nearly perfect, and nearly exactly what I see on my 30" ACD.
    When printing I turn off System Management of color, so I don't think that's the issue.
    I shoot Raw with a Nikon D2x. I calibrated my Epson 4800 and 30" display with Eye-One. The profile of the photo is Adobe RGB 1998. When soft proofing in Aperture I use the printer profile I created with Eye-One and the image looks fine on my display.
    I've read various threads where people have solved this problem by making sure they use Adobe RGB 1998 across the board, which I think I am doing.
    One huge concern is that I'm ready to have a wedding book published via Apple and I don't know if the images are going to look like they do printed via Aperture, or Photoshop, or something altogether different.
    Greg
    Mac Book Pro 17"   Mac OS X (10.4.9)   30" ACD, Epson 4800 printer, Dimage Scan Elite 5400II

    David,
    Thank you for enlightening me about the Nikon/color space.
    What is frustrating is that I've calibrated my Epson 4800 and 30" ACD. In Aperture the color and exposure looks fine when soft proofing, but my prints come out with a magenta tinge and are too light. When printing the very same file in Photoshop (via Round Trip from Aperture), the image looks the same on my monitor as it did in Aperture but the print comes out very close to what I see on the screen. There has to be something else going on. I turn off the System Management of color, what other settings do you set? However, I set the printing settings the same for Aperture as for Photoshop.
    Since you have much of the same set-up as I do, I'd like to turn to another question. I'm trying to order a wedding book via Apple. When I click the "Buy Now" button, all the following dialog boxes have a combination of French, English, Dutch? - and when I reach the final dialog box I see in English, "Please correct the following issues". The item on the list that I should correct is in Dutch or Swedish. Has this ever happened to you and how can I fix the language issue. I searched the threads and see people with the same problem, but no remedy.
    Another question if I may... When I click "Buy Now" the first dialog box says that there is a blank text box (which I suspect is the issue that the Dutch sentence is proclaiming). I've tried finding the blank text box by Select All, but only the photo fields are highlighted. Do you know how to find a blank text box?
    Thank you for your suggestions. I've asked about the foreign language and text box issues but haven't received an answer yet.
    Greg

  • Display profiles and soft proofing Windows RGB / Monitor RGB

    This might have asked before, but I did not find any definite answer for this. Sorry this gets a bit long.
    Short question:
    What's the difference between softproofing with Windows RGB and Monitor RGB targets? I see differences in my image between these targets.
    Long question(s):
    Here's some reasoning.. let me know when I go wrong.
    I have hardware calibrated my display Spyder 3 elite to sRGB standard. I have understood that the generated display profile contains a LUT table that affects gamma values for each RGB component, so that affects both gamma and color temperature. That table is loaded into video card when Windows starts. In addition to the LUT table, the display profile contains what? Probably information on what color space the display has been calibrated to. Does that matches directly with the LUT table information, but may deviate from sRGB in the case my monitor cannot reproduce sRGB 100%?
    Now if I have image that that is in sRGB, but the embedded sRGB profile has been stripped away, should any non color management aware image viewer show the colors properly, if it is assumed that 1) my monitor can handle full sRGB space and 2) my monitor was succesfully calibrated to sRGB and the LUT table has been loaded into video card?
    Or does it still require a color management aware program to show the image, which implies that the LUT table information alone is not enough and the display profile contains some extra information that is needed to show the image correctly? I would think this is true, as I needed to turn on color management in Canon Zoom Browser to see images in it the same way as in Photoshop.
    Now to the original question, what's the difference in Photoshop when soft proofing with Windows RGB and Monitor RGB targets
    I read from www.gballard.net that
    Photoshop can effectively "SoftProof" our web browser color:
    Photoshop: View> Proof SetUp> Windows RGB
    Photoshop's Soft Proof screen preview here simulates how unmanaged applications, web browsers, will display the file on 2.2 gamma monitors, based on the sRGB profile. If the file is based on sRGB and our monitor gamma is 2.2 and D/65 6500 degrees Kelvin, we should see very little shift here, which is the goal.
    Photoshop: View> Proof SetUp> Monitor RGB
    THIS IS WHERE the color-brightness-saturation problem will repeat consistantly.
    Soft Proofing Monitor RGB here strips-ignores the embedded ICC profile and Assigns-Assumes-Applies the Monitor profile or color space.
    The color and density changes seen here show the difference between the monitor profile and the source profile sRGB.
    I'm not sure how to read that. Assume here that my monitor has been calibrated to sRGB and the PS working space sRGB. Do in both cases photoshop strip away color profile from the image at first? What happens after that? Does in Windows RGB case Photoshop pass the color values as they are to display? What does it do in "Monitor RGB" case then? Does it assign my monitor profile to the image? If it does, does there also happen conversion from one color space to another? In either one conversion there must happen as the soft proofing results are different. Does either one cause "double profiling" to the image as the monitor is already calibrated?
    Thanks

    Windows defaults to sRGB if you don't calibrate your monitor so untagged sRGB files should display (more or less) correctly in applications that don't know about color management on systems with uncalibrated monitors.
    When proofing against Windows RGB you're proofing against sRGB, it will show you how applications that don't know about color management on an uncalibrated monitor will show the image. This is what you proof against if you want to see how the image will display in web browsers.
    When you proof against Monitor RGB, Photoshop will assign your monitor's icc profile to the image which tends to be utterly useless most of the time.

  • 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.

  • Is It Possible to Save a Soft-Proofed File?

    Let's assume that I have an image, foo.psd, open in PSCS4. I softproof the image for a particular paper and printer. When I hit Ctrl-Y, the image is shown in softproof mode, and the softproofing info is appended to the image name in the PSCS4 window. Is there any way to save a copy of foo.psd with the soft proofing applied, i.e. foo-softproof.psd?
    Reed

    Reed,
    a print looks often different to the monitor. Quite normal
    - many monitor colors cannot be printed.
    They are out-of gamut for the printing CMYK space.
    The RGB image data are converted via the RGB profile
    to Lab, which is large enough to represent real world
    photos without loss.
    From Lab the data are converted to CMYK via the CMYK
    profile. Here is loss because of the smaller gamut.
    The colors have to be mapped from the larger RGB gamut
    into the smaller CMYK gamut. This can be done
    a) automatically by Rendering Intent Relative Colorimetric:
    in-gamut colors are not changed. Out-of-gamut colors
    are mapped to the gamut boundary; this process isn't
    accurately defined by standards.
    b) automatically by Rendering Intent Perceptual:
    all colors - even those which were in-gamut - are
    shifted towards the gray axis. This process depends
    very much on the scientist or programmer and is nowhere
    defined by standards.
    So far one doesn't need human interaction, but the results
    are not always pleasing. The third and optimal method is
    c) image based gamut compression. Reduce the saturation
    and eventually rotate the hue in regions which are out-
    of-gamut until Photoshop's Proof Color Gamut Warning
    doesn't show larger out-of-gamut areas.
    Gamut compression algorithms and the color science behind
    are explained in this excellent book:
    Jan Morovic (accents omitted)
    Color Gamut Mapping
    John Wiley & Sons, 2008
    Manual image based gamut compression is demonstrated here
    by many examples (but it's called 'Editing in Lab'):
    http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/labproof15092008.pdf
    Attention: 3.4 MBytes.
    Chapter 9 shows visualized gamut boundaries for several
    color spaces.
    IMO you're seeking the impossible (if I'm understanding
    you correctly).
    Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann

Maybe you are looking for