Computer Graphics with Photoshop - Colour managed workflow when the printer ignores ICC info

Author

Colour managed workflow when the printer ignores ICC info

Derek Fountain

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

I'm going to send a few JPGs off to the oft-recommended Photobox.co.uk,
an online print shop. Photobox has this to say on colour management:

http://www.photobox.co.uk/quality.html#profile

Basically they print on Frontiers, which ignore any ICC info in the
image. They recommend sRGB. For what I want that approach is good
enough, but I'd still like my prints to look as close to my screen image
as possible.

So, what workflow do I use? My monitor is calibrated with a Spyder so
things should be OK my end, but I'm not sure how to prepare the images
for printing. I'm thinking along the lines of soft proofing with the
"device to simulate" being set to 'sRGB IEC61966-2.1' which I guess is
what's closest to what the Frontier machine will put out. When I'm happy
I then convert the image to that same profile and do a "Save As" as a
JPG file with no ICC profile. Does this sound reasonable? If not, what
approach should I be using?

--
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

Mike Russell

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

"Derek Fountain" <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:4596d4f7$0$32025$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> I'm going to send a few JPGs off to the oft-recommended Photobox.co.uk,
> an online print shop. Photobox has this to say on colour management:
>
> http://www.photobox.co.uk/quality.html#profile
>
> Basically they print on Frontiers, which ignore any ICC info in the
> image. They recommend sRGB. For what I want that approach is good
> enough, but I'd still like my prints to look as close to my screen image
> as possible.
>
> So, what workflow do I use? My monitor is calibrated with a Spyder so
> things should be OK my end, but I'm not sure how to prepare the images
> for printing. I'm thinking along the lines of soft proofing with the
> "device to simulate" being set to 'sRGB IEC61966-2.1' which I guess is
> what's closest to what the Frontier machine will put out. When I'm happy
> I then convert the image to that same profile and do a "Save As" as a
> JPG file with no ICC profile. Does this sound reasonable? If not, what
> approach should I be using?

Your workflow will work, though It is simpler to just use sRGB as your
working space for this project. Leave the profile embedded to remove any
ambiguity. Include a test print imprinted with the date of the order that
includes a gray ramp, and any particularly critical colors you might have to
make sure you are in the right ballpark. You can use these to check the
consistency of each run.

Frontiers are calibrated, its just that the default is to treat incoming
images as sRGB. DryCreekPhoto has a list of Frontier profiles - if you're
lucky they may have one for photobox. They have a procedure documented on
the settings that the operator must use for using the custom profile with
the Frontier - IMHO this is overkill for a small result - sRGB is probably
adequate for printed photographic material.
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/us...er_profiles.htm
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Derek Fountain

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

> Your workflow will work, though It is simpler to just use sRGB as your
> working space for this project.

Thanks for the help Mike. In fact, my working space for these photos has
always been sRGB, since that's how they came out of the camera, and
that's the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work).
In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I
see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no
soft proofing required - correct?

I seem to have got myself a bit confused by the simplicity of the
situation... :o}

--
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

Mike Russell

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

>> Your workflow will work, though It is simpler to just use sRGB as your
>
> Thanks for the help Mike. In fact, my working space for these photos has
> always been sRGB, since that's how they came out of the camera, and
> that's the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work).
> In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I
> see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no
> soft proofing required - correct?

Hi Derek,

It will be very close - certain colors will be changed a bit, I find
particularly that deep purple/violet colors tend to go blue.

> I seem to have got myself a bit confused by the simplicity of the
> situation... :o}

You're not the first! Try having them printed at your local drug store to
get an idea.
---
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Johan W. Elzenga

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Thanks for the help Mike. In fact, my working space for these photos has
> always been sRGB, since that's how they came out of the camera, and
> that's the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work).
> In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I
> see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no
> soft proofing required - correct?

No, unfortunately it's not that simple. What happens is that the icc
profile of the *file* is ignored, and sRGB is assumed for all files.
That *doesn't* mean however that the Frontier is an sRGB printer! It
only means that all *input* is assumed to be sRGB.

If you want to see what comes out of the printer, you still need to do a
soft proof of your image, with a Frontier profile. That profile could be
(and probably will be) quite different from sRGB, so your soft proof
will be different than what you see on screen without a soft proof.

> I seem to have got myself a bit confused by the simplicity of the
> situation... :o}

It's not that simple, I'm afraid.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Bill Hilton

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

> Derek Fountain wrote:
>
> ... In fact, my working space for these photos has
> always been sRGB, since that's how they came out of the camera, and
> that's the space I normally work in (I do virtually all for-web work).
> In that case, given the circumstances and how the printer works, what I
> see on my screen should already be what comes out of the printer with no
> soft proofing required - correct?

Two potential problems are out-of-gamut colors, which the printer may
not handle well, and the fact that in Photoshop you are viewing the
image via your monitor's ICC profile ... if the profile is accurate
then you're in good shape, but if not then you can also get some
unexpected mis-matches when you get the print back.

Bill

Johan W. Elzenga

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

Bill Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Two potential problems are out-of-gamut colors, which the printer may
> not handle well, and the fact that in Photoshop you are viewing the
> image via your monitor's ICC profile ... if the profile is accurate
> then you're in good shape, but if not then you can also get some
> unexpected mis-matches when you get the print back.

A far bigger problem is that the input profile and the printer profile
have nothing to do with eachother. The Frontier workflow ignores the
*input profile* and assumes sRGB for everything. That doesn't say
anything about the Frontiers own color space, which could be (or could
not be) very different from sRGB. And that means that there is no way
you can be certain that the prints will look as they did on screen,
unless you do a soft proof with a *Frontier ICC-profile*.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Mike Russell

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

> Derek Fountain <nomail@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
>

As you can see, advice varies. There is considerable controversy over the
value of soft proofing. I happen to believe a soft proof can be useful for
spotting potential problems with specific intense colors, as Bill Hilton
mentions. For overall brightness, shadow detail, and judgments about color
aesthetics, a soft proof is not really important. Adobe RGB and sRGB are
both perfectly good working spaces, and you can get excellent photographs in
both.

Johan is correct about requiring a good profile for a specific Frontier to
get exact results. I would add that for soft proofing, where, for example,
your concern is whether a particular deep purple will look good or not, any
Frontier profile will give you an idea of potential problems with particular
colors.

In sorting through the advice you get here, I suggest you stick with what
you can see in your work, take reasonable care in adjusting your monitor,
and not worry overmuch about being perfectly calibrated. I happen to think
your current sRGB workflow is ideal for the situation you describe. One of
the big benefits of this is that you can reserve more of your time and money
for your images.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Johan W. Elzenga

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

Mike Russell <RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote:

> As you can see, advice varies. There is considerable controversy over the
> value of soft proofing. I happen to believe a soft proof can be useful for
> spotting potential problems with specific intense colors, as Bill Hilton
> mentions. For overall brightness, shadow detail, and judgments about color
> aesthetics, a soft proof is not really important. Adobe RGB and sRGB are
> both perfectly good working spaces, and you can get excellent photographs in
> both.

That's correct, but that is not the point here. The point here is that
whatever color space you use, the Frontier will assume it's sRGB. In
that case you *must* send them sRGB images. If you send them AdobeRGB
images, the prints will look washed out, even if you tag them correctly
with the AdobeRGB color profile. Yes, AdobeRGB is a perfect working
space as well, but not in this Frontier workflow.

> Johan is correct about requiring a good profile for a specific Frontier to
> get exact results. I would add that for soft proofing, where, for example,
> your concern is whether a particular deep purple will look good or not, any
> Frontier profile will give you an idea of potential problems with particular
> colors.

I agree, but there's a catch here. We do know that embedded profiles are
ignored and that sRGB is assumed for every image. But what happens next?
Is the Frontier wokflow color managed, so are the images converted from
sRGB to 'FrontierRGB'? Or are they just sent to the printer without any
conversion at all (no color management). I wouldn't be surprised if the
second option was the case. Actually, given the fact that icc-profile
are ignored upon input, I would be surprised if it wasn't. In the latter
situation, it's like you use 'Assign Profile' and assign the Frontier
icc-profile. It may be an idea to do that, just to see how much the
image will change...

> In sorting through the advice you get here, I suggest you stick with what
> you can see in your work, take reasonable care in adjusting your monitor,
> and not worry overmuch about being perfectly calibrated. I happen to think
> your current sRGB workflow is ideal for the situation you describe. One of
> the big benefits of this is that you can reserve more of your time and money
> for your images.

It's the *only* workflow for the situation described. But it would still
be wise to get hold of a Frontier profile (I agree that any Frontier
profile will do fine) just to get an idea what happens if you 'Assign
Profile' and what happens if you 'Convert to Profile' (which is the same
as a soft proof). Then at least you understand *WHY* your prints are
different (if they are different), and *HOW* you can solve that problem
next time.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Mike Russell

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

"Johan W. Elzenga" <nomail@please.invalid> wrote in message
news:1hr9fnj.l1qgyp641ewaN%nomail@please.invalid...
> Mike Russell <RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote:
>
>
> That's correct, but that is not the point here. The point here is that
> whatever color space you use, the Frontier will assume it's sRGB. In
> that case you *must* send them sRGB images. If you send them AdobeRGB
> images, the prints will look washed out, even if you tag them correctly
> with the AdobeRGB color profile. Yes, AdobeRGB is a perfect working
> space as well, but not in this Frontier workflow.

Absolutely - in more general terms, either sRGB or Adobe (and several
others) will work fine as a working space.

>
> I agree, but there's a catch here. We do know that embedded profiles are
> ignored and that sRGB is assumed for every image. But what happens next?
> Is the Frontier wokflow color managed, so are the images converted from
> sRGB to 'FrontierRGB'? Or are they just sent to the printer without any
> conversion at all (no color management). I wouldn't be surprised if the
> second option was the case. Actually, given the fact that icc-profile
> are ignored upon input, I would be surprised if it wasn't. In the latter
> situation, it's like you use 'Assign Profile' and assign the Frontier
> icc-profile. It may be an idea to do that, just to see how much the
> image will change...

Absent any other information, you are correct about the alternatives. Most,
if not all Frontiers are set up to use internal color management to convert
before printing. There is an operator procedure discussed at the Dry Creek
Photo site that allows you to bypass the normal sRGB treatment, and use the
profile of the specific Frontier:
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/us...er_profiles.htm .

This begs the question of whether this procedure, if available, is worth the
extra trouble, and increased possibility of error? IMHO probably not, hence
I agree with you about providing sRGB images.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Johan W. Elzenga

2007-01-10, 6:20 pm

Mike Russell <RE-MOVEmike@Curvemeister.comRE-MOVE> wrote:

>
> Absent any other information, you are correct about the alternatives. Most,
> if not all Frontiers are set up to use internal color management to convert
> before printing. There is an operator procedure discussed at the Dry Creek
> Photo site that allows you to bypass the normal sRGB treatment, and use the
> profile of the specific Frontier:
> http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/us...er_profiles.htm .
>
> This begs the question of whether this procedure, if available, is worth the
> extra trouble, and increased possibility of error? IMHO probably not, hence
> I agree with you about providing sRGB images.

I agree. If the Frontier workflow includes the conversion from sRGB
(whatever the image really is) to 'FrontierRGB', there is little reason
to download the Frontier profile and do that yourself. There is no
difference, except that you are able to see (and to influence a bit by
choosing the intent) how out of gamut colors are remapped.

Just make sure you supply sRGB images, that *is* important.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl
Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com