Bay Photo Printer Profiles

Ken K

I have only been able to find one Bay Photo printer profile here:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-color

Can anyone help me understand how one profile works across all the different paper options, and I assume printers, that Bay Photo offers?

Thanks,
Ken

arodney

Ken K wrote: »

Can anyone help me understand how one profile works across all the different paper options

It can’t.

Ken K

arodney wrote: »

It can’t.

Then why does SmugMug offer only one profile?

Ken

arodney

Ken K wrote: »

Then why does SmugMug offer only one profile?

An excellent question! I suspect the “idea” here is you use this one profile for soft proofing, then you send them sRGB or some other working space (not the actual output color space) and then you wish and hope they somehow match what you saw, with a profile that’s not being used. But that’s just a suspicion, we’ll have to hear from them.

An in depth thread about this kind of workflow is on-going over on the Luminous Landscape forums:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=47710.20

Sam

I asked them this exact question, and although I do believe Bay Photo is one of the best printers in the US, they couldn't really answer this question.

Since I do most of my own printing this is not a big issue for me.

I can tell you I have had some event (people) prints done with the manual color correction option and they came out great.

I also had a landscape done on art paper and the color, detail, tonal range, and exposure was excellent.

Not completely sure how they do it, but it seems to work so go with the flow and give it a try. The proof is in the print.

Sam

arodney

The question isn’t whether the prints are great or not, we expect they are. The question is how does one color manage the workflow with a single profile?

Sam

arodney wrote: »

The question isn’t whether the prints are great or not, we expect they are. The question is how does one color manage the workflow with a single profile?

Magic pixie dust.

Sam

Ken K

Sam wrote: »

Magic pixie dust.

Sam

Can someone from SmugMug or Bay Photo weigh in on this?

Ken

jfriend

There is no dispute that one profile cannot accurately portray all possible printers and papers that might be used at Bay (or any lab).

To fully do this, Bay would have to provide:

1. A printer profile for every printer/paper combination that the lab might possibly use
2. They would have to identify exactly which printer hardware was being used for every single size/paper combination
3. They'd have to never change their paper supplier (without changing all the profiles again)
4. They'd have to consistently use the same type of printer for a given print size and paper combination, never substituting a different one.
5. They'd have to provide a way for the customer to figure out which profile was to be used for which paper/size option.
6. On top of this, the Smugmug pro environment has you put one RGB image on the site from which zillions of sizes and papers can be used so there's no way to prepare an image only for a specific size/paper.

What it comes down to is if you're ordering one off prints for yourself or ordering yourself for a customer and you want this level of control, don't go through Smugmug - it isn't built for that level of control - probably never will be. You should find a lab that you can have a direct relationship with, that will directly answer the questions you have in this area and offer you whatever profiles you think you need.

What I think Bay is doing with their single profile is they are giving you a profile that is trying to be a representation of the color gamut that they can print. They (and Smugmug) intend for you to use it to soft proof in a program like Photoshop to see where your image may have colors out of gamut that you should manually modify. Since all prints out of Bay aren't being printed on the exact same equipment and certainly not the same type of paper, this single profile can only be some sort of general representation of what their equipment produces - it cannot be perfectly accurate for all printers/papers they use.

However, Bay is in the business of making great prints and, when used through Smugmug, there's a 100% satisfaction guarantee and there are a lot of satisfied customers. So, what they're doing is working for a lot of people. Whether it's right for you depends upon how close a relationship you want with your printer and how much you want to do printer-specific tweaking or think you need to.

Papalouie

Hi all, I'm a color management expert but I know our workflow. Most of our clients just use sRGB or Adobe RGB. If they use the one profile we provide, it is for soft proofing. We do what we can to match our output across all devices. One of the problems we have with posting multiple profiles is that we have many silver halide printers, several different paper types on those, several different types of fine art and canvas materials for our inkjet printers, MetalPrints in 4 surfaces and 11 types of Press Printed papers for our Indigos. Not only is making those profiles available difficult but also some or our rip software uses proprietary profiles which cannot be used in other programs. Proper use is also an issue, this includes photographers having a calibrated monitor. About 40% of our work is not corrected by us. The other 60% of the files are individually looked at by a human, not to worry we have tools that make this lightning quick, and adjusted using an age old system called subjective judgment. Actually it's not as subjective as it would seem. Landscapes and images that do not have reference points or obviously manipulated files are not adjusted very much. Portraits, weddings and people photos are adjusted to obtain more accurate flesh tones and density.

Back to the original question arodney is right we do not use a single profile. Internally most paper/device combinations have their own profile. The profile that is posted by Smugmug is the most common one we use, E surface silver halide prints. In the future, if demand warrants, we could make more available.

Issues relating to color/density are minimal so most of our battle is keeping the devices calibrated and making sure our color correctors are all on the same page.

Papalouie

Just read your post, thanks John.

arodney

jfriend wrote: »

What I think Bay is doing with their single profile is they are giving you a profile that is trying to be a representation of the color gamut that they can print.

Then they are clueless about modern and correct implementation of color management and don’t understand what soft proofing is. Period. Its not a representation of anything useful or correct unless its the profile that converts the RGB working space into an output space, using the rendering intent, CMM, options like Black Point Compensation etc. If you are not provided the actual profile for this task, if you can’t use it to convert the data and maybe post edit, don’t even waste your time with the provided profile. You might as well blindly pick any output profile you have for soft proofing and hope for the best. The idea that some lab provides an ICC profile that is used only for soft proofing and not subsequent output is either the workflow of a very confused lab or a poor marketing attempt to convince users that they are implementing color management. They are not. Either send them sRGB or whatever working space they demand and hope for the best in terms of some match, or find a lab that does implement color management correctly.

Not only is making those profiles available difficult but also some or our rip software uses proprietary profiles which cannot be used in other programs.

Then they are not ICC profiles converting the data, why supply an ICC profile?. The first part (its difficult) pretty much sums this up in terms of why labs don’t supply actual ICC profiles.

The profile that is posted by Smugmug is the most common one we use, E surface silver halide prints. In the future, if demand warrants, we could make more available.

So they ARE ICC profiles that can be used or they are some proprietary (RIP) conversion? Your answers are quite unclear.

Issues relating to color/density are minimal so most of our battle is keeping the devices calibrated and making sure our color correctors are all on the same page.

You know, it be very easy for someone outside the lab to gauge this if folks wanted to know the exact deltas. There’s also Chromix Maxwell which I highly recommend (we use it to track dozens upon dozens of digital presses which are way more variable than a decent silver process).

Frankly, the lab(s) should just tell users the files have to be in some working space (even sRGB) and skip this “here’s a profile for soft proofing” nonsense or provide all the profiles for soft proofing and conversion. Anything in between is just a poor attempt at color management.

Sam

I think part of the problem here is that the argument seems to be one of technical correctness versus the real world.

Andrew is correct, but I am not sure how one can operate a large lab at reasonable prices and adhere to all the technical and academical procedures.

You can talk all day about color management and icc profiles, but the proof is in the print.

If you want the best possible print that matches your vision, buy a large format printer and have at it. (This is what I did.) If this is too much for you then find a good lab. As an example Bay will probably give you a print, that while YOU may see a difference between the print and your vision, most clients will not. It is up to you to decide if it's close enough or not.

I can probably take a file and produce a better print than Bay. How is that for a bold statement? How can I a lowly uneducated, no formal training do that? Disclaimer, I don't have the knowledge or ability to argue all the fine points of color management or printing.

I (or you) can however take the time to scrutinize the file for processing issues, color, tonal range, sharpness, etc. I can soft proof for my one printer with my paper of choice.Then I can print a test image, or test strip, make any adjustments desired, repeat as necessary, then make a final print.

This is labor intensive. I really don't know of a lab that can do all this without costing a small fortune.

No one business can meet the needs of everybody. Each must choose the business segment they will build a business model to serve.

Them's me thoughts.

Sam

arodney

Sam wrote: »

I think part of the problem here is that the argument seems to be one of technical correctness versus the real world.

Andrew is correct, but I am not sure how one can operate a large lab at reasonable prices and adhere to all the technical and academical procedures.

There are labs that implement a full (correct) color management path. I’m sure they charge more for their output. You get what you pay for (or you pay for added services that are important to you).

You can talk all day about color management and icc profiles, but the proof is in the print.

Not fully in this color management context. You can get wonderful, beautiful prints without a lick of color management. The idea of color management is not a make pretty button. Its about seeing what you’ll get, getting that match, its about consistent output etc. If you want to crank out 9 prints to get one you feel is perfect instead of 2 prints, then yes, the proof is in that print. Color management’s goal is about predictably for one. Repeatability is also key. Handing out of gamut colors again is a useful area color management provides. But you can skip all this if you don’t mind either printing until you get the desired results or get something you like that may not match what you saw on your display.

If you want the best possible print that matches your vision, buy a large format printer and have at it. (This is what I did.)

Bingo. You control the show.

I can probably take a file and produce a better print than Bay. How is that for a bold statement?

I don’t find it bold at all. Makes perfect sense to me. How many photographers also printed their own work when possible due to the control?

Sam

Andrew.

As a disclaimer I do not dispute your superior knowledge or 99% of your comments. I was, and still am trying to put this into perspective.

For most people even advanced photographers a company like Bay (I have no affiliation with Bay) can and I think does produce good quality results that are very good.

Just for the record, I don't need 9 prints to get what I want, but if that's what it took I would do it. I am able to get ether a final print or very close on to it on the first print. Of course this does depend on many factors.

It would be interesting to know of a commercial company that will provide an icc profile for every printer they have, and be able to match your order up with that printer. I would also be very curious about the costs.

You are correct in that typically you get what you pay for. With his in mind though the difference or increase in cost versus quality is not linear. As an example at a certain point it can cost you 50% to 100% more to gain say a 10% increase in quality.

Sam

arodney

Sam wrote: »

For most people even advanced photographers a company like Bay (I have no affiliation with Bay) can and I think does produce good quality results that are very good.

I don’t dispute that (but I also have no experience sending them anything for output).

It would be interesting to know of a commercial company that will provide an icc profile for every printer they have, and be able to match your order up with that printer. I would also be very curious about the costs.

www.pictopia.com

Sam

arodney wrote: »

I don’t dispute that (but I also have no experience sending them anything for output).



www.pictopia.com

Andrew,

I have sent files to Bay for printing and have been very satisfied.

I just got off the phone with Pictopia, and they seem to be a knowledgeable upfront company. I wouldn't hesitate to give them a try. Please note however they only have one large printer that does most of their commercial printing. Currently they have two profiles, one for mat, (type) and one for gloss, (type). They only use Fuji Crystal Archival paper so yes with only two paper types and one printer it's easy to do.

They do offer a service to process / set up, assign an icc profile, etc. and print your file. This does come at a premium.

But how do you handle numerous paper types, numerous printers and printer types, (light jet, ink jet, etc.) or other media like canvas or metal?

Just saying....................:D

Sam

arodney

Sam wrote: »

But how do you handle numerous paper types, numerous printers and printer types, (light jet, ink jet, etc.) or other media like canvas or metal?

You have a profile for each device and substrate (kind of like what you get when you install say an Epson printer).