Soft Proofing, Printing and SM Display...Oh My! (Workflow ?)

Nonconformist

Greetings to all!

I have spent most of the day - and previous days - reading and researching soft proofing and workflow, which, of course, has taken me down so many paths and into different topics that my head is spinning from TMI. Whew. So, here I am: first post, first thread...with questions. Hopefully, I have selected the correct sub-forum.

This is my workflow with my questions below -->

1. Open image (sRGB out of my camera) in ACR/PS and make adjustments

2. Save psd master copy

3. Copy image and turn on soft proof for XX ICC profile for new image with settings:
Rendering intent = Perceptual
Black Point Compensation and Preview the only features checked

4. Make adjustments of soft proofed file to match original

5. Flatten layers

6. Sharpen

7. Save as JPEG high with embedded sRGB profile

8. Send to printer

9. Upload to SmugMug for display

Questions:
1. Please forgive if this is elementary or if my brain is not firing right now: why would I make adjustments to my original AND to the soft proof copy? For most efficient workflow, shouldn’t I open the image, immediately turn on soft proof, make adjustments, save PSD master and then save JPEG for print? What am I missing here? Maybe I am answering the question with my next question but I can’t seem to wrap my head around it right now….

2. Do you guys who sell your work through SmugMug (with EZ or Bay printing) upload your soft proofed files for display? If not, what is your top-level workflow?... if you don’t mind sharing.

3. Is there a way to turn off color correction for the prints ordered by customers (Pro acct)?

4. And, finally, to those who use Bay WITHOUT color correction but soft proof, are you satisfied with the overall color match in their output? (I use a Spyder Elite for monitor calibration.)

I just sent a decent sized job to Bay (not through SM) for show purposes and had them color correct the files. HOLY MACRO was it ever a disaster!! And their customer service was….well, let’s just say, based on my personal experience, that these individuals would not represent my company (but that is for a diff. thread ).

Thank you in advance for your insight and direction for the astray. :bow

Nonconformist

Did I place this thread / these questions in the wrong sub-forum?

Anyone with feedback....direction....a slap on the back of the hand?

Should I re-post in SmugMug Support?

TIA

pathfinder

I think you should re- post this series of questions in Smugmug support, as I am unable to move this thread there for you.

I had hoped Andrew Rodney or someone who uses Soft Proofing often would respond.

Not everyone has unlimited faith in the value of soft proofing, or " dumbing down your monitor to look like paper" to quote a pro at his print workshop. He preferred to make a test print rather than soft proof, but that is not convenient when dealing with distant print labs.

You do not mention whether your monitor is calibrated, but I will assume it is, although your prints from Bay Photo did not meet your expectation.

My approach is to print many of my images on my Epson P3000, which closely match my calibrated monitor, and if my file is satisfactory on my own printer, my EZ Print, or Bay Photo will match very nicely.

When soft proofing, do it on a copy of your file, never on your primary, original, or you risk altering your original file.

arodney

Few points, then URL’s for you to read about effective soft proofing.

First, you say you soft proof with XX profile. This is the profile supplied to you by the lab? But they don’t let you use it. They demand sRGB. Kind of ineffective, might as well forget the soft proof process. Why? Because you don’t know if the lab is using that profile. You don’t appear to have an option to use anything but Perceptual and that’s not good (ICC profiles don’t know squat about images, only devices. You need to select a rendering intent based on what you visually prefer). You have no control over the conversions such as the important use of Black Point Compensation. So the idea of supplying you an ICC printer profile you can’t use is a feel good, “we the lab practice (kind of) color management”.

Here are some articles on soft proofing that may help you once you find a lab that allows you use color management and the profiles correctly and to their fullest:

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200409_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200411_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200410_rodneycm.pdf

Or if you want to see an older Webinar on soft proofing from Adobe:http://seminars.adobe.acrobat.com/p84783897/

Nonconformist

Many thanks for the response, Andrew. There's the rub! I have successfully used Hamilton Color Lab, who does use their supplied ICC profiles (I embed them into my files) with the corresponding output setup, and the result is outstanding.

When I let Bay color correct my batch of images, the result was horrendous, and, of course at every turn and with every statement from the two reps, it was my fault. It was my monitor; it was the wrong color calibrator; it was the color calibration set incorrectly; it was...it was... I couldn't get them to understand I could have sent them skin tones at 100% magenta (i didn't but it was my example), and I was paying THEM to color correct the files to their system regardless of what my system outputs. I've had 'down and dirty' color corrected prints from MPix that were closer than Bay's color corrected.

I've given Bay another shot with some test photos that were soft proofed with their provided profile (their ONE provided profile) and ordered without color correction and am now awaiting their arrival, but I think I may have to stick with Hamilton. Then you throw in SM's mark-up on Bay, and I have a hit-or-miss scenario for almost the price of a Hamilton print. I'm not a pro commercial photog by any means, but the up-charge is worth the quality and consistency to me.

But, back to workflow for a moment with regards to uploading files for display, if you don't mind: I'm concerned about what the customer sees on screen compared to the printed product (from Hamilton or any other lab): for screen display, do you guys display soft-proofed files and/or files with your printer's profile embedded? Does the soft-proofed (or profile embedded) displayed photo provide the customer a better comparison/expectation for printed output or is this process just throwing another wrench into the system (with display/screen color variables I don't understand)?

Or do you upload files straight from your camera and/or adjusted files based on your monitor's calibration?

Pathfinder, yes, my monitor is calibrated with the Spyder Elite. I also failed to mention in my workflow that my originals are always first saved on a back-up, master drive, and I always work with a set of copies, then save my changes to psd and leave the copy of the original intact.

Many thanks!

arodney

Nonconformist wrote: »

When I let Bay color correct my batch of images, the result was horrendous, and, of course at every turn and with every statement from the two reps, it was my fault. It was my monitor; it was the wrong color calibrator; it was the color calibration set incorrectly; it was...it was...

Lesson learned, this lab hasn’t a clue about either color management or customer service, you need to leave em fast and find another.

There's the rub! I have successfully used Hamilton Color Lab, who does use their supplied ICC profiles (I embed them into my files) with the corresponding output setup, and the result is outstanding.

Stick with Hamilton!

arodney

Nonconformist wrote: »

I'm concerned about what the customer sees on screen compared to the printed product (from Hamilton or any other lab): for screen display, do you guys display soft-proofed files and/or files with your printer's profile embedded?

Expect for two web browsers, the net isn’t color managed so forget a match or for that matter, users necessarily even seeing a half way decent preview of your data. Upload in sRGB and if possible, have your customers view them outside of a Flash gallery using either Safari or Firefox (then at least they will be dealing with color management assuming they even calibrate and profile their displays).

Nonconformist

arodney wrote: »

Lesson learned, this lab hasn’t a clue about either color management or customer service, you need to leave em fast and find another.



Stick with Hamilton!

I entirely agree on both points. I gave it a go. Sorry Bay.

With that then, there really is no reason for me to have a SM Pro account over a Power account if I am not using their fulfillment services, which require me to use Bay or EZ if I understand SM's model correctly, yes?

Thanks for the info on screen display. I have read that in my research and along the educational journey, but the info was competing in my head with mucho other info and just wasn't sinking in. ;-)

You've been a great help, Andrew. Thank you.