Digital BW, The Print

Terry,

I am pretty sure the targets were made using the proper settings. The only thing I could think of that could have possibly changed is 8-bit to 16-bit, and I do not know what that would change , if anything. Although I do not like how the simulate paper looks, I know that you need to take in to account the color of the paper and need to have it checked. Funny thing, before I had all these issues, I rarely soft-proofed. The images just came out fine.

I will have to get some Canon paper and try it with their included profiles. Again, I have tried just switching the profiles to a Canon equivalent in soft-proofing and did not see any difference between them and the Epson profile. I am not sure if that tells me anything or not.

Thanks,

Jim


On Tuesday, October 28, 2014 7:55 PM, "Terry Ritz t.ritz@... [DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint]" <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
 


  
Jim, I'm not aware of a way to diagnose a bad profile. I assume that you are using the same driver settings as you did when you printed the profile targets (e.g. paper type, etc.)? 

A way to check the system would be to use a Canon paper and a Canon provided profile, or a third party paper with a manufacturer provided profile that you feel confident is good. The colour calibration routine essentially takes machine to machine variances out of the equation.

I suggest you check the "simulate paper" box when you soft proof. Jeff Schewe calls this the "suck button", because it makes things look pretty bad, especially with matte papers. It's trying to simulate the reduced contrast, paper base tone, etc. of the printed output. I generally add a bit of saturation and a curve which brightens the output a bit when I soft proof colour images. With b/w output it's just the brightening curve. Printed output will always be somewhat different than what you see on the screen. Beaming electrons vs. reflected light. The quality of your monitor profile, room lighting, etc. all come into play.

Wish I could offer more help.

Terry.

Hi Terry,


After a couple of months, I did figure out the convert to profile method you mention and have been using that, exactly as you described. Unfortunately, my results are still lacking. Is there a way to diagnose a bad ICC profile? When soft-proofing, I preview back and forth between relative and perceptual, without simulate paper checked and the match is almost imperceptible. When I check the simulate paper box it becomes significantly worse. I know that this is supposed to happen, I am just wondering to what degree. To bring the original up to the soft-proof copy takes a lot more processing, at least for me. I have a very good eye and am somewhat of a stickler. I wish it was just a matter of increasing exposure, contrast and vibrance. But I also generally have to adjust some colors in the image.

I appreciate your effort in trying to help.

Jim