[following.eric]

totally agree, if they only accept jpeg go somewhere else, do they provide a colour profile for you to edit from? why capture an image then throw half the pixels away through lossy compression when creating a jpeg? makes no sense.

But even if I was to send a tiff, I guess at the end of the day it will have to start with me working on a calibrated screen. or even with the right ICC profile and tiff file, I may send a port colour file from the beginning. I have been looking at screens but that's a whole other bag of worms. need this need that need this gamut and that gamut and this ips and that. Apparently choosing a screen is tough lol. But then even a good screen needs a calibrator as well lol

I think I'm also at the point where it never seems to end the list of things to improve. More import I think I should just get cracking and get some printed just to get the ball rolling. Start maybe with cheaper smaller prints an work my way up one step at a time.

[beachgardener]

just get cracking and get some printed just to get the ball rolling

yes why not, get amongst it

[Mike L]

So if I switch to soft proofing and the screen goes white it's a good thing? I changed even a few of the colour profiles like APPLE RGB and even that didn't change anything.[COLOR="Silver"]

The background screen goes white in Lightroom to let you know you are in the proof preview screen. The difference between the proof preview and your non-proof image can be very subtle. The colours that you see in the proof preview should be the same colours you get in the print (assuming you have a calibrated monitor and the right ICC profile is used).

The following web page seems to be a relatively simple explanation of colour management

How to manage color in Lightroom

[following.eric]

The background screen goes white in Lightroom to let you know you are in the proof preview screen. The difference between the proof preview and your non-proof image can be very subtle. The colours that you see in the proof preview should be the same colours you get in the print (assuming you have a calibrated monitor and the right ICC profile is used).

The following web page seems to be a relatively simple explanation of colour management

How to manage color in Lightroom

I found out it wasn't working because I was only switching between monitor colours which didnt change anything. I got an ICC profile from the company and uploaded it so now I can see a different. It went a bit darker and flat and the border went from normal lightroom grey to a slight grey/white.

But the realization that this is all point less to edit and use ICC profiles if I don't have a color calibrated monitor, because for all I know the ICC profile is displaying wrong and my screen is wrong lol.

I have been watching some stuff on the Spyder Express, and might get a calibrator first to at least get me on the right track and then can start to understand ICC profiles.

On another note, the lab did tell me that for 16"x12" or smaller they use a printer without ICC profiles.Which does seem a bit odd, but the sample pack they sent me have great images. So not sure where to go from there. Maybe use them for my Film dev and another place for prints. Research continues.

[TonyW]

I found out it wasn't working because I was only switching between monitor colours which didnt change anything. I got an ICC profile from the company and uploaded it so now I can see a different. It went a bit darker and flat and the border went from normal lightroom grey to a slight grey/white.

Using LR soft proofing (with the correct paper ICC profile) with a before and after view you will see the changes that the paper choice makes to the printed outcome. Flatter and darker is often the result of choosing a mat paper over glossy. At this point you can edit the image or better yet Create Proof Copy and select your paper profile and your rendering intent either Perceptual or Relative - the correct rendering intent is the one that makes your image look best! Also choose Simulate Paper & Ink to get closest to how your print will look. At this point in the process you may also want to edit your Proof Copy to more closely match how your screen image looks - just use the editing tools to get closer to your requirements

But the realization that this is all point less to edit and use ICC profiles if I don't have a color calibrated monitor, because for all I know the ICC profile is displaying wrong and my screen is wrong lol.

Ideally you should have a calibrated and profiled monitor to expect to get close to WYSIWYG (assuming a decent print lab!). Until such time as you invest in a calibration device you may want to check out the Lagom site LCD monitor test images
Using the tools provided will allow you to understand the screen calibration process and help you adjust your monitor to get the best you can under visual calibration.

I have been watching some stuff on the Spyder Express, and might get a calibrator first to at least get me on the right track and then can start to understand ICC profiles.

Getting a calibration device such as the Spyder or the better X-Rite products will help you calibrate your monitor to known standards such as D65, Gamma 2.2, and luminosity value, e.g. 110 cd/m2. The resulting profile after calibration will accurately describe your screen conditions so that colour aware application such as LR and PS can interpret the image data to correctly display on your monitor and also display 'correctly' on others systems provided correct colour management is being applied

On another note, the lab did tell me that for 16"x12" or smaller they use a printer without ICC profiles.Which does seem a bit odd, but the sample pack they sent me have great images. So not sure where to go from there. Maybe use them for my Film dev and another place for prints. Research continues.

It is odd and I would be looking for an alternative lab that does not just pay lip service to colour management. This does not mean that they cannot produce nice images just that these images can only be their interpretations of what a 'nice image' is rather than exactly how you want an image to look

[following.eric]

Ordered a monitor Calibrator and it should arrive today. So I can atleast calibrate my macbook air screen for now as I shop around for an external display for my new set up hopefully soon.
Looking at the Dell u2515h, 2k and within budget. Surprisingly hard to find monitors for a small budget that meet all the specs. This dell seems to be a good middle ground as far a more pixels, good colour.

So now I will begin to find a lab that can provide all ICC profiles with big and small prints and learn about soft proofing.
I have noticed that changing a soft proof file to an ICC profile also changes the histogram.

Would anyone know of good threads on this topic already as I don't want to ask the same questions and/or maybe a few good youtube/websites for this.

Thanks steve for the book suggestions and I am looking into it.

I am guessing the process with go
1)calibrate screen
2)edit photo
3)choose print size and crop/ change dimensions for the chosen size.
4)soft proof with ICC profile (using combination what screen and histogram display to get the right levels of exposure and shade/highlights)
5)export as tiff
6)send to lab

Doing the print module in lightroom seems to be only exportable to Jpeg

[stevebrot]

I am guessing the process with go
1)calibrate screen
2)edit photo
3)choose print size and crop/ change dimensions for the chosen size.
4)soft proof with ICC profile (using combination what screen and histogram display to get the right levels of exposure and shade/highlights)
5)export as tiff
6)send to lab

Yep!


Steve

[following.eric]

Yep!


Steve

better with or without paper simulation checked? a few things I have read have shown both options.

[stevebrot]

better with or without paper simulation checked? a few things I have read have shown both options.

I check paper simulation, but I do my own printing using art papers where there may be a serious drop in contrast.


Steve

[following.eric]

I check paper simulation, but I do my own printing using art papers where there may be a serious drop in contrast.


Steve

got it. I think now the next step is to start sending off a few files to get printed and learn from experience and doing comparisons to the edited soft proof file to examine small difference.

last question. I got the Spyderexpress today but it does not have the ambient light adjustment (couldnt afford next model up). So what would be a suggested kind of neutral way to adjust it. I usually have window ambient light of either soft or harsh and I would say because of that I generally have my screen at maximum brightness. Which apparently I shouldnt have with editing.

suggestions to try and get consisten? like try and only edit in a controlled envirnment with low ambient light and half monitor brightness? then calibrate for that and always try and edit in similar settings?

Cheers Steve, been looking at a few printing lab online and excited to bring my shots to the final stage.

[TonyW]

better with or without paper simulation checked? a few things I have read have shown both options.

If you do not check paper simulation then you are not going to see a real sembelance of how the paper will print your data, therefore you are losing the advantages of soft proofing.

With these items checked it is quite possible that you will want/need to adjust such things as density, contrast and hue and sat.

last question. I got the Spyderexpress today but it does not have the ambient light adjustment (couldnt afford next model up). So what would be a suggested kind of neutral way to adjust it. I usually have window ambient light of either soft or harsh and I would say because of that I generally have my screen at maximum brightness. Which apparently I shouldnt have with editing.

suggestions to try and get consisten? like try and only edit in a controlled envirnment with low ambient light and half monitor brightness? then calibrate for that and always try and edit in similar settings?

The ambient light auto adjustment is an absolute waste of time. You definitely do not want your calibration software altering your luminence levels when it senses changes!

Ideally you should be looking at controlling your editing environment ambient light to maintain a constant level. No one can really give you any figures for the luminance setting other than to suggest that it may fall somewhere between 100 - 150 cd/m2 for most domestic situations. The correct value is one where you get a print to screen match. You should not be thinking in terms of half or full monitor brightness but rather let the calibration software set that for you (by your adjustment to match the target value). Rough and ready starting point for monitor luminance try 120 cd/m2 - you will need to adjust more precicely once you have some real prints to compare

One important point that always seems to be missed is the fact that you need to have your print correctly illuminated and once again under ideal conditions for the print white to match screen white.

Please have a look at the link I sent you to Lagom and examine how the screen should look, taking note of how different ambient light levels affect how you percieve values particularly shadow and highlights.

[following.eric]

If you do not check paper simulation then you are not going to see a real sembelance of how the paper will print your data, therefore you are losing the advantages of soft proofing.

With these items checked it is quite possible that you will want/need to adjust such things as density, contrast and hue and sat.

The ambient light auto adjustment is an absolute waste of time. You definitely do not want your calibration software altering your luminence levels when it senses changes!

Ideally you should be looking at controlling your editing environment ambient light to maintain a constant level. No one can really give you any figures for the luminance setting other than to suggest that it may fall somewhere between 100 - 150 cd/m2 for most domestic situations. The correct value is one where you get a print to screen match. You should not be thinking in terms of half or full monitor brightness but rather let the calibration software set that for you (by your adjustment to match the target value). Rough and ready starting point for monitor luminance try 120 cd/m2 - you will need to adjust more precicely once you have some real prints to compare

One important point that always seems to be missed is the fact that you need to have your print correctly illuminated and once again under ideal conditions for the print white to match screen white.

Please have a look at the link I sent you to Lagom and examine how the screen should look, taking note of how different ambient light levels affect how you percieve values particularly shadow and highlights.

Thank you. I'll double check that link but I have come across the information of also illuminating the print as well. Once I get my new screen I am hoping to create a more controlled environment that has consistency.

At the moment the only prints I have are medium scans of some film negs and the c type prints of those scans from the lab. They gave me as a test run of some film. So I could look at the res scans compared to the prints as I haven't edited the scans from the lab and should offer a good starting point.

As always the learning curve continues.

At the moment I have found one lab that offers up all icc profiles for all papers but is expensive. Another lab won't reply to emails and the third are very professional and have been super helpful and have good prices, but unfortunately don't have icc profiles for smaller prints. Only ask for srgb colour profile.

But now that I Atleast can calibrate my screen I can now move onto prints and see how that goes.

[TonyW]

There is no particular reason I can think of why a lab offering ICC profiles should need to charge more than a lab that offers none - you do not have to pay for ICC profiles. However it may illustrate a degree of professionalism not seen for those that do not offer profiles and may be an indicator of quality and service - on the other hand....?

What is odd is to only offer profiles for 'larger' prints!

It is important to understand that Adobe RGB, sRGB etc are synthetic editing spaces - they do not represent any real world device, and you cannot calibrate to them only to known standards

A real world device would be a printer and its characteristics can be accounted for for the ink and paper combinations that will be used. This characterisation is the ICC profile which when applied to a soft proof view will give you a pretty accurate view of your print on your chosen paper (some caveats apply)

[following.eric]

Ya I don't know if they are charging more because they provide icc profiles. This company seems pretty professional, very easy to navigate website with some really nice features. But there is a mark up on the price of certain items.

The funny thing is the prices are complete opposite to its competitors. Basic prints are more expensive but more complex ones like foam board mounting or larger prints are actually much cheaper compared to others. You would almost need to use this company for certain sizes and mounting and another for the other stuff. Waiting on a third to get back to me as all three do c type printing and have all the same fuji papers and similar product lines.

But I think with their site, upfront icc profiles and simplicity seems real professional and might be worth a shot to test out. It even tells you immediately if you enlarged your image too much compared to the file submitted and there available resolution

[following.eric]

The other pro lab got back to me and also don't offer ICC profiles for any prints. Which again seems quite surprising since they are using profesional C-types of all sizes. I find it odd since everything I read about printing and get results you see on your monitor involve calibrating a monitor and using ICC profiles to soft proof. Yet here are two prolabs that don't offer ICC profiles.

other sites I have found for the UK seem to be vistaprint style sites, which I also doubt offer what I am looking for. This leaves me one lab that offers up all ICC for the four types of fuji paper at the cost of a little more than the other labs. Time to decide on which will be my first print!