Photogtaphy Forums

Photography Forums > Photography Newsgroups > Software Archive > Photoshop > How to get optimum results from Frontier machines?

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

How to get optimum results from Frontier machines?

 
 
OT
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-03-2004, 02:58 PM
I've never been especially happy with prints done at Costco or Sams,
they always seem to lack the snap that I achieve without difficulty
when printing at home. I suspect that it's the limited sRGB
colorspace that these Frontier printers use. It's not hard to dig up
the proper ICC profile for these (drycreekphoto.com) but what is the
best workflow to use? I'm starting with untagged TIF images that have
been adjusted to appear correct on a calibrated monitor.

Do I first convert these images to the Frontier machine's ICC profile,
then adjust them afterward with Photoshop's preview function so they
look right? Simply converting to ICC profile doesn't seem to do the
job.

Thanks for any help!

-OT
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Techno Aussie
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 12:43 AM
Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal) is
to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are
satisfied with the results... Apply the profile of your output devise. You
might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse itself
on the output devise. This is the colsest to a 'tutorial' I can offer.

Doug
-----------------------------
"OT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've never been especially happy with prints done at Costco or Sams,
> they always seem to lack the snap that I achieve without difficulty
> when printing at home. I suspect that it's the limited sRGB
> colorspace that these Frontier printers use. It's not hard to dig up
> the proper ICC profile for these (drycreekphoto.com) but what is the
> best workflow to use? I'm starting with untagged TIF images that have
> been adjusted to appear correct on a calibrated monitor.
>
> Do I first convert these images to the Frontier machine's ICC profile,
> then adjust them afterward with Photoshop's preview function so they
> look right? Simply converting to ICC profile doesn't seem to do the
> job.
>
> Thanks for any help!
>
> -OT



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
OT
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 03:02 AM
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:43:26 GMT, "Techno Aussie" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal) is
>to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are
>satisfied with the results... Apply the profile of your output devise. You
>might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse itself
>on the output devise. This is the colsest to a 'tutorial' I can offer.
>
>Doug


Thanks--but can I assume that this means that Adobe Gamma is turned
off, also?



>-----------------------------
>"OT" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> I've never been especially happy with prints done at Costco or Sams,
>> they always seem to lack the snap that I achieve without difficulty
>> when printing at home. I suspect that it's the limited sRGB
>> colorspace that these Frontier printers use. It's not hard to dig up
>> the proper ICC profile for these (drycreekphoto.com) but what is the
>> best workflow to use? I'm starting with untagged TIF images that have
>> been adjusted to appear correct on a calibrated monitor.
>>
>> Do I first convert these images to the Frontier machine's ICC profile,
>> then adjust them afterward with Photoshop's preview function so they
>> look right? Simply converting to ICC profile doesn't seem to do the
>> job.
>>
>> Thanks for any help!
>>
>> -OT

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Buster
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 03:24 AM
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:43:26 GMT, "Techno Aussie" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal) is
>to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are
>satisfied with the results... Apply the profile of your output devise. You
>might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse itself
>on the output devise. This is the colsest to a 'tutorial' I can offer.
>
>Doug



OK, then what you're telling us is that you start with a calibrated
monitor with no other color management used (such as Abobe Gamma),
then you turn Color Management (in Photoshop Color Settings) off, then
Convert to Profile, choosing the ICC profile of the Frontier. Is any
tweaking possible after converting to profile--should the View/Proof
Colors be used, or does it serve any purpose for this?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Flycaster
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 06:23 AM
"Techno Aussie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:OkJJb.76355$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal)

is
> to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are
> satisfied with the results... Apply the profile of your output devise. You
> might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse

itself
> on the output devise. This is the colsest to a 'tutorial' I can offer.


Gee, I've bought this great $650 image manipulation program that offers the
best color management of any software on the planet, and here's a "tutorial"
telling me that *everyone* just "turns it off." What am I going to do now?
Guess I'll just have to chuck all my profiles, soft-proofing,
conversion-on-the-fly using monitor compensation, etc., etc., etc., and go
back to PS 4.0.

Right...




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Techno Aussie
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 10:19 AM
Try this tutorial. The firm produces top rate quality and is staffed by real
professionals who wrote the information.
http://www.fstoponline.com.au/tech_monitor.html
Doug

"Buster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:43:26 GMT, "Techno Aussie" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal)

is
> >to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are
> >satisfied with the results... Apply the profile of your output devise.

You
> >might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse

itself
> >on the output devise. This is the colsest to a 'tutorial' I can offer.
> >
> >Doug

>
>
> OK, then what you're telling us is that you start with a calibrated
> monitor with no other color management used (such as Abobe Gamma),
> then you turn Color Management (in Photoshop Color Settings) off, then
> Convert to Profile, choosing the ICC profile of the Frontier. Is any
> tweaking possible after converting to profile--should the View/Proof
> Colors be used, or does it serve any purpose for this?
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
Buster
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 03:19 PM
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 22:23:39 -0800, "Flycaster" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>"Techno Aussie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:OkJJb.76355$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Normal proceedure (as if anything to do with photography could be normal)

>is
>> to edit your images with colour management turned off. When you are
>> satisfied with the results... Apply the profile of your output devise. You
>> might see some colour shift in the applied image but it will reverse

>itself
>> on the output devise. This is the colsest to a 'tutorial' I can offer.

>
>Gee, I've bought this great $650 image manipulation program that offers the
>best color management of any software on the planet, and here's a "tutorial"
>telling me that *everyone* just "turns it off." What am I going to do now?
>Guess I'll just have to chuck all my profiles, soft-proofing,
>conversion-on-the-fly using monitor compensation, etc., etc., etc., and go
>back to PS 4.0.
>
>Right...
>

Well, maybe that's the problem...with too many options to the workflow
dillema we often wind up stacking at least two "profiles" on the poor
image and get overcompensated results to match. I suppose with
experience we each come up with various methods that arrive at decent
prints, but this whole thing should be a straightforward methodology.
I'm addled by all this controversy-- next thing I'm getting an X-Rite
reflective photometer, cal target and reference prints. Maybe THEN I
can see the light.

One thing that's always bothered me is that a "calibrated" monitor
differs so much from one that's adjusted in accordance with Adobe
Gamma. Mine seems rather "warm" or "tannish" in hue, rather than
having a visually neutral tone. Why is that? So what's wrong with
Adobe Gamma that makes it unsuited to use with Photoshop CS?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Flycaster
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 05:53 PM
"Buster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Well, maybe that's the problem...with too many options to the workflow
> dillema we often wind up stacking at least two "profiles" on the poor
> image and get overcompensated results to match. I suppose with
> experience we each come up with various methods that arrive at decent
> prints, but this whole thing should be a straightforward methodology.
> I'm addled by all this controversy-- next thing I'm getting an X-Rite
> reflective photometer, cal target and reference prints. Maybe THEN I
> can see the light.


It IS fairly straightforward. Calibrate and profile your monitor, use a RGB
working space that approximates your output device (for inkjet and CMYK,
that'd be AdobeRGB98; for commercial photoprinters it's ususally sRGB),
soft-proof using the output the profile to make your final image
adjustments, and then designate Document for Source and the output profile
in Print Space under Print Preview. This is, BTW, covered in the manual.

> One thing that's always bothered me is that a "calibrated" monitor
> differs so much from one that's adjusted in accordance with Adobe
> Gamma. Mine seems rather "warm" or "tannish" in hue, rather than
> having a visually neutral tone. Why is that? So what's wrong with
> Adobe Gamma that makes it unsuited to use with Photoshop CS?


Nothing. If it has a hue, then why don't you re-run Adobe Gamma, separate
the color sliders, and balance the RGB VLUT gains independently. If you can
see the hue, for chrissakes get rid of it! Again, this is covered in the
manual as well as in almost every PS book there is.

The fact that Adobe Gamma is not as *accurate* as a puck based
calibration/profiling system is obvious. Nonetheless, many, many people use
it exclusively and get very good monitor-print matches, provided they have a
decent new monitor and they use Adobe Gamma correctly.

Oh, and don't "turn off color management." That is just about the dumbest
thing I've read here, in a long, long time. Do yourself a favor and buy
"Real World Photoshop" by Blatner/Fraser. It's a great "PS bible", and it
will certainly open your eyes to the truths, and nonsense, you read here.




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Reply With Quote
 
Techno Aussie
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 08:41 PM
Flycaster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:3ff7b169$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Gee, I've bought this great $650 image manipulation program that offers

the
> best color management of any software on the planet, and here's a

"tutorial"
> telling me that *everyone* just "turns it off." What am I going to do

now?
> Guess I'll just have to chuck all my profiles, soft-proofing,
> conversion-on-the-fly using monitor compensation, etc., etc., etc., and go
> back to PS 4.0.


------------------
That all depends, Flycaster.
If you get 200~300 prints a month made by a lab and you've tried every lab
in the country and got back unacceptably variable work and you then started
getting consistent results with these instructions. Why wouldn't you follow
them? The major difference between PS 5 and PS CS is not in how it handles
colour but in other functionality.

Whatever I said about colour and how to get a photo back that is very close
to the one you see on the screen, relates to photographic output. Inkjet
printers output very different colour but by following the same advise, you
can apply the inkjet profile at the end of the edit session and have nearly
identical prints or photographs.

Image manipulation programs like the "great $650" one you have all need
training to consistently output what you see on the screen as what you get
in a photograph. The information I have provided in this thread is intended
to help those (obviously less proficient than yourself) people who are
experiencing problems getting their digital photos printed by a chemical
lab.

From the customers I have that use Photoshop 6, 7, 7.1, CS and Essentials 2,
I can say with some certainty that the biggest problem facing digital
Photographers who use Photoshop up to about intermediate proficiency is the
variation between what they see on the screen and what their inkjet or photo
lab printer produces. The information I provide here is not meant for
advanced people like yourself but for photographers who use Photoshop to
produce and enhance their photographs.

Doug
-------------------------------------

> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----



 
Reply With Quote
 
Mike Russell
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-04-2004, 10:35 PM
Flycaster wrote:
> "Buster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> Well, maybe that's the problem...with too many options to the
>> workflow dillema we often wind up stacking at least two "profiles"
>> on the poor image and get overcompensated results to match. I
>> suppose with experience we each come up with various methods that
>> arrive at decent prints, but this whole thing should be a
>> straightforward methodology.
>> I'm addled by all this controversy-- next thing I'm getting an X-Rite
>> reflective photometer, cal target and reference prints. Maybe THEN I
>> can see the light.

>
> It IS fairly straightforward.


Anything but.

> Calibrate and profile your monitor,
> use a RGB working space that approximates your output device (for
> inkjet and CMYK, that'd be AdobeRGB98; for commercial photoprinters
> it's ususally sRGB), soft-proof using the output the profile to make
> your final image adjustments, and then designate Document for Source
> and the output profile in Print Space under Print Preview. This is,
> BTW, covered in the manual.


For CMYK work, I would advocate that photographers use CMYK to give a higher
level of control to the final result, rather than trusting someone
downstream in the workflow to correctly convert their images.

I wouldn't recommend Adobe RGB particularly for inkjet printer work, or any
other fine work for that matter. The difference is really rather subtle as
far as image appearance goes, but sRGB will do the job.

Importantly, sRGB will avoid the risk that someone will get hold of your
stuff on a web page, or print it on a Fujy Frontier, ignoring the embedded
profile, and think to themselves "gee - I thought so and so had more of a
Velvia look than that, oh well", and move on the the next photographer's
images.

>> One thing that's always bothered me is that a "calibrated" monitor
>> differs so much from one that's adjusted in accordance with Adobe
>> Gamma. Mine seems rather "warm" or "tannish" in hue, rather than
>> having a visually neutral tone. Why is that? So what's wrong with
>> Adobe Gamma that makes it unsuited to use with Photoshop CS?

>
> Nothing. If it has a hue, then why don't you re-run Adobe Gamma,
> separate the color sliders, and balance the RGB VLUT gains
> independently. If you can see the hue, for chrissakes get rid of it!
> Again, this is covered in the manual as well as in almost every PS
> book there is.


I suspect the hue is due to setting the color temperature to 6500 or lower,
rather than an explicit mismatch of the RGB sliders.

> The fact that Adobe Gamma is not as *accurate* as a puck based
> calibration/profiling system is obvious. Nonetheless, many, many
> people use it exclusively and get very good monitor-print matches,
> provided they have a decent new monitor and they use Adobe Gamma
> correctly.


Nothing obvious about it. A lot of people invest in these colorimeters, and
end up with results that are inferior to careful use of the Adobe Gamma
utility.

> Oh, and don't "turn off color management." That is just about the
> dumbest thing I've read here, in a long, long time. Do yourself a
> favor and buy "Real World Photoshop" by Blatner/Fraser. It's a great
> "PS bible", and it will certainly open your eyes to the truths, and
> nonsense, you read here.


I have a copy, and I found it to contain valuable information, but off the
mark in several respects, and rather weak in many of the example images,
which often fail to illustrate the point they are making. The strengths of
CMYK correction are completely omitted from that book as well, and hibit is
promoted with very little justification other than histogram combing. I
also disagree with the rather endemic premise of the Fraser book that
profiles will solve your color correction problems.

I would suggest Dan Margulis's Professional Photoshop book instead. The
opening chapters are directed at beginners, and the remainder of the book
will keep you going for a good long time.

> and it will certainly open your eyes to the truths, and
> nonsense, you read here.


I agree there's plenty of nonsense in this group. I'm hopeful that the two
of us are not contributing a significan fraction of it. :-)
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FRONTIER 370 - OVERSCANNING? Colin D 35mm Cameras 12 02-12-2005 06:04 PM
Scans from Frontier Volodymyr Sadovyy 35mm Cameras 2 10-19-2004 08:47 AM
Scanning B&W film & printing on Frontier Dallas 35mm Cameras 2 07-05-2004 02:34 AM
Frontier at Harvey Normans Scott Howard Australia Photography 23 12-02-2003 09:48 AM
Frontier.... bad results???? :-( AU Digital Photo Of The Day Australia Photography 14 11-22-2003 01:17 AM