How to get optimum results from Frontier machines?

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

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...

 

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

 

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?

 

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.

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.

 

------------------
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[/QUOTE]

 

Anything but.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

 

If I had tried "every lab in the country and got back unacceptably variable
work", it would've occured to me that, just possibly, I didn't know what I
was doing! Seriously, this is simple hyperbole, no?

True, but we're now 4 iterations down the road. The major difference
between PS 5 and PS 6 (skipping 5.5 for now) most certainly WAS in how it
handled colour, not other functionality.

Applying (you *do* mean "convert to", yes?) "the inkjet profile at the end
of the edit session" negates any benefit of final image control via
soft-proofing, which to me is a waste of one of the greatest PS features.
Irrespective, why the advice to "turn off color management?" With no DUMC,
you'll never get a screen-printer match using the profile. How can you
since the monitor profile is *ignored* and all color information is directly
mapped with no adjustments? This is, from a PS point of view, pre-historic
thinking.

And I think all that is very commendable, but for goodness sake stop telling
people to "turn off color management." I, too, worked with the "old"
Photoshop (had it since Ver. 2.5), and found working without color managment
and display compensation is a complete PITA. It used to take me sometimes 5
, 6, or even more contract proofs to get "close" - nowadays, I get what I
want in 1, 2 max. Not to mention, my inkjet printers are true WYSIWYG
relative to my screen (no, they are not "perfect" and probably never will
be), and what I send to photofinishers is what I get back becuase I am
working in a screen rendition of *their* device's color space. So, again,
why advise people to dumb PS down?

I'm *not* trying to bust your chops here, rather letting you know that there
are plenty of "tutorials" available on the net that tell folks *exactly* how
to do this using full color management, with profiles, soft-proofing, the
whole shebang. Ian Lyons web-site is chock full of this stuff, and is
recommended by people here every single day. To top it off, he's a great
guy, he frequents the Adobe forums, and will (along with Bruce Fraser)
actually reply to messages and e-mails.

(Just FYI, about 95% of what I do is covered in your last sentence here...)
Irrespective, do you know the reason *why* most digital photographers have
this problem? It is not because they are stupid, nor is it due to the
information not being readily available; rather, it's because the majority
of the digital photographers who buy Photoshop are too *lazy* to RTFM. They
plunk down a grand or more for a great inkjet and high end imaging program,
and then complain about the fact that it actually takes some set-up, not to
mention some time to learn about how it all works. I mean, how many times
have you seen the post here, "How do I calibrate my monitor?" For
chrissakes, it's in Chapter 1!

You want to hear a GOOD one? I (god's truth) had a phone call last week
from a client for whom I built a digital system about 6 months ago. He told
me that he couldn't figure out how to use PS -I supplied him with copies of
RWP, along with PS Classroom, both of which he *refuses* to look at- and
that a friend of his who "knows a lot about this stuff" had recommended that
he dump his new system and buy a Mac instead...and that "that would solve
all his problems." (No shit, amigo, those were his exact words, and the guy
has a PhD to boot.)

 

Hi Doug,

Well, I have to agree with Flycaster. If you're talking about
photographers who use Photoshop then the best thing they can do is get
hold of a copy of Martin Evening's Photoshop for Photographers and
follow his lucid and intelligent instructions for getting excellent
results. Notably, he uses Photoshop's Colour Management to do this.
Anyone with the intelligence to operate a modern camera should be able
to follow Martin's advice and get ver7y good results from their
printing. Of course, I'm only talking about the quality of the output,
not the quality of the image

 

Mike, you always have taken a fairly contrarian point of view, especially
with respect to the promotion of the sRGB working space, and CMYK
adjustments for RGB print output. While I have seen some of the positive
aspects of the latter, if I even mention sRGB to either of my service
bureaus they'll cut me off.

Adobe Gamma builds no color ramp information in the profile, rather it
simply balances a single grey-point, which PS then linearly extrapolates
from there. The puck based profilers, otoh, do measure ramp swatches, thus
they are more "accurate" in their color ramp predictions. That many (most?)
people don't use either correctly was not what I was referring to, rather
what they are *capable* of..

Margulis' book is helpful, but I personally find his curves obsession to be
a bit pedantic. While all of these authors "toot their own horns", Margulis
seems to be a little more strident in this regard, especially in his disdain
for competing theories and practices. I dunno...maybe it's a style thing
for me.

 

The schools of thought we have differ, Flycaster.
I know absolutely that people (not professionals) who buy DSLRs and
Photoshop just expect it all to work for them. My solution is not to fight
the flow but to go along with it. I don't have a problem with Photoshop
knowledge or how it's acquired. I have a big problem in trying to 'train'
customers (many of whom make a heap more money than I do) into learning and
more importantly retaining the knowledge of complex software.

My free time is spent learning computer languages and writing magazine
articles. I don't have the time to discover how my car's GPS actually works.
Whenever I need it, I just switch it on and press a button or two. I know a
fellow who really does know how it works and he has a problem with my
insistence that it's a piece of crap because I don't have the time or
inclination to delve into the manual and even when I do, can't remember what
I learn because the bloody car is just an irrelevant but essential part of
my life.

In the context of what I've said, I have great success in breaking down
complex procedures into (relatively) simple instruction that produce the end
results that my customers can live with. On the odd occasion I come across
someone who really does have the desire and time to master Photoshop, I pass
them on to a friend who really does know how to use it. Incidentally his
wife does the Photography because he couldn't take a good picture if his
life depended on it! Great team too.

My instructions to turn off colour management and add the printer profile at
the end of an edit session, have overcome some major differences in output.
If you follow my advise you will be able to create two different files, one
for a photolab and one for your inkjet which will produce fairly constant
results.

These instructions are not meant for people who "know how Photoshop works"
but for those thousands of other people who buy it expecting it to work
logically (which it has never done) or just work. I respect your in-depth
knowledge, Flycaster but I also recognise that just taking a horse to water
does not necessarily mean it won't die of thirst. To gain the knowledge you
have means you have dedicated the time to learn... Not everyone has that
time.

Doug
P.S. In answer to the question below... If you created an image and sent
that image to 10 labs claiming to have the same digilab, and the photo's all
came back looking different, Seriously, is that simple hyperbole?
------------------------------------------------

 

From a strictly personal and hypothetical view, Hecate... I agree entirely
with you and Flycaster. Just don't try to tell someone with 15 years
photography behind them, who has spent $15,000 on gear to shoot 1000 frames
a day that they don't know what they are doing... Even if they don't!

I take the line of least resistance and get them at least in the ballpark
before anything else. Anyone who asks what they need to do to send a file to
a digilab (The OP), clearly does not understand very much about the things
you take for granted. If they at least get a picture close to what they
expect, they won't give up... That's all, not rocket science, just human
nature.

Soft proof 600 pictures of school kids? Nah, just make a droplet and drag
the bloody lot into it! They'll all come out cropped to 5x7 at 250 DPI with
close enough colour... The Frontierer will love 'em. That's professional
Photography, digital style. Or do you think Professional photography is
selling a single photo as a work of art? Hmmm?

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

 

[snip]

I can't speak to that, but we do certainly differ in other areas. Your
recommendation that folks "turn off color managment" not only flies in the
face of what PS is all about, it is unecessarily *complicated* and
*confusing* advice. Here is what you said, in your first reply to the post,
in which the poster appears somewhat comfortable with the concepts of
profiles, converting, and soft-proofing:

" 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."

The simple, and correct answer to the post is, " Soft-proof using the
profile to make your final edits, and then convert a copy of the file to
sRGB and send that copy to the Frontier lab." I realize this takes into
account more PS knowledge than you are comfortable with, but this is the way
it has been done for the past 5 or so years.

Your response, otoh, blows off his existing knowledge and takes him back to
the PS dark ages. Not only that, but your advice will get him into even
more trouble since his question was for a FRONTIER, and your response (as
well as recommnded the web-site) was for a LAMBDA: Frontiers are not
colormanaged and you cannot "pre-profile" files, rather they will only
accept *sRGB* files, and if you pre-convert as you would for a Lambda you
will get disastrous results.

For someone who appears to be at least conversant with PS, you are the
*only* person I have ever seen that recommended turning color management
off. I have no problem whatsoever with your suggesting this old methodology
as an alterantive for someone who is hopelessly confused by all aspects of
color management. Furthermore, I do not doubt that your personal work-flow
based on the non-color managed technology of 8 years ago still provides you
with acceptable results. But for you to insist that this method is, today,
"normal" is just...absurd.

 

Flycaster wrote: [speaking to "Techno Aussie"]

I'll chime in here and say that techno aussie is not alone. I have made
this recommendation many times, particularly when v5 first came out.
Furthermore I have seen nothing here to convince me otherwise - quite the
contrary.

At that time folks were going through the nightmare of having their work
unexpectedly "converted", Procrustean-style, to sRGB so as to "fit" the new
system .

Though I did recommend turning off CM repeatedly when v5 first came out and
people's work was going down the sRGB drain, this seldom my first
recommendation. I do still recommend turning color management off for
people who require PS to exactly match their other applications, and who
have no desire to export profiled images to others.

Flycaster also said:

No. For many, probably the majority of customers, color management is simply
a background support function. It is in no way, shape, or form, "what
Photoshp is all about", nor is it confusing or complex to turn off.

Curves, info palette, layers, masks, compositing, and the other tools are
indeed "what photoshop is all about". CM, though it may loom large for
those who make their living from it, is only a supporting function.

Remember, through PS version 4, people were turning out excellent prints
without a profile in sight. At that time there was, quite simply, no hue
and cry from the masses for CM's implementation. Though important, and even
crucial for a large shop, CM was not, and is not today, very exciting or
even functional for a one person operation.

 

The trouble with taking the line of least resistance is that you
usually end up with crap. I come at PS from the photography side and
decided that, when I was going to change to a digital darkroom I was
going to learn to do it properly. Not doing it properly means you
don't get the best results.......

.....and not getting the best results means that you're already behind
in the competition for work whether it's you're a school photographer,
a wedding photographer or, yes, an art photographer who is looking for
the perfect single image. As it happens, my work has always been in
the nature/landscape arena (mainly - I have done other stuff as well)
and I can tell you quite categorically that the best image not printed
(either to film or paper) will *always* lose to a good image that#'s
been properly handled. The people in this arena that get the sales are
the people who are obsessive about quality, not those who are know for
being "good enough". Like photography in most other fields, it's
highly competitive and everyone and their uncle thinks they can take a
better image than you as soon as they've bought their first camera.

"Good enough" may be fine for press work - for anything else it isn't.

 

You were certainly not the only voice speaking out against the CM policies
of Ver 5.0; they were half-baked and horribly confusing. Nonetheless, that
was (digitally speaking) a long time ago, my friend, and even you will admit
that much has changed since then. (BTW, that's one of the few times I've
ever seen "procrustean" used correctly. Good fit.

Funny, but I infer that you are actually agreeing with me here. This is
also the first time I've ever seen you write a negative word about sRGB.
I'm speechless.

Of course you do, though there is a also very simple color managed way to do
this, as you well know.

Mike, I said the *advice* was confusing, not the act of turning it off.
Juheesus, disagree with me all you want, but at least pay attention to what
I wrote and not accuse me of being a dimwit!

Tell that to someone who owns PSP. It, too, has all the tools and gadgets
PS does (and some other cool ones as well), costs a helluva lot less, yet it
falls on its face when it runs into color managed workflows.

That you, and I, as well as others got good results using PS 4.0 (and
before) is not the point. Frankly, I also got great results long before
digital *anything* - I've been at the high-end print game probably for as
long as anybody in here. Does that mean we should all eschew the benefits
of working digitally altogether and dig out the enlargers and old bottles of
heavy metals? Boy, I hope not.

Of course not. The "masses" never hue and cry for anything about which they
are totally ignorant. CM did not *exist* prior to Ver. 4.0, except in the
gleam of certain engineers' minds.

While I also strongly disagree with you regarding the applicability of CMS
to a single person workflow, it's clear you haven't been paying much
attention to this thread: take a look at the post header. Going to an
outside printer is, by definition, no longer a "one person operation"...is
it?

In closing, many of us (arguably the vast majority) have embraced CMS for
two simple reasons: it works pretty darned well in almost every situation,
it's far better than the alternative because of that, and (though you would
disagree) it *is* easier. Like you, I've worked in non color managed
workflows. If you and our Australian friend want to stand pat by rejecting
this new technology some or all of the time, so be it: go in peace. As for
me, "Been there, done that, got the t-shirt", and I'm not going back.

That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.

 

That's been my recent experience-the Frontier machines evidently
convert customer's images to their own internal profiles, and don't
need any help. Using Photoshop to convert and image to a Frontier
profile will result in severe color shift, including brownish
blacks/greys. It seems that all the Frontiers I have in my locality
are set up to produce accurate results from sRGB inputs only. BTW, is
that the "e-sRGB" that appears in Photoshop's conversion menu?