Help with printer colour matching

ChrisHeathcote

ChrisHeathcote

Messages
3,724
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Im after a bit of help and a nudge in the right direction as I am having difficulty in printing photos at home. As with many I have hard drives full of photos and I have decided that a few of the more recent ones deserve to be printed. This is something I would like to do more of, however I am having problems matching the colours. Firstly I use an 2013.5 iMac for editing, the is calibrated using a Colormunki Display. In Lightroom the colours look great however when printed they lack contrast and vibrance, could this be down to printer or paper settings. I am printing on a HP Officejet Pro 8620 at the moment but if I get the hang of this I am planning on getting an Epson p600 A3+ printer.

The Print settings in LR are:
Profile: iMac_D65_20180305 (same as monitor)
Media Type: Glossy (matches paper type being used)

Settings in Printer Setup are:

Colour settings: All greyed out

I know I could just send the images off but I would like to be able to do this at home so that I can change photos on the wall frequently
 
I ditched Colormunkie long time ago, it was more trouble than anything else. i just use the printer profile and that works fine.. have a look at the Epson XP-960, I have the earlier version the 950 and well happy with it
 
Last edited:
The monitor profile should be used nowhere except in the monitor settings... it's purpose is ONLY to change known colors that the other components/programs understand (i.e. sRGB/ProPhoto,aRGB) into the correct viewed colors.

With LR and my old Epson I usually got the best results by letting the printer handle the color management...
 
sk66 said:
The monitor profile should be used nowhere except in the monitor settings... it's purpose is ONLY to change known colors that the other components/programs understand (i.e. sRGB/ProPhoto,aRGB) into the correct viewed colors.

With LR and my old Epson I usually got the best results by letting the printer handle the color management...
Click to expand...

Same here, leave the printer to deal with colour management, Canon in my case, seems to match the calibrated monitor well enough
 
sk66 said:
The monitor profile should be used nowhere except in the monitor settings... it's purpose is ONLY to change known colors that the other components/programs understand (i.e. sRGB/ProPhoto,aRGB) into the correct viewed colors.

With LR and my old Epson I usually got the best results by letting the printer handle the color management...
Click to expand...
:agree: As a first step instead of trying to use profiles, set LR to 'Let Printer Manage Colour'.... Once you have the hang of that then start to look at paper/ink profiles.

Never ever use a monitor profile as a printer profile....
 
Last edited:
gerry s said:
Why would you want to do all your editing in whatever lr/ps colour space and then trust your printer to automatically match the colours?
Click to expand...
Because the printer knows *it's* color space, and if everything is communicating correctly then the data gets printed correctly.
The purpose of a printer/paper profile is for softproofing to convert what you are seeing into what the printer will output on a given paper. Or it can be used to convert what you are seeing into what will be output at the print stage, but that is a kind of "blind" operation.
 
sk66 said:
The purpose of a printer/paper profile is for softproofing to convert what you are seeing into what the printer will output on a given paper. Or it can be used to convert what you are seeing into what will be output at the print stage, but that is a kind of "blind" operation.
Click to expand...
A bit beyond trying to help the OP but a printer/paper/ink profile is far more useful than just soft proofing, it is also not 'blind'. It is important to use soft proofing and the profile applied in output to the printer, if I was to just soft proof and correct the file then print letting the printer manage colours I will not get the same level of matching as I would when soft proofing and letting the application manage colour through that profile.

(Not sure I am making sense there)

However in this case as you say it will be best for the OP to use 'Printer Manages Colour'.
 
The problem is you are using your display profile for printing. That's a BIG NO NO.
Your display profile is for display ONLY.

The chances are your printer does not have printer profiles available so best to use sRGB or let the printer handle the print profiles. The Epson will have print profiles from Epson that you can set in LR and they work well.
 
Last edited:
The only time I would let printer manage colour or use srgb is for epson abw
 
Thanks everyone, the whole profiling seems to open a whole new world which I am yet to understand, from what I can tell from everyones comments the best approach is to calibrate the monitor so that the colours appear correct on the screen. After that you can use paper profiles to soft proof within LR/PS. From this point you can either trust the printer (which would get it 95% of the way there), or if you print using the profile used for proofing then it should in theory match, for example Canon PT1,2,3 for the Platinum Pro paper
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
After that you can use paper profiles to soft proof within LR/PS. From this point you can either trust the printer (which would get it 95% of the way there), or if you print using the profile used for proofing then it should in theory match, for example Canon PT1,2,3 for the Platinum Pro paper
Click to expand...
Yes.... however I would not soft proof and then trust the printer.

Soft proof (the soft proofing in LR is one of the best Implementations) and then print letting the application manage colour and using the same profile.

You will never get an exact match (transmitted v. reflected light) but it can get very close with good quality profiles.
 
PhilH04 said:
Yes.... however I would not soft proof and then trust the printer.

Soft proof (the soft proofing in LR is one of the best Implementations) and then print letting the application manage colour and using the same profile.

You will never get an exact match (transmitted v. reflected light) but it can get very close with good quality profiles.
Click to expand...

Thanks Phil,

I think some of the issue might have also been the printer. I have dug out my old MG6150 and installed it and the proofs look virtually identical to the screen
 
I know a lot of people say printing your own is entering a whole new world of pain but if you can get your head around it then it is so rewarding. Just hang in there.
 
gerry s said:
I know a lot of people say printing your own is entering a whole new world of pain but if you can get your head around it then it is so rewarding. Just hang in there.
Click to expand...
Thanks Gez, I like the idea of being able to print and display photos that I like. I could send away but by the time you add in postage it gets quite expensive
 
PhilH04 said:
A bit beyond trying to help the OP but a printer/paper/ink profile is far more useful than just soft proofing, it is also not 'blind'. It is important to use soft proofing and the profile applied in output to the printer, if I was to just soft proof and correct the file then print letting the printer manage colours I will not get the same level of matching as I would when soft proofing and letting the application manage colour through that profile.

(Not sure I am making sense there)
Click to expand...
Not to me... maybe I am misunderstanding something.

Softproofing using a printer profile allows me to see how the current color space will be output in the printer/paper's color space... this is the normal goal. I.e. sending sRGB jpegs to a printer, or any other known/accepted color space/file format to a printer.

Converting the image to the paper/printer profile is "wrong" as it is an invalid color space for an image. It is only suitable if a) the printer/system ignores color space (typical), or b) the printer/system also has that color space installed (atypical). By choosing the printer/paper profile you are telling the software (LR) to covert the color space before sending it to the printer, which is "ok" since color management is/should be off (case a, otherwise it will be double managed). But there is no inherent benefit if the original color space is known and the image was edited for the output color space (softproofed).

I.e. existing color space converted to the printer color space by the editing software VS existing color space converted to the printer color space by the printer... as long as the printer/paper profile is an accurate representation of the changes the printer will make, there should be no difference in the results.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Not to me... maybe I am misunderstanding something.

Softproofing using a printer profile allows me to see how the current color space will be output in the printer/paper's color space... this is the normal goal. I.e. sending sRGB jpegs to a printer, or any other known/accepted color space/file format to a printer.

Converting the image to the paper/printer profile is "wrong" as it is an invalid color space for an image. It is only suitable if a) the printer/system ignores color space (typical), or b) the printer/system also has that color space installed (atypical). By choosing the printer/paper profile you are telling the software (LR) to covert the color space before sending it to the printer, which is "ok" since color management is/should be off (case a, otherwise it will be double managed). But there is no inherent benefit if the original color space is known and the image was edited for the output color space (softproofed).

I.e. existing color space converted to the printer color space by the editing software VS existing color space converted to the printer color space by the printer... as long as the printer/paper profile is an accurate representation of the changes the printer will make, there should be no difference in the results.
Click to expand...
You must be reading something into my post... nowhere did I even mention converting to the ink/paper/printer profile...

Soft proof and correct using the specific ink/paper/printer profile, correct the image for that profile.

You then print from the print module using that same profile.

It is all part of a correct colour managed workflow, nowhere is the image profile being changed, in LR it remains in 'ProPhotoRGB' all the time.
 
Just a quick update, I installed some new inks in my MG6150 (which had been sat in the loft for the last 3 years) carried out a deep clean and run a couple of images, I proofed them using the Canon PT3 profile (printing on Platinum Pro paper) and printed using the same, the resulting image is about 98% of the way there. The image looks slightly more saturated on the screen to the print, mainly in the beach and grass (image below), whereas the print I feel is probably more natural, the screen is generally warmer
 
You could maybe try altering saturation to the screen image to match the print and then just reverse engineer it.... ie if taking the greens down by -3 matches print then if you go +3 before printing then the print should get nearer to screen image..... I think that makes sense... maybe
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
Just a quick update, I installed some new inks in my MG6150 (which had been sat in the loft for the last 3 years) carried out a deep clean and run a couple of images, I proofed them using the Canon PT3 profile (printing on Platinum Pro paper) and printed using the same, the resulting image is about 98% of the way there. The image looks slightly more saturated on the screen to the print, mainly in the beach and grass (image below), whereas the print I feel is probably more natural, the screen is generally warmer
Click to expand...
This is the point of soft proofing, Lightrooms soft proofing is excellent as you view your original alongside a virtual copy that has the profile applied, you 'tweak' that virtual copy till it is as close a match to your original. (you are only making changes to a virtual copy and the virtual copy will have the name of the profile used) You then print from that virtual copy using the same profile in the drop down... (the virtual copy is still in the original colour space, i.e. ProPhotoRGB, it has not been converted to anything else) Obviously making sure that any colour management in the driver is turned off.

I do hope that makes sense... ;-)
 
PhilH04 said:
This is the point of soft proofing, Lightrooms soft proofing is excellent as you view your original alongside a virtual copy that has the profile applied, you 'tweak' that virtual copy till it is as close a match to your original. (you are only making changes to a virtual copy and the virtual copy will have the name of the profile used) You then print from that virtual copy using the same profile in the drop down... (the virtual copy is still in the original colour space, i.e. ProPhotoRGB, it has not been converted to anything else) Obviously making sure that any colour management in the driver is turned off.

I do hope that makes sense... ;-)
Click to expand...
Thanks Phil, the proof is slightly more saturated than the print. In the actual print the colours are less vibrant

untitled shoot,20180219 -12634.jpg
 
Glad you are getting there... the difference is probably down to transmitted v. reflected light...
 
PhilH04 said:
You must be reading something into my post... nowhere did I even mention converting to the ink/paper/printer profile...

Soft proof and correct using the specific ink/paper/printer profile, correct the image for that profile.

You then print from the print module using that same profile.

It is all part of a correct colour managed workflow, nowhere is the image profile being changed, in LR it remains in 'ProPhotoRGB' all the time.
Click to expand...
Using the printer profile in the print module *is* converting the color space/information. The printer profile (for soft proofing) is supposed to be an exact duplicate of the conversion the printer would do w/o the conversion. So you can either do the conversion prior to the printer (printer management off) or let the printer do the conversion (printer manages color)... the results *should* be the same. The latter is what is normally done when an image is sent to a print shop.
 
sk66 said:
Using the printer profile in the print module *is* converting the color space/information. The printer profile (for soft proofing) is supposed to be an exact duplicate of the conversion the printer would do w/o the conversion. So you can either do the conversion prior to the printer (printer management off) or let the printer do the conversion (printer manages color)... the results *should* be the same. The latter is what is normally done when an image is sent to a print shop.
Click to expand...
You are confusing me...

Explain, I do not use Canon paper, I use custom built profiles, how on earth is the printer going to know what is what... it can't, I have to tell it how to print my soft proofed image therefore I select the profile in the print module, it is not converting it is translating.
 
PhilH04 said:
You are confusing me...

Explain, I do not use Canon paper, I use custom built profiles, how on earth is the printer going to know what is what... it can't, I have to tell it how to print my soft proofed image therefore I select the profile in the print module, it is not converting it is translating.
Click to expand...
A printer/paper profile converts what you see into an accurate representation of what the printer will output... that's all. In fact, that's how you make custom profiles, by measuring an output print and calibrating/changing the input. A printer profile *does not change* how the printer behaves...you are not actually profiling the hardware/printer, you are profiling the data sent to the hardware.

PhilH04 said:
converting it is translating.
Click to expand...
Same thing... if the profile is an accurate representation of how the printer/paper will output the existing color space, then it doesn't matter where the conversion/translation occurs. Either the printer can do it (which is how you came up with the profile to start with), or you can do it before sending to the printer. What you cannot do is let the conversion happen twice (double managed) so if the printer profile is used then the printer's color management must be turned off, and vice-versa.

EDIT: If you created your printer profile with printer color management turned off, then the file should be sent with the same settings (using the printer profile you created).
 
Last edited:
Steven, I fully understand colour management, I was trained by Gretag MacBeth, I produce all my own profiles and print commercially...

You cannot soft proof and then let the printer handle the colour management... My printer does not know the characteristics of my particular choice of semi-luster paper, I need to tell it via the ink/paper/printer profile, the profile will tell the driver that to achieve a certain red it needs correcting by such and such, a profile is always going to be a Look Up Table the same as a monitor profile (yes with some added bits such as paper white and d-max added)...

Your explanation may be correct if using the printer manufacturers own paper etc. but it is not an accepted workflow...

If using Photoshop then the translation can take place in two differing ways depending on if you choose Document as the source space or Proof (Document being the easier to use), The driver settings are still the same i.e colour management turned off but both use the ink/paper/printer profile. Lightroom only allows you to send your file to the printer in the same manner as if you are using Document as the source space.

Yes the soft proof representation will show how a print will spit out from the printer and allows you to correct the soft proof virtual copy to achieve the best result, but it needs to be output to the printer driver with those corrections, you cannot apply or convert the profile using Lightroom, it needs to be selected in the Print Module.
 
PhilH04 said:
Your explanation may be correct if using the printer manufacturers own paper etc. but it is not an accepted workflow...
Click to expand...
Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I really don't think so...

To simplify, there are only two color spaces of concern, there is the color space of the file and the color space of the printer/paper (ignoring the monitor). The printer does not need to know the characteristics of the paper/ink, that information was used when the profile was generated, and it is inherent to the system. When softproofing you edit the existing profile/color space information to best fit w/in the printer/paper profile/color space... that is what matters. The data is changed at that point so that it fits and will output correctly/as seen.

For example, take the standard scenario of sending a jpeg to a commercial printer. You edit the sRGB color space using the printer profile and then send the file in sRGB (or whatever format/color space is accepted/recommended). In many cases the printer completely ignores the color space (tag) of the file. The color space (ICC profile/tag) is irrelevant because the profile was used to modify the data in the same way the printer would have modified the data when it prints. In other words, using the printer profile in the output stage (software or printer using it) is simply telling the printer to "do what you normally do, make no changes."

Let me put it another way... I have a printer set to the generic "glossy photo paper," but instead I'm going to use Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. I know certain aspects of the Melissa (LR) color space I'm seeing are not going to output the way I see them on the monitor, and I know the corrections required. I could edit the image (in the Melissa color space) appropriately and send it to the printer with the glossy photo paper selected and get the correct/corrected output. Softproofiing and the printer profile simply makes it so that I don't have to know the limitations/required changes.

The issues only arise when I have color space mismatches... i.e. I tell the system to make changes to the data that are not suitable (and I can do that at any point in the process).
 
Last edited:
I guess you must be right Steven, I, Adobe and everyone else who prints using ICC profiles have been wrong all this time...
 
PhilH04 said:
I guess you must be right Steven, I, Adobe and everyone else who prints using ICC profiles have been wrong all this time...
Click to expand...
If you can explain to me what I have wrong, I am certainly open to learning.

I print using profiles. Usually sending the images to a professional print shop (i.e. WHCC) in jpeg/sRGB, sometimes tiff/aRGB or another accepted format/color space. But I never send a jpeg/RR Premium Matte or something similar.

Edit: this is from WHCC's FAQs in regards to their supplied printer profiles.

"Do you supply profiles?
Yes. Once you have an account number, you can download ICC profiles for soft proofing purposes. The profiles are for all of our printers and we also have instructions on how to properly use them. Under no circumstances should you convert to our printing profile or embed it in your files."

*Embedding the profile is the same as telling the software/printer to use that profile in a drop down menu...
 
Last edited:
The discussion is really about printing at home... however when outsourcing prints the printer will normally ask for the file in sRGB and will supply a profile for you to soft proof, when they print, that profile will be applied in some way which is why you should never convert unless they specifically request you to.

When printing for yourself, it is fine to use Printer Manages colour if everything is OEM, however you may still get a better print by using the ICC profile in the correct manner. My Canons will print just fine using Printer Manages Colour but produce a more optimal result when profiles are used in the correct accepted way. Where profiles come into there own is when using non OEM products, the printer driver (not the printer) does not know the characteristics of the combination you are using, it needs to be told, this is carried out through soft proofing and then applying the profile correctly when outputting the data to the driver.

I am probably not expressing myself too well...
 
Last edited:
PhilH04 said:
The discussion is really about printing at home... however when outsourcing prints the printer will normally ask for the file in sRGB and will supply a profile for you to soft proof, when they print, that profile will be applied in some way which is why you should never convert unless they specifically request you to.
Click to expand...
That's the thing, I don't think the "profile will be applied in some way"... the profile is a representation of how that specific printer performs when using that specific paper. It's inherent to the system, that's what creates the need for the softproofing profile.

PhilH04 said:
When printing for yourself, it is fine to use Printer Manages colour if everything is OEM, however you may still get a better print by using the ICC profile in the correct manner. My Canons will print just fine using Printer Manages Colour but produce a more optimal result when profiles are used in the correct accepted way. Where profiles come into there own is when using non OEM products, the printer driver (not the printer) does not know the characteristics of the combination you are using, it needs to be told, this is carried out through soft proofing and then applying the profile correctly when outputting the data to the driver.
Click to expand...
The difference (I think) is that the home printer does not have an inherent behavior as such... it can be told to interpret/output the data in different ways using different (paper) profiles. Actually, it does have an inherent behavior with a particular paper just like the lab printer, it's just that the papers can be varied. I believe, when you tell the home printer to use the same profile used for softproofing you are essentially telling it to "make no changes" because you've already done it in softproofing. If assigned the wrong output (paper) profile, it would make additional changes and the results would be wrong. This would be effectively the same as using the correct printer/paper profile and not softproofing using that profile.
I don't think there is any difference between selecting the profile in the program VS in the print driver, except one program may be more sophisticated than the other.

That said, the data is always converted into an output (print). When you use a custom profile you are (perhaps more accurately) saying "do what you did when I created the profile." Which is (?) "do nothing" because color management at the printer was turned off at the time (or some generic baseline was used). At least, that is the way I understand it.
 
Last edited:
Steven, I have a feeling that you have an unusual and possibly unique view of colour management and the use of soft proofing and profiles in managed print workflow.

I honestly have no idea how I can explain things and how it actually works. I can assure you that if I soft proofed using one of my profiles and then allowed the driver to handle the colours then the resultant print would be unsatisfactory, it needs that translation provided by the profile. In LR the resultant soft proofed and corrected file will still be in the Melissa (ProPhoto) colour space and will not look the same as the print or the soft proofed image when the profile was applied. When soft proofing you are making adjustments to a virtual copy (in LR) that is still in LRs colour space so that when printed using the ink/paper/printer profile, it will print correctly.

As an example I have made a set of black and white profiles for the papers I use, these allow me to control the tones etc whilst soft proofing. The original file stays in colour, when I send the soft proofed file to the print module it will be in colour however with the correct profile selected I get a black and white print matching the tonalities chosen when soft proofing.
 
Last edited:
PhilH04 said:
Steven, I have a feeling that you have an unusual and possibly unique view of colour management and the use of soft proofing and profiles in managed print workflow.
Click to expand...
I think we are close to saying the same thing now... As I noted in my last post, yes, the data is always converted for output.

Let's look at how a custom profile is made using Colormunki... you send an RGB file to the printer using some default printer processing (say "glossy photo paper") and measure the output on your sample of X brand of glossy paper... this generates a new profile that says this is the gamut of X glossy paper with the default processing (color or B&W). The new profile includes/is the default processing of RGB data by the printer. The significant difference/benefit is in using the profile for softproofing because it shows you the actual/correct gamut so that you can edit the RGB data to fit (the color space doesn't actually matter much, they are all RGB). When you use that profile for output you are telling the printer to use the same default processing it used when you generated the profile. The interpretation of the data isn't different, what is different is the editing of the data into this newly defined output gamut and how it is displayed during softproofing.

The difference between that and sending a file to a professional print shop is that the processing they will use is always "the default." You don't have the option to change it to something different so you don't have to specify which processing to use.
 
Last edited:
PhilH04 said:
Perhaps, perhaps not....


For anyone interested this document (albeit from 2004, but still very relevant) provides a good insight into correct colour management from camera to output....

https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/color_managed_raw_workflow.pdf
Click to expand...
I read through the document just to be sure, and I agree with it... but here's the part that is relevant to the discussion (emphasis added):

"If you choose Document as your Source Space, you need to choose the printer profile that you used in Proof Setup in the Profile box, *and the Intent and Black Point Compensation settings* that you determined were the best ones for the image by using Proof Setup.
If you choose Proof as your Source Space, you need to choose Same As Source in the Profile box under Print Space. All of the other settings in Print Space then become dimmed."

"Both do exactly the same thing: they tell Photoshop to convert the data that is being sent to the printer from Document space to the printer profile *by using the specified Intent and Black Point Compensation settings*."

And that's the rub. Intent and Black Point Compensation are not part of the printer/paper profile... they are options for the output in PS (only Intent is an option in LR). All other aspects relative to the output (color/gamma) for the printer/paper were made by editing the image during softproofing.

This is from the Canon Learning Site.
"Here's a key concept in understanding printer profiles: it is not really the hardware that we are profiling."

This is different from a monitor profile which does profile the hardware... and there is no need to do anything like softproofing for a monitor profile to generate the correct output. A printer profile is more like an intermediate monitor profile... it shows you (for instance) "if you send this red it will be out of gamut, you need to change it to a different red." And after you change it, it is sent exactly the same as it would have been if you had not changed it. The printer profile doesn't alter it again, that would be double management and problematic.

EDIT:
Another way of saying it is softproofing shows you "if you send this red to the default printer profile/characteristics it will be out of gamut, you need to change it"... the default printer profile being whichever one was used to create the custom profile (i.e. "glossy photo paper").
When you send to a print shop you don't have the option to change the printer profile/default characteristics, it is inherent to the system. Just as the default characteristics are inherent to your printer when printing on that type of paper.
 
Last edited:
Most of which I was saying further up in the discussion... We both know that an output profile, device profile whatever you wish to call it is far more complicated and of course a different beast to a monitor profile which translates the working colour space to an accurate representation on the screen (simplistically).

An output device profile is a characterisation of that device (here I think we are coming from the same place) and that characterisation should be used when sending to the printer driver following the soft proofing process to simulate that output. Yes the driver can use a similar profile coded into it but only for OEM materials, I have tried printer manages colour with Canon Papers, Application Manages Colour using the canned Canon profiles and Application Manages Colour using my own profiles. The prints with the better fidelity came from my own profiles, 2nd place went to the Canon profiles which were a tad warm as they are tweaked for the consumer market (not saying that is a bad thing) and in third place came the Printer Manages Colour option, now I could of gone into the driver to alter the colours but that is then blind and is wasteful.

I am aware that not everyone has the capability or the desire to produce their own profiles but IMO if you are serious about your printing it is worth having your printer/inks/paper characterised and that you use these profiles in a colour managed workflow.

Yes outsourcing prints opens another can of worms with some labs suggesting converting to their profile (which I think hints at no colour management on their part) or those that correctly, IMO, ask you to send them an sRGB file after soft proofing with a supplied profile, that supplied profile is probably a characterisation of how their particular hardware works. I haven't inspected one of these profiles so cannot say for sure... I prefer to be in control of my output...

We are possibly getting closer to agreement, trouble is we have taken this topic a little beyond what Chris (the OP) was asking, so apologies Chris.
 
PhilH04 said:
that supplied profile is probably a characterisation of how their particular hardware works
Click to expand...
They all are, that's the point.

Have you tried (because I haven't) softproofing using the custom profile and then printing w/ application manages color using the default profile that was used to make the custom profile (w/ BPC/Intent options selected appropriately)? That should be the same thing as selecting the custom profile (w/ options selected).

The problem with the latter method is that you have to remember which default profile was used when the custom profile was created, and that can be confusing/non-intuitive; especially if you have a lot of different custom profiles. I don't think most print drivers have BPC/Intent options either, which could easily make it a less optimal choice.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
They all are, that's the point.

Have you tried (because I haven't) softproofing using the custom profile and then printing w/ application manages color using the default profile that was used to make the custom profile (w/ BPC/Intent options selected appropriately)? That should be the same thing as selecting the custom profile (w/ options selected).

The problem with the latter method is that you have to remember which default profile was used when the custom profile was created, and that can be confusing/non-intuitive; especially if you have a lot of different custom profiles. I don't think most print drivers have BPC/Intent options either, which could easily make it a less optimal choice.
Click to expand...
Sorry Steven, not following you here, how can you use a default profile to make a custom profile? The software sends the 'raw' data to the driver that resultant print out is what is used to create the profile. No other profile is used.
 
PhilH04 said:
Sorry Steven, not following you here, how can you use a default profile to make a custom profile? The software sends the 'raw' data to the driver that resultant print out is what is used to create the profile. No other profile is used.
Click to expand...
A default paper profile *is* used (and the resulting hardware settings).

For example using the Colormunki, when you initially print the test chart it brings up the default printer dialogue where you pick the closest paper type. This is the default processing/hardware settings the custom profile is based on. Color management is disabled because you don't want any secondary changes being made to the data, just as it is disabled when using the resulting profile in the application (or the resulting profile is used as the color management base in the driver when printer manages color).

That default is the exact same hardware settings/processing that will be used by the custom profile, it must be. Because a) if it changed the profile would be wrong, and b) because it is inherent to the system when printing on that particular paper.

This is the dialogue that pops up before printing the first test chart.

Screen Shot 2018-03-30 at 1.32.03 PM.jpg


Bullet point #3 is basically saying that if you softproof using your custom profile and print using the same printer dialogue settings the results should be the same... they are the foundation of/part of the custom profile.

The "other part" of the custom profile is how it changes the display to represent the (now better defined) gamut/color of the specific printer/paper/ink combination. There is no change in the translation/conversion/processing used by the custom profile/printer, you make those changes while softproofing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top