ICC printer profile

[elfbob]

I've had problems with trying to get photobooks printed that come close to my digital images. I shoot RAW with my EOS 50D & edit in LR 4.4 on a spyder4 Pro calibrated HD 27" LED monitor. After several disappointing experiences with a very popular online printer( the images were printed 1 1/2 - 3 stops too dark) I was told by the vendor that I need to download their ICC profile if I hoped to get any image fidelity. I downloaded their ICC profile & attempted to access it in LR but it seemed to add a "muddy" overcast to my images. So my question is: Are ICC profiles useable in LR & if so what do you knowledgeable folks suggest as to their successful use in LR? A 2nd question is : I've heard that Blurb can print photobooks directly from LR processed images, has anyone used this route & if so what kind of result did they attain? Thanks in advance for reviewing my post & any helpful suggestions.

[Shadowman]

Hi Robert,

What file format goes to the online printer? If it's jpeg are you editing for print within the LR module? I think the ICC profiles might work best if this is your workflow.

[xpatUSA]

After several disappointing experiences with a very popular online printer( the images were printed 1 1/2 - 3 stops too dark) . . .

I don't print but I've read about dark prints many times. Here's the standard blurb. Most folks have their monitors set quite bright so when they adjust their masterpiece to their satisfaction on their monitor, it gets printed dark. Experts will be along shortly to tell you how to fix that.

. . . I was told by the vendor that I need to download their ICC profile if I hoped to get any image fidelity.

I think there might be a little more to it than just that, especially as I've read that some, if not most, print vendors want plain old display class sRGB embedded - if I recall correctly.

And, even in my humble editor, I can open a common or garden sRGB image file and print it with any ICC profile I want to, so why can't they?

[elfbob]

When I got the Spyder4 Pro monitor calibrator tool it showed that my monitor wasn't set bright enough to be calibrated. I had to bring the monitor settings back to "default" then begin the calibrating process, then go through the steps on brightness to get it within the specified range. Its color setting is at 6500. The output from LR was set to sRGB as this is what the online printer specified; the "odd" thing was they sent me a coupon for a "free" 10 page photobook that I redeemed & those images were spot on using my "unproofed" LR edited images. I called them on the phone & asked why 1 photobook was printed dark while the "free" photobook was correctly printed using other images taken from RAW to sRGB by the same route, they refused to answer me saying I did something different with the other images. I even attempted to have the original photobook reprinted & have them do "color corrections", the reprint was still 1 -2 stops dark.

[DanK]

I rarely send out for printing, but when I have, I have had the experience Ted mentions: the vendors wanted plain sRGB embedded. I simply export JPEGs from LR using the export dialog and send them on.

Re your two different experiences: sometimes print labs have two options, a regular one where they adjust (how, I don't know), and a second, sometimes cheaper, where they don't adjust anything. I always use the latter. I have the photos edited as I want them, so I don't want the printer to adjust them.

I have only used one company for books, Adoramapix. We've done 4: 3 of my kids' wedding photos, and one of some my macros. They came out very well. They too have some option for adjustments--I forget what it was labeled--and the results were noticeably better when it was not selected.

[xpatUSA]

When I got the Spyder4 Pro monitor calibrator tool it showed that my monitor wasn't set bright enough to be calibrated. I had to bring the monitor settings back to "default" then begin the calibrating process, then go through the steps on brightness to get it within the specified range. Its color setting is at 6500. The output from LR was set to sRGB as this is what the online printer specified; the "odd" thing was they sent me a coupon for a "free" 10 page photobook that I redeemed & those images were spot on using my "unproofed" LR edited images. I called them on the phone & asked why 1 photobook was printed dark while the "free" photobook was correctly printed using other images taken from RAW to sRGB by the same route, they refused to answer me saying I did something different with the other images. I even attempted to have the original photobook reprinted & have them do "color corrections", the reprint was still 1 -2 stops dark.

Would you like to post or put up somewhere one of each type pf image i.e. one that printed good and one that printed dark?

I have a good few utilities where I can examine the differences and I do enjoy that kind of work.

Post your original output files if poss. and don't 'post for the web' (that strips EXIF stuff).

[elfbob]

DanK, thanks for your informative reply. It's interesting that the printer that I had sequentially different results with is "Adoramapix",i.e. 1 photobook (with their supposed color corrections) was spot on with my submitted image files while my first try with them was printed the stated 1 1/2-3 stops too dark ( I had specified for no color corrections). All image files I uploaded to their platform were sRGB jpeg as specified by them. To my knowledge I did not do anything different to any of the images I converted from RAW capture AdobeRGB to jpeg sRGB in LR 4.4. I can only reason that some events are an enigma wrapped in a conundrum because I have no control how image files are rendered by the printer. I will attempt to post some image files as Ted suggested for his perusal, maybe his utilities can get me "in the know", thanks all

[elfbob]

I neglected to say that I uploaded sRGB jpeg image files to the printer's photobook formatting platform as was specified. The LR (PSD or DNG or whatever format they are in LR) files were converted to sRGB jpeg @ 300ppi upon transfer to my pc hdd.

[Manfred M]

Robert - this is definitely the most common complaint the we get concerning prints. I went through exactly the same issue when I first started to print. The colour managed workflow ensures that the colours are correct and nothing more.

I can't turn my computer screen down far enough to get it and my prints to look bright enough either, so I brighten them up on my screen before I print. So long as I don't touch my screen settings, the amount of adjustment is always the same. I determine the amount by doing test prints, which is the same thing I did in my wet darkroom days.

The comments on sRGB colour space and using the correct printer/paper profile are correct as well.

[kpone]

Calibration outside of a closed loop is a royal pain in the can of worms. Shooting, manipulating and printing from one side of the room to the other with accuracy is fraught enough, but to a different building, half way across a continent, to relatively unknown printer gamut, is...*sigh*... a chore of biblical risk.

Monitor calibration is everything. Once the accuracy of your screen is secure, you need to 'bend' it to the will of your chosen output device. Whether that be your own desktop printer, a high street minilab, or a publisher in China.

Calibration devices, commonly known as Spyders (although this is a brand name), because they hang from the top of the screen on a cable, will determine that the colours your computer and monitor are instructed to display are, in fact, the colours that they actually do. This is akin to buying a car from an unknown source and sending it back to the main dealers to ensure it's tuned back to factory standard.

This is just the first stage. You then need to adjust the monitor profile the calibration device creates to match the gamut and bias of the chosen printer, usually with a test print, compared to the displayed image. This is dependent on you achieving, or obtaining a correctly profiled print to work from. Even then, it's not a precise science as you are comparing an image from a transmissive, RGB source to a reflective CMY target. "Never the Twain" as they say. This is like taking your new car on a track day. You need to take its factory default settings and reset it to perform in the new environment. Without the factory settings all the following adjustments are proceeding from a false assumption, and you'll end up in the gravel trap.

Once you achieve the above it should be relatively easy to maintain your calibration, modern monitors don't drift as much as they once did. Until, that is, you wish to print form another source...

Then guess what...

As serious 'image' producers we have to accept that we are a tiny proportion of the monitor using public, and for the most part, manufacturers will attempt to set default to be as shiny, bright and saturated as is possible without causing seizures in the operator (Streaming Avatar at 4K never looked so good), so its almost inevitable that we will need to 'turn down' our displays right out of the box before we can even dream about colour matching.

Sorry. That got long winded. It's a subject that is the bane of my life, and it invariably comes back to these points. What comes after it is much more like joining the dots, but until you can put your hand on your heart and say "It's accurate on my monitor" rather than "But it looks right on my monitor", you're whistling in the wind.

[DanK]

You then need to adjust the monitor profile the calibration device creates to match the gamut and bias of the chosen printer,

Once you achieve the above it should be relatively easy to maintain your calibration, modern monitors don't drift as much as they once did. Until, that is, you wish to print form another source...

If I understand you correctly, you are confusing monitor calibration with adjustment for printer characteristics. Calibrating the monitor is completely independent of the printing device. It is simply a way to guarantee that a color that has given RGB values displays as that mix on the monitor. Adjusting for the characteristics of the printer is an entirely different process, requiring that you install an appropriate ICC for the printer and paper and softproof. If you have your monitor displaying correctly, you shouldn't change it to match the printer. Rather, the task is to get the printer to come reasonably close to your calibrated monitor. Methinks this may be one reason you find the process so vexing.

[kpone]

Adjustment for the characteristics of the printer may be considered a separate part of the process but it must still be considered part of the monitor's calibration to the chosen output device. I wish the OP good luck in convincing his publisher to adjust the characteristics or their print system to match his display on the strength of his word that it is accurate.

Eizo, whose graphics monitors are second to none, instruct their customers to adjust their monitors to match their test print during the calibration process.

The point I'm trying to make is that even the most basic, desktop printer comes with paper profiles written specifically for that piece of equipment, placing it's specific ink set, onto the the listed paper. What vexes me is that despite professional printing services putting much effort and cost into the correct calibration of their systems, the client is still loathe to believe that running a spyder over their monitor once a quarter is sufficient grounds to question their efforts.

[Codebreaker]

One of the most common misconceptions, imo, about dark prints is that users don't view the results in the correct light. I guess I don't need to say it but I will anyway Screens transmit light and prints are viewed by reflected light. Unless the light source is close to what your screen is set to prints can appear incorrect. Viewing prints under a warm light will make them look dark and will shift the colours. So this is one thing to consider.

Its also my opinion that its incorrect to adjust any monitor to match a print. This would be a real pain when using different printers, papers and inks. You'd be constantly adjusting the screen and then should you want to produce images for on screen viewing they would be wrong.

Colour Management is all about colour consistency and how to handle out of gamut colours. It has to be accepted that not all input and output devices will have the capability to capture or reproduce the same range of colours.

Colour Management uses the profiles of both the input device and the output device to essentially 'map' the RGB numbers from one to the other to achieve colour consistency.

Using a colour managed workflow relieves the agony of selectively tuning images for each output device - although maybe not entirely.

Print profiles from a vendor are only good for soft proofing which will then allow you to make on screen adjustments to get the best results on the print.

I make lots of prints using a custom profile for my Epson R2400 and I can't recall ever getting a dark print because I view them under a controlled light source of 65K with 98% CRI. Of course once the prints are moved to another location or hung in a clients home, then I can't control that.

BTW: I've only once sent out for a book to be made and that was Vistaprint. Results were ok but I didn't care much for the paper finish. They weren't dark though.

Colin