LAB COLOUR MODE IN FINEART PRINTING

[ian moore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can see the usefulness of LAB colour mode on a well calibrated,wide gamut monitor (an Eizo CX240 in this case). You can pull colours out that you just do not see in RGB mode.

 

I get the other benefits of altering colours without touching the tones (although you can do that in RGB mode using the the colour mode and so forth).

 

But,when it comes to printing on a matte fineart paper,you lose the colours,everything is compressed into a smaller paper gamut,depending on the actual paper choice.

 

So it seems to me that LAB mode is great for displays on appropriate monitors but what use is it for printing?

 

Am I missing something?

 

Thanks.

 

 

Ian Moore

[Jeff S]

Not all papers, inks, profiles, printers, monitors, software...or users... are created equally.

 

One should attempt to optimize every step in the chain, consistent with one's printing intent. If there is a 'weak' link in the chain, the options are to try to improve that link, or accept it and deal with the rest. I see no reason to 'dumb down' the other links, unless you never see the benefits (or can't afford or achieve them) given your goals.

 

Do you use the same matte paper for all your prints? Have you considered all links in the chain beyond screen and single paper?

 

Jeff

[jaapv]

I can see the usefulness of LAB colour mode on a well calibrated,wide gamut monitor (an Eizo CX240 in this case). You can pull colours out that you just do not see in RGB mode.

 

I get the other benefits of altering colours without touching the tones (although you can do that in RGB mode using the the colour mode and so forth).

 

But,when it comes to printing on a matte fineart paper,you lose the colours,everything is compressed into a smaller paper gamut,depending on the actual paper choice.

 

So it seems to me that LAB mode is great for displays on appropriate monitors but what use is it for printing?

 

Am I missing something?

 

Thanks.

 

 

Ian Moore

Yes. You are missing that the image will be converted back to RGB including the alterations you applied. Your monitor is as much an RGB device as your printer.

 

If you have come to the point of asking this you must have worked your way through the Canyon Conundrum by Dan Margulis, as that is the LAB primer Questions like you address here are touched upon in his book Modern Photoshop Color Workflow . I am still in the process of tackling it - it generates the same headaches as his other books.

[250swb]

I think you could do better by not using a matte paper, it has never been the best way to represent subtle tone unless you want those tones muted and flat, which is what you have already observed.

 

Steve

[pop]

Your monitor is as much an RGB device as your printer.

 

The printer most likely will be a CMYK device.

[jaapv]

Yes and no. You will feed it with RGB files. Let us not get into subtractive and additive trichromacy...

Anyway, this whole discussion misses the sense of editing in LAB. In RGB the luminosity is defined in the RGB values, which means you cannot edit the colour without affecting the luminosity. In LAB you are editing the colour and luminosity separately. After finishing one reconverts to RGB, retaining the result of the LAB edits in the RGB conversion in the whole resulting colour space, in the middle as well as towards the borders.

[ian moore]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all comments. I fully understand the limitations of using a matte paper but my photographs are generally displayed framed behind glass. Using gloss paper just does not do justice due to the flare effect. I have tried several papers (Canson,Hahnemuhle,etc) Ilford gold fibre is not too bad.

 

I understand the benefits of using LAB mode for editing,but my final output is printing and therefore I think the benefits are negated at the final stage,for me anyway.

 

A bit like writing a book in a foreign language,then having it translated into English, losing some of the interpretations in the translation. You have to accept the loss, or not do the translation.

 

 

Ian Moore.

[Jeff S]

Using gloss paper just does not do justice due to the flare effect.

 

Try better glass…and better lighting/display conditions. I have prints on gloss papers all over my house…from me and from other photographers….and there is no problem with glare or otherwise. Plus, there are lots of semi-gloss papers around, with varying textures and surfaces, even from the same manufacturer. Museums and galleries have figured it out; you can, too.

 

Unless you use the most expensive 'museum' glass (which I don't recommend due to cost), the matte papers won't appear matte under glass anyway, so why not use glossier papers to start and figure out how to make them work…best of both worlds in terms of color/tonality and presentation.

 

Jeff

[250swb]

I can't think of any print by famous photographers I have seen in the flesh that has been on matte paper, it just never ever happened in recent history, the best silver papers were always semi gloss or gloss (although not high gloss in the resin coated paper sense). And in museums all these were mounted behind glass.

 

Steve

[Jeff S]

True about silver prints. And we're fortunate to have a variety of modern inkjet papers that attempt to mimic (baryta, etc) those surfaces, with different degrees of success, although nothing is quite like silver.

 

However, I have seen and collected some marvelous platinum prints by some noted photographers (Strand is but one example) who sometimes did the same or other images on silver. These are more subtle and start on more matte surfaces. And of course 'famous' 19th century photographs (variety of processes) on 'matte' papers can be lovely as well. The presentation of these lesser used processes, however, require special attention for best effect. I've seen museum pieces and exhibitions that sometimes are in very low light and/or without glass. Not a recommended process for the modern day casual printer.

 

Jeff

[01af]

The printer most likely will be a CMYK device.

Most likely not.

 

Regarding the original question: You don't use the Lab colour mode for printing. Instead, you might want to switch to the Lab mode for some tweaks that are hard or virtually impossible to do to in any other colour mode, then switch back to RGB for export or printing.

[250swb]

However, I have seen and collected some marvelous platinum prints by some noted photographers (Strand is but one example) who sometimes did the same or other images on silver. These are more subtle and start on more matte surfaces. And of course 'famous' 19th century photographs (variety of processes) on 'matte' papers can be lovely as well. The presentation of these lesser used processes, however, require special attention for best effect. I've seen museum pieces and exhibitions that sometimes are in very low light and/or without glass. Not a recommended process for the modern day casual printer.

 

Noted, but the OP is expecting something different by using a matt paper, they are presumably looking for a 'modern' (1930's onwards) gamut with a full range of graduated tone, not the soft whites, gentle blacks, and muted colour typical of matt paper?

 

Steve

[jaapv]

 

I understand the benefits of using LAB mode for editing,but my final output is printing and therefore I think the benefits are negated at the final stage,for me anyway.

 

A bit like writing a book in a foreign language,then having it translated into English, losing some of the interpretations in the translation. You have to accept the loss, or not do the translation.

 

 

Ian Moore.

Why should you lose the changes you made in LAB?

It is a mode for editing that can accomplish edits that cannot be made in RGB, or are more difficult in RGB.

Once you have finished you reconvert to RGB and your edits will still be there.

One of the useful things about it is that you can move in and out LAB with minimal (some authors say with no) loss.

[Jeff S]

Noted, but the OP is expecting something different by using a matt paper, they are presumably looking for a 'modern' (1930's onwards) gamut with a full range of graduated tone, not the soft whites, gentle blacks, and muted colour typical of matt paper?

 

Probably so. I use semi-gloss papers similar to my prior darkroom (silver print) array. While I've seen some marvelous modern day work on matte surfaces, one must figure out how to deal effectively with display, as glass can sometimes negate the subtleties. I think the OP is missing out on the terrific diversity of semi-gloss papers because he hasn't yet worked out the 'back end' of the chain….glass, lighting and display.

 

My comment was more directed at your historical reference, especially 'early modern' platinum works.

 

Jeff

[LocalHero1953]

I agree that putting matte prints behind glass is not the best way to display them, unless you spend quite a bit on glass and lighting. But I like matte prints; true, you lose some dynamic range, and occasionally colour subtleties, but they have their own attractions. I mount them without glass, as long as they are in spots where they are unlikely to get knocked or inspected by small sticky fingers. OK, they may pick up atmospheric dirt after a while, but I can always reprint them!

 

I print on Canson papers: Platine Fibre Rag (semigloss), Rag Photographique (flat matte) and BFK Rives (textured matte), depending on subject. I don't use gloss.