Soft Proofing in Lighting not next to Monitor

[Photojournoguy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This may be quite a naive question to the initiated, but it at least challenged me as I think about a calibrated monitor (for photo editing exclusively) and a printer - neither of which I currently own.

I get the concept of soft proofing and having the screen paper mimic the brightness of the paper in front of it, but how do you evaluate the right brightness on the screen for judging paper brightness in any part of the house not directly next to the monitor?

I imagine you don’t take a phone pic of a paper against a wall in one part of the house and then look at the phone pic in front of the monitor elsewhere…

My guess is the answer is do’h-worthy, so go on, let me have it.

[Jeff S]

Various ways, one of course is to experiment by adjusting screen brightness so that the print, viewed in the display lighting environment, best suits your intent.  Soft proofing helps reduce print trials and paper waste, but screen lighting and reflected print lighting are never identical. Even then, however, one learns to compensate for cover glass, which depending on the glass, can dull down tones.  Anyone familiar with compensating for dry-down effects for wet darkroom prints can relate.  
 

Beyond that, there are various technical aids, depending how particular one is and how much one is willing to spend.  There are print viewing booths, some with adjustable lighting, that can be placed on the desktop and used to view the print under simulated lighting.  These can be expensive.  As can spending money to improve and standardize house display lighting.

I use ImagePrint software for my printing and it provides custom profiles for virtually all papers (the company will make them for free if not already available), as well as for various lighting conditions.  This can be useful for exhibiting prints under different display lighting.

There’s more, but actual experience and testing will serve best … and probably raise more questions. Making a beautiful fine print is not plug-and-play, as with most other important aspects of photography.  User judgment and decision making remain key, irrespective of technical solutions.

Jeff

 

Edited November 11, 2022 by Jeff S

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Photojournoguy]

6 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Various ways, one of course is to experiment by adjusting screen brightness so that the print, viewed in the display lighting environment, best suits your intent.  Soft proofing helps reduce print trials and paper waste, but screen lighting and reflected print lighting are never identical. Even then, however, one learns to compensate for cover glass, which depending on the glass, can dull down tones.  Anyone familiar with compensating for dry-down effects for wet darkroom prints can relate.  
 

Beyond that, there are various technical aids, depending how particular one is and how much one is willing to spend.  There are print viewing booths, some with adjustable lighting, that can be placed on the desktop and used to view the print under simulated lighting.  These can be expensive.  As can spending money to improve and standardize house display lighting.

I use ImagePrint software for my printing and it provides custom profiles for virtually all papers (the company will make them for free if not already available), as well as for various lighting conditions.  This can be useful for exhibiting prints under different display lighting.

There’s more, but actual experience and testing will serve best … and probably raise more questions. Making a beautiful fine print is not plug-and-play, as with most other important aspects of photography.  User judgment and decision making remain key, irrespective of technical solutions.

Jeff

 

Thanks Jeff! Part of my homework is to also look into IP software as I’ve read about your usage on it before. But just one clarification on that. If the software makes a custom profile for a lighting condition, does that mean it’s assigned a number value and is therefore measurable (like with a light meter standing where it would display?). Otherwise it’s hard for me to wrap my head around how you’d know a lighting profile would apply to your situation, at least for an educated guess before carrying on with trial and error.

I’m gradually moving closer to this next process and can totally imagine having only more questions as I actually do this.

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, Photojournoguy said:

Thanks Jeff! Part of my homework is to also look into IP software as I’ve read about your usage on it before. But just one clarification on that. If the software makes a custom profile for a lighting condition, does that mean it’s assigned a number value and is therefore measurable (like with a light meter standing where it would display?). Otherwise it’s hard for me to wrap my head around how you’d know a lighting profile would apply to your situation, at least for an educated guess before carrying on with trial and error.

I’m gradually moving closer to this next process and can totally imagine having only more questions as I actually do this.

The lighting selections are designed to more closely simulate display lighting conditions… daylight, incandescent, etc…in addition to a greyscale setting for b/w. This is just another layer to the basic color management process…from camera to screen to print to display.  It’s not perfect science; rather it’s to help develop a consistent and reliable workflow that one can tweak for their own tastes and circumstances. One can be more precise by making their own profiles (just as with camera color profiles), but I find that unnecessary given my needs and goals. For me, a little trial and error suffices; my house doesn’t require museum lighting standards (although many museums under-light their print exhibits…. see recent article at TOP).  I’d probably spend a bit more time if planning an outside exhibit, with known lighting conditions.
 

I think it’s best that you not go down this rabbit hole at the outset. You’ll be better served, I think, by taking a step at a time and start making your own prints, even if you don’t initially buy IP.  It’s a sophisticated software, which can simplify many tasks, but doesn’t change the fundamental role of the user to apply his/her own decision making to determine when, where, how and to what degree to apply those tools.  It’s like asking about the ideal settings for a camera for taking the perfect photo, before buying the camera. 
 

But if you want to explore IP in more detail, here’s the user manual.  The folks at ColorByte (IP) are also extremely helpful answering all sorts of questions, and working through any technical issues. I use only a small fraction of IP’s capabilities, just as I do with a sophisticated software like Photoshop; one learns which features are important for them.

https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/BLACK/ImagePrint_BLACK_Manual.pdf
 

Jeff

Edited November 11, 2022 by Jeff S

[Photojournoguy]

53 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

The lighting selections are designed to more closely simulate display lighting conditions… daylight, incandescent, etc…in addition to a greyscale setting for b/w. This is just another layer to the basic color management process…from camera to screen to print to display.  It’s not perfect science; rather it’s to help develop a consistent and reliable workflow that one can tweak for their own tastes and circumstances. One can be more precise by making their own profiles (just as with camera color profiles), but I find that unnecessary given my needs and goals. For me, a little trial and error suffices; my house doesn’t require museum lighting standards (although many museums under-light their print exhibits…. see recent article at TOP).  I’d probably spend a bit more time if planning an outside exhibit, with known lighting conditions.
 

I think it’s best that you not go down this rabbit hole at the outset. You’ll be better served, I think, by taking a step at a time and start making your own prints, even if you don’t initially buy IP.  It’s a sophisticated software, which can simplify many tasks, but doesn’t change the fundamental role of the user to apply his/her own decision making to determine when, where, how and to what degree to apply those tools.  It’s like asking about the ideal settings for a camera for taking the perfect photo, before buying the camera. 
 

But if you want to explore IP in more detail, here’s the user manual.  The folks at ColorByte (IP) are also extremely helpful answering all sorts of questions, and working through any technical issues. I use only a small fraction of IP’s capabilities, just as I do with a sophisticated software like Photoshop; one learns which features are important for them.

https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/BLACK/ImagePrint_BLACK_Manual.pdf
 

Jeff

Appreciate it! Keeping an eye out for the Mac Mini M2 coming out next spring and will focus on calibrated monitor to pair with that, printer and general intro to papers. You're right that starting with IP would be overkill until I get some sense of understanding through printer software. While I produce annual books, I'm excited to put effort towards singular prints across (virtually) any size and over time learn the art of the print.

[Jeff S]

24 minutes ago, Photojournoguy said:

Appreciate it! Keeping an eye out for the Mac Mini M2 coming out next spring and will focus on calibrated monitor to pair with that, printer and general intro to papers. You're right that starting with IP would be overkill until I get some sense of understanding through printer software. While I produce annual books, I'm excited to put effort towards singular prints across (virtually) any size and over time learn the art of the print.

And I bet your book photos look different in different lighting… daylight, table lamp, etc… with no control over viewer habits, regardless of chosen paper, inks, etc. Print standards and requirements will also vary by print-makers and viewers.  

The majority of my prints are small-ish size, and b&w.  Floor standing printers, for huge prints, are another challenge altogether…research well before taking that leap. There are also discussions here on the topic.

Jeff

[topoxforddoc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Keith Coper at Northlight Images in the UK has whole series of articles on printing, colour management, soft proofing etc. This page is a good one to start with.

https://www.northlight-images.co.uk/why-prints-look-wrong/

After some investment and time, I have managed to sort out my colour management, so that my prints consistently look the same as my screen. My office is not brightly lit.

Monitor (Eizo CS2740) set at D50 80 cd/m

Anglepoise lamp with 5000K LED light bulb for viewing prints

I don't soft proof. Instead I ended up buying an i1 iPRO2 colorimeter and make custom profiles for each paper I use on my Epsoin SC-P7500.