Hi Alan Thank you for your help ... at this stage I'm just trying to figure out how best to do the soft-proofing and I don't at all pretend that my workflow is anywhere near optimal or correct, so your suggestions are certainly much appreciated! Here are some answers to your comments: <<I generate my own paper profile from scratch using Argyll and do not rely on the Canson profile (or any other manufacturer's profile for that matter). >> Yes, as do I. The Canson profile is only used as a reference profile to help Argyll (targen) with the selection of patches. It isn't used after this. I don't know if using this particular reference profile improves the patch selection or not, but as it comes from Canson it's the best that I can think of. << I have used Canson Platine quite a bit but my preferable paper is Museo Silver Rag which has a darker Dmax. I also include a 51 step B/W patch set when I'm profiling as I often use the profile for B/W printing in addition to color.>> Well, of course what paper one uses is a question of personal preference and subject matter. I haven't use the Museo Silver Rag, so I can't comment, but I'm getting a DMax of 2.22 on the Platine using Argyll, which I think is pretty OK. I don't print much black and white but when I do I usually use the Canson Baryta. << I try as much as possible to avoid papers with FWAs.>> Yes, same here. I use the Canson Photo HighGloss for prints that are laminated under acrylic. For that I need a high gloss, very, very smooth surface, and the Canson HighGloss is perfect. It's also a brilliant paper with a DMax of 2.47 (Argyll again). << What is not clear to me is why you are generating all these profiles using Argyll and what they are for. The goal of soft proofing is to match what you see on the screen to the output as closely as possible. I soft proof from Lightroom now that it has that feature and pretty much don't use Photoshop much at all these days.>> Well I'm not generating so many profiles! Just 2. One for the print and one for the soft-proof. As I mentioned in my post, I'm not sure if I'm doing the right thing here. Clearly I would prefer only to generate one profile - and perhaps the one I call Soft_Proof would do both the print and the soft-proof. The problem I have is that I don't understand how icc profiles work, so I'm trying to play it safe and not confuse the CMM by what may be changing the temperature from D50 to my Solux bulb temperature. My goal is absolutely to match the print to the monitor image. And my reason for doing this is to avoid having to do multiple prints to get the print right. If I can rely on the monitor to be 95% close to the printed image then I can print full-size, hopefully only once, without having to do 2 or 3 test prints first. I would also use Lightroom to soft-proof, but unfortunately when you put Lightroom into full-screen mode it turns off the soft-proofing (or at least it turns off the simulate paper white). That means that there is no way not to have monitor white on the screen with the proof, and this messes up the eye. So I use Photoshop in full-screen mode, with nothing but the image on the screen. I find that using Lightroom's Paper White background just doesn't work for me because the simulated white just looks yellow. My eyes do not adjust to the 'white' on the display as it would to the 'white' on the paper. Here is a very interesting article that explains why: http://www.color-image.com/2012/02/monitor-calibration-d65-white-point-soft- proofing/. To be honest, this puts the whole question of soft-proofing in doubt for me, because it implies that one should only soft-proof when the print is viewed alongside the monitor image, otherwise the eye will always see the image as too yellow (unless the soft-proof is at D65). In fact I was caught by this today when I printed an image that seemed fine on the monitor, but was really too blue on print. When I compared the two side-by-side they were almost identical. Perhaps the solution is to have a piece of white paper beside the monitor, illuminated by the Solux bulb, while the soft-proofed image is being adjusted, and to keep referring back to this white while adjusting the image. << I don't have any images hanging in museums where the lighting is carefully controlled. They are mostly in homes and offices where I have no control over the viewing conditions so the Solux view is just to get my perspective on what the best print looks like.>> The same is true for me. However, my reason for using a fixed light like the Solux is that it gives me a reference that I can get used to so that I can print in a consistent manner. Then I have to rely on the eyes' chromatic adaptation mechanism to make the print look right under different lighting conditions: and this does seem to work pretty well on the whole. Of course some lighting/ink/paper/image combinations will mess up the colours, and in that case I think it's a question of changing the lighting or profiling for that particular light. << Also, why do you use AdobeRGB for your Photoshop workspace? Why not use ProPhoto?>> I don't use ProPhoto because its gamut is way bigger than both my monitor's and printer's gamut, and so I think it's more likely to cause me problems than help me produce a good print. Lightroom uses something like it, which is fine at the RAW stage when you don't want to be throwing away any information, but I always finish my prints in Photoshop (although I print using Lightroom) and for that I prefer to work in a colour space that's close to both my monitor and printer. Thanks for your suggestions! Robert -----Original Message----- From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Goldhammer Sent: 04 June 2014 19:57 To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction to my last post! Robert, I hesitate to weigh in here but will do so anyway. Your schema outlined below seems awfully convoluted. With the caveat that I print on an Epson 3880, I do the following: I generate my own paper profile from scratch using Argyll and do not rely on the Canson profile (or any other manufacturer's profile for that matter). I have used Canson Platine quite a bit but my preferable paper is Museo Silver Rag which has a darker Dmax. I also include a 51 step B/W patch set when I'm profiling as I often use the profile for B/W printing in addition to color. I try as much as possible to avoid papers with FWAs or use only those that have minimal ones (such as the now gone lford Gold Fiber Silk). It's been my experience that the Argyll profiles that I generate are always a little better than the manufacturers. In addition to looking at gamut size, I always print out the test print from this website: http://outbackprint.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html What is not clear to me is why you are generating all these profiles using Argyll and what they are for. The goal of soft proofing is to match what you see on the screen to the output as closely as possible. I soft proof from Lightroom now that it has that feature and pretty much don't use Photoshop much at all these days. I pretty much follow Jeff Schewe's work flow as outlined on pages 147-157 in his excellent book, "The Digital Print". I have a NEC monitor that is profiled with their Spectraview software and view my prints under a Solux lamp. I get a good match. I don't have any images hanging in museums where the lighting is carefully controlled. They are mostly in homes and offices where I have no control over the viewing conditions so the Solux view is just to get my perspective on what the best print looks like. Also, why do you use AdobeRGB for your Photoshop workspace? Why not use ProPhoto? Your printer has a greater gamut than AdobeRGB. I hope this is helpful. Alan -----Original Message----- From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2014 8:56 AM To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction to my last post! Hello Graeme, Here are the commands I'm using for the Canson Platine profile: targen -v -d2 -G -e8 -B8 -c " HP_Z3100_Canson Platine 310_Canson Profile.icc" -f866 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine (note: the reference profile is supplied by Canson) printtarg -v -ii1 -a1.0 -T300 -M6 -pA4 HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine chartread HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine illumread -S -c1 -H "HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine".sp colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine" -qh -S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe -O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp" -f"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof" -qh -S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe -O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine rem colprof -v -A"HP" -M"Z3100" -i"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp" -D"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated" -qh -S"Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd".icc -cmd -dpe -O"HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated.icc" HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine The monitor is hardware calibrated and profiled using the Eizo ColorNavigator with the i1Pro2: Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc The HPZ3100 printer is calibrated using its built-in spectrometer. The Z3100 is a 12-ink printer, so I guess using the built-in calibration is a better option rather than trying to calibrate it with the i1Pro2. Obviously, the printer is profiled using Argyll :). I check the generated profiles using iccgamut and viewgam (and also using GamutVision as this shows extra things like Black & White density response). I use Lightroom to print and Photoshop CS6 to soft-proof. Both use the Adobe ACE CMM engine. My document's profile is Adobe RGB. The monitor profile is Eizo_CG277_Native_6500K_80cd.icc Photoshop's working space is Adobe RGB. I print the document from Lightroom using Relative Colorimetric with the HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.icc profile (produced by colprof without -i & -f). I softproof in Photoshop. I set the soft-proof "Device to Simulate" to either HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or to HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated (makes no difference as per my previous post). I set the soft-proof "Rendering Intent" to Relative Colorimetric, "Black Point Compensation" on, "Simulate Paper Color" on. BTW, I don't know what Photoshop CS6 (or Lightroom) is doing, but all rendering intents simulate the paper color: so using the HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine.sp in all cases does not give the simulated paper white with Solux lighting (it gives the D50 simulated paper white), whereas using HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof or HP_Z3100_Canson_Platine_Solux_Proof_Not_FWA_Compensated does, again in all cases. I've also created D50 and D65 profiles (-iD50 -fD50 and -iD65 -fD65): when soft-proofed with the D50 profile changing from the print to the softproof profile makes no difference, as expected; selecting the D65 profile with simulated paper color ON gives a much bluer color than with simulated paper color OFF, which seems wrong as the monitor was profiled to 6500K and currently has a CCT of 6600K). The only other thing I do is to view the image on the monitor in a darkened room at full screen mode, so no other whites to fool the eyes, and I illuminate the paper using the Solux lamp. The paper and monitor are side by side and the images are the same size. I have a rig that prevents light from the lamp shining on the monitor or other surface, so that just the paper is illuminated). I can't think of anything else to add :). Is this workflow essentially correct, or is there a fatal flaw in it? Many thanks! Robert p.s Once I get this sorted out correctly (with your help, needless to say) I'll write a tutorial on how to do it, including batch files (this would have been VERY helpful to me, although I have to say that doing it the hard way is a great learning exercise, if one has the time). -----Original Message----- From: argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:argyllcms-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Graeme Gill Sent: 04 June 2014 07:07 To: argyllcms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [argyllcms] Re: Soft-proofing in Photoshop with Argyll - correction to my last post! robert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > I'm trying to set up a good soft-proofing workflow using Argyll and I would > really appreciate a bit of help! > What I'm doing for soft-proofing (and as I'm a novice at colour > management and Argyll, I have no doubt I'm doing things wrong) is as follows: > This seems to work really well and the monitor and print match very closely. > HOWEVER . I have no idea if this works just by luck and so can't be > relied on, or if it's technically correct. Hi, There are a lot of details missing in regard to your soft proofing. For instance, you don't say how you are actually doing it, ie. what profiles form the rendering chain for your soft proof, what intents are used, or what CMM is being used. You are at the mercy of all of those elements, + the way the profiles are set up. > Using the PROFILENAME_NoSP.icc to soft-proof (the profile used to > print) does not give the right paper white or colours (too > blue) . perhaps because the SoLux lamp is well below D50? This depends on the rendering intent - anything but absolute should give the same white for both profiles, since the white will be the paper color. Graeme Gill.