Soft proofing, test images and making real prints - When soft proofing runs out of steam

[@robertlawrence7958]

Buckets of common sense advice. I well remember one of my photographic instructors in the RAF telling me to always work backwards from the desired end result. That would advice on the printing and so on righr down to what would be the most suitable film etc. Transparency for published work, neg for prints etc. Much has changed over the years but I continue to use that philosophy to this day, some 40 years later.

[@KeithCooper]

An excellent approach - still works well for me!

[@dunnymonster]

I do softproof occasionally but mainly it's used to allow me to pre assess whether a type of paper I'd like to use will render satisfactory results. By that I mean I might have a particular image I'd like to print on a particular paper but would like to get a rough impression of how suitable the combination will be. So let's say I have a very saturated image and I consider using a rag type paper, the soft proofing will really highlight just how much ( or how little ) of the colours in my image will make it to the final print. Now I could make HSL corrections to bring those into gamut or just use perceptual rendering intent and suck it and see lol Of course, you are absolutely spot on in that after a period of time, gaining experience of printing you do kind of get to know what will likely work and what won't even without soft proofing. A city shot of bright neons in Tokyo city probably isn't going to have the contrast and visual punch on a cotton rag that it would have on a highly metallic gloss paper for example. If I were sending out my print work then I'd likely use soft proofing more given I'm effectively printing blind. Ultimately however, the best way to see how the print will work out is simply to print it and see for yourself, which is one of the main bonuses of printing at home 😊

[@KeithCooper]

Yes - it one of many tools which can help when you know what its abilities encompass

[@richardterrell5309]

That will be really, really helpful Keith, when my ET-8550 arrived this morning, as once I find space and set up, follow your advice and get to making prints. I had msunderstood what is and what is not so important. You have just made a new profile on my brain, so to speak as to good judgement as I have all the equipment to profile if a need,.though had hardly got to use it being my XP-960 was too busy with documenets.

[@KeithCooper]

Excellent - glad to be of help!

[@liveinaweorg]

Thought provoking and incredibly helpful as always, Keith. Thanks again.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks!

[@ShelleSinger]

Excellent information. Thank you! I just unboxed a new Epson 8500 and it's ready for inks. I've watched your video's on the 8500/8550 and appreciate the in-depth information. I'm going to download your test print image.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks - glad it's of help

[@paulwilliams4295]

Both useful and timely as I plan to start printing my 10 LRPS images over the next few weeks.

[@KeithCooper]

Hope it works well for you

[@billbarraclough9653]

Brilliantly insightful as always, Keith

[@KeithCooper]

Hope it's of some help!

[@robertnystrom289]

I use soft proofing for cockpit and software problem solving. I have a light source that I've tweaked over the years and have been able to match the print to the screen quite well. It's not practical because in the real world my light source doesn't exist except in the remotest instances. When things go south, I go back to it as a reference. It's usually me, but about 10 months ago I was crazy because prints were just wrong. Wasted a LOT of ink and paper. I have used Capture One for years and it always seemed to produce better prints than LR/PS (I assume it's the RAW converter). Anyway, it went to hell on my P900. I seems it's Capture One. The boys in Denmark have been flogging it for a long time (10 months), but I think it's not getting any love. If I export Tifs (that's getting old) and print with PS, Epson Print Layout or even Preview, it comes out spot on. CO hoses it; greens are desaturated and it's over sharpened. Almost like some double profiles I've done inadvertently in the past. Don't know why I'm blathering on to you. Just needed to vent. Disregard. Great job, as usual!

[@KeithCooper]

Thank

[@edwardpike1]

This is the wrong video to ask this question, but I just used my calibrite display unit, set my light level to 82, which was the closest that my iMac would set between 80-90 and I had my first really good color print I have gotten out of my Canon 9500 Mark ll printer. Thank you, now I don't need to purchase a new printer, as you just showed me how to get a near perfect print out of the one that I already have. Now new question, should you always leave the printer on or turn it off between printer jobs?

[@KeithCooper]

Glad to help! I'd leave it on for hours, off for days depending on the gap between jobs - or if oyu've had it for years, keep doing what you are doing... ;-)

[@jayharder2598]

Hello Keith, I'm new to your channel and watching this video you mentioned there was a link to the test print you used but I don't see it here.... Can you either include a link to the test print or tell me where I can get it. Thanks for sharing this info, I find it very useful.

[@KeithCooper]

Ir's on the web site - where all my more detailed stuff is [the videos are just supplements to much of my written work] I'll add a link in the description. Thanks for reminding me I forgot it! www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/

[@keithmagee4450]

Thanks for a really helpful video. I can now (when I get my printer) understand how to use the test images. I have never owned a photo printer and need to adjust my mindset from my black and white printing days, when I used test strips! Is there a similar process for newbies ?

[@KeithCooper]

There's no direct analogy with test strips, unless you take a sample of an image, duplicate it several times on a page, then apply different adjustments [in Photoshop - couldn't imaging you could do it with LR]

[@Neil-Aspinall]

(New to large format printing) Canon Pro 4100 : OK I downloaded the Hahnemühle ICC profiles I need and set one for printing. The part I don't understand is, I can not see the Hahnemühle paper type in the paper list? How does this work, do I need to also download paper types from somewhere or?

[@KeithCooper]

Ah profiles are not the same as media settings - you use the media setting associated with the profile - this need not be the same as the paper itself. See the custom media notes in my detailed PRO-2000 review [virtually the same as the 2100] www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-imageprograf-pro-2000-printer-review/

[@Neil-Aspinall]

@@KeithCooper OK so I have to download Hahnemuller paper types too? There only seems to be Canon paper types in the menu?

[@KeithCooper]

No - remember the media type is a type, not a specific make/brand See the discussion in the review. See also kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZ7NnWaXhpackKM

[@Neil-Aspinall]

@@KeithCooper Thanks Keith. Is there a site where I can see what Hahnemuller suggests the media type for their papers exactly when using a Canon printer?

[@KeithCooper]

See the paper specs - the profile notes should also contain media settings info

[@nick066hu]

Hi Keith, Thank you for all your videos, all are very useful, excellent information. I have two questions about EPSON printers, sorry, not exactly on topic to this video, I simply chose your latest one to comment in. 1. Naming convention. Could you please explain us a little the EPSON ET series naming. There is a plethora of model numbers and I am confused what are the difference in these variants, even EPSON website is not really helpful, e.g. What are the key differences between ET-2400 ET-2500 ET-2600 ET-2700 ET-2800 series (are these just model year sequence?) then what is ET-2800 ET-2803 ET-2810 ET-2811 ET-2814 ET-2815 ET-2820 ET-2821 ET-2825 ET-2826 ET-2840 ET-2850 ET-2850U ET-2850SE ... just to name a few, all seem to be existing models, that I could buy, very confusing. I understand some have certain features, others don't, like scanning, faxing, etc, I am not interested in these, just the printhead to be the best, print quality, speed, reliability., there is hardly any data on this. ...and all this just one model series ET-28xx. There are many other ET-xxxx And also many other, no EcoTank ones... It is very hard to get a clear picture, just one example: I just came across the ET-2840 specs, it says it has the newest PrecisionCore printheads, I said, great, so this is their newest development (why does it then have a smaller model number than their ET-2850 flagship in the 28xx series which has an older head technology, OK, no problem, I almost decided for the 2840. Then to my surprise I saw there is a Special Edition. ET-2840SE what is it? Is it what I need, no info on difference. And then I saw a ET-2850SE with PrecisionCore. And then ET-2856, is it better, or just white? Then I gave up, it is a mess. I always have a fear before buying, that when I buy a model XYZ-1234/GGR of some device, to realize later that if I had chosen the XYZ-1244U/GFD it would have been much better for my needs for the same (or almost the same) money. And with these immense number of models at EPSON it is very likely to happen. Please help. An overview table would be best, even with a video dedicated only to this topic. This info is very much missing, it is nowhere summarized. You may also ask EPSON for help, I think. For me the most useful would be a summary table with info on the printheads (technology, number of channels/colors, number of nozzles per color, if pigment/dye) these are relevant for print quality, speed, maintenance. Interface (USB/Wifi/Ethernet) and user interface ie. if LCD screen is available. And most importantly which are the obsolete models not to buy that have been replaced with a better one for the same price. None of this info is summarized on any website. 2. PrecisionCore What does this new PrecisionCore printhead technology mean for us, digital art printers, is it of relevance we should look for when buying a new printer today? My first impression (sorry EPSON) when reading about PrecisionCore key features (Printer-on-a-Chip, chips are designed to function on their own or can be combined in many configurations) was that it is much more about their own satisfaction, an engineering stunt (in a good sense, no offense) optimizing manufacturing of an even larger plethora of printer models, the results of which (less variance in parts, less logistics, more profit) I am, customer, is not at all interested. But does it print better? If yes, how, why? No info, no tests, no reviews, no print samples nowhere. I don't understand. 3. Nozzle Redundancy - would be a long awaited feature for me. ...a printhead to recognize a clogged nozzle, temporarily disable (until cleaning) that single nozzle and replace it in the next overlapping pass of the head assembly with another nozzle of same color achieving nozzle redundancy without banding.

[@KeithCooper]

Thanks I don't sell printers or work with anyone who does, so I can't help with model numbers at all - they confuse me [I get them wrong occasionally in the videos, transposing digits] I'm sure there are reasons, but they vary from region to region too. I'll ask Epson if they have any info I can show? Precision core is 'just' a new manufacturing process/design for print heads - it's a very big step for Epson, but is difficult to explain in a way relevant to users [given the vast range of uses and knowledge levels] Yes, it does give better printing and reliability, but once again not in a easy way I could show. I don't work in printer marketing... Nozzle redundancy - An essential Canon feature somewhat meaningless in the context of Epson print heads I'd suggest? The two are different technologies and handle nozzle functionality in very different ways.

[@nick066hu]

@@KeithCooper Thanks. I entered 'PrecisionCore' in YT search, it gave me nine(!) matches, all videos are from Epson, marketing stuff. One even interviews the developers, the oldest video is 9 years old, the latest is 2 years old. The rest is silence. Not a single review, not a single print test sample comparing PrecisionCore to NotSoPrecisionCore? Have they stopped this development? I guees not, than why the silence? May we know what models have these new(? or nine-year-old?) heads? What will I be missing when I not knowingly buy their NotSoPrecisionCore (obsolete?) printer? It is logical to assume less quality, longevity, no more firmware updates, driver updates from a closer date onwards? Am I right if the specs does not explicitly say 'PrecisionCore' those are their obsolete models? Or are they doing this switch clandestinely because it is 1. not that relevant for us (then what was all the excitement about in the 9 years back to 2 years back period?), or 2. just afraid of us not buying their old ones? ..and all their newer models are already PrecisionCore? sorry to dump this on you, I understand that you are not an EPSON salesman , I just thought that if you are in such a relationship with them that you occasionally get printers for testing, you might ask them also. We mortals on earth are not allowed to ask such questions, or at least not get answers.

[@KeithCooper]

I'm afraid my suggestion is that your are just reading far too much into this... If I said that the word 'precisioncore' appearing on the front of a printer made not one jot of difference to me would it help? I look at printers as tools to do a job - it's the results I look for. Do I really care that my newer car has a completely redesigned fuel injection system - no, that figures nowhere in my liking of the car. It may make quite a few differences to how the engine works, but if I don't see them, I don't much care [beyond any technical curiosity - it's been over 30 years since I stripped down an engine]. From a practical POV the default resolution of modern Epson printheads is 300ppi, whilst it used to be 360ppi - this oft thought 'magic number' has shown in numerous tests I've done to be be irrelevant. It's about how those dots are placed and their control which makes for improvements.

[@nick066hu]

@@KeithCooper Yes, you are right, I am exaggerating the problem, if any. Just confused with the burden of choice even within one brand, size and model family. it's just happened to me so many times that I bought something (router, motherboard, video card, touchpad, whatever), and the very next day when I wanted to upgrade or just simply use it, I was told that unfortunately I have the V2.1 hardware and the feature I wanted is only in from the V3 which would have cost the same. I became a bit paranoid about that, and the plethora of model numbering for EPSON just added to this.

[@KeithCooper]

Sure - I just suggest that no-one buys a just released printer [wait a few months] and that in general each update of printers gets better in some respect [this may not be 'print quality' whatever that actually means]. I also know that any current good printer (13" and above) is capable of making great looking prints and if you can't it is almost certainly your fault ;-) The key limitation with new printers is user ineptitude [I include myself in this]

[@michaelvandahl3766]

Hello Keith, you said in the video that you know the ink set used by a specific media type. Ok it depends on the printer, but generally from where can get such information? I cannot find it! 🤷‍♂️ Cheers, Michael

[@KeithCooper]

Ah - mostly experience I'm afraid. Differences can be quite subtle and only show up when profiling. It tends to be that some ink sets just don't perform so well with some media on some printers - see in particular, my main [written] ET-8550 review for a discussion of this. I'll have a further look at this and see if I can put together some more info