CS2 Soft Proof feature

Is it common for an image to appear darker when using the CS2 soft proof feature, or should it closely resemble the non-proof version?
This happens to me no matter what image or printer profile I use, e.g, Epson, Red River, etc. I use Epson 2400 and 1280 printers.

My PC monitor is an Epson 2400 LCD and calibrated with Spyder2. As suggested in other NSN posts, I calibrated with low luminance setting,
125 CD/M2, 6500K, Gamma 2.2. Still, when I use softproof, the image always appears darker.

Rich.

Hi Rich, the soft-proof should look a little dimmer and a little flatter. I assume you're checking the Simulate Paper checkbox in the Soft Proof box. To compensate for the differences, you should make image adjustments with the soft proof feature enabled.

Eric, if you have a higher quality printer paper profile (one of yours for example), would there be less of a difference seen once the soft proof feature is enabled? And fewer adjustments based on the soft proof in comparison to the stock paper profiles?

Thanks.

Dick

Regarding the original question from Rich, soft proofing is showing onscreen a simulation of what the final print will look like on paper. It normally will be a bit darker and lower in contrast as Eric indicates, because a print actually is darker and lower in contrast than a monitor. While a calibrated LCD may have a white point of 125 cd/m2 as in Rich's case, and a contrast ratio of perhaps 250:1 up to 500:1 or more (i.e. the ratio of blackest black to whitest white), a print in good light will have a white point of only perhaps 90 cd/m2 or less and a contrast ratio likely of about 100:1. Prints on glossy type media are more punchy than prints on matte media, and of course the brightness of ambient light during viewing has a big impact on prints as well, more so than with monitors. (Although monitors are affected by ambient lighting more than many people probably realize.)

There may be some color and saturation differences as well, because printers have different gamuts than monitors. Printers typically use CMYK-based subtractive ink sets (perhaps augmented in some cases with other colors) whereas monitors use RGB based additive colors. For certain hues, the printer gamut is less than monitor gamut, but for other hues the printer gamut may be superior to the monitor gamut. Finally you may get color cast issues with a print due to the color of paper white (anywhere the paper shows through), and the color temperature of the ambient light.

So to jump ahead to Dick's subsequent question, a custom profile may or may not be better on any given printer/paper combination in comparison to a generic profile from the paper manufacturer. Often it is a bit better, but as with a recent discussion on whether to interpolate images up to 360 dpi or 720 dpi for printing on Epson printers, the difference is typically a matter of squeezing out the last few percent of maximum quality from printing.

E.g. colors may be slightly truer or greys more neutral because they're profiled with your specific printer, ink and papers rather than modelled based on assumptions about factory default performance. Or perhaps shadow tones will be slightly better. Creating good profiles involves a subjective component, so possibly you'll also benefit if the eye of the person doing your custom profile is more to your taste than the eye of whomever created the factory generic profile. However, fundamentally the print will still be darker, lower in contrast, and have a different gamut than the monitor so soft proofing remains necessary, and usually will show some difference even with the best profiles.

Hi Dick, it's as Royce noted ...

... a good custom profile will generally provide more accurate color reproduction, better shadow and highlight detail, and smoother tones. However, a profile cannot change the fundamental limitations of a given ink/paper combination. It is always the case that a paper cannot reflect 100% of the light shining on it, and hence it will always be a little dimmer. Similarly, it cannot absorb 100% of the light incident, and therefore has a limited contrast range. These limitations are there even if one has a "perfect" profile.

So, to answer your question directly, even with a high quality custom profile, adjustments based on the soft proof may be necessary, and there isn't any direct correspondance between the quality of the profile and the "amount" or "number" of adjustments required. It is true, however, that with a good profile you can be more confident that you are making the "right" adjustments, though. Hope that makes sense.

madmanchan wrote:Hi Rich, the soft-proof should look a little dimmer and a little flatter. I assume you're checking the Simulate Paper checkbox in the Soft Proof box.

Eric - I have a couple of profiles from Moab where if I check simulate paper, it looks like a completely white layer with about 10% opacity was placed over top of the image. The funny thing is, if I uncheck it and just go with how it looks, it is a pretty good match to what comes out of my 4800. So I am a bit leary of that paper white box.

Hi Mark,

I agree, the Simulate Paper Color box can lead to some pretty startling results on-screen, esp. when used with matte papers. In general, you'll see a much flatter image and the blacks, instead of looking deep, will look much lighter and washed out. This is PS's attempt to show you the reduced contrast range of the print compared to the screen. You will need to go into full-screen mode and hide all other UI elements (menus, tools, etc.) to avoid having your eye and brain influenced by them. Even then, for some people the reduced contrast is too much.

The thing to check in particular is how well shadow detail holds up while the Simulate Paper Color box is checked. With matte papers, they can get a little muddy and may require some adjustment.

But on the whole, I agree that there are cases where having Simulate Paper Color turned off will sometimes lead to a more realistic overall impression of how the print will turn out.

Thanks Eric! Yes, I do use Matte papers exclusively. It is strange that it does that. Thanks for the tip on the shadows.