Rendering Intent

[GoremanX]

The soft proofing feature appears to be missing a few features, unless I'm just not looking in the right place.

Which rendering intent is used by default?

How do I change the rendering intent?

Is black point compensation enabled by default?

[afx]

Which rendering intent is used by default?

The same that is used for printing, perceptual.

How do I change the rendering intent?

You can not change the rendering intent for printing, so it would be useless to change it here...

Is black point compensation enabled by default?

No idea I must admit.

cheers
afx

[GoremanX]

The same that is used for printing, perceptual.

That's a very odd thing to say...

You can not change the rendering intent for printing, so it would be useless to change it here...

That makes no sense at all... the rendering intent is whatever I want it to be when I convert the image to the printing color space. Rendering intent is not stored in the final output, it changes the way the conversion is done. If I do the conversion on my end, then the printing lab doesn't re-convert it. They use it as is. I normally use Relative Colorimetric when I do the conversion in Photoshop, although some few pictures convert better using Perceptual.

Currently, it's impossible to set a rendering intent in Aftershot when soft proofing or when outputting a file. I'm trying to reduce the number of steps in my workflow by doing the soft proofing and conversion in Aftershot, but the tools are sorely lacking. This is unfortunate because the soft proofing method itself is very quick and well designed compared to Photoshop.

[afx]

The same that is used for printing, perceptual.

That's a very odd thing to say...

Why, the soft proofing rendering intent should be always identical to the one used for printing.

You can not change the rendering intent for printing, so it would be useless to change it here...

That makes no sense at all... the rendering intent is whatever I want it to be when I convert the image to the printing color space.

The assumption of course is, that you print yourself.
Might not always be true

Rendering intent is not stored in the final output, it changes the way the conversion is done. If I do the conversion on my end, then the printing lab doesn't re-convert it. They use it as is.

The majority of labs want a standard working space, not the printer profile...

I normally use Relative Colorimetric when I do the conversion in Photoshop, although some few pictures convert better using Perceptual.

Interesting. I have yet to find an image that prints better in the other rendering methods, but then I use QImage which has lots of smarts for printing....

Currently, it's impossible to set a rendering intent in Aftershot when soft proofing or when outputting a file. I'm trying to reduce the number of steps in my workflow by doing the soft proofing and conversion in Aftershot, but the tools are sorely lacking. This is unfortunate because the soft proofing method itself is very quick and well designed compared to Photoshop.

The interesting question is of course, what happens if you send the lab AdobeRGB and let them do the final conversion?

So far, I have been very happy in the few cases I needed a professional lab with the AdobeRGB JPGs I sent them after proofing in AS.
And with QImage which gets fed 16bit ProPhotoTIFFs for local printing on an R3000, I get a perfect match.

cheers
afx

[GoremanX]

Might not always be true

I do not print at home. I do the color space conversion myself at home before placing my order for prints. Many photo labs do provide ICC profiles for their printers/papers. For example, AdoramaPix provides ICC profiles for all their output mediums so you can do your own soft proofing before placing an order. When I place the order, I tell them that I already converted to the necessary color spaces and no adjustments are necessary on their end. This way, I can see exactly how the final product will look before I order prints. This has been invaluable for work that gets displayed in galleries.

The majority of labs want a standard working space, not the printer profile...

erm... WalMart and Costco, maybe. Professional photo labs make available appropriate ICC profiles to allow photographers to do their own conversion before submitting an order. While even professional labs will accept pictures in sRGB and do the conversion for you, they will always accommodate the needs of professional photographers who want to do their own conversion. Most photo labs use commercial photo printers (like the Fuji Frontier) which barely cover the sRGB range, so doing your own conversion can be very beneficial. And giving them pictures in AdobeRGB color space is usually pointless and will ensure that the final product looks even more different than your screen output. This is in stark contrast to personal and business photo printers (like the R3000), which currently cover a gamut wider than AdobeRGB.

Interesting. I have yet to find an image that prints better in the other rendering methods, but then I use QImage which has lots of smarts for printing....

Again, nothing to do with printing. Rendering intent only changes how out-of-gamut colors are mapped for the conversion. The final output is in a color space, not a "color space + rendering intent". I've found some rendering intents do a better job of mapping the dark colors so they appear closer to what my monitor can display. This makes it easier to get the soft proof to match what I see in the working space, which means my final product looks the way I intended.

The interesting question is of course, what happens if you send the lab AdobeRGB and let them do the final conversion?

Been there, done that (except I send in sRGB, not AdobeRGB, for the reasons mentioned above). It's fine for most prints, like ones I hang on my wall as temporary decoration or gifts I give to friends. But for displaying and selling prints in galleries, the results are often inadequate. The dynamic range in the low end gets over-compressed, and some colors get mapped slightly wrong (especially the dark blues). Photo lab technicians are typically very competent, but they have a pace to maintain and a workload to get through. They can't spend as much time on my important pictures as I can. Doing my own conversions is important, I've been doing it for years with great success. But lately I've been using Photoshop almost ONLY for color space conversion, Aftershot has been adequate to do the rest of the post processing. It just seems like I could eliminate Photoshop altogether if Aftershot did color management properly rather than imposing a bunch of assumptions on me.

[afx]

The majority of labs want a standard working space, not the printer profile...

erm... WalMart and Costco, maybe. Professional photo labs make available appropriate ICC profiles to allow photographers to do their own conversion before submitting an order.

They supply them for soft proofing, not for conversion. At least here in Germany.
And I am talking about pro labs, not the mass market guys.
They tend to expect AdobeRGB JPGs or even fat 16bit ProPhoto TIFF files, but not tiny little sRGB files.

Most photo labs use commercial photo printers (like the Fuji Frontier) which barely cover the sRGB range,

I thought we are talking pro labs here, not mass market stuff that uses Frontiers...
They guys that use Frontiers want sRGB and freak out when you get them something else.
I would never ever send anything serious to a lab using Frontiers.

Interesting. I have yet to find an image that prints better in the other rendering methods, but then I use QImage which has lots of smarts for printing....

Again, nothing to do with printing. Rendering intent only changes how out-of-gamut colors are mapped for the conversion.

So why should this not be related to printing?
Printer gamut is smaller than what your raw files delivers, so this is very much related to printing.

The final output is in a color space, not a "color space + rendering intent". I've found some rendering intents do a better job of mapping the dark colors so they appear closer to what my monitor can display. This makes it easier to get the soft proof to match what I see in the working space, which means my final product looks the way I intended.

Sure, perceptual is not always perfect and having other rendering intents can be helpful depending on the situation. But I guess that is a very much subject depended thing.

The interesting question is of course, what happens if you send the lab AdobeRGB and let them do the final conversion?

Been there, done that (except I send in sRGB, not AdobeRGB, for the reasons mentioned above). It's fine for most prints, like ones I hang on my wall as temporary decoration or gifts I give to friends. But for displaying and selling prints in galleries, the results are often inadequate. The dynamic range in the low end gets over-compressed, and some colors get mapped slightly wrong (especially the dark blues). Photo lab technicians are typically very competent, but they have a pace to maintain and a workload to get through. They can't spend as much time on my important pictures as I can. Doing my own conversions is important, I've been doing it for years with great success. But lately I've been using Photoshop almost ONLY for color space conversion, Aftershot has been adequate to do the rest of the post processing. It just seems like I could eliminate Photoshop altogether if Aftershot did color management properly rather than imposing a bunch of assumptions on me.

I guess we are dealing with quite different labs.....
I only had problems with consumer labs so far.

Of course, putting in a suggestion to support other rendering intents should be done, but I currently do not have high hopes for this getting addressed in the foreseeable future.

cheers
afx

[GoremanX]

They supply them for soft proofing, not for conversion. At least here in Germany.

The ICC profiles I have from photo labs are intended to be used for both soft proofing AND conversion. What do you think the photo lab uses when they do the conversion on your behalf? Those very same soft proofing ICC profiles! I've got years of experience with this workflow, I didn't just make it up out of the air.

They guys that use Frontiers want sRGB and freak out when you get them something else.
I would never ever send anything serious to a lab using Frontiers.

Neither would I, but those "labs" are the only places I know that don't provide output ICC profiles. You'd be amazed how many "professional" labs use Fuji Frontiers and Noritsus without explicitly stating so. Especially in North America, where these commercial printers are a defacto standard.

So why should this not be related to printing?
Printer gamut is smaller than what your raw files delivers, so this is very much related to printing.

You need to get soft proofing and printing out of your head as a single entity. I use soft proofing to see what an image will look like in its final output. This can be a print, a video display, a projection, or all kinds of other mediums. The rendering intent has nothing to do with any of those mediums. I could be using soft proofing to see how a picture will look on a specific video display, or how the colors will transfer to a custom palette (ie. a range of xstitching floss).You seem to have a very basic misunderstanding of the purpose of rendering intents. They're just mathematical formulas that map out-of-gamut colors in different ways, and their naming is not necessarily representative of the end result. Different intents work better for certain images, depending on the tone, coloring, dynamic range, and the differences between the color spaces being converted from/to. Adobe didn't add these features to Photoshop for the fun of it, they have actual uses in all kinds of art, not just photography and printing. These soft proofing tools have been around for 14 years, mostly unchanged.

I guess we are dealing with quite different labs.....

...or a different definition of "acceptable results". Or perhaps a different level of expectation.

[GoremanX]

From the Wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendering_intent#Rendering_intent ) :

In practice, photographers almost always use relative or perceptual intent, as for natural images, absolute causes color cast, while saturation produces unnatural colors.[4] Relative intent handles out-of-gamut by clipping (burning) these colors to the edge of the gamut, leaving in-gamut colors unchanged, while perceptual intent smoothly moves out-of-gamut colors into gamut, preserving gradations, but distorts in-gamut colors in the process. If an entire image is in-gamut, relative is perfect, but when there are out of gamut colors, which is more preferable depends on a case-by-case basis.

Notice, no mention of "printing" in there anywhere.

[afx]

They supply them for soft proofing, not for conversion. At least here in Germany.

The ICC profiles I have from photo labs are intended to be used for both soft proofing AND conversion. What do you think the photo lab uses when they do the conversion on your behalf? Those very same soft proofing ICC profiles! I've got years of experience with this workflow, I didn't just make it up out of the air.

Well, labs here tend to be different than in the US.

Reminds of the 90's when I tried to get slide film developed in the states. What a nightmare. Horrendous prices (in Germany development was included in the price of the slide film including framing, about $4 for a roll) and when I asked for framing (being used to Reflecta CS frames) I only got cardboard offers. Yuck.

So why should this not be related to printing?
Printer gamut is smaller than what your raw files delivers, so this is very much related to printing.

You need to get soft proofing and printing out of your head as a single entity. I use soft proofing to see what an image will look like in its final output. This can be a print, a video display, a projection, or all kinds of other mediums. The rendering intent has nothing to do with any of those mediums.

You are barking up the wrong tree here...
You wrote "Again, nothing to do with printing" which I referred to.
Looks like you intended to write something like "Soft proofing is not only for printing" which would have avoided that confusion.
Been telling people to soft proof to sRGB on their wide gamut screens for quite a long time now, see link in signature....

cheers
afx