Photoshop Proof with Mpix profile looks different

I'm going to be printing a few pictures with mpix. I have their printer profile and am using it to setup a custom proof in photoshop. I take my original exported from Lightroom and duplicate it and then apply the mpix profile to the duplicated image so I can see them side by side. The image using the mpix profile is a little darker, washed out and lacks the contrast of the original (It's a black and white image). No matter what I do, I can't seem to get the image using mpix profile to look the same as the original does. What am I doing wrong here? What do I need to do to fix it?

I'm not printing photos professional and I'm not geting paid to do this. These photos will just hang in my daughters room, but I'd still like them to resemble what I see on my screen as to opposed to what the custom proof is indicating they're going to look like.

How are you "applying" the profile? If you are 'assigning', that is wrong because it changes (falsifies) the profile identifier without changing the image data, thus causing the color management to falsely render the image. You should always 'convert', but once the image has been properly converted you should see no difference between the two copies. That is why we have color managing; everything gets translated into your monitor space and looks as it should (provided that your monitor has been profiled and PS color management is properly set up.)

Your procedure is not the way to do soft proofing. Read about it here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=296149
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=3246321#p​ost3246321

I've always believed, right or wrong, that the proofing profiles were for printing proof images, never intended to view on screen.

Have I been wrong about this all these years?

Lowner wrote in post #14538357
I've always believed, right or wrong, that the proofing profiles were for printing proof images, never intended to view on screen.

Have I been wrong about this all these years?

That would be a hard proof. A soft proof is a virtual proof seen on screen. Saves paper when it works.

If (and only if) I'm correct, a printer profile only works as Elie says -- if you have a calibrated monitor and color-managed software that provides "soft-proofing" you can use the printer profile to "soft proof" the image, showing a decent approximation on-screen to what a print would be from the specific printer/paper/ink combo. It requires the printer/paper/ink combo being specified in the profile, so for an external lab/print provider the "proofing" is done before sending the image off to be printed.

I have never used Mpix before but I use Mpix Pro or Millers for about 95% of my orders.

Have you calibrated your monitor? If not it really doesn't matter what color profile you use it will probably look different. If you are calibrated I would not get too caught up in color profiles just submit everything in srgb with the EXIF intact. Their printers read the exif and convert srgb to the correct profile.

If you sign up for Millers you will submit images to them and they will send you a "non corrected" and a "color corrected" version of your print to see which you prefer, I could not tell the difference in the corrected ones I received so I choose not to pay the additional fee for correction.

Mpix Pro does not offer color correction.

Thanks everyone for the responses.

tzalman wrote in post #14535872
How are you "applying" the profile? If you are 'assigning', that is wrong because it changes (falsifies) the profile identifier without changing the image data, thus causing the color management to falsely render the image. You should always 'convert', but once the image has been properly converted you should see no difference between the two copies. That is why we have color managing; everything gets translated into your monitor space and looks as it should (provided that your monitor has been profiled and PS color management is properly set up.)

Your procedure is not the way to do soft proofing. Read about it here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=296149
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=3246321#p​ost3246321

Thanks. Maybe in my inexperience with all of this, I mispoke about how I was soft proofing. If that's the case, I apologize. I Googled and found how to soft proof in Photoshop. Here's how I did it:

Open Image > Duplicate > View > Proof Setup > Custom > Select MPix Profile under "device to simulate" > check "black point compensation > check "simulate paper color"

And then I just compare the original to the "proof."

This may be incorrect way of doing it, but that's what I had found online. It appears that in my case, since my monitor isn't calibrated, it won't make much difference anyway, so all this is kind of moot I guess.

I'll read through those links you supplied. I appreciate you digging those up for me.

Redfire_Cobra wrote in post #14539171
I have never used Mpix before but I use Mpix Pro or Millers for about 95% of my orders.

Have you calibrated your monitor? If not it really doesn't matter what color profile you use it will probably look different. If you are calibrated I would not get too caught up in color profiles just submit everything in srgb with the EXIF intact. Their printers read the exif and convert srgb to the correct profile.

If you sign up for Millers you will submit images to them and they will send you a "non corrected" and a "color corrected" version of your print to see which you prefer, I could not tell the difference in the corrected ones I received so I choose not to pay the additional fee for correction.

Mpix Pro does not offer color correction.

No, I haven't calibrated my monitor. Tried "calibrating" with the built in software on my mac, but it didn't work well and I learned after that it wasn't a good way to calibrate as it's too hard to get correct. I've got a couple other posts out there on this topic as that's something I'm currently learning about. It's all pretty confusing to me at this point, but I'm learning. I don't think I can sign up for Miller's because I'm not a "professional." Sounds like until I get my monitor calibrated, I just need to submit what I have to Mpix and see how they turn out and go from there.

tonylong wrote in post #14538720
If (and only if) I'm correct, a printer profile only works as Elie says -- if you have a calibrated monitor and color-managed software that provides "soft-proofing" you can use the printer profile to "soft proof" the image, showing a decent approximation on-screen to what a print would be from the specific printer/paper/ink combo. It requires the printer/paper/ink combo being specified in the profile, so for an external lab/print provider the "proofing" is done before sending the image off to be printed.

Ok, so we're back to the calibrated monitor. I think I'm putting the chicken before the egg here. I need to step back, get my monitor calibrated and then go from there before trying to do 10 things at once that i can't even get an accurate assessment of before I've calibrated.

One easy way of checking your "status" -- have some test prints made. Then you have a "real world" comparison to do!

tonylong wrote in post #14539338
One easy way of checking your "status" -- have some test prints made. Then you have a "real world" comparison to do!

That's the route I'm going to go, at least at this point. For my needs right now, I'm putting way to much effort into this. lol

deronsizemore wrote in post #14539313
Open Image > Duplicate > View > Proof Setup > Custom > Select MPix Profile under "device to simulate" > check "black point compensation > check "simulate paper color"

Correct.

deronsizemore wrote in post #14539313
And then I just compare the original to the "proof."

And that's when you thought your image was just killed by softproofing, right?

deronsizemore wrote in post #14539313
This may be incorrect way of doing it, but that's what I had found online. It appears that in my case, since my monitor isn't calibrated, it won't make much difference anyway, so all this is kind of moot I guess.

It's only going to be as accurate as your screen, but even with a perfectly calibrated screen, you're going to see pretty much the same: The image will die before your eyes, once you hit "softproof. It's supposed to be that way: Photoshop is trying to get a monitor (backlit) to simulate a print (reflective)…

As a result, the image will loose (a lot) of contrast and all whites will look "gray" if you have any "real" (monitor) whites on screen. The print will still look fine though, since we're used to prints having about 1:300 contrast ratio (unlike monitors, who regularly exceed 1:1000).

Here's a good read about softproofing: http://www.creativepro​.com …tion-and-print-prediction

René Damkot wrote in post #14545985
Correct.


And that's when you thought your image was just killed by softproofing, right?

It's only going to be as accurate as your screen, but even with a perfectly calibrated screen, you're going to see pretty much the same: The image will die before your eyes, once you hit "softproof. It's supposed to be that way: Photoshop is trying to get a monitor (backlit) to simulate a print (reflective)…

As a result, the image will loose (a lot) of contrast and all whites will look "gray" if you have any "real" (monitor) whites on screen. The print will still look fine though, since we're used to prints having about 1:300 contrast ratio (unlike monitors, who regularly exceed 1:1000).

Here's a good read about softproofing: http://www.creativepro​.com …tion-and-print-prediction

Sorry for the late reply on this. Thank you for the explanation. So if even with a calibrated monitor you're going to get pretty much the same result from softproofing in photoshop, why calibrate? I thought the idea was to calibrate the monitor to a printer profile so you can get as good of an idea as possible of what the print will look like prior to sending it to print so that there's no surprises when you get the prints back?

deronsizemore wrote in post #14652395
Sorry for the late reply on this. Thank you for the explanation. So if even with a calibrated monitor you're going to get pretty much the same result from softproofing in photoshop, why calibrate? I thought the idea was to calibrate the monitor to a printer profile so you can get as good of an idea as possible of what the print will look like prior to sending it to print so that there's no surprises when you get the prints back?

You said it "as good an idea as possible". Thats the whole point and its as good as the technology can currently manage.

Lowner wrote in post #14652409
You said it "as good an idea as possible". Thats the whole point and its as good as the technology can currently manage.

I see. Thanks!

deronsizemore wrote in post #14652395
So if even with a calibrated monitor you're going to get pretty much the same result from softproofing in photoshop, why calibrate?

Because if you don't calibrate, your monitor might be (for instance) way too bright or too blue. So (because you edit so you see the image "nice", so you compensate for this), your edits will be too dark and yellow.

deronsizemore wrote in post #14652395
I thought the idea was to calibrate the monitor to a printer profile so you can get as good of an idea as possible of what the print will look like prior to sending it to print so that there's no surprises when you get the prints back?

You calibrate your monitor so what you see is accurate.
Then, using your printer profile, you can softproof the image and will see pretty much what you will get in print.

So indeed, there will be no surprises.

René Damkot wrote in post #14652536
Because if you don't calibrate, your monitor might be (for instance) way too bright or too blue. So (because you edit so you see the image "nice", so you compensate for this), your edits will be too dark and yellow.

You calibrate your monitor so what you see is accurate.
Then, using your printer profile, you can softproof the image and will see pretty much what you will get in print.

So indeed, there will be no surprises.

I guess I'm not making the connection here...

You mentioned that whether I calibrate or not, I'm still going to get the same result from a soft proof. So, what I see on my monitor likely won't be accurate as to what I get back from print?