Head-scratching saturation issues...

Hey,

My monitor is calibrated to D65-2.2, pretty much the standard. I proofed a shot in sRGB (because that's what, apparently, my local printhouse uses) and sent it off.

Colors are fine...saturation's WAY WAY down. So, I emailed the chappie who sent me the printer profile for the printer in the shop (it was created in 2004 (!) ) ... and nothing looks different. I personally reckon it's time he recalibrated, but it's not my place to tell him to .

Out of curiosity - does this look bizarrely out-of-kilter to anyone? (just one of me today, never mind the being-strangled-by-my-gown...I didn't see it before the shot was taken...moreover I think the focus point is on my chest rather than face!! That's not the issue though).

L

Colors look fine. Skin tones may be just a bit pale, but that may be your natural. Nothing weird looking to me.

I'm pale! That was with no PP, on AWB only, so...

Saturation is OK? This is weird, if everyone on here see it as OK...then really it's the photo shop at fault

I'd say you look fair-skinned, and the light hitting your face lightens the skin up, but looking at your collar and the stripes on your gown doesn't make things appear to be undersaturated. Skin tones can be pretty difficult to "get right". If the print doen't look so good, try some retouching and give it another try.

Psychobiker wrote in post #8984110
Saturation is OK?

It is for me.

Yeah, here it's not the skin tones that are the problems - I'm blac-de-blancs descended from French Huguenot and live in Ireland where the sun shines for...two days. It's the overall saturation causing printing problems...I think the printhouse needs to relook their 2004 dated profile.

Looks okay, but too big

How did you send the image? sRGB or converted to their profile? (What do they recommend?)

I know René. Verskoon my asseblief! Just wanted to check die kleur!

Sent, proofed and shot in sRGB. Search me where it all went wrong. My €70 HP PSC1410 isn't as far off as that!!
They told me sRGB...so in it went thus!

Update - my monitor has been calibrated, but if I change to sRGB as the system-wide profile, then the photo resembles the printout. Surely this can't be right - I have calibrated my monitor to what I thought to be standard (6500K, 2.2) - and when proofing in sRGB shouldn't my system-wide profile still be in play?

Whoooo there. Not sure I understand what you are saying.

sRGB is a working space.
Never use the monitor profile as working space. The only place to set the monitor profile is in the OS (and as the monitor profile in DPP. Not in PS color settings anywhere)

The image should be sRGB. You proof to the printers profile. So I'm not sure what you mean by "proofed in sRGB"...

Have a read in the link from my sig on color managed printing.

Nice South-African accent by the way

Baie dankie!

I am aware of the differences in sRGB/monitor profiles/embedded profiles - sorry if I confused the issue. The profile is set in OSX's Display Preferences. Default working space in GIMP is sRGB. Print-proofing is also in sRGB (as that's what they said to embed and proof it as).

By that I mean soft-proofing it within GIMP and again after in Preview. There is an option to proof under various profiles.

Looks fine to me and the skin ratios are good.

Psychobiker wrote in post #8985172
Baie dankie!

I am aware of the differences in sRGB/monitor profiles/embedded profiles - sorry if I confused the issue. The profile is set in OSX's Display Preferences. Default working space in GIMP is sRGB. Print-proofing is also in sRGB (as that's what they said to embed and proof it as).

By that I mean soft-proofing it within GIMP and again after in Preview. There is an option to proof under various profiles.

Still not quite getting how you would proof an sRGB image in sRGB...

Also not familiar with the Gimp and how softproofing works. ISTR seeing a thread on POTN about it a while back though...

Also, I never noticed a softproofing option in Preview. Do you mean "Match to profile"?
IIRC that is like "Convert to profile" in PS. Not exactly the same as softproofing, but it might be usable as such. Except you cannot specify rendering intent, nor can simulate paper white. Never used it though.

But if I understand correctly, the image on screen looks like the print if you set sRGB for monitor profile in OSX?

If I'm still awake enough to think straight, that would mean that the image also resembles the printout if you proof for "monitor color" (with the correct monitor profile set in OSX) I think?

That is weird.

That would be the same as assigning your monitor profile to the image. Something that is quite unlikely the print house can do (since they don't have your monitor profile, and it would be a very big coincidence if they happened to have the same monitor (profile) you do...

But it does hint that they have their color management buggered up.
For one thing: They should give you a proper printer profile to use for softproofing...

On a side note: You say that the print appears "undersaturated". Are you on a laptop perhaps? (That's the only way an image would look undersaturated when viewed not color managed: If the screens gamut is smaller then sRGB)

René, thanks for that insight. yes, there's not a phenomenal difference between the 'sRGB' profile and my calibrated monitor profiles when viewing images (read - changing the actual monitor profile in OSX).

If I soft-proof it in GIMP/Preview with my calibrated profiles (for both my monitors) then it matches on each monitor, although I prefer to proof on my matte external vs MacBook Pro Mirror - either way the saturation is to my liking.

They DID send me their printer profile, and I promptly assigned that to the image...still no wild desaturation. I think what their profile from 2004 says and what the printer is DOING IN 2009 are two different things

Ah. OSX 10.4.11 doesn't have that.

On the soft proofing / profiles.

Do not assign the printer profile.
If anything, convert to it.

Have a read in the link from my sig on softproofing.

Then again, might be you understand what you are doing and I mis-understand you