Help with Proof Sheets
- This topic has 18 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Oct 21, 2008 at 9:14 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
Does anyone have experience with making proof sheets?
The easiest way for me, is using canon’s Digital Photo Pro.
I’ve had/have a similiar problem. My monitor is calibrated (spyder 3 pro) and my Printer (Canon 9900 pro) isn’t. Not sure this is the answer for you but it certainly helped mine after the first prints.
Use Photoshop for everything.
Don’t use some other programs printing utility including Canons. Print directly from within PS. Have the profile set Adobe RGB and somewhere in there you’ll find an option that speaks to “colour management”.Choose “let photoshop” handle it.
If its your printer or printing software like Canons easyprint chances are colours will be off.John,
What do you use to make proof sheets? Do you make them custom in photoshop? I only have Elements and DPP, and I am not sure Elements has a proof sheet option, maybe it does…I’ll have to research and see. DPP’s proof sheet feature is so easy to use. If I can make proof sheets in elements (with medium size thumbnails on a 8.5×11 page), then I can do as you suggested and print directly from photoshop.
It seems like you are on the right trail with the printer choosing the color. Something has to be set incorrectly on the printer. Barring using photoshop to print from, I think the first thing I need to do on the printer is get rid of the setting of my monitor profile and switch it to Adobe 1998. Then maybe experiment with paper settings.
I’ll have to check tonight when I get home but Im pretty sure there an option for them. Failing that you might need to use DPP or Canons “photo easy print” but……….
anyone I asked about why my colours were still off after calibrating the monitor all said the same thing. Make sure the colour space is Adobe RGB and print from within PS, checking to make sure the option re “colour managemet” is set to PS and *not* your printer.
Is there an option in DPP that does the same, that specifies if its the printer handling colour management or your software?
There are several issues here: Even though you your workstation is calibrated, you still do not have a complete CMS (Color Management System) or CMW (Color Management Workflow). This is a list of some of the issues and hopefully a few suggestions that may help you.
First know this: Your scanner, monitor and printer will have completely different color management profiles. You most definitely want to keep you monitor on the corrected ICC profile, which you calibrated for. Your printer should have the proper profile in the drivers and should print close. One problem, may be, your printer may not support paper ICC profiles. The pro line of printers allows you to download the ICC profiles for paper and this is what corrects the gamut for that paper. Gloss papers, from different manufacturers, will have different ICC profiles and these profiles are what correct for the specifications of that paper.
You can also calibrate for printers, dependent upon the printer, and establish an ICC profile for that printer. Then, some software will allow you to view a proof, on the monitor, in that ICC profile, with out having to print. The problem here is, you have to have ICC profiles for each type of paper; i.e., matte, luster, satin and gloss for that paper brand. Or, you can calibrate the printer to each of those papers and establish your own ICC profiles for each.
The other thing that you can do, is this: Try to remember the adjustments that you had to make, after printing, to your image and then make those hue, saturation and/or exposure settings prior to printing. When using a pro printer, you can let PS color manage and then select the ICC profile for that paper. Select Perceptual and click on print. This should prompt the particular printers menu and make sure to check “no color management”> If the printer and PS are both color managing, the prints will look like crap.
For non-pro printers, I would select the printer to color manage and make sure that the editing software does not color manage. Then select the paper type that is provided by the manufacturer. Some will have a preview function prior to print and again, it is important that your monitor is still set to your properly calibrated monitor ICC profile.
Hope this helps some…
The current proof sheet I am producing is really pretty close. In some lighting, the black background looks black, in other lighting it looks a little hazy (like a black t shirt that has been washed a little and is not quite crisp black). The images on the proof sheet are just thumbnails about 1.5″x2.5″, and they look pretty close as well. Maybe I am just asking too much print quality from the printer I have?
John B., I am not sure DPP will allow me to specify whether the software controlls or the printer does. I will have to look into that further tonight. When I get ready to print, it brings up a menu, and you can select the printer settings menu for the printer (within this you can select a profile). I believe origionaly there was no profile selected and it looked more off. Then I selected my monitor profile and relative colormetric and it looked pretty close. But my work space is Adobe RGB.
Ben, I’m definitely not changing monitor profile, it is correct for the monitor. I was talking about selecting a profile for the printer in the printer settings…there I can pick Adobe 1998, none, or my monitor profile. I don’t believe my printer allows you to calibrate it, at least I couldn’t find anything in the manual about this. It is not a pro level printer. I had relative colormetric checked instead of perceptual…not sure if that might make a difference? I also need to recheck the paper setting tonight.
Thanks for your help and explanations.
Oh, I better understand now John W. You should select the Adobe 1998 profile, in the print menu and also select perceptual. The relative colormetric will clip some of the color while the perceptual will chose the best matching colors. Also, it prints best when the print is at 100% of the actual image size. Hope this helps and as you stated, the lighting source can make a huge difference. Also, are you printing in the “best print” mode, with the chosen paper type?
John, after I use PS Bridge to select, arrange, and create the proof jpg file pages (Tools–>Photoshop–>Contact sheet II), I choose sRGB as my profile then printed them with any old application like Windows media player, etc. (just like my clients do now, if need be). However, I don’t print them out any more due to the fact that a nice sharp 400k 20×17″ 72dpi digital file is a much more send-able, zoom-in-able, and earth friendly editing tool. Save the stress of printing for the decorative art and/or publication. It’s just that your end user has to own (or have access to) a computer hooked to the www. Not exactly a problem these days.
Good luck my friend!
Douglas
Did the perceptual help any John? Hope that got it closer for you.
I also second what Douglas suggested. The normal workflow that I and the AD’s, that I have worked with, normally follow is this. (This may be different than what your needs, I don’t know, but thought that I would write it out for you anyway.) I will go over the Contact sheet with the AD’s or GA’s, on location in my monitor or at the studio on their wide gamut monitor’s. Dependent upon the assignment, I or the AD/GA will either post edit or just forward the selected photographs to the publisher. As Douglas mentioned, @72 ppi. The publisher will then make the final selection and approve it or ask for changes. Once approved, the full size, at 300 ppi CMYK, is forwarded to the publisher. Once it goes to print, they will have a very short run, as a CMW sample, and forward the completed sample to the publishers rep. for a final approval before the complete run.
I am not saying that this is industry standard but I feel that it is very important for me to stay in the entire loop. I also prefer to do my own post, or I will study previous published works of their GA’s, as it is my reputation on the line.
As far as printing your own proofs, I prefer to do that as well. It will not be spot on as the commercial printers are CMYK but it does get close enough. I hope this does not come out the way that I do not mean it but the best way to do this is: Use a printer that has the utility of ICC profiles. They have really come way down in price and if you want to print your own proofs, as I like to do, it would be a better tool for you. I have found that a wide format proof is much easier for me to study and dissect but printing your own proof’s are not a necessity (unless you have concerns about your clients monitors and proper calibration of same).
I would much prefer just to send a CD with images, but the submission guidlines ask for a proof sheet as well as the files on a CD.
Last night I checked everything out, and actually the colors looked pretty awesome on the sheets I printed the night before….not sure if they “dry” over time and become richer.
Not to make this more complicated, are they asking for proof sheets or Contact Sheets, basically a Jewel case Contact Sheet (JCCS)? It sounds to me like it is the later, as it will serve as an enormous time saving tool for them. The additional information tells me a lot more, as well.
I am just guessing here but it sounds like they are not loading and warehousing the photographs, on a harddrive, as much as they are storing the CD’s and using the Jewel Case Contact Sheets as a quick reference to CD content and a method of searching for their library of stock images. The other side, of what they are more than likely doing is this: When dealing with a new photographer, they will peruse the JCCS and if they see images that they like, they will then load the CD and go to the file name. If it corresponds to their requirements and needs, they will then load, save and tag these images into their database. Either way, it sounds like they are very busy and meeting their guidelines, plus making it better for them, will go a very long way in moving the photographer to the top of their list.
If it were me and unless there is more information that I do not know, at present: I would create the contact sheets at 4.5” X4.5” and add a ¼” border, the reason for this is ease in display as the average jewel case is 4.75” and the ¼” border makes it easier to view. The main thing is making it easier for them to store and see what is on the CD, at a glance. I would then load the CD with TIFF’s as once they decide to open a file, it sounds like they are then looking for all details and quality for use. I would not count on them wanting to waste more time in requesting a TIFF later from a CD full of JPEG’s. Also, make sure that copyright data and contact information is in the metadata as it sounds like they will not want to have to keep looking everything up and can just get it off of the open file. Print your contact information in the border of the JCCS as well.
As far as your question on monitor – printer profiles. No, it is not correct but this comes with a caveat: Use what is available and what works best for you. If your prints are printer better with your monitor profile, stay with that but normally the printer and monitor are calibrated completely different and have different gammas. If you are happy with the end results, stay with what looks best for you. Also, those inks do need time to cure and 24 hours is about correct.
I know that you know this but for anyone else that may be interested: Never ever send in RAW of NEF files, they are your proof of ownership and metadata can be stripped. Also, some GA’s actually prefer PSD’s over TIFF’s but TIFF’s are most often requested and/or desired.
It would be nice to know if they actually want proof sheets, which does no sound normal, or the contact sheet. Best of luck with your submissions!! 😉
They say to send a color thumbnail contact sheet, along with your CD. They say image files can be RAW, TIFF, or HI Res JPEG. They say that the contact sheet expedites their photo-editing and evaluation process. They did not specify or say anything about a JCCS.
I’m not familiar with a jewel case contact sheet? Are you saying that the JCCS is 4.5″x4.5″ with smaller thumbnails on it? I was going to print an 8.5″x11″ page contact sheet with about 8 – 12 images per sheet and load TIFF files on the CD.
Great, we are on the same page now. Yes, the JCCS is a thumbnail contact sheet but formatted and measured to fit into the cover slot of the CD case. It makes it easier to store in the CD and decreases the odds of it getting lost as loose paper. With the confirmation, that you provided, I would go with the TIFF’s as well. It doesn’t sound like they are using the thumbnails as proofs as much as they are using them for subject matter, composition and basic exposure, if the first 2 are liked, they will then open your CD images and then proof those.
You may even want to use both types of Contact Sheets, redundancy never hurts. Still though, do what you feel most comfortable with and treat my suggestions as just opinions.
Oh! ;D Thanks for the explanation on the Jewel Case Contact Sheet Ben.
The only other thing they asked for was an inventory sheet identifying all people, animals, etc in the photos and any captions as needed.
Sorry, Ben. :-[ Guess this thread kind of evolved…
I went ahead and called them to ask them how they want it, and they said that it was fine to do an 8.5″x11″ sheet with 1.5″x2.5″ thumbnail images (about 8 – 12 per sheet). They wanted it to be able to reference and such without having to sort through lots of big TIFF files on the CD.
On one submission category, I plan to submit 7 images.
The other submission is for a photo essay and I plan to submit 22 images.
I plan to submit a brief cover letter, inventory sheet, contact sheets, CD with TIFFs, and business card with website in each submission.
No problem at all John 🙂 At least we did hit the nail on the head as far as why they want their submissions this particular way. 😉
With the last bit of information, it did sound more like they would much rather have the legal size or A4 sheets. I am very impressed with the information as it sounds like this publisher is very well established and more professional.
Sounds like you have a good plan and most importantly, it is inline with their protocol. Best of luck on this and you need to let us know how it turned out so that we can celebrate with you :).
Also, very glad that you were able to satisfy your original printer issue :).
Thanks a ton for your help Ben, and the rest who chimed in.
If anything does come of my submissions, I’ll let everyone know. It has been really cool to see other IA folks’ work get published recently. It’s nice to be reading a magazine and see an awesome photo, and say, “Hey I know that guy!” and celebrate with them.
EDIT: Ben, I reviewed the contact sheets last night after they had dried 24 hours, and I ended up going with the ones where the printer was set to Adobe 1998 after all.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.