Having undergone recent changes in software and hardware, I'm finding a paper I was once fond of, Hahnemuhle photo rag doesn't seem to be rendering colour as well as it once did. Another paper, Ilford Pearl, also seems a bit flat. I find that in Lightroom 4 an image has to be virtually reworked in proofing. Yes, I have calibrated the new monitor.
While a new custom profile may be in order, I'm looking for suggestions as to different paper stocks. While appreciating every image may not be satisfactorily rendered on any one paper, I am faced with the high cost of shipping and would like to keep the variety of papers to a minimum.
Did you get a new printer Dave? Which new software and hardware? Changing paper when the paper you liked seems to have shifted doesn't sound like the right fix.
No new printer, same Canon 9000. Got a NEC P221w to replace a Lacie CRT which gave up the ghost and, as mentioned, Lightroom 4. If I proof uncorrected, the print accurately reflects the monitor. What I am finding, particularly with the Hahnemuhle, is colour is very flat and by the time I have adjusted in the proofing stage I have virtually reworked the image. B&W images render as on screen.
I'm tempted to say it is Lightroom as there wasn't such a discrepancy in LR3, but I have made a number of changes which would make it hard to pin down. I have tried a profile from Red River for a card stock I bought earlier and that brings it more in line with my original working. For that reason it was assumed another paper might be of more benefit.
If a given paper and printer were once capable of producing prints you liked, it should once again be possible. Perhaps your new software is using a new printer dialogue and you may need to change some of the settings (Photoshop/LR manages colors, rendering intent, selecting the right profile, etc).
If a given paper and printer were once capable of producing prints you liked, it should once again be possible.
I agree with this. If you monitor is properly calibrated, and with other things being equal, it is likely a setting in LR4 and/or LR is having trouble reading the paper profile.
I would start by looking at possible setting changes you may have made, and I would also download and install up to date paper profiles. You could also have someone make custom profiles for you, such as that linked to by Floris, but you should probably try the canned profile first to see if it works.
I'm going along with what the others have already said, with one other suggestion: one of the things I really like about Lightroom is that you can create a Virtual Copy of your Master File, and make adjustments to that copy for various output renderings.
After doing more work on both newer images and previously printed images I found I was able to get better renditions with post processing in LR4 proofing. Also downloaded the latest ICC profile from Hahnemuhle which showed a slight improvement over a much older custom profile.
While changes in LR may be responsible for this, it still begs the question should I not be changing to another brand of paper if it more faithfully portrays my original rendering? Currently it is not a matter of a few subtle adjustments but major changes. As previously mentioned, I have viewed the proofs through other ICC profiles such as Red River and found them to be almost spot on not needing much adjustment.
My selection of papers locally is very limited and high end non-existent, so I'm in a bit of a bind for experimenting with different papers. Again, due to shipping costs, it was my hope that changing brands might let me stock a couple of papers that most closely match the original rendering. It may well be that different images, regardless of the paper, will require different levels of adjustment.
David, you could check with some of the vendors for sample packs. Also, have you talked with Hahnemuhle about this? Perhaps they can help?
--P
Posted by Mark Stahlke on April 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Currently it is not a matter of a few subtle adjustments but major changes.
This almost sounds like some images are printing with a different rendering intent. The difference between perceptual and relative colormetric can be dramatic. Is it possible that the default rendering intent changed in LR4?
Since your printer is dye based, the number of potential art papers is fairly limited. I assume you are using the "Classic" Ilford Pearl version--which I hear is being discontinued. Consider experimenting with HP Premium Plus Soft Gloss which on an HP dye-based printer is a tad better than the Ilford, but very very similar.
Moab makes a few dye-compatible papers that have performed OK for me with dye (I also had a pigment-based printer which worked better with most papers). Lasal matte and lasal gloss are worth checking out. They have sample packs.
LR 4 introduced some major rendering changes. Have your printing issues arisen from using process version 2010 or 2012?
...the number of potential art papers is fairly limited...
I'd disagree with this. I'd agree that the number of available canned profiles for papers is somewhat limited, but most papers work fine with dye. I've tried probably 20 or so different ones from 4 or 5 different companies on my 9000 with varying results - typical profile issues, and not a problem with the paper itself.
Discussion
10 repliesWhile a new custom profile may be in order, I'm looking for suggestions as to different paper stocks. While appreciating every image may not be satisfactorily rendered on any one paper, I am faced with the high cost of shipping and would like to keep the variety of papers to a minimum.
I'm tempted to say it is Lightroom as there wasn't such a discrepancy in LR3, but I have made a number of changes which would make it hard to pin down. I have tried a profile from Red River for a card stock I bought earlier and that brings it more in line with my original working. For that reason it was assumed another paper might be of more benefit.
You could also get your system profiled:
Custom Printer Profiles
I agree with this. If you monitor is properly calibrated, and with other things being equal, it is likely a setting in LR4 and/or LR is having trouble reading the paper profile.
I would start by looking at possible setting changes you may have made, and I would also download and install up to date paper profiles. You could also have someone make custom profiles for you, such as that linked to by Floris, but you should probably try the canned profile first to see if it works.
--P
While changes in LR may be responsible for this, it still begs the question should I not be changing to another brand of paper if it more faithfully portrays my original rendering? Currently it is not a matter of a few subtle adjustments but major changes. As previously mentioned, I have viewed the proofs through other ICC profiles such as Red River and found them to be almost spot on not needing much adjustment.
My selection of papers locally is very limited and high end non-existent, so I'm in a bit of a bind for experimenting with different papers. Again, due to shipping costs, it was my hope that changing brands might let me stock a couple of papers that most closely match the original rendering. It may well be that different images, regardless of the paper, will require different levels of adjustment.
--P
Moab makes a few dye-compatible papers that have performed OK for me with dye (I also had a pigment-based printer which worked better with most papers). Lasal matte and lasal gloss are worth checking out. They have sample packs.
LR 4 introduced some major rendering changes. Have your printing issues arisen from using process version 2010 or 2012?
ME
I'd disagree with this. I'd agree that the number of available canned profiles for papers is somewhat limited, but most papers work fine with dye. I've tried probably 20 or so different ones from 4 or 5 different companies on my 9000 with varying results - typical profile issues, and not a problem with the paper itself.