You can see here how the Color Management works at the end of the pipeline : https://github.com/Beep6581/RawTherapee/blob/master/tools/color_management.svg - you can “Save as…” the image to see it better, or use your browser’s “Display image” contextual menu entry
Ok so, if my print shop ask me explicitly not to embed their Icc in the output file, what I do is:
- Set output to some sRGB (that is what they want).
- Set Monitor to the profile of the print shop. (RT will then put the monitor calibration on top of that)
At least this is what I got from this discussion so far…
No, the intended process in the Editor panel with the actual behavior (unfinished, I know, but we have only two hands and spare time) is :
- to set the the monitor profile to your monitor profile (this will never change unless your moving the editor to a secondary monitor),
- set the output profile to your print shop’s profile,
- enable soft-proofing (don’t forget the gamut check feature)
- adjust your image for printing to your liking
- switch back output profile to sRGB (with embedded sRGB profile, no the “NoICM” entry) ; maybe AdobeRGB is better, or another image output profile, I won’t enter in this debate
- process your image
5 and 6 can easily be done all file at once in the File Browser, but fine adjustments are done on a per image in the Editor, of course.
4 Likes
[2016-12-03 edit]
One more note : there is 2 “Black Point Compensation” checkbox in RT : one in Preferences for the Monitor profile, one in the ICM panel for the output image (and then reflected in soft-proofing).
Be aware that when in soft-proofing mode, the checkbox activating the BPC feature is the one from the ICM panel, the monitor BPC checkbox will be ignored, but that may change in the future.
There is not strike through feature for comments, so I’m putting the old version of this comment as quotes for reference…
1 Like
By…
I assume you mean to export your results? (That is - you are not meaning to adjust the image further)?
Yes. But as @mikesan said, depending on the intended use of your image, you could save 2 versions of your image. This could be made easier if RT had multi-processing param support for each file.
1 Like
As a better answer : you could of course make further adjustment to you image once you set back the sRGB output profile, but in this case you’d probably want to adjust the printing version again as a final step (at least that’s what I would do).
Small but important tip : don’t forget that you can use Snapshots below the History in the Editor panel to save the currently used parameter. That way, it will be easier for you to go back to the non-printing version. I also recall that the current parameter set is saved in the pp3 file when you close the Editor tab (in multiple editor mode) or when you edit a new image (in single editor mode), so it’s important to use the correct Snapshot or select the corect entry in the History before closing the Editor or Edit new image.
Moreover, if you want to update the sidecar pp3 file once your done with the non-printing version (i.e. just before creating the Snapshot), you can use the CTRL+SHIFT+s shortcut of the Editor panel. This will prevent any data loss if RT crash during adjusting the printing version.
1 Like
Thinking this will be a useful thread when I come to do some photo prints, I tried printing the whole thing, i.e. File - Print in Internet Explorer 11 under Win 7, printing to a file. It got as far as Hombre’s post which ends “5 and 6 can easily be done…” and stopped. This was with two different apps, one being Microsoft’s XPS writer thing. They both stopped at this point. Bit off topic I know, but can anyone else save/print this item to a file. (I like the idea of having a permanent record separate from the website…)
Edit - to clarify, I’m not asking anyone to supply a file!, just wondering if it’s my system playing up, or something inherent in the web page.
Andrew- If I understand your question, once you have edited the image in RT to a print ready form, the best way to save it to a file is to export/save the image in jpeg format to a folder of your choice on your computer. This is essentially Hombre’s step 6 and is done while still in RT. Don’t see any need for involving internet explorer. Don’t know what you mean by “separate from the website”. What website?
Thinking about this it occurs to me that my original workflow
could be modified by eliminating this step and simply saving the pp3 file (under a unique name to indicate it is the pre-print version) before going on to preparing the print ready image. I am not sure just how to accomplish this.
Once the additional editing for print is done (soft proof, cropping, ppi adjusted, etc.) the final print ready file is saved/exported as a jpeg with the name changed to include print dimensions (in my case leaving the output profile unchanged from that used for soft proofing; in other cases resetting the output profile to that requested by your printer).
The best solution probably lies in your subsequent posts but I don’t fully understand the use of the Snapshot. I know at some point there was consideration to incorporate snapshots in the pp3 data, but assume this idea has not yet been implemented.
What does CTRL+SHIFT+s accomplish?
from my last post
A little thought provides the obvious answer: When finished with the pre-print editing, just save the profile with an appropriate name. (Processing Profiles > Save current profile)
When finished with the additional editing for print, do the same.
Why is it that whenever I post a dumb question here, the obvious answer comes to me 20 minutes after I have posted?
I am a bit confused. I am aware that BPC is used (as described in RawPedia)
If you want to adjust an image for printing and you have an ICC profile for your printer-paper combination you could set that as your output profile, enable “Black point compensation” so that the blackest black in your image will match the blackest black your printer-paper combination is capable of reproducing,
However I would have thought that use of the printer’s ICC profile for soft proofing would inherently specify the required compensation, particularly when I leave the image in that profile when sending it to the printer. That, I assume, is how the print shop would “know” BCP has been incorporated in my proof. Without access to my monitor how would the printer know what BPC to use? What is additionally accomplished by checking BPC in the ICM panel for soft-proofing?
@RawConvert This is working just fine for me using the latest Firefox on Debian Stable. For me, the forum opens a new page that doesn’t use javascript and from there I am able to print to PDF. I don’t want to bash people’s technology choices, but IE has never done anything well for me.
Sorry I completely misunderstood your post. After reading @paperdigits post I realize you are only asking about printing out the forum thread.
Allow me to return to the subject of Black Point Compensation, if only to test my understanding of the subject (which may or may not be fully accurate). Comments and corrections gladly received.
The last sentence of this quote puzzled me. The ultimate aim of BPC is just as stated in the RawPedia to ensure that the blackest black in your image will match the blackest black your printer-paper combination is capable of reproducing,
This is accomplished during soft proofing by using the ICC profile supplied by the printer for the printer-paper combination to be used. Checking the BPC box in the ICM panel for soft proofing ensures that the image on my monitor accurately reflects the deepest black of the image when printed.
Whether or not this compensation is used for the output image is immaterial and will depend on the output profile in effect when the image is saved/exported. I write “immaterial” because the print shop will print the image they receive (using the ICC profile which they provided) without regard for whether or not I used BPC when soft-proofing the image prior to sending it to them. (i.e the print shop does not “use” BCP; that’s left to me.)
If the foregoing is correct, it explains my confusion about your remark
@mikesan I’m the guy that create the confusion, and am very sorry of that. I’ve updated my original comment if someone read the thread from the beginning, it will save him time and guesses.
Thanks for clearing that up. I assume you concur with what I have written in my last post above.