Glossy vs Metallic vs special Fine Art Papers

[LongLensPhotography]

I have a query regarding paper choice for printing my landscapes and maybe some other subjects.

I guess glossy is a safe "boring" option, but I'm also considering Metallic / Pearl or one of the fine art papers (from DSCL I can choose quite a few including fine art metallic)

I am looking for the following:

• rich but fairly accurate colours
• some wow factor
• retain impact in a darker room
• no harsh colour transitions / wide colour gamut

I can most likely use DSCL and One Vision Imaging (for most Zenfolio orders)

P.S. Do these accept AdobeRGB or ProRGB files? How about 16bit? Would that make a difference to colour gradations and deeper reds? Use colour correction or not (I just had my lesson with Photobox slapping ultra vivid profile, but will DSCL fare better)?

P.P.S. With so many variables I need some clear idea before I can really benefit from just ordering a sample pack. Thanks for help.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I can't tell you about DS or One Vision because I don't use them, but I can tell you about The Print Space. Some of it is relevant.

Any good quality printer will give you rich and accurate colours, wow factor, impact and smooth colour transitions. If they can't, they shouldn't be in business as a printer. However they can only print what YOU supply them and so if those things don't happen in your prints, it's likely to be your fault not theirs.

First off I will say, The Print Space's sample pack is worth the fiver. You get to see excellent prints up close, and I go back to it time and and time again whenever I'm picking papers for prints.

Each paper and printer will have it's own colour profile. EACH paper. A good printer won't just accept ProRGB or something because it's too generic. If you're talking about pro printing, you use pro methods. Using their profiles allows you to soft proof on your screen which is absolutely crucial in getting the print you want. I don't know why you're asking about colour correction - surely this is an integral part of any print workflow? Using the right profile for the paper allows you to proof and check that you're getting the colours you want and make any adjustments before they get printed - saving you potentially lots of money on reprints when you're talking about pro labs and fine art papers.

Lastly I'd say match the paper to the project or the subject. My entire print portfolio is printed on Epson Semi-Gloss Giclee because it's in a high gloss presentation folder. It stops it becoming too overwhelming and it's an appropriate finish for the product and glamour work that I have in it. However when I print fine art portraits or nudes, for example, I often go for a thick watercolour style Hahnemuhle Photograg with lots of texture. Architecture work and night scenes with neon lights I've had done on ultra high gloss Kodak Metallic.

Order a sample pack and look at what you could have. Then decide what fits the work. Then soft proof your images with the appropriate print profiles to get the exact result you want.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I can't tell you about DS or One Vision because I don't use them, but I can tell you about The Print Space. Some of it is relevant.

Any good quality printer will give you rich and accurate colours, wow factor, impact and smooth colour transitions. If they can't, they shouldn't be in business as a printer. However they can only print what YOU supply them and so if those things don't happen in your prints, it's likely to be your fault not theirs.

First off I will say, The Print Space's sample pack is worth the fiver. You get to see excellent prints up close, and I go back to it time and and time again whenever I'm picking papers for prints.

Each paper and printer will have it's own colour profile. EACH paper. A good printer won't just accept ProRGB or something because it's too generic. If you're talking about pro printing, you use pro methods. Using their profiles allows you to soft proof on your screen which is absolutely crucial in getting the print you want. I don't know why you're asking about colour correction - surely this is an integral part of any print workflow? Using the right profile for the paper allows you to proof and check that you're getting the colours you want and make any adjustments before they get printed - saving you potentially lots of money on reprints when you're talking about pro labs and fine art papers.

Lastly I'd say match the paper to the project or the subject. My entire print portfolio is printed on Epson Semi-Gloss Giclee because it's in a high gloss presentation folder. It stops it becoming too overwhelming and it's an appropriate finish for the product and glamour work that I have in it. However when I print fine art portraits or nudes, for example, I often go for a thick watercolour style Hahnemuhle Photograg with lots of texture. Architecture work and night scenes with neon lights I've had done on ultra high gloss Kodak Metallic.

Order a sample pack and look at what you could have. Then decide what fits the work. Then soft proof your images with the appropriate print profiles to get the exact result you want.

Thanks for an informative reply. I will try the print space, I've not heard of them before.

All I know so far is that Matte papers suck out all the vibrancy from the prints. I would happily use them for most portraits but not so keen on colourful landscapes any more. But then can I frame glossy/metallic? I know OVI wouldn't even let me to for a start.

Fair point about softproofing. I will give it a go. I presumed if you give them wider colour space they can sort it out quite well being a pro lab.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

No, you have to proof it yourself. You'll find different spaces proof with more or less shadow, more blur, more magenta, all sorts of quirks. So you have to process each image for print before sending it so that you get it exactly how you want it. It's not really about how 'wide' the colour space is, it's how it maps to the paper and printer. Different papers will receive inks differently.

If you're not really quite sure what you're looking at, and you want advice on papers, I would give the labs a call. Certainly The Print Space have always been really helpful whenever I've either phoned them or dropped in. When I was doing a Taylor Wessing entry a few years ago I even took a picture in there on my phone and asked their opinion, all the staff were quite happy to gather round and argue about which paper I should use. Lovely people, very passionate about their jobs.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I've been playing a little bit. Some images (mostly daytime) softproof just fine. Some lose a bit of contrast, i.e. too bright black point. Does it then mean I need to readjust it for that space before re-exporting? Just checking.

On the other hand the reds and salad greens are just impossible to control even in sRGB space. This for example:


and this

(they have already lost most fine detail in the flowers after export)
When I proof for lustre or glossy the flowers look totally washed out, almost grey-pink. How do I sort that out?
DSCL metallic is a little closer - and seems to be one of the better matches for my shots overall. Maybe that is good news since I wanted to buy some prints of that.
Fine art papers could be another idea but I can't load most of their CMYK profiles in to LR.

P.s. Is the sample order my images or their?

Also it seems OVI/Zenfolio won't accept proofed files - just the regular RGB varieties, and they then do all their magic.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

I've been playing a little bit. Some images (mostly daytime) softproof just fine. Some lose a bit of contrast, i.e. too bright black point. Does it then mean I need to readjust it for that space before re-exporting? Just checking.

On the other hand the reds and salad greens are just impossible to control even in sRGB space. This for example:


and this

(they have already lost most fine detail in the flowers after export)
When I proof for lustre or glossy the flowers look totally washed out, almost grey-pink. How do I sort that out?
DSCL metallic is a little closer - and seems to be one of the better matches for my shots overall. Maybe that is good news since I wanted to buy some prints of that.
Fine art papers could be another idea but I can't load most of their CMYK profiles in to LR.

P.s. Is the sample order my images or their?

Also it seems OVI/Zenfolio won't accept proofed files - just the regular RGB varieties, and they then do all their magic.

You need to adjust the images and then export the files in that colour space. That goes for things like contrast and colour.

I proof all my images in Photoshop, I don't know how to do it in LR. But if you're going to print to a CMYK profile that is often the hardest to get right and you *must* soft proof it first otherwise it'll be all over the place.

The sample images are theirs, they have a set pack with a print on each type of paper.

If Zenfolio won't accept files in a different colour space then I wouldn't use them personally for those kinds of papers. You don't know what you're going to get and that to me will lead to a lot of wasted money. For fine art style prints on specialist paper personally I wouldn't rely on someone else's mechanism to process them for me. I would only be happy proofing the individual images and inspecting them before I sent them out. That's the deal with a fine art print, it gets that extra level of attention over just a 'normal' print. It's akin to producing it yourself in the dark room.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

It's a shame the samples are their own - my images are most likely way too different from their portraits. Although I could guess I would not want any rough and non glossy papers.

I've also looked at Loxley, which I believe is regarded as a top pro lab with excellent range of papers and laminates. They also don't accept proofed files and do it all themselves. Maybe they just are better at it and have to be trusted for taking decisions.

DSCL has a very good selection, but only supply and accept Fuji profiles, not fine art ones... Weird. Maybe I'll email them as I love their pricing.

 

[Ozei]

What did DSCL say about profiles for the fine art papers?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

What did DSCL say about profiles for the fine art papers?

I've emailed them about it and a couple other questions about durability and so on. Maybe on monday I will know the answers

 

[sk66]

IME, the printer/paper profiles are for softproofing and are NOT for embedding into the file as the image color space.
My lab will accept a file with any valid color space (sRGB, ProPhot, aRGB, CMYK etc) but NOT a printer profile.

What happens is they calibrate their printers w/ the various papers and generate an ICC profile for you to use in softproofing. This profile shows you how a print with a valid color space will look after printing on their calibrated printer.
PS and LR both have softproofing functions to allow you to preview the results using their printer/paper ICC.

Most labs want sRGB as the file's color space... this isn't really a problem as most monitors are not able to display much more than the sRGB space, and most papers can only reproduce less than the sRGB color space.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Can I add at this juncture, that if you are taking the time and effort to correctly softproof profiles for various media... then you really should be working with a calibrated monitor.. or there's not much point.

IME, the printer/paper profiles are for softproofing and are NOT for embedding into the file as the image color space.

This is good advice.

 

[Ozei]

combination

IME, the printer/paper profiles are for softproofing and are NOT for embedding into the file as the image color space.
My lab will accept a file with any valid color space (sRGB, ProPhot, aRGB, CMYK etc) but NOT a printer profile.

Surely it comes to the same thing - i.e. scenarios 1 and 2 below will produce prints that look exactly the same.

Scenario 1

A) Perform the main edit in (say) ProPhoto RGB.
B) Switch on soft proofing using the lab's printer/paper profile (let's call it Profile X) and adjust image as necessary.
C) Save the adjusted image as a ProPhoto RGB file and send it to the lab.
D) The lab prints the Pro Photo RGB file using the same printer/paper combination that was used to create Profile X.

Scenario 2

A) Perform the main edit in (say) ProPhoto RGB.
B) Convert the file to Profile X and adjust image as necessary.
C) Save the adjusted image with Profile X embedded and send the Profile X file to the lab.
D) The lab prints the Profile X file using the same printer/paper combination that was used to create Profile X.

 

[sk66]

combination

Surely it comes to the same thing - i.e. scenarios 1 and 2 below will produce prints that look exactly the same.

Scenario 1

A) Perform the main edit in (say) ProPhoto RGB.
B) Switch on soft proofing using the lab's printer/paper profile (let's call it Profile X) and adjust image as necessary.
C) Save the adjusted image as a ProPhoto RGB file and send it to the lab.
D) The lab prints the Pro Photo RGB file using the same printer/paper combination that was used to create Profile X.

Scenario 2

A) Perform the main edit in (say) ProPhoto RGB.
B) Convert the file to Profile X and adjust image as necessary.
C) Save the adjusted image with Profile X embedded and send the Profile X file to the lab.
D) The lab prints the Profile X file using the same printer/paper combination that was used to create Profile X.

Not if profile x is a printer/paper profile...

The printer/paper profile shows you what running a "known color space" thru their printer onto that paper looks like. The print software has to be fed a color space it knows, sometimes it's only sRGB, other times others as well, but it is *never* going to recognize the proofing profile they supply... I've never seen a lab that wants files with their proofing profiles embedded.

If you run this specialized/uncommon proofing profile thru the printer you would need *another* proofing profile for that result....

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Not if profile x is a printer/paper profile...

The printer/paper profile shows you what running a "known color space" thru their printer onto that paper looks like. The print software has to be fed a color space it knows, sometimes it's only sRGB, other times others as well, but it is *never* going to recognize the proofing profile they supply... I've never seen a lab that wants files with their proofing profiles embedded.

If you run this specialized/uncommon proofing profile thru the printer you would need *another* proofing profile for that result....

DSCL seem to ask for it...

On the other hand my issue with sending sRGB (as opposed to ProPhotoRGB) is a severe gamut space loss - particularly reds and cyans get chopped and usually beyond the printer colour space. In fact, how about we all start using something more sensible for web?

 

[Ozei]

Not if profile x is a printer/paper profile...
The printer/paper profile shows you what running a "known color space" thru their printer onto that paper looks like. The print software has to be fed a color space it knows, sometimes it's only sRGB, other times others as well, but it is *never* going to recognize the proofing profile they supply... I've never seen a lab that wants files with their proofing profiles embedded.
If you run this specialized/uncommon proofing profile thru the printer you would need *another* proofing profile for that result....

If this is true the printer/paper profile supplied by the lab should not be called a 'profile' - it's misleading. Another name such as 'target' or 'soft-proof profile' would be less confusing.

DSCL seem to ask for it...

DSCL did some test prints for me and we used scenario 2 (i.e. my ProPhoto original converted to their Profile X). Their tech support page says: Here at DS COLOUR Labs Ltd we use Fuji Frontier 570 printers. All images should be supplied as SRGB or with our own profiles ....... (http://www.dscolourlabs.co.uk/tech_support.cfm)

Loxley on the other hand say: The output profiles we provide are only intended to be used in conjunction with Photoshop and the soft proofing function DO NOT convert your images to these profiles. ..... (http://www.loxleycolour.com/colourmanagement.aspx)

 

[sk66]

If this is true the printer/paper profile supplied by the lab should not be called a 'profile' - it's misleading. Another name such as 'target' or 'soft-proof profile' would be less confusing.

I agree, and that is normally the case.

DSCL did some test prints for me and we used scenario 2 (i.e. my ProPhoto original converted to their Profile X). Their tech support page says: Here at DS COLOUR Labs Ltd we use Fuji Frontier 570 printers. All images should be supplied as SRGB or with our own profiles ....... (http://www.dscolourlabs.co.uk/tech_support.cfm)

Then they have that profile programmed into their software... this is fairly uncommon and the first example I've seen.

 

[sk66]

On the other hand my issue with sending sRGB (as opposed to ProPhotoRGB) is a severe gamut space loss - particularly reds and cyans get chopped and usually beyond the printer colour space. In fact, how about we all start using something more sensible for web?

Well, I can't argue specifics because I don't know them. But I do know many professional printers (i.e. Noritsu) are gamut limited to a space much closer to sRGB than aRGB/proPhoto... and many papers are even more limited. In those cases the sRGB space is not the problem...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Well, I can't argue specifics because I don't know them. But I do know many professional printers (i.e. Noritsu) are gamut limited to a space much closer to sRGB than aRGB/proPhoto... and many papers are even more limited. In those cases the sRGB space is not the problem...

The C-type color gamut seems to be pretty much within sRGB, but there are tiny bits that do not overlap (mostly cyans?). I have a feeling metallic c-type has a bit wider space, slightly more reds, probably still mostly within sRGB?

But then recent inkjet (or giclee if you are chasing fashionable names) pro printers can have very wide color space, probably far beyond the scope of aRGB. So if the lab has any clue at all, sending ProPhotoRGB files would make sense to get the best output.

And this is all about printing the stupid poppy fields, red dresses and certain red cars I have a feeling I'll be purchasing A2 printer when my output volume increases.

P.S. I might add a couple poppies in sRGB and ProPhotoRGB for comparison, but this will only work on calibrated wide gamut monitors.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I guess I need to expand a little bit. I did some comparison of profiles against sRGB and aRGB with ColorSync utility http://support.apple.com/kb/PH7141
Here are the charts: https://picasaweb.google.com/110286559262544105755/PrinterColorProfiles?authuser=0&feat=directlink

1. As mentioned above C-type Glossy and Lustre prints fit well within sRGB, however cyan-green and red-orange are outside of the space. If you supply sRGB you lose it.
2. Metallic Prints have wider color space than glossy or lustre. Good news. DSCL profile is incredibly wide - perhaps it is their large format inkjet metallic rather c-type metallic?
3. The best C-type lustre and glossy seem to be from Loxley and the print space followed closely by OVI. For some reason DSCL profiles are a bit narrower.
4. aRGB is plenty to define C-type
5. Fine art papers need far more than aRGB. sRGB is a waste of paper and pigment IMHO

OVI lustre vs sRGB (1)

OVI lustre vs sRGB (2)

OVI metallic vs OVI lustre

OVI metallic vs DSCL metallic (a little suspicious!)

Canson Baryta vs sRGB

PS. This is why you should not do colour sensitive editing on laptop screens, except retina MBPs (or similar IPS panels)

MBP screen vs sRGB

 

[LongLensPhotography]

And now the poppies (MUST be viewed on WIDE GAMUT monitor and colour managed browser or it won't make any sense):

ProPhotoRGB (RAW image colour space):

Note the vibrant and detailed petal colours

And now sRGB

It looks like a plain smudge of red... awful

And aRGB is somewhere in between - pretty usable but not quite perfect.

I bet it can print slightly better from 1st file even on the simple C-type solution

I just can't understand why we are stuck with dreadful sRGB colours and low DPI images up on the web... OK, 4K is round the corner, but sRGB needs to die.

 

[Ozei]

DSCL did some test prints for me and we used scenario 2 (i.e. my ProPhoto original converted to their Profile X). Their tech support page says: Here at DS COLOUR Labs Ltd we use Fuji Frontier 570 printers. All images should be supplied as SRGB or with our own profiles .......

Then they have that profile programmed into their software... this is fairly uncommon and the first example I've seen.

I must admit I thought all printing labs had loaded specific paper/printer profiles into their software (I thought that was the whole point of having different profiles) - it's only since reading your comments in this thread that I realise they don't.

So, here's the question: in cases where the lab does have a paper/printer profile loaded into their software, should I embed the same profile into the files that I send them (after soft-proofing with it)?

 

[Ozei]

And now sRGB ........
It looks like a plain smudge of red... awful

I'd agree - sRGB looks positively muddy compared to the other two. ProPhoto looks the best and aRGB second best (on both Chrome & Firefox).

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I got the email back from DSCL. In short they don't supply any more profiles apart from C-type, because the customers "made a mess" with them. The suggestion was to send in everything at sRGB, which is fine for most prints, but I'm not so excited about printing really expensive orders and portfolio like that, or anything with red in it . sRGB certainly beats the purpose of wide gamut Baryta paper for sure.

If Loxley would take ProPhotoRGB this would be a nice way round it for the special orders. I know they don't say they do but it is worth asking. Edit: no, they won't.

P.S. I am really after finished products here - framed, laminated edge print or metal/alumini print, maybe canvas. Are there any other worthy labs to consider?

I'd agree - sRGB looks positively muddy compared to the other two. ProPhoto looks the best and aRGB second best (on both Chrome & Firefox).

yep. Red/orange/magenta scarves and dresses, Ferrari's, vibrant architecture colours, rich flower colours, dramatic sunsets, autumn colours - all need special attention printing. It is probably fine selling sRGB limited prints through Zenfolio, since customers can only see that to start with - putting in ProPhotoRGB would not work well for display purposes and cause more trouble. Although I think I was told by someone from OVI I could send them files in just about any space. One would only wonder if they would first convert to sRGB and then start printing. Anyway there is not much point with C-type, and they don't have baryta papers... shame

 

[LongLensPhotography]

What is the general consensus about White Wall? They appear to be award winning pro lab and seem to offer plenty of products with all the printer/paper profiles. They are somewhat cheaper than loxley too for these big special orders.

I guess DSCL will still have it's place for Fuji Metallic and glossy prints at 12x18" - those just can't be beaten for value. Maybe their canvas is also something attractive, but that needs looking into. Chromalux panels also look good, but again are they similar quality-wise to Loxley and White House, since pricing is too close.

 

[Deleted member 67219]

P.S. I am really after finished products here - framed, laminated edge print or metal/alumini print, maybe canvas. Are there any other worthy labs to consider?

http://www.theprintspace.co.uk/

They'll laminate and back onto metals too.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

http://www.theprintspace.co.uk/

They'll laminate and back onto metals too.

Yes, they do options, and I hope they have discounts somewhere... I am not quite confident pricing my 24x16" framed prints at around £400-500 outside of London right now (and I have pretty much nothing specifically for London). Maybe I should try

P.S. Ideally I plan to have them printed directly to the metal to have this new fancy 3D look; and the mounted ones perhaps would be on wood/MDF block. I suspect di-bond can look a bit crap looking sideways.

 

[sk66]

And now the poppies (MUST be viewed on WIDE GAMUT monitor and colour managed browser or it won't make any sense):

All three images are in sRGB...not that it matters that much. I use a MacBookPro and the available gamut is slightly less than sRGB... but it's not more... and even the very best monitors can't show proPhoto.
And that's the issue 99% of people will have... even if you use a wide gamut monitor...if you use a larger color space (like proPhoto) you cannot even see what you are working with, or what you are outputting which is why it is essential to softproof to an appropriate color space (like sRGB)...
And all color spaces of the same bit depth have the same total number of tones (256/channel in 8bit). A larger color space does not give you more colors. There are negatives if you work in a color space significantly larger than the file has (i.e. banding is problematic).

I'm not 100% certain what your plots are showing (srgb space changes shape/size) but I will agree that "some" images may show some gamut clipping if printed in sRGB vs a larger profile the printer (paper more accurately) is capable of. But, only some images will have information outside of sRGB (reds/yellows being the most problematic). IMHO, it is better to edit in a slightly smaller color space and optimize for that... certainly for the output.

This is the proPhoto color space (in color) compared to Kodak Endura paper.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

All three images are in sRGB...not that it matters that much. I use a MacBookPro and the available gamut is slightly less than sRGB... but it's not more... and even the very best monitors can't show proPhoto.
And that's the issue 99% of people will have... even if you use a wide gamut monitor...if you use a larger color space (like proPhoto) you cannot even see what you are working with, or what you are outputting which is why it is essential to softproof to an appropriate color space (like sRGB)...
And all color spaces of the same bit depth have the same total number of tones (256/channel in 8bit). A larger color space does not give you more colors. There are negatives if you work in a color space significantly larger than the file has (i.e. banding is problematic).

I'm not 100% certain what your plots are showing (srgb space changes shape/size) but I will agree that "some" images may show some gamut clipping if printed in sRGB vs a larger profile the printer (paper more accurately) is capable of. But, only some images will have information outside of sRGB (reds/yellows being the most problematic). IMHO, it is better to edit in a slightly smaller color space and optimize for that... certainly for the output.

NO not really - not at all actually. But then I suggested that with MBP screen (non retina I guess too?) you can simply skip that post because you won't see a difference with decent browser, or otherwise you will see very odd colours. Your monitor just can't show proper deep red color, and many others on the other extremes. So you have nothing to worry about if you don't know what you lose by converting to sRGB.

Dell U2711 on the other hand displays somewhere in between aRGB and ProPhotoRGB colour space. I can tell you that shot in sRGB looks like junk in comparison, with almost no detail in the brighter petals and washed out colours. But you can't see a better example on your system.

I am sure I can live with slightly worse color transitions compared with total loss of color and details. But I am not sure why a decent lab can't take 16bit ProPhotoRGB TIFF, convert it to 8bit printer space and click print. Why is it so bloody difficult and impossible?!

P.S. Did you consider the reference colorspace [x]RGB is in fact displayed in mesh? Same in your graph

 

[sk66]

What No?
Here's the shortened Exif for the first image (ProPhoto):
File name: 20130706-DTR_2193-2.jpg
EXIF Summary: 1/250s f/5.6 ISO200 100mm
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Photographer: Daugirdas Racys
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created: 2013:11:24 21:24:48
Exposure Time: 1/250 sec
Color Space Information: sRGB

By presenting all of them in sRGB it completely negates the viewer's monitor capability, browser, and color management.... They look exactly, and only, as presented in sRGB.

But I am not sure why a decent lab can't take 16bit ProPhotoRGB TIFF, convert it to 8bit printer space and click print. Why is it so bloody difficult and impossible?!

A lab can... But it's pointless if it's going to be printed into a smaller color gamut... you won't get back what you're expecting. That's what softproofing is about...

Dell U2711 on the other hand displays somewhere in between aRGB and ProPhotoRGB colour space

Actual or Dell said so?

(yes, I realize it's showing more than the sRGB color space, but it doesn't include "all of" either color space which may actually be printed)

I am sure I can live with slightly worse color transitions compared with total loss of color and details.

Again, it doesn't matter what your display can show you, what matters is the final display medium.... There's no reason for the "total loss" if you edit it to print correctly in the correct color space. If you simply "convert" to another profile on export, then yeah...you could loose a lot.

There really isn't much negative to printing a smaller color space into a larger one. There is no "perfect answer" but there are a lot of valid reasons for the sRGB preference...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Wrong again

What No?
Here's the shortened Exif for the first image (ProPhoto):
File name: 20130706-DTR_2193-2.jpg
EXIF Summary: 1/250s f/5.6 ISO200 100mm
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Macintosh)
Photographer: Daugirdas Racys
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created: 2013:11:24 21:24:48
Exposure Time: 1/250 sec
Color Space Information: sRGB

By presenting all of them in sRGB it completely negates the viewer's monitor capability, browser, and color management.... They look exactly, and only, as presented in sRGB.
see bellow


A lab can... But it's pointless if it's going to be printed into a smaller color gamut... you won't get back what you're expecting. That's what softproofing is about...
It is small in one areas, but larger in others. I have clearly demonstrated that and you can have a play with ColorSync yourself. Yes, C-type glossy is poor choice for some images, and average - for most. Perhaps the healthy compromise is a conclusion that you can't polish something brown and soft. On the other hand, they take the same approach to fine art inkjet prints, capable of very wide gamut reproduction and sold as that at 10-20 X cost, and then make them almost just as dull and lifeless. So what is the premium for - a stupid word giclee?


Actual or Dell said so?

(yes, I realize it's showing more than the sRGB color space, but it doesn't include "all of" either color space which may actually be printed)
IS this properly calibrated or some refurb off the shelf? Mine includes 100% sRGB and goes beyond aRGB in certain places.

Again, it doesn't matter what your display can show you, what matters is the final display medium.... There's no reason for the "total loss" if you edit it to print correctly in the correct color space. If you simply "convert" to another profile on export, then yeah...you could loose a lot.
So how can I not lose red and cyan if I am "forced" to use sRGB as intermediate - a profile that does not 100% overlap with any printer profile. I know the usual tricks to keep image away from clipping - desaturate and shift hues. Thanks, but not thanks, I may as well apply a whole instagram filter collection to my files. Simple export usually gives better results. The correct way should be editing in printer profile just before printing.

There really isn't much negative to printing a smaller color space into a larger one. There is no "perfect answer" but there are a lot of valid reasons for the sRGB preference...

again, the sRGB doesn't overlap even with the worst C-type glossy profile. The reason for sRGB preference is the uneducated end user market with sRGB limited capture devices, and it must work quite well for underexposed washed out broad daylight photos. It is a very poor excuse for pro labs on the other hand.

For a little bit of entertainment here is a desaturated screenshot (taken in my monitor color space and coverted to sRGB) of the 2 supposedly sRGB images above - the gamut doesn't clip any more in sRGB space. How do they look so different if they are identical? Whoops, they are not! Your browser may be doing the conversion for you, otherwise you would see something random. Pull out a smartphone or try an old browser if you don't believe.

Now you should hopefully see what I see if your screen is close to 100% sRGB (Many are around 60% mark - I'm not joking). So where is the detail in the top centre part of the bottom sRGB file? The orange highlight also suffered a little bit, but it is not quite as severe.

Let's find

 

[Ozei]

All three images are in sRGB...not that it matters that much.

Why do you say they're all in sRGB?

According to Photoshop CS6 on my PC the poppy images in post 20 are (from top to bottom) ProPhoto, sRGB and Adobe RGB.

 

[Ozei]

PS. Steven - are you looking at the camera's colour space by mistake? I just checked the poppy pics in various exif viewers (PhotoMe, Kuso and ExifTool) and they report:

Top pic

Color space (used by the camera) - sRGB
Profile - ProPhoto RGB​

Middle pic

Color space (used by the camera) - sRGB
Profile - sRGB​

Bottom pic

Color space (used by the camera) - sRGB
Profile - Adobe RGB​

 

[Ozei]

....Your browser may be doing the conversion for you......

Internet Exploder 10 shows no discernible difference between the three pics. Chrome and Firefox both show the difference - particularly in the middle pic.

 

[Ozei]

What is the general consensus about White Wall? They appear to be award winning pro lab and seem to offer plenty of products with all the printer/paper profiles. They are somewhat cheaper than loxley too for these big special orders.

I haven't tried White Wall but their ordinary print prices seem a lot more expensive than DSCL, e.g.

• White Wall: Lambda print on Fuji Crystal Archive DP II - £9.95 for a 16x12.
• DSCL: Fuji DP II Pro - £1.10 for a 16x12.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

I haven't tried White Wall but their ordinary print prices seem a lot more expensive than DSCL, e.g.

• White Wall: Lambda print on Fuji Crystal Archive DP II - £9.95 for a 16x12.
• DSCL: Fuji DP II Pro - £1.10 for a 16x12.

No, I wouldn't touch these small unmounted sizes, but for something bigger and more complex they have some special appeal. Maybe Loxley presentation has some edge, but WW offer colour management

 

[sk66]

again, the sRGB doesn't overlap even with the worst C-type glossy profile.

If you mean "encompass" I agree. But it certainly overlaps. But the point is that *more* of the sRGB color space is covered by the print's color space. You can certainly edit an sRGB version to print without "losses." Yes, you may not being taking advantage of all possible gamut, but you are also not feeding it stuff it can't reproduce. The end result will likely be "better."


Something "weird" is going on with the images. If I use the safari exif plugin, or save the file and use exif viewer for mac; the files report as sRGB. If I use "get info," or open in PS (bypassing ACR); the first file does indeed report as ProPhoto... If I open it in PS as ProPhoto it appears the same as here(bad). Safari/Mac/PS are color space aware, but I see little difference in the images...certainly not like your screenshot. And yes, my monitor is calibrated.
If I open it in PS and either convert to/assign sRGB or don't color manage it looks "right." If I use the ProPhoto space it looks like the sRGB image (horrible, completely clipped in the reds). If I open it without color management it looks "right," and then I can convert it any way I want without serious changes.

Normally, you only see huge differences if a file is mis-tagged or viewed w/o color management (unless the image was edited to look different in another color space)...I have no idea what's going on but I don't *think* it's on my end... If it is, I'd love to know what I've got wrong.

 

[sk66]

And here's the ProPhoto file *properly* converted to sRGB. It looks/displays, and will print fine.
(exif was stripped by upload...I apparently have no idea how to use the new gallery to embed pics)

 

[LongLensPhotography]

And here's the ProPhoto file *properly* converted to sRGB. It looks/displays, and will print fine.
(exif was stripped by upload...I apparently have no idea how to use the new gallery to embed pics)

Fantastic, except it doesn't look anything like the real flower in the field... It wasn't muddy orange but deep red

 

[sk66]

I could adjust that... That's just the color I got when I assigned the color profile of sRGB to the saved file...the "correct" proPhoto profile looked horrible.

I don't honestly know what's going on...I've used Safari and Firefox... updated both, enabled (verified) all of color management options (firefox). And checked several browser tests (i.e. http://www.color.org/browsertest.xalter http://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/ http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html). I can't find a problem on my system but the 3 images in post 20 look distinctly similar (essentially identical) and they should look notably dissimilar (based upon your screenshot).
If you're seeing things differently than I am and you're having issues with printing/color space, then I have to assume you're doing something wrong.

 

[Ozei]

..... And checked several browser tests (i.e. http://www.color.org/browsertest.xalter http://petapixel.com/2012/06/25/is-your-browser-color-managed/ http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html).

I'm not sure those browser tests mean anything.

IE10, Chrome & Firefox behave exactly the same in all three tests - whereas they behave differently when displaying the poppy images on this page.