3 steps when printing your photos. What's so difficult? Really - I'd like to know [AMA request]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ต.ค. 2023
- Making great photo prints requires a range of skills - just what aspects are the most difficult and how can I help? The three key stages of learning to print.
Help me make more printing videos - what aspects of the process give you the most trouble? How I break down what's needed for the best printing.
Printer test images: www.northlight-images.co.uk/p...
Bespoke training courses in the UK. On site 1-to- training for large format printing, colour management and fine art print production. Courses are on-site and cover just the topics you want to learn about. There is more information on the Northlight Images web site at
www.northlight-images.co.uk/c...
I'm also available to talk at photo shows and conferences - just give me a call at Northlight.
For a full index of all my videos, see:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/k...
As well as all the printing videos there, see the printing info section at Northlight images
www.northlight-images.co.uk/p...
-----------------
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page:
"Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keithcooper
-----------------
My articles and videos are always free to access.
Any help with running this channel is gratefully received.
-----------------
I also have some affiliate links which earn me a commission if used.
US Amazon photo/print gear: amzn.to/3l9vJC6
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovideo.com/?BI=2008...
Adorama: www.adorama.com/?... - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
![Checking out a printer not used for six months [Canon PRO-300]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J3NrYxnlDXg/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 5 // 100T vs PRX | FUT vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q75pv359eP4/mqdefault.jpg)
Sorry Keith - I can't help with offering problems or difficulties - I haven't had any! Your videos gave me the confidence to give home printing a try, buy a printer, get stuff set up, sit back and watch the prints come out. I haven't tried to monetise this yet but you have informative videos on that too. A big thanks for all you do by way of encouragement and assistance - you have created an incredible resource which I hope you are proud of. You should be!
Thanks - that's very kind of you!
Good video here, and great advice.👍🏻
I came to my professional photographic career a long time ago, initially as a photographic printer.
I think, aside from the mechanics of printing, two things are fundamentally important.
The first is knowing what high quality printed photography actually looks like. Without reference examples and high standards to aim at it's impossible to reliably assess ones own work and progress. So exploring and spending a lot of time with the printed work of highly regarded photographers and printers from the past is essential. At least it was, and still is, for me. My personal library includes monographs and books of work by photographers like Horst P. Horst, John Swannell, Jean Loup Sieff, Clarence Bull (also a lot of other Hollywood photographers), Lee Miller and so on. It's important to have them in good quality paper form, not on a website.
Secondly, I do think it's important to emphasise that evaluating one's own printed work depends so much on the ambient viewing conditions. It's important to make visual assessments in the best possible light, which for me ideally would be daylight, or something very close to that. Colour casts in particular are much easier to recognise and remedy in good daylight.
Edit:
Regarding difficulties and the mechanics of printing, particularly profiling monitors and/or printers/papers/inks, I do wonder if some people aren't doing it quite correctly. If it's all done correctly, and with photo editing in mind, then it shouldn't be necessary to make more than one test print, if any at all.
One of the steps in both processes, to profile a monitor and printer/paper/ink, is to turn off any other colour management system before doing anything else. So, for example, when printing test charts for profiling a particular printer/paper/ink combination, all printer colour management should be switched off. The settings to do this aren't always immediately obvious, and I'm sure sometimes they may be overlooked. The same goes for profiling a monitor, for example in Windows, and failing to permanently disable Windows colour management before starting.
Thanks - those are very good points
Firstly - thanks so much. Second: I know step-by-step is not your way, and you explain well why not. Nonetheless, you have amazing knowledge and I do hope you reconsider. A video of I am taking this photo with these settings, now printing on this paper with these settings would be interesting. For us mortals just wanting to get the basics off I think such a series would work. I also think it might make some of the rest easier to follow.................. Great videos anyway. Very much just my thoughts.
Thanks - I do appreciate that.
My concern is what software to edit/print with - I only use Bridge/ACR/Photoshop for my actual 'paying' work, and it will be on a Mac - I don't do screen recordings though.
However I will give it some thought...
Thanks Keith. I was watching an interview with Michael Kenna sometime ago where he was talking about using one film stock, one paper stock in the darkroom, processing with the same chemicals, and printing pretty much one size of print almost exclusively. Point taken. I now print on one paper, whether B&W or color, my process is dialed in and the results are predictable and consistent with very little wasted paper or ink. Strictly an avid amateur so if I’m satisfied all is well.
Thanks - not continually changing things is a good approach to take
With chemical printing, even if you use the same brands and types of film stock, paper and chemistry, each time you buy a new batch you should make test prints. Each of these variables is manufactured in batches, so each batch will have a different batch number. Manufacturing tolerances are very tight, but still not 100% from batch to batch. Colour materials and chemistry are very sensitive to the tiniest changes. Using the same brands and types just minimises the test printing and material wastage.
Testing from batch to batch of the same brand and type isn't normally necessary with digital printing. You do it once to make a profile for one printer/paper/ink combination, and that should suffice for that combination in theory for ever.
Another great video Keith. Test prints and reference prints are a weekly task for many who have entered into printing world. Paper is the main question I have for print and has been stated by others already it takes time and practice. Keep putting out the great videos full of information to help us in this form factor
Thanks!
I just typed a fairly large comment but deleted it as I'm sure my dyslexia and half a bottle of wine make for an excellent cocktail of gibberish! Nevertheless, fantastic advice as ever Keith, especially when you spoke about viewing images away from the screen, visiting exhibitions and flipping through photobooks. On that note - even though I've only viewed it through a screen - absolutely beautiful print! Thanks for sharing.
Thanks - appreciated
Keith, you're amazing, turning out actually-usefull, actually-interesting videos, one after the other!
Thanks!
I still use a rather ancient Canon Pro 1 printer and the best bit of advice I was ever given was by the Canon stand at the Photo Show and that was to stop printing through Photoshop. So I did what they suggested and bought Mirage rip software and now print exclusively though that. My prints emerge exactly like the monitor image, which I calibrate regularly. I always struggled to get accurate prints via PS and now every time I get an accurate print. Today I made a print after the printer had lain idle for four months, all I did was do a nozzle check and a cleaning cycle and it came out perfect again. I could never do that with any Epson printer I owned. Many thanks Keith for all the information you put out.
Yes, mirage is good - I've not tested it for a few years though.
Probably something I'll leave for the new Epson P5300 when one turns up...
Thank you for continuing to send out this message.
My comment is - when you process an image in lightroom or acr/photoshop you make a variety of adjustments until are pleased with the end result. When you then print that image, you almost always need to make further adjustments until you are happy with the print. This due to the ink set, paper, viewing conditions etc. I usually make 3 or 4 'adjustment' prints until I am happy to make a full size, final print. No amount of additional (printer profiling) patches or proofing is going to give you a perfect (happy with) print - at least in my (a bit OCD) experience.
Yes - that's very reasonable. I find that with practice, it's the number of such test prints which can be much reduced.
I find printing very enjoyable since I got the hang of it. Thanks to you, Jose Rodriguez and some other resources, I have learned a lot about printing. Basically, you guys have said it all. All you have to do, is watch your videos, practice and experimenting. I print now about 1000 prints/year on my Canon Pro 1000, ranging from A4 to A2 and panos up to 120cm in length. Yes, there is a learning curve, but so it is with many other subjects. Once you understand the difference of the print media and screen, calibrate everything, you learn quickly how to adjust your images for printing. And yes, it is not enough to print just a view prints every now and then. It needs practising.
Thanks - yes, practice is key!
Hi Keith - two topics I am currently interested in are (i) storing and protecting your paper (pre- and post- printing) - do you use any special containers to prevent them from dings and scratches, and (ii) how serious an issue is dust in the home (not Dickensian levels of dust, just the usual household ambient dust) and any dust mitigation measures you use. Looking forward to other Q+A topics.
The desk you see in the video is actually one of several map/plan chests I have - full of prints - many interleaved with archival tissue paper.
Dust is dust - the biggest problem is in my specialist macro photography when I reckon I've half an hour before some noticeable dust lands on the subject ;-)
Good advice Keith.
Thank
I thoroughly enjoy your videos. I've just purchased the Epson ET-8500, looking forward to playing around and perfecting my prints :)
Thanks - see my written reviews for lots more
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8550-printer-review/ and
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-et-8500-printer-review/
[the printers are identical other than width]
What I think usually fails more is the difference between the brightness of retroiluminated pixels in the screen and actually the "not so bright" outcome in paper
Yes, this is the fundamental reason that trying to get prints to 'exactly' match a screen is a futile task. This is the bit where I often get people ask 'then why bother with all this colour management stuff..."
I find printing from Lightroom a struggle, to the point that I no longer bother. I now output my image as a tiff file and print directly from Canon's print software package to my Canon PRO-200 and I'm very satisfied with the results. I find this workflow gives me consistent and predictable results. Incidentally I find the PRO-200 an excellent printer and a lot less fussy than my old Epson R3000. Y
Yes - the LR approach tries to do too much 'to help' for my liking, making it less predictable [YMMV as ever]
Hi Keith,
The thing that is difficult about printing is precisely the fact that prints don't look like the screen. Therefore, there is no point of reference. You said that if you can print a good test image... good? What constitutes good? What is my reference point? How do I know if it's good? There are too many variables: Different papers render differently, different printers render differently, as do print settings, etc. One has to gain a lot of experience to get a feel for things to become a good printer. That's expensive both in time and money. Printing is its own discipline I'd rather spend my time photographing, rather than fiddling with the printer and leave the printing to those who specialize in the discipline.
In which case, send the prints out for printing?
My stuff here is decidedly meant for people who do want the 'hassle' of getting into this ;-) I always accept it's not for everyone...
A test image like the one I generally suggest has all sorts of features which are there to show up potential issues [listed on the download page] - it does rely on a fairly good eye though. There are alternative 'by the numbers' approaches to editing [see the work of Dan Margulis for example] for those who want more 'precision'.
Despite printing for a couple of years, I’m still struggling with prints that are too dark, don’t have the punch I see with the digital file, and are partly missing the warmth/saturation which appears at the screen. My display is calibrated, adjusted to 110 candela, and I’m using custom paper profiles. Maybe there are just limitations with paper prints…
Additionally I have specific issues with my P900: Print not perfectly positioned, gloss differentiation etc.
Partly solved by spray, but this changes paper characteristics.
A few quick suggestions...
For darkness - print a test image - have it open elsewhere in the screen when you edit - use it to calibrate your own perception of brightness for printing.
Also try a warmer calibration of your monitor for example 6000K at 90 or 100 cd/m2
As to print warmth - try printing on a different paper - an OBA free one for example - profiles are about getting the best from a printer/paper combination, not about making all prints look the same
As to the 900 positioning - that's likely print settings/software - I just can't say which.
Gloss differentiation - different paper or a different printer :-)
@@KeithCooper Thank you so much, Keith. I will follow these very helpful instructions!
Hi Keith! So I stumbled on to your TH-cam channel while trying to figure out if was worth my time to try to get my Canon PIXMA Pro9000 Mark II working again or buy a new printer for photos. So I decide that my older Pro9000 MK II was not worth the trouble, and B&H Photo had the Canon PIXMA Pro-200 for $200 off for their cyber week sales. After the printer arrived, I set it up and got it ready. Then I downloaded the color test image from your website, followed all the instructions as you talked about and used the Canon software to print the test image. The printed image came out absolutely beautiful! I used a letter size sheet of Canon Luster Pro (came with the printer) and I was so very pleased at the outcome. Thanks for all you help and guidance, I'll stay subscribed to get more knowledge from you! Thanks!
BTW, the old Canon PIXMA Pro9000 Mark II went to the trash!
Glad it helped.
If you've not seen it, do check the main [written] PRO-200 review. It links to all my related articles/videos
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-200-printer-review/
Hi Keith, I recently purchased a Epson P-700 and am very happy with it. However, setting it up difficult. Epson provided very few instructions. I was able to view some of your videos which were helpful. I eventually found a Epson youtube channel that gave detailed instructions
Glad it helped - I've much more info in the main [written] review if you've not seen it
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p700-printer-review/
Hi Keith, I make prints and the process I follow works for me.
I find it difficult to select paper/paper types and media profiles. I am not yet experienced in printing. Choosing a paper for a specific image based on the paper description alone is difficult. But I think that's normal, you try a lot.
Choosing the right or suitable profile is also difficult! When I look at the profile provided by the manufacturers, I noticed that usually there is no clear relationship between paper type and profile. Retesting is also required
My own preference is to initially limit paper choices for any new printer, get them 'right' and then look to expand the range. A big difficulty is that you are try to get through a lot of 'marketing' materials ;-)
I do have some videos on paper types, but it is indeed a matter of finding a process you are comfortable with.
Thank you for your videos. I bought a Canon Pro300 after researching with your TH-cam and a couple of others. The printer works very well with my images and some old photo paper laying around. The ICCs from Canon work well and I use a Macbook Pro X, which can handle my editing in PS and the screen is fine uncalibrated with just the Apple settings. The biggest problem I had was getting Canon networking protocols to work with MAC OS 14 Sonoma. There were bugs in the print layout SW, and the drivers and installers take hand holding. I finally had to give the SW the IP address to find because the Canon networking SW hangs up with the Apple Bonjour newwork protocol and errors off. Printer works very well. Canon network SW is poor. I have not printed directly from PS yet, but will see how that works next.
Thanks for that.
The new Mac I have has MacOS 13 on it and that' just different enough to regularly catch me out still [feels too much like a phone/ipad in areas]
I'll not touch 14 for a while - 35 years of supporting/using Macs has taught me not to update 'production' machines until I have to ;-)
It's totally amazing how few people understand even the most basic difference between screen and print, this simple thing that the print reflects the light that exists, where you are, when you are there, and the screen*EMITS LIGHT*, light that is independent of where and when (ok, some dependence on the illumination adaptation of your "visual system"!), so that it is very, very difficult to "soft proof" for every possible environment that you will view the print in!
I constantly ran into this when some "designer" wanted an LED indicator, or decorative feature, to be "Pantone xxyy Sakura"..argh!
Sorry, but this difference between reflected colour and emitted colour is such a key to failure in matching screen to print!
So true... I make no apologies for regularly mentioning this whenever I talk about printing ;-)
I do understand the difference between screen and print... but. I need you to explain how you go about systematically making the "allowances" you speak about so you can repeatedly make those same allowances on an entirely different print and not waste paper. From print to print, I get widely different results.
There is no systematic approach to this that I can give - all the best printmakers I've discussed this with put it down to practice, experience [and test images] and a willingness to waste some paper... It's important to know why the images that didn't work failed as well as those that do work.
There is a by-the-numbers editing approach that works for some - do a search for info from Dan Margulis. Not an approach I choose, but can work well.
I have begun to print small (like 4 X 6) test images of the image I want to print large and then I adjust the image in Photoshop to compensate. Also, I believe in Photoshop there is a compensation section? or is that in Lightroom? Perhaps Keith could comment on the idea of using compensation (I believe there is an exposure compensation?).
My own choice is most often a simple curve adjustment with a lift of the midpoint in PS - there is no 'compensation' section AFAIK. Then again I've been using Photoshop for 25 years, so many of my choices are the basic tools
One problem with this is that there are always a multitude of ways of achieving the same results, so I'm very aware that what I do may not be 'best' just that it works for me ;-) @@MLC48
I will try and come up with some more 'worked' examples though
The difficulty I have with printing is that when researching a device it's nearly impossible to get pertinent information on device media gamut, driver or RIP availability and capabilities. It's like the marketing departments know nothing about the process.
As far as the average person what I see is that many times the creators do not understand the need to purchase select equipment. Using low end laptops or displays and uncontrolled work environments increases the problems with expectations and print output.
If you're going to create images and quality and repeatable prints are important you'll have to do som investment in equipment, your training and work environment.
I have my studio lit to 6,500 Kelvin, all windows blocked with double thick curtains. I use a studio display with a custom device ICC Profile. I've developed a work flow that allows the use of one color space and one file format to allow my work to move between all my applications in a color managed process. I make sure that any application, plug-in or file format does not produce a color shift.
The most common mistakes I see is a multitude posterized DMAX areas and a multitude of blown out LMIN areas.
Not everyone wants to be that thorough, or has the resources if I'm fair.
I'd personally hate working in an office lit at 6500K - I was happy with ordinary tungsten lightbulbs and reluctantly moved to 4000K LEDs. There are many ways of optimising workflows without going over the top
No-one at the sales dept's has gamut info - that's just not available for almost any of the sorts of kit I look at.
Once you get at a level where you are looking at RIPs and commercial print setups then it's different, but if I'm honest I'm not aiming at that sort of audience here - that come with my 'paid advice' ;-)
As I said, I have two prices, full price and free. This is the 'free' level ;-)
@@KeithCooper I have no problem getting prints that satisfy me if I can get to the production staff and get the information I need to send proper test files.
Unfortunately the customer service staff knows little to nothing and in some cases lie to me.
I look for production facilities that can print the Adobe RGB gamut and who create their own media profiles.
I work in Prophoto RGB, convert to Adobe RGB and send out color managed TIF files, JPG files or PDF files.
Yes - sometimes you have to fight your way past 'sales' ;-)
The number one problem I experienced with inkjet printers was, the printhead blocking up through under use.
It's better with some current printers, but no, they don't like being left unused
i have learnt alot from your videos, to the point i've bought new printer. monitor and a data colour spyder lol. my printing has improved a 100 fold. but what i still suffer with is out of gamut colours, particularly some highlights but mostly blacks. blacks cause me stress 🤐
Thanks
Black can not normally be out of gamut? - have a look at rendering intents and using BPC
Also a lot depends on what software and system you are printing from...
when i say black is out of gamut i mean when i have the gamut warning on when softproofing it shows in the blacks. i do use BPC and i use affinity photo. personally i think its me the way i like to edit, i am very new to printing. i think at some point i will need the 1 to 1 service sooner or later lol
@@KeithCooper
Ah - I've not tested printing from affinity in any detail (I will do when I next get a desktop printer to test)
My own suggestion is always to minimise soft proofing usage - only just when really needed
Try printing a known test image from within affinity - no editing, just print it.
will do and thank you @@KeithCooper
Hey Keith - thank you for all of the time and effort you put into creating these videos, and your willingness to share your knowledge and experience. My biggest challenge, by far, is getting consistent borders. If I send a 5x7 for example with 1/4 inch borders, the front edge will start at 1/4 inch, but skew to something like 3/16 inch. It does this consistently, and from both Epson Print Layout and Lightroom. And consistent meaning 1/8 inch border will start on the front edge at 1/8 inch, but finish at 3/32 inch. In EPL, I have tried just about evey combination of settings, but it consistently comes out skewed. To be sure, I’ve experienced this on both my old(er) P800, and the P700 (bought using your B&H link) which I received and tested yesterday. I’m at a point where I am wondering if this is just inherent to printing in general or, at least, Epson printers.
Have you tried making custom paper sizes [and working in millimetres]
This is something I've not tested, but will add it to the list next time I get a suitable Epson printer to test.
I'd also suggest asking on the printing forum at DPReview.com
same for me
@@KeithCooper Thank you for your reply. I haven't tried that (custom sizes), but am going to as I'd really like to know if that works. I have been all over the internet looking for a fix. I have been able to find references to it being a problem, but I've not seen a "and this is how I fixed it". I will try your other suggestion too and post the question directly. I will post an update so that if there are other people like @robinjones6999 (and I did wonder for a bit if it was just something I was doing), they'll know the outcome. Interestingly, some of the references I have seen have come from people who moved to the Canon Pro 1000 and, with that, stated they are no longer seeing skewed prints (suggests the vacuum feed is better here maybe??).
Update: printing with a custom-sized paper (and in mm) still displays the same issue. To be sure, this is again on 5x7-inch paper. I very likely will move off of this size for future testing.
Resolved. There is a "skew check" setting on the P800 that is off by default. It also does not show up in a search of the user manual (I found it by accident). Turning that on worked. I am unable to test this on the P700 as it's been boxed up to be shipped back (it arrived with a clogged print head that I was unable to clean with the ink that was left from the initialization).
ive been a photographer for a handful of years now and just recently bought a canon pro 300. the purpose was to finally stop hoarding files on my phone and to have them in the apartment as a gallery to enjoy. yes i could have easily just went onto an online photo lab and order prints but its more in why wheelhouse to learn about a process and be as involved in it as i can. the main problem so far has been printing images that turn out way too dark for the lighting in the apartment. i have to drastically re edit them to fit the apartment environment to how they appear on my phone. i just need a more streamlined process that would alleviate some of the guess work.
Yes - phone screens are designed to look good as phones - in general they are fairly useless for any accuracy or predictability.
A simple curves adjustment is often all it takes [in Photoshop] - If you're printing from a phone I can't help a lot, but I did test it in the original [written] review
www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-pro-300-printer-review/
@KeithCooper I appreciate the reply. I know it's very common to increase brightness on a file before printing it. I was just curious if it's certain aspects that usually need to be adjusted before printing from digital media. Like say brightness saturation and maybe sharpening like you've noted in this video
Phone images have generally already been processed a lot, so sharpening needs doing with care.
Other factors depend on the phone and the image - the biggest problem is that phones produce images to look good on phones - an awful lot of mush can lurk in the details when it comes to printing at any size
@KeithCooper well they're my dslr images processed in lightroom on my phone if that helps any
Thank you for your many helpful videos. Since I started watching your channel I have purchased an Epson 8550 and I use Epson paper and inks, with the Epson print layout software. Very pleased with the consistent results thus far. Is there anything to be gained from printing from a 14 Bit TIFF file as opposed to an 8 Bit JPEG?
I know you dislike LR, can I ask what do you use to manage your image library? I imagine that it is quite extensive by now.
A final question, can you do a video on printing directly from Photoshop. I am paying for the thing with my subscription, perhaps I should put it to some use.
Glad it's of interest. I've not got any images I want to print, where the difference would be noticeable, as a print file. The differences come if you want to edit files at all.
See many of the printer review related videos, where I often print from PS. I don't however do any specific guides, due to me using only Macs and often not the latest version of PS ;-)
Id like to understand colour grading... love your videos not long started watching as we have just brought an epson ET 8550... Thank you for sharing
Thanks
What do you actually mean by colour grading? That's a term I only know of in connection with video?
H Keith, Well I have wedding photos that have been taken by an amature/profetional and they obviously dont have a colour board in them. (Im also a 50year old amature at photoediting) Im struggling to find the "real" colours when adjusting for Colourful lighting or shadows or just poor quality. I know my monitor doesnt help because im not seeing on screen what the printer see's. So I was wondering if theres a trick to find the colours withought a colour board to make the image right before adding fancy effects...Thank you for your reply...@@KeithCooper
Ah maybe I mean Colour Correction?
Ah, colour retouching is a very different skill set. Not something I've ever covered. Do a search on photo re-touching, there's bound to be plenty of related stuff on youtube @@darknightstudio2543
One of the simple, but annoying challenges I run into is dust spots on the paper. It can ruin an otherwise perfect print. Any tips to keep printer clean and/or clean sheets when loading? Any way to salvage these prints?
I have a feather duster I'll wipe over the surface of larger sheets of paper.
I've also been known to use a [small] leaf blower for blowing dust out of printers ;-)
Spotting kits used to be a thing in darkroom days. A range of sharp point felt tip pens may be of help, but I find it very tricky to get a match and not make things worse.
More irksome are flaking surface coatings, but that seems less of a problem in recent years
I have to say, following your videos for over a year, what used to be daunting is becoming easier and easier. Like everything else, practice and experimentation helps a lot, so one needs to be ready to “waste” (or rather invest) a lot upfront to build up the knowledge necessary. One area that still evades me mostly is to predict what paper will work well with what print for what purpose. I use Red River papers but the brand is irrelevant, I still have a hard time picking the type of surface, the type of paper, the type and amount of whitening etc… I think I’ll land on 3 papers that I like and produce reliable results for me, but I wonder if I am missing anything.
Glad it's been of interest!
One problem is that you need experience to see what papers work best.
Far better IMHO to stick to a few basic sorts - yes, the paper does make a difference, but often no-where near the amount people are hoping for
If you can't make a reasonably good print of an image on a basic lustre or basic 'art' paper, it's highly likely the issue is nothing to do with the choice of paper/printer ;-)
@@KeithCooper you make a good point. I always optimize the file to get the best print I can on their photo lustre first. Until I get that right, I don't bother with anything else. What I still have a hard time with, is predicting how things will differ (and more importantly how I will react to the differences) when I go from photo luster to metallic, or Baryta Fine Art (whatever that means), or a textured rag. Like you said, experience is key. The one thing I'll say, is that getting back into printing last year has really brought back meaning to my photography - it takes a lot more time, it demands a lot more effort, it forces me to be a lot more self-critical and pick the few images that deserve printing, but it's so much more rewarding in the end than posting 20 shots a day on a website...
I try and keep examples of my test images for papers/printers, which does help me a bit - but as you say experience and looking at the print is the key
Hi Kieth, a question that runs through my head sometime is about the top feed vs rear feed of my printer (Canon Pro-300). Is there any benefit of sending a top loading paper through the rear feed?
Some papers go through the top while others require the rear based on manufacturer's icc profiles. There doesn't seem to be any clear cut reason why one goes through the top or bottom outside of the very thick papers going through the rear.
I also wonder about profiling papers on that note. Would there be any benefit to re-profiling a top loading paper using a rear loading paper type instead? For instance profiling a third party art paper using a rear feed fine art paper like "Premium Fine Art Smooth" as the base for the icc instead of a top feed "Matte Photo Paper" as the base.
Some media settings require one or the other slot - in my PRO-300 review I think almost all the papers I tried went in the top [see the main written review]
For profiling, it's worth doing a media settings test on some papers - you need a media test image and print it as a profiling target.
See this article for quite a while ago, but updated with a video ;-)
www.northlight-images.co.uk/why-media-settings-are-vital-in-your-printer-profiling/
Hi Keith, been following for a while and soaking in what knowledge I can.
I have just got into printing with the purchase of an Epson 906.
The files I am printing are quite large, 2gb+ from 4x5 film scans. I am down sizing my prints to 720ppi before printing (I realise the exact ppi doesn't matter these days). The thing I am finding difficult is judging the right amount of sharpening for a print, particularly when a file has a higher ppi. For example when inspecting the image on screen at higher ppi at 100% I assume we would be seeing much further into the image than what the print size would be.
I raise this because on of my prints in particular I thought looked ok for print actually printed out overly sharp. I dialled things back a bit and printed again, it was still sharp but made a better looking print.
As I mentioned I am only just starting out and barely made a handful of prints, so I have a lot to learn yet. Really enjoying seeing my work in another dimension though.
Sharpening of scanned film is quite different to digital images, so a lot of tools and what you see about sharpening is potentially wrong.
See this article from a while ago, making a big print from an old scanned negative
www.northlight-images.co.uk/jane-fonda-and-me/
Old fashioned sharpening techniques in Photoshop still have their place - that said, careful use of Nik Sharpener Pro is still a favourite
@@KeithCooper Thanks Keith, I'll have a read of the article.
although I try to edit (in softProofing) with the printer profile and paper I'm going to use. My photos always print darker than how I see them on the monitor that I think I've calibrated as it should be. Which makes it so that in osft Canon print & layout I always have to increase the print quality by 5 or more. It's something I'm still fighting for until I find the problem.
Try a dimmer monitor - say 90 or 100cd/m2
This is a topic I'll definitely be returning to...
@@KeithCoopergood example of this and also goes back to my comment on the last video about the local camera store not giving any information away, i edited on a monitor that wasn't calibrated again for 12-18 mths and its brightness was set to default of 100(Max brightness) after calibration and several tests the brightness actually needed to be as low as 15 to get prints looking as they should and similar as on screen(you know what i mean hahaha) yes you read right, 15.
Your monitor maybe set too bright. Try turning the monitor down to the lowest 1/3rd of the bright value. Paper is reflective, your monitor has light blasting through it making it difficult to judge. Wind down the luminance and that should help.
Hello Keith, I usually use Lightroom. In Lightroom I sharpen the image (sometimes locally). When I print the image (on an Epson sc P700) do I have to sharpen again?
I don't use LR at all so I can't say for sure...
My suggestion is to find an image with lots of fines detail and print twice - once with additional sharpening and once not?
It's the 'do it all for me' approach of Lightroom that is one aspect which irks me ;-)
Hey Keith, look up the US drummer Dale Crover from the Melvins and Nirvana. You both look like brothers! :)
My wife says not so... ;-)
Super video idea Keith and one that couldn’t have been timed better for myself. I am having trouble getting prints from Photoshop and/or Lightroom - they always come out with either a magenta cast or warm tone. Using the same profile and paper with the Canon Print & Layout software my prints are spot on, however I find the Canon software fiddly and it often crashes on me. I have sent you an accompanying email explaining this in greater detail.
Looks like something wrong in the editing software/driver setup with respect to profiling - Mac or PC? [If PC I can't add much since I've not used one for 20+ years ;-) ]
@@KeithCooper Mac (with the latest software). Any other software I have tried comes out absolutely fine but I’ve recently started to move from Capture One back to Adobe so I would much prefer to print from Lightroom or Photoshop in an ideal world.
Is the driver the correct one, rather than 'Airprint'
@@KeithCooper No AirPrint, thanks to your previous material I was able to make sure I rid myself of any AirPrint shenanigans
I precisely edit my images on my monitor to exactly how I want them to look. In 2014 I got an epson 3880 and spent months of cursing and swearing chasing my tail to get my prints to be even close to my calibrated monitor. Stopped printing a year til I heard of the color monki calibrator that sets my monitor brightness. I started editing with all the blinds drawn here in sunny Florida. I then let it set monitor brightness and calibrate. Then I used it to create custom profiles. Bingo, now I don't need test prints, they match the monitor. Now on larger prints, will do a crop of the full sized image and print a 5x7 half page to check sharpening and might print the whole image on the other half. But consistent room ambient when editing, calibrated and monitor brightness set and custom profiles changed my printing. Oh, and the damned 3880 won't die so I use it for lower gamut pastelly shots on mat paper, and my p7000 for high color gamut, larger prints on less expensive roll paper.
Yes - consistency in lighting and viewing conditions will go a long way towards predictable output.
I would like to know at what size do you see the difference between Aps-c, full frame, and Medium format in a print? Do you have any processing recommendations for image quality and sharpening, or is it dependent on the lab, if you have to order prints instead of owning a larger format printer.
It depends on the lenses and the subject matter - there absolutely isn't a hard and fast answer to this.
As to sharpening, that depends on the print service - the better ones will happily tell you about this.
@@KeithCooper ok. Worth inquiry anyway. I appreciate your help.
I do have some articles/videos about large prints - but they are all for doing it yourself.
I've had a lab wanting to discuss this so it may feature more at some point, but definitely no ETA for it...
@@KeithCooper Great . Thanks as always.. Love what you do and I am always benefiting from your expertise!
Hi Keith, thanks so much for always offering such generous information on printing. I did buy the P90 and I must tell you that after one year it was out of warranty. I’ve had nothing but problems with it. They can’t fix it and they’re telling me to go to the service person and that guy thinks it’s the hardware in the computer. In other words I bought a lemon have you ever heard of this? also, the problem I’m getting is I updated the firmware and everything went bad after that and although it’s updated, it keeps telling me I need to update the firmware Epson said not to do it. The other thing is it’s stay stuck in recognizing the ink and then starting up. It’s in this recovery mode and drains the ink out. Epson had to replace all the inks. Have you ever heard of this problem happening.sorry to go off topic but because you review them, I figure you might know or have insight to these sort of problems
Sorry to hear that - I've not seen this, but I only get machines for a month or so on loan [I cannot afford to buy kit and anyway, I would not be allowed to live in a printer warehouse ;-) ]
I had one turn up broken, but that was the shipping company's fault.
I would love to understand the steps on sending things out to be printed via a printing service
Thanks - I have been asked about this a few times. However I've never had prints made for me.
That said I have had some enquiries about looking further into this and it's 'on the list' - just cant give an ETA I'm afraid.
A: I'm super picky, so it's hard for me to just say "that looks great" during the editing process (primarily DxO PhotoLab and sometimes Nik or Topaz), as I often second guess my choices ("maybe a little more red filter effect, a touch coarser grain, or bring up that Zone 3 area to Zone 4"). That was always the problem when I painted as well--knowing when to stop (and we're mainly talking abstract in both cases, so there's often no "objective" standard to try and match)! At least with photography, I can easily make multiple variations and see what makes the best print (according to the paper, lighting, and my mood, of course).
B: Related to A, there are so many paper choices out there, so not only determining which type to use (luster, baryta, metallic, etc.), but which brand can be daunting. I know that there's not likely a significant difference between, say, Epson-branded paper (most of which goes through my P900) and Canson, Hanne, Red River, etc., but I still want the best (for me), and that's hard to determine, as it would take more testing than I'm up for. I need to remind myself that "good enough should be good enough" and stick with what's worked so far, rather than trying to find the mythical "perfect" anything. So far, primarily using Epson Print Layout and the "official" ICC profiles has produced great-looking prints, so maybe worrying isn't necessary and I should simply press on. I must say that, thanks to your channel (and articles), I feel much more confident than I did before, so thanks again for that!
Glad to have helped!
I'd note that many paper choices only come from the people selling you paper ;-)
I wonder if this whole screen vs. print thing is one of the really tough calls in getting a good print... like a projected transparency, there is just so much dynamic range in a scene on a good monitor, that it's almost always disappointing to see a print coming from the printer? Maybe it's hard for us mortals to appreciate the "transfer curve" that happens between screen and print??
Paper selection, too, is maybe a difficult one to understand; as you've probably pointed out repeatedly, surface finish, brighteners, base colour, all of these (and more) affect the print look and feel... Is the "soft proof" function good enough to cover some of these things "ok", fairly well, or very well?
For myself it comes from actually looking at prints and seeing how the range of tones you can get affects the look of the print. I only use soft proofing sparingly - when I want to see how a paper/profile will influence particular areas of a print. It's very much a special purpose use, not something I'd consider using regularly - I think many place too much reliance on it, and never really look at prints as something in their own right.
Hi Keith , thank you for this video, and yes i do love to print but i still get hit and mis results, I have an Eizo self calibrating monitor which is calibrated regularly one problem i have is when i print an image with a blue sky the blue is always so much darker than what i see on the screen , have you any thoughts or advice on this .
Thanks
Quite a few possible reasons - the monitor could be calibrated - but to a too bright level.
Depends too on the printer and quality of ICC profiles for the paper.
Get a known good test image [such as the datacolor one on the Northlight site] and print to see how well the basic print setup is going.
@KeithCooper Thank you Keith I'll do that, but just a little more info I'm using an Epson P900 , monitor setting are 60 cdm 600 kelvin canson Prestige 2.
What are you printing form software wise? Have you tried using EPL. Try different rendering intents when printing too
See www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p900-printer-review/
Also those numbers in your post just look wrong?
@KeithCooper ok thank you Keith , ime using color edge 7, but I will lookinto it a bit more thank you.
I see a comment below about printheads clogging with lack of use. I recently bought an 8550, would you have any guidance, if I were to do a print once a week as “anti-clogging preventative maintenance“ how large it would need to be to be confident that I’m keeping the nozzles clear? If I were, for example, to use one of your test Images to make sure all the colours are being used, would 4 x 6 inches be enough, or should I go all the way to 8 by 10 - and how would I be sure the pigment black is also getting used?
And while I’m at it thanks for all your videos - especially, in my case, all the 8550 ones.
The nozzle check pattern fires all nozzles. It's all use on the P5000 here - a printer much less forgiving of lack of use. A sheet of plain paper can be used several times...
Perfect! I was afraid a nozzle check might not move enough ink to thoroughly clean the nozzles. Good to know I can keep things flowing without having to waste too much ink.
Thanks again.
Hey Keith, have you ever tried running water over a print on glossy paper? For my prints it really enhances the blacks and colors of my prints.Is this a thing? :D
Only for water resistant papers - I have difficulty in seeing any positive outcome for most papers
Hi Keith, I believe you said some time ago you were using Photoshop 6. Have you installed 6 on your new Studio or have you upgraded ?
Thanks.
2023 on my main Mac [10.15 intel] , 2024 on the Mac Studio [13.3]. CS6 is still on the MacBook Pro [10.13 intel] ;-)
Still working out the details of how the Studio moves to the other end of the office and becomes my main editing machine.
Keith, have you tried, in any depth, Affinity Photo?
(Please excuse me if I missed one that you have done)
Yes, but not in any detail - 25 years of Photoshop use will do that ;-)
I do have it on the Mac Studio, so will give it another look over, but not for tutorial purposes - there are many who've spent a lot of time trying stuff out in detail.
How do you differentiate between HDR displays SDR displays and print mediums while editing a photo?
I simply don't use HDR displays - they have no part [AFAIK] in any photo print making process
There is enough of a mismatch in dynamic range between a normal display and what print can manage without making it massively worse ;-)
Hi Keith. Right now I am dealing with the following issue: I have a client that just got an Epson P900 printer. We have set it up and are using all the settings as accurate as I can tell. This photographer has an Apple studio display. We have calibrated it at various white points and luminance settings, but it always appears that the monitor displays images, much brighter, and more open than what appears on the printer. I have also tested it with another monitor an EZIO. Is it just that it will always appear to be more open and brighter on a monitor than on a printer? By the way we are using the black overcoat setting on the printer is that something we should turn off? Thanks very much.
Print a known test image?
The BO coat is of very variable utility IMHO - See my main [written] p900 review
www.northlight-images.co.uk/epson-sc-p900-printer-review/
Keith, I find it very challenging to adjust the processing of an image to compensate for the unique aspects of the location where the print will be displayed. Quite a frustrating ordeal at times.
I do have some prints of test images but printed with adjustments [curves with a lift to the centre]
I'll look a a video for this
@@KeithCooper Also please consider issues of WB.
WB with respect to what?@@xraydelta1
@@KeithCooper The colors in the print are affected by the ambient WB (color temperature). I suppose that proper display of a print could involve using the proper color temperature of lighting rather than reliance on room light. Perhaps this is a no-win situation which might explain my frustration.
The 'official' way would be to create a light source measurement for the construction of the icc profiles. So you specify a custom illuminant rather than D50 -
I have mentioned this in some of my written articles/reviews.
This works for fluorescent lighting for example - it is vastly over the top and something I'd only do if I knew I was getting VERY well paid for the print
Completely pointless most of the time - people's eyesight is very adaptive
Oh and custom illuminants work as long as no-one updates the lighting system or the sun comes out ;-)
Hello Keith. My photos always have the colorite checker and the screen is calibrated with the spider software and edited photoshop adobe RGB 1998 profile. The tonal range is very good on the prints; colour and black-and-white. The actual colours on the paper are 95% of the screen, so again I’m very happy with that. The nature images in which greens yellows Browns, come out very well, a few portrait pictures, redheads, red dresses et cetera, the skintone is taking a ghastly yellow colour cast. The paper by the way is it photospeed pf lustre, which is been calibrated With their custom ICC profile for that paper (i test print and send to them rto create the profile.) So everything is matched. If I stop using Photoshop to print and get the printer driver to match with generic paper profile, then the skin and reds come back somewhat but its not perfect. Shall I get another calibration done on the photospeed paper? Do you think why the nature of images printing is good but the skin tones not? Oh its a Canon Pro 10. Old but gold.
There are quite a few areas of the camera>print chain where this could arise. A better profile may help - have a chat with them and ask if they've had this issue before.
Other things to look at are your choice of rendering intent?
You may benefit from exporting to print and then using the Canon printer software or a 3rd party software such as Qimage to overcome your issues. There are tutorials that show the negative impact of PS and LrC on print output in workflow, apparently there is something to do with the way these programs send the data to the printer or how the printer interprets the data from the Adobe 3rd party software that causes problems particularly with accurate colour reproduction to match calibrated screens even despite softproofing with relevant icc profiles. If the Canon software doesn't sort the problems out for you, use the free trial of Qimage and see what your results look like. If you follow this suggestion, please kindly let us know your experience. 😊
I've never come across any problems printing via PS [on Macs]
If you're on a win PC then do check if the Canon software works - QI is an option and may work better with an old printer
Just remember that you can never really match prints and screens and that soft proofing is but a useful adjunct, never a tool to use on ever single image - but I've loads of videos on that side of things ;-)@@noodles1m
@KeithCooper Interestingly the comparison outputs of canon/epson print software vs PS vs LrC demonstrate progressively poorer screen:print output matching. I thought this was particularly interesting and surprising given PS and LrC both come from the same software developer. There is a great recorded webinar by a chap called Glyn Dewis about this.
I'm thankful for all the great and informative content on your website and channel Keith 👍🏻
Thanks for the advice. Do either of you know where I can source a lightbox for viewing prints? Akin so something on a wall thats displays prints. We have judges inspect our prints but the light we have is awful glare. There must be a solution for viewing prints like this? I`m sure i have seen an illuminated box you put prints in to examine@@noodles1m
I really enjoy all of your printing videos and information. You repeatedly mention Epson Print Layout as being your preferred application for printing however it does not list the Epson ET-8550 as a supported printer. Here in the USA anyway. I just use Lightroom Classic and keep trying to move forward.
With respect to color management I totally understand why you have to be very fussy with respect to it in your professional work. However, how much attention do you pay to it for personal work? I can't imagine a slight shift in the greens, or some other color, in your lovely woodland seen as terribly concerning. As a side note I hope you go back and capture the same photo again when the colors have changed.
Finally. Would you consider the print from the TC-20 as framable for display?
Thanks
Ignore what Epson US says about compatibility! - it absolutely does work [see my use of it in reviews] If it has issues on Macs, just make sure you don't have the airprint version of the printer driver selected.
A good point about 'personal' work - it's a habit, so no extra work. I trust my screens enough to adjust to look broadly right. Every so often a print will surprise me in some way [global contrast or specific colour responses] if it does, I try and make a point of finding out why, rather than instantly going back to editing. Or it may be that a particular print just works better at a larger size or smaller.
The image in this print even at 24" square still looks a little busy for example. I'll try this image when next testing a big printer and see if it's better at 44" or 60" square [my printer testing lets me experiment with other people's printers/paper/ink!].
I wouldn't personally frame the TC-20M prints on this lustre paper - perhaps on an art paper.
Differences are not huge - many would like it just fine. I get to test some pretty good printers though so would see issues whenever i walked past it ;-)
If I've still got the 30mm TS lens I'll go back!
Thanks for the very speedy reply. I'm just an enthusiast who believes that the print is the ultimate destination of ones best work. I'd like to be able to print larger than 13". The price of ink gets to be a factor in larger printers along with frequency of use (clogged printer heads etc). That is why your work with the TC-20 is engaging. While one could get prints that might impress fellow photographers out of other photo printers I'd hope the the average person looking at a print from the TC-20 would think it is really good - aesthetic considerations aside.
Oh yes - the TC-20M would be absolutely fine for many uses. You would ideally have to get some printer profiles produced, since Canon doesn't supply them.
It's an excellent solution in any ways - sheet only up to A3 though.
Does any of this apply to people who just use basic 4 color printers.
The print in front of me is made on a four colour printer [TC-20M] ;-)
So, yes, but the technical stage just takes a bit more effort.
Hi Keith !
I recently got the i1 Pro 3 Plus and I made my first custom profile. Made it on a cheaper Glossy Cast Coated paper (if I make a mistake, at least it`s not a waste of expensive paper) with around 1000 patches which means 3 sheets of A3. When I tried soft proofing in Lightroom, I noticed a heavy paper color deviation, around -12 on b scale (Lab), way too blue-ish compared to what I actually see in real. I followed your steps same as in your website. Any idea why this happens ?
I found a workaround : I measured spot color of the paper using spot color feature in i1 Profiler and I copied the lab valurs of M2 measurement (most similar as in reality) and put them in the new profile using White point - Custom ibstead of Default. Not sure if this is the right way of solving the blue tint when soft proof, I am curious about your thought. Thank you !
I've not come across this I'm afraid.
Sounds like an OBA issue - try using M2 [UV Cut] patch data
Thank you Keith ! I tried again with M2 patch data and looks way better now. I look forward to create profiles for other more premium papers I use.
Just remember that whilst the soft proof might now look more accurate, the actual profile table which is used in the print process is now being built with data not including a UV component, so may not give such good print results. I never make profiles for better papers with M2 data - UVCut has been described [perhaps unduly harshly] as the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and whistling with regards to OBA issues ;-)
The OBA problem can be a tricky one with cheap bright papers.
I1Profiler includes OBA compensation but it's always been a bit hit and miss. It's something I have looked at in the past, but not in great detail.
Soft proofing is something to use with care - it is not the panacea that some teaching lightroom printing like to suggest. I use it occasionally and for specific things, never as a matter of course.
Hmm ... Maybe it wasn't a bad idea as I did in the first place : profile build with ME and set the white by manually introducing lab values.
Which images fit which paper type
Impossible to answer succinctly - I do have several videos looking at aspects of this
See the proper index for all of them I created at:
www.northlight-images.co.uk/keith-cooper-photography-videos-index/
Much more helpful [I hope] than the haphazard way YT goes about any form of searching ;-)
It's difficult to get tips to printing on a print/paper that has no print profile. ColorSync or not? 8 bit or 16 bit? 300 dpi? Graph, Image or Text? What do we do?
No profile - search for a similar paper. Look at paper suppliers who supply profiles. If it's a cheap non-descript photo paper, then pick a better paper :-)
Colorsync - never make any change to defaults [I'd only print from proper colour managed apps]
Graph/image/text - not sure what this means at all?
1) How about if I have a good paper with print profile but a medium printer like canon g5** which does not have profile and I cant adjust my monitor?
2) which softwares are good in colour management?
@@CassioHungria85
Lots of trial and error testing
Photoshop is what I use - many others Lightroom/DxO/Affinity/C1
Do you Shy away from any colors in order to make a good print?
No - I just make sure that very colourful images are checked to see how they fit in with the gamut of the chosen media and then make allowances, through editing and choice of printer/media
Can you even see the difference between 50mp and 150mp in this print size?
Given it's printing at 500+ ppi, probably not, and definitely with a relatively lower resolution printer like the TC-20M
If I'd used my 5Ds [50MP] and TS-E 24 [about the same FOV] I could have got the same shot. However, you would see a lesser sharpness in the corners, and of course the older 5Ds sensor would show up a reduced dynamic range. Swap it for an R5 and the only differences would be from the lens quality. Use a GFX50 and the Fuji 30mm TS lens and I very much doubt you'd see any difference on this printer.
When I next get to do some testing of a much bigger printer I'll do some 44" x 44" [or even 60" x 60"] prints. Now there, there will be a slight difference BUT only if you look very carefully - at a far closer distance than you expect anyone to vie a 60" print.
Before the 30mm TS goes back I want to get a few more extremely detailed shots for when I get to print BIG ;-)
@@KeithCooper would love to see a video about it
I'll see what I can do when I get access to a big printer!
I will be doing a few comparisons as part of the 30mm TS lens review
Do you shy away from particular lighting scenarios in order to make a good print?
What do you mean by 'lighting scenario' ?
Perhaps @JoshuaLindsey92 is referring to the ambient lighting in the room you are editing your images in. For instance: all lights out and perfectly black or all lights on and as bright as possible or just one side light on. I am also wondering if your brain makes some kind of compensation when all the lights are out or all the lights on; maybe the room should just be dim?@@KeithCooper
@MLC48 exactly! Is hard sun directly at a camera a no no, when considering the softening of a print process. Do you do anything differently mentally while taking a photo when you are considering printing a photo? If you know you are going to want to print "this photo" that you are taking.
It's mainly about getting optimal exposure, so no clipping. If I know the lighting has a lot of contrast, I may bracket exposures, even when not using a tripod.
The choice for lighting comes more into whether I'm looking to do a B&W or colour print.
For an edit environment, I just make sure the white of my screen is the brightest thing in front of me when looking at a screen. Stronger light sources or bright objects can shift your visual 'white balance'
Finding wall space gets increasingly difficult over time
Yes - I've always had a rotation policy, now more rigorously enforced since Karen lives here...
What's so difficult? When you are in the population's 98th through 100th percentile nothing is, but you may be slowed down by that intelligence - cognitive psychology's "expert paradox".
If it's simple, then it should be self-explanatory and the tools or consumables, the methods and techniques, should all be transparent. It should be a breeze. If that were the case, then test that as follows. Take a random photo in JPEG in random photo viewing software and print it on random photographic paper to a random photographic printer. Then replace the JPEG shot by a random, different, RAW shot and repeat. The print may be too dark and serendipitously you may discover you prefer this goth version of your image more attractive, artistically, than the "neutral" one. But alternatively your print may be too light and have blobs without detail. That should be part of the learning process, but may scare people who spent too much on a printer and now cannot afford ink and paper to test and learn.
Is it so difficult? I guess not, but it's less simple than you'd think, prima facie (beautiful words for "naively" ;) ).
The challenge is in not having WYSIWYG [1] between monitor and paper and printer - in cases where you work in the simplest of colour spaces. Before I started on the photographic print journey, I bought calibration tools. And learnt how to use them, including camera calibration and ICC profiles.
The challenge is in getting WYNSIWYAG [2] between monitor and paper and printer - in cases where you naively work in large colour spaces. Frank Zappa sang about it: the torture never stops.
Lightroom Classic's UI in the print tab is not very transparent. It seems like an afterthought. And I need to go to specific trouble to make sure that a print is stored while things we do elsewhere are stored. (Think of virtual copies.)
In the 1970s, some folk studied software psychology (I remember reading Shneiderman on it). One researcher had asked "people in the streets" to come up with a command of a few letters with a simple description they gave them. In 80% of cases, the folk in the streeets came up with the same solution that totally differed from what the software nerds had come up with. That's the LrC print tab and Photoshop.
So I would want LrC Print to support me better in printing more than Adobe RGB (ProPhoto) when my printer has more - even when my monitor displays Adobe RGB (it does that 100%).
LrC should also help me select sections of an image to test print on a smaller format paper.
After all the paper is not cheap and the ink is not cheap. With all this experience and depth, "proofing" is abstract and meaningless to me.
So it's not scary, it's not difficult, but you have to read up on it, watch some videos, and be prepared to waste the first volume of ink that came with the photographic printer, plus a box of paper. As learning costs. Still then, you may be battling with LrC if you do not print every day.
Interestingly, looking at learning types "visual", "auditive", and "kinaesthetic", it strikes me time and again how visual people like photographers try to teach things to visual people in an auditive way. Our understanding at the visual level can go so deep that we can describe it perfectly in words. Unfortunately that flies over the heads of visual people. Generally.
Finally, as to "if it's simple, then it should be self-explanatory" and "transparent" may be true, but to throw a stone from a sling and with certainty hit a target requires 10,000 training attempts. In the case of humans. And complex things, like becoming a master pianist, need 10,000 hours. The difficulty in these learning processes is not that we need a talent. We don't, in the material way. The problem is we need to go through the 10,000 while totally ignoring our environment. OC. JFDI. A teacher is not going to reduce the 10,000, but can make it more fun and help stay near the 10,000.
I don't think a lot of YT viewers have a degree in arts, and in (the technical side of) photography, and in computer science with AI, and in psychology, and in a few other potentially handy subjects that might reduce the 10,000 because many aspects already have been learnt.
[1] WYSIWYG - what you see is what you get
[2] WYNSIWYAG - what you not see is what you also get
Thanks for taking the time to comment... good points
Yes I agree. Also you have to choose your tools wisely. Personally, I don't use LR at all. I find C1 the better choice. For printing I use Qimage Ultimate.