Jump to content

Ethcap

Members
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ethcap

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No worries @Arnaud Mez we have all been there when we are starting off doing something new, it's only natural, it's the willingness to continue to learn that will give the best and greatest benefit at the end of the day, so just keep going Now that the Serif team is looking into the issue, hopefully we will have an answer soon and if it is a bug, a fix to go with it, then I can continue and complete my migration away from Adobe products once and for all which I've wanted for a long long time.
  2. @Arnaud Mez as you say it can be used as a great creative tool, just like JR says in the video, (in fact it's the same video I already linked to in the description of the issue, only on Vimeo instead or YouTube). You misunderstand what I mean when I say "my expectation". I am not attempting to obtain a certain look for the photo(s) by way of Soft Proof adjustment, the look have already been achieved during standard development of the photo(s). I am using soft proofing to see which colours would fall out of gamut based on the destination profile used and therefore be hard for a printer to reproduce accurately, this is the whole point of soft proofing. I can then adjust such areas of the photo(s) selectively to bring them back into gamut for the selected destination profile, thus maximising colour accuracy and tonal range for the print in question. And this is where the issue lies, when switching rendering intents the expectation is that out of gamut colours are compressed to the nearest possible colour of the destination profile used for Relative, Perceptual and Saturation intents, hence the gamut warnings should also change as we compress the tones. Problem is that the gamut warnings stay the same, hence you cannot accurately soft proof or trust what you are seeing as illustrated in the comparison with the Adobe products. Hope that clarifies
  3. @stokerg thanks for you response. I also got a response from your colleague @JFisher on my post in the Bug section. I am happy to hear this is being investigated so we move forward
  4. Hi all, the link to the original post can be found at the bottom of this posting. I am reposting here as I believe it is a bug and no one has taken an effort answering the original post in the questions and answers forum, so hoping to have more luck getting answers by posting in here instead. To summarise: There is a huge discrepancy in the soft proof results between Affinity Photo, Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom when using Relative Colorimetric, Perpetual or Saturation rending intents on the same images. The differences are so large that in my opinion seemingly Affinity Photo doesn't even attempt to bring the out of gamut colours to the nearest possible colour based on rendering intent. To illustrate what is going on please see below image comparing the result between the three applications and rendering intents on the same image. As you can see the Adobe products are both producing near identical results while Affinity Photo seeming does nothing, making it very difficult to trust what I see when soft proofing in Affinity Photo. Also attached here are a selection of ICC profiles I've tested with (including the icc profile used in the chart above), different printers doesn't seem to matter either, so I am sure it's not a profile issue, rather an application issue. Profiles are Hahnemüehle and Canson profiles for Epson printers. HFA_Eps3000_MK_PhotoRag.icc HFA_EpsSC-P800_MK_PhotoRag.icc HFA_EpsSC-P8000_MK_PhotoRag.icc cifa_p800_baryta310_p_bk.icc cifa_p800_edition310_m_bk.icc cifa_p800_ragphot310_m_bk.icc HFAPhoto_Eps4880_PK_HahnemuehlePhotoPearl.icc HFAPhoto_EpsSC-P800_PK_HahnemuehlePhotoPearl310.icc HFAPhoto_EpsSC-P800_PK_HahnemuehlePhotoSilkBaryta310.icc I have also tested across several images with the above profiles and results are consistent, the Adobe products brings colours as much as it can into gamut of the destination media profiles colour space, while Affinity Photo for the most part shows no difference between any of the rendering intents. I should note that on some images I do get an acceptable result, (all depending on the information in the image obviously), however when compared to Lightroom or Photoshop there is still a slight difference and most of the times the difference are too great to ignore, at least to me, as illustrated in the chart above. My expectation is that Affinity Photo would compresses the colours to the nearest possible colours in the destination profiles colour space when using Relative, Perceptual or Saturation rending intents as explained in this Affinity Photo video; https://vimeo.com/152413642 Thanks. Software versions used: Affinity Photo: 1.6.7 Photoshop: CC 19.1.5 Lightroom: 6.14 standalone Link to original post can be found here:
  5. I have now tested with multiple images, using multiple ICC profiles and the results stay consistent, e.g. switching from Absolute Colorimetric to Relative or Perceptual does nothing to bring out of gamut colours into gamut in Affinity Photo. I should note it is not as sever on all profiles and acceptable on some (depending on the image), however when compared to Lightroom or Photoshop the differences are simply too great to ignore, at least to me, as illustrated in the chart I posted originally. In the end one of apps must be having some form of bug/problem in my opinion, and since no one seems to be interested in answering this thread I will open a new post in the bug and well linking back to this one.
  6. Anyone else experiencing this other than myself and Roger C? Anyone else with suggestions or anyone from the Affinity Photo team themselves that can chime in? Anyone out there?
  7. Hi firstdefence I am still getting different results, in fact, choosing ‘Working CMYK’ sets up the image to what is defined in Photoshop’s ‘Colour Settings’ dialogue (Edit > Color Settings…), which in my case happens to be U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 and Relative Colorimetric and changes the mode of the image to CMYK. If I select the same ICC profile in Affinity Photo’s soft proof adjustment later I get the same result as the chart I posted shows, I.e. the same result. Seemingly not on mine The ICC profile name from Hahnemühle is ‘Photo Rag’, for your convenience I have attached it to the post here, the lab uses SC-P8000. Please bear in mind that as I stated, I have tested with multiple profiles from both Hahnemühle and Canson with different EPSON printers the SC-P800, SC-P8000 and the Stylus R3000 including some of the built-in profiles, all with the same result, so it doesn’t really seem to be a profile issue per-say. HFA_Eps3000_MK_PhotoRag.icc HFA_EpsSC-P800_MK_PhotoRag.icc HFA_EpsSC-P8000_MK_PhotoRag.icc It seems to me that Affinity Photo isn't even trying to map the out of gamut colours, from the source colour space to the destination media colour space, at least when selecting a render intent other than Absolute Colorimetric, as I would expect colours to be compressed to the nearest possible colours in the destination profiles colour space when using Relative, Perceptual or Saturation rending intents as explained in this Affinity Photo video; https://vimeo.com/152413642 That said if I am doing something wrong please enlighten me how I should do it. Thanks.
  8. To rule out possible issue with the Hahnemüehle Photo Rag ICC I downloaded additional Hahnemüehle profiles. I also downloaded three Canson profiles as well as testing with some built in profiles such as FOGRA27, U.S. Web coated (SWOP) v2 etc, all with the same results, e.g.; on papers where colours show as out of gamut using Absolute Colorimetric rendering shows no change at all when choosing Perceptual or Relative Colorimetric rendering intent in Affinity Photo, while doing the same in Photoshop, most of the out of gamut colours are shifted into the profiles gamut, in other words the same behaviour as the post and attachment details. Hope this additional information might help in solving the issue.
  9. Hoping someone can shed some light on an apparent issue with Soft Proofing in Affinity Photo, but first a little background; I am looking to switch from Adobe products and Affinity Photo will be taking over the role Photoshop has played so far in my workflow, and so far so good. Then recently I was contacted by a client that wishes to purchase a print of one of my photos. This is the first time I am making a large size print for a client so I am doing this via a gallery print lab (I have done printing on my home printer before so I know the basics of Soft Proofing, however it’s a home printer Epson XP-235 so no ICC profiles for that consumer model). So I though this is the perfect time to test out the soft proofing in Affinity Photo. However I am getting very strange, and what I assume are incorrect results out of Affinity Photo. The colour space required by the lab is sRGB and a TIF file with a DPI of 300 which will be printed on Hahnemüehle Photo Rag and are soft proofing using the ICC profile for the given paper and printer at the gallery, so far so good or so I thought. What first got me thinking something was off was when I changed rendering intent, in Affinity Photo and there was little to no difference between any of the intents and huge amount of out of gamut colour. So I went back to Lightroom and sure enough in Lightroom there was far from the same amount of clipping using the same ICC profile and rending intent. Hence I opened the file in Photoshop and here results were the same as Lightroom’s rendering intents (relative and perceptual), while Absolute matches what I see in Affinity Photo. I would have assumed since I use the same file with the same colour space and the same ICC profile on the same computer the results should be the same, unless one software is interpreting colours and the ICC profile differently which in that case begs the question; which is closest to the truth? Or is this a bug in Affinity Photo’s soft proof adjustment layer? (And yes I know that soft proof will never match the true to life print, however I like to get an as close to the print rendition as possible, but I now have a very hard time trustingt what I am seeing in Affinity Photo). Pictures speak louder than words, so here is a chart detailing the results I am seeing and as you can see it's a huge difference. Hope someone can answer this or if I am missing something in the workflow. Software versions: Affinity Photo: 1.6.7 Photoshop: CC 19.1.5 Lightroom: 6.14 standalone Thanks.
×