Affinity Photo: Colorspace, Soft Proof w/ICC profile - does it have to be a layer?

[nickbatz]

Because I'm always thinking about the destination medium - printed pigment ink on fine art paper - while I'm making my pictures (as opposed to editing photos!), I use the Adobe sRGB colorspace.

But I've taken to using a Soft Proof adjustment with the ICC profile for my printers and paper at the top of the layer stack. As per the advice in another thread, I turn it off before exporting.

So my question is whether there's an alternative to having the adjustment layer there the whole time? It's obviously not the end of the world, but it would be great if there were an optional setting to do this automatically: turn on the soft proof while you're working, then turn it off when you export.

While I print my actual pictures exclusively on Canson Arches 88 (which I like so much it's almost illegal), I don't want to embed its ICC profile in the exported files, because sometimes I make brochures, etc. on different paper and specify it in the printing program (Canon Pro Print & Layout).

TIA

[Ldina]

Nick, to the best of my knowledge, soft proofing in Affinity can only be done with the soft proof adjustment layer, as you described. One alternative, which may not work for you, is to leave the soft proof layer hidden while working, then only turn it on when ready to soft proof. Any colors that show significant changes can be tweaked with the soft proof active. Then again, it's nice to see the colors you can print while designing. Affinity Apps don't correct for paper color to the best of my knowledge. 

Probably just a typo, but I assume you're probably working in Adobe RGB colorspace (there is no Adobe sRGB, just sRGB). Another good color space is P3 for print work. If your artwork contains more vibrant reds, P3 will preserve more of those colors, while Adobe RGB is a bit wider in the cyans and blues. They're more similar than they are different and are both excellent for print work. 

[nickbatz]

1 minute ago, Ldina said:

One alternative, which may not work for you, is to leave the soft proof layer hidden while working, then only turn it on when ready to soft proof. Any colors that show significant changes can be tweaked with the soft proof active. Then again, it's nice to see the colors you can print while designing. Affinity Apps don't correct for paper color to the best of my knowledge. 

Probably just a typo, but I assume you're probably working in Adobe RGB colorspace (there is no Adobe sRGB, just sRGB). Another good color space is P3 for print work. If your artwork contains more vibrant reds, P3 will preserve more of those colors, while Adobe RGB is a bit wider in the cyans and blues. They're more similar than they are different and are both excellent for print work. 

Thanks for the reply. So I need some education, it appears.

First, yes, that was a thinko (not a typo  ) - I mean Adobe RGB 1998, and I export 8-bit TIFFs that are already hundreds of MB when exported (the Affinity Photo files are typically >10GB).

My first assumption is that there's no reason for me to slow down the computer and increase the file sizes by working at 16-bit resolution.

The reason is that rather than editing photos like normal people do, I'm an artist "painting" with heavily modified fragments of iPhone images and dozens of layers (many from other pictures made of the same), each with a radical HSL adjustment at a minimum.

So my thinking is that 16-bit color resolution isn't important in this application, especially given that my printers (Canon Pro-1000 and -4100) are 8-bit. Am I right?

But I do want as much gamut as possible, so my next question is where you even find P3, i.e. I didn't see it in the list. My artwork contains vibrant everything, and actually it seems to be the blues that get tamped down the most even with Adobe RGB, but I'd like to experiment.

Next question: is there any difference between hiding a layer and turning it off (with the dot)?

 

 

[nickbatz]

As far as I know there's no paper color adjustment, but there is a white balance adjustment layer. I use it as a mastering adjustment before exporting.

However, recently I've been keeping the Soft Proof layer on while I'm working, because it accustoms my eye to the actual colors that will show on the paper. Also, my monitor is calibrated using macOS' built-in Colorsync to create a profile, and I have the white balance set to 5000˚ as per the Canon manual. It's *very* close to what I see coming out of the printer, and - I get in arguments about this regularly  - there would be no benefit to a colorimeter for what I do.

[Ldina]

16 bit files are much larger. If you have a lot of gradient, like in a smooth sky, 16 bit will be smoother and result in less banding, but it won’t increase gamut. Color gamut is dependent on printer/paper/ink combo, not bit depth. A lousy printer profile can prematurely clip some printable colors, but you probably have a profile from Canson for your printer and Arches 88 paper (or a custom profile). Either should be fine. I’m not sure if your printer is 16 bit or not, but 8 bit is usually fine. Macs come with Display P3 and should be in one of your ColorSync folders if you want to try it. You can search the internet for P3 profiles. Im not at my computer at present. 

Hiding a layer is that dot next to each layer in the Layers Panel making it invisible or visible. 

if you want absolute max color gamut in your prints, you can work in Prophoto RGB (same as ROMM RGB). However, 16 bit is recommended because it’s such an huge color space. Also you won’t be able to see some printable colors even on an Adobe RGB or a P3 capable monitor. If Arches 88 is capable of printing brighter cyans and blues and yellows, it may increase gamut a bit. You’d have to test.

[Ldina]

@nickbatz Nick, here's some definitive information on Canson Arches 88, P3 and Adobe RGB. I downloaded the Arches 88 ICC profile for the Pro-1000 printer from the Canson website. I then compared it to P3 and Adobe RGB and will provide screenshots (and the profiles). 

Below is a 2D graphic showing DCI-P3 in red, Adobe RGB in green, and Canson Arches 88 as a multicolor line. 2D views miss some information, but it does show that the Canson color gamut is much smaller than both P3 and Adobe RGB...overall. But Arches 88 CAN print some colors (notably, cyans and yellows) that are out of gamut for both P3 and Adobe RGB. 

Below is a 3D plot comparing Arches 88 to Adobe RGB. Adobe RGB is solid green. You can see that Arches 88 can print some yellows and some cyans that peek outside of the Adobe RGB color space. Using Adobe RGB will clip those colors since it cannot contain them. Honestly, it's unlikely you will notice, especially the yellows. You may be able to notice the difference in the cyans, based on my past testing. 

Below is Arches 88 compared to DCI-P3. There are more cyan colors being clipping when using P3, compared to Adobe RGB (but not by much). The P3 color space is able to contain ALL those yellows that are clipped by Adobe RGB. This shows graphically that Adobe RGB does a bit better in the cyans and blues, and P3 does better in the warmer tones (reds, oranges, yellows). Frankly, Adobe RGB and P3 are similar sizes and are both very wide, so it's a toss up. If you notice a loss of vibrance in the blues or cyans, then I'd use Adobe RGB instead of P3. 

ProPhoto RGB is a massive color space and will contain ALL colors that your Pro-1000 can print on Arches 88 paper. Usually, one should work in 16 bit with ProPhoto RGB (which is the same as ROMM RGB), because the color space is so huge. The reason is that 8 bit only can display 256 distinct steps for each RGB channel, and as a result, the transitions can be noticeable, because those 256 tones need to span an enormous range. 16 bit has 65,536 shades for each RGB channel, so steps, banding and artifacts will be unnoticeable. This is very important when you have large areas of similar colors, gradients, etc, where 8 bit will show some banding and 16 bit will not. 

Having said that, if your artwork doesn't have much or any of that sort of large expanse with similar colors or gradients, like a smooth sky, you may well be able to get away with using 8 bit and ProPhoto RGB. It all depends on the work you do. Going from a dark blue to a super bright red over a small physical distance is unlikely to be noticeable in 8 bit, even with ProPhoto. Going from light cyan to a slightly darker cyan-blue, especially over a distance of 5, 10 or 15 inches, is a whole different story, and banding may be a problem with ProPhoto and 8 bit. So, ProPhoto RGB (or ROMM RGB, which ships with Affinity), will retain ALL printable colors on Arches 88, without any premature clipping. 8 bit may or may not work for you, but only testing will make that clear, and it may be slightly different with different images. 

I'm attaching the Canson Arches 88 ICC profile for the Canon Pro-1000 printer from the Canson website. They want their papers to shine, so I have to assume it is a good profile. I've also included a DCI-P3 profile, in case you want to use it going forward. (FWIW, my standard RGB profile is set to DCI-P3 and I use that for most of my work, but Adobe RGB is equally good, and if your images favor blues over warm tones, Adobe RGB is arguably better.)

So, no more guessing!! 

cifa_iPfpro1000_arches88_310.icc DCI-P3.icc

[nickbatz]

17 hours ago, Ldina said:

6 bit files are much larger. If you have a lot of gradient, like in a smooth sky, 16 bit will be smoother and result in less banding, but it won’t increase gamut. Color gamut is dependent on printer/paper/ink combo, not bit depth

Right, I do know the difference between bit depth and gamut. Hopefully that was clear in what I wrote.

But... well, first of all I've never seen banding in any of my prints (or for that matter on the screen). If I had, though, the printers are still 8-bit. Coming from an audio/music background: does it use dither to improve that? And if so, is that in Affinity Photo or Canon Pro Print & Layout?

Okay, will read the rest now...

"Hiding a layer is that dot next to each layer in the Layers Panel making it invisible or visible. "

That's what I mean. Thanks.

Reading further, thanks for attaching the ICC profiles. Yes, I use that Canson one for both my Pro-1000 and Pro-4100 (and presumably they're the same, since they're the same printer). Will try the other DCI one and test.

MORE EDIT (I don't want to put my response in several posts): I have noticed some yellows missing, more specifically phosphorescent lime greens lose some vibrance in the prints. They still look very good, and knowing the limitation I tend to use darker colors next to them for contrast when I want them to jump out, but your graph shows why.

I'll try the P3.

Thanks again.

[Ldina]

Fine Art Papers typically have less color gamut and dynamic range than photo papers (i.e., glossy, luster, pearl, satin, etc). If you want maximum gamut, switching paper types will help, but they'll have a completely different finish, often contain optical brighteners, aren't as archival, etc. Arches 88 is a great paper and is one of the better fine art papers as far as gamut is concerned. If you're losing some of those bright yellows and phosphorescent lime greens, some of that has to do with the gamut of the paper, probably more so than Adobe RGB or P3. If you can see them on your monitor, (which is limited to Adobe RGB or P3), but not in print, it's the paper/ink combination. 

Having seen a few of the art samples you've posted, I think 8 bit will be fine, and probably even ProPhoto RGB in 8 bit (for absolute maximum gamut...but run a few test prints to be sure). Printer drivers work their own special magic to convert RGB numbers to picoliter ink dots, so I'm not sure what they do in the driver (or RIP) to prevent banding and artifacts. 

You're welcome. 

[nickbatz]

2 hours ago, Ldina said:

Fine Art Papers typically have less color gamut and dynamic range than photo papers (i.e., glossy, luster, pearl, satin, etc). If you want maximum gamut, switching paper types will help, but they'll have a completely different finish, often contain optical brighteners, aren't as archival, etc. Arches 88 is a great paper and is one of the better fine art papers

Oh, I'm intimately aware of the differences between papers and paper types, but what I do can *only* be on fine art paper. And Arches 88 is the clear winner over a whole lot of others I've tried - and it's not like the others are dog poop by any stretch.

My pictures are an evolution of painting, pompous as that sounds, and there's no substitute for the subtle variety of textures you can only get on fine art paper. It's hard to describe what I'm talking about, but you see the effect right away, and it really is printmaking rather than just printing out what's on your screen. That's why I call the medium "printed pigment ink on fine art paper" - the pictures look almost like paintings, only they're something people haven't seen before (and in fact the first question they ask is how I do it).

Every other type is a photo paper to me. And I love great photography - of course there's absolutely nothing wrong with that! But even "middle ground" papers like satin baryta result in prints that look like prints - a different effect.

That's my rant.

And I'll experiment. Thanks again.

Oh, one more comment: Canon's RIP in Pro Print & Layout does a consistently excellent job. As you say, there's some magic going on.