I think you don’t know what you are talking about with all due respect. Yes some of us do prints. I had several High End printers.
“Better dedicated solutions including specialized software from the printer” ??? Yes if you are talking about entry level printers maybe. I currently print on a 24" Epson 7900, and the best soft you have is a very good printer driver (and a bad spectrophotometer software)…This driver needs a software in order to function and have the printer to print.
You need photoshop to print or C1, because Photoshop have full softproofing tools, a decent printing module (just open the Ctrl+P if you have photoshop…) that interfaces well with the Epson driver.
This is a slow process and exporting in TIFF16 from DPL is somewhat suboptimal (Maybe DNG export is the solution? did not try it yet). I would like to do it in DPL and not need to have a reccurent need to transfer image in PS for anyprint…maybe it is unavoidable.
I support and use DxO since 2007… and I would like you to elaborate on that statement…
Over the years, DxO then DPL has broken through many things, but color management isn’t one of them until very recently (and I wouldn’t call it a breakthrough). Preserve Color Detail is interesting and needs more spotlight, but to the community here (at least me) such statements are kinda hollow.
Yeah - I was being a bit loose there … It’s better explained as follows;
“Preserve color detail: this slider applies only to matrix based ICC profiles, so only display profiles – not printer profiles … "
PS. It bothers me, too, that you’re not prepared to declare your public profile … It makes me wonder what you might be hiding (?)
Originally, I was ignoring your posts for this reason - but, despite being occasionally “prickly”, I’ve found you’re generally informative and helpful to others; so, I’m giving you the benefit of doubt. All the same - some more info about you would be nice/friendly.
Are you referring to @wolfgang’s comment about the bug in PL’s UI ?
… If so, it’s that the “Intent” option is enabled in Soft Proofing when a matrix-based ICC Profile has been selected … In this case, Intent is completely ignored, and the PCD algorithm is applied instead - So, it should be disabled … in the same way that “Simulate paper & ink” is disabled for matrix-based ICC Profile
John M
Sorry but noname is right on every point. We like the software, we support it (I buy every version when they are available), but come on, we don’t buy the marketing stuff, and after 35 years of photography on my side, I am happy that DPL is catching up on color management and I would like them to go further to really stand out.
Tweaking easily the colors is nice, but color fidelity is another thing. Anyway work has been done, I acknowledge that, it is not finished. for example I have been asking for a revamped colorspace for…more than 10 years ! So let the marketing guys have their fun, but they lack market culture in this case, it’s not because of them that I buy DPL though.
I’m not sure what you are getting at exactly. Soft proofing is estimation a simulation of output device based on profile you choose. But than you if there is mismatch in gamut you have to compensate and you have to compromise, meaning you have to choose what you want to preserve, tone or color. Automating that is like outsourcing your brain to someone. Why bother with RAW processing in the first place than. Its a creative decision, specific to each individual image, its not a mathematical formula. While DXO offers plenty of assistive tools for this, its not automatic and it should not be automatic. Its a creative decision.
I don’t know why you do this, actually? I see no benefit. ProPhoto RGB is way to big to be useful for anything other than archival reasons and it was designed for that, never optimal as either working or output format. And over time sRGB and AdobeRGB standards became too small for some printers and some monitors. There were attempts to find a compromise before, like ColorMatch RGB, eciRGB_v2 etc. Non were ideal solutions, until DXO made their own DXO wide gamut, designed from scratch so solve the problem of having sufficiently large enough working color space to fit all the colors but no more than needed, and to be large enough to accommodate any output device. Its actually the best working color space we have in photography world. So there is no need for ProPhotoRGB anymore.
And you have two rendering intents in DXO already, plus additional algorithms created by the DXO to make the best compromise between keeping tonal details and color as much as possible when going from larger color space to a smaller one.
So there is really no practical need other than personal preference to use Photoshop, but if you for some reason need ProPhotoRGB and Photoshop DXO does not limit you.
DXO already does that and does it well. It just does not do it using all of the methods that exist, but the one that are build it will do the job and do it well. Maybe you don’t understand how it works or something, Because I don’t really see the problem other than personal preference. If you interest is in output results, I don’t see a limitation in DXO that is of any practical consequence. And if for some personal reason you want to work with Photoshop or want something else, DXO also does not prevent you from doing that, just requires a slightly different workflow. that’s all.
Mmh interesting quote…Maybe the demosaicing is also a creative decision? The way noise is handled also? DPL is full of automatic algorithms, and providing a few set of compensations is exactly what DxO has been doing by providing image profiles. Outsourcing your brain ?? really? a moot statement. I’ll stop here. But do you print yourself or do you outsource also?
Yes I know a bit of the subject to have written about it for the past decade or so…DxO Wide Gamut is a mimic (kinda shifted, like rec2020) of ProPhotoRGB. And I am sorry, but until then working in DPL clipped the colors of your pictures when print was intended.
And Printing from DPL is not easy yet, and needs improvement.
Can you prove that.
I still fail to see your point. Other than some vague personal assertions, you haven’t actually made any solid arguments. Can you do that?
Do you really want to print from it? I don’t. But if you do, than yes, it could be improved.
The purpose of this forum is to share feedback. DPL improved but I do not need a fanboy who issues bold statements and tries to prove me wrong on my feedback. I do not see any expertise to allow you to do so, and even if it was the case, you should refrain calling people trolls or so. I have nothing to prove to you, and you do not have to reply here if it irritates you.
Printing module : needs to be improved, did not changed since DxO 8
SoftProofing Module : I asked for it for more than 10 years during the various betatest campaigns I joined. promising but unfinished and incomplete.
Management of rendering intents ? Could use a tutorial to avoid having people lost in translations.
WideGamut ? You made me laugh hard because I asked for this for so long…Yes it is here…at last.
Finally : Softproofing is colour/tonality/density compensation in order to avoid surprise during prints. Profile conversion is another function that transfer your work to another color space for the use you have of your pictures. Two different things, and two different step of a workflow…
Are you kidding? Yes I would like to do it, this is the point of this thread. What is your purpose here if you are not interested in printing? What is your point talking about the softproofing module if you do not print from DPL?
Obviously you expertise has limitations. Soft proofing is not limited to printing, genius. And neither is color management.
My feedback is not intended to you to see my point, and I do not require your wisdom here. Could you stop parasiting the thread if you do not print from DPL, and are not interested in going further in color management with DPL? Thank you very much.