Do I need to edit images twice? One for print and one for online?

[KHR]

Just wondering what the proper work flow is for editing for print and online. I do have a calibrated monitor. But when I do a patch of images, say 40-50 that a client wants prints and images for online. Do you edit all the images twice?

[Manfred M]

I have a workflow where I work the image all the way to the point where I have to prepare it for output. I save this as the "master file". From there is is fairly fast to convert to a JPEG for online use (main difference is resizing for screen, output sharpening for screen and conversion to sRGB JPEG). The print version gets upsampled for the native resolution of the printer, I sharpen for print and use a wider colour space (ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB). The master file is saved as all this output prep takes just a few minutes; I don't save the output files once the work is completed.

[KHR]

So you do the complete edit for the master file and just export as a jpeg or whatever you need? I must be missing something because when I edit something for print but then convert it to jpeg I find the I need to do more editing because the jpeg looks different then the my print file.

When you do your edit for the master file what colour space are you using? What do you convert the master file to for printing?

I have my monitor calibrated so my prints match my monitor but if I switch it to srgb for posting online I find the colour, contrast and white balance is of and need to redo the images.

[Manfred M]

So you do the complete edit for the master file and just export as a jpeg or whatever you need? I must be missing something because when I edit something for print but then convert it to jpeg I find the I need to do more editing because the jpeg looks different then the my print file.

When I complete the master file, I save it. My final work is always in Photoshop, so a PSD is my master, with all the various adjustment layers. Your print file will always look different than your file on screen; you are using an RGB, projected light, additive colour process. For print output you are looking at a CMYK, reflected light, subtractive colour process. Add the variability of where you are viewing, regardless of whether it is on a screen or as a print, they will always look different.

I don't expect the two outputs to look identical. Close, but not identical. Even your print file will look different, depending on the paper / ink set you are using.

When you do your edit for the master file what colour space are you using? What do you convert the master file to for printing?

I generally work in either ProPhoto RGB (my default) or in Adobe RGB for my master file, always as a 16-bit version. If I am planning to make some really drastic edits where artifacts might occur, usually in the sky, I will work in Adobe RGB because that will give me a less increments between individual colour values. I occasionally will work in L*a*b*, when I am happy with the colours I get out of the raw convertor and expect to do a lot of dodging and burning. Very occasionally when I am preparing something for offset press work, I will use CMYK (this has happened twice in the past 6 or7 years).

I have worked in sRGB, but only if the image I have been asked to work on is supplied in that colour space. This normally is when the only file that is available is in that colour space.

I will print in either ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB if I am working in RAW. There are strong arguments for both. At a high level, if the print has vibrant colours or highly saturated colours and I am using a baryta or other higher gloss paper, ProPhoto provides a richer colour palette. When working on a matte fine art (cotton rag), with its lower gamut / dynamic range, Adobe RGB is fine. Obviously, if I print from an sRGB file, I will use that colour space. Often soft proofing will help me make that call. Any L*a*b* colour space work will be printed as ProPhoto.

I have my monitor calibrated so my prints match my monitor but if I switch it to srgb for posting online I find the colour, contrast and white balance is of and need to redo the images.

My prints never match my screen, but they are close enough. White balance will never match because the paper you are printing on will determine the "white". Paper is warmer than the white your screen generates, especially if you are using a paper that does not contain any OBA (Optical Bleaching Agent). If the paper has OBA content, then the whites will have a slightly blue colour tone when viewed under a light source that contains a UV component (daylight, for instance).

Yes the contrast / microcontrast will be different from screen to print. This is why I always output sharpen differently. I sometimes tweak mid-tone contrast and even the brightness of the output print when preparing the print output file.

I always make test prints before making the final print to ensure I like the way the print is rendering. Test prints are and have always been used by high end custom print makers to make their final proofs. One custom print maker I know, who worked for a couple of world renowned photographers would make 5 final proofs, each slightly different, for the client to review before making the final print. If you are working at this level, you are not trying to compete with Costco or other production labs on price.

I know of some print makers who will work their final print on a split screen where they show the edited screen image on one panel and the print output on the other. The print output will be set to soft proofing mode and they will tweak the print to make it closer to what the original screen edit looks like. I don't follow this workflow, because I work purely to get a strong looking print; I don't care if my screen and print image look slightly different, as long as both look good.

[xpatUSA]

Just wondering what the proper work flow is for editing for print and online. I do have a calibrated monitor. But, when I do a [batch] of images say 40-50 that a client wants prints and images for on-line, do you edit all the images twice?

What Editor do you use, Kelly?

If the client wants images that he can post on-line by unknown means, there is no "proper work flow" for those - if you see what I mean?

For example, if the client is selling your prints on-line but of course only showing thumbnails of unknown size how would one edit for that?

[KHR]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. In my work where I do images for a marketing company that does websites. I will sometimes the customer would like one or two of the edited for screen images to be printed for their office space (which I do myself with a Canon Pro 1000) and I now need to redo the image so that what gets printed will match what the customer has approved for their website. I just thought that their was may a step or a better way for this process. But it just comes done to the colour space of the media (screen or Paper(s) that is needed. They will always need to be tweaked a bit.

[xpatUSA]

<> In my work, I do images for a marketing company that does websites.

Sometimes the customer would like one or two of the edited-for-screen images to be printed for their office space (which I do myself with a Canon Pro 1000) and I now need to redo the image so that what gets printed will match what the customer has approved for their website.

Not know what your Editor is, I can not be as specific as Manfred's detailed procedures. But his principle is clear enough. Separate the editing steps that are common in value to both for on-screen and for printing.

For example, see "Capture Sharpening" under 'Sharpening Workflow' as mentioned here.

In my Editor, I can edit an image up to the point where I have to "branch" either way to complete the image for screen or print. There may be more possible branches than just two.

At that point, I can save a re-usable side-car file *** so that I can return to that point, after editing for screen and saving that, and then edit for print. No different in principle to what Manfred does but I have to do it one-at-a-time.

*** contains all editing steps to date while leaving the original unaltered.

HTH.

[KHR]

Not know what your Editor is, I can not be as specific as Manfred's detailed procedures. But his principle is clear enough. Separate the editing steps that are common in value to both for on-screen and for printing.

For example, see "Capture Sharpening" under 'Sharpening Workflow' as mentioned here.

In my Editor, I can edit an image up to the point where I have to "branch" either way to complete the image for screen or print. There may be more possible branches than just two.

At that point, I can save a re-usable side-car file *** so that I can return to that point, after editing for screen and saving that, and then edit for print. No different in principle to what Manfred does but I have to do it one-at-a-time.

*** contains all editing steps to date while leaving the original unaltered.

HTH.

Sorry. I work mostly in Capture One 21 and will jump to PS if needed.

[Manfred M]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. In my work where I do images for a marketing company that does websites. I will sometimes the customer would like one or two of the edited for screen images to be printed for their office space (which I do myself with a Canon Pro 1000) and I now need to redo the image so that what gets printed will match what the customer has approved for their website. I just thought that their was may a step or a better way for this process. But it just comes done to the colour space of the media (screen or Paper(s) that is needed. They will always need to be tweaked a bit.

The most important variable is the direction, colour temperature and quality of light of light of where the print is to be displayed. In a perfect world, getting to the customer's site and evaluating the prints in their final display position is ideal.

The problem is that most modern offices have bright lighting that is set for office work, not for the display of images. Light levels that are (nominally) around 500 lux although this can be lower in corridors and other places where works might be displayed. Light source can very from sunlight (from any direction) to cool white fluorescent fixtures, which are horrible for viewing images. A mix of light sources is always likely. I do know that in some cases the photographer will take test prints to the display site and will evaluate the test images there.

The good news is that the on-screen version and versions on the wall rarely get seen at the same time. Also most viewers (helped by colour adaptation of the human visual system) will never be aware of these differences.

The colour space is generally not all that important; most screens that viewers use are not even sRGB compliant. When photography / art experts are viewing prints, lighting and colour accuracy can be important. Getting the product colour or company logo looking right is important. Most companies can provide you with the appropriate Pantone colours for their logos.

[billtils]

Sorry. I work mostly in Capture One 21 and will jump to PS if needed.

The revised export workflow in the latest release should make things easy for you. Define the settings you wish to use for exporting to print and those for exporting to screen - just edit away until happy with the image then export using whichever is the more approporiate.

[billtils]

A sort of existantial comment on this: If you are going to use the same final image for print and screen, why not just edit to meet the print requirements - it may be overkill but it will reproduce on screen just fine will it not?

[pschlute]

A sort of existantial comment on this: If you are going to use the same final image for print and screen, why not just edit to meet the print requirements - it may be overkill but it will reproduce on screen just fine will it not?

Files for printing generally have more sharpening than those for screen, so your image may look oversharpened on a monitor.

If you use a wider gamut colour space for printing, you may have issues posting that to a web page which wants sRGB.

Image size.... an image prepared for print will have a much higher pixel count than one for screen or web posting. This means larger file sizes for up/downloading.

[billtils]

Everything you say here is correct Peter, but I'm just asking the question whether or not it will matter for most people in most circumstances (and when it does it's easly fixed).

[xpatUSA]

Everything you say here is correct Peter, but I'm just asking the question whether or not it will matter for most people in most circumstances (and when it does it's easily fixed).

I don't print but I'm wondering about the brightness thing and "most people" i.e. the opposite of printing novitiates complaining about "prints too dark" ...

[DanK]

Everything you say here is correct Peter, but I'm just asking the question whether or not it will matter for most people in most circumstances (and when it does it's easly fixed).

I doubt it will. I edit in ProPhoto using a wide gamut monitor. I virtually never re-edit for display on the screen. However, in my workflow, the output sharpening for printing has not been done when I export for the screen. I am editing on a screen, so the sharpness is close for that purpose, and I then use Lightroom's sharpen for screen setting when I export for the web.

There are rare images that have a lot of color outside of sRGB that could be problematic, but I don't run into that often.

The fact is that people's computer displays are so variable that even if you optimized for one, you wouldn't be optimizing for the next.

But then again, I don't have clients, so I generally don't have people who want the same image in both forms.

[pschlute]

I don't print but I'm wondering about the brightness thing and "most people" i.e. the opposite of printing novitiates complaining about "prints too dark" ...

I have learned a lot on this forum in the last few years.

Now I have a new word for "newbie"

[billtils]

I doubt it will. I edit in ProPhoto using a wide gamut monitor. I virtually never re-edit for display on the screen. However, in my workflow, the output sharpening for printing has not been done when I export for the screen. I am editing on a screen, so the sharpness is close for that purpose, and I then use Lightroom's sharpen for screen setting when I export for the web.

There are rare images that have a lot of color outside of sRGB that could be problematic, but I don't run into that often.

The fact is that people's computer displays are so variable that even if you optimized for one, you wouldn't be optimizing for the next.

But then again, I don't have clients, so I generally don't have people who want the same image in both forms.

+1 to what Dan says.

[Manfred M]

I don't print but I'm wondering about the brightness thing and "most people" i.e. the opposite of printing novitiates complaining about "prints too dark" ...

One of my mentors has been a custom print maker for over 30 years and he tells me that his biggest challenge has always been (and continues to be) getting the print brightness "right" for display. He tells me that even in galleries, the lighting can be challenging, especially in cases where they use high quality. The main issue with galleries is that while they use high quality lighting, it tends to be tungsten / halogen based, so colour temperature and light output does deteriorate as these fixtures age.

The issue is rarely "most people", but rather the level of expertise that the buyer and their customers have. Commercial photographers will tell you that commercial customers have zero tolerance for things like the getting the company logo colours wrong or the product colours wrong. The customer needs to be satisfied (even when they are wrong).

[xpatUSA]

Originally Posted by xpatUSA I don't print but I'm wondering about the brightness thing and "most people" i.e. the opposite of printing novitiates complaining about "prints too dark" ...

One of my mentors has been a custom print maker for over 30 years and he tells me that his biggest challenge has always been (and continues to be) getting the print brightness "right" for display.

I made a simple assumption that, if a print made without duly accounting for the said challenge will normally be too dark, then it follows that a file correct for printing will normally be too bright when viewed on a normal screen as used by Bill's "most people".

Is that simple logic incorrect?

He tells me that even in galleries, the lighting can be challenging, especially in cases where they use high quality. The main issue with galleries is that while they use high quality lighting, it tends to be tungsten / halogen based, so colour temperature and light output does deteriorate as these fixtures age.

I didn't know that. Quite surprising in this day & age.

The issue is rarely "most people" ...

Oh.

... but rather the level of expertise that the buyer and their customers have. Commercial photographers will tell you that commercial customers have zero tolerance for things like the getting the company logo colours wrong or the product colours wrong. The customer needs to be satisfied (even when they are wrong).

A pity that the discussion has segued into color accuracy. My comment was only about brightness.

[Manfred M]

I made a simple assumption that, if a print made without duly accounting for the said challenge will normally be too dark, then it follows that a file correct for printing will normally be too bright when viewed on a normal screen as used by Bill's "most people".

Is that simple logic incorrect?

It's a generalization and not necessarily correct. Most people will understand that the image is printing too dark and correct the brightness. This is generally consistent from one print to the next, so once you have figured out how much to turn up the brightness (in post) before sending the image to the printer. Works like a charm,

A pity that the discussion has segued into color accuracy. My comment was only about brightness.

The two are linked. If the print is too dark, the colours will be incorrect.