Why your prints will never match your screen, and why that's a good thing

Keith looks at how soft proofing is not the cure-all some would have you believe. It can help, but it's no substitute for actually understanding how prints look and papers differ.

Printer test images are available at:

See also Keith's video about choosing the best papers for your printing

[LePetitMondedeMichel]

Thanks you so much for this video you synthesize my thinking about printing. The most important thing in printing is the result. The road to get there is important but is not the main goal. Month ago I made the mistake of printing with the wrong icc profile and the result was better than the series made with the good one. The key to achieving great result in printing is experimenting and making mistakes.

[dplj]

This answers some questions and advice that was missing.
13:18 looking? Are loupe still worth using?

[Chefbigpp]

Do margins actually always appear correctly on paper? (Specifically the Epson ET-8550)

[iigal]

Hi Keith, thanks for all the videos and the posts on DPR. You were a great resource when I was considering buying this printer (now I have it). I am really confused by your comments about soft proofing. You say that some of it is useful, that some is overrated, but then what parts of it do you use/trust beyond the gamut check? I was taught by some of the professional printers in town that the soft proof in PS with Simulate paper color, simulate black ink and black point compensation, all checked "should" be a close emulation of how the print would look like. So I use that view to pre-compensate with editing in PS to achieve a look that is close to what I originally had for my (calibrated) screen view. I can't say that that soft proof is always close to the print in my hand viewed with a calibrated lamp; this varies by paper (and therefore the icc profile I use).

So, do you have better guidance as to what part of the soft proof view you trust or find useful?

Thanks!

[WhiteNightsTM]

Keith, thank you for all your hard work and valuable information throughout these years. Please consider adding “support my work” button or paypal link to all of your videos as there are people who will be gladly leaving some tangible “thank yous”.

[zBernie]

I've said many times: "The proof is in the printing!"

[bootsmcconnell]

Keith, great advice, as always. One bit of parallel advice I use to give my students, going back into the days of silver b/w printing and color printing in the darkroom, was “take the print with you and look at it over the next couple of days in different places and under different lighting conditions, and if possible take it to where it might (ideally) be shown. Bring that experience of looking back to the darkroom (or the monitor + inkjet printer) to see what improvements you can make.” To this I would also sometimes add, see how the photograph looks framed, behind glass, before you consider the adventure over, and even consider how the size of the print might affect your choice paper as well the color and tonal characteristics of the print.

[freehand]

You cannot print light that's for sure.

[rolex-jsnk]

question: do you come to lincolnshire and can you fix my prints? 😂 been struggling to get the prints somewhat close to the screen. but they come out super desaturated quite often. tried to set up my monitor so its more desaturated so I can get a more accurate representation. tried changing the ICC profiles, but the results aren't great. the best I could get was to save as a jpeg then print it off. going to buy some epsom glossy paper so it matches my printer see if that helps, (that was epsoms default fix because they couldn't help me ) after that I'm out of ideas.

[louisgoodison]

Hey Keith would really appreciate if you could reply to this. I’m starting up a photo business and need a printer that can print decent quality photos a3+ that has decent sized ink cartridges that will last for less than £400 or in that range any ideas ?

[davidshaw]

Hi Keith, newbie here. love your videos and am slowly figuring out how to print. One question that keeps coming to mind is this:
Cameras can capture images in either Srgb or AdobeRgb gamut. Monitors can display in either an Srgb, AbobeRgb, or Dcp gamut. But nothing I’ve heard ever mentions what gamut a printer uses. Does a printer use a gamut? If so, which? Does it matter? The reason I ask this is if I take a photo using AdobeRgb, process (edit) it in software using AdobeRgb, then print the photo, will the printer be able to use the AdobeRgb gamut or does it say print in Srgb. Are there limitations to a printers (for lack of a better term) gamut.

[weekenddistractions]

Great stuff! I tack my prints on a bulletin board and after looking at them for a few days, it's amazing what you see that you didn't see earlier. Almost always have to make a new print. My biggest problem with the board is getting decent light on them. Windows and lights in the house reflect off them in non flattering ways. I'm about ready to get into the wall and put an AC plug up high. From that I can some mount some sort of multiple light setup to shine onto each print from above.

[ddsdss]

I just try to optimize what I see onscreen (my primary workflow being DxO PhotoLab 5 Elite, possibly also using Nik and/or Topaz Photo AI or other software, depending on the image). When I get the image looking the way I want it to (on my factory-calibrated Benq PD3200U 4K monitor set to sRGB and 50% brightness--I generally edit with most outside light blocked out and no artificial ambient light), and save it (either as a TIFF or JPG). When I want to print (on my Epson P900), I open the file with Epson Print Layout and generally use the OEM ICC profile for color, or Advanced B&W Photo for B&W (in which case I generally use the confusingly default "Darker" setting), and Black Enhance Overcoat and Black Point Compensation where applicable. I'm still not sure about Perceptual vs. Relative Colorimetric Rendering Intent, but generally use the latter (more testing needed). I rarely use Maximum Quality as High Quality produces phenomenal prints in most cases and takes a lot less time. Although, as you point out, it's impossible/pointless to 100% match a projected image to a print (and of course prints look radically different depending on paper and lighting), I'm generally satisfied that the print reflects my artistic vision based on what I see onscreen. The important thing is "does the print work?" Experimenting with various papers and settings is part of the process (as you say, experience is hugely important--I still feel like I'm on the steep part of the learning curve) but IMO it's better use of time to record and edit more images than to obsess over the mythical "perfect" print (sometimes easier said than done)...

[perroh]

Amazing video as always, thanks for spreading your knowledge (excuse any mistake, my English is not my first language)

[stevealbon]

Good video thanks Keith, recently bought ET-8550 very pleased with it, replaced a very old Canon pro 9500 .

[daver]

Very useful as always. Thank you for giving you time to share your insights and knowledge.

[hamshanksproductions]

Hi Keith. I’m fully set up for top quality prints. I think my screen is the same as yours and the best photography investment I’ve made. After purchasing screen I started to do colour photography. My prints couldn’t be better. However as you said, I only use soft proofing as a sort of indicator. I’ve watched other photographers go to great lengths to edit a photograph, put it into soft proofing only to use the most basic ps (hammer and chisel) tools to adjust? Who would know if your prints hadn’t quite matched your screen? Don’t get me wrong, you should aspire to produce the best you can. I love the prints I make on Matt papers. Amazing. One thing you may comment on is the use of a rip. Colorbyte software apparently takes over the engine of your printer and will take it past the limitations of the native software. But expensive.

[stWorldProblemsSolved]

The display used makes a huge difference also, lighting matching to the calibrated device or vice versa is also helpful when comparing; high CRI bulbs are preferable as well. Using a well calibrated OLED C1 (sub 2% de BT.2020 and sub .5% rec.709 with calman), they are much cheaper compared to desktop calibrated displays for editing purposes and offer flexibility of use), I am able to use soft proofing in ps very effectively to get a image to look how I want on a specific paper types before print. I don't think all images/art styles belong on, "the customer's paper of choice", but they should be sold the correct paper to most accurately display the image/art they choose. There is surely an optimal paper for each image or art style, in most price ranges. The main differences for my workflow; the smoothness of gradients are superior once printed, not different overall in color or tone, but in the transitions between on a higher dpi thus making it look smoother, the ppi of the monitor being only 91.79 pixels per inch shows more steps (main disadvantage to using a large oled). This is with a professional printer full disclosure. (z6200PS).

[paulwilliams]

Thank you - I wish you'd published this video a couple of months ago, and before I bought my 200 Pro🙂 I've spent the last few weeks (and box of FS Platinum Baryta) trying to match soft proofing and the prints as a baseline, so I could mindlessly edit for prints in the future. After you've now reset my expectations, and I've experimented with printing patterns and smaller prints, I'm a little more confident that I can create prints that please me. Thanks for the regular videos, they're so useful.

[johndwilliams]

Still on the path to choosing a printer but have ordered a screen calibrator as a starting point. Practical advice as usual, Keith.