Damien Symonds

No. If anything, the opposite will be true. When soft-proofing for press printing it's most common to have to dull some very vivid colours of the RGB file to fit into the CMKY gamut. (In fact, this is true for RGB printing as well - did you see this thread?) No, definitely not. (As long as the soft-proofing and related adjustments are done properly, of course.) The balance will be fine. It's just that some colours might be a little duller by necessity. Yes, it wouldn't be too much trouble at all to put this simple extra step into your workflow, if you felt it was necessary. But heck, I wouldn't bother. For the small percentage of photos that would be affected, it's not worth it. Alas, yes. Again, though, it's only for a small percentage of images (ones with very vivid colours, eg flowers.) Not exactly. You would only have one file - the PSD file - with a specific Hue/Saturation layer for each print shop, which you applied in accordance with that shop's soft-proofing profile. Then for each print job you'd turn on the necessary layer, and turn the others off. (In case I haven't already mentioned this, the photos you put in the InDesign document are always PSD files. Never jpegs.) I agree. It would be wise to do a bit of testing to make sure you had a good system in place, but yes, it sure would save a lot of work. Is this something you're going to be dealing with a lot? Printing the same images at various print places?

I've got nothing, sorry

Sorry Falon, Brian is on a holiday at the moment (and he told me his holiday destination was likely to be in the path of Hurricane Sally) so he's not visiting the forum as often as usual.

Oh, that's a relief.

I look forward to hearing!

While it's true that there are a lot of dark photos in the book (mostly the old ones) the two that you posted above aren't dark at all. I see absolutely no reason why they would have printed dark. There can only be two reasons, I figure. Either (a) it was just a bad print job, or (b) they shouldn't be using FOGRA39.

Holy mackerel. I don't know what reviews you found about the i1Display Pro, but they're all nonsense. It's an excellent device, the only one I ever use.

Bridge and Photoshop. All anyone needs.

Yes, that will do for now. But I promise, once you take the 30 day challenge, you'll never use stupid Lightroom again. You won't even need all 30 days.

Yes. Insofar as a shitty touch screen can ever show good colour, a calibrator will help you get there.

Yes, it MUST be sRGB.

Oh, phew! Ok, let me know how you go with the lights.

Oh, sorry. https://www.damiensymonds.net/color-space-settings-for-the-lightroom-user/

No, in the bottom left corner of the Photoshop screen, remember? Where it said "Untagged" before.

See where it says "Custom" at the top? That's bad. Pull down that menu and put it back on "North America General Purpose 2" the way it should be. However, that still doesn't explain all those untagged images. Did you re-open one of the raw files from Lightroom to see what it says?

As I said in this article, your choice of calibrator depends on how closely your prints match your screen before calibration. But the trouble is, we can't know THAT until you have good light in your room. Right now, it seems like your screen is a dreadful mismatch to your prints, but a lot of that is probably the lighting's fault. Once you badger your husband into getting better lighting, you might find that the mismatch is nowhere near as b ad as you thought; in which case you only have to buy a cheaper calibrator, which would be great! Cool. Can you quickly go to the Edit menu and choose "Color Settings", and take a screenshot of that window for me?

I don't know how it happened either. I guess you'll need to open the file from Lightroom again and see if it has its profile this time. The best practice is to get a good desktop screen and plug it into your laptop. (This is best practice for all laptops, whether they are touchscreens or not.) Good desktop screens are very affordable nowadays. Or maybe you've even already got a spare screen in your house that you could plug in? Anyway, for now, let's just do our best with what you have. No calibrators come with disks any more, for exactly the reason you stated. The software all comes from download. But yes, even if you could access the software for your Munki, it wouldn't work on the new touch screen technology of your new computer. So a new calibrator is on the cards for you. Great! Keep on his case about that. It's impossible for a photographer to work properly under dim and/or yellow lighting. Hmmmm ... can you tell me which version of Photoshop you have?

Hi @reneefoto, there's a whole lot going wrong here. Let's try to break it down. sRGB is the correct setting, but somehow your photo has lost that setting. It's got no profile attached at all. I don't know how that happened. Do this check and you'll see what I mean. Secondly, you're using Lightroom. Lightroom is a steaming pile of shit. PLEASE take the 30 day challenge. Thirdly, your computer has a touch screen. They are really really terrible for editing. Is it too late to take the computer back? Fourthly, you don't have a calibrator yet. You must get one right away. Also, possibly a fifth point, your room light might not be any good. Please read this.

I forgot to ask - what kind of paper was the book printed on?

I know the time difference makes our conversations very elongated, and for that I apologise. I see that your files have arrived in my inbox, but I'm exhausted, so I'm turning in for the night. I'll take a look at them in the morning.

I was wondering if you could send me both the ebook and the print PDF to take a look at? https://spaces.hightail.com/uplink/BellePhotography

100 is the screaming maximum. Most people are more like 80-90, and some as low as 70.

Yep, that looks similar to others I've seen.

Have you explored "The Orton Effect"?

I would say there are some areas of normal colour, surrounded by a lot of areas of reduced colour. Therefore, the normal colour looks "vibrant" in that context.