Should ExposureManager's soft proofing really look that bad?

[William Petruzzo]

My monitor is calibrated. I use the same working space for everything, then convert to sRGB for my local lab. The prints look extremely close to what I'm working with. My local lab's soft proofing profile looks about accurate too. Just today I've been tinkering with ExposureManager's prolab and I noticed that soft proofing with their profile looks really terrible.

I've never actually held in my hands one of their prints and this makes me think I probably don't want to.

standard:

My local lab:

Exposure Manager:

I know there might be discrepancies in the way these display on different monitors. But hopefully it'll be enough to get the idea. Color spaces continue to be a bit mystical to me. Although I've gotten to a good place now, it's quite possible I'm missing something.

Any ideas? Or would it be better to just avoid printing through Exposure Manager?

 

[Reese's PB Luver]

Why are you/is your lab printing in sRGB? You/your lab should be printing in Adobe RGB (1998). That's the best for printing and is also what top professional printmakers/labs use.

Soft proofing isn't always accurate, especially on a system different from the one that will be printing the photo. You're best off ordering a print or two so you can compare the actual prints.

It is hard for me to compare the photos you posted 'cause I have to scroll up and down and up and down (I'm on my laptop), so I can't really comment on any differences.