sRGB or Adobe RGB?

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by khitrovg, Dec 15, 2004.

  1. Dear PN,

    I have been using Miller labs and I have been very happy, however,
    lately I am getting back images that I slightly under saturated and
    bleak. After carefully going over those orders I have realized that
    these were sent to them in the Adobe RGB format.

    Please correct me if I am wrong, I thought that Adobe RGB has a larger
    color gamut and is ideal for labs to print compared to sRGB.

    Which mode profile do you use when sending digital files to your
    favorite labs?

    Sincerely,
    Greg
     
  2. my lab only accepts sRGB files.
     
  3. I use the same lab and had the same problem. What happens, from my understanding, is they convert it to sRGB. That is the profile their printers are set up for. Also in 8 bit. I don't know if when they convert it there is a problem or not. They regularly have articles in their newsletter discussing the optimal way to send files to get the best possible prints. Just go to their customer only section and on the left hand side of the page is a newsletter link. Or else you could call and talk to one of the customer service people who should be able to steer you to a better explanation.
     
  4. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    get their icc profile and profile your monitor. spyder's are so cheap now.
     
  5. Eric,
    Thank you for your advice, but my monitor is weekly profiled with the spyder, so clearly this is not the problem. As to the ICC profiles, this is something to look into. But even than you are still left with the same question what is better sRGB or Adobe for the amount of colors in the final print?

    Greg
     
  6. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    save in srgb if you are not working in their profile. millers should be able to give it to you though. i'm looking for some great threads in the digital darkroom for you right now.
     
  7. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

  8. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

  9. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Dry Creek probably has your Millers icc profile here too.
     
  10. Eric,
    Thank you VERY much this link was increadibly helpful.
    Greg
     
  11. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    no worries man. what i lack in memebership payment, i make up in time with...
     
  12. There are really 3 major color formats with subcategories with-in each: sRGB, RGB, and CMYK. sRGB is a truncated color format used for internet exchanges, and many photo printing labs. The reason many labs use sRGB can vary, but chief among those reasons is that a vast majority of digital cameras are set to sRGB as the default color space ... and ... many labs offer internet transfer services where a less information dense format is more efficient in terms of time and space... so a J-Peg in sRGB is desired. Most of the images brought to Wall-Mart and other mass labs are from P&S family cameras default set to sRGB. Even the D20 ships with sRGB set as default and has to be re-programed to RGB (at least mine was). Journalist's cameras like the 1D, 1DMKII are usually set to sRGB for quick wireless transfer to publishers for conversion to CMYK. CMYK is the general color format for publication printing like magazine ads and editorial images. CMYK is the designation because that corresponds to how printing presses work ... they lay down each of the 4 colors onto paper one at a time (four color printing). At our ad agency, everything is calibrated to CMYK for that reason. the Quark design program, all computer work spaces, and our Epson 3000 and 4000 ink-jet printers are all calibrated to CMYK because the end proofs have to match what the printers are able to do. So, the color profiles in each art director's photoshop proofing designation is CMYK. RGB is a more expanded color format used primarily for photographic reproduction. Most desktop printers (ink-jet and dye-sub) are equipped to deal with RGB. The trouble arises because none of the three color formats match each other when dealing with any given image on a computer screen. sRGB and CMYK tend to be closer, but RGB is quite off in color when directly converted to either sRGB or CMYK. But, you do know what the end means will be, (your RGB desktop printer, a lab supporting sRGB, or CMYK if you are correcting an image for publication). If your primary objective most of the time is to desktop print, you DO NOT want to calibrate your screen to match what your desktop printer is doing. You want to do exactly the opposite. You want to calibrate your screen and save that profile so you can select it as your working space profile and proof profile when working in Photoshop. Then that information is what is sent to the desktop printer so the images will match what you are seeing on screen. This is how my system is set up because I print thousands of my own images for weddings and advertising presentation layouts. If you only are doing work for web viewing or wireless transfer, or to be sent to a lab working in sRGB, then you want to select that as your default work space and PS proof profile. If, like our art directors at work, you prep images for publication, then CMYK becomes the center piece of your color profile preferences. ONE IMPORTANT THING FOR THOSE WHO SHOOT DIGITAL: check what your camera's color space is set to. It is highly probable that it's set to sRGB unless you changed it. If you primarily print on a desktop printer, change it to RGB. If you primarily post on the web or send off images to a lab leave it on sRGB. Hope this helps (if even a little bit) to understand what this is all about. Here's an experiment: one image corrected in each of the three color formats, composited into one and saved for web. Let's see if the sRGB one is the better of the three when viewed on the internet. (I think this will work unless it all got transferred into one color format when converting to web??? ... we'll see )
    00AShY-20939184.jpg
     
  13. oops, I forgot to convert the whole thing into sRGB for web upload: here it is again...
    00AShm-20939284.jpg
     
  14. all 6 photos are exactly the same.
     
  15. No they're not.

    The lab I use for work prints on a frontier using sRGB and that is what I shoot in. Apparently if shooting RAW then it doesn't make a difference anyway though I would like that verified. The Lab I use for my landscape stuff uses Adobe RGB so I will work in RGB when doing that kind of stuff. Photoshop lets you convert from one to the other very easily, so unless the work is critical, it doesn't really matter if you work in one format and only change at the end depending on the usage of the file.
     
  16. The shots are different, but only marginally.

    My advice is to send files to the lab in the working space they are using vs complaining about it and adding another variable to the equation. The lab's either going to dump it down to sRGB, or I can do it for them and at least keep it under my control. I prefer to keep it under my control.

    I shoot in Adobe with my 10D when I'm dealing with a strong gamut range, and can post more extreme and obvious examples of why AdobeRGB is the better color space. However, for general portraiture I rarely use AdobeRGB simply because lack of color saturation is a greater problem than too much.

    If I'm working with a LightJet shop that knows what they are doing I'll be happy to keep files in the wider gamut profile.
     
  17. all 6 photos are exactly the same.
    Not on my calibrated and profiled Samsung SyncMaster 753df CRT monitor (that isn't an endorsement -- I'm eager to upgrade)! But as Scott pointed out the differences are slight but they are there
    My way of working right now is to shoot Adobe RGB if I shoot a .JPG or if shooting RAW files assign and save the processed TIF version in Adobe RGB (1998). If the the print is being made by a lab that I know uses sRGB I'll duplicate the file and convert the duplicate to sRGB (or to the lab's profile) and send over the converted duplicate.
     
  18. Marc, I surely can count on you to give the most comprehensive overview. I would like to thank everyone who contributed to this thread.

    SIncerely,
    Greg
     
  19. Marc's overview contains mostly good practical advice, but I suspect a couple things got slightly confused in quick writing.

    You don't want to set your working space to your monitor profile. Calibrate and profile the monitor (creating what is called a "device profile") and then it should be set at the OS-level as your monitor profile. In PS (or wherever), your working space (as Marc said) should be a well-behaved editing space, such as Adobe(98), a.k.a. aRGB, or sRGB. [I recommend aRGB, but no one listens to me anyway.] From there, you can convert to another specific device profile (say, a printer) when necessary for output. So, do exactly what Mark is saying about not calibrating to your printer and for calibrating/profiling the monitor, just don't use that as your working space.

    Many labs do indeed prefer sRGB, because it more closely matches the output range of their printers. However, I don't think sRGB is any more efficient in file size for transfer (8 bits is 8 bits, regardless of the color space defined in those bits). Also, as has been noted on these page by people smarter than I, no device exactly matches sRGB, so the ideal is for the lab to have a specific device profile for their specific device.

    Mark's definitely right about most inkjets thinking in RGB. I think it was Bruce Fraser (or someone like that) who observed that these CMYK and CcMmYK devices behave so assiduously like RGB devices that we are forced to treat them as such.

    Onward.
     
  20. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    so...when do actually assign profiles? in the begining of your workflow or at the end? and do you soft proof or not? i really have a hard time with all the theories.
     
  21. If the image comes with a profile assigned, you don't ever need to assign profiles. You make your edits and save a master file. Then, you can soft-proof in your output space (or Convert to it, if you prefer), make final adjustments for print, and save as a different filename so as not to throw away your master.
     
  22. > There are really 3 major color formats with subcategories with-in each: sRGB,
    > RGB, and CMYK.

    Not really. There are at least three "major" color models; RGB, CMYK and Grayscale. Within
    each color model there are literally thousands of different color spaces. In RGB, every
    device that produces or output's an RGB file and is different from each other is a different
    color space. Adobe RGB (1998) is a different color space from sRGB from Wide Gamut RGB,
    from Epson 2200 Matt RGB etc.

    > sRGB is a truncated color format used for internet exchanges, and many photo
    > printing labs.

    Not really. The sRGB color space is a synthetic color space that is supposed to mimic the
    "typical" PC display. It's a very simple space constructed of nothing more then a specific
    gamma, white point and three chromatisity values.

    >The reason many labs use sRGB can vary, but chief among those
    > reasons is that a vast majority of digital cameras are set to sRGB as the
    > default color space ... and ... many labs offer internet transfer services
    > where a less information dense format is more efficient in terms of time and
    > space...

    Most are lazy, don't want to handle specific output profiles (unique color spaces) or handle
    color conversions on the fly for speed and simply ASSUME all the data sent to the device
    begins in sRGB.


    > so a J-Peg in sRGB is desired. Most of the images brought to
    > Wall-Mart and other mass labs are from P&S family cameras default set to sRGB.

    They produce a unique color space in RGB that's somewhat close to sRGB. Or to put it
    another way, when you tell a color managed product like Photoshop (or a printer that
    expects sRGB) that the numbers are in sRGB, you get a reasonable color preview or output
    based on these assumptions.

    > Even the D20 ships with sRGB set as default and has to be re-programed to RGB
    > (at least mine was). Journalist's cameras like the 1D, 1DMKII are usually set
    > to sRGB for quick wireless transfer to publishers for conversion to CMYK.

    Bad idea considering the CMYK gamut of even something like SWOP exceeds the sRGB
    gamut in Cyans and greens.

    > CMYK is the general color format for publication printing like magazine ads
    > and editorial images.

    There are literally thousands of flavors of CMYK like RGB.

    > CMYK is the designation because that corresponds to how
    > printing presses work ... they lay down each of the 4 colors onto paper one at
    > a time (four color printing).

    Some CMYK color spaces with specific recipes for a specific press.

    > At our ad agency, everything is calibrated to
    > CMYK for that reason.

    Which CMYK? There are as many different flavors of CMYK as there are CMYK devices.
    There is a very specific recipe called TR001 which is a specific flavor of SWOP based upon
    900 odd spectral readings of a press that the SWOP committee has said is producing SWOP
    conditions.


    > If your primary objective most of the time is to desktop print, you DO NOT
    > want to calibrate your screen to match what your desktop printer is doing.

    You never calibrate your display device to an output device (you can't). You calibrate it for
    a specific aimpoint (eg 6500K, gamma 2,.2) and then you load an output profile so an
    application like Photoshop can produce a soft proof based upon that device behavior. It's
    simply impossible to "calibrate" a display to a CMYK device. They only deal with a specific
    recipe of RGB.

    > You want to calibrate your screen and save
    > that profile so you can select it as your working space profile and proof
    > profile when working in Photoshop.

    Nope, you never want to use a display profile as a working space. That defeats the entire
    way in which Photoshop divorces the actual display from how you edit your files. You pick
    a Quasi-Device Independent working space like Adobe RGB (1998) (or sRGB) which is
    based on NO real world device. They are synthetic color spaces for that very reason.
     
  23. Andrew, I think Marc was trying to simplify :)
     
  24. image one color space, someday :)
     
  25. If the 3 images in my second post look the same to you, I'd look into calibrating your
    monitor.

    A simplification? Yes, but I even went beyond the scope of the original question. Of course
    there are a zillion iterations of CMYK for example, but the principle is based on 4 color
    separations for press, which is enough info to get the idea. sRGB, RGB and CMYK are the
    practical color areas photographers work appears in. No matter how anyone tries to tech it
    up and make it seem mysteriously complex (often correctly), it's the basic categories of
    practical applications we use.

    No I didn't make an error in saying that I calibrate my monitor and then select that as my
    working space ... then also select that as my PS proofing profile. Right or wrong, it's a
    decision based on consistent results.

    Every single device I use from a 2200 ink-jet, to an 8500 dye-sub, and all of my different
    scanners are dead nuts the same in output... and exactly match what I see on my monitor.
    Not only that, but the local lab I send my clients to, makes "as is" 4X6 prints for them @
    .29 ea., that are also dead on in color match. The owner has told me he loves my files
    because the clients never complain or return prints for reprinting.


    I used to use Adobe RGB 1998, but since doing this have not once had a print that didn't
    match what I saw on my monitor. I may be dead wrong (highly likely), but I'm sorry, with
    these results I'd rather be wrong than be technically right and struggling with print
    matching like I used to always be doing.
     
  26. Mark - I would suggest one correction: RGB and CMYK are the two ways to build color that people work in. sRGB and aRGB are variants of RGB.

    I'd never tell anyone to change something that works, but I'd also not recommend to others to set their working space as their monitor profile.
     
  27. p.s. It is possible that some previous problems came from color gamut mismatches with the wider aRGB space, and your current set-up has a smaller gamut that is entirely or nearly-entirely contained within the gamuts of the output devices you work with, which would simply your workflow.
     
  28. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Marc, I'd appreciate some step by step painting by numbers if you don't mind.

    I open my nef's, psd's and such and it gives you three choices, ("How do you want to precede?") 1,"Use the embedded profile" 2,"Convert documents colours to the working space" 3,"Discard the embedded profile"

    Embedded, for me, is adobe rgb (1998) and working is srgb iec61966-2.1

    Which of the three do you choose? Assuming you are printing from a frontier with a profile.
     
  29. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Then after I have made a specific duplicate to send to the printers and have adjusted and tweaked, I go image/mode/assign profile and click off the icc profile for one of the labs that I am using. Sometimes the image goes a little green or red, for which I then go up to curves and adjust it in one of the rgb channels until it looks good again. I then save it and send it off, and everytime the print looks identical to what I proofed on my monitor. Am I doing this "right"?
     
  30. Eric - You asked Mark, but I'll be nervy and jump in.

    I think you're doing it close to right. You can edit in aRGB or sRGB, but since you've captured in aRGB, I'd keep hold of those extra colors and edit there, too. [You could even set that as your working space if you want to avoid the profile mismatch dialog.]

    The only thing I'd say to change is that your profile switch should be a Convert to Profile instead of an Assign Profile. Assigning profile doesn't change the numbers; it changes the way they're interpreted. What you'd like PS to do is preserve the appearance of your file, but put it into the gamut of your output device, and that's where Conversion comes in.
     
  31. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Cheers Marshall, i didn't mean to exclude you. I've asked Marc so many questions, i guess it was habbit...

    the next question is, what is the difference between this method and soft proofing?
     
  32. Well, my interpretation goes like this: soft-proofing is basically viewing at the image as if you'd Converted to that profile, but without executing the change. Any edits you make while soft-proofing are still applied in the original color space. Thus, you can prepare your file for output and keep those changes, all without putting the image through a potentially destructive mode change, and you even get to toggle back and forth to see what happened to your colors.

    That said, if you've got a master file saved and any edits you make are solely for the purpose of output to that one device, you can make the Conversion and get the same results. Just don't overwrite the masterfile.
     
  33. -->No I didn't make an error in saying that I calibrate my monitor and then select that as
    my working space ... then also select that as my PS proofing profile. Right or wrong, it's a
    decision based on consistent results.

    If you understand the implications of using a display profile (which is changing everytime
    you make a new one) as a working space by all means. IF all the documents are tagged,
    the working space here plays no role. Any new document you make (and leave this way) is
    based on a highly device dependent color space that's always changing, based on the
    gamut of your one device and will not be gray balanced where R=G=B (something ALL
    synthetic RGB working space do). It's also a really bad idea for users to work this way so
    while you can certainly do this, don't advise other less knowledgeable users to do this. It
    took me a year to get good ol' Will Crockett to stop suggesting this sillyness on his site (I
    suspect many poor users are still doing this).

    There's also no reason to load this profile in a soft proof (FWIW, the feature is hard wired
    there anyway in the Proof Setup and that's why you have those options; Macintosh RGB,
    Windows RGB and Monitor RGB, the later using the display profile). But that's a big huge
    difference compared to using the profile as a working space. That's only being used for
    previews. The working space is the foundation of the colorspace you're editing in.

    The very reason we have RGB working space that are synthetic and Quasi-Device
    Independent and have had them since version 5 is so users would NOT edit their
    documents based on their display profiles. If I create a document in my display profile
    space and you create one in yours, if the numbers in our files are the same, they will
    appear differently. If the were to appear the same, the numbers would be different and all
    conversions would be different. IF you have 89/12/139 in Adobe RGB (1998) and I have
    the same numbers in Adobe RGB (1998) we see identical previews from the same numbers
    and if we convert to the same output space, they resulting numbers are identical. That's
    NOT what's going to happen if we both use a highly device dependent RGB space to edit
    our files.

    There's NO advantage to using an display profile as a working space and many reasons
    why it's not good. But again, if you like it, understand the limitations of doing this, feel
    free. For those out there who are not sure, don't do it, it's a really bad idea.
     
  34. Okay Andrew, I'm up to learn anything that'll improve the stability and consistency of the
    photos. I'm a photographer not a computer expert. However, I've been doing this now for
    over a year and have re-calibrated my monitor quite a few times during that time span.
    DVDs burned a year ago still print just as displayed when printed now. So, prints from
    then look the same when printed today.

    One question I do have is why there is a "work space" option at all?

    Now I admit that I may have been doing something wrong back before this, so I'm open to
    any suggestions if the images improve. Otherwise if it ain't broke, why fix it?
     
  35. -->One question I do have is why there is a "work space" option at all?

    A working space is just an editing space.

    In Photoshop 4 and earlier, that space was based on your display. Photoshop simply sent
    the numbers in the file directly to the display. So if your display was 3 units too yellow,
    you were editing based on this bias. This was before we built and used ICC profiles for
    handling our displays, our output devices and to describe the numbers in our documents.

    Photoshop 5 began the process of divorcing our individual displays from the editing of our
    files. To substitute for this, synthetic color spaces like sRGB, Adobe RGB (1998) and so
    forth were created. These spaces are not based on any single real world device. Best of all,
    someone on a Mac who might calibrate his display to a 1.8 gamma 5000K aim point could
    load a digital image full of numbers (that's all computers really understand) while someone
    on a PC with a 2.2 gamma at 6500K could view the SAME numbers the same way. That's
    simply not possible when a million users are all viewing the same numbers based on the
    Idiosyncrasies of their displays which are all over the map. The RGB working space is
    totally independent of your display, That's where the display profile comes into play. It's
    the great equalizer. So while the numbers in a one document in one color space is the
    same, on a dozen different users machines, each display is different. But the ICC profile
    that describes that display is used to ensure all the numbers (which are the same) preview
    the same.

    What Adobe did was quite brilliant.

    Unfortunately there are some so called experts (and color management nay sayers) who
    just don't get it and post articles on web sites that fly against everything the engineers at
    Adobe have implemented.
     
  36. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    Greg, catch all that?

    cheers Andrew, very good.
     
  37. Yes, I want to understand this in more depth. Well ... deep enough to keep the consistency
    I now have while stabilizing viewing by any other system other than my own. And you are
    right Andrew, when I couldn't achieve any kind of consistency with my prints, others
    pointed me in this direction.

    So, to make sure I get it right...

    when opening an image and the color management dialog box asks what to do, I select
    Adobe RGB 1998 (if it isn't already that). Then before correcting the open image I make
    sure monitor RGB is selected in PS proof set up and be sure proof colors is checked
    (selected). Right?

    Well I did exactly that, and opened an old image that used my current monitor calibration
    as the color space, switched it to Adobe RGB 1998 which threw the color off quite a bit ...
    but when I selected Monitor RGB in PS it went right back to the original color. With proof
    colors selected I then sent it to the 2200... and yep the print matched the screen.

    Now I need to see if it will do the same on a completely different computer/printer.
     
  38. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    in the second link provided Marc, way at the top, Ethan said this;

    Ethan Hansen , sep 20, 2004; 12:51 p.m.
    Assigning a profile and converting to a profile are two entirely different things. Assignment simply attaches a label to the image. You use this if the image either was untagged (no color space associated with it) or was incorrectly tagged with the wrong color space. The image data remain unchanged after assignment - only the label is different. Conversion alters the actual image data to move it from one color space to another.

    It helps me to think in terms of languages. Languages give meaning to our squeaks, grunts, and scribbles on paper. Similarly, a color profile gives meaning to RGB or CMYK numbers in a digital image. Without the associated color space, the numbers are nothing more than numbers. They do not correlate with any physical color.

    If you are handed a text in an unknown language, for the sake of argument let's assume it is a tablet from ancient Crete inscribed in Linear A, it makes no sense if you try to interpret as being English text. This is the equivalent of feeding a Fuji Frontier an Adobe RGB image. If you learn that the text is in Linear A (we've just "assigned" the Linear A profile) you can findo someone to translate (convert) the text into a language you understand. This is the same process followed when you convert an image from your working color space into the printer space. If all you do is assign the printer profile, it is the same as loudly proclaiming our ancient Cretan tablet is written in English. That's nice, but it still makes no sense.

    Soft proofing to a printer profile is used to see how the image will appear in print. Photoshop does several conversions on-the-fly. The first is from the document color space to the printer profile. The second is from the printer profile to your monitor profile. This is what is shown on-screen. The advantage here is that you can work in a color space designed for editing while seeing how the final print will appear. If the printer's limited shadow range will clip your shadow details, you can apply selective dodging. Any colors that exceed the printer gamut can be flagged and edited if you dso not like the color profile's default conversion.

    Soft proofing to your monitor profile only makes sense if you are preparing images to be viewed on your monitor outside of a color managed application. A PowerPoint slide show might qualify here.
     
  39. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    and then he provided this link
     
  40. So Eric, is what I did in the post above correct or incorrect? It also worked at the print
    level just as well as the way I've been working for the last year.

    My head is spinning just like it was a year ago.

    I think I'll go make some more photographs ; -)

    BTW, I picked up an EPSON Picture mate to make quick 4X6s, and the prints are
    surprisingly good ... and can be handled without fingerprints despite being a semi-gloss
    finish. Prints are 29 cents each and everything needed comes in a box to make 100
    prints. Inks for a 100 prints are self contained in a single cartridge. It's really small.
     
  41. To all of you, thank you. This thread has been both educational and delightful, maybe the best thread I've read in the past six months. I'll bookmark it...
     
  42. EricM

    EricM Planet Eric

    "So Eric, is what I did in the post above correct or incorrect?"

    I'm really not sure Marc. i have such a hard time getting my head around this stuff from the printed word. I need it spoken into my ear while someone has their hand on my mouse. But what i do is working perfect. except that i'm going to try the above recomendation for 'converting to profile' instead of 'assigning profile'. I'm mostly using this for actors headshots and model testing, which i need to be bang on, and it is suprisingly great. wisiwig, and no more teenage c-41 button pushers guessing. i just check to see if the lab has an updated icc, if so they email me, i drop it into the labrynth of windows folders and voila! i just want a better monitor now :p
     
  43. "But even than you are still left with the same question what is better sRGB or Adobe for the amount of colors in the final print?"

    The paper and printer determine the amount of colors ("color gamut") of the final print. Therefore use your lab's recommended profile for the files you submit to them. Why? Because most labs ignore profiles (Fuji Frontier equipment doesn't seem to notice them at all) and therefore your large-gamut RGB values will be scaled to fit into their small-gamut system. What this means is that your brightest possible red will become their brightest possible red, and your bright, but not fully saturated, red will be desaturated.

    My recommendation: work on the image in Adobe RGB (which is indeed large, and includes the entire gamut of the common CMYK space--a big plus for prepress), then convert it to the lab's recommended profile for printing. You can use Photoshop's soft-proofing feature to see if your image overruns their equipment's color gamut and make adjustments accordingly.
     
  44. Wow, Eric and Marc.

    I was able to follow your comments. Thank you very much, I did go back and played with some settings here and as Eric said converting to a profile makes it a whole lot of difference as compared to Assigning a profile.

    I played with my Epson 2200 and soft proofing and I absolutely loved the results I got.

    I thought I will also share with you the paper that I have started to use and I am very excited by the quality and the price.

    I started buying from www.lexjet.com the paper is semimatte

    I hope some of you will also find it increadible.

    Best,
    Greg
     
  45. when opening an image and the color management dialog box asks what to do, I select Adobe RGB 1998 (if it isn't already that). Then before correcting the open image I make sure monitor RGB is selected in PS proof set up and be sure proof colors is checked (selected). Right?
    You don't have to convert to aRGB if the image is already in sRGB. It gives a little more breathing room in some colors, but isn't necessary. [The camera can capture in a larger space than sRGB, but once the image is in the smaller space, any additional color information is already gone. For some subjects (e.g., most portraits), it won't make any difference). For other subjects, you may be making adjustments that would push it into the larger gamut.] But yes, if you want to edit in aRGB, Convert (not Assign) on opening.
    For the second point quoted, you'd want the profile for your output as the proof option, not the monitor profile. If you're sending to a 2200 on one of Epson's Premium papers, say, you'd select the profile for that paper/ink combo and review that way. If you have a Frontier profile, you'd set the proof setup to that profile.
    Onward.
     
  46. ... and upward !
     

Share This Page