Convert to sRGB form Adobe 1998?

[steve.elliott]

I have my cameras and Photoshop colourspace set to Adobe 1998 - should I

convert to sRGB before printing with the Epson R2400? Or will the printer

cope with the extra colour information?

[alfaromeo]

do you have a custom profile for your printer?

[x]

There's little point in setting a camera to use the AdobeRGB colourpsace. If you're aiming for the highest quality you will be shooting in Raw format. In this case the camera colourspace setting is irrelevant because you set it in the raw conversion software.

 

If you're shooting Jpeg and manipulating them in Photoshop, colourspace is the least of your problems. Highlight & shadow clipping & headroom will be far more serious concerns, plus the quality-destroying effect of in-camera sharpening and Jpeg compression.

 

Best to leave the camera set at sRGB then if you really must shoot Jpeg at least the pictures are displayable in most imaging programs e.g. web browser without having to convert them to sRGB.

[alfaromeo]

I assume you use PS CS2, you may read this:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/printing/CS2_printing.html

[steve.elliott]

Thanks for the feedback.

 

Yes I always shoot RAW, just saying I use everything with Adobe 1998 - but I'd heard printers aren't capable of reproducing all the colours correctly unless they are converted (the reds I think are supposably clipped). But the Epson R2400 might cope.

[peter_mounier]

I think most desktop photo printers can handle Adobe 1998. It's the online printing services

that usually use the sRGB standard.

 

Peter

[ellis_vener_photography]

An accurate profile for that pritner is a bit larger than sRGB but I think a little smaller in most

areas (if not all) areas than AdobeRGB(1998). It owould be better to convert your Adobe RGB

(11998) maters to a duplicate file usign the profile for that paper and printer to get it's full

potential for any given image. Convertign to sRGB would be safe but you'll definitely be

clipping more colors by doing that. And ofcourse what colros do get potentially clipped will

depend o n what colors are in the origianl to begin with.

[godfrey]

If you're capturing in RAW format, what colorspace you set your camera to is only relevant

to the JPEG preview/thumbnail that it includes in the RAW file. Colorspace is set during

RAW conversion processing.

 

If you're printing to an Epson R2400 from Photoshop, you should use a color managed

print workflow. It doesn't matter whether you use Adobe RGB (1998), ProPhoto RGB or

sRGB (or any other colorspace) in your editing ... Go into Print with Preview, elect the

option for Photoshop to Manage Color, pick the R2400 paper profile for the paper you're

using, set rendering intent to Relative Colormetric, and click on Blackpoint Compensation.

Press the Print button. In the Epson print driver dialog, use the Print Settings panel to

enable Advanced Color Printing and the paper type, then use the Color Management panel

to turn off Color Management (Photoshop is doing the translations for you).

 

Click print and you're done (all this assuming of course that you have a calibrated

monitor).

 

Godfrey

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Just remember color spaces are only containers for random

RGB numbers that represent color that need software

algorithms to map correctly between capture, display and output

devices. The bigger the container the more room=(stay away

from 255 clipped data) to CAPTURE and EDIT within. They don't

change color. They only control how the numbers are mapped

between devices and any edits applied.

 

If you save an edit under one color space and decide to apply to

the same image converted to a wider/narrower color space you

will have noticeable color shifts between the two versions of the

same image. This is where some including myself get confused

and think the color space changed the color of their images

when it really was the saved edit under a different color space

mapping algorithm that did it.

 

Capture devices scanners and digicams have varying sizes and

shapes of color gamuts that are much bigger than sRGB. The

scene captured adds to the variable as well. Most colors in

nature fit well within sRGB. However, If you let the incamera

software map to sRGB you may come across a scene whose

gamut is beyond the capabilities of the incamera's software to

handle properly. Here you have the option to view the camera's

live histogram to correct through exposure mapping to sRGB.

You will probably have to test to see if the camera's histogram is

actually representing the mapping on output to sRGB or the

internal RAW data. Compare histograms in your image editor of

choice.

 

Trying to capture brightly lit saturated flowers in sRGB will surely

show clipping if you don't find some way of reducing the

luminance in the highlites usually making up most of the

clipping. Once it's clipped it's gone forever.

[steve.elliott]

Godfrey those settings were very useful - but using Colour Mode: Adobe RGB in the printer settings, and using let printer decide colour seem to give slightly more accurate colours compared to what was on-screen.

[godfrey]

That suggests you have either a screen calibration problem or a profile/paper mismatch.

 

I use an Eye One Display 2 calibration unit and set my screen up for Luminance 140, gamma

1.8 and white point 5500K. I print to Epson Velvet Fine Art and Epson Enhanced Matte using

the R2400's supplied profiles and the workflow as above. The results are as close a match to

what is shown on the screen as any printing I've seen.

 

Godfrey

[steve.elliott]

Interesting. More tweaking then I guess - but that will do for now because it's very close indeed to on-screen colours.

[steve.elliott]

Ahh Gamma 1.8 - I'm using 2.2 - that might be the difference.

[alvin_de_quincey]

Ok... i think i've found a thread that can help.

Please don't all sigh at once, but...

 

I understand that:

 

1)raw is not a colour space and the colour space is set/determined when converting to a working file (ie you can choose how to export your pictures colour working space)... eg tiff, jpeg etc

 

2) you must set your monitor to a known and calibrated level (i have the ColorEyes software/hardware package) to successfully see black, white and chroma, hue, saturation levesl, etc, correctly.

 

3) to print correctly in cs2, you need to have the icc profile of the printer you are sending it to and soft proof your picture (after you've manipulated your masterpiece on the monitor to be exactly what you desire it to be) and then alter it to suit your soft proof (if it so needs to be).

 

4) sRGB is a colourspace that is close to/similar and an industry standard that is easily re-produceable on computer monitors, the web, and as importantly... in how most point and shoot cameras record the image

 

5) cs2 will assign a different colourspace to each new document if you choose so

 

But... if you take your raw pic... convert to a tiff ... in CS2, what does the 'Color Settings'/'Working Spaces'/'RGB' setting actually do to how you see the picture on your monitor??

 

If you choose either 'Adobe RGB' or 'sRGB'... how does this 'Working Space' setting influence the way you see the picture you've just sent across from your RAW converter??

 

I'm just missing somenthing really simple here!

 

regards, Alvin

[Tim_Lookingbill]

The working space chosen in Color Settings will be the default

profile assigned to images that don't already have an embedded

profile.

 

When working in RAW you are editing in the space chosen and

embedded when opened in PS. If the this space is different from

the one in Color Settings you will get a prompt indicating this

difference and a choice given in the dialog box to either honor the

embedded profile and leave the image as is or convert to the

working space chosen in Color Settings.

 

Conversions change the data but keep the preview, assigning

only changes the preview in relation to the data and monitor

profile loaded in the system but without changing the data.

[alvin_de_quincey]

Thank you very much Tim for spending the time to help here, it's much appreciated.

I know i'm not a complete dick, but i just haven't got my head completely around 'who's on first base, what's on second....' etc, etc.

 

Ok...

 

> The working space chosen in Color Settings will be the default profile assigned to images that don't already have an embedded profile. <

 

Understand that now... I don't believe that is clearly spelt out in all the guff i've read about 'digital workflow'!

This has been my fundamental stumbling block so far (;-(

 

> When working in RAW you are editing in the space chosen and embedded when opened in PS. If the this space is different from the one in Color Settings you will get a prompt indicating this difference and a choice given in the dialog box to either honor the embedded profile and leave the image as is or convert to the working space chosen in Color Settings. <

Yep... makes sense now and i've done a simple check to verify that.

 

> Conversions change the data but keep the preview, <

 

You mean... if i've opened my RAW file in a RAW file reader, eg Adobe, and choose the space there to be say, sRGB, then when i open my file in Photoshop, if the Color Settings/Working Space/RGB is set to Adobe RGB 1998, then... I will not only be told that the colour space is different from the embedded one, but if i change to the current working space, then my file will be changed permanently (ie gamut, etc), but my on screen/monitor view will still look the same as set by my initial monitor software/hardware profile setting (eg ColorEyes system)?

 

> assigning only changes the preview in relation to the data and monitor profile loaded in the system but without changing the data. <

 

Ok... run that by me again?

I understand that converting changes the gamut and colorspace, etc, but leaves what you see in preview, alone... is that correct?

But just run the last sentence by me again!

 

Also... please indulge me re the workflow (there's definitely logic here, but i've just got to tap into it!

 

You set up your monitor to a known standard to be sure you see things as they should be and it can be replicated... okay?

 

When you open Photoshop... if your monitor is correctly setup, then you are effectively viewing in 'correct' sRGB.

 

Your 'Color Settings/Working Space' allows you to work with your file in the expanded gamut you require for web, screen, printing, etc, and keep it how it was shot (colourspace-wise) or convert to a different colourspace if you so desire, but your monitor's view is still sRGB!?

 

If for example you've shot RAW + JPG files on your camera in the Adobe 1998 colour matrix setting, then your resultant JPG files will look dreary if your PS 'Working Space' is set as Adobe 1998, because they have not been converted yet to be seen correctly as you would on a standard computer monitor, etc.

So... even though they have a wider gamut useful for pro printing (not that you would use a jpg to do so), they will look like crap when viewed on most well adjusted computer monitors!

To view them in all their glory, you would need to convert to sRGB, to see them in their best either for web or monitor viewing.

 

Does this example also apply to a RAW pic if viewed on a monitor within PS, if it is also carrying the Adobe 1998 embedded profile?

 

And this is where i get a little confused... because in most cases, you are going to send your RAW pic to a printer, either local or pro using an ICC profile.

So... soft proofing will show you how it will turn out, correct?

But viewing and tweaking the master before soft proofing, well hey... what am i looking at quality wise here?

Do i have to convert to sRGB or what??

 

Ok, that's where i'm at at the moment.

 

Many thanks again (sorry, i've been into the wine tonight and just couldn't succincntly say this).

 

regards, Alvin

[frank_larkin]

I have no idea what Tim is going to reply but after reading Alvin's expose I too am heading for the wine. Made my day!