printing

[paul_ruppert]

<p>I have been shooting weddings digitally for 3 years and I usually shoot jpeg and edit in PSE on a PC. I recently bought a macpro and installed PSCC and LR, I shot the wedding in raw with a NikonD300 that i recently purchased on ebay. All my edited photos look correct on my monitor, but the prints look awefull. I'm getting a yellowish brown look to most of the prints and I have tried two other printing co. with the same result. Ive never had this problem when editing with my PC and PSE11. I'm perplexed as to why my photos look fine on multiple monitors but are printing so bad. Again my 1st time shooting raw and using a Mac to edit. Thanks Paul</p>

[savagesax]

Did you make all of these changes at the same time? A new camera, shooting RAW, new computer system, and a printer?

Plus new software for the Mac?

 

I don't know the answers yet. I'd suggest taking it step by step. Maybe shoot a few photo's in jpeg. Then go from there.

This may help tell you if the camera is bad, or if the settings on the camera are set wrong. Are you shooting in manual

mode? Can you post a few shots? Are the inside and outside shots all yellow? Anyway, I'd start with the camera first.

 

I think we all need more information.

[mike_earussi1]

<p>You don't mention what your color management system is. For instance, are you calibrating your monitor? Also what printer, ink, paper and profile are you using? And are you softproofing?</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Here's the quick fix until you figure out how to use all the new stuff:<br /><br />Do you still have your PC and PSE? Then copy the files into that, do a batch conversion of all the raw to jpg, then proceed as you did in the past.<br /><br />Don't still have the PC? At least install PSE on your Mac, then do the batch conversion to jpb and proceed as in the past.<br /><br />In the future, never ever even think about trying a new camera, software, computer, workflow or anything else on a paying job until you have thoroughly tested everything and know that it is working properly.</p>

[paul_ruppert]

<p>Thank you for your responses, I'm going to try them all. I'm going to try batch editing to my pc first. I will also test both of my D300s to see if I get different results. And I am looking up how to softproof for future edits. I will let you know all of my results.<br>

THANKS AGAIN!!!</p><div></div>

[fotografz]

<p>Hi Paul. Your printing issue most likely has absolutely nothing to do with a new camera, computer, or software other than how to initially set them up. </p>

<p>It is far more likely a "colorspace" issue.</p>

<p>When you shot in-camera jpegs, it was probably set to sRGB color space in the camera's menu, so the images were assigned sRGB colorspace in the meta data that travels with the Jpeg file. PSE also probably defaulted to sRGB when reading the file ... and most consumer oriented printing labs also tend to use sRGB because a vast majority of amateur photographers use it (usually without even knowing they are).</p>

<p>The point is that everything is in sync.</p>

<p>So, why use RAW? </p>

<p>RAW doesn't assign any colorspace to the file in camera, like shooting Jpegs would (which is why all the color choices are greyed out in the camera menu when RAW is selected). The PS/LR software assigns colorspace data to the files upon import. There are a number of colorspace "Gamut" choices in the software menu ranging from ProPhoto RGB, to Adobe RGB (1998), to sRGB ... and a zillion other speciality RGBs.</p>

<p>The difference between each is a matter of how wide the color Gamut is ... ProfotoRGB 16 bit being the widest range of colors, to sRGB 8 bit which has the narrowest or most compressed range (sRGB was designed for internet compression of color data).</p>

<p>I would suggest looking up tutorials on selecting and working in colorspaces and how to get matching prints that are closer to what you see on your screen ... and contacting you printer to see what type of files they prefer and in what colorspace. </p>

<p>Marc</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

[Bill C]

Paul, the image you posted is in the Prophoto RGB color space (I know this because the image has an embedded "color profile" of the same name). This is most likely the source of your problem. It would probably NOT be a problem if your printer was set up to handle this, so presumably they are not.

 

Since you have photos to take care of NOW, I would suggest to fall back on your tried and true system, which was most likely one of two color spaces - sRGB or AdobeRGB. (These are the two options normally available on camera jpegs.) The way you ended up in the ProPhoto RGB color space was probably by using a default in your raw converter; you most likely have the option of setting a different color space. For a quick trial, you could reload a single raw image into your raw converter, look for an option to save the file as an sRGB jpeg, then try printing that image. My guess is that it will print fine, and this would confirm what your problem is.

 

The question is, what is the best way to handle this? I really can't say for sure. If you saved everything as jpegs, it might be best to go back to the raw images. This is because jpegs have a pretty limited bit-depth, which is bad for ProPhoto. (But fine for sRGB.) If you have always handled your images in sRGB, it might be best to redo all and resave as sRGB jpegs. This would at least take care of your current photos, then you could take your own good time and learn what the future options are.

 

For your info, regarding what these "color spaces" are, they are sort of a "scale" which gives meaning to the pixel values. It's sort of like telling a carpenter that you need a piece of wood 11 units long. Now what does that mean? Do you want 11 centimeters, or inches, or feet, etc.? If you say, oh, I meant using the inch scale, this is like assigning a color profile to give meaning to the numbers. The color profile scale is MUCH more complicated, but the idea is the same. If sRGB is like a 12 inch scale, you might consider AdobeRGB to be like a 15 inch scale, and ProPhoto RGB to be like several feet, if this helps put things in perspective.

 

Ps, I don't think your software, PS Elements has much capability in working with color spaces, so I don't suggest using this to look into things. Someone more familiar with it might have some suggestions.

[bob_bill]

<p>I agree with Marc. When I loaded to an iphone from a pc pro rgb images in that color space for printing, I got the same brownish color issue. Converting to srgb corrected the problem. </p>

[paul_ruppert]

<p>Thanks Bill C, you were right. I redid my raw images the old way and they printed perfectly. I also noticed in my 1st edits the color representation was uncallibrated and in my redone images they are sRGB. Thanks again for explaining it so I could understand why they weren't printing properly and how to adjust them.</p>

[Bill C]

Hi, glad it's working out now. When you get a little breathing room, this site has a pretty decent article on ICC color management (by Jay

Kinghorn as I recall); all of this color space stuff is part of it. Once you get to where you are conversant with it a lot of the forum postings

will make more sense.

 

sRGB is generally the "safest" option for general purpose use where you're not sure if full "color management" is in use, so keep this in mind

when you supply images to your customers.

 

"I also noticed in my 1st edits the color representation was uncallibrated and in my redone images they are sRGB. "

 

In early systems, the images had a "tag" for sRGB; it was either "on" or "off." If the tag was on, they knew it was sRGB. If the tag was "off,"

they would say "uncalibrated," even though a profile might be embedded. I'd guess that's what's going on.

[pete_s.]

<p>Hey Paul,<br>

Good thing you got it sorted out. You're not the first one, nor the last one, that has been tricked by color space!</p>

<p>All jpegs should be in sRGB with the profile embedded. (The embedded part is important). That way both color managed applications and those that are not, will work 100%. With sRGB images will also look right on smartphones and tablets as well as laptops because their LCD screens cannot show more colors than what sRGB has anyway.</p>

<p>AdobeRGB is to be avoided at all times. ProPhotoRGB is what you want when you need maximum quality for instance for wide gamut printing, like inkjet. And then you work in 16 bit TIFF (not jpeg). Bigger files but storage is cheap. Lightroom uses a variation of ProPhotoRGB internally.</p>

<p>Cameras should also be set to sRGB. This will only affect the jpeg image so when shooting raw you still have the maximum amount of colors the camera can provide.</p>

 

[fotografz]

<p>"AdobeRGB is to be avoided at all times".<br>

<br>

Why is that Pete?<br>

<br>

I understand sRGB for web viewing and such, but the OP's question was about printing. <br>

<br>

I use Adobe RGB (1998) as my default printing color space ... which works well when I make my own prints on a Epson 3880 (which even prints in 16 bit if I choose) ... AND with the labs I work with who prefer Adobe RGB. </p>

<p>- Marc</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>AdobeRGB is like an intermediate color space, it's larger than sRGB but not as large as ProPhoto RGB. Most professionals now use ProPhoto RGB, as opposed to AdobeRGB, because it preserves the largest color gamut available. And even though it's impossible to see the full range of ProPhoto RGB on our present monitors, the extra colors can show up a little in the final print (the best printers are capable of printing a larger color gamut than the best monitors can show).</p>

<p>I was curious myself about the difference regarding printing and made a comparison by printing the same raw file from both and the ProPhoto RGB did have a little better color range than the AdobeRGB. Try it for yourself and see.</p>

[savagesax]

Wow, such great information. I was leaning towards the camera settings. I learned something here, even after all of these

years of shooting digital in RAW.

[pete_s.]

<blockquote>

<p>"AdobeRGB is to be avoided at all times".<br /> Why is that Pete?<br /><br /> I understand sRGB for web viewing and such, but the OP's question was about printing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, it used to be that AdobeRGB was the color space to use when you wanted something larger than sRGB. AdobeRGB was specifically made for photoshop 5 to cover CMYK but Adobe made some mistake so they didn't get that 100% right but it's still slightly larger than sRGB, mainly green colors.</p>

<p>Like Mike was getting at in his post above, nowadays cameras can capture more colors that those that fit inside the adobeRGB color space and inkjet printers can print more colors than AdobeRGB as well.<br /> <br /> <em>"For some images, if the goal is to maintain the maximum gamut, the only color space that can do so is ProPhoto RGB."</em> Quote from Adobe's technical paper "A Color Managed Raw Workflow From Camera to Print".<br /><br /><br /> So for those that want maximum quality ProPhotoRGB and 16 bit files are the way to go. With ProPhotoRGB and 16 bit tiff files you can be sure you are not clipping any color information and not trowing away any image information.</p>

<p>So to use AdobeRGB doesn't make sense anymore and has caused a lot of grief in it's day. Either sRGB for maximum compatibility and small file size (jpeg) or ProPhotoRGB for maximum quality and avoid AdobeRGB altogether.</p>

<p>PS. The pro lab I use are fully color managed and uses the embedded color profile in the image. So I can basically send them anything and it will look right. They do fine art printing as well and have softproof profiles for different printing processes and papers.</p>

[Bill C]

Adobe RGB can still be sensible, depending on how the photographer wants to do things. If someone doesn't want to go into raw

processing, and sRGB isn't quite large enough, and their main goal is to print, not to distribute images directly to the public, then Adobe

RGB might be the way to go.

 

A few months back, someone posted about photographing quilts. He was shooting jpegs in sRGB, but some cyan-like colors were going

out-of-gamut. Adobe RGB would have easily held these, and since he was just going to print from this, it would have been a convenient

solution.

[Spearhead]

<p>Pete's point is not that sRGB is adequate but that there is a better alternative than Adobe RGB for wider gamut, ProPhotoRGB.</p>

[Bill C]

Yes, if you need a wider gamut than Adobe RGB then you have to use a larger color space. I certainly agree with that.

 

I'm responding to his statement, "So to use AdobeRGB doesn't make sense anymore..." It certainly does in some cases; I just gave a

concrete example. People who can benefit from simpler solutions don't always need to use the strongest tools available.

[Spearhead]

<p>It's not that he needs a wider gamut than Adobe RGB, his point is that Adobe RGB brings some color issues. What he's saying is that ProPhoto gives wider gamut than sRGB but without the issues of Adobe RGB.</p>

[Bill C]

Jeff, regardless of your interpretation of what he (Pete) is saying, I am responding only to these two statements, "AdobeRGB is to be

avoided at all times," and "So to use AdobeRGB doesn't make sense anymore..."

 

I think I've been clear on my position, that sometimes it does make sense. Anyone who is currently satisfied with an Adobe RGB workflow

should not feel compelled to make the jump to raw converters and high bit depth images just because someone on photo.net makes the

above statements. It might be worth investigating, but one should make their own judgment.

 

I'm not exactly new to this sort of thing; in fact I was at an IS&T technical conference 'bout 15 years back where Kodak presented a paper

on their new companion color spaces - RIMM RGB and ROMM RGB (aka ProPhoto RGB). And I have a great deal of large (very) lab

experience working with color issues.