Color Profile

[jorge-vasconcelos]

<p>Hello,<br>

what is 'the best' Color profile for B&W pix for the web?<br>

I'm using Dot Gain 20%, but I think my picture looks grainy.<br>

Thank you all!!</p>

[blumesan]

<p>That profile should be OK for B&W. The appearance of grain will depend more on other factors employed in processing and creating the image. (Pixel density, noise reduction, etc.)</p>

[jorge-vasconcelos]

<p>Thank you Mike,<br>

neg scanned on Nikon scanner V ED, minimal sharpen (smart sharpen)<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/18113694&size=lg<br>

is it my impression it looks grainy?<br>

Thanks!</p>

[blumesan]

<p>Jorge-<br>

The image does not seem excessively grainy to me. What film did you use? How does this shot compare to other images from the same roll? The underexposure certainly diminishes contrast in the shadows, and this may lead to a "grainy" appearance.<br>

Keep in mind that I am looking at an approx 800x1200 pixel image at nearly full screen on my monitor. One begins to see some pixillation. Most important criterion is: how does the image look when printed to 6x9" at ~300 ppi?<br>

<br />KK</p>

<p> </p>

[jorge-vasconcelos]

<p>Hi Mike,<br>

thanks again!<br>

it's kodak tri-x - i'd have to scan other imagens to compare.<br>

pixillation? really? <br>

it was re-sized from the original scan 3733 x 5613 @ 4000 ppi to 762 x 1141 @ 96 ppi<br>

I have a print 11x14 and it looks fine, beautiful!!<br>

so i thought it had something to do with Color Profile!</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>For the web, you will be using JPEG or PNG, which means RGB files. Use sRGB, as always basically, for the web.</p>

[blumesan]

<p>Jorge<br /> As long as the print looks fine I doubt that the choice of color space contributes to what you see (on the monitor) as graininess. <br /> I love the shot; contrasting the subject all bundled up in his coat and hat with the sunbathers in the background.</p>

<p>Wouter<br /> It is clear that the image is a jpeg, but the color space is monochrome dot gain 20%. Only a single grayscale channel. I doubt it was converted to sRGB before posting to the web. So I am not sure what you are saying.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>JPEG is always by definition RGB (so always three channels); it cannot contain a single (greyscale) channel. So, using sRGB as color space upon saving to JPEG is, in my view, the best choice, also for B&W photos. It is the lowers common denominator, which is the sane choice for the web.<br>

For TIFF files, which can contain a varying number of colour channels, the dot gain 20% for a single channel B&W image would be right. But JPEG doesn't have that flexibility.</p>

[blumesan]

<p>Wouter,<br>

Thanks for your reply. I have examined the image<br>

<a href="/photo/18113694&size=lg" rel="nofollow">http://www.photo.net/photo/18113694&size=lg</a><br>

using ExifGUI. It is certainly in jpeg format. I can find no indication that the color space is RGB. Color space data is listed as "GRAY". When the image is opened in Photoshop one finds only a single channel (grayscale). So I am still dubious when you say: </p>

<blockquote>

<p>JPEG is always by definition RGB (so always three channels); it cannot contain a single (greyscale) channel.</p>

</blockquote>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Wow.... I stand corrected, and/but I am thoroughly surprised - never saw it before. To the best of my knowledge, JPEG was limited to 3-channel RGB, but it seems that best of my knowledge isn't good enough. My apologies!<br>

<em>(now off to google to figure out more about this, and if there are any advantages to it - if it means less compression artifacts it's just what the doctor ordered...)</em></p>

[blumesan]

<p>Wouter<br>

Thanks for confirming my conclusions. I would guess that saving a B&W image in this format would result in a smaller file. Have no idea about the effect on compression artifacts.</p>

[jorge-vasconcelos]

<p>Ok, the neg was scanned on Nikon scanner V ED - settings: neg color - calibrated rgb<br>

(sometime ago a friend of mine said that if you scan a b&w neg w/ these settings you get more detail!! it doesn't hurt!!)<br>

after scanning I converted it to grayscale dot gain 20%.<br>

I'm going to scann it again, resize, and save it as srgb IEC61966-2.1<br>

will post the results.<br>

take care guys!!</p>