digitaldog

--> Do you actually know how to use a digital camera, or desperate to elevate yourself

beyond the local $12.50 an hour print shops by confusing the hell out of shooters who

have no intent of using RAW and want an examples of sRGB vs AdobeRGB?

Well Scott, good boy, you actually replied to a message.

OK, I'll bite (sorry for the others here, this WILL be OT).

Scott, when you were probably a very young and ill behaved lad, I had graduated from Art

Center College of Design with honors with a BA in Photo, shot for GTE, Disney, Apple,

Forbes, etc. Even before that I was hand picked to work for 7 months by the LAOOC to

shoot the 84 Olympic games (I was one of only 50 shooters IN THE WORLD) who had

access to document this little event. When you were picking your noise, I was working (on

a Mac) in Photoshop 1.0.7 and providing clients retouching work when most

photographers didn't know a pixel from a pickel. I was with Tony Stone Stock images when

it wasn't fashionable to do so. My first digital camera was the Kodak DCS-1 when you were

probably learning how to mix D76.

Now I'm not going to knock your photographic abilities (I've seen your page here on Photo

Net and it wouldn't be fair to comment). If you'd like to see some of my images, I'd be

happy to send you down to the library to find LA Workbook or the Creative Black Book

where my ad's appeared. That I left (actually retired thank you) from the brutal business of

photography back in 1994 to leave the competitive market in LA to live the better life in

beautiful Santa Fe NM should in no way lead you to believe that I have no photo

experience. I had 2nd assistants that had more talent than you will ever dream of having

(ops, sorry I tried not to comment on your abilities).

-->I've also noticed you tend to avoid any thread where somebody claims they can't see

the difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB and I tend to be the sole proponent

Send me an address, I'll print you examples and those 2-3 others, who haven't clearly

defined how their images were captured or proceeded or printed and didn't see the

difference in no way in my mind or based on my tests and experiences provide any

credence do your argument.

-->I don't print to K3,

Oh and if you close your eyes, the gamut of what you're imagining is pretty low I'll bet. I

guess there must be very few people using 2400/4800/9800 printers and the sales

figures of Epson are (unlike you) delusional.

-->HistogramWhich is exactly what I said, except

it saves a lot time to anticipate this when shooting given the camera sensor is

the limit and not the color space

Digital cameras don't have a color gamut or a color space.

Andrew Rodney

Author "Color Management for Photographers"

http://www.digitaldog.net/

If you want to simply things, you can just select ProPhoto RGB in 16-bit and be done.

Among color geeks, there's some debate about squeezing the gamut of the capture into

the closest gamut of the options for color space. There are four in ACR, three in LR. The LR

team always handles ProPhoto RGB (internally and externally) EXCEPT when you export

(there you have the additional options for sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998). That said, you can

simply set everything for ProPhoto RGB since:

1. It's the widest gamut color space option and

2. Virtually every scene will fit within it and you can convert to a smaller space from there.

Just do it in 16-bit.

Andrew Rodney

Author "Color Management for Photographers"

http://www.digitaldog.net/

-->I will still insist that AdobeRGB only provides a -final product- advantage over sRGB

*if* you are shooting targets that have a lot of gamut range to being with

The only thing Scott knows LESS about color management is Mac's.

He wrote this dribble in another post on sRGB and I asked him to clarify what he's talking

about (provide some matrix to define what he means by "a lot of gamut") and in his usual

fashion, ran away.

So, what on earth does it mean? How do you decide? First of all, you have to understand

the advantages and disadvantages of wider gamut working spaces and their effect on what

you shoot and output. IF you shoot RAW, doesn't matter a lick (RAW is RAW, it has no color

space and hence no "gamut" until you first render an image and then decide what color

space you want to encode this data into). IF you set the camera for either sRGB or Adobe

RGB (1998), and don't shot RAW, you have no options here; the rendering is automatic and

the encoding is one

or the other. OK, so its clear that Adobe RGB (1998) has a larger gamut potential than

sRGB. But what are you shooting? While I'd never do anything as silly as Scott and say "this

image will fit into sRGB and this will not" without having real data (more below), you can

surmise that if you shoot say a gray card, it would fit within sRGB. We're not talking about

a scene gamut that has saturated colors. But what about other stuff? If you shoot a

"saturated" scene in sRGB, there's no question you have a far, far greater potential of

clipping colors the camera captured than if you used Adobe RGB (1998). Considering you

can convert from a larger color space to a smaller color space (but not the other way), and

considering you're not shooting RAW and want colors at your disposal for output, pick

Adobe RGB (1998). You can always convert to sRGB for output to say the web.

Both color spaces will preview virtually identically in Photoshop or any application that

understands color management. OUTSIDE these applications, Adobe RGB will preview

incorrectly but so will everything anyway (it's just a matter of degrees how inaccurate it

will be).

Also consider your output device (not only the one you use today but the one you might

use in 5 years). The gamut of the Epson K3 inks EXCEEDS Adobe RGB (1998) in some

saturated colors. Be nice to have as much color as possible to use when you print, no?

Then there's scene gamut. There are TONS of images that fall outside even Adobe RGB

(1998). How do I know? Well I shoot RAW and use Adobe Camera RAW which provides a

Histogram that shows clipping based on one of the four possible color spaces and as you

toggle them, you can visually see if it will fit or not within those spaces. I'm hoping we see

something like this in Lightroom. Point is, you can pick the encoding color space that best

fits using this visual feedback within the Histogram. Or, you could simply use ProPhoto for

your RAWS (in 16-bit please) if you're lazy and know that you've picked the biggest space

possible for the largest gamut possible (the alternate in the context of this discussion is

picking Adobe RGB (1998) on the camera).

Andrew Rodney

Author "Color Management for Photographers"

http://www.digitaldog.net/

-->Scott, will not the upcoming upgrades to the iMac be somewhat along those lines?

The last thing you want to do is ask Scott ANYTHING about Mac's since he's got a religious

bias, has a huge history here of finding any post with the word "Apple" or "Mac" in it where

he can post his fundamentalist views (usually wrong) and then when called on his

nonsense, runs away with tail between legs until the next opportunity comes up to

continue his rant. Just do a quick search of his posts and you'll see this (it gets tiring real

quick).

Now to get to the original question. The current version of Photoshop will run under

Rosetta until CS3 and on an Intel Mac, there's a speed hit. Its NOT that bad however (I have

both Intel Mac's and PPC). You say you don't want to upgrade in a year. If you want a new

Mac now, and considering that there's NO QUESTION about Photoshop going native 1st

quarter of next year, you probably want to go Intel. Lightroom IS native but it's a beta

(actually an Alpha) and no matter what chip you run it on, the speed optimization hasn't

happened and will not until it's nearly done. Poor Scott probably doesn't want you to know

how much the Windows beta sucks in terms of speed compared to the Mac but that's a

different story. And yes, when Photoshop goes Native (and when LR is complete), it will be

much faster on a newer Intel Mac than the PPC versions.

I'm far more excited about where Lightroom is going than Photoshop and would

encourage you to at least download the beta and see how you feel about it. Its a very

exciting product.

I suggest a quick read of the following piece by Bruce Fraser (who just wrote an entire book

on the subject):

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

Scott, don't even think about customer satisfaction....

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/08/15/acsi/index.php

Apple does it again!

Seemed pretty clear to me that the question was concerning scanning a color neg INSTEAD

of a print of the neg (a positive). Of course Scott has to consistently jump the gun (he's

quite the premature ejaculator in so many posts) and confuse the question with scanning

positive film (and I do agree with his take between the two films but of course, it's moot in

this discussion).

YES, scanning a color neg will produce MUCH better quality than scanning the print from

the neg. As to handling the inversions and orange mask removal, most film scanners can

do this in software (some better than others). SliverFast has a Negafix option which will

invert EXISTING scans of color negs (a scan of the neg with the orange mask) and do a very

nice job of inverting the colors and removing the orange mask. You can use this scanner

driver to scan the color neg as a positive image as well of course).

Scott, you need to post after READING the questions a few times. Understandable since it

appears English is your second language.

Andrew Rodney

Author "Color Management for Photographers"

http://www.digitaldog.net/

--> This sent Scott off in another dizzying tirade.

He's getting way too predictable!

And then there's the URL I posted in a similar Scott rant about the price (premium) he

loves to think Mac people have to pay which is way, way off:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php

Scott, of course EVERYONE knows that Mac's cost more than comparable PC's and are over

priced.... NOT. Read this one dude:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php

Save yourself $1000 and run both operating systems.