Working Color Space Setting on the M8

[fourfa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

all questions answered:

 

Amazon.com: Real World Color Management (2nd Edition) (Real World): Books: Bruce Fraser,Chris Murphy,Fred Bunting

 

then there'll be no more "Ok, I don't want to quote other sources... I was fairly certain that... I didn't realise... Correct me if I'm wrong... That's my understanding but..."

 

about half of this book is geared toward CMYK printing presses, which can be ignored unless you're starting a print shop. The other half is very useful for any photographer.

[Venkman]

Even better for the topic:

 

Amazon.com: Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Real World): Books: Bruce Fraser,Jeff Schewe

 

Just started that one 2 days ago and it covers all the bases.

[BerndReini]

Andy, so what's the verdict? AdobeRGB or ProPhoto? Just for the people that want an easy answer on what to do without buying and reading the whole book on it.

 

I know what works best for me and I'm only using the cautionary remarks because I'm not sure what other people's workflow is. And yes, my opinion was informed by Bruce Fraser. Is there an absolute answer to this question?

[DaveB]

so what's the verdict? AdobeRGB or ProPhoto?

 

Michael Reichman weighs in on Adobe RGB vs ProPhoto on his website.

 

Understanding ProPhoto RGB

 

For that matter, he and Jeff Schewe spent a tremendous amount of time on monitor calibration, color space and color management, printer profiling, etc. in his Camera to Print video series.

 

It cleared up a number of points for me.

[Shootist]

Andy, so what's the verdict? AdobeRGB or ProPhoto? Just for the people that want an easy answer on what to do without buying and reading the whole book on it.

 

I know what works best for me and I'm only using the cautionary remarks because I'm not sure what other people's workflow is. And yes, my opinion was informed by Bruce Fraser. Is there an absolute answer to this question?

I think the answer is use the space that works for you. The printer I'm using, a HP B9180, can print ARGB so I use that color space for everything. I even use it to post to the web.

[Venkman]

Ed, if you use ARGB to post your shots to the web, how do you cope with the color shifts then? My shots are always quite colorful when put out to sRGB?

 

I tend to agree to chose one space and stick with it. I also use ARGB, mostly because the difference from ProPhoto down to sRGB is so extreme, that almost everything you put up on the web needs an extreme overhaul in order to look close to the intended result. And since 90% of my stuff is looked at in digital and only 10% in print, I chose the color space that gives me the best of both worlds.

[Shootist]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ed, if you use ARGB to post your shots to the web, how do you cope with the color shifts then? My shots are always quite colorful when put out to sRGB?

 

I tend to agree to chose one space and stick with it. I also use ARGB, mostly because the difference from ProPhoto down to sRGB is so extreme, that almost everything you put up on the web needs an extreme overhaul in order to look close to the intended result. And since 90% of my stuff is looked at in digital and only 10% in print, I chose the color space that gives me the best of both worlds.

 

Well the big reason is I don't really care what the image looks like on the web but most of my shots on my photo site look OK.

Ed Chatlos (Shootist)'s photos- powered by SmugMug

And if they don't, Oh well. I'm more interested in how they print.

I'm not a pro and don't intend to use the shots posted on my site for client approval or to get any clients.

I just posted a couple of shots in the thread I started about me covering my chrome M8 with GripTac. They look about the same in that post as they do on my Dell 21" widescreen and although I haven't printed either of these 2 shots yet, and I may not print them, I'll bet they look very similar to the posted shots.

[ChrisC]

... I also use ARGB... And since 90% of my stuff is looked at in digital and only 10% in print, I chose the color space that gives me the best of both worlds.

 

Dirk - By 'in digital' I assume you mean viewed on monitors. I question your 'best of both worlds'. Archiving an image in a smaller colour space than the colour gamut of it's capture means colour information has been thrown away - albeit information you won't be able to see on a SRGB monitor. In your example, you have chosen the lowest common denominator with SRGB, but to the detriment of your print output, and any future larger gamut output. If throwing away captured colours is good practice for you, then fair enough, but it does not make the most of the sensor's capture.

 

With darkroom printing, many of us are familiar with making different types of print for repro, or [say] viewing in a mount, under glass, and in a frame. In that situation we always had the original negative to go back to to get the most out of it's future printing - without the negative being compromised. If a digital image is archived in SRGB, it is compromised for future output in a larger space, e.g. Epson pigment printers whose colour gamut approximates to ARGB [i.e. Adobe].

 

Coming from a darkroom background I have no problem with my archived original [in that case the negative] having a different look to any of it's outputs [prints]. But with digital there is a common prevalent conceit; the colour management goal of 'What You See Is What You Get'. That goal deflects attention from a very obvious fact; a good digital capture or scan, if brought into a comfortable colour space, will have colours waiting to be revealed that cannot be seen in the restrictive colour gamut of an SRGB monitor. Throwing colours away to satisfy WYSIWYG goals seems poor practice to me, unless files will only ever be seen on SRGB monitors.

 

The counter practice to the lowest common denominator one of settling for SRGB is to archive RAW conversions in a colour space which just fits the colour capture. I suggested the Joe Holmes 'digital' colour spaces designed for the purpose in an earlier post, but the ProPhoto space is larger than needed.

 

If this is unhelpful - my apologies.

 

........................ Chris

[Venkman]

Chris,

 

forgive my (sometimes) complete inability to make myself clear on the first try (non native speaker).

 

I use Adobe RGB as format for my pictures after they are through post.

Why? Because it's

a) easier to modify them for output in sRGB space than it is with ProPhoto shots

IF I print, I like to be as close as possible to my intended post production

c) I, too, dislike the idea of throwing gamut away

d) my monitor is capable of ARGB, so what I see is usualy what I get

 

That's basically what I meant with "best of both worlds".

 

Archiving is completely different, as I consider a RAW file as the counterpart to a negative, which means I only store RAW and have copies of post'd images available for viewing on the web/monitor.

 

Dirk

[ChrisC]

Dirk - Your use of English is fine, it was my use of stupidity that was at fault. Oops!

 

.................. Chris

[BerndReini]

This makes sense. My workflow is to use ProPhotoRGB and at the very end of the chain, I softproof with the Custom Paper Profile. Of course this means extra work adjusting the softproof to match the ProPhoto (which it never will 100% by the way) but since fine art prints of my selects are what I'm after, this works best for me.

 

I am less concerned with the website since in addition to the sRGB space, the compression to a small JPEG already changes the look of the image so much.

 

I hope this is allowed, but I just want to give a recommendation for Michael Reichman's print tutorial for those who are interested in color management for printing.