Jamie Roberts Posted July 6, 2009 Share #21 Posted July 6, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Just to correct a couple of things in this thread: ProPhoto is overkill for most work, and a very unpredictable colourspace to work in and out of in Photoshop. You need to really understand your print workflow if you're going to use it regularly. If you really need a super-wide gamut profile (and you don't with the M8) then I'd suggest D. Holmes D3 or D4 profiles. They're much better, especially with the m8. aRGB is fine (actually, if you're printing, 95% of the time, sRGB is fine). Jaap and I disagree on workflow in C1. After using it for many many years now, I say you already have a high-bit TIFF file; it's called a RAW file Make your big moves in the RAW converter and small ones in PS, and an 8bit TIFF or JPEG workflow will be absolutely fine (I know it's heresy!! But it assumes you're using highest quality output from C1 and PS and not saving and re-saving the file) You will not see differences in print whatsoever. Not all monitors--especially laptop monitors, are even capable of being calibrated, since the video cards can't load the look-up table They're also mostly too bright and contrasty to give you anything like a print preview. IE still has the majority of users and it's not colour managed at all. Don't assume Safari. Firefox 3.5 beta colour management apparently doesn't work with Vista and my EIZO How's that for a kick in the head? It's also doing something weird to my files, which I can't figure out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 6, 2009 Posted July 6, 2009 Hi Jamie Roberts, Take a look here Colour Management in C1 and Photoshop. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
bono0272 Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share #22 Posted July 7, 2009 Thanks a lot mates. Let me follow the work flow again tonight and come back if there is problem again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bono0272 Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share #23 Posted July 7, 2009 BTW ptarmigan, would you please also post the Capture One settings so that I can follow? Thanks in advanced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted July 7, 2009 Share #24 Posted July 7, 2009 Just to correct a couple of things in this thread: ProPhoto is overkill for most work, and a very unpredictable colourspace to work in and out of in Photoshop. You need to really understand your print workflow if you're going to use it regularly. If you really need a super-wide gamut profile (and you don't with the M8) then I'd suggest D. Holmes D3 or D4 profiles. They're much better, especially with the m8. aRGB is fine (actually, if you're printing, 95% of the time, sRGB is fine). Jaap and I disagree on workflow in C1. After using it for many many years now, I say you already have a high-bit TIFF file; it's called a RAW file Make your big moves in the RAW converter and small ones in PS, and an 8bit TIFF or JPEG workflow will be absolutely fine (I know it's heresy!! But it assumes you're using highest quality output from C1 and PS and not saving and re-saving the file) You will not see differences in print whatsoever. Jamie To quote Martin Evening from his book Adobe Photoshop CS3 for Photographers: On sRGB "sRGB is a multipurpose colour space.... It is ideal for web but unsuitable for photography or serious print work. This is mainly because [it] clips the CMYK gamut quite severely and you will never achieve more than 75-85% cyan in your CMYK separations". On ProPhoto RGB "This is a large gamut space and has the advantage of preserving the full gamut of raw capture files when converting the raw data to RGB. ...... the gamut [ProPhoto RGB] extends more into the shadow areas compared to other RGB spaces, meaning better tonal separation in the shadow tones". On the ideal RGB working space "If you select an RGB workspace that is the same size as your monitor space, you are not using PS to its full potential and more importantly you are clipping parts of the CMYK gamut. For many years I would have advised you choose Adobe RGB as your work space..... However, a few years ago I was in conversation with the late Bruce Fraser and he convinced me that cautionary warnings against ProPhoto RGB were perhaps a little overstated...... So following Bruce's advice I mostly use ProPhoto RGB as my principal RGB workspace". Good enough recommendation to use ProPhoto RGB for me. He then goes on to recommend carrying out all edits in 16 bit and never sending out files in anything but Adobe RGB or sRGB. I do agree with you that most, if not all PP should be done within the RAW converter and CS4 I believe has now pushed sharpening firmly in that domain - I use CS3. The problem for me is that I don't know C1 and as you will see from my 'Reference Raw Conversion' thread I am struggling with the lack of a good book like the one above. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted July 7, 2009 Share #25 Posted July 7, 2009 BTW ptarmigan, would you please also post the Capture One settings so that I can follow? Thanks in advanced. Sorry my friend but I will have to leave this request to be answered by someone else as I know so little about C1 (only been using it a week). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2009 Share #26 Posted July 7, 2009 The final image of the child in bono's post is tagged with AdobeRGB, whereas his screenshots indicate it should be sRGB. Jeff That may be, but once converted down to sRGB ( which he did in C1) it makes no sense to convert up to aRGB again, as the colours have been clipped. An sRGB file rendered in aRGB will still only be the gamut of sRGB. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2009 Share #27 Posted July 7, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Firefox 3.5 beta colour management apparently doesn't work with Vista and my EIZO How's that for a kick in the head? It's also doing something weird to my files, which I can't figure out It does that on XP as well on my EIZO. I first thought this forum was manipulating my files. It does something to the contrast, losing clarity and sharpness. Reason I switched to Safari. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2009 Share #28 Posted July 7, 2009 ProPhoto is overkill for most work, and a very unpredictable colourspace to work in and out of in Photoshop. You need to really understand your print workflow if you're going to use it regularly. If you really need a super-wide gamut profile (and you don't with the M8) then I'd suggest D. Holmes D3 or D4 profiles. They're much better, especially with the m8. aRGB is fine (actually, if you're printing, 95% of the time, sRGB is fine). No argument there Jaap and I disagree on workflow in C1. After using it for many many years now, I say you already have a high-bit TIFF file; it's called a RAW file Make your big moves in the RAW converter and small ones in PS, and an 8bit TIFF or JPEG workflow will be absolutely fine (I know it's heresy!! But it assumes you're using highest quality output from C1 and PS and not saving and re-saving the file) You will not see differences in print whatsoever.What we don't disagre on, however, that there are as many different ways of postprocessing as there are photographers I guess it is a matter of temperament and intention. As an amateur I can afford to fiddle with my files, as a pro Jamie has to fiddle with his time and his bank account. I guess it was overkill in the chemical days that I had a full colour darkroom; a dichroitic head and and colour analyzer were certainly not needed for Cibachrome, but they did work for me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted July 7, 2009 Share #29 Posted July 7, 2009 That may be, but once converted down to sRGB ( which he did in C1) it makes no sense to convert up to aRGB again, as the colours have been clipped. An sRGB file rendered in aRGB will still only be the gamut of sRGB. Perhaps you miss my point Jaap. He is complaining about a colour change but he is posting images with 2 different profiles attached. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2009 Share #30 Posted July 7, 2009 Yes, that is clear, Jeff. My point was that even the aRGB image was carrying the gamut of the sRGB C1 output, so it is of interest what these profiles do to the browser, even if the colours presented to the browser (for want of a better way of formulating it) are the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted July 7, 2009 Share #31 Posted July 7, 2009 On ProPhoto RGB "This is a large gamut space and has the advantage of preserving the full gamut of raw capture files when converting the raw data to RGB. ...... the gamut [ProPhoto RGB] extends more into the shadow areas compared to other RGB spaces, meaning better tonal separation in the shadow tones". <rant about clueless people writing textbooks> For the record, that is probably one the more clueless statements that I've come across on the subject of color management - Size of gamut makes NO difference to shadows or tonal separation in shadows. Prophoto's a good working space - I use it quite often, but as reasons to use it go, that's just BS. </rant> Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted July 7, 2009 Share #32 Posted July 7, 2009 Yes, that is clear, Jeff. My point was that even the aRGB image was carrying the gamut of the sRGB C1 output, so it is of interest what these profiles do to the browser, even if the colours presented to the browser (for want of a better way of formulating it) are the same. I can only go from my own experience which is that Photos tagged with srgb look the same in PS as they do in my browser. Photos tagged with argb look different. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted July 7, 2009 Share #33 Posted July 7, 2009 <rant about clueless people writing textbooks>For the record, that is probably one the more clueless statements that I've come across on the subject of color management - Size of gamut makes NO difference to shadows or tonal separation in shadows. Prophoto's a good working space - I use it quite often, but as reasons to use it go, that's just BS. </rant> Sandy I perhaps paraphrased it to tightly on reflection. The comment referred to the production of transparencies within this context. You should not dismiss either Martin Evening or Bruce Fraser out of hand I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted July 7, 2009 Share #34 Posted July 7, 2009 <rant about clueless people writing textbooks>For the record, that is probably one the more clueless statements that I've come across on the subject of color management - Size of gamut makes NO difference to shadows or tonal separation in shadows. Prophoto's a good working space - I use it quite often, but as reasons to use it go, that's just BS. </rant> Sandy The full quote is: "It is also suited for image editing that is intended for output to photographic materials such as transparency emulsion or a photo quality inkjet printer. This is because the gamut of ProPhoto RGB extends more into the shadow areas compared to other RGB spaces, meaning better tonal separation in the shadow tones" My truncated quote was misleading. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bono0272 Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share #35 Posted July 7, 2009 Sorry what I can say is something wrong with my photos. The RAW files opened in C1, converted to 16 bit TIFF, re-opened the TIFF in PS CS3, all look okay without problem. The problem appears after I saved the re-touched file to JPG by PS CS3. The colours appear much saturated than the TIFF. (my re-touching process is just adding some text, no colour re-adjustment at all). They are not the original colours. Can someone help me to solve this problem? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptarmigan Posted July 7, 2009 Share #36 Posted July 7, 2009 Sorry what I can say is something wrong with my photos. The RAW files opened in C1, converted to 16 bit TIFF, re-opened the TIFF in PS CS3, all look okay without problem. The problem appears after I saved the re-touched file to JPG by PS CS3. The colours appear much saturated than the TIFF. (my re-touching process is just adding some text, no colour re-adjustment at all). They are not the original colours. Can someone help me to solve this problem? This discussion hasn't ended up much help, sorry for my part. If you calibrate your monitor properly, you convert your RAW using C1 (or similar) into ProPhoto or Adobe RGB 16 bit files (either DNG or TIFF, you should see very little (if any) difference on screen when you convert to sRGB and save as a JPEG. Are you converting/saving as a JPEG and then re-editing a JPEG? Sometimes that can make a big difference? I have just taken a 16 bit TIFF, converted to 8 bit, saved as a JPEG and then re opened and compared both images. I can see no difference between them on my monitor. Any chance you could let me have a copy of the offending files? I use CS3. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bono0272 Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share #37 Posted July 7, 2009 Dear ptarmigan, How do you convert ProPhoto or Adobe RGB 16 bit files to sRGB JPG by using CS3? May be I did something wrong in this process. And that would be great if you don't mind giving me your e-mail so I can send you the file for a try. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2009 Share #38 Posted July 7, 2009 Bit depth: Go to >image > mode > and switch to 8 bits The colourspace: Go to edit > convert to profile and choose sRGB as the destination profile. Do NOT use : assign profile. You can make a little action of this. I have it under F12, so I just hit that at the end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bono0272 Posted July 7, 2009 Author Share #39 Posted July 7, 2009 Okay, this is the comparison. The TIFF File on the left hand side is converted from DNG to 16 bit TIFF by using C1, and re-opened here in CS3. Its colours show the same as the original DNG as displayed in C1. Colour space is aRGB. The JPG File on the right is the conversion from the TIFF, exactly followed jaapv's procedures as stated above. Then I re-opened the JPG, compared with the TIFF. You can tell the differences in colours by comparing the blue. I just don't understand why this happens. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/89953-colour-management-in-c1-and-photoshop/?do=findComment&comment=955592'>More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 7, 2009 Share #40 Posted July 7, 2009 Have a look at post # 56 of this thread: User Report: 24/1.4 ASPH: Disappointing. - Page 3 - The GetDPI Workshop Forums Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.