«

Mike Russell wrote:
>
> Matti Haveri wrote:
> > I have read (Blatner & Fraser in Real World Photoshop 7) that it is
> > best to edit in Adobe RGB (199 Working space because its color
> > gamut is generally the right size for 24-bit RGB images.
> >
> > Should I convert my digital camera's embedded RGB Working space (sRGB
> > IEC61966-2.1) to Adobe RGB (199 when opening them in Photoshop?
> >
> > Or should I just use the embedded (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) profile while
> > editing? I'm confused because at one page Blatner & Fraser say this is
> > typically what you'd want to do, right after after praising Adobe RGB
> > (199 as the best working space!?
> >
> > Or should I keep the embedded profile but edit in Adobe RGB (199?
> > This isn't possible in PS Elements so I must choose either from the
> > previous options.
> >
> > I'm going to print the images at a shop as 6x4" glossy images, if that
> > matters.
>
> I'd stick with sRGB.
>
> Adobe RGB has several problems - if you simply assign it to your newly
> captured images, which I don't recommend, you will be jacking up the
> saturation. There is a small possibility that this will create some
> saturated colors that cannot be displayed without clipping.

I do convert a scanned image to rgb1988 (same as assign to rgb1998?)
before and during PS editing. I then preview a softproof with a specific
printer+media profile, and tweak in PS if there is any major color
shifts. Finally I convert to the media profile before sending the file
to the printer. As you stated, there are times that a saturated color
would appear drab in softproof as well as in the print.

I am not sure how working in sRGB can fix this problem though, since I
believe that a printer media profile has a more limited gamut than
either sRGB or rgb1998. If I only intend to print to a specific
printer+media, I often wonder if I should make that profile my working
space to begin with. That way, I can see if the colors will print as I
edit.

> The worst problem, though, is your images will look drab to others unless
> you take care to convert them to sRGB before putting them on the web,
> printing them from an application that does not recognize embedded profiles,
> or otherwise posting them.

When I save the edited image described above to web, it does lose a lot
of saturation and becomes drab on the monitor. This is a big problem
since the viewers are not seeing anything close to what a real print
looks like. I believe that save to web implies that PS will convert to
sRGB. I think that by "convert them to sRGB before putting them on the
web", you meant convert to sRGB and edit to restore saturation before
saving to web. But that would be a lot of work. For an image edited in
rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to web?
I assume that if the image is edited in sRGB, this won't be as big a
problem.

> All that said, the difference in working space gamut is not that much,
> whichever choice you make.

This is an interesting statement. The two problems just described seem
to imply that the drab softproof or print, and save to web image is due
to sRGB having a (much?) smaller gamut than rgb1998. Or is there a
different explanation?

Thanks for commenting on two of the (many) problems I face.

> BTW - if you want a cheap and easy way to look
> at these gamuts, check out the Curvemeister gamut viewer:
>
> http://www.curvemeister.com/tutorials/gamutviewer/

I'll check that out.

In comp.graphics.apps.photoshop wrote:

> believe that a printer media profile has a more limited gamut than
> either sRGB or rgb1998. If I only intend to print to a specific
> printer+media, I often wonder if I should make that profile my working
> space to begin with. That way, I can see if the colors will print as I
> edit.

AFAIK using a printer profile as a RGB Working space is a bad idea because
they often aren't gray balanced like "device-independent" Working spaces
like Adobe RGB (199 or sRGB are.

> rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to web?

BTW, aren't Mac browsers like Explorer and Safari color managed so they
support embedded profiles?

wrote:

> I do convert a scanned image to rgb1988 (same as assign to rgb1998?)
> before and during PS editing. I then preview a softproof with a
> specific printer+media profile, and tweak in PS if there is any major
> color
> shifts. Finally I convert to the media profile before sending the file
> to the printer. As you stated, there are times that a saturated color
> would appear drab in softproof as well as in the print.

The colors will always appear a little drabber in the soft proof, since the
printer is going to lose a small amount of color range that your monitor is
capable of showing. But its possible you're losing more saturation than
necessary due to the way your soft proof and printer are set up. Try
setting the rendering intent to Relative Colorimetric in both the soft proof
and in your Color Settings, rather than the Adobe default of perceptual, and
you will get brighter colors.

> I am not sure how working in sRGB can fix this problem though, since I
> believe that a printer media profile has a more limited gamut than
> either sRGB or rgb1998.

By working in sRGB you are eliminating the possibility that someone will
accidentally look at your images in a non color aware program and see drab
colors. Other than that rather important IMHO advantage, there is no
difference.

> If I only intend to print to a specific
> printer+media, I often wonder if I should make that profile my working
> space to begin with. That way, I can see if the colors will print as I
> edit.

Adobe does not recommend using a device space as your working space, and
there are several good reasons for this. The standard ones are grouped
together: For PC use Adobe RGB or sRGB. For Macintosh use ColorMatch or
Apple RGB. There are also some interesting working spaces from third
parties, including BruceRGB which has a smaller gamut designed to accomodate
inkjet printers.

> When I save the edited image described above to web, it does lose a
> lot
> of saturation and becomes drab on the monitor. This is a big problem
> since the viewers are not seeing anything close to what a real print
> looks like. I believe that save to web implies that PS will convert to
> sRGB. I think that by "convert them to sRGB before putting them on the
> web", you meant convert to sRGB and edit to restore saturation before
> saving to web. But that would be a lot of work. For an image edited in
> rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to
> web?

No, there is no need to re-edit. Pick your working space - Adobe RGB or
whatever your choice may be. When you save to web the colors will be
automatically converted so that they look correct on most people's monitors.

> I assume that if the image is edited in sRGB, this won't be as big a
> problem.

Right.

>> All that said, the difference in working space gamut is not that
>> much, whichever choice you make.
>
> This is an interesting statement. The two problems just described seem
> to imply that the drab softproof or print, and save to web image is
> due to sRGB having a (much?) smaller gamut than rgb1998. Or is there a
> different explanation?

It's related. More than likely you will see an improvement in this if you
change your color settings to Relative Colorimetric (relcol for short) Give
that a go and see if things brighten up.

> Thanks for commenting on two of the (many) problems I face.

You're not the only one to get caught in this problem.

Haveri Matti asked:
>BTW, aren't Mac browsers like Explorer and Safari color managed so they
support embedded profiles?

Yes, so Adobe RGB images should look fine on a Macintosh running either of
these browsers. I don't think Netscape yet supports them. This doesn't
really work well, though, so I still recommend saving in sRGB to maintain
color saturation.

I did a google search and the following article by John Maclean in the
adobe.photoshop.macintosh group points out some of these problems in a
systematic way:


*** begin John Maclean's article
Here are my observations:
Safari-

Adobe RGB PSD is about midway in saturation, with WPG (Web Photo Gallery)
lowest and SFW (Save for web)highest.
WPG matches Adobe RGB PSD w/ Monitor RGB softproof.

IE5 -

WPG
ColorSync on = images look really dead
ColorSync off = less saturated than Adobe RGB PSD. Very close to PSD w/
Monitor RGB softproof.

SFW
ColorSync on = closest to Adobe RGB PSD, slightly less saturated.
ColorSync off = more saturated than Adobe RGB PSD.
***end article

--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net

in article F1Aqb.24701$, Mike Russell
wrote on 6/11/03 10:36 pm:

>> When I save the edited image described above to web, it does lose a
>> lot
>> of saturation and becomes drab on the monitor. This is a big problem
>> since the viewers are not seeing anything close to what a real print
>> looks like. I believe that save to web implies that PS will convert to
>> sRGB. I think that by "convert them to sRGB before putting them on the
>> web", you meant convert to sRGB and edit to restore saturation before
>> saving to web. But that would be a lot of work. For an image edited in
>> rgb1998, is there another way to make it look close when saving to
>> web?
>
> No, there is no need to re-edit. Pick your working space - Adobe RGB or
> whatever your choice may be. When you save to web the colors will be
> automatically converted so that they look correct on most people's monitors.

Actually, SfW does not convert the colors. If your file is tagged with Adobe
RGB (or any other tag), what you need to do is select Image » Mode » Convert
to Profile and choose sRGB _before_ you enter SfW. When you do the
conversion, Photoshop will do its best to preserve the current look.

In the Convert to Profile dialog box, you have a choice of intents, which
intent is best depends on the color content of your image. Try RelCol and
then Perceptual. The help file explains the differences.

HTH.


--/ Shangara Singh.
:: Photoshop 7.0 Adobe Certified Expert (ACE)
:: Photoshop 7.0 Essential Tips
:: Photoshop Glossary of Terms, Phrases & Acronyms
:: http://www.photoshopace.com
:: Exam Aids for Photoshop, Illustrator & Dreamweaver
:: http://www.examaids.com

Shangara Singh wrote:
> in article F1Aqb.24701$, Mike
> Russell wrote on 6/11/03 10:36 pm:
>
>>> When I save the edited image described above to web, it does lose a
>>> lot
>>> of saturation and becomes drab on the monitor. This is a big problem
>>> since the viewers are not seeing anything close to what a real print
>>> looks like. I believe that save to web implies that PS will convert
>>> to sRGB. I think that by "convert them to sRGB before putting them
>>> on the web", you meant convert to sRGB and edit to restore
>>> saturation before saving to web. But that would be a lot of work.
>>> For an image edited in rgb1998, is there another way to make it
>>> look close when saving to
>>> web?
>>
>> No, there is no need to re-edit. Pick your working space - Adobe
>> RGB or whatever your choice may be. When you save to web the colors
>> will be automatically converted so that they look correct on most
>> people's monitors.
>
> Actually, SfW does not convert the colors. If your file is tagged
> with Adobe RGB (or any other tag), what you need to do is select
> Image » Mode » Convert to Profile and choose sRGB _before_ you enter
> SfW. When you do the conversion, Photoshop will do its best to
> preserve the current look.
>
> In the Convert to Profile dialog box, you have a choice of intents,
> which intent is best depends on the color content of your image. Try
> RelCol and then Perceptual. The help file explains the differences.

You are correct. Thanks for pointing this out. This is yet another reason
to work in sRGB if your work is destined for the web.

--

Mike Russell
http://www.curvemeister.com
http://www.zocalo.net/~mgr
http://geigy.2y.net