«

On 18/02/2013 7:00 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:57:02 +1100, Rob <>
> wrote:
>
>> On 17/02/2013 8:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:35:16 +0100, Alfred Molon
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <51203132$0$10790$>, PeterN
>>>> says...
>>>>> If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter.
>>>>
>>>> Actually I shoot RAW+JPEG, with the JPEGs in AdobeRGB colour space.
>>>> Often the out of camera JPEGs are so good that they need no further
>>>> processing.
>>>>
>>> >From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
>>>> exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
>>>> AdobeRGB, how would you know?
>>>
>>> Printer
>>>
>>
>>
>> If its the printer, that you use to evaluate the image, isn't a waste of
>> money buying a monitor to read that quality?
>
> If your objective is the production of fine prints then having a
> reasonably accurate screen is a great help when making adjustments to
> the image before going to the trouble and expense of making another
> trial print. Even if the printer's gamut exceeds the monitor's in
> places, one can still make intelligent assessments of the effects of
> localised changes.
>


I do make large prints letting the printer manage the output. My
monitor is a Samsung LCD and as long as its fairly close to what I
require don't go to all the trouble of making continual test prints.
Maybe on a large print, will crop a section of that print and make a
test, mainly for the density of a critical part. I can see on the print
preview most of the time as to the density.

I'm sure that my printer makes a gamut far in access of the monitor. Its
surprising how the number of inks in the printer, alter the quality of
output. Not only that, what colours are available to produce the gamut
of printers.

The fact that I produce in house prints having become familiar with my
monitor and printer, an over spec monitor has become unnecessary. For
some who out lab their prints, accuracy is necessary.

i have spoken to others who have the 2880 printers and they are always
chasing colours, having wasted whole boxes of A3 paper on a couple of
prints.

Found it very difficult to setup a printing workflow by using the Epson
RGB Workflow method, didn't work for me. (BTW Available download off
Epson sites.)

On 18/02/2013 10:01 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <>, Eric Stevens
> <> wrote:
>
>>>> But it's a bit impractical to make adjustments to the
>>>> saturation/contrast etc. in RAW conversion, then make a print to see how
>>>> it looks like, then adjust again etc. You might end up losing a lot of
>>>> time and wasting a lot of ink and paper.
>>>
>>> softproofing.
>>

>
> it doesn't need to be complete. softproofing easily lets you preview
> what you will get on the printer, even if it isn't perfect.
>


Huh!

On 2/17/2013 6:01 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <51213ed5$0$10814$>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
>> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the printer. When
>> you assign the profile, you see the actual color the profile will print.
>
> assign just tags what you have with a new profile. the data doesn't
> change and is still in the old profile, but with a different profile
> tag. usually you use assign when the original image is untagged, or you
> know its tag to be wrong.
>
> convert converts an image from one space to another, maintaining its
> appearance. it's what is done when printing. that's almost always what
> you want.
>

It appears that with "assign" I can see almost exactly what my image
will look like. Why should I use "convert," when I have less predictability?
--
PeterN

In article <51217c14$0$10771$>, PeterN
<> wrote:

> >> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
> >> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the printer. When
> >> you assign the profile, you see the actual color the profile will print.
> >
> > assign just tags what you have with a new profile. the data doesn't
> > change and is still in the old profile, but with a different profile
> > tag. usually you use assign when the original image is untagged, or you
> > know its tag to be wrong.
> >
> > convert converts an image from one space to another, maintaining its
> > appearance. it's what is done when printing. that's almost always what
> > you want.
>
> It appears that with "assign" I can see almost exactly what my image
> will look like. Why should I use "convert," when I have less predictability?

sounds like what you want is soft-proofing, not manually assigning or
converting profiles.

On 2/17/2013 7:59 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <51217c14$0$10771$>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>>> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
>>>> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the printer. When
>>>> you assign the profile, you see the actual color the profile will print.
>>>
>>> assign just tags what you have with a new profile. the data doesn't
>>> change and is still in the old profile, but with a different profile
>>> tag. usually you use assign when the original image is untagged, or you
>>> know its tag to be wrong.
>>>
>>> convert converts an image from one space to another, maintaining its
>>> appearance. it's what is done when printing. that's almost always what
>>> you want.
>>
>> It appears that with "assign" I can see almost exactly what my image
>> will look like. Why should I use "convert," when I have less predictability?
>
> sounds like what you want is soft-proofing, not manually assigning or
> converting profiles.
>

Nope.
I know exactly what i want. Better images, with less work. I am
interested in what others are doing, as I am always seeking improvement.
If I said that i do a lot of work in LAB mode, that would start a whole
new discussion. I strongly suspect that few her have tuned their images
in LAB, using curves, which are sometimes inverted.


--
PeterN

In article <51218ac8$0$10757$>, PeterN
<> wrote:

> >>>> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
> >>>> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the printer. When
> >>>> you assign the profile, you see the actual color the profile will print.
> >>>
> >>> assign just tags what you have with a new profile. the data doesn't
> >>> change and is still in the old profile, but with a different profile
> >>> tag. usually you use assign when the original image is untagged, or you
> >>> know its tag to be wrong.
> >>>
> >>> convert converts an image from one space to another, maintaining its
> >>> appearance. it's what is done when printing. that's almost always what
> >>> you want.
> >>
> >> It appears that with "assign" I can see almost exactly what my image
> >> will look like. Why should I use "convert," when I have less
> >> predictability?
> >
> > sounds like what you want is soft-proofing, not manually assigning or
> > converting profiles.
>
> Nope.
> I know exactly what i want. Better images, with less work. I am
> interested in what others are doing, as I am always seeking improvement.
> If I said that i do a lot of work in LAB mode, that would start a whole
> new discussion. I strongly suspect that few her have tuned their images
> in LAB, using curves, which are sometimes inverted.

if you want to see what the image will look like when you print, then
you want soft proofing. that's what it's for.

assigning profiles doesn't do what you think it does, but if it gets
you the desired results, great. that's all that matters.

lab mode has its advantages but it's generally more work than most
people need.

On 2/17/2013 9:16 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <51218ac8$0$10757$>, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>>>>>> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
>>>>>> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the printer. When
>>>>>> you assign the profile, you see the actual color the profile will print.
>>>>>
>>>>> assign just tags what you have with a new profile. the data doesn't
>>>>> change and is still in the old profile, but with a different profile
>>>>> tag. usually you use assign when the original image is untagged, or you
>>>>> know its tag to be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> convert converts an image from one space to another, maintaining its
>>>>> appearance. it's what is done when printing. that's almost always what
>>>>> you want.
>>>>
>>>> It appears that with "assign" I can see almost exactly what my image
>>>> will look like. Why should I use "convert," when I have less
>>>> predictability?
>>>
>>> sounds like what you want is soft-proofing, not manually assigning or
>>> converting profiles.
>>
>> Nope.
>> I know exactly what i want. Better images, with less work. I am
>> interested in what others are doing, as I am always seeking improvement.
>> If I said that i do a lot of work in LAB mode, that would start a whole
>> new discussion. I strongly suspect that few her have tuned their images
>> in LAB, using curves, which are sometimes inverted.
>
> if you want to see what the image will look like when you print, then
> you want soft proofing. that's what it's for.
>
> assigning profiles doesn't do what you think it does, but if it gets
> you the desired results, great. that's all that matters.
>
> lab mode has its advantages but it's generally more work than most
> people need.
>
I am talking about my needs, which may not correspond with what "most
people" do.


BTW I will not purse LAB mode discussions further, but if you do any
serious color work, it is a lot faster, if you know what you are doing.
You may not have the need for finely tuned color corrections.

--
PeterN

In article <5121919c$0$6417$>, PeterN
<> wrote:

> >>>>>> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
> >>>>>> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the printer.
> >>>>>> When you assign the profile, you see the actual color the profile will
> >>>>>> print.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> assign just tags what you have with a new profile. the data doesn't
> >>>>> change and is still in the old profile, but with a different profile
> >>>>> tag. usually you use assign when the original image is untagged, or you
> >>>>> know its tag to be wrong.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> convert converts an image from one space to another, maintaining its
> >>>>> appearance. it's what is done when printing. that's almost always what
> >>>>> you want.
> >>>>
> >>>> It appears that with "assign" I can see almost exactly what my image
> >>>> will look like. Why should I use "convert," when I have less
> >>>> predictability?
> >>>
> >>> sounds like what you want is soft-proofing, not manually assigning or
> >>> converting profiles.
> >>
> >> Nope.
> >> I know exactly what i want. Better images, with less work. I am
> >> interested in what others are doing, as I am always seeking improvement.
> >> If I said that i do a lot of work in LAB mode, that would start a whole
> >> new discussion. I strongly suspect that few her have tuned their images
> >> in LAB, using curves, which are sometimes inverted.
> >
> > if you want to see what the image will look like when you print, then
> > you want soft proofing. that's what it's for.
> >
> > assigning profiles doesn't do what you think it does, but if it gets
> > you the desired results, great. that's all that matters.
> >
> > lab mode has its advantages but it's generally more work than most
> > people need.
>
> I am talking about my needs, which may not correspond with what "most
> people" do.

then why did you ask what others do? if what you're doing works, then
you've found the solution, even if it's fundamentally wrong.

> BTW I will not purse LAB mode discussions further, but if you do any
> serious color work, it is a lot faster, if you know what you are doing.
> You may not have the need for finely tuned color corrections.

sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. there is no one solution for all
situations.

those who know what they're doing know what to use and when.

Alfred Molon <> writes:

> In article <511fb4c2$0$10801$>, PeterN
> says...
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q>
>
> Interesting. Who is actually using the ProPhoto colour space?
>
> Should one use Prophoto instead of AdobeRGB?

I do my processing in ProPhoto, in 16-bit-per-channel. You get
considerably better highlight recovery, and can make rather large
changes without posterization.

Most printers exceed sRGB in some directions. But in any case, your
*working* space is a whole different question. The point there is to
capture as much information as the camera will give you, so that you can
then work with it and control how it is finally presented.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Alfred Molon <> writes:

> In article <2013021615450475249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> says...
>> The Lightroom adjusted RAW file (usually imported and converted DNG) is
>> exported to the external editing SW (let's just say as in my case CS5)
>> as a TIFF in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB with the Lightroom adjustments applied.
>
> That would mean a file size of for instance 144MB for a 24MP camera. Are
> you really saving processed RAW images at 6 bytes/pixel? Or are you
> saving as ProPhoto JPEGs?

*Saving* is not necessarily the question. In Bibble Pro (now Corel
Aftershot Pro), and I believe in Lightroom, they don't save the pixels,
they save the settings and adjustments. So what I have on disk is the
..NEF file (or whatever for other cameras) and an XML file with editing
info, and whatever sizes of jpegs I have chosen to render (mostly web
size).

If I go through Photoshop, for a fully custom presentation or because I
screwed up the exposure so badly I need to do a "restoration" on my own
photo, then the .PSD file is sometimes kind of big, but there are so few
of them I don't worry about it.

> Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?

None that I've ever heard of. But people working form JPEGs are not the
market for ProPhoto color space.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info