«

Alfred Molon <> writes:

> 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.

Of what use is an AdobeRGB jpeg? Can't use it on the web or send it to
people's cell phones (and expect it to look decent)!

> 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?

Preview. Or just "they look funny", and need to be worked with to get
them to look right.
--
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

Eric Stevens <> writes:

> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:01:50 -0500, 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.
>>>
>>> We are discussing the situation where the printer's gamut exceeds that
>>> of the monitor, remember. In that situation soft proofing can never be
>>> a complete answer.
>>
>>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.
>
> You must have either a better monitor or a less capable printer than I
> do.
>
> My Epson 3800 so far exceeds the gamut of my not incapable Dell U2410
> that soft proofing is only a rough guide to what I can expect in a
> print. Mind you, I use a ProPhoto colour space.

You might be interested in the gamut plots at
<http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/gamuts.html>.
--
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

PeterN <> writes:

> On 2/16/2013 9:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2013-02-16 17:14:04 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:
>
> <sniP
>
>
>> I currently like using the Lightroom 4 to CS5 workflow as that gives me
>> the 2012 RAW conversion engine which I do not have with CS5. The benefit
>> of using a Photoshop only workflow is not having to deal with the LR to
>> CS exchange step. If I had CS6, that version of ACR would give me the
>> same RAW processing capability as I get with LR4.
>>
>
> 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.

ALWAYS convert! The only valid use for "Assign" is when you have a file
not properly tagged with the color space it's in.
--
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

On 18/02/2013 07:56, PeterN wrote:
> On 2/17/2013 6:57 AM, 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?
>
> Yes. If you only print without making fine color adjustments.
> AdobeRGB is a much wider gamut than sRGB. sRGB was intended for web
> viewing, not digital art printing.
>


I find that there are so many variables to make adjustments, my printing
is how I've seen the vista.

How would you define a fine art print, what should one be looking for or
at to make all the corrections?

On 18/02/2013 07:57, PeterN wrote:
> On 2/17/2013 9:44 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <>, Eric Stevens
>> says...
>>
>>> >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
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Soft proofing does a pretty good job.
>
>

Some time a go I tried soft proofing and became some what disillusioned
when I used it.

On 18/02/2013 07:05, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:07:05 -0500, "Mayayana"
> <> wrote:
>
>> | >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
>> | --
>>
>> Maybe this is a dumb question, but... After viewing
>> the Youtube video about color profiles and finding
>> a download of a ProPhoto ICC file, I can see the value
>> of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
>> the monitor can't show it. With a Nikon D3200 and
>> Epson 2880... I get the idea of not distorting/losing
>> hues in the image before it gets to the printer. It tends
>> to print more blue and less saturated than it should.
>> But how to adjust the printer itself? If an image is edited
>> with ProPhoto profile, does one then set the input and
>> output profiles for color management in the printer to
>> ProPhoto? Currently the only option is "Epson default".
>> Presumably that can be changed by adding new ICCs
>> to wherever Epson keeps the profile files? (I find them
>> all in C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color on XP,
>> but the printer doesn't seem to see them there.
>>
> Have you considered turning off the printer's colour management and
> using your print application (Photo Shop, or whatever) to do the task
> instead?
>


I can't use PS or what ever to manage colour, I let the printer manage
the colour. (with great sucess BTW)

On 17/02/2013 13:06, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-02-16 17:14:04 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:
>
>> 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?
>
> That is only if you are making additional adjustments with an external
> editor such as CS5. All other LR edits to DNGs are recorded as
> non-destructive data within LR.
> Fortunately for me I am still shooting with my D300S. So If I take one
> of my latest SI submissions I start with a 4288x2848 DNG @ 36.8MB with
> all my RAW and LR adjustments. After exporting to CS5 for a few other
> adjustments including a crop, I have a 4500x3000 TIF @ 81.1MB. I could
> have saved back to LR4 as a PSD and saved a bit of HDD space. Both
> retain their ProPhoto RGB colorspace, and I can print those without
> issue to my R2880 using the matched ICC profile for the printer + paper.
>
> Also, HDD space is not unreasonable today. I am certainly not going to
> share or distribute fat TIFs unless I really have to.
>
> Then I export the saved TIF converting it to an 8-bit, sRGB JPEG (and
> still at 360 ppi and able to produce a pretty decent print)ending up at
> 10.6MB. I resize that JPEG for the SI getting it down to 384KB, 1280x862
> and still at 360 ppi switching to 72 ppi makes no difference to the file
> size or the viewer's experience.
>
>> Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?
>
> None that I know of, and I doubt there ever will be. The "in camera"
> colorspace selection is mainly for the benefit of the camera generated
> JPEGs.
> Consider that the RAW file is going to be colorspace neutral until you
> process it in the RAW processing software of your choice and use
> whatever options it provides you. Adobe allows you the choice to decide
> between sRGB, Adobe RGB(199, or ProPhoto RGB in ACR, or import and
> convert to DNG 16-bit ProPhoto with Lightroom.
>
> I currently like using the Lightroom 4 to CS5 workflow as that gives me
> the 2012 RAW conversion engine which I do not have with CS5. The benefit
> of using a Photoshop only workflow is not having to deal with the LR to
> CS exchange step. If I had CS6, that version of ACR would give me the
> same RAW processing capability as I get with LR4.
>
>

I certainly had problems when printing with my R1800 printer when using
Ilford paper, could never get the balance correct, even soft proofing
etc. This paper needed the Ilford profiles as the print looked muddy,
which could not be manually corrected.

I now mostly rely on Epson paper and inks and use there supplied profiles.

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:53:37 +0100, Alfred Molon
<> wrote:

>In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> Of what use is an AdobeRGB jpeg?
>
>Prints

Also a more accurate in-camera histogram which is generated by the in
camera jpeg even for those who just shoot raw.

On 19/02/2013 16:35, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-02-18 20:34:09 -0800, Rob <> said:
>
>> On 18/02/2013 07:05, Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:07:05 -0500, "Mayayana"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> | >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
>>>> | --
>>>>
>>>> Maybe this is a dumb question, but... After viewing
>>>> the Youtube video about color profiles and finding
>>>> a download of a ProPhoto ICC file, I can see the value
>>>> of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
>>>> the monitor can't show it. With a Nikon D3200 and
>>>> Epson 2880... I get the idea of not distorting/losing
>>>> hues in the image before it gets to the printer. It tends
>>>> to print more blue and less saturated than it should.
>>>> But how to adjust the printer itself? If an image is edited
>>>> with ProPhoto profile, does one then set the input and
>>>> output profiles for color management in the printer to
>>>> ProPhoto? Currently the only option is "Epson default".
>>>> Presumably that can be changed by adding new ICCs
>>>> to wherever Epson keeps the profile files? (I find them
>>>> all in C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color on XP,
>>>> but the printer doesn't seem to see them there.
>>>>
>>> Have you considered turning off the printer's colour management and
>>> using your print application (Photo Shop, or whatever) to do the task
>>> instead?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can't use PS or what ever to manage colour, I let the printer manage
>> the colour. (with great sucess BTW)
>
> Why?
>
>

Don't know - tried quite a few things, correct paper profiles and inks.
Have never been able to balance the colours. Ever used the work flow
setup produced by Epson. RGB Workflow - Photoshop CS5 / Win & MAC
(PDF). I have been using Epson paper as the results are very satisfactory.

On 19/02/2013 17:11, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-02-18 20:40:39 -0800, Rob <> said:
>
>> On 17/02/2013 13:06, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2013-02-16 17:14:04 -0800, Alfred Molon <>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> That is only if you are making additional adjustments with an external
>>> editor such as CS5. All other LR edits to DNGs are recorded as
>>> non-destructive data within LR.
>>> Fortunately for me I am still shooting with my D300S. So If I take one
>>> of my latest SI submissions I start with a 4288x2848 DNG @ 36.8MB with
>>> all my RAW and LR adjustments. After exporting to CS5 for a few other
>>> adjustments including a crop, I have a 4500x3000 TIF @ 81.1MB. I could
>>> have saved back to LR4 as a PSD and saved a bit of HDD space. Both
>>> retain their ProPhoto RGB colorspace, and I can print those without
>>> issue to my R2880 using the matched ICC profile for the printer +
>>> paper.
>>>
>>> Also, HDD space is not unreasonable today. I am certainly not going to
>>> share or distribute fat TIFs unless I really have to.
>>>
>>> Then I export the saved TIF converting it to an 8-bit, sRGB JPEG (and
>>> still at 360 ppi and able to produce a pretty decent print)ending up at
>>> 10.6MB. I resize that JPEG for the SI getting it down to 384KB, 1280x862
>>> and still at 360 ppi switching to 72 ppi makes no difference to the file
>>> size or the viewer's experience.
>>>
>>>> Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?
>>>
>>> None that I know of, and I doubt there ever will be. The "in camera"
>>> colorspace selection is mainly for the benefit of the camera generated
>>> JPEGs.
>>> Consider that the RAW file is going to be colorspace neutral until you
>>> process it in the RAW processing software of your choice and use
>>> whatever options it provides you. Adobe allows you the choice to decide
>>> between sRGB, Adobe RGB(199, or ProPhoto RGB in ACR, or import and
>>> convert to DNG 16-bit ProPhoto with Lightroom.
>>>
>>> I currently like using the Lightroom 4 to CS5 workflow as that gives me
>>> the 2012 RAW conversion engine which I do not have with CS5. The benefit
>>> of using a Photoshop only workflow is not having to deal with the LR to
>>> CS exchange step. If I had CS6, that version of ACR would give me the
>>> same RAW processing capability as I get with LR4.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I certainly had problems when printing with my R1800 printer when
>> using Ilford paper, could never get the balance correct, even soft
>> proofing etc. This paper needed the Ilford profiles as the print
>> looked muddy, which could not be manually corrected.
>>
>> I now mostly rely on Epson paper and inks and use there supplied
>> profiles.
>
> I have had some good results with Epson paper & I use Epson K3 inks
> exclusively.
> I still have seven sheets of Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss 11x17 paper
> from which I have got some decent prints, but the profiles have always
> been a bit of a kludge!
> One interesting thing is their recommended printer settings for the
> majority of Epson printers are:
> Use generic settings if your printer is not listed
> Media type: Premium SemiGloss Photo paper
> Settings: 1440 dpi or higher, Supermicroweave - ON, Photo-Automatic, -5
> magenta
> ...and no icc paper/printer profile, and they call these papers their
> "professional inkjet photo range".
>
> My current favorite papers are from Red River matched with their
> printer/paper profiles, and from their offerings I find myself using
> their UltraPro Gloss and Polar Pearl Metallic most of the time.
> Occasionally I use their UltraPro Satin & Premium Matte Plus papers, but
> I hate swapping out the Black/Black Matte ink cartridges in the R2880.
>
> I don't know about the availability of Red River papers in your
> antipodal location, but if you ever get an opportunity to experiment
> with them I recommend them highly. They do ship via UPS to Australia & NZ.
> < http://www.redrivercatalog.com/ >
>


Just sent them an email as regards to freight costs which my be
prohibitive. (BH want both arms and both legs freight charges.)