Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-19-2013
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Alfred
Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > Of what use is an AdobeRGB jpeg?

>
> Prints


print directly from raw.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On 2/18/2013 3:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:55:33 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article <kfqrkd$su1$(E-Mail Removed)>, Mayayana says...
>>> I can see the value
>>> of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
>>> the monitor can't show it.

>>
>> But you cannot adjust the RAW conversion parameters if you can't see the
>> effect on the screen.
>>
>> If the screen is only able to display an AdobeRGB gamut, you can't edit
>> the image in the out of monitor gamut areas. You are essentially blind.
>>
>> You'd need a monitor with a Prophoto gamut, but do these beasts exist?

>
> For more on this problem see
> http://luminous-landscape.com/tutori...hoto-rgb.shtml
>


That's quite an informative article.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On 2/18/2013 11:25 PM, Rob wrote:
> 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
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <51203132$0$10790$(E-Mail Removed)-secrets.com>, 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?


I work in the widest possible gamut, and use the ICC profile for the
printer and paper my image will be printed onb. The most difficult part
is to seect the viewing light and orrect for it.
e.g. When I print for a CC competition, I print a tad darker because the
print will be viewed under a bright glaring light. If my print is for a
library exibition, I print a tad lighter, and attempt to adjust for the
color ov the viewing light. There is no one formula that will work for
all conditions. I have a daylight viewing lamp, (my wife uses it as a
reading lamp,) and I may haave to make minor curve adjustments to adjust
for viewing conditions.
BTW here is a quick and dirty way to remove all color casts and make the
print neutral gray. I create a new layer of the entire image; then blur
it using average blur. Next I bring up either a curves or level layer
and place the middle eye dropper on the blurred image It instantly turns
neutral gray. I then delete the blurred layer.
The above takes less time to do than explain.

My choice of paper depends entirely on the image.


HTH

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On 2/18/2013 11:28 PM, Rob wrote:
> On 18/02/2013 07:57, PeterN wrote:
>> On 2/17/2013 9:44 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, 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.


You are not going to get an exact image, but merely a reasonable
approximation.
There are times when I will just make an 8x10 and look at it for a few
days, so I fall out of love with it. The defects will quickly become
apparent.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On 2/18/2013 11:34 PM, Rob wrote:
> On 18/02/2013 07:05, Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:07:05 -0500, "Mayayana"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> 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)


If tht works for you, great.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-21-2013
On 2/18/2013 10:08 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> On 2/16/2013 9:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2013-02-16 17:14:04 -0800, Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> 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.
>


Why. I am asking, not being obstinate. I am not clear about the reasons.
I am seeking to improve my workflow.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2/18/2013 10:08 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>>> 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.


> Why. I am asking, not being obstinate. I am not clear about the reasons.
> I am seeking to improve my workflow.


Assign: "This, even though it claims to be English, looks like
English and makes sense in English, is in fact written Chinese".
(Never mind that it doesn't look like Chinese letters nor does
it make sense in any kind of Chinese.)[2]

Convert: "This is English, it says so. Now, dear translator,
I'd like that converted into Chinese". =>
"這是英文的,它是這麼說的。現在, 愛翻*,
我想轉換成*文"


(Note, I don't speak Chinese, I merely use Google translate.
Assume for a second that Google translate was very good ... then
you got a good idea what happens.)

-Wolfgang

[2] Now, if that was in fact Chinese but claiming it was
English ...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2013
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> *Saving* is not necessarily the question.


> But it's what ultimately matters. You can do all adjustments in your
> virtual Lightroom world, but ultimately you need an RGB file of some
> kind. For screen display, for printing etc.


Jep, my printer exceeds AdobeRGB with some colours ...
.... and even my old 20D records some colours that exeed AdobeRGB
in RAW.

-Wolfgang

[1] Doesn't matter if I want out of camera sRGB JPEGs, of
course.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2013
Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> 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?


The equivalent to a histogram for gamut and colour spaces!

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-24-2013
PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> BTW here is a quick and dirty way to remove all color casts and make the
> print neutral gray. I create a new layer of the entire image; then blur
> it using average blur. Next I bring up either a curves or level layer
> and place the middle eye dropper on the blurred image It instantly turns
> neutral gray. I then delete the blurred layer.
> The above takes less time to do than explain.


This works especially well when you've got an image that
shows, say, shades of red all over.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 0 03-01-2013 05:43 PM
More Efficiency,More Benefit,Less Risk,Less Work! jiajia wu ASP .Net 0 10-01-2009 01:50 PM
Which LCD monitors have "wide color gamut" ? ----------@example.com Computer Support 1 09-24-2007 05:46 PM
wide gamut monitor? peter Digital Photography 15 02-22-2007 08:22 PM
Re: Are LCD Monitors Brigter than CRT Monitors Martin Digital Photography 0 09-08-2004 04:09 PM



Advertisments