Printing service with color managment?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jazzguy, Apr 11, 2004.

  1. jazzguy

    jazzguy Guest

    I asked Ofoto and Shutterfly and neither of them take account of any color
    profiles - they assume that your image is created in the sRGB color space.
    I am looking for a printing service that will print good quality prints,
    8x10 at least, and that takes into account a managed color environment. I
    typically use Adobe RGB and sometimes even wider gamut color spaces, and I'd
    like to find a printing service that even knows what that means. Does
    anyone have any experience in this regard?
     
    jazzguy, Apr 11, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jazzguy

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "jazzguy" NOSPAM!

    >I asked Ofoto and Shutterfly and neither of them take account of any color
    >profiles - they assume that your image is created in the sRGB color space.


    That's because they're using printers like the Fuji Frontier and most of their
    customers send in jpegs.

    >I am looking for a printing service that will print good quality prints,
    >8x10 at least, and that takes into account a managed color environment.


    Most labs using high end printers like the Chromira and the LightJet series do
    this, even offering you custom profiles for their specific calibrated machine,
    but of course these are not as cheap as the on-line mass volume guys.

    > I typically use Adobe RGB and sometimes even wider gamut color spaces,
    > and I'd like to find a printing service that even knows what that means.

    Does
    >anyone have any experience in this regard?


    Try these two in California, both excellent pro labs used by many top
    photographers, like Galen Rowell, Franz Lanting, Jack Dykinga, etc ... their
    usual flow is for the photographer to work in AdobeRGB or the wider gamut
    Ektaspace space and then convert to one of their printer-specific ICM profiles
    before sending in the tiff for printing.

    http://www.westcoastimaging.com/
    http://www.calypsoinc.com/

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jazzguy

    zbzbzb Guest

    >I asked Ofoto and Shutterfly and neither of them take account of any color
    >profiles - they assume that your image is created in the sRGB color space.
    >I am looking for a printing service that will print good quality prints,
    >8x10 at least, and that takes into account a managed color environment. I
    >typically use Adobe RGB and sometimes even wider gamut color spaces, and I'd
    >like to find a printing service that even knows what that means. Does
    >anyone have any experience in this regard?



    What is wrong with sRGB? I get better than "good quality" at the local Costco.
    I cannot see any difference than if my negatives were printed straight from the
    negative. In fact my scans look much better since I can easily adjust them to
    exactly the way I want them to look.
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 11, 2004
    #3
  4. jazzguy

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: bzbzb (zbzbzb)

    >What is wrong with sRGB?


    Nothing is "wrong" with sRGB. It's the best working space for many situations,
    including web images and for consumer-grade printers like the ones used by
    on-line and quickie photo sites like Wal-Mart and Costco. But it also has a
    limited gamut or range of colors, designed by HP and Microsoft to cover the
    color range of an average uncalibrated monitor.

    If your input files are jpegs from digi-cams then sRGB is fine, but people who
    scan film or who shoot RAW are tossing away colors when they convert to sRGB,
    compared to a wider gamut space like AdobeRGB or Ektaspace (which captures the
    full color range of most slide films). And if you are printing on a high end
    LIghtJet or Chromira or even a good desktop inkjet like the 6-7 color models
    from Canon or Epson then you are better off with a wider space.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 11, 2004
    #4
  5. jazzguy

    zbzbzb Guest

    >Nothing is "wrong" with sRGB. It's the best working space for many
    >situations,
    >including web images and for consumer-grade printers like the ones used by
    >on-line and quickie photo sites like Wal-Mart and Costco. But it also has a
    >limited gamut or range of colors, designed by HP and Microsoft to cover the
    >color range of an average uncalibrated monitor.




    Bill I can not tell the difference between prints done on a Noritsu at Costco
    and those printed straight from the negative. As I said the scan is actually
    much better overall. I consider myself very picky and I see no difference in
    colors at all. I think you may be worrying about things that cannot be normally
    seen on prints.



    >
    >If your input files are jpegs from digi-cams then sRGB is fine, but people
    >who
    >scan film or who shoot RAW are tossing away colors when they convert to sRGB,
    >compared to a wider gamut space like AdobeRGB or Ektaspace (which captures
    >the
    >full color range of most slide films).




    I scan film at 4000dpi and print at Costco and I see no difference in color.



    And if you are printing on a high end
    >LIghtJet or Chromira or even a good desktop inkjet like the 6-7 color models
    >from Canon or Epson then you are better off with a wider space.
    >
    >Bill
    >
    >



    How is the LightJet and Chromira more higher end than the Noritisu and
    Frontiers at Costco or other labs, besides print size, if you cannot see a
    difference in color?
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 11, 2004
    #5
  6. jazzguy

    Flycaster Guest

    "zbzbzb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bill I can not tell the difference between prints done on a Noritsu at

    Costco
    > and those printed straight from the negative. As I said the scan is

    actually
    > much better overall. I consider myself very picky and I see no difference

    in
    > colors at all. I think you may be worrying about things that cannot be

    normally
    > seen on prints.


    As Bill has said, it depends on the image and the printer. The fact that
    you can't "see" it could be the result of many things. The color
    differences [gamut clipping] are fairly obvious when viewed on calibrated
    equipment.

    If you were sitting in front of my setup, I could easily show you image
    gamut clipping in sRGB, and print gamut clipping resulting from the use of
    sRGB. With the use of low speed, color enhanced transparency film (eg,
    Velvia), these differences are not subtle whatsoever - they're huge.
     
    Flycaster, Apr 11, 2004
    #6
  7. jazzguy

    zbzbzb Guest

    >As Bill has said, it depends on the image and the printer. The fact that
    >you can't "see" it could be the result of many things. The color
    >differences [gamut clipping] are fairly obvious when viewed on calibrated
    >equipment.
    >



    I get an excellent match with my prints compared to my screen so I can't
    complain.


    >If you were sitting in front of my setup, I could easily show you image
    >gamut clipping in sRGB, and print gamut clipping resulting from the use of
    >sRGB. With the use of low speed, color enhanced transparency film (eg,
    >Velvia), these differences are not subtle whatsoever - they're huge.



    I only scan negative film and I can't see any differences in comparison to
    optical prints. I still don't see how there would be much of a difference with
    slide film.
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 11, 2004
    #7
  8. jazzguy

    jazzguy Guest

    I should clarify my situation so that my original question is clearer. I'm
    scanning slides using a Nikon Coolscan V at 4000 dpi, directly into
    Photoshop (uncompressed). Out-of-gamut colors frequently appear - you can
    see them using Photoshop's "gamut warning" feature. They're very common,
    and the difference in output between a color-managed print and a
    non-color-managed print is very large. It makes one look like a happy
    holiday snap from a disposable camera compared to the other from a
    large-format Leica using professional grade film.

    I reiterate my original question - for those of us to whom the
    non-color-managed printing of servies like Ofoto and Shutterfly is a
    problem, are there any reasonably priced alternatives? I could go to Duggal
    or Adorama or any one of the other advertising-centric printers but they'll
    charge me a king's ransom.
    Thanks






    "Flycaster" <> wrote in message
    news:40797c1a$1_3@127.0.0.1...
    > "zbzbzb" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Bill I can not tell the difference between prints done on a Noritsu at

    > Costco
    > > and those printed straight from the negative. As I said the scan is

    > actually
    > > much better overall. I consider myself very picky and I see no

    difference
    > in
    > > colors at all. I think you may be worrying about things that cannot be

    > normally
    > > seen on prints.

    >
    > As Bill has said, it depends on the image and the printer. The fact that
    > you can't "see" it could be the result of many things. The color
    > differences [gamut clipping] are fairly obvious when viewed on calibrated
    > equipment.
    >
    > If you were sitting in front of my setup, I could easily show you image
    > gamut clipping in sRGB, and print gamut clipping resulting from the use of
    > sRGB. With the use of low speed, color enhanced transparency film (eg,
    > Velvia), these differences are not subtle whatsoever - they're huge.
    >
    >
     
    jazzguy, Apr 11, 2004
    #8
  9. jazzguy

    zbzbzb Guest

    >
    >I should clarify my situation so that my original question is clearer. I'm
    >scanning slides using a Nikon Coolscan V at 4000 dpi, directly into
    >Photoshop (uncompressed). Out-of-gamut colors frequently appear - you can
    >see them using Photoshop's "gamut warning" feature. They're very common,
    >and the difference in output between a color-managed print and a
    >non-color-managed print is very large. It makes one look like a happy
    >holiday snap from a disposable camera compared to the other from a
    >large-format Leica using professional grade film.



    "Large format Leica?" "Professional grade film?"
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 11, 2004
    #9
  10. jazzguy

    DSphotog Guest

    I'll give you that "Large Format Leica" is an "oops", but if you don't know
    the difference between Pro grade film and the consumer stuff, shame on you!

    You might want to pay attention to the advice being given you by Bill and
    Flycaster as they do this for a living and know from whence they speak.

    You might also want to try taking one of your negatives to a pro lab and
    have them scan it and print it and then see if there is a difference.

    On the other hand, if you cannot tell the difference and are happy with the
    results you are getting, then so be it.

    Hope this helps.

    Best,
    D
    "zbzbzb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >
    > >I should clarify my situation so that my original question is clearer.

    I'm
    > >scanning slides using a Nikon Coolscan V at 4000 dpi, directly into
    > >Photoshop (uncompressed). Out-of-gamut colors frequently appear - you

    can
    > >see them using Photoshop's "gamut warning" feature. They're very common,
    > >and the difference in output between a color-managed print and a
    > >non-color-managed print is very large. It makes one look like a happy
    > >holiday snap from a disposable camera compared to the other from a
    > >large-format Leica using professional grade film.

    >
    >
    > "Large format Leica?" "Professional grade film?"
    >
    >
    >
     
    DSphotog, Apr 11, 2004
    #10
  11. jazzguy

    zbzbzb Guest

    >I'll give you that "Large Format Leica" is an "oops", but if you don't know
    >the difference between Pro grade film and the consumer stuff, shame on you!
    >




    I know the difference but I also know that beyond the obvious difference of
    each films intended purpose, such as more or less saturated, higher or lower
    contrast, etc, the differences between "pro" film are not practically visible.



    >You might want to pay attention to the advice being given you by Bill and
    >Flycaster as they do this for a living and know from whence they speak.



    I also know that many people in the industry also obsess over things that
    practically do not matter. I'm not saying that is the case in their situation.
    I have given my opinion when it comes to scanned negative film. I have also
    given the opinion that I don't see why it would be so or any different for
    slide film.


    >You might also want to try taking one of your negatives to a pro lab and
    >have them scan it and print it and then see if there is a difference.



    Why? I have already stated that I can match optical prints. What more would I
    need to be looking for beyond that?


    >On the other hand, if you cannot tell the difference and are happy with the
    >results you are getting, then so be it.



    I am, but I also feel it is important to try and provide a more moderate and
    practical view so that others new to the whole digital process don't feel that
    they must do this or must do that to get excellent prints. I gave the same
    advice to people when they would ask about doing their own darkroom processing
    at home.
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 11, 2004
    #11
  12. jazzguy

    DSphotog Guest

    Re: Printing service with color managment? ( LONG)

    First of all, let me say that I'm not try to give you a hard time here. My
    sole purpose is to enlighten (only if needed).

    re: Pro film - It is manufactured and shipped as close to it's color balance
    peak as is practical. Usually only in "blocks" and batch coded and supplied
    with any needed cc (color correcting) filtration that might be needed to
    tweak it to it's ideal color balance. It is shipped by the fastest method
    (sometimes refrigerated) so it will arrive at the dealer as shipped and not
    be exposed to excessive heat. A good photo dealer will keep all of their Pro
    film stored in a refrigerator to maintain that peak for as long as possible.
    This is particularly important with slide film as the slide (transparency)
    is the finished product. (Negative film is tweaked during printing if done
    by a quality lab)

    Consumer film, on the other hand, is purposely shipped prior to reaching
    it's peak so that it will "last" longer on the store shelf (almost never
    stored in a refrigerator). You may be lucky and get a roll that is smack on,
    but it is just as likely that it will be either pre or post peak. (and good
    luck getting 2 rolls from the same batch at a Costco)

    The above may not be important to you, but if you are shooting
    professionally, it is extremely important that the color be right on the
    money.

    Now, as far as home-scanned shots printed at Costco etc. matching your
    monitor and being as good or better than optically printed shots we need
    to establish some parameters. We need to know where you are getting the
    optically printed shots done. It makes a very large difference if we are
    comparing "drug store" prints or "pro lab" prints. I'm sure you will agree.

    The whole point of my response is that you may be comparing apples and
    oranges here. Everyone has their own standards, and I do not mean to
    disparage yours in any way.

    If you really want to test Costco, I have a 50 Meg file of a shot I made on
    4x5 Pro Ektachrome and scanned (by a friend) on a $15,000+ Imacon scanner
    that I can E-Mail to you if you wish. (I suggest that you only do this if
    you have a broadband connection as it would take half a life time on a dial
    up)

    Hope I have helped and not ruffled any feathers.

    Best,
    D
    "zbzbzb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >I'll give you that "Large Format Leica" is an "oops", but if you don't

    know
    > >the difference between Pro grade film and the consumer stuff, shame on

    you!
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > I know the difference but I also know that beyond the obvious difference

    of
    > each films intended purpose, such as more or less saturated, higher or

    lower
    > contrast, etc, the differences between "pro" film are not practically

    visible.
    >
    >
    >
    > >You might want to pay attention to the advice being given you by Bill and
    > >Flycaster as they do this for a living and know from whence they speak.

    >
    >
    > I also know that many people in the industry also obsess over things that
    > practically do not matter. I'm not saying that is the case in their

    situation.
    > I have given my opinion when it comes to scanned negative film. I have

    also
    > given the opinion that I don't see why it would be so or any different for
    > slide film.
    >
    >
    > >You might also want to try taking one of your negatives to a pro lab and
    > >have them scan it and print it and then see if there is a difference.

    >
    >
    > Why? I have already stated that I can match optical prints. What more

    would I
    > need to be looking for beyond that?
    >
    >
    > >On the other hand, if you cannot tell the difference and are happy with

    the
    > >results you are getting, then so be it.

    >
    >
    > I am, but I also feel it is important to try and provide a more moderate

    and
    > practical view so that others new to the whole digital process don't feel

    that
    > they must do this or must do that to get excellent prints. I gave the same
    > advice to people when they would ask about doing their own darkroom

    processing
    > at home.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    DSphotog, Apr 11, 2004
    #12
  13. jazzguy

    Savidge4 Guest

    Re: Printing service with color managment? ( LONG)

    staying out of the line of fire in the color gamut discussion (not that it
    really is a discussion, the more color gamut the better!) I would like to offer
    a possible solution to your printing needs.

    I am personally a digital photographer and didnt like the concept of taking raw
    images and throwing out color data. So I outsourced to a lab to get increased
    color gamut prints made of my images. As I am sure you know this is not cheap.
    There came a point for me that it was simply cost effective to purchase a large
    format printer, and a good RIP to do all of the processing myself. I will say
    that this solution totally depends apon the final size you are printing and the
    number of prints you are making in a year.

    As it turns out through my investment I have created a nice little cottage
    industry for myself printing images for other photogs in my area.

    hops that helps!
     
    Savidge4, Apr 12, 2004
    #13
  14. jazzguy

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> Bill Hilton wrote ...
    >>
    >> Nothing is "wrong" with sRGB. It's the best working space for
    >> many situations, including web images and for consumer-grade
    >> printers like the ones used by on-line and quickie photo sites like
    >> Wal-Mart and Costco. But it also has a limited gamut ...



    >From: bzbzb (zbzbzb)
    >
    >Bill I can not tell the difference between prints done on a Noritsu at
    >Costco and those printed straight from the negative.


    I don't work much with negative film, especially since Kodak killed Ektar 25 a
    decade ago, so I have no direct experience to contradict this. If you are auto
    printing "from the negative" at a one hour place and saying the prints look
    like sRGB prints from Costco then that makes sense, though one might ask if
    that's the best possible print you can get from that film when compared to a
    custom print.

    >I think you may be worrying about things that cannot be normally
    >seen on prints.


    I can definitely see the difference with scanned slide films like Velvia, which
    are highly saturated and clip a lot when scanned (or converted for web) in a
    smaller gamut space like sRGB. I usually scan Velvia into Ektaspace.

    I can also see the difference between sRGB and AdobeRGB with our two high-end
    digital cameras.

    >> Bill Hilton wrote ...
    >>
    >> ... if you are printing on a high end LIghtJet or Chromira or even a good
    >> desktop inkjet like the 6-7 color models from Canon or Epson then you
    >> are better off with a wider space.


    >From: bzbzb (zbzbzb)
    >
    >How is the LightJet and Chromira more higher end than the Noritisu and
    >Frontiers at Costco or other labs, besides print size, if you cannot see a
    >difference in color?


    Who said you can't see a difference in colors between these printers? The
    Lightjets have a much wider gamut (range of reproducible colors) than the
    Frontiers which use sRGB as their defacto color space, assuming you send the
    LightJet files tagged with AdobeRGB or other space with a wider gamut than
    sRGB. This is easy to prove just by looking at the ICM profiles, which measure
    precisely the colors that a printer can accurately reproduce.

    The difficult part about color management is getting accurate ICM profiles for
    your monitor and printer. Once you do this it's as easy to use AdobeRGB as it
    is to use sRGB since scanners can tag output files with either space and all
    the RAW conversion programs I've used can generate tiffs tagged with AdobeRGB,
    which is a better match for a good camera's gamut. And setting up Photoshop to
    use AdobeRGB is as simple as Edit > Color Settings > and changing the
    "Settings" drop-down to "U.S. Prepress Defaults" instead of the default "Web
    Graphics defaults". Then the color space is transparent until you want to make
    a jpeg for the web or convert to print on one of the sRGB printers.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Apr 12, 2004
    #14
  15. jazzguy

    Flycaster Guest

    "zbzbzb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I get an excellent match with my prints compared to my screen so I can't
    > complain.


    I get an excellent match too. We're talking apples to oranges here [gamut
    clipping vs. calibration], and you're missing that distinction.

    > I only scan negative film and I can't see any differences in comparison to
    > optical prints.


    You have to put identical test image prints, which include color charts,
    side-by-side to accomplish this. Be honest, when was the last time you did
    this? For most folks, the truthful answer is never.

    >I still don't see how there would be much of a difference with
    > slide film.


    Every film has its own unique "color gamut" (the analog equivalent of a
    profile). They are all quite different, though that line has been
    substantially blurred by post scan manipulation. Furthermore, if the scan
    is output in the limited sRGB color space, rather than tagged with the
    actual scanner profile, that distinction becomes almost moot. Truth is,
    there is not a single color film on the market today which does not have a
    color gamut *substantively* larger than sRGB.
     
    Flycaster, Apr 12, 2004
    #15
  16. jazzguy

    Steve James Guest

    jazzguy <NOSPAM!> wrote:

    > I asked Ofoto and Shutterfly and neither of them take account of any color
    > profiles - they assume that your image is created in the sRGB color space.
    > I am looking for a printing service that will print good quality prints,
    > 8x10 at least, and that takes into account a managed color environment. I
    > typically use Adobe RGB and sometimes even wider gamut color spaces, and I'd
    > like to find a printing service that even knows what that means. Does
    > anyone have any experience in this regard?


    An alternative that you might find acceptable and perhaps not too
    expensive is to use custom profiles provided free by Dry Creek Photo for
    commerical print services located all over the country. The printers
    vary from Costcos to Camera Shops. The majority of the profiles are for
    Fuji Frontier and Noritsu digital printers. You work in whatever color
    space you prefer using a good hardware-calibrated monitor (if you aren't
    using a calibrated monitor don't you haven't yet done the first step in
    color management) and then convert to the colorspace of the printer
    using the downloaded ICC profile as the last step in preparing your file
    for printing. There are detailed instructions on the work flow and
    using the ICC profiles on the web site. Be sure to tell the person
    operating the printer that the files have already been digitally
    corrected for colorspace and that any automated adjustments on the
    printer should be turned off.
    http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/FrontierDatabase.htm
    --
    To email me use: sjusenet AT comcast DOT net
     
    Steve James, Apr 12, 2004
    #16
  17. jazzguy

    zbzbzb Guest

    Re: Printing service with color managment? ( LONG)

    >Consumer film, on the other hand, is purposely shipped prior to reaching
    >it's peak so that it will "last" longer on the store shelf (almost never
    >stored in a refrigerator). You may be lucky and get a roll that is smack on,
    >but it is just as likely that it will be either pre or post peak. (and good
    >luck getting 2 rolls from the same batch at a Costco)
    >
    >The above may not be important to you, but if you are shooting
    >professionally, it is extremely important that the color be right on the
    >money.



    I can understand if you are just dealing with the slide and nothing after that.
    But the whole digitizing process makes correcting for any color differences
    simple to the extent that it isn't really an issue.


    >Now, as far as home-scanned shots printed at Costco etc. matching your
    >monitor and being as good or better than optically printed shots we need
    >to establish some parameters. We need to know where you are getting the
    >optically printed shots done. It makes a very large difference if we are
    >comparing "drug store" prints or "pro lab" prints. I'm sure you will agree.



    Don't assume that just because the place that is printing the pictures is high
    volume and low cost that the results will always be inferior to a "pro lab."
    That can often be the case but certainly not always, and I would suspect much
    less so today. I would guess the whole digital process has now made it easier
    to get consistently good results. I have used a number of "pro labs" in the
    past and surprisingly the results I get from Costco, with a good file, are the
    equal and overall better because I have much more control over the final
    output.


    >
    >If you really want to test Costco, I have a 50 Meg file of a shot I made on
    >4x5 Pro Ektachrome and scanned (by a friend) on a $15,000+ Imacon scanner
    >that I can E-Mail to you if you wish. (I suggest that you only do this if
    >you have a broadband connection as it would take half a life time on a dial
    >up)



    Why would that be a more of a real test if I am already matching 35mm
    optically?


    >Hope I have helped and not ruffled any feathers.
    >


    Don't sweat it D.
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 12, 2004
    #17
  18. jazzguy

    zbzbzb Guest

    >>Bill I can not tell the difference between prints done on a Noritsu at
    >>Costco and those printed straight from the negative.

    >
    >I don't work much with negative film, especially since Kodak killed Ektar 25
    >a
    >decade ago, so I have no direct experience to contradict this. If you are
    >auto
    >printing "from the negative" at a one hour place and saying the prints look
    >like sRGB prints from Costco then that makes sense, though one might ask if
    >that's the best possible print you can get from that film when compared to a
    >custom print.



    Funny you mentioned Ektar 25. I have beautiful optically printed pics made from
    Ektar frames. As great as they look the same frames scanned on the Canoscan
    FS4000 with Vuescan and printed at Costco are suprisingly at least the equal.
    Actually they are better overall because of what I can do to the file before
    printing.


    >I can definitely see the difference with scanned slide films like Velvia,
    >which
    >are highly saturated and clip a lot when scanned (or converted for web) in a
    >smaller gamut space like sRGB. I usually scan Velvia into Ektaspace.
    >
    >I can also see the difference between sRGB and AdobeRGB with our two high-end
    >digital cameras.



    Are you seeing the differences in prints? And what exactly is the difference
    you are seeing?


    >Who said you can't see a difference in colors between these printers? The
    >Lightjets have a much wider gamut (range of reproducible colors) than the
    >Frontiers which use sRGB as their defacto color space, assuming you send the
    >LightJet files tagged with AdobeRGB or other space with a wider gamut than
    >sRGB. This is easy to prove just by looking at the ICM profiles, which
    >measure
    >precisely the colors that a printer can accurately reproduce.



    My point is if you can match optical prints then why bother? Now if what you
    are saying is that you can somehow get a better print with that wider gamut
    than an optical print then that's a different matter.
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 12, 2004
    #18
  19. jazzguy

    zbzbzb Guest

    >> I get an excellent match with my prints compared to my screen so I can't
    >> complain.

    >
    >I get an excellent match too. We're talking apples to oranges here [gamut
    >clipping vs. calibration], and you're missing that distinction.
    >




    I'm not missing anything. You mentioned calibration and I merely responded. I
    here what you are saying but I'm not convinced because in my case I am matching
    well printed optical pics.



    >> I only scan negative film and I can't see any differences in comparison to
    >> optical prints.

    >
    >You have to put identical test image prints, which include color charts,
    >side-by-side to accomplish this. Be honest, when was the last time you did
    >this? For most folks, the truthful answer is never.



    I am comparing exact frames printed optically and digitally. Unless my vision
    is failing me, and the last time I checked it was near perfect, I see no color
    differences. In fact, as I already stated, the digital prints are overall
    better because of the control I have over the scans. I see scenes with colors
    as they should be, both in the optical prints and in the scans.



    >Truth is,
    >there is not a single color film on the market today which does not have a
    >color gamut *substantively* larger than sRGB.



    Then what is it I am supposed to be seeing better in my optical prints over my
    scans because I don't see it.
     
    zbzbzb, Apr 12, 2004
    #19
  20. jazzguy

    Flycaster Guest

    "zbzbzb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Then what is it I am supposed to be seeing better in my optical prints

    over my
    > scans because I don't see it.


    Once again, you'll never see the difference in gamut (regardless of print or
    film type) unless you put two side-by-side using color charts as the test
    images. Color gamut clipping occurs with the use of sRGB, whether you want
    to believe it or not, in both digital cameras as well as digital scans of
    film.

    Now, whether or not this is *important* to you in your work is another issue
    altogether; but, and perhaps I'm not understanding you entirely, you seem to
    be insisting that there is NO noticeable gamut difference. That simply
    ain't so. There *is* a reason why every high end service bureau suggests
    that all files be submitted in color spaces *larger* than sRGB.

    I've got prints with reds, blues (especially cyan blues) and other colors
    that you can't even see in sRGB - and this is off an inkjet. Go to lightjet
    output and the difference is huge. But, for Costco type snapshots, I
    agree...who cares?
     
    Flycaster, Apr 12, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Oystein

    Managment/traffic sniffer?

    Oystein, Nov 4, 2003, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    431
    Andrey Tarasov
    Nov 4, 2003
  2. Shep©

    Power managment. Won't come back on?

    Shep©, Jul 26, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,051
    °Mike°
    Jul 28, 2003
  3. Baalrog

    Administrator managment

    Baalrog, Mar 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    362
    eric the seal
    Mar 1, 2004
  4. kenny
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,477
    Rôgêr
    Jul 28, 2005
  5. Andy Leese
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    987
    nick c
    Nov 24, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page