Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterN, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    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$10790$-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?

    >
    > 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.)
     
    Rob, Feb 17, 2013
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    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!
     
    Rob, Feb 17, 2013
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamutmonitors)

    On 2/17/2013 6:01 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51213ed5$0$10814$-secrets.com>, 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
     
    PeterN, Feb 18, 2013
    #23
  4. PeterN

    nospam Guest

    Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors)

    In article <51217c14$0$10771$-secrets.com>, 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 18, 2013
    #24
  5. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamutmonitors)

    On 2/17/2013 7:59 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51217c14$0$10771$-secrets.com>, 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
     
    PeterN, Feb 18, 2013
    #25
  6. PeterN

    nospam Guest

    Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors)

    In article <51218ac8$0$10757$-secrets.com>, 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 18, 2013
    #26
  7. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamutmonitors)

    On 2/17/2013 9:16 PM, nospam wrote:
    > In article <51218ac8$0$10757$-secrets.com>, 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
     
    PeterN, Feb 18, 2013
    #27
  8. PeterN

    nospam Guest

    Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors)

    In article <5121919c$0$6417$-secrets.com>, 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.
     
    nospam, Feb 18, 2013
    #28
  9. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <511fb4c2$0$10801$-secrets.com>, 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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 19, 2013
    #29
  10. 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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 19, 2013
    #30
  11. Alfred Molon <> writes:

    > In article <51203132$0$10790$-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.


    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 19, 2013
    #31
  12. 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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 19, 2013
    #32
  13. Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors)

    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
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Feb 19, 2013
    #33
  14. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    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$10790$-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?
     
    Rob, Feb 19, 2013
    #34
  15. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    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.
     
    Rob, Feb 19, 2013
    #35
  16. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    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)
     
    Rob, Feb 19, 2013
    #36
  17. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    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(1998), 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.
     
    Rob, Feb 19, 2013
    #37
  18. PeterN

    me Guest

    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.
     
    me, Feb 19, 2013
    #38
  19. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    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.
     
    Rob, Feb 19, 2013
    #39
  20. PeterN

    Rob Guest

    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(1998), 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.)
     
    Rob, Feb 19, 2013
    #40
    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. Martin

    Re: Are LCD Monitors Brigter than CRT Monitors

    Martin, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    563
    Martin
    Sep 8, 2004
  2. Mike

    TV type with widest gamut, for displaying images

    Mike, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    757
    Markeau
    Nov 28, 2004
  3. peter

    wide gamut monitor?

    peter, Feb 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    910
    adminforto
    Feb 22, 2007
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    935
    Old Gringo
    Sep 24, 2007
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 1, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    182
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 1, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page