Are my images Green?

Started 2 months ago | Questions thread
Flashlight
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,317
Like?
Re: US Web Coated. Oops
In reply to Stacey_K, 2 months ago

Stacey_K wrote:

Flashlight wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

Flashlight wrote:

Stacey_K wrote:

I use sRGB unless I have a special image with saturated colors. Then, if I am going to print it, I work in aRGB. It's just what I have found works for me.

It's not so much saturated colors, it's that you have more definition or color shades when you start in ProPhotoRGB and send it to the printer than when starting from sRGB.

You actually have courser graduations with a larger color space if the bit depth stays the same. If you are inside the color space, there are no special colors in proRGB that aren't in sRGB, except when you get "outside the box" with the colors. And that image is so hot, many parts of like those yellow trees are simply blown out.

Use the link on the bottom of this page, then print the file as-is (ProPhotoRGB), convert to sRGB and print again. Then compare: http://outbackprint.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi048/essay.html

I downloaded and played with this. Most of the super saturated colors in this file (esp the color patches) are way outside the gamut of my printer too. I have no need or desire to deal with files like that. I know some people like that "velvia look", it's not my style.

Below three times the patches from the file:

  • screen dump of the gamma warning when proofed for the paper
  • a (quick) reproduction of the print made using Pro PhotoRGB
  • an equal reproduction of the print made after conversion to sRGB

You can see that:

  • in the Pro PhotoRGB print the shades are more defined/separated (greens for instaance); the sRGB print tends to make close tones equal
  • The sRGB print actually shows some colors more saturated (strong reds/magentas for instance).

So there's more subtlety to it than one might think based on what Photoshop tells you.

-- hide signature --

Philip

The reason the greens got clumped together as one tone is they were so far out of gamut for sRGB. It's the same as if you blow a channel out from exposure, everything turns into one tone. My printer profile would do the same thing. If you had shot or processed the raw into a smaller color space to start with, this clumping into one tone wouldn't have happened either.

Not sure I agree there. I converted the ProPhoto RGB image to sRGB in Photoshop before printing. The colors in the PrPhoto RGB file cannot be further apart than they were in the original RAW so why would converting them to sRGB from RAW directly be different from converting them to sRGB from ProPhoto RGB later?

So lets say you adjust the colors in an image in proRGB and you end up with all these colors that are out of gamut for -any- other color space. Now what do you do? You can't display/convert these colors online without blowing something into a solid color, at least my printer can't begin to print the colors correctly and turns it basically into what your sRGB example looks like.

Again, why would this be any different when converting to sRGB from RAW directly? Wouldn't it be more likely a function of the amount of (especially green) shades possible in each color space?

And by "quick reproduction" did you actually print and scan the samples?

I printed them and the 'quickly' reproduced them with a camera using the on board flash aimed at the ceiling; I had no oomph to setup a proper reproduction set for the occasion.

I agree there are times when I want SUPER saturated colors, for a flower for example, (which is what those blown out ones are) aRGB can be useful as a working color space. I doubt I would ever see a need to use anything wider until the hardware is more capable of dealing with it.

My test suggest you would maybe be better served using sRGB in those cases as it makes some colors more saturated

But I also realize this flies in the face of what all the online pro's tell people, so there isn't much point in continuing this. It's sorta like how most people can't see why, for some uses, I would grab my D200 rather than a D800.

Count me in. I had a D200, still have a D80 but I see no reason at all to use it over newer cameras I have, including shooting people which I do a lot.

That sure isn't what someone at luminous landscape would recommend

I wouldn't know; I usually do my own testing and draw my own conclusions.

-- hide signature --

Philip

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow