PS 6, 'soft proofing,' and printing

Dave Good said:

I think we all owe people like Andrew & Ian a little more thanks
than they sometimes seem to receive.

Click to expand...

I don't recall seeing anyone not-thank them, and I don't understand why you bring this up. Gratitude or lack of it has not been at issue...

Dave Good said:

Some people
looking for an instant one paragraph solution that they will
comprehend immediately, well it ain't gonna happen..

Click to expand...

This particular "some people" is well aware: color-management is not explained in a single paragraph. Perhaps you have misunderstood requests (clumsy or otherwise) for clarification with requests for simple solutions. They aren't the same at all, you know?

Dave Good said:

I have just spent the last year or so
studying and experimenting and am only now
confident with CM issues.

Click to expand...

Dave Good said:

[...] it will come to you, and when it does, you too will
wonder why others don't understand it.

Click to expand...

Hmm. Could be a hard sell: on the one hand, it has taken a year of study and only now are you confident with color-management issues. Yet, someone who goes through the same (year-long?) experience will wonder why others don't understand it?

So who's winning, already?

If it takes a year, by the end of that year I will not "wonder why others dn't understand it." By that time I'd expect to know what they went through to understand it -- and why they went through it. Part of my work involves writing end-user documentation. It's my business, so to speak, to understand "why others don't understand it." And perhaps that's a focus completely different from you own.

MikeA said:

perhaps that's a focus completely different from you own.

Click to expand...

Argh.

... from your own.

Nobody, at least as far as Mike and myself are concerned, has withheld giving thanks to ANYONE willing to share their time and knowledge on this subject. We are also as well spending vast amounts of time personally to study and experiment with the myriad and neverending twists and turns of the color management highway. We are not looking for easy, one paragraph solutions......just a better understanding of these issues so that we may find the correct solutions with a better arsenal of knowledge. And if I spend the next year studying and determining the best methods for dealing with these issues, I CERTAINLY would not wonder afterwards why no newbie is getting it......on the contrary, I'd recall my own tiring frustrations and I'd be more than willing to try and spare someone else the agony.

So, get off your soapbox, and contribute something worthwhile to the discussion or leave it alone.
Ty,
D.

Dave Good said:

I think we all owe people like Andrew & Ian a little more thanks
than they sometimes seem to receive. They provide a vast amount of
accurate information and respond to queries...FOR FREE. Some people
looking for an instant one paragraph solution that they will
comprehend immediately, well it ain't gonna happen..not yet anyhow.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant, but I have just spent the
last year or so studying and experimenting and am only now
confident with CM issues. I have spent countless hours reading and
evaluating the information from websites like theirs and forums
like this. I'm not singling out anyone, just be patient and have
fun, it will come to you, and when it does, you too will wonder why
others don't understand it.
Ian, Andrew, thank you guys, I have learned so much from both of you.

There, been meaning to say this for a while now....

Regards,

Dave

Click to expand...

Now this is not intended as argument but to illustrate something I wrote earlier. Today I received e-mail from someone who knows a good deal more about Photoshop than I do, and his advice was that it's a mistake to use AdobeRGB as a working space when working with D30 files, as sRGB is their native color space.

About two minutes ago, on another web site, I read the following in a thread on the same subject:

You probably want to have the Adobe RGB profile
embedded as your initial working space. There is no
reason to first assign sRGB, with its smaller gamut, then
turn around and convert to Adobe RGB.

So tell me: when contradictory answers appear, what is the person reading them expected to make of them? There are several possibilities:

1) A is right and B is wrong; use sRGB, the camera's "native" space, because you're going to screw up your colors by assigning a wider space first-off (his contention being: assign sRGB and then convert to AdobeRGB);

2) B is right and A is wrong; you should assign the wider color space at once -- otherwise, you limit yourself to a smaller space, without good reason;

3) neither is entirely right nor entirely wrong; the issue of using a "wider than native" color space is controversial .

Well?

Mike,

If you are using a 1D in Matrix 4 or a D1x, ASSIGN AdobeRGB, and then CONVERT to AdobeRGB. If you're using a D30/D60, (and this is where the disagreement lies), ASSIGN WideGamut and CONVERT to AdobeRGB. Others will insist that the D30/D60 is close to sRGB, (I'm only talking about a 16 bit, linear file), and to ASSIGN to sRGB, then CONVERT to AdobeRGB. But I have found that the assigning of WideGamut works better. (what I saw, what's on my monitor, and what prints out is a BETTER match. To me.) And this is all you're really trying to do. Get reality, monitor, and printout to match. But if someone else has a better way, and it works for you, then by all means use that workflow. I have long ago stopped "discussing" this issue with fellow photogs here in NY because no two have exactly the same workflow. But all the various workflows are successful. (To them) I have also seen a chart (someplace) that showed a graphical representation of a G1 imager, and it is BIGGER THAN sRGB. How accurate is it? I don't know. I just know what works. (FOR ME) So, the final answer is, everybody is mostly right, and a little bit wrong.
Mastrianni

Mastrianni said:

Mike,
If you are using a 1D in Matrix 4 or a D1x, ASSIGN AdobeRGB, and
then CONVERT to AdobeRGB.

Click to expand...

IF the data really is in Adobe RGB (but untagged), all you have to do is assign the Adobe RGB. There is no conversion to take place.
--Andrew Rodneywww.digitaldog.net

Andrew Rodney said:

Mastrianni said:

Mike,
If you are using a 1D in Matrix 4 or a D1x, ASSIGN AdobeRGB, and
then CONVERT to AdobeRGB.

Click to expand...

IF the data really is in Adobe RGB (but untagged), all you have to
do is assign the Adobe RGB. There is no conversion to take place.

--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

Click to expand...

I said it is what I do. And since they are built into actions, I will continue to do it, irrespective of differing opinions, or what's right or wrong. Because it works.
Mastrianni

Mastrianni said:

If you're using a D30/D60, (and this is where the
disagreement lies), ASSIGN WideGamut and CONVERT to
AdobeRGB. Others will insist that the D30/D60 is close to sRGB,
(I'm only talking about a 16 bit, linear file), and to ASSIGN to
sRGB, then CONVERT to AdobeRGB. But I have found that the assigning
of WideGamut works better. (what I saw, what's on my monitor, and
what prints out is a BETTER match. To me.)

Click to expand...

I hadn't thought to try WideGamut. Now I have here in my hand a D30 image, just converted from RAW to 16-bit non-linear TIFF -- the linear ones are giving me such headaches that I'm going to give up on them for a while. (Ok, I lied. The image is open in Photoshop 6. I now have several snapshots, each taken after assigning a different profile.

The file came in untagged. It is a macro shot, with some unshelled peanuts in it -- a color that could drive you crazy trying to get right. Disclaimer: my monitor is not yet profiled except via Adobe Gamma, so once it has been profiled "for real" maybe none of the following would apply. That said:

The image, as it comes into Photoshop without color management, appears a tiny bit warm -- nothing that can't be corrected. The overall color of those peanut shells seems about right, otherwise.

With WideGamut assigned, the image "reddens" all over, and it appears as if the shadow areas of the image get more than their fair share of this color shift. Can't be sure about it, but that's how it appears at the moment. It's as if dim red light were being scattered into the shadows. They appear to be slightly better illuminated. This is probably an illusion.

With sRGB assigned, the image becomes, overall, somewhat more neutral in tone. The warmth present in the original is toned down a bit. In fact that is exactly what I'm going to shoot for in the print.

With Fred Miranda's D30 linear raw profile assigned -- I know, it's the wrong thing to do with a non-linear TIFF, I'm just screwin' around with this one -- the image goes yellow all over and again I see some additional reddishness in the dark midtones and shadows. There's a small but noticeable boost in contrast and yet the shadows seem to "open up" a bit at the same time. Hard to tell.

With AdobeRGB assigned, the image looks pretty similar to the original, but picks up a very slight reddish cast in the midtones.

Both WideGamut and the D30 linear-TIFF profile do a strange thing in a certain area of the print. There's a metal rod with a specular reflection running across the top. With W.G. and the D30 profile, the boundary between the specular highlight and the darker metal adjacent to it takes on a distinct cyan tinge, reminding me of the old days when Kodachrome 25 would give you deliciously cyan clouds, whether you wanted them or not.

At the moment BruceRGB is my default working space. Explicitly assigning BruceRGB to the image makes no change whatsoever even though it was opened with "no color management."

In terms of acceptable color right out of the box: sRGB, AdobeRGB, and BruceRGB "win." Maybe there are more weighty issues than how the image looks right out of the box: is it good or bad to assign a profile with a wider gamut than the image's "native" space? If it's better for whatever reason to assign the much wider gamut and then have to correct the color extensively afterward, I suppose I could live with that. I'd prefer having to do less color correction but...no free lunches, right?

At any rate the change that occurred with WideGamut attached is kind of extreme. Might just be this particular image, though.

A short response, will wonders never cease : some of what has been driving me insane in the last couple of days is the seeming unpredictability of linear TIFF files. Some of them come out looking pretty good if I'm using Fred's actions; others come out better if I'm using Pekka's. In my experience so far, Fred's actions produce more accurate color; Pekka's seem to retain better highlight detail in some circumstances and require less sharpening later on. (I'm partial to both of them, so to anyone desperate for another one of those Pekka-versus-Fred flame wars: go away, please.

The effects of the two actions seem to vary a lot from shot to shot. Maybe this isn't the way it should be, but it's what I've been observing. Not sure what it all means yet.

Anyway, the RAW images that were giving me massive color-correction headaches when saved as linear TIFFs are much less headache-y as non-linear TIFFs.

I just looked at Pekkas, and it ASSIGNS WideGamut. So after you run it on a raw, linear file, (the ones that says convert hq xxxx), just convert to your working space. Before running (Pekkas actions), your image should be very dark. After running it should look about right. Continue curves tweaking, and whatever else you can, before converting to 8 bits and working space.

I have found if the image is properly exposed, with correct white balance, that the linear conversion always results in a dark image. If it looks "right" before levels and channel tweaking when you first bring it in (raw conversion to linear tiff), then something is wrong with your exposure. In my experience.
Mastrianni

Hello Mastrianni.

If I may please ask, I'd like to know what the difference is exactly between Linear and non-Linear. And what does this mean to an image file. I can find no mention of it in any books I posess on Photoshop, nor do they mention it in regards to saving and working with TIF files.
Could you please explain briefly a description of what this means?
Thankyou in advance,
David

Mastrianni said:

I just looked at Pekkas, and it ASSIGNS WideGamut. So after you run
it on a raw, linear file, (the ones that says convert hq xxxx),
just convert to your working space. Before running (Pekkas
actions), your image should be very dark. After running it should
look about right. Continue curves tweaking, and whatever else you
can, before converting to 8 bits and working space.
I have found if the image is properly exposed, with correct white
balance, that the linear conversion always results in a dark image.
If it looks "right" before levels and channel tweaking when you
first bring it in (raw conversion to linear tiff), then something
is wrong with your exposure. In my experience.
Mastrianni

Click to expand...

Mastrianni said:

I said it is what I do. And since they are built into actions, I
will continue to do it, irrespective of differing opinions, or
what's right or wrong. Because it works.

Click to expand...

You're not doing anything at that convert step. Assigning Adobe RGB to an untagged file tells Photoshop the meaning of the numbers. Doing a secondary step (Convert to Profile) FROM Adobe RGB TO Adobe RGB doesn't do squat. It does add additional step to waste you time.

Take the newly tagged Adobe RGB file and duplicate it. Now do the Convert to Profile on the duplication. Go under Image/Calculations and subtract one file from the other. Make the results a new document. Open Levels and you'll see the two files are identical. You didn't do anything but spin your wheels. It also shows you don't yet understand what the difference is between assigning a profile and converting with a profile.

It's not that it doesn't work, it doesn't do a thing! --Andrew Rodneywww.digitaldog.net

MikeA said:

Mastrianni said:

If you're using a D30/D60, (and this is where the
disagreement lies), ASSIGN WideGamut and CONVERT to
AdobeRGB.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mastrianni is very confused here so I'd take that advice with a grain of salt.

IF the raw data from the camera is anything close to Wide Gamut RGB (which I doubt), then you'd get close. But why convent to Adobe RGB? Wide Gamut is a larger gamut space so why throw colors away and go through the time and image data loss of another conversion? Silly.

You have untagged RGB data from a camera. So we don't know the recipe of RGB that camera produces. You have 3 options:

1. Keep the file untagged. The current RGB setup in your color preference is what Photoshop will assume is the meaning of the numbers. This isn't a good option (any option where you have untagged data is bad).

2. Assign a profile from one of the Working Spaces you have on your machine (sRGB, Bruce RGB, Wide Gamut RGB). You are simply guessing here and hoping to get a half way decent preview. WHEN THE FILE LOOKS DECENT on a calibrated display, you are getting closer to the real meaning of the numbers. But unless the raw data is somewhat close to a space you happen to have installed, you're not getting anything but close.

3. Make a custom profile. Best option. You've got the real meaning of the numbers based on shooting a known target with known values run through software that produces an accurate description of the RGB. You assign that profile THEN convert to a Working Space!

There is an option for #2 above described on my web page. It's a technique whereby you take a pre-set RGB working working space that gives you the best possible preview (again, you MUST have a calibrated and profiled display) and modifying the Gamma, white point and chromaticity of this working space to produce a better preview. You can save that out as an ICC profile to then assign to all incoming untagged files. It's a bit of a kludge compared to making a true custom ICC profile using target and software but it's a LOT better than simply trying all kinds of RGB working Spaces and debating which is better. The BEST profile to assign is the one that describes the numbers accurately (which produces the best preview).

lastly, you must have an output profile if you hope to print this file out. It may look great on screen (half the battle is won) but unless you do another conversion to output space for your printer, then all you can do is show off the image on screen. Good output depends on the output profile (and the correct RGB values assigned and converted from the Working Space). --Andrew Rodneywww.digitaldog.net

David M. said:

Hello Mastrianni.
If I may please ask, I'd like to know what the difference is
exactly between Linear and non-Linear. And what does this mean to
an image file.

Click to expand...

Linear data is raw from the chip with no tone curve. If you open the Curves in Photoshop, you always default to linear (straight line). When you get data from the camera, this is what is happening (no curve applied to the raw data). When you take that linear data and pull a curve to open it up, it's no longer linear. When you shoot without setting linear, the data comes off the chip linear but somewhere in the process, a tone curve is applied so it doesn't look dark.

Linear is good simply because you avoided the preset curve so when you profile, you don't introduce any variable (bad if the camera is providing different tone curves based on some artificial reasoning in the camera). If you are not dealing with building profiles, there isn't much reason to shoot linear. That is, let's say my camera shoots linear but applies a certain curve on more than 8 bits per channel. Let's say I then shoot linear and apply the same curve in Photoshop to more than 8 bits pre color. You end up with identical results. So where you apply the curve isn't as important unless you are trying to get controllable files out of the camera so you can apply a profile.

Profiles assume a fixed behavior. If your device doesn't exhibit a fixed behavior, the profile will not work (or you'll need a lot of different profiles). So Linear is good because when you profile, you are avoiding one processing step that could hose the integrity of your profiles.

Profiles don't alter the data, they only describe it (there is data conversion when you use TWO profiles to do a colorspace change). So when you assign a profile to linear data, the numbers don't change one bit. But the preview does change and when you convert to your Working Space, the EVENTUAL numbers are based on that original assigned profile. --Andrew Rodneywww.digitaldog.net

of course it works . because converting from adobeRGB to adobeRGB does absolutely nothing

cheers

veniamin kostitsin
http://www.digitalimage.at/

Mastrianni said:

Andrew Rodney said:

Mastrianni said:

Mike,
If you are using a 1D in Matrix 4 or a D1x, ASSIGN AdobeRGB, and
then CONVERT to AdobeRGB.

Click to expand...

IF the data really is in Adobe RGB (but untagged), all you have to
do is assign the Adobe RGB. There is no conversion to take place.

--
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net

Click to expand...

I said it is what I do. And since they are built into actions, I
will continue to do it, irrespective of differing opinions, or
what's right or wrong. Because it works.
Mastrianni

Click to expand...

Andrew Rodney said:

IF the raw data from the camera is anything close to Wide Gamut RGB
(which I doubt), then you'd get close.

Click to expand...

WideGamut appears to have been useful on occasion (as part of one of the linear-TIFF-conversion PS actions) but I haven't had any luck with it yet when it is assigned to an image newly opened in PS. That's to say, judging by how the image looks afterward. If I go by that alone -- admittedly, an unscientific way of going about it -- then again, sRGB, AdobeRGB, and BruceRGB "win." But as for other consequences of picking the wrong color space at the outset (even if the results look good momentarily) -- those I don't know yet.

I have probably missed some critical details along the way (stranger things have happened). One e-mail message I received had it that using, say, AdobeRGB as the initial "assignment" was liable to "screw up" the colors in the image. I haven't seen them "screwed up" in doing this...and I still am not sure what the writer meant.

Is there some irreversible harm caused by (initially) assigning a color space known to be "wider" than the input device's space, if later on you convert to a space that is about the same "width" or "wider"? Let's suppose for argument's sake that the initial assignment produces a slight color shift -- this is in fact what happened when I assigned AdobeRGB to this weekend's test shots. The color shift was nothing that can't be easily corrected. (What I failed to do, I just realized, was examine the entire image to see if there were any bizarre or unwanted effects in the shadows after assigning AdobeRGB to that image. Shame on me. Note to self: must do that.)

With sRGB, I got pretty much what I was after. But of course sRGB is "narrower". I have been assuming that using a "wider" space to start with (assuming it doesn't badly foul up the colors in the image) puts you ahead of the game later on...but maybe this is completely wrong-headed...

Andrew Rodney said:

here and hoping to get a half way decent preview. WHEN THE FILE
LOOKS DECENT on a calibrated display, you are getting closer to the
real meaning of the numbers.

Click to expand...

I know I can't go strictly by what I've seen so far since I have yet to calibrate the monitor. But if I pretend that Adobe Gamma utility got me partway there, this weekend's test suggests to me that sRGB did the best job, up-front. And of course once the monitor is calibrated I might find myself throwing out that result.

Andrew Rodney said:

There is an option for #2 above described on my web page.

Click to expand...

I had not seen this yet. Thanks for the heads-up. I will take a look. I suspect some of it will go over my head at first...I'll keep reading...

Andrew Rodney said:

then all you can do is show off the image on screen. Good output
depends on the output profile (and the correct RGB values assigned
and converted from the Working Space).

Click to expand...

Ok. This thread and some e-mail that came out of it have made me a believer...I will get started on making profiles for the printer and the specific papers.

Then I can puzzle over the odd mystery of noticeable color shifts depending on what light-source is used to view the inkjet prints. Groan.

MikeA said:

WideGamut appears to have been useful on occasion (as part of one
of the linear-TIFF-conversion PS actions) but I haven't had any
luck with it yet when it is assigned to an image newly opened in
PS. That's to say, judging by how the image looks afterward. If I
go by that alone -- admittedly, an unscientific way of going about
it -- then again, sRGB, AdobeRGB, and BruceRGB "win." But as for
other consequences of picking the wrong color space at the outset
(even if the results look good momentarily) -- those I don't know
yet.

Click to expand...

Only one assignment is correct. It's possible that all of the above spaces are completly wrong. It would be amazing if all where correct (actually impossible). There is a huge difference between sRGB and Adobe RGB. If you take untagged files and assign each, you should see quite a difference in the preivews. Why don't you shoot something that has known values (memory colors) like a person holding a Macbeth color checker. Look at the Macbeth on a calibrated display, have it under a D50 lightbox near the display and try assigning different profiles.

MikeA said:

Is there some irreversible harm caused by (initially) assigning a
color space known to be "wider" than the input device's space, if
later on you convert to a space that is about the same "width" or
"wider"?

Click to expand...

Only really ugly previews and resulting conversions (and output). Other than that, no.

MikeA said:

Let's suppose for argument's sake that the initial
assignment produces a slight color shift -- this is in fact what
happened when I assigned AdobeRGB to this weekend's test shots. The
color shift was nothing that can't be easily corrected.

Click to expand...

But there should be no reason to correct IF you know the color shift is the result of the actual numbers in the file. Since you have no idea what the correct profile for the image is, that cast could be the result of the wrong assignment. The numbers could be perfect but you are seeing an incorrect preview. So you "fix" the file by altering the data when the data is fine. Had you assigned the correct (custom?) profile, the preivew might look super. You don't alter the data. Saves time and keeps you from hosing the file. Images that look poor (like your linear file or the above image with the cast) might have perfect data. You're just seeing it incorrectly due to the assigned profile.

MikeA said:

With sRGB, I got pretty much what I was after. But of course sRGB
is "narrower".

Click to expand...

So what? What you're saying is the image looks better in sRGB. It looks off in Adobe RGB. Guess what, the data is a lot closer to sRGB than Adobe RGB. Assign sRGB! Forget the size of the gamut, that's fixed after you click the shutter button. If the data is in a small space like sRGB, that's what it is. That the image LOOKS BETTER in sRGB tells you that the assignment is closer to the real meaning of the numbers. Assigning a larger space like Adobe RGB only to get poor previews, then "fix" the file with correction is stupid and buys you nothing. You are not getting a wider gamut file. You're getting the same gamut, but it needs image editing. That's not the way to go here.

MikeA said:

I have been assuming that using a "wider" space to
start with (assuming it doesn't badly foul up the colors in the
image) puts you ahead of the game later on...but maybe this is
completely wrong-headed...

Click to expand...

No! The size of the gamut is what the camera is providing you. Assigning the wrong space it's helping you one bit.

MikeA said:

And of course once the
monitor is calibrated I might find myself throwing out that result.

Click to expand...

That's possible. You can't go any farther without getting the display dialed in. Otherwise everything is science fiction.

MikeA said:

Ok. This thread and some e-mail that came out of it have made me a
believer...I will get started on making profiles for the printer
and the specific papers.

Click to expand...

Assigning the correct profile for a scan or digital capture is NO different!

MikeA said:

Then I can puzzle over the odd mystery of noticeable color shifts
depending on what light-source is used to view the inkjet prints.

Click to expand...

2000P? That's Metamerism. Nothing you can do about that. It's a properity of the pigmented inks. That's why that printer sucks. Best you can do is pick a standard lighting for viewing the prints (they usually look best under tungsten, not daylight). --Andrew Rodneywww.digitaldog.net

Mastrianni said:

I just looked at Pekkas, and it ASSIGNS WideGamut.

Click to expand...

Yes. So I wonder how good an idea it is, after using his actions, to convert to something narrower such as AdobeRGB.

Mastrianni said:

just convert to your working space. Before running (Pekkas
actions), your image should be very dark. After running it should
look about right.

Click to expand...

It has worked well at times and not at all well at others. I remain mystified by what is making the difference. Both sets of actions I have here did not do a good job on a shot I was trying to print this weekend. The shot is probably somewhat underexposed, and yet with a conversion to non-linear TIFF, followed by a levels-adjustment, I nevertheless got a perfectly good, printable image out of the original RAW file.

MikeA said:

MikeA wrote:

Mastrianni said:

I just looked at Pekkas, and it ASSIGNS WideGamut.

Click to expand...

Yes. So I wonder how good an idea it is, after using his actions,
to convert to something narrower such as AdobeRGB.

Click to expand...

That is fine.

MikeA said:

It has worked well at times and not at all well at others. I remain
mystified by what is making the difference. Both sets of actions I
have here did not do a good job on a shot I was trying to print
this weekend. The shot is probably somewhat underexposed, and yet
with a conversion to non-linear TIFF, followed by a
levels-adjustment, I nevertheless got a perfectly good, printable
image out of the original RAW file.

Click to expand...

You probably need to create an action that includes your own curve and channel adjustments for your not quite right image. It is Pekkas (or Mirandas') levels and channel adjustments that you don't like for some images, not the ASSIGN choice.

I understand from a fellow APA member that Mr. Rodney conducts seminars that address all these issues. You may want to inquire on when he may be in your area or region and consider attending. It may help further illuminate any questions you may have.
Mastrianni

Andrew Rodney said:

But there should be no reason to correct IF you know the color
shift is the result of the actual numbers in the file.

Click to expand...

This, I couldn't say yet. Don't have enough experience yet to be able to comment on the numbers themselves.

Andrew Rodney said:

a small space like sRGB, that's what it is. That the image LOOKS
BETTER in sRGB tells you that the assignment is closer to the real
meaning of the numbers.

Click to expand...

I take it what you're saying is that in the best of all worlds (calibrated monitor, for starters), you can trust your eyes on this account.

Andrew Rodney said:

No! The size of the gamut is what the camera is providing you.
Assigning the wrong space it's helping you one bit.

Click to expand...

Ok. Do you gain anything later by converting to a wider space? (Converting, not assigning.) I keep getting the feeling that this particular issue is a bit controversial...

Andrew Rodney said:

Andrew Rodney said:

Then I can puzzle over the odd mystery of noticeable color shifts
depending on what light-source is used to view the inkjet prints.

Click to expand...

2000P?

Click to expand...

Epson 1280. I have a print that looks just about right under incandescent illumination -- ordinary home lighting, nothing special. In daylight, the print has a slight greenish cast to it. Not horrific, but it is noticeable. This is admittedly not a great test image. It's in color, yes, but the subject-matter is decidedly monochromatic even so -- and most of the colors are shades of brown or tan, which in my experience are the pits to get just right.

Andrew Rodney said:

Best you can do is pick a standard lighting for viewing the prints
(they usually look best under tungsten, not daylight).

Click to expand...

There's the next little experiment for me, then. Make the print and "dial in" some small amount of magenta -- just enough that it's barely noticeable under the same tungsten illumination. Then wait 'n' see how it looks in daylight. And of course I could make it easier on myself by printing during daylight hours.