I guess I don't need color management, do I?

[selwynbr]

shutterbugbytes wrote:
The secret is to tell
the Fuji Frontier operator to turn OFF Image Inteligence. (Image
Intelligence a program on the Frontier that takes its best guess to

output what you think you saw).

My lab also uses a Fuju Frontier. Thanks for the tip above. Any other pointers on printing with this printer?

 

[suddie1215]

Hi Kent,

I'm curious as to why you suggested the sRGB color space as
default. The reason I'm asking is as follows: I use Chris
Breeze's Downloader Pro to transfer, tag, and sort my images from
my camera to my hard drive.

One of the options is to assign a color profile and I've chosen
Adobe RGB1998 even though the default color space on my camera is
sRGB. My reasoning is that its one less step to do in Photoshop,
and one I'm less likely to forget, if I can have the color space
inserted even before I begin post processing.

Do I have this all wrong? Since I rarely display images on the web
I figure d its better to convert to SRGB on those occasions. What
am I missing here?

Suddie1215

I'm not Kent, but I'll attempt to answer PART of your question.

I'm fairly certain that most photo lab places that print photos
from folks memory cards or online submissions request the files be
provided in sRGB.

I don't know the reason for this, but if I had to guess my guess
would be that:

1. Most consumer cameras ONLY work with sRGB, so they'd be cutting
out a bunch of customers by asking for adobeRGB or Prophoto images.

2. My understanding is that most monitors can't show colors that
are outside of sRGB. I could be wrong here, but that's my
understanding. If that's the case, then for most folks it would be
silly to be upset about using a narrower color space, when the
colors they're missing are colors they never actually had a chance
to see anyway (the LCD on the camera can't show it, their monitor
can't show it, etc.)

As to why Kent would recommend having the camera set ot sRGB.... I
can't answer that. I would think you can use whatever working
space you like, provided that you output an sRGB file... but maybe
I don't understand this correctly.

of course in my case I shoot RAW exclusively, so the color space of
capture is completely irrelevant.

Alessandro

Thanks for your response Alessandro.

I agree with your comments on why most printers request sRGB files. In my case its slightly different ... I rarely ever print photos and when I do I ensure they are converted to sRGB. Most of my pictures are for personal viewing - and later archiving - in color aware applications like Adobe Bridge, Photoshop and iView Multimedia Pro. When I e-mail pictures to other people I also make sure to convert to sRGB. I was just curious as to the merits of assigning an sRGB profile to an image that would be post processed in Photoshop.

One again, thanks.

 

[suddie1215]

I'm curious as to why you suggested the sRGB color space as
default. The reason I'm asking is as follows: I use Chris
Breeze's Downloader Pro to transfer, tag, and sort my images from
my camera to my hard drive.

One of the options is to assign a color profile and I've chosen
Adobe RGB1998 even though the default color space on my camera is
sRGB. My reasoning is that its one less step to do in Photoshop,
and one I'm less likely to forget, if I can have the color space
inserted even before I begin post processing.

Do I have this all wrong? Since I rarely display images on the web
I figure d its better to convert to SRGB on those occasions. What
am I missing here?

Alessandro is right...., and it may be the first time I've actually
recommended sRGB but in his case - no inkjet prints, lab prints
only (almost always sRGB required) and no indication of any intent
to archive with future advancements in mind, and not interested in
going through the color management maze, sRGB is the best bet for
him.

For you, from what you've indicated, Adobe RGB or even ProPhoto if
you're doing RAW would be best, imo, according to what most color
management people say about archiving and how the multiple ink
inkjets can handle the wider gamuts.

As far as the camera settings - I think Jeff Schewe or Andrew
mentioned in one post regarding exif tags vs. actual profiles -
that IF you are going to be editing in one colorspace and you have
the capabilities of shooting in that colorspace, you should do it.
Although an sRGB 'tagged' image from the camera and editing in
Adobe RGB 1998 will still end up with an Adobe RGB 1998 profiled
image and in shooting RAW, colorspace is determined in the
converter.
--
Kent

http://www.pbase.com/kentc
For prior discussions on most questions:
http://porg.4t.com/KentC.html
or d/l 'archives' at:
http://www.atncentral.com

Thanks Kent.

Its all clear now. I was worried that I was missing a trick somewhere. As you correctly noted; all my photo viewing is done in color aware applications and when I use a printer I make sure to convert the image to sRGB.

At least now I'm reassured that I'm not dowing anything untowards to my initial captures.

Regards.

 

[Rob22315]

See http://www.drycreekphoto.com for some great tips on printing to Fuji and Noritsu machines. It will take a little digging but you should be able to find the section that describes how to resize/resample your prints etc. to get the best prints from these machines.

RG

 

[Rob22315]

If you are getting results you like, why spend more. That said, I bought a monitor calibrator and felt it was money well spent (Monico OptixXR) as I've converted to LCD. Also, I use Costco and Walmart and find their prints to be excellent value. I've used ezprints for special jobs (panos, album pages) and their prints are quite good. Color management does work but it takes a little time to figure it out.

My printing strategy is to use a 4x6 dye sub at home when I want quick prints, use Costco for large prints or large batches of photos, use an on-line printer for special or really high quality jobs.

The dye sub (canon cp200) is highly reliable and gives great looking results as long as I keep dust out of it. It is more reliable than any inkjet I've owned and extremely simple to operate. Although the inkjets appear to have improved in reliability and quality in the last couple of years, I've had no desire or need to go back.

I had some trouble with Costco at the end of last year (prints too dark) but they appear to have upgrade their photo processing computers (same noritsu print lab, just better computers on the front end) so that the prints match my monitor and show great detail, colors etc.

Most on-line printing services will send you a test print for free. I've used the two that ezprints provides. If you really have doubts, have them send you their color and b&w test prints for comparison before you shell out $100+ for a profiler/calibrator.

RG

 

[Alessandro Di Sciascio]

Alessandro is right...., and it may be the first time I've actually
recommended sRGB but in his case - no inkjet prints, lab prints
only (almost always sRGB required) and no indication of any intent
to archive with future advancements in mind, and not interested in
going through the color management maze, sRGB is the best bet for
him.

no inkjet prints is correct. The day I see an inkjet print that is superior to a print from a Fuji Frontier, for less than 3x the price per print (factoring the cost of printer, paper, inks at my print numbers... maybe 15 prints per year), I may consider an inkjet.

lab prints is correct - see above

-no indication of any intent to archive with future advancements in mind ... this one I don't necessarily understand. I shoot RAW exclusively, so as far as I understand it it does not matter what color space I set my 20D to. I archive all the original RAWs on my HD and onto DVDs. I delete a good 75% of what I shoot (probably more), and process maybe 5% if that many by creating layered PSDs that I retain in their layered PSD form.

Of this 5%, all get also converted to JPG for sharing on the web, and a minuscule number (15 per year is probably an optimistic number - I'd like it to be more, but it just isn't) gets printed.

I'm now on chapter 3 of the Real World Color Management book so maybe I haven't gotten to the good stuff yet... but right now my understanding is that at least in theory, if something bad were to happen where my images start printing badly at the labs, I could go out and spend my $300 on a Monaco profiler, let it do it's thing, reload my layered PSDs, adjust anything that needs adjusting (it's all in adjustment layers already) and be done with it.

Is that incorrect?

For you, from what you've indicated, Adobe RGB or even ProPhoto if
you're doing RAW would be best, imo, according to what most color
management people say about archiving and how the multiple ink
inkjets can handle the wider gamuts.

As far as the camera settings - I think Jeff Schewe or Andrew
mentioned in one post regarding exif tags vs. actual profiles -
that IF you are going to be editing in one colorspace and you have
the capabilities of shooting in that colorspace, you should do it.
Although an sRGB 'tagged' image from the camera and editing in
Adobe RGB 1998 will still end up with an Adobe RGB 1998 profiled
image and in shooting RAW, colorspace is determined in the
converter.

I apologize if my ignorance here is shielding me from seeing the light. I'd like nothing more than to have my prints look fantastic every time.

I'd even be willing to pay $100.00 or so for some sort of hardware profiling device, but what I've read is that even the Monaco Opti RX at about $200 isn't good enough... you need to have the $300 PRO version (it sux to read this and not have the knowledge to be able to understand why that is... that's why I'm reading the book).

Frankly unless this is truly a signficant issue that is likely to bite me in the rear at some point in the future, I could easily go without spending $300 on something that in the end might end up giving me no discernible difference in my results.

Moreover, from what I'm reading... chances are that even if I did have the Monaco thingy PRO it woudlnt' solve the awful probelm I had trying to print to the HP Plotter @ work (printing from Paint Shop Pro worked great) as the problem there probably had something to do with the profile FOR THE PLOTTER, which assuming it's not something that came with the drivers... I wouldn't know where to go get it (and by the way, why the heck is it that to print from Photoshop I'd need the profiles, and instead printing from Paint Shop Pro I got great results without a drop of sweat?)

Alessandro
still learning

P.S. And the more I read this book, the more I think the authors could probably have written a book that was 10 times shorter... and I'm wondering if I should just return it to the library and start reading Eissman and Margulis' books, which arrived from Amazon.

 

[Rob22315]

It sounds like you're whipping yourself into a frenzy by reading too many books from some of the top pros.

Unless you have a real problem, don't spend a dime. If your PSP prints look great - buy nothing and put the books down. If you have a problem, spend what you need to reasonably solve it.

A couple of tips - You don't need a printer profile to print from photoshop - I print to my Canon CP200 without a profile. PSP X color management has some issues so most people turn it off. Photoshop has excellent color management so most people turn it on. It sounds like someone has a bad profile or a misused profile for the HP in conjunction with photoshop, hence the good color from PSP.

For the OptixXR I got, the only difference between pro and non-pro was the software which I got for free from the company so I didn't spend $300 for my monitor calibrator (and it was an Xmas gift from my wife anyway). The pro version does a better job with calibration (more thorough profiling) and has some useful extra features.

In the case of photoprinting services, many have autocorrection. If it wasn't turned off, the printer may have autocorrected poor WB, exposure or color cast problems and could explain why your prints looked great despite the lack of profiled equipment. OTOH, your setup might be fine. To test this, make sure the autocorrection feature is turned off. You may have to discuss this with the operator just to make sure.

If you are going to spend the time with these books and invest this much emotion and energy in trying to get the best prints, then stop looking for reasons to not buy the necessary equipment. Get a good monitor profiler.

RG

 

[Kent C]

Alessandro

-no indication of any intent to archive with future advancements in
mind ... this one I don't necessarily understand.

Read Andrew Rodney.... a main consideration is that certain hardware devices - printers, monitors will be able to fully display wider gamuts in the future - some do now. The idea being that if you truncate your image gamut by using sRGB that's irrecoverable.

I shoot RAW
exclusively, so as far as I understand it it does not matter what
color space I set my 20D to. I archive all the original RAWs on my
HD and onto DVDs. I delete a good 75% of what I shoot (probably
more), and process maybe 5% if that many by creating layered PSDs
that I retain in their layered PSD form.

You'll be ok on that point then - of course any images that you've processed in sRGB would have to be 'redone' if you thought that the wider gamuts would enhance the image.

Of this 5%, all get also converted to JPG for sharing on the web,
and a minuscule number (15 per year is probably an optimistic
number - I'd like it to be more, but it just isn't) gets printed.

I'm now on chapter 3 of the Real World Color Management book so
maybe I haven't gotten to the good stuff yet... but right now my
understanding is that at least in theory, if something bad were to
happen where my images start printing badly at the labs, I could go
out and spend my $300 on a Monaco profiler, let it do it's thing,
reload my layered PSDs, adjust anything that needs adjusting (it's
all in adjustment layers already) and be done with it.

Is that incorrect?

No, that's correct. And I don't think that 'labs changing' is going to be a problem. They have their own profiles for their paper and printer - if they change those, they'll change the profile to match. If for some reason All labs start using Adobe RGB or ProPhoto or some other colorspace - not likely, then there'd be a problem.

As far as the camera settings - I think Jeff Schewe or Andrew
mentioned in one post regarding exif tags vs. actual profiles -
that IF you are going to be editing in one colorspace and you have
the capabilities of shooting in that colorspace, you should do it.
Although an sRGB 'tagged' image from the camera and editing in
Adobe RGB 1998 will still end up with an Adobe RGB 1998 profiled
image and in shooting RAW, colorspace is determined in the
converter.

I apologize if my ignorance here is shielding me from seeing the
light. I'd like nothing more than to have my prints look fantastic
every time.

No apology necessary. That (above) was addressed to suddie - whose situation is different. I make no judgment on your decision - it makes sense to me given your considerations on the subject.

P.S. And the more I read this book, the more I think the authors
could probably have written a book that was 10 times shorter...

They are more scientific and technical manuals and tend to attract people that are so oriented.

I'm wondering if I should just return it to the library and start
reading Eissman and Margulis' books, which arrived from Amazon.

Probably a good idea and if later you decide to get back into it, it'll still be there.
--
Kent

http://www.pbase.com/kentc
For prior discussions on most questions:
http://porg.4t.com/KentC.html
or d/l 'archives' at:
http://www.atncentral.com

 

[Squirm]

First let me say I read most of the posts here and just about everything has been answered. I would like to help summarize them.

If you want the closest prints to what you see on your monitor read on. When I manipulate an image I want it to print as I intended it to. The only way to insure this is color management. If you leave it up to the color correction software at the lab, you will get it's best guess at the right colors.....just like clicking autocolor in photoshop. For many images this might look great, but for duplicating what the artist has intended, you need to be calibrated.

1. Monitor calibration is key. You should calibrate to the light temp your room is.

2.Use printer/paper profiles in your workflow. If you are using a lab, get the profiles from them. You then "soft proof" in Photoshop. This will simulate the colors of the final print on your screen. You will be amazed at the difference. Costco's are available from DryCreek. Mpix will send them upon request.

3. Have the lab turn off any color correction.

If you can't get the profiles or make them, then it's just a close guess. I print both at home on an Epson 2200 and use Costco and Mpix. I get consistant colors and levels that are near perfect.