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

[Alessandro Di Sciascio]

I know it sounds like a ridiculous question, and I apologize for that... but please bear with me and help me out!

I've read plenty about color management and it's importance. I've also experienced firsthand the incredible difficulty involved in getting some inkjet printers to print something that is remotely similar to what I was seeing on screen.

In one instance, my efforts were met with a complete failure as I kept getting ridiculously saturated red skintones when printing from Photoshop, and only managed to get the HP plotter to give me a good rendition when I sent a JPG to a coworker who printed it from Paint Shop Pro.

But forget all that.

I have absolutely NO INTEREST whatsoever in printing my own photos. The inket I have is nowhere near up to the task, I have no desire to go out and buy a new inkjet, papers, etc. etc. etc. ... and most importantly I am very aware that if I did go out and buy one, my price per print would be ENORMOUSLY higher* than getting the photos printed @ Target, Walmart, or ez-prints (for the better ones).

Ok... so let me get to the point. Any time I've had something printed by ezprints, walmart, or target... the result was TO MY EYES a faithful representation of what I had seen on the monitor.

And this without calibration, color space gymnastics, buying special lights for my computer area, calibrating Camera Raw etc.

I can't say for sure that the results are 100% PERFECT, from a spectrographer point of view, but my daughter's skin looks like my daughter's skin, red flags look the appropriate shade of red, etc. etc. etc.

I just started reading "Real World Color Management" as I thought maybe there are some tweaks I can do that might make things better (I might look into calibrating Camera Raw) but I'm wondering if I'm wasting my time and would be better off just diving into the Margulis Photoshop Lab Color or the Eismann Restoration and Retouching which I received a few days ago.

So... what's the deal? Is color management less of an issue when using a photo-printing service? Am I just lucky? Colorblind? Crazy?

I appreciate your opinions.

Alessandro

P.S. As a sidenote... since I wanted to check out how well my whole shoot-edit-print system is working out I downloaded one of those color-checker things... two actually. One is in LAB color (it's a tiff file) and the other is in ProPhoto RGB (jpg file). The one in ProPhoto RGB mode actually has the RGB values written on it, so I figured I'd use that one.

... ok, so when I open it I have 3 options:
1. Open in ProPhotoRGB
2. Convert to sRGB (my default working space)
3. Discard profile

If i choose 1 or 2 the image looks identical to me, but using the color sampler gets me values almost identical to the values printed from the ProPhotoRGB image, and singificantly different in the sRGB image. I understand what this means and why it is.

If I choose 3, the image looks very dull, but the color sampler gets me the same values that I get on the ProPhotoRGB image. I also understand why this is.

So my question is this: what do I do with the ProPhotoRGB image to get it printed at Target or Walmart, or whatnot? Do I just put the ProPhotoRGB on a memory card and print that? Do I use the converted to sRGB version?

Thanks!

• Clarification - I'm pretty sure that printing your own photo quality images is more expensive in terms of paper and ink than getting a matte finish print from ez-prints (and I'm fairly confident the result will be better from ez-prints) ... but more importantly... if I HAD a photo quality printer my costs would be signficantly increased by the incessant requests from family and friends to provide them with prints... I'd guess that any 8x10 I print would end up costing me upwards of $10 just due to having to print identical 8x10s for the other folks.

 

[Tom Bennett]

My Hp runs about $3.50 per 8x10 if I get the paper on sale

I have always had good luck running windows gamma to set the color up on the monitor and got great results right out of the box on the HP printers.
I still use Sam's club and walgreens for most of my larger prints.

 

[Alessandro Di Sciascio]

My Hp runs about $3.50 per 8x10 if I get the paper on sale
I have always had good luck running windows gamma to set the color
up on the monitor and got great results right out of the box on the
HP printers.
I still use Sam's club and walgreens for most of my larger prints.

ezprints will print an 8x10 on glossy or matte paper for $1.99 or on lustre paper for $2.94

Of course you have to add shipping, but the bigger the order, the less shipping impacts the per print price.

and the result, IMHO is SIGNIFICANTLY superior to anything I've seen printed with an inkjet. But maybe I've only seen SO SO inkjets.

 

[Gregory King]

I agree completely. Some others have said they ONLY print their own, and get amazing results, but they use some 8-color printer.

The cost of pro printing is just too much cheaper to bother with printing my own. Plus, I'm less likely to print useless images, mistakes, or extras if I have to send the order in.

Greg

 

[Chalty669]

I agree completly. I refuse to use my photo printer at home. The prints might look ok when they first come out, but they are printed with ink which fades with time. I work at a photolab wich uses lasers and chemical. You dont have to worry about your prints smearing or fading within a short period of time. I would even prefer to use a kodak picture maker. They use thermal energy with ribbon which is actually stain resistant as soon as it comes out.
--
home.woh.rr.com/chadtyree

 

[Mike Scott]

Please understand that I intend no disrespect.

If you can accept Walmart prints as acceptable quality, then color management will do you no good. Also remember that your eye can be easily deceived in terms of what is accurate.

If you are a wedding photographer and the Brides maid dresses are sky blue but look periwinkle in your Walmart prints, then there will be one angry bride, but to your eye the prints look o.k.

Injet prints from the high end printers are of very high quality. That being said, I usually still have my most important prints done at a pro printer....Not walmart, walgreen's, Costco, etc.

The reason to print at Home is for control and Speed, not to save money.

Mike

 

[Tom Bennett]

need to try Sam's Club because they give me pefect matches and I do weddings. There is nothing wrong with Walgreens either for that matter.

Their pastel matches are always good. IF you really thing you are getting a better print by paying more money you need to check their equipment

most labs use the same stuff. Unless it is high quality paper or lazer light exposure they are all the same except for how they set up the equipment and keeps it adjusted.
Yes Walmart is the worse lab I have ever seen.

 

[Alessandro Di Sciascio]

Please understand that I intend no disrespect.

Of course!

If you can accept Walmart prints as acceptable quality, then color
management will do you no good. Also remember that your eye can be
easily deceived in terms of what is accurate.

The Walmart I have had prints printed at uses one of those megabuck FUJI machines, and prints on matte FUJI paper. Is the machine calibrated daily by a swiss engineer with a loupe and curly mustache? Probably not. But Walmart is my solution when I need the print TODAY... and so far I've never gotten a print from them that was noticeably different, when viewed inside my home, from what I had on the screen. No I didn't take a colorimeter to it, but the reds look red (not purpleish), the flesh looks fleshy and the contrast is there.

If you are a wedding photographer and the Brides maid dresses are
sky blue but look periwinkle in your Walmart prints, then there
will be one angry bride, but to your eye the prints look o.k.

I am NOT a wedding photographer, nor would I know the difference between sky blue and periwinkle. In fact I would have presumed that periwinkle was not a color but rather some mischevious body part.

Injet prints from the high end printers are of very high quality.
That being said, I usually still have my most important prints done
at a pro printer....Not walmart, walgreen's, Costco, etc.

I'm not sure wether you would consider ezprints to fit within the "pro printer" category. I've always heard great things about them, and the prints I've ordered from them have always come back looking spectacular.

The reason to print at Home is for control and Speed, not to save
money.

Speed is a non-issue for me. I was born and raised in Italy... therefore I'm used to a slow-paced lifestyle that includes hardly ever getting what you want today, today.

Control is an issue only if it's significant vs. other parameters. AKA... if the difference can only be seen with a loupe, or only by the-color-freak-bride-from-hell who lived her whole life in a tiffany blue world and is therefore sensitive to a 0.01 shift in hue, then no, I don't care. If on the other hand I was getting results like the result I kept getting while trying to print from Photoshop to the HP plotter in our office, then that's a different story.

I guess I could have written a much shorter post by simply asking:

IS IT TRUE THAT ... assuming a reasonably decently calibrated monitor (and I'm just talking adobe gamma with squinting here) color management and profiles and whatnot are somewhat less significant if you have your work printed by a photo lab rather than if you print by yourself on an inkjet?

Alessandro

 

[Kent C]

Alessandro

IS IT TRUE THAT ... assuming a reasonably decently calibrated
monitor (and I'm just talking adobe gamma with squinting here)
color management and profiles and whatnot are somewhat less
significant if you have your work printed by a photo lab rather
than if you print by yourself on an inkjet?

Qualified 'yes', in that you should have your colorspace set to sRGB (and camera) and all the other settings in Edit> color settings correct.

http://www.skeller.ch/ps/color_management.php

use the 'simple but effective' column.

--
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

 

[Gregory King]

Is there a way I can put Alessandro on my favorite's list? ;-)

Greg

 

[Peter D45742]

Do labs do raw conversion ? Do they adjust the exposure and color or must you do that before bringing them in to be printed ?

 

[Oak and Acorn]

I got so frustrated with the color managment systems in all my image editing programs I disabled them.

I use mpix.com to print my important photographs and they look the same in print as they do on my screen.

I think it takes being an absolute color profile wizard to

figure some of this stuff out, and unless you're printing from your own home printer, you shouldn't pull your hair out over it.

Obviously there are methods for getting perfect color renditions of your images on your own printer, but I can't figure it out, and have been perfectly happy leaving the color managment to the professional printers.

B

I know it sounds like a ridiculous question, and I apologize for
that... but please bear with me and help me out!

I've read plenty about color management and it's importance. I've
also experienced firsthand the incredible difficulty involved in
getting some inkjet printers to print something that is remotely
similar to what I was seeing on screen.

In one instance, my efforts were met with a complete failure as I
kept getting ridiculously saturated red skintones when printing
from Photoshop, and only managed to get the HP plotter to give me a
good rendition when I sent a JPG to a coworker who printed it from
Paint Shop Pro.

But forget all that.

I have absolutely NO INTEREST whatsoever in printing my own photos.
The inket I have is nowhere near up to the task, I have no desire
to go out and buy a new inkjet, papers, etc. etc. etc. ... and most
importantly I am very aware that if I did go out and buy one, my
price per print would be ENORMOUSLY higher* than getting the photos
printed @ Target, Walmart, or ez-prints (for the better ones).

Ok... so let me get to the point. Any time I've had something
printed by ezprints, walmart, or target... the result was TO MY
EYES a faithful representation of what I had seen on the monitor.

And this without calibration, color space gymnastics, buying
special lights for my computer area, calibrating Camera Raw etc.

I can't say for sure that the results are 100% PERFECT, from a
spectrographer point of view, but my daughter's skin looks like my
daughter's skin, red flags look the appropriate shade of red, etc.
etc. etc.

I just started reading "Real World Color Management" as I thought
maybe there are some tweaks I can do that might make things better
(I might look into calibrating Camera Raw) but I'm wondering if I'm
wasting my time and would be better off just diving into the
Margulis Photoshop Lab Color or the Eismann Restoration and
Retouching which I received a few days ago.

So... what's the deal? Is color management less of an issue when
using a photo-printing service? Am I just lucky? Colorblind?
Crazy?

I appreciate your opinions.

Alessandro

P.S. As a sidenote... since I wanted to check out how well my
whole shoot-edit-print system is working out I downloaded one of
those color-checker things... two actually. One is in LAB color
(it's a tiff file) and the other is in ProPhoto RGB (jpg file).
The one in ProPhoto RGB mode actually has the RGB values written on
it, so I figured I'd use that one.

... ok, so when I open it I have 3 options:
1. Open in ProPhotoRGB
2. Convert to sRGB (my default working space)
3. Discard profile

If i choose 1 or 2 the image looks identical to me, but using the
color sampler gets me values almost identical to the values printed
from the ProPhotoRGB image, and singificantly different in the sRGB
image. I understand what this means and why it is.
If I choose 3, the image looks very dull, but the color sampler
gets me the same values that I get on the ProPhotoRGB image. I
also understand why this is.

So my question is this: what do I do with the ProPhotoRGB image to
get it printed at Target or Walmart, or whatnot? Do I just put the
ProPhotoRGB on a memory card and print that? Do I use the
converted to sRGB version?

Thanks!

• Clarification - I'm pretty sure that printing your own photo

quality images is more expensive in terms of paper and ink than
getting a matte finish print from ez-prints (and I'm fairly
confident the result will be better from ez-prints) ... but more
importantly... if I HAD a photo quality printer my costs would be
signficantly increased by the incessant requests from family and
friends to provide them with prints... I'd guess that any 8x10 I
print would end up costing me upwards of $10 just due to having to
print identical 8x10s for the other folks.

--
Oak & Acorn

 

[shutterbugbytes]

Some Walmarts, Walgreens, Costco's etc. use the same machine to print pictuers as some pro shops. The machine I'm talking about is the Fuji Frontier.

The only thing the "pro lab" did for me was to enhance my prints from my negatives. Now that I have Photoshop, I have total control of my output without paying for the pro lab. 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). Those stores above will give you the same quality as the pro lab.

On another note, to be fair to the pro labs, they do use a higher grade of paper than those other stores. However, no one, besides myself and a pro, can tell the difference.

 

[giraffe]

I must agree with you. I get my photos printed at my local Costco. I used to use a professional lab for my wedding photos but after comparing prints I found Costco photos to be equal and in some cases significantly better - now I am lucky that the Costco Photo Manager takes great pride in his lab. In one case the professional lab charged me $25.00 for an 11x14 photo of a bride that was absolutely terrible quality and Costco charged me $4.99. The Costco print was bang on in color.

I do not use any color management software. I agree it is not 100% accurate but probably 90-95% accurate. I have calibrated my LCD by eye comparing the print to the image on screen and tweaking the screen settings. I have never had one complaint about color.

Re printing at home - I just gave my photo printer away for free. It just cost too much for ink and paper. I figure that it cost me about $5.00 per 8x10 and I can get it done on a Noritsu printer at Costco for $1.99. The Costco print does not fade or change color over time.

--
Bert D

 

[noisebeam]

You may find an acceptable workflow without calibration. Thats fine.

But if you do this you may have to rework past images when you get a new printer, use a new printing service or if the service you use changes their printer calibration. So all the work you did in the past to achieve acceptable results will only work with a unique and specific situation and be a waste otherwise.

The monitor is most important as it is determines what the digital negative 'looks' like and is what drives post processing decisions.

Al

 

[suddie1215]

Qualified 'yes', in that you should have your colorspace set to
sRGB (and camera) and all the other settings in Edit> color settings
correct.

http://www.skeller.ch/ps/color_management.php

use the 'simple but effective' column.

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

 

[Rdefen]

All you've done is create a closed system with one specific printer at Costco.
Missing the point (and benefits) of a color managed system.

 

[Alessandro Di Sciascio]

You may find an acceptable workflow without calibration. Thats fine.

But if you do this you may have to rework past images when you get
a new printer, use a new printing service or if the service you use
changes their printer calibration. So all the work you did in the
past to achieve acceptable results will only work with a unique and
specific situation and be a waste otherwise.

The monitor is most important as it is determines what the digital
negative 'looks' like and is what drives post processing decisions.

Al

I'm continuing to read through the Real World Color Management book... however I must confess that at this point I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

if I am working an image on my monitor and it looks a certain way... and then later I have it printed by 3 different labs (Target, Walmart, ezprints) and the prints while probably not identical are all more than acceptable to me ... how is my setup somehow compromised compared to someone else who does the same exact thing, except they hang a $300 piece of equipment on their monitor for calibration.

If my results from 3 different services are reasonably close to what I see on the screen, why am I to presume that should I go to another place things would drastically change?

And more importantly... if the guy with the fully calibrated system is getting exactly the same prints I'm getting I'm thinking they must be sending the same sRGB file I'm sending. If that's the case... then if we both go this other new printer place... why would identical files suddenly come out terrible if I'm the one sending them and great if it's Spectrographer dude?

I apologize for my ignorance. That's why I'm asking and why I'm reading the book.

Alessandro

 

[Alessandro Di Sciascio]

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

 

[Kent C]

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