Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: So... Adobe RGB(1998) or ProphotoRGB ?  (Read 7871 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2009, 12:20:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Chris Crevasse
Mark -- your comment gets to the heart of my question.  Assuming I know the color space (sRGB) and dimensions I need for printing, the image will not pass through Photoshop, and the rendered image will not be used for any purpose other than this print, is there still an advantage to setting the Camera Raw Workflow Options to ProPhoto, saving to jpg, then converting the jpg to sRGB, versus setting the Workflow Options to sRGB, and bypassing the step of converting the rendered jpg from ProPhoto to sRGB?  I don't mind saving the images to ProPhoto then running them through Image Processor to convert them to sRGB, but if the extra step adds no benefit, then I'd rather skip it.  Again, I'm not trying to create a master file (beyond the raw file) that can be adapted to a variety of sizes, color spaces, and uses; I'm only trying to convert a raw file to a jpg for a print of a known size and color space.

Thanks for your help.  I apologize if I am missing an obvious point here.

If you are going to be using the image to print on a modern inkjet printer, and even for some of the most recent presses, their colour gamuts exceed much of the sRGB gamut and most recently portions of the ARGB(98) gamut. Therefore sticking to an sRGB workflow limits potential image quality obtainable from these output devices.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2009, 04:28:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
If you are going to be using the image to print on a modern inkjet printer, and even for some of the most recent presses, their colour gamuts exceed much of the sRGB gamut and most recently portions of the ARGB(98) gamut. Therefore sticking to an sRGB workflow limits potential image quality obtainable from these output devices.
And it's not very recently, in terms of available models, either.

Here are some gamut plots (when there is text, it's in Norwegian, since I made these for a Norwegian audience).

E.g. the Epson 2200 with Epsion Premium Glossy Photo vs. AdobeRGB and ProPhoto (grey wireframe: ProPhoto, red wireframe: AdobeRGB):



Epson Enhanced Matte (red = sRGB):



Epson R1800 (or R800) has the following gamut with Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl:



So the problems with AdobeRGB have been there all the time UltraChrome inks have been available.
Logged

Jan
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9316



WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2009, 05:24:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jani
So the problems with AdobeRGB have been there all the time UltraChrome inks have been available.

Pretty much yes.

Printers produce color by adding ink or some colorant, while working space profiles are based on building more saturation by adding more light due to the differences in subtractive and additive color models.There is the issue of very dark colors of intense saturation which do occur in nature and we can capture with many devices. Many of these colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998) and when you encode into such a space, you can clip the colors such that smooth gradations become solid blobs in print, due to the dissimilar shapes and differences in how the two spaces relate to luminance.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad