Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: colorspace question. wysiwyg  (Read 3383 times)
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« on: January 23, 2009, 06:10:58 PM »
ReplyReply

call me crazy,  

I see lots of discussion on what color spaces to use and how to  render this to  match screen to print.
Lets say my goal is to generate  graphic design in   Cs3 PS/ILL to be used only/exclusively for print.

If the goal is to desing  in a  WYSIWYG environment (what you see is what you get) then why can't you
simply use  the profiled printer as the native working  color space? This way you know what you are laying down is what it's going to also look like at print.
Provided your monitor has a gamut that encompasses your printers gamut.


for this example, im considering a workflow of

2690wuxi2  - CS3  - HPZ3200PS


I realize your limiting yourself to the printer gamut and lacking extra overhead for clipping but does that really matter?
The way I see it, profile changing, even softproofing is not a true interactive wysiwyg environment where as using the printers colorspace is.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2009, 06:14:39 PM by mlmcasual » Logged
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2009, 06:27:05 PM »
ReplyReply

I understand what you're saying.  But the biggest reason I can think of (and it's a biggie!) is that the "working spaces" have well-behaved neutrals - ie R=G=B=grey.

If you have any experience with enhancing images, you'll know how important that is.

The other main reason is that a working space is a perfect platform from which to convert to many and varied outputs as needed.  You seem very sure that you'll only ever need one output, so I guess this isn't a consideration for you.
Logged

Damien
Czornyj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1395



WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2009, 11:33:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mlmcasual
why can't you simply use  the profiled printer as the native working  color space? This way you know what you are laying down is what it's going to also look like at print.

Nonsense - there's different color space for each paper. Are you planning to print your images on one kind of paper? Will you use your HP3200 forever?
Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2009, 12:51:41 PM »
ReplyReply

"call me crazy, "

That's crazy.  (well, you said...)

First, I argue that WYSIWYG is NOT the goal.  It's not a realistic goal.  You're dealing with two totally different ways of making color.  (To put it as my student did once, what the hell, you're staring into a frikkin lightbulb, how is it ever gonna match a print?)

Your goal is to be close, and within that, more importantly, consistency.  I'd concur with Czornyj.  How can this be a consistent workflow?  It can't.  As far as checking gamut, etc, and I find "Proof Setup" and "Gamut Warning" to be the most useful, rather than attempting WYSIWYG.

Your use of "color space" is one of my big issues with the language and terminology used frequently.  A working "color space" is a very specific term.  It's different from a paper/printer profile, although they both have a "space".  

I'd suggest, rather than, or maybe in addition to reading various posts, picking up a good book and getting the whole picture (pardon) of how Color Management is supposed to work, from one viewpoint.  (oh, there's MINE of course...    )  Seriously, there's a lot out there, and the one, hardest thing I've seen, in people's attempts to work with this stuff, is the frustration and confusion from trying to piece together various descriptions and explanations...
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 12:55:16 PM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2009, 02:58:07 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not something I have tried.. my point is wsiwyg is certainly a valid tool .. and outside of softproofing and and gamutwarning  I was really asking is there "EVER" a case where you it wold be acceptable to do that. and looks like agreement is no.

That said, let me ask this then.. is there an  inherent downfall of using  using a working space that is much wider then the printer/paper's space that you are running into risk of constantly clipping and creating on screen content that is no where near what the printer can do?   The Way I understand it then, adobergb is a fairly safe working space.   Is anyone familiar with the z3200 how where I can find some 3d gamut plots of it's space on various papers?
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2826



WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2009, 09:40:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mlmcasual
That said, let me ask this then.. is there an  inherent downfall of using  using a working space that is much wider then the printer/paper's space that you are running into risk of constantly clipping and creating on screen content that is no where near what the printer can do?

uh ... considering that your printer can probably exceed the gamut of your monitor in many colors I"m not sure this would be a problem.

If you really understand how color management worked, you would realize that clipping isn't much of an issue.  The simple answer to your question ... your working space should always be larger than any output space you use or intend to use.  You actually NEVER view the image data in it's working space.  It's an intermediate space which contains the data, and that space shouldn't limit any data.

Your image data from your camera most likely exceeds any output space ... be it your monitor or your printer.  As you modify that data you are most likely modifying pixels that are outside of those spaces as well.   But what is important isn't the literal data ... its' the interpretation of data into information that is then fed to our eyes/brain.  The color management system is designed to accommodate how we see things, and while working on the data, the monitor profile is being applied.  when we print, a different profile is being applied ... the purpose of which is to maintain as closely as possible the visual relationship of colors to each other so the two appear the same to our eyes.

So the best thing to do is just let the system do what it is designed to do, and if you set it up right and trust it, do very well.  Lightroom is a great example of how simple it can be.  The working space simply exists within the program (a slightly modified version of ProPhotoRGB using 16bit data).  It doesn't bother telling you anything about it, or ask you how to set it up... the program is built from the ground up this way. While you are working, your monitor profile is being applied to the data, and when you output, you then apply the appropriate output profile.

This same workflow is easily emulated in Photoshop CS4, if your trust it.  Set your working space to ProPhotoRGB.  Capture your images in RAW and open them in ACR.  Tell ACR to open them in Photoshop as 16bit files.  Then when printing from Photoshop, apply the appropriate output profile.  

yes, some output is challenging, especially mat papers, because it is difficult to match those papers to a screen.  Using soft proof in Photoshop you can get an idea of the weakness of your output printer/paper, and apply some adjustment layers to try and push the data to give you a print that is more like the screen. But better to do this with a set of layers ... then your edits are still intact for other output options, such as the new PK black papers (I hardly ever use mat paper anymore), or even translating into sRGB for the web.

 In the Camera to Print video (very good information, you may want to check it out), Jeff Schewe demonstrates a very useful technique to use when soft proofing.
Logged

teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 25, 2009, 08:57:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mlmcasual
my point is wsiwyg is certainly a valid tool ..

Well, on that we disagree.  I just made up a new acronym over my coffee this morning.  WYSICAC  "What you see is close, and consistent."  

I don't mean to mince words, but it can be just such a distraction to chase this tail.  Certainly, a good display takes a lot of the sport out of the process, and to calibrate it correctly even more so, and viewing prints under the correct light is invaluable, but...  using good color management policies correctly on decent equipment gives you consistent results, and thus, is something you can use to visualize predictably.  

Nothing.  Nothing will replace making a print.  Work prints are something that people seem to resist like the plague- maybe this is why I'm so strident about the anti-wysiwyg stance, but I have to hammer and hammer on students to make a work print.  Process, print, process and print.  That is how you learn to "see" results in your display.  

sitting down now...  

NMCFT
(no more coffee for ted)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2009, 08:58:48 AM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2009, 02:35:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you for the advice.

I work on Trade show graphic design for our company and do the total workflow from camera-design to print myself..  Recently, I am stepping up to the 2690uwxi2/colorvision2 , z3200ps-44" CS4, xsi dslr  (all in house used by me).
My goal is to achieve an accurate work flow but also getting the most of my equipment's capabilities.  I'm familiar with trial/error of workprinting. I am surprised (and learning thanks to the advice here) that wysiwyg is not a realistic ability in the workflow  which I thought perhaps it "could be".

I'm finding Color management is the most confused and lots of contradictory and erroneous advice pieces on the net.  For example, I have seen advice pieces written by published persons suggesting that the workflow from camera to print should be all done in SRGB working color space..  Some experts are claiming 80 luminosity is still the standard for softproofing  which others say is absurd.. and on and on.. so I do take it all with a grain of salt and confirm what I read.  

Again, thanks for the advice.
Logged
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 25, 2009, 03:00:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mlmcasual
I'm finding Color management is the most confused and lots of contradictory and erroneous advice pieces on the net.  For example, I have seen advice pieces written by published persons suggesting that the workflow from camera to print should be all done in SRGB working color space..  Some experts are claiming 80 luminosity is still the standard for softproofing  which others say is absurd.. and on and on.. so I do take it all with a grain of salt and confirm what I read.

That's the problem, really...  it's easy to say "my way is better", but I really feel that many approaches get to the right place, within the framework of the correct use of ColorSync.  Andrew Rodney's books (Andrew is very active here), other authors, my own book, they all work if you buy into the whole system- drink the koolaide.  It's when you get this piecemeal advice and try to make sense of it that gives you the contradictions and confuscations.  (heh...  love that word.)  

The reason I even took up to write my own book on the subject was because I discovered ColorThink, and through the patient advice of Joe Holmes was able to actually visualize what's happening in the system.  ColorThink lets you actually graph an image- the colors in a file- so, by making a file with just three related colors I was able to actually watch how they move around the various spaces...  literally seeing the difference between rendering intents, and working color spaces, for example.    I felt I had a different way to describe the system, and one very much suited to visuallly-oriented people...  ie, photographers.  I make a few statements and claims that I'm positive many authorities don't agree with ( the D. Dog has been kind enough not to slam me here...   but I did get some nice reviews from some "experts"), but the fact is, if you drink my koolaid, it works pretty good.  

Of course, it's also really easy to slam out a post on a forum somewhere without any of the foundation work, to help the reader understand...  like I said before, I think the best thing you could do is to pick up a book, any good book, on the subject and claw through it...
« Last Edit: January 25, 2009, 03:03:58 PM by teddillard » Logged

Ted Dillard
gianfini
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2009, 02:48:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Although there is general consensus that using an output color space as working space is wrong practice (and I'm not doing that as well) I'd argue that your provocation is not wrong.

Usage of working spaces is often given for granted as they give consistent workflow and results over different platforms (and this is important) but expecially because there is a strong believe that you should edit your images in the widest possible colorspace to preserve every and each small tonality variation (e.g. prophoto).

I'm actually challenging this last point. That ALWAYS AND CONSISTENTLY results in editing something you cannot see (best high touch high price monitors can match or slightly exceed aRGB) and something you hardly can print. It's like preparing something hoping that future output technologies will be able to handle.

So you will get a CONSISTENT workflow and result as some claims, but you will constantly print sky with a different blue hue, greenery with a different green tone, etc. and what's more you will generate images with colors which are out of gamut for your printer, obliging you to use perceptual rendering resulting in evident compression/desaturation of all colors in the image.

I have no solution, I believe each one must find his own workflow based on his needs and output devices, what is sure for me is that Color Management (at least at hobbyst level) is a very young science with a lot of road to go to become something standardized with a fixed path.

Bottom line: your request is not crazy at all, although probably not optimal it could suit certain needs
g
Logged
pherold
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133


« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2009, 01:42:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm thinking of others reading this thread and wanting a more complete answer to why we don't use the monitor profile as the working space.  Steve Upton had this as one of his Color Management Myths in a back issue of his newsletter:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_6-10

He also has a overview of why people choose output-centric workflows, display-centric workflows, etc.
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28

I just love the color management myths series.  Long before I was an employee at Chromix I used to read these newsletters and get a good grounding in color management with a relatively small amount of reading.
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/List_of_Color_Management_Myths
Logged

-Patrick Herold
  Tech Support
www.chromix.com
teddillard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 664


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2009, 02:47:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pherold
I'm thinking of others reading this thread and wanting a more complete answer to why we don't use the monitor profile as the working space.  Steve Upton had this as one of his Color Management Myths in a back issue of his newsletter:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_6-10

He also has a overview of why people choose output-centric workflows, display-centric workflows, etc.
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28

I just love the color management myths series.  Long before I was an employee at Chromix I used to read these newsletters and get a good grounding in color management with a relatively small amount of reading.
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/List_of_Color_Management_Myths

Awesome links, thanks!
Logged

Ted Dillard
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad