Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: sRGB versus Adobe RGB?  (Read 10084 times)
JohnKoerner
Guest
« on: February 15, 2009, 12:46:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I just got my NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi2 yesterday, and it has opened up a whole new world for me as a beginner.

I also have a Canon 50D and the operating software to convert the raw images is defaulted in sRGB, which looks wonderful, and yet it loses the coloration when I convert to .jpg and open w/ Adobe Photoshop (older version, 7.01).

My images go from looking wonderful in-process w/ the Canon-included software, to faded and a bit off when I convert and work in the older Photoshop. After spending $4,500 on my new camera, lens, and now monitor I really don't feel like forking out another $2,500 for an Abobe CS4 Design Suite.

Does Adobe Lightroom handle sRGB too? It is a far less expensive program, and I was wondering if I really need a new Photoshop ... or if there was some program that kept sRGB-quality coloration at a more affordable price. I feel like I have just bought all of this equipment, and am losing something in-transition between the bundled raw processing software and my older Adobe platform. I bought the full Adobe In-Design Collection in 2003, and it was only $999, but now it's like 3x as much  

Jack
Logged
Damo77
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 69


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2009, 02:25:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jack, something doesn't add up here.

You're converting with DPP?  What are your DPP colour settings set to?
What are your Photoshop Color Settings set to?
How is your monitor calibrated?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 02:50:21 AM by Damo77 » Logged

Damien
pegelli
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 609



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2009, 05:03:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack,

Agree with Damien. Something isn't right and there's no reason the set you have shouldn't produce consistent results all through your workflow.
Just make sure all in all your applications color management is on and set to the same color space (sRGB to start with) and remove Adobe Gamma.

Only switch to adobeRGB or prophotoRGB if you know why you want to do it. sRGB should produce great results. Only if you shoot subjects with very saturated colors you might go out of gamut which warrents going to wider color spaces, but beware that most screens and printers can't produce those wide gamuts either.

A good place to start reading about this is this website.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 05:03:54 AM by pegelli » Logged

pieter, aka pegelli
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2009, 08:50:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Well, here's what happens: I have to open my RAW files with Digital Photo Pro 3.5.

When I do this, they are viewed with sRGB profile. When I "convert and save" to .tiff or .jpg, and re-open in my Photoshop, the whole cast to my image is slightly different and seems a bit more washed-out.

What I have done to compensate is change my "Preferences" from sRGB to Adobe RGB in my "Color Management" section. This allows me a more even "convert and save."

But when it was in the sRGB mode, the colors simply looked a bit more vibrant to me, especially when converting and re-opening in Photoshop 7.1.

I was just figuring that something was being lost in the transition


PS: My Monitor has been calibrated with the very latest SpectraView II software.
Regarding what my Adobe Color settings are, I am assuming Adobe RGB. That's another thing though. My .tff files come converted in 16-bit, but I can't even work on them until I change them to 8-bit.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 08:55:59 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2009, 09:17:39 AM »
ReplyReply

It sounds like the profile is not saved correctly when saving, and/or PS is not color managing the file. After/during opening the file in PS, try "assign profile" to sRGB or "convert to profile" (two very different things) - does that result in similar colors as before saving?

Quote from: pegelli
Only switch to adobeRGB or prophotoRGB if you know why you want to do it. sRGB should produce great results. Only if you shoot subjects with very saturated colors you might go out of gamut which warrents going to wider color spaces, but beware that most screens and printers can't produce those wide gamuts either.

True for monitors, but all "serious" photo printers reproduce wider gamuts than sRGB, and majority at least partially wider than aRGB.
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2009, 10:35:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I just got my NEC MultiSync LCD2690WUXi2 yesterday, and it has opened up a whole new world for me as a beginner.

I also have a Canon 50D and the operating software to convert the raw images is defaulted in sRGB, which looks wonderful, and yet it loses the coloration when I convert to .jpg and open w/ Adobe Photoshop (older version, 7.01).

My images go from looking wonderful in-process w/ the Canon-included software, to faded and a bit off when I convert and work in the older Photoshop. After spending $4,500 on my new camera, lens, and now monitor I really don't feel like forking out another $2,500 for an Abobe CS4 Design Suite.

Does Adobe Lightroom handle sRGB too? It is a far less expensive program, and I was wondering if I really need a new Photoshop ... or if there was some program that kept sRGB-quality coloration at a more affordable price. I feel like I have just bought all of this equipment, and am losing something in-transition between the bundled raw processing software and my older Adobe platform. I bought the full Adobe In-Design Collection in 2003, and it was only $999, but now it's like 3x as much  

Jack

Jack,

After spending thousands of dollars on good hardware, you owe it to yourself not to skimp on the software - but you don't need a whole 2500 suite. All this stuff is as good as the weakest link in the chain and the coherence of your preference settings in the software. I would highly recommend, for starters, that you download a trial version of Lightroom 2.2, invest a few bucks in Micheal&Jeff's Lightroom 2 video tutorial which you can download and watch immediately from this website, and go to it. LR2 will handle a very high percentage of the image adjustments you will usually need to make. Photoshop 7, although a dated program, is still useful to do things which LR can't do, such as work involving more complex masking and transforms than LR now provides. The other main thing missing from LR is the ability to softproof the final print, which I and a huge number of others think is important. This being the case, it wouldn't surprise me to see this capability built-in to a future release of LR, which, based on past experience, would become available at an up-grade price for registered users of current versions. But this is speculation. Download LR and try it. If it works well for you, consider keeping it. The other thing you can do is download Photoshop CS4 for the 30 day trial as well. It comes with Bridge, Camera Raw 5.x and the PS application. Try that. Try LR combined with PSCS4. I predict that if you get your colour management settings right (Buy, download and watch Michael&Jeff's Camera to Print tutorial on this website), all these problems you are having should be resolved, at least as far as properly configured and up-to-date image processing software can contribute.

Mark
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
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2009, 12:20:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Jack,

Last month I upgraded my workflow and also go a 2690uxi2.  and the latest spectra2 hardware calibration. And I may know what your problem is. Or at least something you should be aware of.


Right off the bat there is a quirk I found that "may" be affecting you. There is a quirk/bug whatever the reason that windowsXP OS was not locking in the custom 2690 ICC profile and the entire OS and all programs (including photoshop) was running with no profile. And in that state nothing will be right.    I originally  confirmed my suspicion by using a color managed Mozilla test.  that process btw is,

1)Install firefox
2)https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6891
3)reboot
4)http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/profile_test/

This apears to be a bug.  The way to correct this I found was to toggle to another profile in spectaview, toggle back then reboot windows.  It appears the bug is that spectraview and windows os falls out of sync with the icc managment system.
Also make sure upon bootup you see the spectraview initializing the monitor. Upon boot into windows, spectraview looks talks directly to the Monitor verifies calibration,settings. If that dosen't happen the whole thing looses color sync and your running the OS with no profile.

When it's working, the 2690ii is providing me great and consistent workflow to print.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 12:23:38 PM by mlmcasual » Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #7 on: February 15, 2009, 12:22:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: MarkDS
Jack,
After spending thousands of dollars on good hardware, you owe it to yourself not to skimp on the software - but you don't need a whole 2500 suite. All this stuff is as good as the weakest link in the chain and the coherence of your preference settings in the software. I would highly recommend, for starters, that you download a trial version of Lightroom 2.2, invest a few bucks in Micheal&Jeff's Lightroom 2 video tutorial which you can download and watch immediately from this website, and go to it. LR2 will handle a very high percentage of the image adjustments you will usually need to make. Photoshop 7, although a dated program, is still useful to do things which LR can't do, such as work involving more complex masking and transforms than LR now provides. The other main thing missing from LR is the ability to softproof the final print, which I and a huge number of others think is important. This being the case, it wouldn't surprise me to see this capability built-in to a future release of LR, which, based on past experience, would become available at an up-grade price for registered users of current versions. But this is speculation. Download LR and try it. If it works well for you, consider keeping it. The other thing you can do is download Photoshop CS4 for the 30 day trial as well. It comes with Bridge, Camera Raw 5.x and the PS application. Try that. Try LR combined with PSCS4. I predict that if you get your colour management settings right (Buy, download and watch Michael&Jeff's Camera to Print tutorial on this website), all these problems you are having should be resolved, at least as far as properly configured and up-to-date image processing software can contribute.
Mark


Mark, thank you for your thoughtful and helpful response, and for taking the time to post it. I will take and follow this advice exactly.

I guess I may as well start turning over my couches, and looking under the floormats in my car, and start saving up for the reality I simply need to upgrade to the latest software in order to make my "latest products" work their best  

Jack

.
Logged
mlmcasual
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #8 on: February 15, 2009, 12:24:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Jack, our post's may have crossed did you read mine above?
Logged
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #9 on: February 15, 2009, 12:28:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: mlmcasual
Hi Jack,

Last month I upgraded my workflow and also go a 2690uxi2.  and the latest spectra2 hardware calibration. And I may know what your problem is. Or at least something you should be aware of.


Right off the bat there is a quirk I found that "may" be affecting you. There is a quirk/bug whatever the reason that windowsXP OS was not locking in the custom 2690 ICC profile and the entire OS and all programs (including photoshop) was running with no profile. And in that state nothing will be right.    I originally  confirmed my suspicion by using a color managed Mozilla test.  that process btw is,

1)Install firefox
2)https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6891
3)reboot
4)http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/profile_test/

This apears to be a bug.  The way to correct this I found was to toggle to another profile in spectaview, toggle back then reboot windows.  It appears the bug is that spectraview and windows os falls out of sync with the icc managment system.
Also make sure upon bootup you see the spectraview initializing the monitor. Upon boot into windows, spectraview looks talks directly to the Monitor verifies calibration,settings. If that dosen't happen the whole thing looses color sync and your running the OS with no profile.

When it's working, the 2690ii is providing me great and consistent workflow to print.



Very, very interesting.

I guess I spoke (posted) too soon! I will most defintely try this first, as I am not at the moment able to just go ahead and get the new Adobe.

I will probably incorporate both of your suggestions. Remedy my current problem, while at the same time download trial versions of the software as Mark suggested. I have this sick feeling that I am going to fall in love w/ the new software and so spend the money anyway, LOL, but if I can effectively remedy my problem with your suggestions, then I may at least be able to hold off for awhile.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help!

Jack
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2009, 01:23:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Very, very interesting.

I guess I spoke (posted) too soon! I will most defintely try this first, as I am not at the moment able to just go ahead and get the new Adobe.

I will probably incorporate both of your suggestions. Remedy my current problem, while at the same time download trial versions of the software as Mark suggested. I have this sick feeling that I am going to fall in love w/ the new software and so spend the money anyway, LOL, but if I can effectively remedy my problem with your suggestions, then I may at least be able to hold off for awhile.

Thank you very much for taking the time to help!

Jack

Jack, you can download all the Adobe stuff on a free trial basis for 30 days, and the video tutorials are inexpensive, so I would recommend looking into both items - the profile recognition issue and the software upgrades at the same time.

As for the profile recognition business, I am using Windows XP Pro SP2 and it has never ever given me a problem recognizing either display or printer profiles. So this bug is most likely a specific Spectraview issue and it would be worthwhile checking with them whether there is a fix. I don't know Spectraview specifically but if their profiles are loaded into the usual folder in XP - I expect (don't know for sure) that you should be able to right-click your desktop, get into the video card Properties, and for a number of cards I've played with - go to Advanced and Colour Management and select the correct profile to load for the display. You may need to do this every time you start the computer until the bug is resolved, but it is easy enough.

Mark
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
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2859



WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2009, 03:47:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pegelli
Jack,

Agree with Damien. Something isn't right and there's no reason the set you have shouldn't produce consistent results all through your workflow.
Just make sure all in all your applications color management is on and set to the same color space (sRGB to start with) and remove Adobe Gamma.

Only switch to adobeRGB or prophotoRGB if you know why you want to do it. sRGB should produce great results. Only if you shoot subjects with very saturated colors you might go out of gamut which warrents going to wider color spaces, but beware that most screens and printers can't produce those wide gamuts either.

A good place to start reading about this is this website.

Colors in many images fall outside of the sRGB and even the aRGB space.  Current printers have a great many colors outside of these spaces - especially sRGB.  Another consideration ...  by the time you make various adjustments (via the RAW convertor or in Photoshop) and are ready to print you will have expanded the colors in the image even further .. unless you restrict those colors by using a smaller color working space.

While a monitor may not be able to produce many of these colors, the entire premise of good color management is to achieve reasonable matches with devices of varying capabilities, including limited gamuts.  Of course you can basically shortcut color management and just force everything into sRGB from beginning to end, but you lose all of the ability of current and future printers to achieve their expanded range. I have found frequently my image looks even better printed ... subtle tones and transitions difficult to see on the screen translate beautifully when output to my 7900 printer.  Some of my images from a few years ago printed now on my epson 11880 and 7900 have visible differences which make them even better.  All possible because I didn't limit myself when doing my original edits.

If you are capturing RAW and willing to work with 16 bit image files, using ProPhotoRGB as the working space is the only one that makes any sense to me.  This is LR's built in workflow, and it works very well.  If you are working with only 8 bit images then ProPhotoRGB is most likely too wide, and AdobeRGB would be a better choice. I'm not sure it ever makes sense to use sRGB as a working space in PS .. I can't think of any thing that would make this advantageous.

I would recommend this article by Jeff Schewe ... it demonstrates quite well that it doesn't take extremely saturated colors to gain a benefit from using ProPhotoRGB.

http://schewephoto.com/sRGB-VS-PPRGB/
« Last Edit: February 15, 2009, 03:47:47 PM by Wayne Fox » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2009, 04:28:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I second all of the above - good advice.

Mark
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
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2009, 06:05:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Thank you very much Wayne.

I have come to realize that my Photoshop 7.0.1 does convert to sRGB (and several other profiles) I have just been choosing a default "conversion" option, when prompted, without really thinking about it or understanding what I was doing. As you put it, "the entire premise of color management is to retain coloration," and yet at this point the "entire premise" is outside my knowledge base. I simply need to educate myself, as this is all new to me.

I read the first chapter in Digital Dog's book, that he offers online, and just that tiny bit of reading helped me to understand more now than I did a few hours ago. All these colors are just numbers, and yet each program interprets these numbers slightly differently. That was all of it, essentially.

In my DPP 3.5 that came bundled with my camera, I have 5 options in my Preferences Pallet to work with: (1) sRGB, (2) aRGB, (3) WideGamutRGB, (4) appleRGB, and (5) colormatchRGB. I am not sure which of these is best to use in DPP, but when I just now converted to Photoshop, even in my old version, when I viewed my conversion options I saw your recommended ProPhotoRGB. I selected this and all of a sudden my colors popped back out!

I believe that was the ticket Wayne  

My default profile I was selecting just seemed to drain-away my coloration, and yet the selection of ProPhotoRGB brought it back.

So thank you once again for taking the time to help,

Jack
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9170



WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2009, 06:09:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
I read the first chapter in Digital Dog's book, that he offers online, and just that tiny bit of reading helped me to understand more now than I did a few hours ago.

This might be useful too:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2009, 11:52:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog


That article was extremely useful, thank you. You have a gift of being able to make very complicated subjects seem rather simple.

If I can summarize, in essence there is no "one" workspace a person should stick with, but rather a person should tailor the workspace for the job. In keeping with this, your article explained another thing I was in the process of being unable to understand, which was how (when I modified a photo in ProPhotoRGB, uploaded it on a website, and looked at it from my laptop) my image looked WAY different (horrible) when viewed through this other monitor. Well, my laptop is calibrated sRGB, which I guess is the defacto standard "LCD display" color gamut. Thus in trying to look at a complicated photo processed in ProPhotoRGB my laptop essentially "blew a gaskett" in its ability to interpret my image.

Therefore, it seems that for my future editing efforts, if I am editing my photos for any sort of communal internet display, I should probably stick to sRGB after all. However, for actual formal printing or storage, making use of ProPhotoRGB or AdboeRGB would be the better choice.

What I was also thinking is, my brand new monitor is specifically-designed and calibrated to provide 98% AbobeRGB coverage, so really I ought to stick with this format for the most part, as this will allow me to see everything as "true" as I can effectively manage said image with my eyes. The ProPhotoRGB is actually broader in gamut than even my monitor can represent to me, but (as Wayne pointed out) not necessarily broader than what a top-shelf printer can reproduce in print.

As I rub my chin in consideration of all of this, and try to get my bearings, it seems a person really ought to create several folders to file various processings of his images. For example, perhaps a folder for saving the original RAW files, another for saving ProPhotoRGB-converted formal print files, and maybe still another folder dedicated for storing simpler sRGB-edited internet display files. I don't know if I am wandering off the track in my thinking this way, but this is where my thoughts are leaning toward.

I am very glad I asked this question! I thought I was seeing things at first in my workflow, but when this happened several times I realized, why in fact there was a substantial color loss occurring in my conversions. I am also grateful for all the help and for this forum being here to allow for this kind of help. I feel, quite literally, that a light has been turned on and I can see straight. I realize this is only the tip of the iceberg as far as what I have to learn, but at least I feel I am pointed in the right direction now.

I think what I need to do at this point is blow the dust off of my Adobe Photoshop manual and really read everything that it can do. It seems like there is no end to what I have to read and learn, but I thank you Andrew for your superb and clear explanations which really do render a vastly complex subject into about as simple terms as a person could understand.

I appreciate your input sincerely,

Jack
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9170



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2009, 08:35:35 AM »
ReplyReply

First off, the images should look virtually identical in any working space in an ICC aware application. The numbers of course or different. You can duplicate a document in ProPhoto RGB, covert it in Photoshop to sRGB, Adobe RGB etc, they will appear the same. So if that's not happening, something is setup wrong. Outside ICC aware applications, the RGB numbers simply get sent to the display without the application having a clue about the display profile or the color space of the document.

Quote
If I can summarize, in essence there is no "one" workspace a person should stick with, but rather a person should tailor the workspace for the job.

It depends on your workflow. Everything I deal with starts as Raw so I process into ProPhoto RGB 16-bit because I don't want to clip colors that might be in the scene that the camera could capture which has a greater gamut then Adobe RGB could contain. Plus ACR and LR use ProPhoto RGB (linear gamma) for all processing so why funnel that data into a smaller color space. In Lightroom, if I want to go to the web, I can export the data in sRGB. But for working on a master image in Photoshop, one that will now on be edited in Photoshop, I stick with ProPhoto RGB in 16-bit from now on. Once in Photoshop, that master can spawn an iteration that's smaller, cropped, and placed into a different color space. But the hero master document is always in ProPhoto RGB.

Again, you simply can't send a ProPhoto RGB image to a web page because nearly all web browsers are not ICC aware and as you've seen, they look awful. You need to build an iteration in sRGB for the web. And keep in mind that even in sRGB, in a non ICC aware web browser, the image will not match exactly what you saw in Photoshop unless you're real lucky and no other users on other machines will see the same RGB numbers preview identically.

Quote
What I was also thinking is, my brand new monitor is specifically-designed and calibrated to provide 98% AbobeRGB coverage, so really I ought to stick with this format for the most part, as this will allow me to see everything as "true" as I can effectively manage said image with my eyes. The ProPhotoRGB is actually broader in gamut than even my monitor can represent to me, but (as Wayne pointed out) not necessarily broader than what a top-shelf printer can reproduce in print.

You've got data that is going to have a wider and narrower gamut then that display. If its wider, there will be very saturated colors you can't see. So the option is, throw away those colors that you could use for output or keep them and see them on output but not on the display. If you look at gamut maps of modern ink jets, especially the new HDR inks from Epson, you can see there's a great deal of colors outside the gamut of Adobe RGB (1998). I'd rather see those colors used in my print then toss them away because they exceed the gamut of my display. Unless you're only outputting to the web, I don't think it pays to throw away colors that the capture device and output device can use despite the gamut of the display.

There will never be a display that produces ProPhoto RGB. I say never with confidence because ProPhoto RGB is such a large gamut space, it extends some "colors*" outside of human vision (gamut). *Technically, if you can't see it, its not a color, but you get my drift.

Quote
As I rub my chin in consideration of all of this, and try to get my bearings, it seems a person really ought to create several folders to file various processings of his images. For example, perhaps a folder for saving the original RAW files, another for saving ProPhotoRGB-converted formal print files, and maybe still another folder dedicated for storing simpler sRGB-edited internet display files. I don't know if I am wandering off the track in my thinking this way, but this is where my thoughts are leaning toward.

That's where for me, Lightroom comes into play. But yes, you want various iterations from the hero master based on your needs for size, output, etc.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2009, 08:44:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: JohnKoerner
Therefore, it seems that for my future editing efforts, if I am editing my photos for any sort of communal internet display, I should probably stick to sRGB after all. However, for actual formal printing or storage, making use of ProPhotoRGB or AdboeRGB would be the better choice.

What I was also thinking is, my brand new monitor is specifically-designed and calibrated to provide 98% AbobeRGB coverage, so really I ought to stick with this format for the most part, as this will allow me to see everything as "true" as I can effectively manage said image with my eyes. The ProPhotoRGB is actually broader in gamut than even my monitor can represent to me, but (as Wayne pointed out) not necessarily broader than what a top-shelf printer can reproduce in print.

As I rub my chin in consideration of all of this, and try to get my bearings, it seems a person really ought to create several folders to file various processings of his images. For example, perhaps a folder for saving the original RAW files, another for saving ProPhotoRGB-converted formal print files, and maybe still another folder dedicated for storing simpler sRGB-edited internet display files. I don't know if I am wandering off the track in my thinking this way, but this is where my thoughts are leaning toward.



Jack

Jack,

I do actually keep three folders for each set of images - the raw, a ProPhoto version, and only for those I intend to post to the internet, I create JPEGs and save those in a separate folder.

That said, regardless of what your display shows, it is best to do all your editing in 16-bit ProPhoto, because once you shrink to ARGB98, save and quit, unless you go back to the raw file you've lost the wider gamut. THEN, for those images which you intend to post to the internet, you convert them to sRGB with Black Point Compensation. Having done that, you then convert the image to 8 bit, resize it to the dimensions (e.g. maximum 8 inches on either dimension) and PPI you want (best to stay in the range of 72~96 PPI for the web) and do a SAVE AS into JPEG format with a low enough compression (high enough quality setting - I use 10) to preserve adequate quality without too large file size. Then you examine what you have and make any tweaks you think the image may need, save it again, and you have your web-ready JPEG, without losing any of the gamut or bit depth of the original processed image. I've created a Photoshop Action for this set of steps.

You can also make web-ready images directly in Lightroom from the raw files if you've had no reason to export them to Photoshop for any processing steps you needed and are not available in LR. Photoshop also has a "Save for Web and Devices" algorythm, but it won't work from a ProPhto 16-bit image - it doesn't expect such large files as a starting point.
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6945


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2009, 08:48:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Andrew,

It seems we've been thinking and typing along parallel lines - mental telepathy between NM and Toronto - didn't know the internet was that powerful!  

Mark
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
JohnKoerner
Guest
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2009, 10:49:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: digitaldog
First off, the images should look virtually identical in any working space in an ICC aware application. The numbers of course or different. You can duplicate a document in ProPhoto RGB, covert it in Photoshop to sRGB, Adobe RGB etc, they will appear the same. So if that's not happening, something is setup wrong. Outside ICC aware applications, the RGB numbers simply get sent to the display without the application having a clue about the display profile or the color space of the document.

Well, I think that is where Mlmcasual's suggestions come into play. My OS may not be locking into the custom ICC profile of my new 2690xi2, so I would be willing to bet that, once I try his suggestions my problem will be solved, because (at this point) there remains a noticeable difference between files. I don't know anything about Firefox, but I guess I will have a crash course lesson in it today  




Quote from: digitaldog
It depends on your workflow. Everything I deal with starts as Raw so I process into ProPhoto RGB 16-bit because I don't want to clip colors that might be in the scene that the camera could capture which has a greater gamut then Adobe RGB could contain. Plus ACR and LR use ProPhoto RGB (linear gamma) for all processing so why funnel that data into a smaller color space. In Lightroom, if I want to go to the web, I can export the data in sRGB. But for working on a master image in Photoshop, one that will now on be edited in Photoshop, I stick with ProPhoto RGB in 16-bit from now on. Once in Photoshop, that master can spawn an iteration that's smaller, cropped, and placed into a different color space. But the hero master document is always in ProPhoto RGB.

Okay, so I pretty much was thinking on the right track, thanks to reading your documents. I just need to solve the problem of consistency (per Mlmcasual), and then I need to get in the habit of working with my master documents in ProPhotoRGB, from which I may make various "save as" assignments to sRGB as needed. (Although, perhaps it would be best to start over again from scratch, in sRGB, for web-intended images?)

If I am also understanding you right, once I get my OS to recognize my new monitor, I really don't need to stop using Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1 either. It seems what I need is to really become proficient in Photoshop, but perhaps get Lightroom to do most of my work there.




Quote from: digitaldog
Again, you simply can't send a ProPhoto RGB image to a web page because nearly all web browsers are not ICC aware and as you've seen, they look awful. You need to build an iteration in sRGB for the web. And keep in mind that even in sRGB, in a non ICC aware web browser, the image will not match exactly what you saw in Photoshop unless you're real lucky and no other users on other machines will see the same RGB numbers preview identically.

Hmmm. It would seem, therefore, that if I took a particular photo that I liked a lot, and wanted to place a version of it on the web, that it would make sense to build from the original RAW file twice. I would work on it in ProPhotoRGB for printing purposes; and I would begin all over again in sRGB for web publication purposes. It occurs to me that my chances for getting unwanted hues, etc. by converting from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB would be great, when viewed through non-ICC browsers, but that if I started to work on an image intended for web purposes in sRGB direct from the original RAW file, that I would ultimately be better off.




Quote from: digitaldog
You've got data that is going to have a wider and narrower gamut then that display. If its wider, there will be very saturated colors you can't see. So the option is, throw away those colors that you could use for output or keep them and see them on output but not on the display. If you look at gamut maps of modern ink jets, especially the new HDR inks from Epson, you can see there's a great deal of colors outside the gamut of Adobe RGB (1998). I'd rather see those colors used in my print then toss them away because they exceed the gamut of my display. Unless you're only outputting to the web, I don't think it pays to throw away colors that the capture device and output device can use despite the gamut of the display.

That harkens back to Wayne's concurrent advice, where he mentioned how very often his finished prints come out even nicer than what he can see on his monitor screen ...




Quote from: digitaldog
There will never be a display that produces ProPhoto RGB. I say never with confidence because ProPhoto RGB is such a large gamut space, it extends some "colors*" outside of human vision (gamut). *Technically, if you can't see it, its not a color, but you get my drift.

I do.




Quote from: digitaldog
That's where for me, Lightroom comes into play. But yes, you want various iterations from the hero master based on your needs for size, output, etc.

Okay, then I believe y'all have pointed me on the right track. Thank you!




>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




Quote from: MarkDS
Jack,
I do actually keep three folders for each set of images - the raw, a ProPhoto version, and only for those I intend to post to the internet, I create JPEGs and save those in a separate folder.

Exactly. That is the first thing that popped into my head as I read Andrew's article, was that "I am going to need to make different folders for different my image types."  




Quote from: MarkDS
That said, regardless of what your display shows, it is best to do all your editing in 16-bit ProPhoto, because once you shrink to ARGB98, save and quit, unless you go back to the raw file you've lost the wider gamut. THEN, for those images which you intend to post to the internet, you convert them to sRGB with Black Point Compensation. Having done that, you then convert the image to 8 bit, resize it to the dimensions (e.g. maximum 8 inches on either dimension) and PPI you want (best to stay in the range of 72~96 PPI for the web) and do a SAVE AS into JPEG format with a low enough compression (high enough quality setting - I use 10) to preserve adequate quality without too large file size. Then you examine what you have and make any tweaks you think the image may need, save it again, and you have your web-ready JPEG, without losing any of the gamut or bit depth of the original processed image. I've created a Photoshop Action for this set of steps.

Okay, thanks. I was thinking that I might just start from scratch all over again, from RAW, working in sRGB, for images intended for the web. What you're saying is that if I follow the above method, and convert from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB that I will not get unwanted hues ... that can't be seen in my program ... but that will be seen through a web browser ...




Quote from: MarkDS
You can also make web-ready images directly in Lightroom from the raw files if you've had no reason to export them to Photoshop for any processing steps you needed and are not available in LR. Photoshop also has a "Save for Web and Devices" algorythm, but it won't work from a ProPhto 16-bit image - it doesn't expect such large files as a starting point.

Exactly. That was why I was kinda thinking I should just get used to the idea of developing each RAW image from scratch twice: one in ProPhotoRGB for printing purposes, the other in sRGB for web-publishing purposes.

Jack

BTW: Again, I truly appreciate everyone's input, thank you!
« Last Edit: February 16, 2009, 10:52:53 AM by JohnKoerner » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad