color space

[August1851]

May I ask people to weigh in and/or advise on which color space to use. I've read conflicting information on this. Is it sRGB for the screen but Adobe 1998 for printing? If so what would one shoot and process at. I've read other views also. Can anyone clarify this for me? Thanks.

[karen_s]

First, I'm not much of an expert on this so hopefully a more knowledgeable person will weigh in but I can bump your post with an attempt.

For web and screen use, yes, sRGB is the probably the safest choice. It's pretty standard.

When it comes to printing at a lab, sRGB is still the more standard choice although there are exceptions. I think most labs use sRGB but I have read that a some do use Adobe 1998. I'd say find a lab you like and ask them what space they use and process your images accordingly.

Printing for commercial use, say in a magazine or book, well, that's a whole new set of variables.

As to what color space in which to shoot, I'd stick with sRGB if you are shooting JPEG's, only because it seems to be the more widely accepted space. If however you are shooting RAW, I don't think it matters as that setting isn't applied to your file in camera. Shooting RAW leaves the flexibility for you to decide in PP (post processing).

Anyway, you might find this article helpful ...
Working Space Comparison: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB 1998

[August1851]

Karen, thanks so much. I will checkout that link. I am shooting in RAW and I've got my iMac set to sRGB. I like your advice of 'find a lab' and ask them. Thanks again.

Matt

[ravncat]

Color space is interesting.

Most display devices function in sRGB, ones that don`t usually cost alot more. This means that if you are working in AdobeRGB or ProPhotoRGB, there are some colors which will be in your image that your monitor will be unable to display. - this won`t make gaps in your images, it will just force the colors in the display to be closer together in a sense.

However - editing in a larger color space has benefits - the larger space means more room to move about colors - just like a larger bit depth gives you more room to move tones about - meaning you can make more adjustments before the image starts to fall apart.

When printing, you have to convert to yet another color space - most likely a CMYK color space - this is very likely if you are printing by yourself with an inkjet. It can be beneficial to convert from a larger colorspace like ProPhotoRGB than from SRGB.

I`d recommend reading more about colorspaces to understand why. For your purposes - I can say the above recommendation to ask the printlab is a good one - as they know what colorspaces they are printing in.

If you want to more closely control the color that you can see - use sRGB when editing, because you won`t be dealing with colors the monitor can`t properly display. If you want overall smoother final color (less posterization (especially with heavy editing), more total possible colors) - use a larger color space.

In either case - you`ll have to convert to another space for output. If you tend to your color settings in photoshop - the conversions will all happen automatically. You just have to be careful about saving images to embed color profiles and for other software to use those profiles. (For example, I don`t think that Firefox or IE default to using embedded color profiles of images)

Chances are, if you are working in sRGB - your image should appear consistent between applications if you've left the color settings of those applications alone.I find there are benefits in working in other color spaces like AdobeRGB - but the amount of maintenance (in messing with settings) takes a bit of work and overall study. The gain is subjective - some would say a large difference, others would say a small difference.

[karen_s]

You are welcome. I too shoot in RAW and work on an iMac. I pretty much stick to the sRGB as it has worked well for both web use and standard photo printing at the local lab. I'll add that I have had to do a bit of monitor calibration as my first prints looked nothing like what I saw on screen. After a little head scratching, some googling, and a few test prints, I now have two monitor display profiles, one for processing for web and one for processing for the local print lab. The web setting is much brighter with a blue cast and the print one is much darker with a yellow cast. That combined with working in the preferred color space is beginning to yield some nice results.

Originally Posted by ravncat

When printing, you have to convert to yet another color space - most likely a CMYK color space - this is very likely if you are printing by yourself with an inkjet. It can be beneficial to convert from a larger colorspace like ProPhotoRGB than from SRGB.

And thanks ravncat for the more in-depth post. I am wanting to better understand color space so as to get the most out of my images. The above really stuck out because I run into this at work, a lot. I design graphics for electronic use but sometimes have to print them for presentations. I work in sRGB but have to convert to CMYK before printing or I get some really ugly, ugly stuff.

[August1851]

Phew! I've got some work to do to get my head around this but I'm pretty sure I've got the general idea. My own printer is just an HP Photosmart that we had from a number of years ago. I find I'm getting pretty good color results if I use their (HP) Premium Plus paper. If I use their other papers---lousy colors. I'm going to try a lab next---any recommendations?
Also, I was wondering if I needed to get calibration gear and software and Karen, you answered my question.
Thanks! Heck of a resource here.

Matt

[ravncat]

A calibration device will help you get about as close as you can between monitor display and print - assuming you can profile your monitor and your printer. If you're wanting to get as far as you can, you'll need a calibration device. Calibration will get you pretty high up on the color image quality chain pretty quickly - but can be costly, and sometimes the software interfaces, aren't that great.

If you are willing to settle for less - and be "pretty good" (say 70-85% of max potential color quality) you can get away with a simple visual calibration of the monitor - and the photoshop color controls - you just have to learn about how the different printer output methods work (perceptual, vs relative, vs absolute black point) and get used to a few other printing tricks*, and make sure that if photoshop is managing color, that your printer isn't. Dual color management will screw up color right away.

If you want higher quality without (spending money on) calibration tools, 80-90ish%, try the proofing and multiple printing methods - where you print out drafts - and if you really want, you can use color filters to view them - then print again, making adjustments to the printers color in a dialogue if there is one (ie add more yellow - add more magenta -- etc) if that doesn't exist you can make color shifts to the image you are printing... and take notes so you don't cycle back through to settings you've already done - but by visually adjusting and printing - you can get very good results too. (more accurate if you wait for the ink to dry before doing the next print...) This method, is the most time consuming and ink/paper consuming.

The papers you use definitely matter, I consider papers an artistic choice alot - in general, the important qualities for your printer paper are Texture, Brightness, Color, Stock. Each paper has a different texture (bumpy/smooth/glossy/matte/metallic etc) Many papers are not neutral white, but are often a little bit blue. I said Stock here referring to the interaction between Ink and paper - some papers, the ink will bleed more, others less - and that's kindof like texture - but, renders a different effect. You'll find that sharpening routines should be adjusted based on how much the ink bleeds in addition to how large you print


(*adjusting your levels black point to around 3 or 5 or not at all, depending on the blacks in the print - things generally dry down a little darker, but increasing the base blacks can help drop out a little bit of noise - and even up the darkest shadows - while doing a simmilar trick for the whites - (like drop white from 255 to 250 or so - though I'd recommend reading alot more about printing)


(Gee looking back now, I hope that answered your question - I think i may have gotten side tracked!)

[karen_s]

What can I say, I can be rather frugal at times and I thought I'd try calibrating my monitor manually before investing in hardware. A device would probably get me there faster and more accurately but then I would have less money for new lenses.

Anyway, the iMac is fairly easy to calibrate. (If you are familiar with the process, just skip the rest of this paragraph.) If you are not familiar with it, it's in System Preferences (the panel)/Displays/Color/Calibrate. You will want to pick the expert mode to get anything useful. It's a bit of a challenge too as the monitor is backlit and the photo is not, so they look different to begin with. You can make several profiles and name them too. It's nice because you can have different profiles for different uses.

Another option is to find a lab you like and see if they have a profile available. I don't know much about how this works though.

As far as labs go, I get prints locally at an independent lab that does really nice work. I don't know much about the online options but many people seem to mention Mpix in a positive way. You might check them out. You also might search the threads here on DPS for a few more.

And a quick question for ravncat ...

Originally Posted by ravncat

I said Stock here referring to the interaction between Ink and paper - some papers, the ink will bleed more, others less - and that's kindof like texture - but, renders a different effect. You'll find that sharpening routines should be adjusted based on how much the ink bleeds in addition to how large you print

Would you sharpen more or less for papers that bleed? I would assume more but I always get in trouble when I assume things. Also, do you sharpen differently for different types of papers?

[ravncat]

You'd sharpen more for papers that bleed - This is because sharpening works by creating a "white" halo - if the ink bleeds alot, the halo can be destroyed - so the halo needs to be made larger.

Usually I set sharpening for printing, based on process, output size and "stock" - need less sharpening on smaller images, need different sized halos for halftone or quadtone processes - etc.

There's a really great book - Real World Sharpening, I think is the title... Amazon.com: Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition) (9780321637550): Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe: Books Goes pretty in depth into sharpening for different purposes - it supports the "Capture sharpening / Creative sharpening / Output sharpening" method, I learned from reading an article online somewhere along time ago...

[August1851]

First---thanks again y'all.
Regarding this whole issue--I'm assuming (a danger right there as Karen said) that like a musician training his or her ear, that seeing color is a gradual and learned skill/art/talent. Sooo, I'm still working on C major! My first camera and computer. Guess what I'm saying is--who knows how my colors are coming out at this point! that said, the iMac has an HP driver/software already in it and I'm finding that letting the printer manage the color works best---to me. BTW, haven't gotten to PS, I'm using Lightroom. The tweaking that I generally do is to move the brightness slider up 15 notches seems to approximate what I'm seeing on the screen. Sometimes to get a certain 'glow' I'm seeing on the screen, I work with the luminance sliders (you're probably cringing). The HP printer utility, as they call it, doesn't have any real controls for color management best I can tell so I do it in LR. The better HP paper comes in glossy and a soft gloss--a bumpy gloss. Among other things, I wasn't aware of bit depth, so I'll add that to the to do list.

@Karen and ravncat--I'm havin' more fun than I deserve since getting this camera back in June. Thanks for throwing a log on the fire!