[RockvilleBob]

If you are happy with their color corrected photo you may consider staying with that as once you start dealing with monitor calibration, ICC profiles, proofing with your monitor using the labs ICC profiles there are certain other things then color space you will need to insure you have and do to be able to get to the point that what you see on your monitor will print the reasonably the same as the labs output or even your own photo color printer and paper.

What I don't think has been mentioned is;

.....
It has been my experience some labs will also for the price of shipping send you proofs prior to printing allowing you the opportunity to make changes.

Thanks - maybe we've stood next to each other at Conowingo shooting eagles!

[Oldbayrunner]

Thanks - maybe we've stood next to each other at Conowingo shooting eagles!

LOL...Maybe ....if I'm there I'm either fishing for stripers close to the generators or up top snapping photos. Lots of both at Conowingo right now.

PS...Another excellent photo lab located in MD is Nations Photo Lab located in Hunt Valley. I use their online service.

[RockvilleBob]

A friend is suggesting ways to improve my color management. The more I read, the more I understand, and the more questions I have.

Here's one about monitors for editing:


How can you edit an Adobe RGB image on a monitor that only supports about 80% of the Adobe RGB color space? Monitors that come close to supporting ADOBE RGB cost over $1,000 with the NEC monitors being top rated. The next level down from ADOBR rgb monitors are those that support sRGB and they cost a couple hundred for a good one.

So I am trying to see how editing in Adobe RGB on a monitor that physically, regardless of what calibration and tweaks you do, only supports sRGB.

I feel I have a good monitor for the sRGB space. Rather than spend over $1,000 on a monitor to edit, in my case, a few picture for printing annually, I would prefer getting a better lens that is capable of getting me more images that I might consider printing.

All I can see is that by editing using Adobe RGB on a monitor only capable of sRGB gets you is a means to show what portions of the image will be lost using CTRL Y ( or another obscure set of Photoshop key commands) that highlights areas out of the color space.

I must be missing something, unless more people spend $1,000 on thier monitors, or is editing ADOBE rgb on a monitor only capable of sRGB just wishful thinking>

[Miguel]

I must be missing something

Nah, I think you have a pretty fair handle on the situation. 80% of AdobeRGB is acceptable for the range of work and functions you are doing. One could set up the same analogy with a wide-gamut monitor and the ProPhotoRGB color space: we are dancing with the theoretical and staying open to new technological advances that may let us perceive the whole color space one day.

Just like your purchasing a wide-gamut monitor. One day.

M

[rawr]

unless more people spend $1,000 on thier monitors

I just looked this up some of this hardware, out of curiosity.
Looks like expensive Eizo's and NEC's have some competition

LG COLOURPRIME (EA83) 27inch 2560x1080 IPS monitor ("sRGB 100%, Adobe RGB 99%").
"Grown frustrated with the colours of an image on your computer monitor being different from the actual colours on your DSLR camera?
LG IPS ColourPrime Monitor offers a definitive prime colour management solution with 99% coverage of Adobe RGB colour space and 10-bit colour depth performance - achieving 64 times better colour representation than conventional 8-bit monitors."
LG Premium IPS Monitors | LG Australia

In Australia, I can see prices for it starting at $670. Still expensive, but not astronomically so.

[philbaum]

I believe it to be sound logic to keep the image in as wide a gamut as possible before reducing it to sRGB for internet use or commercial prints.

The cameras i currently use, K5 and 2 Nex, give the option of shooting in sRGB or Adobe RGB. I keep all 3 cameras in Adobe RGB. If you search the Lightroom Help for color space information, it indicates that Lightroom Library module keeps files in Adobe. However, softproofing in the Develop module is prophoto. But they're both wide gamut color spaces. I use prophoto to send files to PS when necessary and it appears that when one uses the LR print module, thats in prophoto as well.

[RockvilleBob]

I believe it to be sound logic to keep the image in as wide a gamut as possible before reducing it to sRGB for internet use or commercial prints.

The cameras i currently use, K5 and 2 Nex, give the option of shooting in sRGB or Adobe RGB. I keep all 3 cameras in Adobe RGB. If you search the Lightroom Help for color space information, it indicates that Lightroom Library module keeps files in Adobe. However, softproofing in the Develop module is prophoto. But they're both wide gamut color spaces. I use prophoto to send files to PS when necessary and it appears that when one uses the LR print module, thats in prophoto as well.

Here's what I've concluded: I think I am using the largest color space available for capture (RAW) and for internal files storage (ProPhoto or Adobe RGB) but without a ADOBE RGB monitor ($1000 or more in the US) all adjustments I make by viewing the sRGB monitor are within the sRGB color space ( regardless of what I set in Photoshop) and, to further degrade matters, I then send the files out as jpeg files in sRGB to an sRJB printer ... I get back a good sRGB print. SO I have files stored on my NAS RAID drives ready to go with future monitor and printing technology but it is likely that most color management, image enhancements, image processing and printing are handles using sRGB as any other color space.
This leaves me in a real quandry with soft proofing. Why would I soft proof using ADOBE RGB on an SRGB monitor to send files out to a sRGB printer? This is where I feel that my friends who are encouraging me to soft proof using ADOBE RGB are fooling themselves unless they have an Adobe RGB monitor - they are making the edits and proofing in sRGB space - thier monitor! Added to that questionable next step you after soft profoing where you need to compress your ICC adjusted profile image into a sRGB JPEG file for the print lab to use on their sRGB printer.
SO even if you spend $1000 or more to get an ADOBE RGB monitor - what you get is prints from a jpeg file on an sRGB printer. I sense their confidence that edits are being performed in ADOBE RGB space, if they use a sRGB monitor, is delusional.
BOTTOM LINE - all the work we do with ADOBE RGB or ProPhoto is to preserve files for a time in the future at which time we can:
a) have a monitor that supports those color spaces
b) have the ability to send Photo Labs files in TIFF or PSD format (where they do not convert to jpeg prior to printing) and have prints made using a ADOBE RGB or ProPhoto Capable printer.
Actually the ideal would be a monitor and printer that fully supported OPEN EXR - along with printers capable of printing , say 90% of that color range.
But right now, once we've save the file using Adobe or ProPhoto I don't see why doing all subsequent work to get to a print is done in sRGB.

I must be wrong - there are a lot of photographer friends of mine who think my approach is severely flawed crazy.

[Miguel]

For the record Raw is not a color space. I'm curious about your specific monitor (which is. . .?) and whether it is calibrated and profiled with a hardware device? I think your reasoning makes sense; I only soft proof with the printer's paper profile. That means the same color space as their capabilities.

M

[maxfield_photo]

This leaves me in a real quandry with soft proofing. Why would I soft proof using ADOBE RGB on an SRGB monitor to send files out to a sRGB printer?

The answer is simple, and you've already figured it out; you shouldn't soft proof with AdobeRGB if you're sending the image to an sRGB device. I have a wide gamut photo monitor that has the ability to display most of AdobeRGB, and I still soft proof for web using sRGB. The who point of soft proofing is to see the images as it will be seen by the device being emulated. So when soft proofing for web select sRGB in as the device to be emulated, unless you're preparing it for display on a specific monitor (e.g. if an art gallery plans to display your image on an LCD). If you're preparing an image for printing though, you don't want to use sRGB, you want to use the specific ICC profile for the printer/ink/paper combination to be used (this will usually be smaller than sRGB, particularly on matte paper). That's why better photolabs offer their ICC profiles for download.

[RockvilleBob]

The answer is simple, and you've already figured it out; you shouldn't soft proof with AdobeRGB if you're sending the image to an sRGB device. I have a wide gamut photo monitor that has the ability to display most of AdobeRGB, and I still soft proof for web using sRGB. The who point of soft proofing is to see the images as it will be seen by the device being emulated. So when soft proofing for web select sRGB in as the device to be emulated, unless you're preparing it for display on a specific monitor (e.g. if an art gallery plans to display your image on an LCD). If you're preparing an image for printing though, you don't want to use sRGB, you want to use the specific ICC profile for the printer/ink/paper combination to be used (this will usually be smaller than sRGB, particularly on matte paper). That's why better photolabs offer their ICC profiles for download.

Thank you Maxfield - I am getting closer. For some reason I find this subject confusing.

The print labs I use supply thier ICC profiles but only use sRGB jpegs for printing. While one of them Bay Photo also lets you submit TIFF files - Bay Photo then converts them to sRGB jpegs - so why bother?
So am I correct: Soft Proof using their ICC and setting the color space to sRGB?

Sorry to keep asking questions that must seem dumb - but this seems overly complicated. I guess each piece of the pie from camera makers, to software makers to monitor makers, each want to out-spec each other with the ability to offer better color spaces BUT the final print product seems to be stuck in sRGB. So getting the result you expect from them seems to mean that the last step before printing, soft prof-roofing, should be performed in sRGB.

[Oldbayrunner]

Agreed you would want to proof in the color space and profile the labs print uses. Oddly enough an old CRT, outside of using an IPS monitor, will give you the truest color for soft proofing and printing but you are much better investing in an IPS one. It really doesn't have to be a $1000.00 one in today's marketplace.

Standard LCD monitors even when calibrated with a color calibration device will still be off from what will print the majority of time no matter what ICC profile you use for soft proofing. If you are serious about getting professional prints done or doing them yourself you need to invest in getting equipment that will do the right job otherwise you will waste a lot time, money and aggravation.

You spent money on getting equipment for you to seriously capture wonderful photos so if you seriously want to have them print the way you want them to be presented then you will need to spend some more on getting yourself what will do the job right.

[Miguel]

but this seems overly complicated.

Yes it is ridiculous and to me a sign of immaturity in digital photography.

each want to out-spec each other with the ability to offer better color spaces BUT the final print product seems to be stuck in sRGB

Not really. I think you are hung up on the categorization piece. Different spaces are appropriate for different output requirements, some of which are technical limitations, others economic. The issue is the kludgy nature of the output standardization process which we call color management. We are dealing with very real constraints among what we can see on a screen, what we can see on a print, and what we can see on a gamut visualization model.

One day the system should be able to self-calibrate and profile and give you the best output solution just by your hitting the power switch. Unfortunately this matters more to the very few of us who print, and that number is declining by the minute. sRGB, like, 192 bit rate MP3s, is good enough for most people and their wallets.

M

[philbaum]

I won't pretend to anyone that I have color management figured out, so i appreciate discussions like this that bit by bit, help to resolve my own confusion. Its a complex subject for sure.

I have an Epson R3000, 13", that I use to make small prints for selling in 2 local shops. Noone wants to be left with a bunch of unsold merchandise, so its forced me to pay more attention to colors than i would otherwise. Well i had this image of a factory's evening lights, reflected off seawater. On my laptop monitor, they clearly were yellow but my test prints came out with total red lights. Unfortunately the yellow lights would look much better in the scene. Some simple hue changes in LR were not sufficient to get me yellow lights so i tried different printer profiles available to me. None worked until i tried what was probably a monitor profile that was titled prophoto RGB. So when i tried that profile in my printer - presto, the test prints came out with yellow lights.

Doing all this chasing around, i came to the conclusion that one must know how their software is dealing with color management. Here for example is what LR says about how they treat it:

How Lightroom manages color

Lightroom primarily uses the Adobe RGB color space to display colors. The Adobe RGB gamut includes most of the colors that digital cameras can capture as well as some printable colors (cyans and blues, in particular) that can’t be defined using the smaller, web-friendly sRGB color space.

Lightroom uses Adobe RGB:
for previews in the Library, Map, Book, Slideshow, Print, and Web modules
when printing in Draft mode
in exported PDF slideshows and uploaded web galleries
when you send a book to Blurb.com (If you export books as PDF or JPEG from the Book module, however, you can choose sRGB or a different color profile.)
for photos uploaded to Facebook and other photo-sharing sites using the Publish Services panel

In the Develop module, by default Lightroom displays previews using the ProPhoto RGB color space.
ProPhoto RGB contains all of the colors that digital cameras can capture, making it an excellent choice for editing images. In the Develop module, you can also use the Soft Proofing panel to preview how color looks under various color-managed printing conditions.

So what it comes down to, LR does not give you an option, as far as i know, of what color spaces it works in, only when you export something or print to a device, does it give one the option of changing the color space.

My priority requirements are quite simple, when i see a yellow in the lights reflected off water, i want the print to also have a yellow color to it - not red :-) It was amazing to me that when i chose a printer profile that stated it was "prophoto", my monitor using LR data (which i learned was operating in prophoto RGB) actually agreed closely to my print. (And yes, i have color calibrated my laptop monitor, it was gratifying when i went to a professional printer recently for a larger print, his very expensive Dell monitor displayed my image in the same way my relatively cheap monitor did - calibration works :-))

My takeaway from this printing experience is that one cannot ignore how the pp software is programmed.

Bob, you statement that it doesn't matter if sRGB is used since the monitor is not a $1000 monitor, doesn't sound like the solution to me. I only paid $800 for this laptop, yet it does show me the difference between red and yellow lights.

[maxfield_photo]

There may be some advantage to submitting AdobeRGB or ProPhoto TIFFs because the photo lab most likely has a wide gamut monitor and can view the images in their full 16-bit glory, and therefore make educated decisions about color corrections. What they can't see, unfortunately, is the way the images look on your monitor, particularly if it isn't calibrated with an objective hardware colorimeter.

It's nice that Bay Photo even accepts 16 bit files, most places won't. So I'd say for their metal prints, that's the way to go. Prepare it for AdobeRGB, and let them do the color corrections. For traditional prints though, if you have a calibrated monitor, it's best to capture and work in a large color space, at least AdobeRGB, then soft proof with the photo lab's ICC profile, make any adjustments on a layer, and then export to sRGB with those changes. What you're doing is essentially translating the values you're seeing on your screen to the corresponding output values from the printer using the "common language" of sRGB.

Here's a great site that explains the whole theory behind color management.
Overview of Color Management

[MarkJerling]

Thanks for a very informative thread!!!