Photoshop Color Space Questions

[jbushee]

Recently started doing more in Photoshop, and got a Spyder Express to profile my display, so it would be neutralized, and I would be safer doing any color adjustments. I also changed Photoshop to use US Prepress Adobe 1998.

I did this because I'd read somewhere that this would give me a wider gamut than the default General Purpose sRGB.

1- Did I read correctly, is this a better choice for printed work?

and

2- I now receive prompts about the embedded profiles in my images, because I wasn't sure whether to keep the embedded profile or change to the new profile. Any preference, and why?

Thanks

 

[jbushee]

I found a post from Garbz that seems to have answered my second question for me:

The important other option is that colour management policies should "preserve embedded profiles". Colour conversion is a lossy and approximate process at best, the less you do it the higher your chances of having an image free of colour branding and posterisation.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1369259&postcount=2


Also seems to indicate that for home printing or online ordering from Picasa or Shutterfly, maybe going to Adobe 1998 wasn't really necessary...

thanks

 

[Garbz]

If you feel like a bit of heavier reading, have a look at my thread here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137068

I am of the opinion that colour management is generally not necessary because of the headaches it introduces and the very minor gain you achieve if you do it correctly. Even in nature the photographs you take are very unlikely to fall outside of the sRGB spectrum, and if you do, reproducing them is difficult, processing them is equally difficult if you don't have a screen which can display the entire gamut.

Btw I'm highly impressed that someone used the search function on this forum

 

[jbushee]

That was a bit deep, but I think I got the gist. Can't edit what you can't see, so the best approach for me, the hobbyist, is to be sure I'm looking at a calibrated monitor before doing my editing and keep the embedded profiles in the original images.

 

[SilverGlow]

If you feel like a bit of heavier reading, have a look at my thread here: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=137068

I am of the opinion that colour management is generally not necessary because of the headaches it introduces and the very minor gain you achieve if you do it correctly. Even in nature the photographs you take are very unlikely to fall outside of the sRGB spectrum, and if you do, reproducing them is difficult, processing them is equally difficult if you don't have a screen which can display the entire gamut.

Btw I'm highly impressed that someone used the search function on this forum

Really?

I beleive there is nothing more important then color management in regard to digital photography. If you don't color manage, only god knows what effect your post processing will be. This issue has less to do with falling outside of a color space's spectrum, and more about proper tone mapping. And even if you had a screen that could display a particular color space's gamut in it's entirety, that alone would not be sufficient if the monitor is not calibrated.

Color management is not a headache if one knows what one is doing. But if one does not, or refuses to calibrate their monitor and/or printer, then one will have a lot of headaches.

To the OP: continue looking into calibration for your screen and printer as required. You will find that the results can be substantial, and there is nothing more important then stabilizing one's equipment in regard to color. It's easy to do too.

 

[Helen B]

... Even in nature the photographs you take are very unlikely to fall outside of the sRGB spectrum, and if you do, reproducing them is difficult, processing them is equally difficult if you don't have a screen which can display the entire gamut.

It's quite common for landscape photos to have colours that fall outside the sRGB gamut but within the gamut of inkjet printers. Here's a thread discussing gamuts.

Best,
Helen

 

[Garbz]

SilverGlow I agree with that mostly. I 100% agree everyone on this forum should have a calibrator and learn to use it. I'm just saying that there is a law of diminishing returns.
Calibration is a huge step, learning to soft proof another huge step, but in my experience even with artificially saturated images, the out of gamut colours are probably the least limiting aspect of photography in my experience.

You can achieve truly wonderful results without ever leaving the sRGB space. And the returns diminish further for the 99% of the members here who don't print their images. Don't get me wrong any perfectionist would no doubt jump right into it, but colour management has quite a learning curve to learn to do it right, and requires effort to reap the rewards (i.e. not just show the pictures on the screen)

I'm just tailoring the argument to the audience. I would suggest colour management to the entire forum if it weren't for the fact that a large portion of the people here can't even see the benefits of shooting RAW citing all sorts of reasons (normally with regards to effort) which make me think that even hitting one extra button in their lack of workflow would cause their brains to melt

 

[jbushee]

I think I got what I needed, for the time being at least.

To the OP: continue looking into calibration for your screen and printer as required. You will find that the results can be substantial, and there is nothing more important then stabilizing one's equipment in regard to color. It's easy to do too.

I do calibrate my display monthly, so I should be looking at a fairly accurate representation of the image, at least. The printer is another issue. I have an inexpensive Photosmart 77XX printer. No profiles seem to be available from HP for the various papers, and a tool to profile the printer seems to be pretty pricey for me at this point.

I'm just tailoring the argument to the audience. I would suggest colour management to the entire forum if it weren't for the fact that a large portion of the people here can't even see the benefits of shooting RAW citing all sorts of reasons (normally with regards to effort) which make me think that even hitting one extra button in their lack of workflow would cause their brains to melt

RAW is not really much extra work. I'm not a huge Photoshop expert, although I have been using it a while, but I especially find the White Balance and Exposure sdjustments well worth the extra hard drive space. Granted you can use Camera RAW on JPG files, but there aren't as many options available. I shoot RAW + JPG, because I back up to a portable drive and take it with me, and not every computer I use can access the RAW files...

 

[Garbz]

jbushee for the photos you really love I suggest seeking out some professional printing service. I don't print at home for the same reason (cost), but the pro shops can provide you with profiles so you can do proper soft proofing and reap all the rewards of your hard work.

I wasn't implying that you weren't up to the task. How can I, I don't know you yet . Just jump into the Beyond the Basics forum. There's a thread right now going on about RAW not seeming to be worth the effort. That's the number one reason I don't openly recommend a wide gamut colour managed workflow. Proper RAW editing have a much higher effort:result ratio than properly working in AdobeRGB or some other space, yet a large number of people aren't even willing to do that

If you want to dive in deeper. Master soft-proofing. Without knowing how to properly soft proof images any gains you get in colour gamut size will be lost in not knowing how they will be printed.
http://homepage.mac.com/ilyons/pdf/ps6_sp.pdf there's a crash course.

 

[ksmattfish]

I was a big fan of the all sRGB workflow. That's what my monitors were closer to, and what the labs I work with want. I normally order C-prints.

Then I got Lightroom 2, and Adobe forces me to work in ProPhoto RGB. It's not a big deal, but I was happy with sRGB, and Adobe's "simplification of color management" as they put it, actually adds the extra step of converting to sRGB at the end of my workflow.

I can understand the advantages of other color spaces for other kinds of output, but since all C-print machines are sRGB there is no advantage for me.

 

[jbushee]

I wasn't implying that you weren't up to the task..

No sweat, I'm not that thin skinned

I know I could do more than I currently do with RAW, but I figure that by shooting RAW, I will at least have more options available to me as my skills grow, and will have the ability to revisit those images and do more with them than if I'd shot only JPG.

If you want to dive in deeper. Master soft-proofing. Without knowing how to properly soft proof images any gains you get in colour gamut size will be lost in not knowing how they will be printed.
http://homepage.mac.com/ilyons/pdf/ps6_sp.pdf there's a crash course.

That's an area I haven't gotten to yet, and I certainly will be working on. I currently do small prints for myself at home. They come out acceptable, although I sometimes have to tweak brightness etc. and reprint, to get what I want.

I have used Shutterfly and other online print services for larger prints, but not used any real premium print services. If I someday were to have a customer , I would certainly do things differently, but hey, that's on down the line (hopefully)

 

[Garbz]

Then I got Lightroom 2

You should go to AdobeLabs' website and read up on how the Lightroom colour management works internally. It's enough to give anyone a headache :er:

I have mine set to simply export everything in sRGB.

 

[danjchau]

-------------