Monitor Color Space vs. Photoshop Color Space

[DanK]

Sorry, George. You can rightly criticize me for sloppy language in that post, but you can't use it to support your argument with Manfred.

I was using shorthand. To be more precise, I should have written something like "a good printer can produce colors outside of the sRGB gamut". It is definitely not the case that a printer has a single gamut. In much the same way, when one writes about a "wide gamut monitor," one is usually not referring to a monitor that can produce only a single gamut. My NEC arrived with something like 5 gamuts already pre-loaded, and one can create additional ones. Rather, one is referring to the widest gamut it can produce.

In the case of printers, this is quite obvious, even if one holds constant the inks that one uses. I have printed with more papers than I can recall--probably more than 25--and while the differences in gamut are often small, they are sometimes quite striking. For example, as Manfred noted, a given printer will generally produce a narrower gamut with most matte papers than with most coated papers.

The reason I recently bought a wide gamut monitor was to be able to better visualize what a print will look like while editing; my new monitor censors less of the color distribution that my printer can produce. As Manfred pointed out, that doesn't entirely solve the problem; the print is reflective, so it will look different even if there is no issue with gamut boundaries. However, it comes closer. The drawback is that it is less accurate in displaying what people will see with the much more common sRGB-limited monitors. However, I can simply touch a control on the face of the monitor to limit the gamut to sRGB to see what others will see.

[george013]

George you continue to comment on aspects of photography that you have an incomplete knowledge of. When someone points out the errors in what you have said you come out and attack the response instead of learning about a subject that you have limited knowledge about. Normally when one quotes someone else's comments, we either put show a quote box or reference what they have written using quotation marks. Dan knows printing and does a fair bit of it. Do you have any significant experience in making photo quality ink jet prints?

There are a number of processes used to create high quality digital photographic prints; chromogenic, dye sublimation, digital offset and inkjet. For high quality prints, especially for people that do their own, the preferred process is an ink jet photo printer. The rest of the processes are largely confined to industrial scale operations with the exception of dye sublimation where both Canon and FujiFilm make small printers for home use.

There are two key variables that impact the gamut of a print. The printer (and associated ink set used) and the print medium (usually paper). Let's look at both of these to understand why one has to look at both of these when discussing the gamut of a print.

1. The printer - has a significant impact on gamut it can reproduce. Dye based inks tend to have a wider gamut than pigment based inks (but they bleed more and have a lower longevity than pigment based inks). The number of colours that a printer uses, generally defined as the number of ink cartridges also influence the gamut; more colours give a wider gamut. Consumer quality printers will deposit four colours (cyan, magenta, yellow and black) whereas higher end photo printers will have 6, 9 and up to 12 specific colour cartridges. People will use OEM (original equipment manufacturer) ink sets or might buy third party inks (for instance by using a continuous feed printer) which will produce a different gamut. A few other factors like dot size also play a role here.

2. Paper is the other variable. When we have a print, we are viewing it under reflected light conditions which is controlled by the print substrate quality and surface finish. In general, we print on paper, but other materials like metal, resin or canvas can also be used. Paper surfaces have different finishes. In general a matte paper scatters the reflected light more and will have a lower gamut than a lustre or glossy finish. The specific surface finish as well as paper components affect how the colours are reflected. The inclusion of optical brightening agents (OBA) affect the colour and quality of the light that is reflected and hence also the gamut.

If you look at any specific photo quality paper and photo quality ink jet printer, the paper manufacturer will provide specific ICC profiles which allow the printer or print software to adjust for paper characteristics and reproduce the colours in the image accurately. A print on a baryta paper with a lustre finish will have a totally different gamut than a rag based paper with a matte finish. This will be obvious to even a casual observer, not just an expert.

Your writing

The only issue is that the print and the screen might not show the same image if the gamut of the paper is wider than the screen gamut.

That's pure nonsens. Replace the word paper for printer and see the print as a result of the printer, with all of its components, then we're there at the same point.
This thread is not about what is the best print technique, it's about the use of different color spaces.

George

[Abitconfused]

There certainly are a lot of variables to consider in the production of a quality print. I suppose the journey should be as rewarding as the destination. It’s a quest really, the hero’s journey, or as the coach said, “If you love something, you love the process as much as the product.” No wonder my book couldn’t put it into words a novice like myself could readily grasp. In the end it’s personal, isn’t it. When I get it “right” it’s right for me. Then I am insufferably proud of myself and languish in my own self praise. Ah, the joy of pride, however fleeting, however vain, I hope to see you there too! Then we can all love life and one another, for a moment or until someone turns on the world news.

[george013]

Sorry, George. You can rightly criticize me for sloppy language in that post, but you can't use it to support your argument with Manfred.

I was using shorthand. To be more precise, I should have written something like "a good printer can produce colors outside of the sRGB gamut". It is definitely not the case that a printer has a single gamut. In much the same way, when one writes about a "wide gamut monitor," one is usually not referring to a monitor that can produce only a single gamut. My NEC arrived with something like 5 gamuts already pre-loaded, and one can create additional ones. Rather, one is referring to the widest gamut it can produce.

In the case of printers, this is quite obvious, even if one holds constant the inks that one uses. I have printed with more papers than I can recall--probably more than 25--and while the differences in gamut are often small, they are sometimes quite striking. For example, as Manfred noted, a given printer will generally produce a narrower gamut with most matte papers than with most coated papers.

The reason I recently bought a wide gamut monitor was to be able to better visualize what a print will look like while editing; my new monitor censors less of the color distribution that my printer can produce. As Manfred pointed out, that doesn't entirely solve the problem; the print is reflective, so it will look different even if there is no issue with gamut boundaries. However, it comes closer. The drawback is that it is less accurate in displaying what people will see with the much more common sRGB-limited monitors. However, I can simply touch a control on the face of the monitor to limit the gamut to sRGB to see what others will see.

I don't criticize you for sloppy language. It's Manfred that criticizes me for using that same "sloppy language" as you did use while he's writing complete nonsense: gamut of paper.

Off topic. A wide gamut monitor is a monitor that can produce a wider range of colors. It's not a must that all that colors has to be used. I don't see what is so difficult to show a smaller part, a narrower gamut. Gamut is a range of colors, and a color is an analogue subject. That's what your screen can handle.

George

[xpatUSA]

Your writing:

"The only issue is that the print and the screen might not show the same image if the gamut of the paper is wider than the screen gamut. "

That's pure nonsense.

That's rude and un-called for.

Replace the word paper for printer and see the print as a result of the printer, with all of its components, then we're there at the same point.
George

This from the same gentlemen that uses Afrikaans for "fence" or "palisade" to mean monitor screen on his infamously invariant diagram and refuses to correct it. LOL

[xpatUSA]

Off topic. A wide gamut monitor is a monitor that can produce a wider range of colors. It's not a must that all that colors has to be used.

There's a saying here "If you hadn't of told me that, I would never have known".

I don't see what is so difficult to show a smaller part, a narrower gamut.

Did someone tell you that in this thread?

Gamut is a range of colors, and a color is an analogue subject. That's what your screen can handle.

If you hadn't of told me that, I would never have known.

What are you trying to say?

[Manfred M]

There certainly are a lot of variables to consider in the production of a quality print. I suppose the journey should be as rewarding as the destination. It’s a quest really, the hero’s journey, or as the coach said, “If you love something, you love the process as much as the product.” No wonder my book couldn’t put it into words a novice like myself could readily grasp. In the end it’s personal, isn’t it. When I get it “right” it’s right for me. Then I am insufferably proud of myself and languish in my own self praise. Ah, the joy of pride, however fleeting, however vain, I hope to see you there too! Then we can all love life and one another, for a moment or until someone turns on the world news.

I think you have summed things up quite well.

You have to define what you are looking for in a print and if it is good enough for you, then who are we to argue? If you are making a print for someone else and they are happy with it, also great. If they are not, then it is time to start figuring out what the difference in expectations is and how to eliminate the gap.

We also have different expectations based on the perceived abilities of the printer. If I send my image off to be printed by a local retail printer and I pay a few dollars for it, I will have different quality expectations than if I go to a local custom printer. There I might pay about 5 or 10 times as much as I would at the retail printer, but would expect a higher quality print. Same thing if I went to one of the "master printers" around town. Again, I would expect to pay about 5 to 10 times more than for the custom printer and would expect an even higher level of quality. If I can't see the difference in quality between the retail printer, the custom print shop or the master printer, why would I spend the money for what people tell me is a higher quality print?

The second part is what I had mentioned in previous postings, as you become a more experienced printer, your quality will improve, just as your image making quality will improve if you work on that aspect of your photography.

[Astro]

That's pure nonsens. Replace the word paper for printer and see the print as a result of the printer, with all of its components, then we're there at the same point.
This thread is not about what is the best print technique, it's about the use of different color spaces.

Sorry, George,
I can't follow or agree with your comments here. Like Dan and Manfred, I print a lot. I often argue that an image is not finished (for me) until it is printed..... OOPS .... I do NOT want to start another side issue within thread!

Manfred and Dan's comments are accurate/correct.

If you are going to talk about 'gamut' in respect of printing, strictly you need to talk about papers for printer. All papers have a 'unique' gamut which is specific to different printer/inkset combos (hence the need for specific ICC profiles)

I generate my own profiles for my favourite paper types and they are 'dependent on specific inksets (OEM and non OEM), and on the printer I use.
The variables needing 'reconciliation' during the profiling process relate to the way ink and paper 'interact' for the specific printer which is why I create my own profiles.
As Manfred has pointed out already, changing from matte to a lustre or a gloss paper with the same inkset/printer creates significant changes in colour/vibrance etc....

The printer itself has no 'native' gamut, but the paper as the final target for the image does since it is the end of the line in producing the image.

One other point I would make (I am assuming you do little or no printing), is that printing is in itself a craft/stage beyond that of displaying an image on the screen, which as Manfred pointed out is a transmitted light system.
There are many more possibilities for presenting an image via print which are directly related to the variable nature of the various papers available. Significantly though, the image on paper, generated through a subtractive light process, in IMO cannot be equivalenced in a simple fashion to the screen version.

Back in the day,, (60's in my case) when I became interested in photography, I had no choice but to 'visualise' my images directly from a negative to a positive via a test print process. This has not really changed with the move to digital because at the end of the day no monitor reliant on a transmitted light source can faithfully (100%) mimic how an image will look when displayed on a medium which works through a subtractive process.

[Manfred M]

Your writing


That's pure nonsens. Replace the word paper for printer and see the print as a result of the printer, with all of its components, then we're there at the same point.
This thread is not about what is the best print technique, it's about the use of different color spaces.

George

George - one cannot write about printers without discussing the paper (or print medium) as it has a very significant impact on the final product. Both the printer and ink set PLUS the paper being used impact the print. I don't understand why you would think that this combination of equipment and consumable supplies does not have a gamut.

I agree, we are not writing about the printing technique, but are discussing how print output is impacted by the colour space used in the image file and the gamut of the computer screen being used to create the print. All of the items that have been discussed are relevant to that.

I agree with what James and Dan have written. Both have a very good understanding of the ink jet printing process. Based on what you have written, I am fairly certain that you have very limited experience in creating high quality prints.

[Manfred M]

I don't criticize you for sloppy language. It's Manfred that criticizes me for using that same "sloppy language" as you did use while he's writing complete nonsense: gamut of paper.

George, I am not criticizing you for "sloppy language". I am commenting on your lack of understanding of the process required to create a good quality print. I have also not suggested a "gamut of paper". I have written that a specific printer / ink set in combination of a specific paper will have a specific gamut. A printer sitting there does not have a gamut. The output of that printer on a specific print medium, whether that is paper, metal, plastic or canvas does.

Off topic. A wide gamut monitor is a monitor that can produce a wider range of colors. It's not a must that all that colors has to be used. I don't see what is so difficult to show a smaller part, a narrower gamut. Gamut is a range of colors, and a color is an analogue subject. That's what your screen can handle.

George

I agree that a wide gamut screen is not a must for most users, especially those that generally only post their image on the internet as sRGB images.

A person that prints will benefit from a wider gamut screen as colours as decent colour printers will easily exceed the colours that can be displayed with an sRGB compliant screen. It is important to remember that an sRGB screen accurately reproduces around 1/3 of the colours that humans can see while the Adobe RGB compliant one can reproduce about half of the colours humans can see, especially the saturated blues and greens. In fact, if you look at the images I showed in #7, a decent photo inkjet printer can accurately reproduce colours that are well into the ProPhoto RGB colour space.

Have have used both sRGB and AdobeRGB screens to prepare prints and I find I by far prefer working with a wide gamut screen.

[george013]

This discussion wasn't meant on "how to print best", but the use of different color gamuts. Starting with some unreliable quotes from an unknown book.
I was the first one using the "printer gamut" in reaction of

OK, I read the applicable part of the book again and the author seems to be saying that when photographs use an sRGB monitor they make editing changes based upon sRGB information which then results in a less than optimal print. Whereas, if the photographer was using an Adobe RGB capable monitor better image editing choices would be apparent resulting in a higher quality print. Does this ring true?

answering with

Besides what a "higher quality print" is,this is also depending on the gamut of the printer. It's easier to go from a wide gamut to a narrower, the other way is more difficult.

George

Pfff....

George

[DanK]

I think the OP’s question has been answered. Is it perhaps time to close this thread?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[xpatUSA]

I think the OP’s question has been answered. Is it perhaps time to close this thread?

Agreed, Dan!

[stevejayd]

I print test prints before I print a large final one. The main issue I have are subtle color difference, usually adjusted by changing the brightness of the print setting. I don't think my monitor is being calibrated accurately. I use the color munki.

[Polar01]

Steve you might find 2 articles on Luminous Landscape that I found helped me greatly. There is a catch it is a paid membership, cost is $12.00 US a year. The articles are by Christopher Schneiter, titled Beyond Calibration and beyond Calibration 2. They really helped me to better understand what you sometimes need to do to get just the perfect look that you are wanting.
Another is a set of videos called Shooting with the Masters-Charles Cramer. It is way more than shooting as Cramer is a master printer in his own rights with him explaining a number of tips and items to look for.
Well worth the $12.00 just the price of depending where you are just 3 cups of coffee for a years worth of info.

Cheers: Allan