Need help: color spaces & color management workflow

[Colin Southern]

I'm happy to report that even though I don't have my monitor calibrator (Sypder or Display2) yet, I successfully ordered prints online and they came out very close to how they looked on my monitor when I used the remote printer's ICC and adjusted accordingly .

Great that you got a good result ... but ... you should only use the remote printers profile for soft-proofing - it's not used as a display / monitor profile (it's designed to describe the characteristics of the printer not your monitor).

Hope this helps

[Davey]

I guess I will look into lab spaces then as sounds ideal for processing thanks On the note about printer profiles I notice what I see is what I get out of my printer, even in wide spaces including super reds in an aRGB (tagged in camera) jpeg (from someone elses camera). The red really did turn out just as it looked. My screen isn't hardware calibrated (like spyder) but has software generated profiles (various based on my eyes for different lighting. ie desklamp on at night, dawn no lamp etc etc). Monitor set to sRGB mode (internal menu), OS set to manage profiles accordingly, PS set to manage colours and printer driver settings to obey ICM from apps and not driver or printer side settings.

I have the device profiles for printer and monitor and use them, but not as a working space, is this correct? I got the impression they are just the profiles for correct device communications. Ie. with monitor profile when PS and OS etc all set and I'm working in sRGB then it ensures an exact shade of a colour is intrepreted as the same exact shade during the communication between comp and printer. I think of the device profile as a translation guide if you like to allow software to know how to communicate perfectly. Eg in a simplified analogy (which isn't perfect) if 2 people have a list of items it's like making sure that all 100 items on a list are not only the same items but assigned the same number so when someone says pass me item 62 they actual get what they expected. Same with printer, software sends [exact shade red] to printer and printer profile lets it know that [this number colour in sRGB space] is [this number colour in printer on this medium]. Likewise manufacturers monitor profile is set to translate numbers from sRGB environment to look correct.

I am unsure if this is true, it's half my assumptions and half question. I'm assuming it's correct since wisiwig. It would be nice to know if this is completely wrong but doesn't really matter since what I see is what I get out my printer so is irrelevant from one point of view.

[Colin Southern]

[quote=Davey;9957]I guess I will look into lab spaces then as sounds ideal for processing thanks

Hi Davey,

As per standard practice in the internet world there are some who will argue black and blue against it (as others argue about the earth being round). If you're keen then THE reference text - BARR NONE - is ...

http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-LAB-...7939231&sr=8-1

I have it and can thoroughly recommend it as the ONLY book on LAB colour that anyone will ever need.

On the note about printer profiles I notice what I see is what I get out of my printer, even in wide spaces including super reds in an aRGB (tagged in camera) jpeg (from someone elses camera). The red really did turn out just as it looked.

Actual results will depend on a number of things - the gamut of the monitor - the gamut of the printer - actual brightness of the colour involved (ties in with the first two things, but is a variable under your control none the less) - and lastly your ability to differentiate colours. All in all though - if it's working well for what you want then "job done!"

My screen isn't hardware calibrated (like spyder) but has software generated profiles (various based on my eyes for different lighting. ie desklamp on at night, dawn no lamp etc etc). Monitor set to sRGB mode (internal menu), OS set to manage profiles accordingly, PS set to manage colours and printer driver settings to obey ICM from apps and not driver or printer side settings.

Sounds fine for what you want. At the end of the day, sRGB is a standard - so if the camera is set to record in sRGB - the monitor is set to display sRGB - and the printer is capable of at least an sRGB "gamut" then in theory things should be pretty close (not withstanding secondary issues like the colour of the walls - ambient lighting - levels issues in the monitor).

I have the device profiles for printer and monitor and use them, but not as a working space, is this correct?

Alla profile really does is "standardise" the information for that device. Display profiles are used by the operating system (you don't do anything in Photoshop with them) - and printer / media profiles are used when you print. About the only "complication" is when you're soft-proofing at which point the output that would have been sent to the printer is re-routed back to the screen (where it's again converted by the display profile) -- has it's uses, but only up to a certain point.

While you're ordering your LAB colour book, grab another which is the industry standard text on colour management ...

http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Col...7942088&sr=1-1

It's absolutely indispensible.

Does this andwer your questions?

[Davey]

yeah thank you. Bookmarked those books an will have a look, the second I've seen pop up around the place here and elsewhere quite a bit so I think that will be something I'd take a look at first. Lab seems like it's worth digging into. There are always pros and cons so even if some swear against it as much as others by it i find the best way is trying it and seeing if it works for me.

[Colin Southern]

The Real Wold book is part of a series (others on RAW and sharpening) - all very good stuff. They can exercise your brain muscle a bit more than you'd like, but the knowledge gained is a fantastic foundation.

I'll make you a deal - you buy the book and if you don't think it's good value for money I'll buy if from you for what you paid for it - and pay for postage - so there you go - a money back guarantee (and I don't even sell the book!).

[Davey]

Unsure if that's a joke hehehe but I could never agree to that but it's good to hear you think it's worth reading that much, that's good enough for me. I'd prefer too detailed than not detailed enough since if I don't pick it all up the first pass then after learning some more I can go back, I've read too many books which don't give you enough or can read in 1 sitting and digest everything. I prefer something substantial so taxing is good if
(that makes sense). I think I know enough about raw for my purposes (not tons but enough), now sharpening on the other hand I know not nearly enough so might look that one up too.

Pity they don't do a compilation volume, a single volume one I mean. I guess size would be a factor and it makes more sense to sell individual cheaper books than 1 expensive large volume that might have too much detail on other subjects people don't want to read about.

[Colin Southern]

Hi Davey,

No - I'm serious (if you didn't want it then I'd give it away as part of the CiC challenge!).

If your into books then the LAB Colour one - RWCM, RWCR, and RWIS (Real World ... X X series) + Light: Science and Magic are about the most powerful set of books you could ever hope to purchase on the technical sides of image processing (and lighting). The Camera Raw book is available in CS2, CS3, and CS4 versions - I'll guarantee it could make your head spin too