So why don't we just dial in sRGB

[3dogs]

...and have done with it once and for all??

 

[Roy Sletcher]

...and have done with it once and for all??

As I understand it you do just that when you CONVERT (not assign) the sRGB colour space to your image.

Of course the only part of the equation truly under your own control is your own computer system. When you send your carefully carefully prepped file, who knows what it looks like.

All you can be sure of is that on a properly and profiled system it will look the same as on your properly calibrated and profiled system (Hopefully )

One of the advantages of the printed image - NO INTERPRETATION ISSUES - "It is what you see" but with the attendant problems of conveying it to all the desired recipients.

Oh well - we didn't promise you a rose garden

RS

 

[Emulator]

Making your whole process sRGB should work well, probably better than letting the various elements (Camera, Display, Printer, etc.) use their own setting and then reduce the result at the printing stage.

 

[3dogs]

Making your whole process sRGB should work well, probably better than letting the various elements (Camera, Display, Printer, etc.) use their own setting and then reduce the result at the printing stage.

See post #12 by @stratman in the Gamutvision thread........the link to Ken Rockwell.

I have to say it really resonates for me, almost a game changer. I suspect there are others that may feel the same that is why I started this thread, I'd certainly like to explore the subject as I am a bit between jobs as it were with my photography at this time. I have not been out with the camera actively seeking creative stock to work on.

 

[RogerB]

See post #12 by @stratman in the Gamutvision thread........the link to Ken Rockwell.

I have to say it really resonates for me, almost a game changer. I suspect there are others that may feel the same that is why I started this thread, I'd certainly like to explore the subject as I am a bit between jobs as it were with my photography at this time. I have not been out with the camera actively seeking creative stock to work on.

I think a lot of people see Ken Rockwell as a bit of a photographic "shock-jock" - lots of strongly expressed opinions, but not necessarily a great depth of knowledge. As you're between jobs you may have time to listen to a different view on choice of colour space for printing. Andrew Rodney (a.k.a. Digital Dog) has a video tutorial on this subject and he maintains that working in, and printing from, ProPhotoRGB gives better results than sRGB. Part 1 explains why (he thinks) it's better and Part 2 explains how to try it for yourself.

http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov

Whatever you decide, you can be certain that if you use sRGB from camera to print you will lose out on greens/cyans and even a bit in the red/orange/yellow. You won't lose much on a typical matte paper, but you lose green/cyan big time on glossy. Whether it matters to you is purely your decision.

 

[3dogs]

I think a lot of people see Ken Rockwell as a bit of a photographic "shock-jock" - lots of strongly expressed opinions, but not necessarily a great depth of knowledge. As you're between jobs you may have time to listen to a different view on choice of colour space for printing. Andrew Rodney (a.k.a. Digital Dog) has a video tutorial on this subject and he maintains that working in, and printing from, ProPhotoRGB gives better results that sRGB. Part 1 explains why (he thinks) it's better and Part 2 explains how to try it for yourself.

http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov

Whatever you decide, you can be certain that if you use sRGB from camera to print you will lose out on greens/cyans and even a bit in the red/orange/yellow. You won't lose much on a typical matte paper, but you lose green/cyan big time on glossy. Whether it matters to you is purely your decision.

Being between jobs in the sense that I have not had the camera out and active for a while and not sure when next I will get out, AND in the midst of setting up a new computer. Bought it last year and had Samsung 850 PRO set up as mirror pair so now (finally) getting around to loading all the 3rd party programmes......
Still the same workplace, still the same hours...its now 1:35am and I just got up, mind too active,
I have this awful feeling that once again the chosen colour space is going to come down to following my own instinct, as perhaps we all have to, on the colour thing, be nice if just for once something was clearcut!! Thanks fpr the link I'll follow it and stir the ol mind a bit further....
I am not a fan of glossy. To me it is like looking at a picture through a pane of glass upon which there is reflection, its irritating, I want to see the print.......so I preference matte finishes.....and that is counter to most for a start I guess

 

[Ink stained Fingers]

There is a quick test whether your monitor can do more than sRGB

http://www.colormanagement.org/download_files/Gamutvisualisierung.zip

it's in German, it's simple - the blueish background has vertical stripes in colors beyond sRGB,
if you clearly see them in the top image, the monitor has the widest gamut, if you don't see them
in image 3 at the bottom, your monitor/display is not well suited for photo editing. You may
open the image and reduce the overall color saturation in your photo editor showing what they
have done.

 

[Roy Sletcher]

Making your whole process sRGB should work well, probably better than letting the various elements (Camera, Display, Printer, etc.) use their own setting and then reduce the result at the printing stage.

Correct - But at what price!

sRGB being the smallest or least saturated available colour space. And that is with the reputed 16 million plus colours.

It really is the lowest common denominator of colour reproduction, albeit easy to use. Your choice.


RS

PS - Don't take the words of Ken Rockwell too seriously - Not for me to malign the fellow - just follow up on some of the fora he participates in.

 

[Emulator]

It all depends on the quality of the printed output, the3880 is above average. Looking at the test pieces my monitor is limited to sRGB, as is also shown by DispCalGUI in the monitor profiling info panel. The 9000II printer is not much better than sRGB looking at Gamutvision, noticeably less than the3880. ProPhoto is significantly beyond the capabilities of either.

Strangely, of the two images in the ProPhotoRGB demo the righthand one had noticeably more detail than the lefthand one, which should not have been the case!

 

[RogerB]

It all depends on the quality of the printed output, the3880 is above average. Looking at the test pieces my monitor is limited to sRGB, as is also shown by DispCalGUI in the monitor profiling info panel. The 9000II printer is not much better than sRGB looking at Gamutvision, noticeably less than the3880. ProPhoto is significantly beyond the capabilities of either.

Strangely, of the two images in the ProPhotoRGB demo the righthand one had noticeably more detail than the lefthand one, which should not have been the case!

I'm surprised that the 9000II is so bad. Virtually every (valid ) inkjet profile that I have generated over the years has exceeded sRGB in the green/cyan, and very often in the yellow/red too; and that even includes a lot of profiles for printable CD's, which are not the best media available!

AS for the comparison of the images in the video, I think you need to do the test yourself. I agree that in the video the background of the fishes appears to have more detail in the sRGB image. I don't know why this is, but I suspect is to do with the way the composite image is converted to sRGB. In my tests the reverse is the case. Here's a scan of two prints from my 3880. The LH one is ProPhotoRGB and the RH is sRGB. That's what I see, but I suggest you try it yourself on your 9000II. You may be surprised.