Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #502 - 13 msgs
Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #502 - 13 msgs
- Subject: Re: colorsync-users digest, Vol 2 #502 - 13 msgs
- From: jeffstev <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 14:08:25 -0400
Rob Gailbraith wrote:
It would seem that I'm getting closer to what Nikon colour scientists
intended by calibrating to a Gamma of 2.2 on my Mac. Most of what I've
read,
including my bible, Real World Photoshop 6, suggests that a Gamma of 1.8
is
right for this platform, because it's the native Gamma of the Mac (what
that
actually means I'm not sure).
It would seem that I'm getting close to colour that I prefer, and colour
that I imagine that the Nikon colour scientists would prefer too, by
viewing
the photo in Monitor RGB, without any conversion of the D1X photo on
opening
into Photoshop.
Given all this, what do the colour experts on this list think is the
best
way to view Nikon D1X photos so that I'm seeing what Nikon colour
scientists
saw when preparing the colour mapping for this camera?
If this happens to be Monitor RGB and a Gamma of 2.2, what problems am I
causing when I switch mindsets, from wanting to set up the Mac to
evaluate
my photos' colour, exposure, etc, to wanting to proof and print them in
a
fully colour-managed workflow?
Am I making any fundamental mistakes here that are sending me down the
garden path to colour hell?
FYI, I've calibrated my two 17 inch Apple Studio Displays with the
ColorVision Monitor Spyder and Optical software. All of the above
assessments are based on viewing 100+ photos on both monitors (connected
to
different Macs) from within Photoshop 6.01. I've done this testing with
OS
9.2.1, Colorsync 3.04.
Another FYI, in case this helps: With my monitor set to 6500K and a
Gamma of
1.8, switching between Monitor RGB and ColorMatch RGB produces only the
tiniest of on-screen differences.
1. You'll never know what anybody else saw or wants, since that is
subjective. You should particularly not be concerned with what the Nikon
designers "saw", as they probably saw nothing but a chart of numbers.
You want to see all of what the camera is capable of seeing, and then be
able to work with that information.What you can and should do is profile
the camera to obtain a measurement of it's color space; that will then
allow you to obtain what YOU see and want. With that profile attached to
your files, a properly configured Photoshop 6 with a good monitor
profile will show no difference between viewing the image in Colormatch
or Adobe 98, etc. On-the-fly conversion in PS will display your file
"neutrally" in whatever color space you choose.
2. sRGB will definitely be a smaller color gamut than Adobe RGB.
Choose the larger gamut! Then profile the camera from that space.
Ideally, find a way to import linear files into PS6 and profile with
those, which will prevent the camera software from limiting or clipping
the camera's full capability (ICC D-cam, for one software package.)
2. Check your PS6 set-up against Real World Photoshop 6, my color
bible too, to make sure you are set up right. It sounds like you are
not.
3. Using monitor RGB as a color space will limit your gamut, and
probably be non-linear, so that equal levels of RGB will NOT be gray.
This will make editing a real chore and highly unpredictable.
4. The different gammas you refer to are for the monitor/video card
of the platforms; using 1.8 with a Mac theoretically preserves more
displayable levels, so you can distinguish a greater range of values on
the screen representation of your files. Color space gammas and which is
the best was a long thread a while back. Check the archives.
Personally, I am happy with Adobe RGB as is; at least, I am not yet
enough of a color geek to delve into the subtlety of that technical
choice.
Jeffrey Stevensen
email@hidden