Re: RGB working space in PS
Re: RGB working space in PS
- Subject: Re: RGB working space in PS
- From: DScharf <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 04:46:00 -0800
- Organization: David Scharf Photography
email@hidden (Bruce Fraser) wrote...
>Does it sound like a reasonable strategy to
take an Ektaspace tagged
>file and, using Adobe RGB 1998, "convert to
working space", for files
>that will be output to ink-jet printer?
I'd be more inclined to go from Ektaspace
straight to inkjet space. I
don't see what the extra conversion would get
you on the majority of
files. (The one case would be where you
needed to make an edit that
was smaller than te granularity of Ektaspace,
and for some reason you
didn't want to do it in final inkjet space.)
Conversions between
same-gamma working spaces are pretty benign
so it won't do anything
terrible, but I don't think it would do
anything terribly more useful
thah simply using Ektaspace as your working
space.
The question arises though about just how far off the monitor image will
look using Ektaspace as compared to using the AdobeRGB 1998. Seems that
with the smaller gamut the monitor will be more of a match, clipping
less. No? Is this a problem for people using Ektaspace and going to
print? I guess film recorder would be less of a problem? Only because it
seems that the color space would be more uniformly clipped (by the
monitor) and better match the final film output.
Its almost 5 am here and I'm kinda fried, so I apologize if this does
not make much sense or is just an illogical rambling.
Later,
David
--
DAVID SCHARF PHOTOGRAPHY
Scanning Electron Microscopy
Los Angeles, CA 90039
http://www.microscopy-today.com/Scharf.html
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.