Re: Monitor to monitors displaying the same image
Re: Monitor to monitors displaying the same image
- Subject: Re: Monitor to monitors displaying the same image
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:22:35 -0600
- Thread-topic: Monitor to monitors displaying the same image
On 7/16/07 11:52 AM, "Farnau, Ryan" wrote:
> My
> question deals with the specific differences between Adobe RGB and ProPhoto
> and how they are rendered - and if there is any advantage to "shaping"
> display calibration to reflect the specific tendencies of the two spaces-
> i.e. Adobe RGB 1998 - with a gamma of 2.2 and a white point of D65 - as
> opposed to ProPhoto with 1.8 and D50...Should the display be calibrated to
> reflect the gamma and white point? Is there any advantage?
Photoshop operates such that the working space is totally independent of the
display and output device. IOW, the white point or gamma do not need to
match. The Display Using Monitor Compensation architecture in Photoshop will
handle this. In the 'old days' many users would go into the custom RGB
dialog and alter the working space gamma to match the display gamma which
isn't a good idea.
Note that even though you're on a Mac, and the OS 'assumes' a 1.8 TRC
(gamma), you'd probably be better off calibrating to 2.2 or better, using
Native Gamma which the EyeOne software supports. The native TRC of the
display, which knows nothing about the OS is going to be a lot closer to 2.2
than 1.8.
As for the working space gamma, I had an interesting discussion with Karl
Lang who developed ColorMatch RGB when he designed the PressViews last
century. ColorMatch RGB has a 1.8 TRC.
According to Karl, ColorMatch uses 1.8 because there is less quatization on
the way CMYK which was what the predominate customer base of this product
was doing back then. The eye is closer to 2.2 (luminance response) but
presses have dot gain. Using a source space that is a little lighter
reduces the quantization when you correct for press gain. (few people know
that Xerox PARC and Apple used 1.8 as a source space because of the
natural dot gain of toner based laser printers.)
Anyone know the rational why Kodak used the same working space gamma?
> I also understand that no display can reflect the gamut of ProPhoto
But if you look at the gamut of the K3 inks, you'll see they can exceed
Adobe RGB gamut. If you examine a lot of raw files in say CR and toggle the
encoding color space, you'll see many where the scene gamut exceeds Adobe
RGB (1998). So for a raw workflow, where you want to contain all the colors
you might have captured, along with the gamut of modern ink jets, Adobe RGB
fall short.
> Prints are consistently darker than display "proof"- to go
> (perhaps not) completely tangential
Are you setting Photoshop's Proof setup for paper white and ink black
simulation in full screen mode? That's necessary but of course makes editing
nearly impossible since the UI doesn't undergo the dynamic range
compression. But for just viewing the soft proof, its important.
> Epson's "advanced black and white" driver- When do we get to see OUR image
> in the Color Management Tab of the driver (when Epson hires an army of
> developers to keep up...had to take a little shot).
That mode doesn't work with profiles. So there's no way to soft proof this
(well there is, Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe built a few custom profiles
simply to soft proof prior to printing in this mode). For the rest of us,
there's that big disconnect between viewing the document and viewing the
print when output using the Advanced B&W.
Andrew Rodney
http://www.digitaldog.net/
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden