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: "Farnau, Ryan" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:11:43 -0700
- Thread-topic: Monitor to monitors displaying the same image
Thanks for the response...You've allayed my concerns...Our proof settings
are set up just as you've stated. We've made the necessary adjustments to
address paper white and ink black.
We've made the switch to ProPhoto for the exact reasons you've stated- the
extended reach of K3 inks. I employ Monaco Gamut Works (to go a bit beyond
the info displayed in the ColorSync utility) in the training of our Advanced
Digital printing course so that students can directly view and compare Lab
gamut plots of working RGB and output profiles. Actually being able to see a
3D rendering of a comparison between Adobe RGB 1998 and say, an Innova F
profile using PK inks - is a heck of an eye opener for students.
Any advice as to how to set up work flow using the Advanced Black and White
driver? As you said we do not employ profiles- but should we be working from
a specific color space? Do you use any sort of "Russel Brown" technique for
going to monochromatic before output? Is it necessary? Because in most cases
I find I'm back to an "old school" method of simply reviewing "hard" proofs
- making adjustments until achieving a desired look.
I've done extensive testing with the 3800 and 4800 systems using several
different methods (as well as the ColorBurst rip) , with a broad range of
results. I as many on this forum, am impressed with the response of the K3
ink set - Enough so that I'm working through the idea of building our first
full Digital Black and White printing course. Any thoughts on the process
would be greatly appreciated.
Ryan Farnau
Photography Dept.
Academy of Art University
San Francisco, CA
On 7/16/07 11:22 AM, "Andrew Rodney" <email@hidden> wrote:
> 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