August 2013 - colorsync-users

Re: Proof Colors in Photoshop- working spaces
by Tyler Boley 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

I recently spent some time looking at all the working spaces I could get my hands on.. I had been happily using BetaRGB for some time, only to discover one day that current inkjet output on some of best papers are capable of some colors outside all of them but the largest, ProPhotoRGB and maybe Wide Gamut, which I did not really play with. This includes all the previous "special" working spaces, and also PhotoGamut. Tyler

1 0

Re: Proof Colors in Photoshop
by Mark Stegman 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

Ben, From the earlier discussion that took place on this forum a short time ago on "colorimetric accuracy in the field" and "camera calibration" I appreciate that you know something about colour. Or least photography. However, just because someone uses the sRGB colour space DOESN'T mean they don't understand colour. Pardon the pun but "understanding" colour is a relative term. The selection of a working colour space is a practical choice made on the basis of understanding what the constraints of the working environment are. I am not an engineer but I have worked with colour reproduction for most of my working life so I thought I understood colour. This understanding is a practical understanding. I struggle with the complex, abstract number systems that others on this forum understand. I work with the practical constraints of what is before me - what I see and might be bale to measure. I believe that, if your images are destined for a specific output condition, then why not work in a colour space that is as near to it possible, if not the same. I DON'T understand why you would recommend NTSC as a video space rather than PAL or Rec 709 unless you want to restrict your work to those parts of the world whose broadcast systems are based on this old (?) standard from a time when full HD flat screen displays of the quality that are available today did not exist. It seems that, like all idealists and some 'technocrats' you are waiting, like me (?) for for the impossible. You seem to think that this so-called "absolute" colour can be captured which ignores the fact that you are using a device. I fear that you may need to rip my head off and stick it on a tripod with my visual system and brain intact, attach a myriad of senses to my cerebellum and somehow convert the array of signals into some visual projection in order to achieve what you are looking for. Of course, this begs the question... how will you capture it? In my opinion, the price is too high anyway. I'll stick my neck out here ( and lose my head) as I know there are a lot of learned people reading this forum who really DO understand the science of capturing, measuring, monitoring and reproducing colour but as I understand it "absolute" colour spaces are based on a set of numbers derived from testing the human visual system. I am told there are many more than the ones we use in ICC colour management systems. They attempt to describe human perception within a number system. I say "attempt" because, if any of them were 100% accurate then there would be only one! Many applications allow you to 'work' in these colour spaces. Even in Photoshop you can work in Lab however, the beautiful devices they have built for us to view our images cannot reproduce all of the colours we can see and in all the of the environments we may encounter, although we may be 'fooled' into thinking so through the phenomena of chromatic adaptation. Don't forget, even a monitor needs a profile. Even if you did have a monitor to preview your images on you still have REPRODUCE them on another device. This is why standardised viewing conditions and all the other standards are so important. They account for the variables that affect our AGREED PERCEPTION of colour. We might all experience the world differently. After all, I live in the southern hemisphere so everything is upside down! When we reproduce images we do it to communicate our experience with others. Standards describe what is necessary for controlling the environment so that we might agree on what is before our eyes in this process of communication (and not end up in court!). It is not about trying to capture and recreate a facsimile reproduction of a scene. Scenes which are constantly changing with every tick of the clock. If you want to work in an absolute colour space I believe you will have to work only in numbers and never rely on what any device simulates. Mind you, never being able to see your work is a limitation but sometimes it's a necessity. This is how I learned colour reproduction in the printing trade. We always went by the numbers. Many camera operators, and later scanner operators got very good at reproducing colour separations that needed little or no correction. We never saw a proof until the final product came off the press. No complaints. Well, not many. The point is that they UNDERSTOOD colour and its REPRODUCTION very well. At least for the purposes of the targeted process? You could have benefitted from the experience. Mark Stegman P.S. Reply to all to post to the forum. On 02/08/2013, at 3:48 PM, Ben Goren <ben(a)trumpetpower.com> wrote: > On Aug 1, 2013, at 8:23 PM, Mark Stegman <mark.stegman(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Personally, I would *never* use ProPhoto > > ProPhoto is probably the least-worst profile to develop to with Adobe Camera Raw, but, yes, it's not a very good working space. > > If you're preparing files for the Web or for people who don't understand color, use sRGB. > > If you're preparing files for people who understand color, use AdobeRGB. > > If you're doing your own stuff and you know what you're doing, use BetaRGB. > > If other circumstances apply -- NTSC for video, etc. -- you'll know that that's the case and you really should know what you're doing. > > Personally, I'm waiting for the day when we can work directly in an absolute color space such as XYZ, and work with device gamuts (and mapping from the one to the other) rather than color spaces. I'd like my camera to record the actual absolute luminance in the scene, and let me decide how I want to compress that into a reflective print or a backlit display or whatever. We're getting there...but slowly, in a very roundabout fashion.... > > Cheers, > > b&

3 4

Re: Soft-proof copying in Photoshop
by Tyler Boley 02 Aug '13

02 Aug '13

> From: Peter Baumbach <grifterstudios(a)gmx.net> … > Hi Tyler, > > many thanks for your answer. This is exactly the method I created the output profile for soft-proffing in CS5. > > You say "assign" the output profile (and convert to sRGB), Steve recommends "convert" to the output profile (and convert to sRGB). The results are different. What is correct? I think "assign" should be > correct because I printed the step wedge the same way I print normal images (using the ImagePrint b&w profile and all the toning settings) because I am just interested in a profile for soft-proofing. > > Regards, > Peter Baumbach > > PS: your images are gorgeous! Hi Peter, for my purposes it's "assign", since I want to characterize exactly the whole paper/ink/printer setup as it is printing images with linearizations etc in place. So this means the treatment going in with the QTR tiff, has to be the same as an image would have been… Hope that makes sense. With my setup, since it's mono inks control by the RIP, and linearized to a standard, rather than needing 3d cm converions, I just pop the grascale target tiff right in the RIP and it works as intended. I assume IPs B&W setups utilize CM, so you may need to tag the target. If your B&W images normally are prepped in a grayscale space, maybe use that one? Thanks for your comment too. T

1 0

Re: Proof Colors in Photoshop
by Thomas Richard 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

Hello, Horst Nogajski wrote a script: http://nogajski.de/infos/?K=LG&V=en At the bottom under 'Goodies' MfG Thomas >Good morning > > > >I was reading about Soft-proofing and I would like to know is there is any >way to leave "Proof Colors" enabled as default in Photoshop. > > > >I need to turn on the command all times that I need and for all open files. > > > >To use Photoshop for soft-proofing, I believe that makes sense to leave this >command enabled all time. > > > >Thank you > > > >Marcelo Copetti > > > > _______________________________________________ >Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. >Colorsync-users mailing list (Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com) >Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: >https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/colorsync-users/tr%40e-b-v.de > >This email sent to tr(a)e-b-v.de

1 0

Epson 7900 and iMac
by Neil Steinberg 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

I am having issues achieving color accuracy from files as viewed on an iMac 27" monitor and printed on an Epson 7900. I am running OS 10.7.5, and calibrate with a Spyder Pro 4 device. I am printing on Hahnemuhle papers using the ICC profiles provided by Hahnemuhle. I have tried printing using the Epson driver, ImagePrint RIP, and ColorBurst Overdrive RIP, all with varying results. When printing with the Epson driver, I allow Photoshop to control the printer, choose the appropriate profile and opt for Relative Colorimetric. Using either of the RIPs, I allow the software "printer" to control the output, also opting for Relative Colorimetric. (I have experimented with Perceptual, but this does not improve the output.) In the past I had superior results from an Apple cinema display, calibrated with an iOne device, and printing to an Epson 4000 using the same papers with appropriate profiles. As a check, to see if the Spyder device is defective, I have also tried calibrating using the Apple system display preferences, but do not see a radical difference. Any suggestions? Thanks for your help. Neil Steinberg

2 1

Re: Soft-proof copying in Photoshop
by Peter Baumbach 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

Hi Steve, many thanks for your answer. I tried the profile conversion before I posted my question but it seems that I cannot imitate the "simulate black Ink" feature of the soft proof by this method. If I use rel col the contrast is much too high compared to the soft proof. With perceptual rendering the contrast looks more similar but is still a little too high. Would you recommend to use the curves tool to adjust the black values of the converted image or is there any other trick? Regards, Peter Baumbach > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 12:45:28 -0700 > From: Steve Upton <upton(a)chromix.com> > To: "Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com List" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Soft-proof copying in Photoshop > Message-ID: <CECE44F7-4A8E-48D0-8D09-8B87A71F825E(a)chromix.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > On Jul 29, 2013, at 10:50 AM, Peter Baumbach <grifterstudios(a)gmx.net> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have printed black & white images with ImagePrint and used their special b&w non icc profiles and the split toning feature. I also made an icc profile to be able to soft-proof the image in Photoshop before printing with ImagePrint. >> >> How can I "copy" the soft-proofed image including the special split tones and the paper black simulation? I need realistic files for my web site. > > If you like what you see on screen, try converting to profile TO your print profile (rel col), and then converting to profile TO sRGB (also rel col) > > Your results will depend on how your soft proofing profile was made but I think it should work for you. > > regards, > > Steve > >

2 1

Re: Soft-proof copying in Photoshop
by Peter Baumbach 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

Hi René, Barry, many thanks, screenshot is ok but I thought there must be some other cm method as well... Regards, Peter Baumbach > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:06:33 +0200 > From: Rene Damkot <rene(a)damkot.com> > To: Peter Baumbach <grifterstudios(a)gmx.net> > Cc: "colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com" > <colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com> > Subject: Re: Soft-proof copying in Photoshop > Message-ID: <8A6C4186-FEE5-4761-9C57-4D9C60F5E7F3(a)damkot.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Screenshot? > > > René Damkot > www.damkot.com > www.getcolormanaged.com > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:17:17 -0500 > From: Barry Rudick <barryr(a)azphoto.com> > To: Colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Soft-proof coping > Message-ID: <2D8F34BA-D4D9-4C19-AA76-2DF97D09FCE6(a)azphoto.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > I think you would need to make a screenshot of the image in Imageprint since the split toning occurs there. > > > Barry Rudick > Aker Imaging.

1 0

Re: Soft-proof copying in Photoshop (Peter Baumbach)
by Peter Baumbach 01 Aug '13

01 Aug '13

Hi Tyler, many thanks for your answer. This is exactly the method I created the output profile for soft-proffing in CS5. You say "assign" the output profile (and convert to sRGB), Steve recommends "convert" to the output profile (and convert to sRGB). The results are different. What is correct? I think "assign" should be correct because I printed the step wedge the same way I print normal images (using the ImagePrint b&w profile and all the toning settings) because I am just interested in a profile for soft-proofing. Regards, Peter Baumbach PS: your images are gorgeous! > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 10:36:40 -0700 > From: Tyler Boley <tyler(a)tylerboley.com> > To: colorsync-users(a)lists.apple.com > Subject: Re: Soft-proof copying in Photoshop (Peter Baumbach) > Message-ID: <51F7F9A8.4030204(a)tylerboley.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > many of us doing custom B&W hue work, whether monochrome inksets, or > what you are doing, use this trick a lot- > > Get Quadtone RIP, $50 shareware. Print one of his step wedges with your > system, toned however you like. Make a "create icc" profile.. assign it > to your image file, then convert to sRGB for your web work.. been > working for for years! > All the B&W work made with Cone inksets on my website are represented > that way- > http://tylerboley.com/ > > create icc is a great tool for many things.. whterh you use QTR for > printing or not. > > Tyler

1 0