| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/22/2004 06:43:48 PM · #1 |
I am curious how many people shoot in Adobe RGB.
Also, for those using PS, do you work in adobe 1998?
I am trying to figure out the way to get the best out of my prints, and just don't understand this profiling too much :)
Message edited by author 2004-07-22 18:59:51.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 06:52:41 PM · #2 |
I don't know what you mean "shoot in Adobe 1998"
And for prints you have to adjust your sizes, ie if you want an 8x10 from a digital print you'll have to print an 8x13 [I think] in order to retain all the photo.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 06:59:23 PM · #3 |
sorry...I meant Adobe RGB
but for the computer i do mean 1998.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 07:23:25 PM · #4 |
I do now. ;-)
My understanding is that Adobe RGB is a slightly wider color gamut than SRGB, and roughly approximates the limits of 4 color printing. I haven't shot with this profile because for some reason I thought that was only an option when shooting RAW. I shoot JPEG simply because RAW files are too awkward to work with given the number of pictures I take (over 800 shots last Saturday alone).
Your post made me actually look at the camera settings (imagine that), and I switched to Adobe RGB. I've used Adobe RGB for Photoshop print work for years, and now I can shoot in that space. Thanks! |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 08:21:50 PM · #5 |
I switched to Adobe RGB 1998 a while back and I have my working space in Photoshop set to same. I am also in the process of calibrating my monitor and my i950 to the same. Then it'll be time to calibrate my PowerBook and my Epson Stylus Photo 960. It never ends. :)
|
|
|
|
07/22/2004 09:59:52 PM · #6 |
Some tidbits of info:
1. Adobe RGB (1998) is about 40% bigger than sRGB.
2. Adobe RGB (1998)'s colors are all visible colors and it contains about 50% of them (the colors the human eye can see).
3. Adobe RGB (1998) is large enough that many colors it contains cannot even be displayed on your monitor; it's even worse with very wide spaces like ProPhoto RGB or Wide Gamut RGB.
4. Pretty much all of sRGB's colors can be displayed on your monitor.
5. Your camera can capture colors not present in Adobe RGB (1998).
6. Some colors in Adobe RGB (1998), which cannot be displayed on your monitor, are printable colors (depending on media and device).
7. Some colors your camera captures do not exist in Adobe RGB (1998), but are still printable (again, depending on media and device).
8. Be aware that 8-bit editing with Adobe RGB (1998) may lead to banding depending on how severely/extremely you edit your image. However, use of Adobe RGB (1998) is generally recommended for images intended for print (home or otherwise).
9. Once you enter the Adobe RGB (1998) working space arena, you have to be much more careful about handing your images off to various output devices (where "the web" is considered a device for this purpose) such as your home printer or DPCprints.
10. Although clipping is more likely with sRGB, clipping can still easily occur with Adobe RGB (1998) (see point 7).
11. A properly calibrated monitor will help considerably in your editing efforts especially if you intend to soft-proof or maintain a semblance of control over your image data/color. (And I don't mean the "visual calibration" techniques you find on web pages.) |
|
|
|
07/22/2004 10:33:31 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
I am also in the process of calibrating my monitor and my i950 to the same. Then it'll be time to calibrate my PowerBook and my Epson Stylus Photo 960. It never ends. :) |
I find these statements curious.
Monitor calibration (the hardware-based kind) generally involves selecting a white point and gamma, which is the calibration part. The hardware device is also used to measure various known color sources (as displayed by your monitor) to build a profile of your monitor. Adobe RGB doesn't come into play here.
Similarly, home inkjet systems aren't calibrated, they're profiled. In other words, a target of known color values is printed, then read using a device such as a spectrophotometer. The read values are compared with the known values to build a profile for the device (and media). Again, Adobe RGB isn't coming into play here.
Each of the profiles (monitor, printer, editing space) all come together in a CMW (color managed workflow) to help you get predictable results.
Perhaps that's what you intended to mean. |
|
|
|
07/23/2004 07:01:28 AM · #8 |
Interesting tidbits...but still leaves me confused.
|
|
|
|
07/24/2004 01:32:01 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by MrAkamai:
I am also in the process of calibrating my monitor and my i950 to the same. Then it'll be time to calibrate my PowerBook and my Epson Stylus Photo 960. It never ends. :) |
I find these statements curious.
Monitor calibration (the hardware-based kind) generally involves selecting a white point and gamma, which is the calibration part. The hardware device is also used to measure various known color sources (as displayed by your monitor) to build a profile of your monitor. Adobe RGB doesn't come into play here.
Similarly, home inkjet systems aren't calibrated, they're profiled. In other words, a target of known color values is printed, then read using a device such as a spectrophotometer. The read values are compared with the known values to build a profile for the device (and media). Again, Adobe RGB isn't coming into play here.
Each of the profiles (monitor, printer, editing space) all come together in a CMW (color managed workflow) to help you get predictable results.
Perhaps that's what you intended to mean. |
Calibration and color management are still fairly new to me so I might have used the wrong terms. I recently purchased the Pantone Spyder with PrintFix (the patch scanner). What I do I run the Colorvision application and let the colorimeter read the screen then it builds a ColorSync profile for me. Next I print the patch and I scan that. Those are the basic steps but, like you said, I probably meant something else other than what I typed and I think you know what I was trying to say. Confused? :)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/12/2025 05:10:40 AM EDT.
