[filmscanners] RE: Profiles
Tony writes ... > I do wonder sometimes if some of the purists have ever actually tried > printing sRGB. IME not too many photos include colours which will inhabit > the difference between sRGB and Adobe 98, ... Try creating an HSB spectrum as shown in Bruce Fraser's article about rendering intents: http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/12641.html. When created, it is pure RGB numbers, ... the colors will be assigned according to whichever color space is assigned. Any subsequent print (or soft-proof) should be a good test for RGB values versus printed colors. Granted, the differences become more subtle if you convert from one color space to another ... and it is hardly a test for "real world" colors ... but "us purists" do make an effort to keep the colors we're editing, and printing, within "potential" gamuts. cheerios ... shAf :o) Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland www.micro-investigations.com (in progress) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Profiles
So embedding the color space into the image file ? I do that all the time, but understood that the only viewing/editing software featuring Color Management and able to use the embedded color spaces is Photoshop and perhaps a very few others, while the most common things (like ACDs and Windows viewer) cannot benefit from this feature which is the reason of image appearance varying among every other system. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 4:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Profiles Michael writes: > I remember Adobe's Chris Cox commenting on > sRGB being represenative of "cheap" monitors. As I recall, sRGB was largely based on NTSC gamut, which is indeed pretty "cheap" compared to what good monitors are capable of displaying. sRGB was sort of a lowest common denominator. > Why convert your archived scan to anything? You don't have to convert it, but you should prepare it in an identified color space and store that information in the archived image, so that anyone retrieving it later can get the colors as you left them. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Profiles
Thanks, got it, good point. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of michael shaffer Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2002 2:47 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Profiles Alex writes ... > If I get your point correctly, you claim that monitors cannot > display wider gamut then ordinary sRGB regardless of > particular display qualities, which mean, there is no point to > scan and save in Adobe 98 RGB which is wider and thus > resulting in larger files. > ... I remember Adobe's Chris Cox commenting on sRGB being represenative of "cheap" monitors. More appropriately, I believe the people who created sRGB space thought it was representative of "most" monitors. Although print spaces shouldn't be considered to have a "larger" gamut, some of their color capabilities (cyan-green-yellow) are considered outside typical monitor spaces. Therefore, most consider sRGB to have too small a gamut for anything other than wwweb presentation. > What about scanning for archive ? ... Why convert your archived scan to anything? Leave it the way it is, and convert it when you're ready to use it again. Once you convert to a smaller gamut, you can never get it back (short of hitting 'ctrl-z') cheerios ... shAf :o) Avalon Peninsula, Newfoundland www.micro-investigations.com (in progress) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Profiles
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:17:09 -0230 michael shaffer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Although print spaces shouldn't be considered to have a "larger" gamut, > some of their color capabilities (cyan-green-yellow) are considered > outside > typical monitor spaces. Therefore, most consider sRGB to have too small > a > gamut for anything other than wwweb presentation. I do wonder sometimes if some of the purists have ever actually tried printing sRGB. IME not too many photos include colours which will inhabit the difference between sRGB and Adobe 98, but there are certainly peculiarities about the gamut of Epsons which I quite often find uncomfortable and afflict quite a lot of images in any colourspace. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Profiles
Michael writes: > I remember Adobe's Chris Cox commenting on > sRGB being represenative of "cheap" monitors. As I recall, sRGB was largely based on NTSC gamut, which is indeed pretty "cheap" compared to what good monitors are capable of displaying. sRGB was sort of a lowest common denominator. > Why convert your archived scan to anything? You don't have to convert it, but you should prepare it in an identified color space and store that information in the archived image, so that anyone retrieving it later can get the colors as you left them. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Profiles
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 00:05:44 +0200 Alex Zabrovsky ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If I get your point correctly, you claim that monitors cannot display > wider > gamut then ordinary sRGB regardless of particular display qualities, Correct > which > mean, there is no point to scan and save in Adobe 98 RGB which is wider > and > thus resulting in larger files. > Am I wrong ? There is a point, if you intend output to a wider-gamut device than a screen at some time - for instance photo inkjets such as Epsons. Using a wide gamut space can have disadvantages. Obviously you can't see on screen the exact colour values of the image file because the monitor is constrained to sRGB, and if you need at some point to output to CMYK, you risk more colours being out of gamut. If CMYK is the eventual destination, Colormatch RGB is a closer match. > What about scanning for archive ? Yup, a good choice and many people do. Ultimately what you do depends on your intended use. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: Profiles
Thank you Anthony, very informative observation. My monitor is said to have special sRGB mode which features automatic preset of 6500K temperature and others sRGB specific settings. I wonder how useful it might be for image editing in Photoshop given following scanning info: the color pace of NikonScan is set to Adobe 98 RGB as well the profile in Photoshop. The monitor is set manually for 6500K and visual gamma through Adobe Gamma utility. BTW, I compared the monitor's ICC profiles: one supplied with the monitor while another is created through Adobe Gamma utility. They seem not to alter the color interpretation of the pictures (I compared them using Assign Profile in Photoshop with Preview switched on going back and forth between monitor's ICC profile, my manually created profile, Adobe 98 RGB and sRGB. The only difference I noticed between these is in brightness which apparently relates to Gamma. Regards, Alex Z -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Profiles Alex writes: > What is the meaning of ICC monitor profiling > installed in Win98SE in terms of scanning > visual quality ? You only really need the profiling in Photoshop, if that's where you do your photo work. Getting it to work with the rest of the system isn't that important. > What does that mean and how it could influence > image rendition upon scanning ? sRGB is a very restricted color space. It guarantees that images will look visually pleasant on most monitors, even cheap ones, but it also sacrifices a lot of color gamut to achieve that. I use Adobe 1998 for my work--it's a good compromise between the very restrictive sRGB, which excludes too much range, and something like Wide Gamut RGB, which covers everything but can't be accurately displayed or printed by anything. > The friend of mine has recommended to scan in > Adobe RGB color space (since it is further > processed in Photoshop) and then to convert those > pictures intended to be shared via either email > or internet to sRGB to unify the appearance. You can skip the conversion. Almost no one has calibrated systems that can actually read and use color profiles, anyway. There's no way to control how an image will look on someone else's monitor. > Does it have something to do with monitor > profiling/color temperature adjustments ? A color space defines the limits (called the "gamut") of the colors that can be accurately represented digitally. Some color spaces allow for representation of just about everything the eye can see; the only problem with this is that no display or print device currently available can even approach such a large gamut, so anything printed in such a color space looks flat and lacking in contrast and saturation. Other color spaces, such as sRGB, are very restrictive and contain far fewer colors than those visible to the human eye, but they do match display and print devices quite well, even the cheap ones, and so they produce images that are more visually pleasing on these devices. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: Profiles
Alex writes: > What is the meaning of ICC monitor profiling > installed in Win98SE in terms of scanning > visual quality ? You only really need the profiling in Photoshop, if that's where you do your photo work. Getting it to work with the rest of the system isn't that important. > What does that mean and how it could influence > image rendition upon scanning ? sRGB is a very restricted color space. It guarantees that images will look visually pleasant on most monitors, even cheap ones, but it also sacrifices a lot of color gamut to achieve that. I use Adobe 1998 for my work--it's a good compromise between the very restrictive sRGB, which excludes too much range, and something like Wide Gamut RGB, which covers everything but can't be accurately displayed or printed by anything. > The friend of mine has recommended to scan in > Adobe RGB color space (since it is further > processed in Photoshop) and then to convert those > pictures intended to be shared via either email > or internet to sRGB to unify the appearance. You can skip the conversion. Almost no one has calibrated systems that can actually read and use color profiles, anyway. There's no way to control how an image will look on someone else's monitor. > Does it have something to do with monitor > profiling/color temperature adjustments ? A color space defines the limits (called the "gamut") of the colors that can be accurately represented digitally. Some color spaces allow for representation of just about everything the eye can see; the only problem with this is that no display or print device currently available can even approach such a large gamut, so anything printed in such a color space looks flat and lacking in contrast and saturation. Other color spaces, such as sRGB, are very restrictive and contain far fewer colors than those visible to the human eye, but they do match display and print devices quite well, even the cheap ones, and so they produce images that are more visually pleasing on these devices. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
