Soft proof question: ADOBE RGB 98 OR MONITOR RGB

[JACKJUNIOR]

hi guys,
i have been struggling a while with getting my colors right. i am photographer and need to make sure what i see on screen is as close as possible to what the prints will look like in the magazines and on the web - i am sure i am not the first one - i feel i made it 95% of the way. here the last 5% i am struggling with:

i have calibrated my imac screen using the spyder3, set my photoshop color settings to adobe rgb98, changed under conversion options the intent to "perceptual" and unticked "use dither" - so far so good.
here the question: under "proof setup" do i check "monitor rgb" (since i calibrated my screen) or do i choose "adobe rgb98" in the custom menu? (since that matches my embedded profile)
do i leave "proof colors" ticked all the time?
viewed in adobe rgb98 the colors look much more saturated, so i guess i am afraid they turn out that way at the printers too.

any hints would be greatly appreciated!!

[NikoJorj]

The proof setup is designed to simulate an output profile, paper (take the right SWOP or FOGRA profile) or screen (sRGB for web conversion).

[digitaldog]

here the question: under "proof setup" do i check "monitor rgb" (since i calibrated my screen) or do i choose "adobe rgb98" in the custom menu? (since that matches my embedded profile)
do i leave "proof colors" ticked all the time?

http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200409_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200411_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200410_rodneycm.pdf

[Schewe]

i have calibrated my imac screen using the spyder3, set my photoshop color settings to adobe rgb98, changed under conversion options the intent to "perceptual" and unticked "use dither" - so far so good.

Actually, I don't think you've got it...first off, to what white point and gamma have you calibrated your display? What is your display, a wide gamut display or traditional smaller gamut display? Under conversions, why did you select perceptual? (hint, you won't know what rendering intent to use until you actually softproof). And why would you uncheck the use dither? It's there for the purpose of helping eliminate banding when doing color conversions. Unless you have a good reason, I would keep it checked (I do).

[JACKJUNIOR]

@digitaldog: Thanks for the material.

@Schewe: i am working on an imac, not ideal... i know. my gamma is 2.2 and the white point set to 6500K. in regards to changing the other options i found a video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A1rDNkgMF8
i have always sent off my work with adobe rgb98 and it has more or less always looked good printed. but it always feels a little like a gamble and i just would finally like to put a handle on it.
trying to obtain an icc profile from the various printing houses sound good in theory, but is just not possible --

thanks for your input.

[Schewe]

...in regards to changing the other options i found a video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A1rDNkgMF8
i have always sent off my work with adobe rgb98 and it has more or less always looked good printed.

Ya gotta be careful of who you listen to...Deke is wrong about changing the default rendering intent and wrong about unchecking the dither. The ONLY way you can know what rendering intent is best on an image by image basis is to softproof to see which is best. And dither is a good thing unless it isn't (and if you don't know whether or not it's good or bad you should not uncheck it).

[JACKJUNIOR]

thanks schewe! there is just too much conflicting info out there!!!
whats the way to go?
would you agree that calibrating the screen and sticking to adobe rgb98 is the way to go?
2.2 gamma and white point at 6500k.
should i retouch with the "proof colors" ticked to "monitor rgb" (since it is calibrated) or "adobe rgb98"
(since that is the embedded profile)?

[Schewe]

should i retouch with the "proof colors" ticked to "monitor rgb" (since it is calibrated) or "adobe rgb98"
(since that is the embedded profile)?

What's your output? That's what you want to soft proof for...Photoshop will already use your display profile to correctly display the image. You only want to soft proof for your intended output devise, not your display profile or Adobe RGB.

[digitaldog]

Ya gotta be careful of who you listen to...Deke is wrong about changing the default rendering intent and wrong about unchecking the dither.

Yup, he got some of it right but some of it wrong! I don’t think its a good idea, at least initially, to have the warning check boxes off. Agreed about Dither (keep it on). He calls Relative Colorimetric “a great color space” and doesn’t point out that the conversion settings he covers ONLY kicks in when you use Mode Change.

The ONLY way you can know what rendering intent is best on an image by image basis is to softproof to see which is best.

Scott must have affected Deke’s concept of soft proofing (or vise versa) ;-)

[digitaldog]

would you agree that calibrating the screen and sticking to adobe rgb98 is the way to go?

Not really. Certainly not if you are working with raw data which has the potential to exceed the gamut of Adobe RGB (1998).
This might help too:
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf

2.2 gamma and white point at 6500k.
should i retouch with the "proof colors" ticked to "monitor rgb" (since it is calibrated) or "adobe rgb98"
(since that is the embedded profile)?

You want to load the output profile for soft proofing and then select a rendering intent you prefer (discussed in one of the three PDF’s below). Monitor RGB isn’t anything you’ll need to deal with right now. It basically shows you want your images look like on your display OUTSIDE an ICC aware application. IOW, show me how ugly or wrong this image will appear outside of Photoshop or other color managed applications. As for Gamma 2.2, fine. 6500K? Only if it produces a match to the print next to the display (it might, it might not. We don’t know anything about the print viewing conditions let alone the display behavior).

[solardarkroom.com]

@JACKJUNIOR:

I started messing with Photoshop when it was version 4 or 5 and always felt colour management was a form of voodoo. Every time someone at a print-shop tried to explain what went wrong I got more frustrated. All these years later I can say the best thing I ever did was purchase the "From Camera to Print" video tutorial on this site. If you've been tempted to visit the wild-west of YouTube I'm guessing you don't have it. It's the best investment I ever made as far as printing my images either at home or elsewhere. The videos are so well indexed that I can instantly find answers to anything I may have forgotten when issues arise. As a bonus you'll learn how to tease Canadians if you know any

David

[JACKJUNIOR]

hi guys, thanks very much for clearing this up for me.
it all makes a whole lot more sense to me now -

@andrew - thanks for posting the pdf's - they were very helpful!
@david - ill be sure to check to tutorial out!