Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Aristoc on November 21, 2010, 08:36:39 pm
-
I just read in Scott Kelby's book that the photoshop (CS4) out of gamut warning is not designed to be used for any color inkjet or any other RBG printer. It only warns you if colors are outside of the prinable range for CMYK printing press. So unless you are outputting to a printing press you can ignore the out of gamut warning function.
True or False ?
Thanks
-
True or False ?
False...the Out of Gamut Warning is based on the soft proofing settings...if your soft proofing settings is set to an ink jet profile then the OOG warning will be based on the profile set in your Customize Proof Conditions settings. Basic Photoshop 101 ya know? If you DON'T change the default Scott is correct but it's silly to keep the "default" proofing conditions if you are outputting to an inkjet printer. On the other hand, the Gamut Warning is, actually, pretty useless cause it doesn't tell how MUCH out of gamut a color will be (regardless of the output profile). You really should learn how to properly use the Photoshop Customize Proof Conditions delog...
-
Hi Schewe
Actually I have been using the proof set up dialog 'custom' setting and then picking out my paper profile. Until I was reading Scott Kelbys book this afternoon. This made me confused. Scott Kelby CS4 book says:
page 391
"TIP:The Gamut Warning isnt for us
The new Gamut Waarning checkbox (beneath the preview area)
is not desgigned for use when printing to a color
inkjet (like we are here, or any other RGB printer). It warns you
if colors are outside the printable range for a CMYK printing press, so unless
you are outputting to a printing press, you can ingnore it altogether. "
Well, you are saying something different and so Scott's book is misleading .
-
Well, you are saying something different and so Scott's book is misleading .
Uh huh...and your point is?
You really need to be careful about who you listen to...just saying...
-
Just as a little exercise I wanted to do a test to see if another application and PS would agree about what was in and what was out of gamut so, Color Think Pro seemed the obvious choice since it can visually indicate how far out of gamut a color is. My testing methodology may be flawed (and I'm sure someone will be quick to point out if it is) but here's what I did...
I took an untagged target, selected the profile I built with that target, and turned on the gamut warning. Using the wand I selected out of gamut colors, created a new layer, and filled the selection with black. When this layer is on it will only show colors that are theoretically in gamut. I then inverted that selection and created a layer where only out of gamut colors would be displayed. I then saved two TIFFs, one image that only displayed in gamut colors, and the other with out of gamut colors. From there I brought the images into ColorThink Pro and using a custom grid, placed a sample spot over each patch on the chart. I brought each image into a three dimensional graph and then called up a 3D rendering of the profile's gamut. In theory if I view only the in gamut colors, I would not see any points for the in gamut image falling outside of the profile's gamut and when turning on the out of gamut plot, I shouldn't see anything inside.
Well... that's not exactly what happened but it was close. When viewing the "in gamut" colors, there were a few stragglers that appeared outside of the profile but they stayed pretty close. For the out of gamut colors, they were all outside of the gamut as expected. For kicks I pulled up the US Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile and had a look at it. According to Color Think Pro at least, the out of gamut warning is behaving more closely to what Jeff is describing, and not even remotely close to what Scott is describing. I'm not sure what accounts for the difference between what ColorThink Pro indicates as being out of gamut and what Photoshop indicates as being out of gamut. Could be differences in the CMM (Pat???).
Indeed if you setup your custom profile and select US Web Coated (SWOP) v2, that's exactly what happens, but it's based upon the profile selected for soft proofing, and it's not hard wired to CMYK as seems to be suggested. You can clearly see this for yourself if you enable the out of gamut warning, call up the custom soft proofing options, and then switch to different profiles. You'll see the out of gamut warning change with each profile you load.
That said, here's a specific detail I'd like more info on:
"The new Gamut Warning checkbox (beneath the preview area)"
Your initial question mentions the "Out of gamut warning". The out of gamut warning is not a check box, it's a menu item (also activated by command or control shift Y). What is the interface you're speaking of that has it as a check box? Perhaps that is a different scenario. The out of gamut warning is not a "new" feature either, it's been around for quite a while.
Cheers, Joe
-
The Gamut Warning checkbox is in the print dialogue window, along with Match Print Colors and Show Paper White, under the print preview thumbnail. It is small, and I have never compared how it functions vs. the out of gamut menu item.
-
The Gamut Warning checkbox is in the print dialogue window, along with Match Print Colors and Show Paper White, under the print preview thumbnail. It is small, and I have never compared how it functions vs. the out of gamut menu item.
Thanks Ron,
I just did the comparison. Scott Kelby appears to definitely be incorrect unless there's something with regards to the context that I'm not seeing. The gamut warning is referencing the ICC profile that is currently selecting in the print dialog.
Cheers, Joe
-
I just read in Scott Kelby's book that the photoshop (CS4) out of gamut warning is not designed to be used for any color inkjet or any other RBG printer.
As Jeff and others have said, its false. Scott also doesn’t believe in soft proofing, thinks that if your prints are too dark, you should add an adjustment layer to “fix” what is essentially (in most cases) incorrect display calibration as I’ve just written about here. IOW, the guy knows Photoshop and Lightroom, color management, not so much!
That said, think the old, legacy gamut warning is of little use. In the old days, prior to Photoshop 5 that gave is ICC profiles for conversions, the idea was to see the out of gamut colors, take something like the sponge tool set to desaturate and remove the ugly overlay, putting the colors “into gamut”. ICC profiles do this with far greater precision and control.
The out of gamut overlay in the PS Print dialog is more recent and IMHO, equally not useful. But it behaves just like the Out of Gamut menu item in View so yes, Scott is incorrect.
-
I have shot some images of very bright contrasty flowers recently and a lot of the flower part is "out of gamut". I use downloaded premium icc profiles. but, still, there is the out of gamut warning. I click on "gamut warning" in the drip down menu under proof set up. when I go to print, there is a thumbnail of the image with a few tick boxes underneath it. one of those is also a 'gamut warning'. BOTH the print dialog box has the words 'gamut warning' and also under the drop down dialog view > "gamut warning" The are both look the same. It doesn't say anywhere on the screen that it is legacy....such as some other functions that have a legacy tick box.
-
It doesn't say anywhere on the screen that it is legacy....such as some other functions that have a legacy tick box.
In general, Photoshop never removes functionality even when new and improved tools are added. Gamut Warning is old tech and Soft Proofing is newer tech. It the term "legacy" is Andrew's description for a tool whose usefulness is limited when compared to what you can do when soft proofing. Generally, I couldn't care less that some colors will be out of gamut...what I care about is what those colors will LOOK LIKE when printed and that's what soft proofing gives you.
-
...what I care about is what those colors will LOOK LIKE when printed and that's what soft proofing gives you.
same here. Ahh one more thing . Even with soft proofing turned on, the gamut warning areas still appear.
-
I certainly agree that soft-proofing is important, and I wouldn't want to rely solely on the gamut warning. But I still think it's useful for some things. Keeping in mind that on-screen gamut is in some areas smaller than the printer's, soft-proof doesn't always tell 100% of the story; knowing which specific areas are out of the printer profile's gamut can be a useful additional data point. If nothing else it provides a quick way to easily identify problem areas that warrant a closer look in soft-proof. I also find it can be useful when comparing different profiles (either of the same paper with different profiling techniques, or different papers), to quickly see if one profile or another is more likely to pose a challenge for a given image. So I'm glad it's still there.
-
Keeping in mind that on-screen gamut is in some areas smaller than the printer's, soft-proof doesn't always tell 100% of the story; knowing which specific areas are out of the printer profile's gamut can be a useful additional data point.
To do what specifically? You could toggle the different rendering intents with the overlay true, but most often, you pick an intent based on the relationship of colors and how the intent is handling the out of gamut colors. What does seeing an ugly overlay tell you and is it useful that pixels that are way out of gamut and pixels that are just out of gamut appear identically as a big colored blob?
-
I find the gamut warning feature in Photoshop to be a very useful analytical tool, and indeed it is so because it does respond to the ICC profile you set in the Proof setup including working colorspace profiles. Where do I find gamut warning useful? For example, it tells me whether for a particular RAW file I really need to use ProphotoRGB, aRGB, or whether the lowly sRGB colorspace will suffice. Prophoto isn't a free lunch. It's precision is only about half of sRGB in terms of encoding low chroma colors. So, if I have an image that doesn't need it, I export from RAW to my designated smaller colorspace with significantly more precision than if I were to just always to reach for the Prophoto output.
I also find it very useful tool for teaching colorspace differences to students.
I also find it very useful for the same reason Jeff kohn gave in choosing possible papers for a particular paper. Yes, you can study the softproof rendition carefully, but a quick overlay of out of gamut for one paper versus another saves some time in deliberating the choices.
What I still wish the Adobe folks would give us after all these years is a direct LAB readout in the info tool for destination space colors not merely the working space colors.
cheers,
Mark
-
For example, it tells me whether for a particular RAW file I really need to use ProphotoRGB, aRGB, or whether the lowly sRGB colorspace will suffice.
I just do this in ACR/LR, the histogram indicates saturation clipping as you toggle the encoding color space options and for each color channel. I do this before I even get to Photoshop.
What I still wish the Adobe folks would give us after all these years is a direct LAB readout in the info tool for destination space colors not merely the working space colors.
It will if you open the Convert to Profile command and select a profile. You don’t what Proof Colors in the info palette to be in the color space of the profile, you want the Proof Colors to be the color space of the profile transformed to Lab? An interesting idea. Might have to ask Adobe for this.
-
...You don’t what Proof Colors in the info palette to be in the color space of the profile, you want the Proof Colors to be the color space of the profile transformed to Lab? An interesting idea. Might have to ask Adobe for this.
Exactly, because if you take the time to memorize some basic LAB values as aimpoints for critical image areas like skin tones and highlight brightness values, you have learned some universal values for those colors no matter whether dealing with CMYK or RGB files and all of the endless colorspaces. I use LAB values as my guide when setting up master files, but I would love to have it more conveniently accessible when tweaking output for print. While I do trust my calibrated monitor, those info tool numbers can really verify I'm not getting fatigued or sloppy with my visual assessment of the image on the monitor.
LAB L*, a*, and b* values also help me to shift a color just a small amount in the right direction after pulling a print that is close but not quite perfect to my taste. Much harder to do with RGB triplet values or worse yet CMYK values.
-
I just do this in ACR/LR, the histogram indicates saturation clipping as you toggle the encoding color space options and for each color channel. I do this before I even get to Photoshop.
Right, but how 'bout when you want to add some additional image edits that you couldn't make easily in the RAW conversion step? You may need a little more headroom for colors that are close to clipping but not clipped. I suppose one can get good at judging the histogram in LR/ACR and leaving a little "kentucky windage" for the additional color moves. I just find it easy to work these issues out with a little guidance from gamut warning.
Additionally, I agree with Jeff Kohn. Sometimes, it can get confusing to separate out monitor gamut display issues from printer gamut issues. What I see as the softproof rendition for out of gamut printer colors on my monitor may be getting erroneously confounded with out of gamut monitor color. Som gamut warning once again can provide useful guidance. I guess it's not for everyone, but I hope the Adobe Experts don't take my gamut warning tool away. Geez, we lost Kodachrome this year!
-
I also find it very useful tool for teaching colorspace differences to students.
I'd suggest ColorThink for that. I come across so many photographers who think that gamut is this 2 dimensional thing. Plotting the colors of a photo and overlaying a working space instantly conveys a lot more information about what's going on.
Cheers, Joe
-
I'd suggest ColorThink for that. I come across so many photographers who think that gamut is this 2 dimensional thing. Plotting the colors of a photo and overlaying a working space instantly conveys a lot more information about what's going on.
Cheers, Joe
Hi Joe, I respectfully disagree. 3-d colorspace modeling is great to show bigger versus smaller and regions of hue where one profile encompasses more than another, but I actually find these 3-d models make it harder to visualize how in gamut colors are actually being handled as they get compressed by profiles trying to map out-of-gamut colors into gamut. I'll stay with softproofing for that. I also rely heavily on the I* color and tonal accuracy metric to judge profile quality, but it's a metric I invented, and I readily concede that it's not a widely available or well-understood metric by many color experts at this time.
-
I certainly agree that soft-proofing is important, and I wouldn't want to rely solely on the gamut warning. But I still think it's useful for some things. Keeping in mind that on-screen gamut is in some areas smaller than the printer's, soft-proof doesn't always tell 100% of the story; knowing which specific areas are out of the printer profile's gamut can be a useful additional data point. If nothing else it provides a quick way to easily identify problem areas that warrant a closer look in soft-proof. I also find it can be useful when comparing different profiles (either of the same paper with different profiling techniques, or different papers), to quickly see if one profile or another is more likely to pose a challenge for a given image. So I'm glad it's still there.
Jeff,
A good point. The all or none gamut warning of Photoshop's softproofing is of limited value. It is difficult to soft proof colors that are out of the gamut of the monitor, so there has to be another way. It would be helpful to have a pseudo color gamut display like GamutVision uses.
Regards,
Bill
-
Hi Joe, I respectfully disagree. 3-d colorspace modeling is great to show bigger versus smaller and regions of hue where one profile encompasses more than another, but I actually find these 3-d models make it harder to visualize how in gamut colors are actually being handled as they get compressed by profiles trying to map out-of-gamut colors into gamut. I'll stay with softproofing for that.
I agree with you there. I was referring to the use of the out of gamut warning as (has been mentioned) it gives no indication of how far out of gamut a color is. Show the out of gamut tool, and then show examples of photos where things are just barely out of gamut, then show examples of photos where there's colors that are wildly out of gamut, and then show an example that has things that are both barely out and wildly out (like a the gradient in a sky that happens about a 1/2 hour after sunset).
Cheers, Joe
-
I have to come down on the side that admits that the out of gamut warning in Photoshop is horribly crude and practically useless with printers today.
As much as I love Lightroom I'm still wondering where is the F ing soft proofing that should be there in version 3, and perfected on that level? That's what we need. What's up with that?
-
As much as I love Lightroom I'm still wondering where is the F ing soft proofing that should be there in version 3, and perfected on that level? That's what we need. What's up with that?
It was on the 3.0 feature list until it got dropped due to time...it'll make it for the next version or else heads will roll. (and I ain't kidding)
-
In general, Photoshop never removes functionality even when new and improved tools are added. Gamut Warning is old tech and Soft Proofing is newer tech. It the term "legacy" is Andrew's description for a tool whose usefulness is limited when compared to what you can do when soft proofing. Generally, I couldn't care less that some colors will be out of gamut...what I care about is what those colors will LOOK LIKE when printed and that's what soft proofing gives you.
As a Colorthink gamut plot of a ProPhotoRGB image with colors that are saturated but within the natural gamut found in nature (e.g. flowers), a high end monitor that can display 100% of the Adobe RGB gamut, and the output of a high end inkjet printer will demonstrate, there are significant gamut mismatches. The printer can print colors that can not be displayed even on a high end screen. How do you determine how the colors will look like when printed by using a screen that can not not display those colors? In this situation, soft proofing does has its limitations.
In this situation, a pseudocolor representation such as provided by GamutVison could help in bringing the colors in the image into the gamut of the print medium. The Delta E values would indicate the amount of editing that would be needed.
Regards,
Bill
-
How do you determine how the colors will look like when printed by using a screen that can not not display those colors? In this situation, soft proofing does has its limitations.
Yes...but it beats making a bunch of prints while trying out different variations to get an image "right". If you are using Pro Photo RGB and have a wide gamut display and are outputting to something like an Epson 9900, there will be a disconnect between what can be captured, what can be displayed and what can be printed. That's life, deal with it. Ain't nothing perfect...you do what you can do to optimize images as best you can and live with the results (or re-print).
So, what's your point? Should you throw your hands up in the air and give up? Nope, not me...I keep pushing...what do you do?
-
Yes...but it beats making a bunch of prints while trying out different variations to get an image "right". If you are using Pro Photo RGB and have a wide gamut display and are outputting to something like an Epson 9900, there will be a disconnect between what can be captured, what can be displayed and what can be printed. That's life, deal with it. Ain't nothing perfect...you do what you can do to optimize images as best you can and live with the results (or re-print).
So, what's your point? Should you throw your hands up in the air and give up? Nope, not me...I keep pushing...what do you do?
Personally, I look at the "useless" out of gamut display. One can use Colorthink or Gamutvision to see how far out of the printer gamut the offending color lies. One can then print a small proof to see how the offending color will print.
Regards,
Bill
-
Personally, I look at the "useless" out of gamut display. One can use Colorthink or Gamutvision to see how far out of the printer gamut the offending color lies. One can then print a small proof to see how the offending color will print.
But eventually you have to make a print and live with the colors that are unprintable. Seeing what you can’t get prior reinforces what you can’t get and then, you don’t get it <g>.
-
But eventually you have to make a print and live with the colors that are unprintable. Seeing what you can’t get prior reinforces what you can’t get and then, you don’t get it <g>.
That's why I like black-and-white so much. Fewer of my colors are out-of-gamut <g>.
Eric
-
I was referring to the use of the out of gamut warning as (has been mentioned) it gives no indication of how far out of gamut a color is. ...
Cheers, Joe
A simple method I use to figure out the magnitude of the out-of gamut colors is, with gamut warning on, open a color tool like hue/sat, move the sliders until the gamut warning goes off, and then look at the info tool's before/after LAB values. If you are comfortable interpreting L*, a*, and b* differences, then it is a precise indication of the out-of-gamut region problem. You will also have an intuitive feel for the magnitude of the problem simply by sensing how aggressive you have to be with the adjustment tool sliders to bring it into gamut. That said, I can think of key improvements (including display of LAB destination (print) values as we discussed earlier) that Adobe could make to the real time info tool display that would really help out end-users who do pay attention to these numbers while we are editing.
-
Thats a clever idea.