Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: mouse on December 07, 2015, 05:25:28 pm
-
Based upon what I have found at several photographic web sites, White House Custom Color
WHCC (https://www.whcc.com/resources/faqs)
is one of the more highly recommended firms providing quality online printing. I have used them myself and obtained very good (if not outstanding) results. The following is excerpted from their site. Unfortunately I think it only contributes to the general misunderstanding of color management and preparation of an image for online printing. :(
Here’s how to properly setup your Adobe Photoshop Color Settings:
1. Open Photoshop
Mac OS X Users: Go to Photoshop in the Menu Bar > Color Settings
Windows Users: Go to Edit in the Menu Bar > Color Settings
2. Select a Working Space for RGB Files.
We recommend either Adobe RGB (1998) or sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
If you are unsure, you probably want sRGB IEC61966-2.1.
3. Select "Convert to Working RGB" next to RGB under Color Management Policies.
4. Check "Ask When Opening and Ask When Pasting" next to Profile Mismatches.
Color Calibration & File Management
How do I calibrate to your printers?
You don’t calibrate directly to our printers. You calibrate your monitor and generate a monitor profile that software like Photoshop uses to show you accurate color on your screen. We calibrate and balance our printers to create a printer profile. Using a standard working color space like Adobe RGB 1998 or sRGB and embedding this in your file allows our printer software to make sure what is printed is what you saw on your screen. We recommend all clients perform hardware monitor calibration. This is a relatively straightforward and simple procedure. We recommend the i1Display Pro and ColorMunki Display by Xrite.
Do you supply any profiles?
Yes. Once you have an account number, you can download ICC profiles for soft proofing purposes. The profiles are for all of our printers and we also have instructions on how to properly use them. Under no circumstances should you convert to our printing profile or embed it in your files.
Should I embed an ICC profile?
Embedding a valid ICC profile in your image is very important. Without embedding the profile our software has no idea what colorspace your file is in. This will result in unexpected color in the prints. All files not tagged with an embedded profile are assumed to be in sRGB.
What colorspace do you accept?
We recommend using a standard working space profile such as Adobe RGB 1998 or sRGB. However, we accept any colorspace as long as it is embedded in the file. Our software will read the colorspace embedded in the file and print appropriately.
-
Aside from "convert to working", which is usually a bad idea, what's the problem with this?
-
Aside from "convert to working", which is usually a bad idea, what's the problem with this?
That's the biggest problem I see, at least for the 'novice' PS user. Of course, the idea of using a profile to soft proof you can't use to convert is kind of goofy. Might as well just tell people to send sRGB and forget soft proofing. With a profile you can't fully use, what RI do you use (what RI does the lab use)? Black Point Compensation? Is the profile really reflecting the output conditions? If so, why can't the user just convert and be done? I recall one lab with all the same kinds of equipment that did offer actual profiles for use (soft proof and conversions) and didn't care what RGB working space you used. Pictopia. Out of business unfortunately. Perhaps no good dead goes unpunished. But that lab offered a full color managed path.
-
Unfortunately I think it only contributes to the general misunderstanding of color management and preparation of an image for online printing. :(
It's not a egregious as the article that appeared last week on MacWorld (in case you didn't see it): http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106238.msg873659#msg873659
The WHCC article compared to the ridiculous piece by Lisa Snider comes across as a white paper by the ICC!
-
Aside from "convert to working", which is usually a bad idea...
Remind me why?
-
Remind me why?
It performs automatically a rel-col conversion without giving you the opportunity to make any adjustments before converting. Also, suppose you have ProphotoRGB as your working space and you need to edit a 8 bit jpeg; you might not want to convert to ProPhoto RGB.
-
Remind me why?
Because it forces a conversion of all images regardless of their color space. With the Warning check box off, SUPER dangerous. You have all nature data in differing color spaces. The setting automatically coverts that data upon opening the files. Now say you are a web designer and the only working space you'll ever need or want is sRGB. The setting could automate this conversion but again, unless you're in a very rare boat and know what you're doing, it's a very bad policy!
http://digitaldog.net/files/Photoshop_Color_Settings.mov
-
Because it forces a conversion of all images regardless of their color space. With the Warning check box off, SUPER dangerous. You have all nature data in differing color spaces. The setting automatically coverts that data upon opening the files. Now say you are a web designer and the only working space you'll ever need or want is sRGB. The setting could automate this conversion but again, unless you're in a very rare boat and know what you're doing, it's a very bad policy!
http://digitaldog.net/files/Photoshop_Color_Settings.mov
Exactly. Agree with your other points too. When I see a printer that says that on their site I just move on. They aren't usable.
-
... Also, suppose you have ProphotoRGB as your working space and you need to edit a 8 bit jpeg; you might not want to convert to ProPhoto RGB.
Again, why not?
I am not arguing it is a good thing, because I simply do not know enough to claim one way or another, but so far I only heard it is a 'bad policy," but not why.
If I remember correctly, I read at some point that, if you want to work on that 8-bit jpeg, it is still a good idea to convert it to 16 bit first. Is it not so? And by the same token, shouldn't it be beneficial to work in a wider color space if one is to manipulate color significantly?
Again, these are genuine questions, not meant to be argumentative.
-
Again, why not?
I am not arguing it is a good thing, because I simply do not know enough to claim one way or another, but so far I only heard it is a 'bad policy," but not why.
Thought I pointed out why it is a bad policy with a rare exception and for people who have a really good handle on color management and Photoshop color behaviors.
Set the Policy for Preserve, what you end up with after opening the data as it existed before you opened the data. You can always convert that data (and do a Save As...).
-
Consider this company’s primary customer base. Wedding/portrait photographers and the general public. Not fine art landscape photographers. There have been MANY new wedding/portrait startups and new photographers in the last 10 years because it’s relatively easy to begin. Many of these startups and novices never get as far as to understand “convert.”
It has always been the photo lab’s job to make a photographer’s work better. I would venture to say that a very large portion of the thousands of files this large company receives every day are underexposed. The same was prevalent in the film days of a photo lab too. Nowadays, one of the surest ways to get dark prints is to work at a dark computer station. New photographers shoot the event all day and then try to edit all night. They tier of that grind quickly and eventually turn the task back over to the photo lab where it belongs. It’s the world of Gary Fong followers and not that of a fine art photographer.
Therefore, depending on the service/price category the photographer asks for, each and every file could get optimized via color balance and density by a human operator. This is the norm and always has been. The machines can do a great job automatically but a skilled operator can produce an even better print when needed. Furthermore,
“Under no circumstances should you convert to our printing profile or embed it in your files.”
Could simply be because they have multiple machines with profiles that get optimized (especially for trending gray balance) and refreshed often which is separate from the download page. You can soft proof using the download for Luster but they will actually use the latest profile for Luster Machine Number 6 when they send it to image.
Fine art landscape photographer didn’t get a perfect print the first time? Buy another round of color. It’s no different than making another round of color on the in-house inkjet other than time for shipping. Frustration factor is the same too, except one can now “blame the lab.”
-
It has always been the photo lab’s job to make a photographer’s work better.
Pretty much the opposite of prepress (send the CMYK numbers as is). Neither is necessarily better or ideal. If you have good RGB values for output, the last thing you want is some lab mucking with the RGB values.
I would venture to say that a very large portion of the thousands of files this large company receives every day are underexposed.
What would be ideal is a workflow option for those who don't know what they don't know (my files are 'under exposed') and for those that do know (my RGB values are correct based on sound color management). Unfortunately few labs provide both options! They try to give their customers the often false idea that they have good process control (do they?) they are color managed (why can't I use the profile for both soft proof and conversion?). Frankly the 'just send us sRGB' is a workflow for their benefit, less so for their customers. Easier to funnel everything through the pipeline.
Could simply be because they have multiple machines with profiles that get optimized (especially for trending gray balance) and refreshed often which is separate from the download page. You can soft proof using the download for Luster but they will actually use the latest profile for Luster Machine Number 6 when they send it to image.
Could be they have crappy or non existing process control! Easy to test, few do so.
It’s no different than making another round of color on the in-house inkjet other than time for shipping. Frustration factor is the same too, except one can now “blame the lab.”
Sorry I disagree, it's a lot different. The in house printer can fully control the color management process. Some don't know how to, but that's an education issue. With sound color management, the in house printer should be able to nail the print the first, maybe 2nd time. They have ICC Profiles they can fully use and don't have to be forced to ever consider sRGB.
-
Is the profile really reflecting the output conditions?
In this case they say it does. They even explicitly say profiles, in the plural, so probably specific to paper/printer.
In any case, let's be realistic. This is aimed at the average user with little prior knowledge and as such this looks very sound to me. At no point do they say "just send us sRGB", but they do say use sRGB if you're not sure. That's still sound advice.
-
Again, why not?
Simply because you don't want to convert unnecessarily, and certainly not wholesale without any control over individual files.
If you know the implications and are fine with that, it's no problem. But again, aimed at average users who don't understand what it means, it's not a good idea.
-
At no point do they say "just send us sRGB", but they do say use sRGB if you're not sure. That's still sound advice.
They say send sRGR or Adobe RGB and nothing else!
-
That's nitpicking ;) It's clearly stated that they accept anything, as long as the profile is embedded.
Again, this is aimed at average users with little prior knowledge and it must be read as such, not as a treatise on ultimate color management practices. If that was their aim, it wouldn't be understandable to the majority of their customers, and they'd lose business.
-
That's nitpicking ;) It's clearly stated that they accept anything, as long as the profile is embedded.
But NOT the output profile, that's the point! The text provided states:
Under no circumstances should you convert to our printing profile or embed it in your files.
A customer is provided a profile for soft proofing they can't use to convert. That's silly. It's not nitpicking. Do you believe that all rendering intents are the same, that image A may output better with RI A vs. RI B or even C? Or that an ICC profile know anything about color in context? What RI does the lab force on their customers and which are they supposed to use to soft proof?
This is a seriously silly, half backed color management workflow to be kind. IF as you suggest, the profiles define output behavior, that output behavior is consistent, then a customer should be able to select any RI from the profile provided for soft proofing and send that in for output. Clearly the lab states that's not allowed.
Again, this is aimed at average users with little prior knowledge and it must be read as such, not as a treatise on ultimate color management practices. If that was their aim, it wouldn't be understandable to the majority of their customers, and they'd lose business.
That's your assumption of all customers and sorry, I'm going to suggest it's rubbish. The lab could provide output profiles a more savvy customers could apply to his data and the lab could output the RGB numbers as is. Or provide the "just send us sRGB (or Adobe RGB (1998)) for the so called dumb, average customer base you suggest involves all customers. The lab(s) don't proved that option. One did, it's gone but the facts are, it's entirely possible to provide both options. The facts are, these labs are more interested in pushing files through their systems and providing an illusion that they are color managed.
Are you really suggesting that a customer who can setup a soft proof with the profiles provided he can't fully use, cannot go one step farther and use the Convert to Profile command and then "Save As..."? Of course that customer could with little more education and better, select the rendering intent he visually prefers.
-
<sigh>
Just for the record, I'm not suggesting the average customer is dumb. He or she may just spend their time on other things than the study of color management. Your "savvy" customers wouldn't use this anyway, they'd print themselves.
-
Just for the record, I'm not suggesting the average customer is dumb. He or she may just spend their time on other things than the study of color management. Your "savvy" customers wouldn't use this anyway, they'd print themselves.
Well you can, but it would be nice and useful (I do respect your opinions) about the lab demanding sRGB OR Adobe RGB (1998) yet providing profiles only for soft proofing. Makes no sense to me.
-
It's not a egregious as the article that appeared last week on MacWorld (in case you didn't see it): http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106238.msg873659#msg873659
That's certainly true. And we are all aware that the web is littered with articles by self styled experts who confound rather than enlighten (caveat emptor). However my disenchantment with this company (and their web site instructions) stems largely from my earlier impression that they ranked very high among discerning photographers for the quality of their online printing service. Thus their stature (as I previously viewed it) allows them a platform to confuse and mislead those (myself included) who are just coming to grips with rational color management.
Andrew has pointed out one of the most egregious flaws: Providing a profile for soft proofing but insisting that one not convert the image to this space. That made my head spin.
-
Well you can, but it would be nice and useful (I do respect your opinions) about the lab demanding sRGB OR Adobe RGB (1998) yet providing profiles only for soft proofing. Makes no sense to me.
The least the lab could do is state that they print Adobe RGB or sRGB tagged files using PerCol and that the profiles should be used in PerCol for proofing purposes. A lot of people only print in PerCol and work in Adobe RGB. They would be perfectly happy. At least if the gamut limitations are acceptable and lack of vendor print consistency is ok since there is no standard way of mapping colors for PerCol. Even inside the gamut. Like a box of chocolates.
-
The least the lab could do is state that they print Adobe RGB or sRGB tagged files using PerCol and that the profiles should be used in PerCol for proofing purposes. A lot of people only print in PerCol and work in Adobe RGB.
IF I had a gun to my head, had to select one RI, it be RelCol. Luckily I don't have to be forced into that RI. We both know that the Perceptual RI differs from manufacturer/color engine and not all are created equally. Even Saturation RI is fair game. It's why we have those three options and should soft proof all images as profiles know nothing about images.
In an effective color management workflow, the working space and RI used in the output profile is not forced upon us.
They would be perfectly happy.
I hear that all the time in such arguments and I think it's rather silly because:
1. You and other's cannot speak for others.
2. Other's who have no options don't know what they don't have or know how that might be a benefit.
It's like suggesting those who only work in sRGB are happy. And yes, ignorance is bliss. They have no idea what their output could look like if given the chance so it's kind of silly to speak for them and their happiness based on no other experience. Yes, an sRGB workflow will not by itself, produce poor output. But optimal? No, that's simply not the case.
At least if the gamut limitations are acceptable and lack of vendor print consistency is ok since there is no standard way of mapping colors for PerCol.
That's a load of assumptions. As for mapping to RelCol, again, not all profiles are created equally as we both know:
(http://digitaldog.net/files/EpsonVsCustomProfile.jpg)
-
IF I had a gun to my head, had to select one RI, it be RelCol. Luckily I don't have to be forced into that RI. We both know that the Perceptual RI differs from manufacturer/color engine and not all are created equally. Even Saturation RI is fair game. It's why we have those three options and should soft proof all images as profiles know nothing about images.
In an effective color management workflow, the working space and RI used in the output profile is not forced upon us. I hear that all the time in such arguments and I think it's rather silly because:
1. You and other's cannot speak for others.
2. Other's who have no options don't know what they don't have or know how that might be a benefit.
It's like suggesting those who only work in sRGB are happy. And yes, ignorance is bliss. They have no idea what their output could look like if given the chance so it's kind of silly to speak for them and their happiness based on no other experience. Yes, an sRGB workflow will not by itself, produce poor output. But optimal? No, that's simply not the case. That's a load of assumptions. As for mapping to RelCol, again, not all profiles are created equally as we both know:
Well, I can speak for those that always print in PerCol which includes those that have no idea what a profile is or how to soft proof. At least they provide the printer profile for proofing and whatever way it happens to map colors, in or out of gamut since it is PerCol, the proof should be an accurate representation of the prints they get back. That's better than 80% of people that send their stuff out and don't use, or know how to use, profiled printers.
It isn't my cup of tea. I also prefer RelCol and like to keep the edited image colors inside the printer gamut. That way I can be certain my prints will come back looking the same no matter what print vendor I use. That pretty much means they have to take images that have been converted using their profile's Rel Col so this place wouldn't work for me.
-
Well, I can speak for those that always print in PerCol which includes those that have no idea what a profile is or how to soft proof.
How can you speak for them when as you admit, they always print RelCol and have no idea how to toggle to other RI's and soft proof?
Do you feel a one size fits all RI for something as complex as images is the best approach? Begging the question, why did the ICC provide other RI's and the ability for each manufacturer to create their own Perceptual Rendering? Should transparency film always have appeared like Ektachrome and should photographers who never had the ability to shoot say Velvia be told they are missing nothing by being forced into an Ektachrome rendering? Seems rather silly to suggest that.
People who don't know what they don't know, are often happy with what they have. As I said, ignorance is bliss.
That way I can be certain my prints will come back looking the same no matter what print vendor I use.
Really? Then how do you explain this photo of an actual print made using two profiles with RelCol to the same printer and paper (let alone differing print shops):
(http://digitaldog.net/files/EpsonVsCustomProfile.jpg)
-
Under no circumstances should you convert to our printing profile or embed it in your files.
A customer is provided a profile for soft proofing they can't use to convert. That's silly. It's not nitpicking. Do you believe that all rendering intents are the same, that image A may output better with RI A vs. RI B or even C? Or that an ICC profile know anything about color in context? What RI does the lab force on their customers and which are they supposed to use to soft proof?
While I agree it might be helpful for advanced photographers to use the profiles and convert the image themselves so they have control over the rendering intent, at the volumes these labs are producing, to try and provide an alternative would be detrimental to production, and from a practical point of view be used by a tiny fraction of the photographers submitting work.
The color management workflow is built into the firmware/software of the devices, and the conversion to the paper profile is actually handled by the printer, as the profile is normally attached to the media choice in the printer. Most devices can handle only 8 bit image files, which means submitting in ppRGB might be problematic. But most can easily handle submission in either sRGB or aRGB. To handle files without a color space mosts labs will assume sRGB.
Using a Chromira printer for example, it is actually pretty difficult to submit an image to the printer unmanaged, which would be what is necessary to use a file converted to the printer profile. Every time I need to print a target for profiling to my Chromira printer I have to jump through some hoops to keep the printer from applying the current profile because the output conversion is handled by the printer, not the submission software, and the profile is attached to the media choice. If I don't attach a profile to the media, the printer will error out when it tries to print the file.
so while I'm not disagreeing with the concept, the practicality of it from a lab perspective is difficult, especially considering the volume of work each printer must produce to keep the lab in business, and that only a minuscule percentage of clients are even aware of rendering intents and would take advantage of an alternate workflow which allowed this.
-
While I agree it might be helpful for advanced photographers to use the profiles and convert the image themselves so they have control over the rendering intent, at the volumes these labs are producing, to try and provide an alternative would be detrimental to production, and from a practical point of view be used by a tiny fraction of the photographers submitting work.
I guess that's why the one lab I know provided a sound color management workflow to such devices and allowed any profile to be used went out of business. I'm surprised I wasn't blamed for that workflow ;D
Most devices can handle only 8 bit image files, which means submitting in ppRGB might be problematic.
Doubt it. Certainly based on the work done by the late Bruce Fraser for Kodak testing 8-bit per color workflows with ProPhoto RGB. Of course, one could covert high bit, ProPhoto RGB to the printer profile and then send 8-bit per color to the lab (ideal for transmission anyway) IF the lab allowed it. They don't so it's moot.
To handle files without a color space mosts labs will assume sRGB.
That's the bottom line here; it's what they assume and demand. It's intended for their benefit, not that of their customers who understand and wish to implement sound, full color management practices.
Using a Chromira printer for example, it is actually pretty difficult to submit an image to the printer unmanaged, which would be what is necessary to use a file converted to the printer profile.
Difficult (for whom) or impossible? Suppose the lab applied an extra fee? The customer could decide if it's worth the fee or they don't. No such option is provided from these so called "Pro Labs."
Here's where I stand on this: Either demand sRGB or perhaps Adobe RGB and be done OR implement a full color management workflow. The labs are using the later to imply they have their color management act together for their customers, supply profiles for a rather useless practice (soft proofing only) and can't provide proof the profile defines the output conditions. It would be very easy to test this too!
I have no issue with a lab saying one or two working spaces must be supplied. I have an issue with them providing a bogus ICC profile the customer can't use.
Every time I need to print a target for profiling to my Chromira printer I have to jump through some hoops to keep the printer from applying the current profile because the output conversion is handled by the printer, not the submission software, and the profile is attached to the media choice.
I'm sorry to hear it's such a hassle. Like good process control, it's part of the service business. I can assure you, it's far, far more difficult and expensive to make a room filled with Indigo presses do this and yet, it's done by those who demand superb process control and a color managed workflow.
so while I'm not disagreeing with the concept, the practicality of it from a lab perspective is difficult, especially considering the volume of work each printer must produce to keep the lab in business, and that only a minuscule percentage of clients are even aware of rendering intents and would take advantage of an alternate workflow which allowed this.
You've queried the customer base (yours or the lab in question) and you're certain the so called Pro's wouldn’t be willing to pay an additional fee? I guess in the end, those that really do need this functionality just bypass said labs and produce their own prints.
-
WHCC (https://www.whcc.com/resources/faqs)
>>…you can download ICC profiles for soft proofing purposes.
… Under no circumstances should you convert to our printing profile or embed it in your files.<<
For example with a Fuji Frontier Printer -- (its working modes were excellently explained in this earlier post by Czornyj (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=93016.msg757391#msg757391)) -- it could potentially be that a lab chooses to ignore the PD mode, and to kept the printer in the so called sRGB mode. When receiving an image in a different working space, they may have found their way to convert to sRGB first, before feeding the RGB data into the printer driver.
I can't say how likely this scenario is here with WHCC, however, in this case the offered icc profile would refer to the printer in sRGB mode, in the ideal situation describing the de facto printed gamut (deviating from sRGB).
In this broader context, the guideline: "soft-proof but do not convert" was actually stated in a former paper by Fuji, which however does not seem to be around anymore. That's not correct color-management, I'll leave it to others to point this out, but it may not be totally silly. We touched on this topic here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106133.msg874352#msg874352).
--
-
For example with a Fuji Frontier Printer -- (its working modes were excellently explained in this earlier post by Czornyj (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=93016.msg757391#msg757391)) -- it could potentially be that a lab chooses to ignore the PD mode, and to kept the printer in the so called sRGB mode. When receiving an image in a different working space, they may have found their way to convert to sRGB first, before feeding the RGB data into the printer driver.
I can't say how likely this scenario is here with WHCC, however, in this case the offered icc profile would refer to the printer in sRGB mode, in the ideal situation describing the de facto printed gamut (deviating from sRGB).
In this broader context, the guideline: "soft-proof but do not convert" was actually stated in a former paper by Fuji, which however does not seem to be around anymore. That's not correct color-management, I'll leave it to others to point this out, but it may not be totally silly. We touched on this topic here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=106133.msg874352#msg874352).
--
Fact is in the large majority of photos most of the gamut clipping occurs in the conversion to printer space. Even converting to sRGB, the gamut reduction is small compared to going from sRGB to printer space. Being that printing services are market based, this appears acceptable to most or the market would support converting to the printer's space using the customer's preferred RI. The market supplies what people demand. It's a simple as that.
-
Even converting to sRGB, the gamut reduction is small compared to going from sRGB to printer space.
Converting to sRGB from what working space and how (with limited RI)?
Being that printing services are market based, this appears acceptable to most or the market would support converting to the printer's space using the customer's preferred RI.
How can something be acceptable or unacceptable when those people have neither the options to try something different or observe the differences? I keep asking how such assumptions about the so called market carries weight and as yet, no one has provided any facts based on real evidence.
The market supplies what people demand. It's a simple as that.
People can't demand what they don't know exists.
But look, the bottom is this: If you demand an sRGB workflow to your printer, fine. Do that and be done. If you're going to demand an sRGB document for output, don't try to fool your customers by providing profiles for soft proofing that they can't use and may not have any relationship to the actual output. Be honest. Again, for the last time, I've got zero issue with any lab that tells it's customers they have to submit sRGB for output. I have a big issue with labs that pretend, by providing an output profile the customer can't use, they are somehow color managed. It's just a lie.
-
Converting to sRGB from what working space and how (with limited RI)?
Sticking with the printer's recommendation, Adobe RGB would be the larger gamut they recommend. Printers use PerCol when rendering RGB spaces by default. Presumably they would render whatever tagged RGB space the customer provides to the printer per PerCol and their printer profiles would accurately soft proof for that RI.
How can something be acceptable or unacceptable when those people have neither the options to try something different or observe the differences? I keep asking how such assumptions about the so called market carries weight and as yet, no one has provided any facts based on real evidence. People can't demand what they don't know exists.
The market is the evidence. There is no shortage of people talking about how small the sRGB gamut is and it is small. That doesn't mean it is optimum. Witness Betamax. Cheap and good enough often beats better.
But look, the bottom is this: If you demand an sRGB workflow to your printer, fine. Do that and be done. If you're going to demand an sRGB document for output, don't try to fool your customers by providing profiles for soft proofing that they can't use and may not have any relationship to the actual output. Be honest. Again, for the last time, I've got zero issue with any lab that tells it's customers they have to submit sRGB for output. I have a big issue with labs that pretend, by providing an output profile the customer can't use, they are somehow color managed. It's just a lie.
The printer suggests Adobe RGB or sRGB for those that don't know what Adobe RGB means. Good advice. I think they hit a sweet spot in the larger market. Some of us artisans and color picky, knowledgeable folk go a different path.
I don't see much hope for change until high gamut video becomes a "must have." In many ways it's more compelling and makes more of a difference than 4K over regular HD. Oled tech will drive that because backlit, high gamut LCD screens use much more power to get the large gamut. Batteries are king in mobile devices.
-
The market is the evidence. There is no shortage of people talking about how small the sRGB gamut is and it is small. That doesn't mean it is optimum. Witness Betamax. Cheap and good enough often beats better.
But consumers had the options to actually try Betamax. The labs don't provide the same to consumers who want even try anything but sRGB!
The printer suggests Adobe RGB or sRGB for those that don't know what Adobe RGB means.
Some, few do. Most don't even give the choice of Adobe RGB (1998)! So do you suppose there might have been users who tried both sRGB and Adobe RGB at lab A and decided to stick with them because lab B only offered sRGB. And further, they actually tested both approaches and found they preferred Adobe RGB (1998)?
I don't see much hope for change until high gamut video becomes a "must have."
It's not a must have, it's an option. An option not provided. But again, if a lab demands one working space, with no options, and the price point and quality of output, and as importantly consistency, is good, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with a lab pretending to practice modern color management providing an output profile that can't be used. AGAIN, that's just a marketing lie.
-
But consumers had the options to actually try Betamax. The labs don't provide the same to consumers who want even try anything but sRGB.
Unlike video tape, consumers have long been able to use large gamut printers and high gamut workflows. And professionals often work in Adobe RGB today.
It's not a must have, it's an option. An option not provided. But again, if a lab demands one working space, with no options, and the price point and quality of output, and as importantly consistency, is good, I'm fine with that. I'm not fine with a lab pretending to practice modern color management providing an output profile that can't be used. AGAIN, that's just a marketing lie.
Consumers measure distance with a tape measure, angles with a protractor, or walk a property line and count steps. Professionals use a total station.
Depends on what you need. There are tons of tools that skilled people use that others choose not to bother with. There is only so much time in one's life.
-
Unlike video tape, consumers have long been able to use large gamut printers and high gamut workflows.
To the lab's under discussion, just the opposite! Consumers did have access to differing video tape options. So what you're saying here appears to me to be just the opposite of reality. Sorry.
And professionals often work in Adobe RGB today.
Of course they might. What's your point? How did you gauge what a professional is and what color spaces they use? You can suggest professionals often work in Adobe RGB today and I can suggest they often work in ProPhoto RGB, especially those who use an Adobe raw converter. Again, so what? We can both speculate about the numbers. This has nothing to do with anything discussed here.
Consumers measure distance with a tape measure, angles with a protractor, or walk a property line and count steps. Professionals use a total station.
More assumptions and speculations that are just generalizations.
"All generalizations are false, including this one".
-Mark Twain
The facts are pretty clear if you don't ignore them. Many so called 'pro labs' (whatever that is supposed to mean or who it's supposed to include) demand sRGB data for output. Fine. The facts are, when a lab demands sRGB for output, the customers have no other options. They have no way to see what the lab could produce with a different RGB working space. Again, it doesn't mean the output will suck. The facts are as clear as the nose on your face however; these customers don't have other options for an RGB working space out to the printers. So without such options, they are unqualified to state what they might have seen using another option.
I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand or accept these facts, or if you are really struggling with it but believe it's the former.
-
The facts are pretty clear if you don't ignore them. Many so called 'pro labs' (whatever that is supposed to mean or who it's supposed to include) demand sRGB data for output. Fine. The facts are, when a lab demands sRGB for output, the customers have no other options. They have no way to see what the lab could produce with a different RGB working space. Again, it doesn't mean the output will suck. The facts are as clear as the nose on your face however; these customers don't have other options for an RGB working space out to the printers. So without such options, they are unqualified to state what they might have seen using another option.
I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand or accept these facts, or if you are really struggling with it but believe it's the former.
I have no idea why you believe I disagree with any of that. Obviously people that use these printers don't know (most of them, I suspect) or care (those that know) but are sufficiently happy with what they get that they don't bother doing their own printing or raising hell with the printers. Likely most of their customers don't have a clue.
-
Then how do you explain this photo of an actual print made using two profiles with RelCol to the same printer and paper (let alone differing print shops):
(http://digitaldog.net/files/EpsonVsCustomProfile.jpg)
I'm a little late answering this. I missed the blue ball question earlier. Obviously the balls are outside of the printer's gamut. By a rather huge amount (100 dEs or more?) given the rendering difference. Since there is no defined, or even agreed upon, way that out of gamut colors are mapped in RC, or any intent for that matter, one can't conclude from that alone that the profile is defective. The one that renders the ball black might be more accurate at rendering printable colors. Or not. No way to tell from that.
-
I'm a little late answering this. I missed the blue ball question earlier. Obviously the balls are outside of the printer's gamut. By a rather huge amount (100 dEs or more?) given the rendering difference. Since there is no defined, or even agreed upon, way that out of gamut colors are mapped in RC, or any intent for that matter, one can't conclude from that alone that the profile is defective. The one that renders the ball black might be more accurate at rendering printable colors. Or not. No way to tell from that.
Yet both prints (yes, actual prints photographed seen here) are made using RelCol. So how does this statement hold up:
AtoB1 tables are supposed to accurately colorimetrically represent the printed color. Always.
-
Yet both prints (yes, actual prints photographed seen here) are made using RelCol. So how does this statement hold up:
AtoB1 tables are supposed to accurately colorimetrically represent the printed color. Always.
Pay attention. The printer profile's AtoB1 tables have nothing to do with the way the actual prints look.
Sure the blue ball renderings look very different. They look different because the two profiles rendered the prints using BtoA1. BtoA1 LUTs are only required to render colors that are outside the printer gamut. How they render these obviously varies with vendor.
EtoA: For clarification purposes because someone may interpret the statement above to mean that only the colors outside the printer's gamut are the colors rendered. The statement better reads:
BtoA1 LUTs are only required to render all colors. They are not required to map colors outside the printer's gamut in any defined way. How they render these obviously varies a lot between vendors and but doesn't affect the accuracy of the profiles within the meaning of ICC. For colors that are within the printer's gamut, BtoA1 LUTs should render the colors unchanged to the extent possible given the constraints imposed by less than perfect interpolation processes and data unevenness caused either by measurement noise or actual large printer response gradients.
-
They look different because the two profiles rendered the prints using BtoA1. BtoA1 LUTs are only required to render colors that are outside the printer gamut. How they render these obviously varies with vendor.
I've been trying to drum that into your head, in that other post for days!
-
I've been trying to drum that into your head, in that other post for days!
I've never maintained that colors outside a printer's gamut are treated consistently by different profile vendors in RC (or any other intent for that matter). I presume you aren't suggesting that they should be mapped the same way and therefore are interpreting my posts differently from my intended meaning. If that's the case I'll try to be clearer.