Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Yet another sad/funny article on color management  (Read 6884 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« on: December 03, 2015, 08:07:35 pm »

http://www.macworld.com/article/3010562/software-graphics/how-to-check-your-photo-s-colors-before-ordering-print-projects-online.html


Soft proof using sRGB because Lab's want the files in sRGB. Not that this has anything to do with the output.... :o


She got color gamut right, I pointed that out in the comments section there, which are now of course locked and missing. Sad.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

earlybird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2015, 10:38:17 pm »

Will you elaborate?

Is it correct to consider that after a "save as" to the SRGB space you may preview the results of the conversion to SRGB by simply opening the image (with the SRGB color profile embedded) on your color managed system and so you do not need to soft proof it?

In addition, Is it correct to regard the soft proofing function as more appropriate when you have the color profile of the actual printer that the print service sends your SRGB embedded image file too?

Is there any actual downside to soft proofing with SRGB or is it just unnecessary (or simply not pertinent to the printer output )

Thank you.

Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2015, 10:50:26 pm »

Is it correct to consider that after a "save as" to the SRGB space you may preview the results of the conversion to SRGB by simply opening the image (with the SRGB color profile embedded) on your color managed system and so you do not need to soft proof it?
Correct. An sRGB document soft proof's as of course sRGB. But the bigger issue is, sRGB is sRGB and has nothing to do with what someone might print from sRGB in terms of a soft proof. For that you need the output profile.
Quote
In addition, Is it correct to regard the soft proofing function as more appropriate when you have the color profile of the actual printer that the print service sends your SRGB embedded image file too?
Indeed. The idea is to predict what the output from your printer will look like. Soft proofing sRGB tells you nothing about that.
Quote
Is there any actual downside to soft proofing with SRGB or is it just unnecessary (or simply not pertinent to the printer output )
Soft proof from what? If you're working in something other than sRGB and you want to know what that would look like in sRGB (but don't yet want to convert) then you'd soft proof to sRGB. If you're in sRGB and you want to see what a print will look like, you need the printer profile. Even if you were in say Adobe RGB (1998) and you were going to print that in a lab that asked for sRGB, it's pointless to soft proof sRGB. The author assumes that since the lab asks for sRGB, soft proofing to sRGB tells her something about the print process. It doesn't.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

xpatUSA

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 390
    • Blog
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2015, 11:17:27 pm »

http://www.macworld.com/article/3010562/software-graphics/how-to-check-your-photo-s-colors-before-ordering-print-projects-online.html


Soft proof using sRGB because Lab's want the files in sRGB. Not that this has anything to do with the output.... :o


She got color gamut right, I pointed that out in the comments section there, which are now of course locked and missing. Sad.

Just went there and did see a couple of your posts.

I rather liked this bit:

Quote
Since it’s challenging (if not impossible) to print some of this stuff at home

I read that fresh from reading a DxOmark article (about their stupid P-Mpix metric) which implies that few people know anything about MTF curves as relate to lenses, duh.

We the sheeple . . .

Ted
Logged
best regards,

Ted

earlybird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2015, 08:01:35 am »

Thank you Andrew,
 I am trying to move beyond thinking I know this stuff to actually knowing this stuff so I appreciate that you will entertain my awkwardly parsed questions.

Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2015, 10:33:26 am »

Just went there and did see a couple of your posts.
Odd, I don't see any comments there. There were about half dozen, then poof, gone. Maybe I have to try a different browser...
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Peter_DL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 543
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2015, 12:21:53 pm »

Is there any actual downside to soft proofing with SRGB or is it just unnecessary...

The procedure suggested in this article is flawed. The Proof Setup > Internet Standard RGB (sRGB) automatically enables the Preserve RGB Numbers option. That way it may make you instantly aware when the image is in a larger source space, for example an image in ProPhotoRGB will typically look quite bad, but to edit the image under this Proof Setup hardly makes sense, and it is getting totally nonsense when the final step is a correct Convert to sRGB.

Peter

--
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2015, 12:39:33 pm »

Hi Ted,

Which article would that be? A bit curious.

Best regards
Erik

Just went there and did see a couple of your posts.

I rather liked this bit:

I read that fresh from reading a DxOmark article (about their stupid P-Mpix metric) which implies that few people know anything about MTF curves as relate to lenses, duh.

We the sheeple . . .

Ted
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2015, 11:42:40 pm »

The procedure suggested in this article is flawed. The Proof Setup > Internet Standard RGB (sRGB) automatically enables the Preserve RGB Numbers option.
Indeed! Good call, I didn't even see that silliness. The author doesn’t have a clue.
Look at how this pans out on a wide gamut display:




Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

earlybird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2015, 06:59:10 am »

I confess, I still do not understand what the harm of soft proofing to sRGB might be and I would like to learn why.

We have discussed how it is not necessary and how soft proofing is designed to offer a preview of sorts of the color profile of a specific printer's output.

How about a scenario where you work in Pro Photo, start to finish, with the intention of "Save As" outputting a final file for web display in sRGB; other than wasting time, what is the downside to previewing a quick soft proof as sRGB?

Someone mentioned the "preserve RGB numbers" choice. What was the implication of that comment?

Thank you.

Logged

fdisilvestro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1790
    • Frank Disilvestro
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2015, 07:29:36 am »

The Proof Setup > Internet Standard RGB (sRGB) automatically enables the Preserve RGB Numbers option.

Well, this does not happen to me. (Just in case, I agree with Andrew's position)


Someone mentioned the "preserve RGB numbers" choice. What was the implication of that comment?


You will see the wrong colors, it is the equivalent of "assign" a color space instead of "convert" to a color space. In general, that option should never be used.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2015, 10:57:46 am »

I confess, I still do not understand what the harm of soft proofing to sRGB might be and I would like to learn why.
Sure. The idea is to soft proof to a color space that isn't the one you're currently viewing (an sRGB image soft proofs in sRGB). The only reason to soft proof to sRGB is if the output is to an sRGB device, meaning an emissive display; the internet, a mobile device. There is no such thing as an sRGB printer! I tried telling that to Ms. Snider, she clearly didn't  get it. In fact she wrote that:
Quote
Sure, soft-proofing in sRGB is pointless for printing to your own inkjet printer, or for something printed on a commercial press, but it's crucial for using an online printing source, including Apple. All the online labs mentioned in the article confirmed that print in sRGB colorspace. My understanding is that they print in a space similar to sRGB. But when I emailed all of those companies, they emphatically stated that yes, the images are printed in something very similar to sRGB. Not sure how to argue with that?
So either the labs were confused or she is (or both). I provided gamut maps for several contone chromagenic printers that show they are not like sRGB, sent her the profiles and suggested she soft proof to see the difference. More push back from her.
OK, so we have an image in Adobe RGB (1998) like this one I recommend you download for a later test: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
We want to see how it will appear when we print it. We select a printer output profile, say one for a lab using a Lightjet. We invoke the soft proof, the simulation check boxes and the idea is we see a simulation of how the print will appear. This has nothing to do with sRGB other than sRGB may be the source color space for conversion to that printer output color space. Just as in her article, one might be in Adobe RGB (1998) and need sRGB because the lab demands that. Well guess what? Just convert to sRGB, you're now soft proofing sRGB but NOT the printer output color space. I tried to explain to Ms. Snider, printer profiles have multiple rendering intents while sRGB provides just Colorimetric. I suggested she try toggling with an actual printer profile between RelCol and Perceptual then sRGB to see that they don't appear the same. More push back.


Quote
Someone mentioned the "preserve RGB numbers" choice. What was the implication of that comment?
This is where Ms. Snider really screwed the pooch in her article ;D . What Preserve Color Numbers does is answer this question: What would the output look like if I sent it with the current color space as is, not convert to the output color space? IOW, show me how ugly Adobe RGB (1998) will look if I send it to the web without converting to sRGB, or show me how ProPhoto RGB would look if I sent it to my Epson 3880 for Luster paper but did not convert to that Epson 3880 profile. It looks awful. What Ms. Snider's huge, egregious error in her article did was recommend people pick the soft proof option: View > Proof Setup > Internet Standard RGB (sRGB). That DOES invoke the preserve RGB numbers option! See for yourself: download the image above. It's in Adobe RGB (1998). Use View > Proof Setup > Internet Standard RGB (sRGB) and see how it appears. Now select sRGB in the Customize Proof setup instead. TURN OFF Preserve Color Numbers if on. See the difference? Ms.Snider screwed this up big time and it's quite clear she didn't even test the silly recommendation she made! She tells her poor readers that by soft proofing to sRGB, they will get some idea of how the print will appear: wrong. But worse, she provided a recipe to have them see a soft proof (View > Proof Setup > Internet Standard RGB (sRGB)) that's totally wrong and she clearly doesn't understand why. I tried to point this all out in a series of emails to her and I assume her editor she CC'd (Jay Nelson). I suggested they fix the article, simple to do. Here's the last email I got back from Ms.Snider:
Quote

On Dec 5, 2015, at 12:30 PM, Lesa Snider <**> wrote:
BUGGER OFF
L e s a   S n i d e r
So much for peer review, or the idea that Macworld's author’s, certainly Lesa Snider have any desire to disseminate useful or accurate information to their readers. Very sad.


** it's an easy email to find from her blog but I'll leave it out due to proper internet forum respect, not that she deserves it. Email me if you want to contact her.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 11:19:37 am by digitaldog »
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #12 on: December 07, 2015, 11:03:30 am »

Well, this does not happen to me.
On this end, after using the wrong recommendation, then toggling to sRGB, I see the Preserve Color Numbers check box on!
And this is what View > Proof Setup > Internet Standard RGB (sRGB) is designed to do. Anyway, what Lesa Snider recommended is utterly wrong and she's completely confused and she clearly didn't even test the recommendation she writes about.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

ZOG

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39
    • http://
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #13 on: December 08, 2015, 02:42:33 pm »

I have a question,

How come does your .tiff file open in Camera Raw instead of Photoshop? I know PhaseOne use to call their raw files .tiff, but this seems to be a regular tiff file...

Strange....

Andre
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #14 on: December 08, 2015, 04:11:57 pm »

I have a question,
How come does your .tiff file open in Camera Raw instead of Photoshop? I know PhaseOne use to call their raw files .tiff, but this seems to be a regular tiff file...
Who's TIFF? What you can do is simply select TIFF instead of Camera Raw IF that's what you see in the open dialog automatically selected.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

kirkt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2015, 05:42:51 pm »

I have a question,

How come does your .tiff file open in Camera Raw instead of Photoshop? I know PhaseOne use to call their raw files .tiff, but this seems to be a regular tiff file...

Strange....

Andre

Check your Camera Raw Preferences - they may be set to handle TIFFs.  Choosing "Disable TIFF Support" should cause TIFFs to open in PS as normal (I assume this is happening in PS).

kirk
Logged

earlybird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2015, 10:19:53 am »

Check your Camera Raw Preferences - they may be set to handle TIFFs.  Choosing "Disable TIFF Support" should cause TIFFs to open in PS as normal (I assume this is happening in PS).

kirk

I downloaded Andrew's test file and had the same issue opening the .TIFF. I had to "Disable TIFF Support" in my Camera RAW preferences to open directly in Photoshop.

How does this test file differ from the thousands of my own saved 16bit and 8 bit .TIFFs that have always opened directly in Photoshop without disbaling TIFF support in my camera RAW preferences?

Win 7 Pro x64, Photoshop CS6 final update.

Thank you.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2015, 10:49:04 am »

Open's fine and as a TIFF on this end...
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

earlybird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 331
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2015, 10:54:51 am »

Open's fine and as a TIFF on this end...

Does it happen that your Camera RAW preferences are already set as has been suggested: "Disable TIFF Support" in Camera RAW preferences?

Or perhaps it is a saved on Mac and opened in Windows mystery?

Just curious.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19959
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Yet another sad/funny article on color management
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2015, 10:58:31 am »

Does it happen that your Camera RAW preferences are already set as has been suggested: "Disable TIFF Support" in Camera RAW preferences?
That is how I have it set. IF I want to edit a TIFF in ACR, I'll use ACR as a filter (not that I do that often).
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up