Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27   Go Down

Author Topic: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic  (Read 113831 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19107
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #480 on: August 28, 2014, 08:38:10 am »

Who is going to get burned?  And more importantly, who is going to listen to your warnings?  
According to Michale, Lula currently has more than 1.1 million unique readers each month; 3.5 million page views from some 50,000 people a day. This is a larger circulation that any print photographic magazine in the world and exceeded on the web only by some of the dedicated camera review sites.
That's who listens Gary.

Update Gary, as of seconds ago, this thread illustrating your flat earth color theories and rants has 5696 views. Not bad!
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 08:45:19 am by digitaldog »
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #481 on: August 28, 2014, 09:48:07 am »

Hi,

Well said...

The way I work is that I use ProPhoto RGB until conversion is needed. I do my own printing up to A2, anything larger goes to a pro lab in Sweden, called Crimson. The lab has a service called prefix, half a price and fast turnaround time, but you are responsible for colour management. Works perfectly for me.

Best regards
Erik


Erik,

That is what I do, too. This presupposes shooting in raw and processing the images in the proprietary camera maker software, ACR, Capture One, or LR. Indeed, in LR that workflow is built into the workflow for raw shooters. That said, there is a place for shooting in camera JPEGs. Fast paced photojournalism, sports photography, and high volume wedding photography are often mentioned. In these cases, it is essential to get the shot right in the camera and the pros shooting in these situations know how to do this, and don't need Mr. Fong's advice.

For amateurs shooting with P&S or camera phones, JPEG and sRGB is the usual situation and many of these users don't even know what sRGB or color management is, and they don't need Mr Fong either. With these highly automated cameras surprisingly good results can be obtained. The iPhone can even do panoramas.

I'm not sure who are Mr Fong's audience. Most of us on the forum are enthusiasts who are here to advance our skills and learn from the many highly knowledgeable forum members. Mr Fong's inflammatory posts and confrontational style have provoked some interesting discussion, but I think it is time to move on and I hope the sysop will close this thread down soon.

Bill
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19107
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #482 on: August 28, 2014, 09:54:10 am »

Mr Fong's inflammatory posts and confrontational style have provoked some interesting discussion, but I think it is time to move on and I hope the sysop will close this thread down soon.
Bill, as the originator of the post, I can lock it down. I'm somewhat concerned about doing this because:

  • It appears as a form of censorship and that's what upset me most by Gary's actions, deleting posts on his YouTube site that showed how some were trying to help him and were rather polite despite his tone.

    There have been some useful technical discussions that were sure to go over Gary's head that had nothing to do with the topic but were none the less useful additions.

    I think giving Gary a platform to appear as one person put it, genuinely delusional, is proving him more rope to hang himself.

    I'd hate to let Gary believe his behavior was the cause of closing the posts. He doesn't deserve the power.
If enough people feel locking the post is necessary, or if Chirs or Michael feel the need, so be it.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 10:38:00 am by digitaldog »
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #483 on: August 28, 2014, 09:57:12 am »

You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB.  I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.

I haven't seen an apology, but did I ask for one?  The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use.  How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose?  How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?  

Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts.  His video was fantastic.  He is an incredible teacher and extremely popular.  His (and my) type of instruction helps photographers move forward and appreciate photography.  All this group tries to do is intimidate people who are simply trying to take more pleasing photos.  I'm sorry you thought I was declaring myself famous and laughing at you.  I'm not.  I'm simply telling you that any individual in this group, or the group as a whole of its members, has absolutely no influence, anywhere.  So while you may claim to be out "saving the world from misinformation" you have two obstacles:  1) nobody knows or cares about you and 2) you don't have a unified cause anyway.  You all just argue with each other.

The typical photography enthusiast does not have a goal in life to wear a Coloritti blazer, or to purchase wide gamut monitors, or to make 3D animated diagrams of gamut balloons.  They just want to take photos they love.  Experts like you on the internet try so hard to top each other in minutiae so that I can't even get a clear cut picture of any consensus that you share.  I just see you all arguing with each other.  

I have businesses to run.  This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.

Surely there have got to be simpler analogies than ebola and what happens in Sierra Leone.  You all are trying to impress each other with your deep, immense expertise of your mental horsepower, it takes someone like me to make you all mad at how I call it out on the open.

Surely you could say something like, "putting a ferrari engine in a SmartCar", or "swatting flies with a bazooka", but choosing words like "promulgating information" or "photographers generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general" - but you choose these words and jargon to get attention.  To rise to the top of the class by sounding like you are so smart.

This is not what helps the industry.  Read my articles on PDN about my yearly state of the industry.  Intimidation of this kind discourages people from enjoying photography because you make them feel stupid, when they are not.  They may be beginners, but they are not an island of irrelevant gripers.  

I manage people in groups.  You folks are not a functioning group because of all of you out there, when I said I was going to do a visible test of two prints staying in their prospective workspaces from capture to output, while I asked many times, only one of you would go on the record and predict an AdobeRGB win.  So while you may be sure what is happening in Liberia, you sure weren't confident enough to say that your wider gamut would produce noticeably better results, with the exception of one person.  The rest of you called foul before I printed the test, yet your wider gamut print won!  That has got to sting!

Here's another thought for you.  You all know this group much better than I do.  Let me ask you a question.  Do you think Sony, or Lumix, or any company at all would hire this group to engineer the next innovation in color technology?  Or would they hire people who are not, as Will says, "falling in love with their workflow".

"You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola." - you are SO smart for not talking normal. 


OK, this is beyond the pale.  Gary have you considered the possibility that the reason this group doesn't march in "lock step" on these matters is due to independent thinking and an honest desire and attempt to probe the boundaries of the digital medium and what might be achieved?  And you think that's evidence that we don't know what we're talking about or "can't agree on anything?"  If that's your honest opinion and you intend to use that opinion to discredit and ridicule the knowledge base available here - all to support your oversimple and inaccurate description of the facts on the ground - well, then whatever respect I had for you and your desire to be helpful to your target audience just went permanently out the window.  

No one knows who I am.  Yet, from what I've learned from the people on this site over the years, starting from knowing zero about color management, I'm now helping others understand and achieve really predictable results in their work, and we're making beautiful prints for them that push the boundaries of what is possible.  Every single one of the small group that I assist started from zero also.  And in this you're correct... they are not stupid.  And because this is true, I don't think they deserve a stupid, oversimple and inaccurate explanation in order to encourage them to stay stupid and limit themselves to a workflow that will enable them to make "pretty pictures" rather than offer the possibility of something more, and encourage them to pursue it.  

You have demonstrated through your absolute intransigence and arrogance that you deserve no more of my time.

Rand
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8902
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #484 on: August 28, 2014, 10:01:49 am »

If enough people feel locking the post is necessary, or if Chris or Michael feel the need, so be it.

FWIW, in general I'm not in favor of locking down threads, this one included. As you said, it also has 'positive' aspects, and it's up to the participants to increase the signal to noise ratio...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

D Fosse

  • Guest
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #485 on: August 28, 2014, 10:21:55 am »

Just for the record I think Andrew has explained his main issue with that video very well, in terms that everyone can understand. Well, almost everyone. And just for the record I agree with it all. I haven't said much in this thread, because it's all been said very well by others.

At this point I just have a question for Gary Fong, the obvious one:

Right in the beginning you claimed this was Andrew Rodney against the world. Now, some 5770 views later, and not one of them defending your theories on color management, do you still think that? Or could this possibly be Gary Fong against the world?
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19107
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #486 on: August 28, 2014, 10:29:25 am »

This guy is as dumb as a bang of hammers!
You will note in the description of the YouTube video, I said that probably the hottest debate in forums (outside of RAW vs JPG) is AdobeRGB and sRGB.  I'm here, yes, absolutely because I wanted to see how hot this topic would get.
The debate between us (you, me and every single person expect Will) is you got your facts about color wrong. Then Will did. Simple as that.
Quote
I haven't seen an apology, but did I ask for one?
You don't deserve one, just the opposite. The people who's posts you deleted who tried to correct you deserve an apology. Your audience who is being misled, misinformed, given less than half truths deserve an apology from you!Clearly you don't care about them, it's all about Fong.
Quote
The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use.
Useful to your marketing. If you really believed the feedback was useful how could you delete posts? That's called censorship Gary! It makes you look far worse than your totally confused understanding of color management.
Quote
Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts.
MacDonalds is recognized as selling the highest number of burgers. Doesn't make them the best by a long shot. I don't care if Will has lectured in every country on the planet, he's still wrong about a lot of color management theory. Distance between pixels? No output device has a gamut volume than sRGB? And your now famous illustration of spectrum where you state:.…And the colors at either side of the rainbow are the same." ALL WRONG.
Quote
I'm simply telling you that any individual in this group, or the group as a whole of its members, has absolutely no influence, anywhere.
You've told us all kinds of things that are wrong, here's yet another.
Quote
So while you may claim to be out "saving the world from misinformation" you have two obstacles:  1) nobody knows or cares about you and 2) you don't have a unified cause anyway.  You all just argue with each other.
Point of fact, nearly everyone here and many on your site prior to your censorship disagreed with you! That's another fact you simply can't recognize.
Quote
The typical photography enthusiast does not have a goal in life to wear a Coloritti blazer, or to purchase wide gamut monitors, or to make 3D animated diagrams of gamut balloons.
First, thanks for speaking for all typical photography enthusiast (out if your rear end), next it's Coloratti, you've illustrated you can't read or write very well, lastly 3D gamut balloons is as ridiculous and an uneducated statement as Will's now famous "distance between pixels" flop. The reason to keep the post open and allow you to write here is you get deeper and deeper into the hilarious color management comedy act you provide like no one else.
Quote
I have businesses to run.  This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.
If getting you to waste your time providing comedy material for us to read keeps you from misleading other's with new video's, this has been a worthwhile effort!
Quote
This is not what helps the industry.  Read my articles on PDN about my yearly state of the industry.
How will that dismiss the incorrect teachings on color you've provided for all to see? It only makes some suspect of you which again, if only a few see that,this has been a worthwhile effort!
Quote
Intimidation of this kind discourages people from enjoying photography because you make them feel stupid, when they are not.
The only person who should feel stupid based on his writings about color is you sir.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 10:35:20 am by digitaldog »
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Simon Garrett

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 742
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #487 on: August 28, 2014, 10:33:06 am »

The YouTube video is staying up, is getting great feedback because it contains useful (not irrelevant) information that the typical photographer can put to good use.  How many times have I explained that the use of analogies like, "wide rainbows" or "muffin tops" were used to help people make a simple distinction about which to choose?  How many times have I explained that changing the monitor profile was an illustration to show what happens when wide gamut is expressed in narrow gamut equipment?  

The analogies are out-and-out wrong and misleading, and your demonstration of what happens when you change profiles doesn't show what you say.  

Will Crockett has lectured nationwide, and is (alongside Eddie Tapp) the most recognized color expert among any of the top experts.

Name these experts that think he's good.  I find that statement quite beyond belief.  

His video was fantastic.  

Not the one I saw.  That one was ludicrous.  Perhaps you could clarify which one was "fantastic" with a link?  

I have businesses to run.  This is an important part of my business - illustrating the madness that ensues when a handful of color science experts (and not working photographers, as in the case of Andrew Rodney) get together in a forum and try to outwit each other.

The people here - whether professional photographers or not - quite clearly understand the science of colour pretty well.  What relevance is it that some are not professional photographers?

Conversely, you don't need to be an expert in colour science to be a great photographer just as you don't need to understand the biochemistry of digestion in order to eat, and you don't need to understand cell respiration in order to breath.  

But however good a professional photographer you are, it's pretty silly to try to teach something you don't understand.  This is the blind leading the blind, but worse - you're purporting to know something that you don't really know as well as you say.  That is at best misleading.  

I've read and heard many mistaken comments on colour science as it relates to photography, but the real foolishness would be to refuse to countentance the possibility of being wrong, despite a deluge of expert opinion saying so.  

However great a professional photographer you are, please just consider the possibility that you might not know as much as you thought you did about colour management.  
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 10:44:07 am by Simon Garrett »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17850
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #488 on: August 28, 2014, 10:34:11 am »

You will note in the description of the YouTube video...

Very good assessment, Mr. Fong, except your point 1).

This group is influential and a lot of people knows and cares about it, though probably not your audience. This group has a few elephants*, and a bunch of us, mice, who think that, when running along a herd of elephants, the earth shakes because of them too.

* i.e., people who write books on the subject or are generally knowledgeable about their field

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17850
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #489 on: August 28, 2014, 11:03:27 am »

Come on Slobodan, what the hell does "AdobeRGB-capable hardware" mean?...

That is a smart-ass comment, Tony, and you know it. What I wrote is a contextual SHORTHAND for: "any device, printer, lab, operator, screen, browser, etc. that is capable of treating files with Adobe RGB correctly, without screwing them up."

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19107
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #490 on: August 28, 2014, 11:41:35 am »

What I wrote is a contextual SHORTHAND for: "any device, printer, lab, operator, screen, browser, etc. that is capable of treating files with Adobe RGB correctly, without screwing them up."
Might I suggest a better term than "AdobeRGB-capable hardware" be something like:
Color management aware, iCC aware, color managed etc.

AdobeRGB-capable hardware is a new term I've never heard before this post. It doesn't make sense to me either. My MacBook display driven by an ICC aware application (Photoshop for example) treats Adobe RGB (1998) properly as does my NEC wide gamut display and neither are sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998) devices but they can use that data within a color managed path. The only "AdobeRGB-capable hardware" possible would be some emissive display that follows the exact Adobe RGB (1998) specifications.
AdobeRGB-capable hardware is a 'term' much like Gary's incorrect account of an 'sRGB printer'. There is no such thing, a printer can't print or create sRGB so why call it that?

Color management is difficult enough that I don't think we need to create new terms that are ambiguous or not based on reality, like that 'sRGB printer' phrase. It's OK for Gary, he doesn't understand the topic and determined to confuse his audience. But you're in a different class Solbodan.

As I've said elsewhere, As the Chinese proverb says: The first step towards genius is calling things by their proper name. The opposite of genius would be making up names like Gary has done, it serves no purpose.


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

kudzu1804295673

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #491 on: August 28, 2014, 01:04:19 pm »

Hi guys, I found this thread through a convoluted path of youtube videos (can't even remember what I started off watching, but I wound up watching Gary Fong's video that OP referenced).

I'm not a pro photographer and mainly share online, but occasionally I will print a favorite photo.

Will I go wrong if I shoot in JPG + RAW and use sRGB?

The idea being that:

1. JPG = for casual social media sharing requiring little if any processing; and video is mainly sRGB anyway right?
2. RAW = digital negative so can't I figure out the gamut later? Like if I have a favorite photo I want in black and white, I will have to go back to the RAW file anyway (if I shot it in color in JPG). Can't I just figure out sRGB or aRGB at that point in time (when processing the RAW)?

Am I missing something here?
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17850
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #492 on: August 28, 2014, 01:18:15 pm »

... Will I go wrong if I shoot in JPG + RAW and use sRGB?

No, as long as you have 1. a software to work on that raw 2. time, knowledge and willingness to do so. Now, granted, you might not have #2 right away (or even #1), but storing raw for possible future use is not a bad idea (the only downside is the storage itself - requires extra space - if space, on hard drive or otherwise, is not a problem, then ok)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19107
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #493 on: August 28, 2014, 01:19:28 pm »

1. JPG = for casual social media sharing requiring little if any processing; and video is mainly sRGB anyway right?
2. RAW = digital negative so can't I figure out the gamut later? Like if I have a favorite photo I want in black and white, I will have to go back to the RAW file anyway (if I shot it in color in JPG). Can't I just figure out sRGB or aRGB at that point in time (when processing the RAW)?

1. Correct!
2. Yes, the raw file has the potential to produce any RGB working space your raw converter supports. If you are working with Adobe raw processors (Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom), the processing color space uses ProPhoto RGB sized gamut. So I would render your master images in that color space, after which you can always convert to a smaller color space like sRGB.
You can go bigger gamut to smaller but it is pointless to go the other way. Think of it as starting with a gallon container holding water. You can pour that into a quart container. But pouring a quart of water into an empty gallon container doesn't give you a gallon of water. So I would render from raw to the highest resolution your camera can produce, widest gamut (ProPhoto RGB), 16-bit, do all the work on that as your master image archive. Then you can size down the resolution and gamut for output to other needs like posting to the internet, slide shows etc.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19107
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #494 on: August 28, 2014, 01:21:50 pm »

No, as long as you have 1. a software to work on that raw 2. time, knowledge and willingness to do so. Now, granted, you might not have #2 right away (or even #1), but storing raw for possible future use is not a bad idea (the only downside is the storage itself - requires extra space - if space, on hard drive or otherwise, is not a problem, then ok)
The other caveat would be a situation where he posts the JPEG from the camera, then decides to process the raw and expects an exact match. Easier and possible with some manufacturer's raw converters. If one captures just raw and processes that, and then a JPEG iteration, it will match.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

kudzu1804295673

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #495 on: August 28, 2014, 01:28:18 pm »

No, as long as you have 1. a software to work on that raw 2. time, knowledge and willingness to do so. Now, granted, you might not have #2 right away (or even #1), but storing raw for possible future use is not a bad idea (the only downside is the storage itself - requires extra space - if space, on hard drive or otherwise, is not a problem, then ok)

Whew, thanks! Fortunately I have plenty of hard drive space for photo/video on my NAS.

1. Correct!
2. Yes, the raw file has the potential to produce any RGB working space your raw converter supports. If you are working with Adobe raw processors (Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom), the processing color space uses ProPhoto RGB sized gamut. So I would render your master images in that color space, after which you can always convert to a smaller color space like sRGB.
You can go bigger gamut to smaller but it is pointless to go the other way. Think of it as starting with a gallon container holding water. You can pour that into a quart container. But pouring a quart of water into an empty gallon container doesn't give you a gallon of water. So I would render from raw to the highest resolution your camera can produce, widest gamut (ProPhoto RGB), 16-bit, do all the work on that as your master image archive. Then you can size down the resolution and gamut for output to other needs like posting to the internet, slide shows etc.

Ok, thanks! And yes, I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 12 and Lightroom for processing stuff I actually print, as opposed to sharing on social media. Since it's hanging on my wall, I would prefer maximum quality in that instance!
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19107
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #496 on: August 28, 2014, 02:15:32 pm »

CG Pro Prints, $39.99 for a 20x30 canvas with finished back.
Don't want you to think I blew you off on this. I didn't do an exhaustive search but I did find a huge difference in pricing for this kind of work and agree, you're getting a screaming good deal from this lab. I found some that do offer the option for Adobe RGB (1998) upload, but the price for this size print was as you say, many times higher. I can't comment on the quality of CG Pro Prints and if you're happy with them, and apparently you are, I can't suggest spending more just to upload Adobe RGB (1998) would be a wise business decision.
Logged
Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" on pluralsight.com

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #497 on: August 28, 2014, 02:21:00 pm »

Whew, thanks! Fortunately I have plenty of hard drive space for photo/video on my NAS.

Ok, thanks! And yes, I use Adobe Photoshop Elements 12 and Lightroom for processing stuff I actually print, as opposed to sharing on social media. Since it's hanging on my wall, I would prefer maximum quality in that instance!

This whole exchange is very instructive.  Someone not especially sophisticated in the fine points of color management asks several fundamental questions.  He is given straightforward, accurate, information that addresses his questions.  His knowledge of color management is expanded.  He's better off than he was before.  No "rainbows," no "muffin tops."  It makes me wonder how he could possibly grasp things so quickly without them!

 ;D

Rand
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 02:23:47 pm by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #498 on: August 28, 2014, 02:30:00 pm »

Bill, as the originator of the post, I can lock it down. I'm somewhat concerned about doing this because:

There have been some useful technical discussions that were sure to go over Gary's head that had nothing to do with the topic but were none the less useful additions.


Indeed there have been some very useful discussions and I, for one, have learned from them.  Admittedly one has to kiss a lot of frogs before one finds the princess.  But that's the nature of the internet. 
Please don't lock it down.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17850
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #499 on: August 28, 2014, 02:40:33 pm »

Don't want you to think I blew you off on this. I didn't do an exhaustive search but I did find a huge difference in pricing for this kind of work and agree, you're getting a screaming good deal from this lab. I found some that do offer the option for Adobe RGB (1998) upload, but the price for this size print was as you say, many times higher. I can't comment on the quality of CG Pro Prints and if you're happy with them, and apparently you are, I can't suggest spending more just to upload Adobe RGB (1998) would be a wise business decision.

Correct, Andrew, and thanks for following up. Especially when I had to print 24 such pieces for an art fair, we are talking a potential difference of several thousand dollars.  And of course, the same images printed on my home printer (Canon PRO-10, 13x19) do appear nicer, finer tonal gradations, livelier colors, sharper, etc. Just not dramatically so, to justify the price difference.
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25] 26 27   Go Up