The Epson printers give you the option of letting Photoshop control color, and they work well printing from Prophoto 16 bit files. The paper profiles allow the printer to translate those parameters to the paper you're using. I don't understand all the tech. But I can get an exact copy of what appears on my Retina 5k monitor when printing 16 bit Prophoto to Epson Ultra Premium Luster paper, using the appropriate ICC paper profile.
Paul via phone > On Apr 28, 2016, at 7:19 PM, Mark C <[email protected]> wrote: > > A few reactions to the quoted post - > > - Its not much of a hassle to work in Adobe RGB. Just convert to SRGB before > saving for screen devices. I just use a Photoshop action that resizes, > converts the color space, flattens layers, drops the image from 16 bits to 8 > bit and saves as a jpg. I've been using Adobe RGB for core files since I > first stated with Photoshop 5. > > - When it comes to printing - I may be wrong on this but I don't think that > the Epson printer I use is either an sRGB or Adobe RGB device. Basically > there is a native color space for each type of paper and a corresponding > color profile. The color space isn't sRGB or Adobe RGB, it's "Premium Glossy" > or "Enhanced Matte" or whatever... The color spaces for the different types > of papers can be fairly constrained (in the case of matte papers > particularly) or broad. It makes sense to use a wider gamut like Adobe RGB in > source files for printing and let the print process convert colors that are > outside the destination gamut if needed. Epson i s continually increasing the > gamut of their inks and papers, so it seems best to preserve as much color > info in the source file as possible, in case you want to print it in the > future. > > - Printing via services - for low end services (drug stores, big box stores) > converting to srgb makes sense. Its a safe harbor - sRGB is the least common > denominator so odds are any printer can handle it. If you are paying any kind > of premium or working with a lab that holds itself out as having any kind of > professional status, they should be using a color managed process and should > be able to work with the profile embedded in your image. > > From what I've been able to tell, monitors work within their native color > space, which may or may not correspond to sRGB or AdobeRGB or whatever. So a > monitor that is 78% of sRGB is just that - its native color space coincides > with 78% of the sRGB space. Some monitors can emulate certain standard color > spaces. I think this is what Igor was referring to when he mentioned that > some software assumes that the monitor is sRGB and can produce off results > when a wide gamut montior is actually used. But the color space used by the > monitor is not necessary a standard space, hence the need to use the > manufacture's profile, or calibrate with a colorimeter. > > Mark > >> On 4/28/2016 1:04 PM, Darren Addy wrote: >> I'm no expert on this stuff, but it seems to me that Adobe RGB is >> specifically for printing and THEN only if the printer can handle it >> and is ALSO calibrated to match your calibrated monitor. >> >> In research I found this post, which seemed to make a lot of sense to me: >> >> <begin quote> >> >> Flat out - if you're mostly displaying your work on the web, use sRGB. >> >> Read this article: https://fstoppers.com/pictures/adobergb-vs-srgb-3167 >> >> Your goal should be to work in the same color space that your target >> audience will be seeing. For 99% of computer monitors, that means >> SRGB. Doesn't matter if you personally have a wide-gamut monitor, most >> people don't. >> >> If you work in anything else, you are just creating extra hassle for >> yourself because you won't know how the image will look to the rest of >> the world. You'll have to just edit it again for the people stuck in >> the sRGB color space. >> >> You can create the photo with a non-sRGB color space and let the web >> automatically convert/interpret the colors to sRGB. But if you let the >> web do that conversion, it will not do a great job, some colors will >> look off or desaturated... whereas your own conversion will be exactly >> what you want. >> >> If you shoot raw, there is no color space assigned (yet). If you then >> import the raw into lightroom, lightroom is actually temporarily >> working in their version of the ProPhoto RGB color space, >> (http://digital-photography-school.com/everything-need-know-lightroom-colour-space/) >> which has the biggest gamut of color. Then when you're done playing >> with the various sliders and you like how it looks on the screen, you >> can export to sRGB, AdobeRGB, or ProPhoto. Lightroom will convert the >> colors to the chosen profile, not just assign the profile blindly, and >> it will do a good job of it. >> >> AdobeRGB is specifically for printing (since most devices with screens >> cannot display it) and even then, many printers can't handle it either >> and are working in sRGB. So unless you want to risk paying money for a >> nice print and then it comes out with wacky colors, stick to sRGB. >> >> You can of course work in AdobeRGB for your own personal wallpaper, or >> make specialized versions of some images for other people with >> wide-gamut monitors. >> >> <end quote> > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
