sRGB, Photoshop & D70 Nikon Camera

debphoto

Okay, this is my first posting so I'm really sorry if I don't put this question in the right place.:confused

I am having problems getting Photoshop to recognize sRGB mode from my Nikon d70 camera. It views the image as "Camera RGB Profile" image even though I have it set to Mode Ia - sRGB in my "Custom Image Enhancement Options."

When I transfer my image to my Mac, it says the image is "Camera RGB Profile" not sRGB. I have a feeling that it is the same information but saves it with a different language.

My fear is that when it goes to the ezprinter, the printer says, "I don't recognize this color space. I'll just do the best I can with the information I have" and the prints turn out dark. I have downloaded the icc profile for soft proofing.

Thanks for any help!!

Deb @ debphoto.com

mercphoto

debphoto wrote:

Okay, this is my first posting so I'm really sorry if I don't put this question in the right place.:confused

I am having problems getting Photoshop to recognize sRGB mode from my Nikon d70 camera. It views the image as "Camera RGB Profile" image even though I have it set to Mode Ia - sRGB in my "Custom Image Enhancement Options."

When I transfer my image to my Mac, it says the image is "Camera RGB Profile" not sRGB. I have a feeling that it is the same information but saves it with a different language.

If you are using Image Capture to bring your images from your card or camera onto your Mac (as I do), check the Options for "Embed ColorSync Profile". Why Apple even thinks this is a useful feature is beyond me.

gtc

shoot adobe rgb for print
in any case it is better to shoot in adobe rbg if you arewanting to print-srgb is for web application and monitors wheras adobe rgb has a wider gamut for printing

LeDude

gtc wrote:

in any case it is better to shoot in adobe rbg if you arewanting to print-srgb is for web application and monitors wheras adobe rgb has a wider gamut for printing

Smugmug does their printing from sRGB (uploads in A RGB will not display corrently and it is discouraged) and says that major printing companies use sRGB. That's what I remember anyway. I notice a big difference in the yellows to reds on my monitor when I make the switch; maybe home printing is best done in Adobe RGB? [I do shoot in Adobe RGB]

mercphoto

LeDude wrote:

Smugmug does their printing from sRGB (uploads in A RGB will not display corrently and it is discouraged) and says that major printing companies use sRGB. That's what I remember anyway. I notice a big difference in the yellows to reds on my monitor when I make the switch; maybe home printing is best done in Adobe RGB? [I do shoot in Adobe RGB]

Correct. Commercial printers assume sRGB, so if your file is in aRGB you will NOT get the results you want. This includes Smugmug. If you are printing at home you can use any color space you want as long as you know what you are doing.

As per wider color gamuts go, wider is only better if you actually need the wider gamut space. To paraphrase Einstein: "a color space should be as small as possible, but no smaller". What this means is if your image is not out-of-gamut in the sRGB space, then using aRGB is actually a poor move.

Harryb

Hey Deb,

You should be fine. Its being recognized as an sRGB file. You should have no problems with the printing.

For the best results you may want to do your RAW conversions with Nikon Capture. I get better results with that than by converting through PS. I know its a bummer to spend the $ but its a good investment. Youi can download a 30 day trial version from the Nikon site and see how you like it.

Bystander

mercphoto wrote:

Correct. Commercial printers assume sRGB, so if your file is in aRGB you will NOT get the results you want. This includes Smugmug. If you are printing at home you can use any color space you want as long as you know what you are doing.

As per wider color gamuts go, wider is only better if you actually need the wider gamut space. To paraphrase Einstein: "a color space should be as small as possible, but no smaller". What this means is if your image is not out-of-gamut in the sRGB space, then using aRGB is actually a poor move.

I believe printers who use photographic papers and processes -- like the printer SmugMug uses -- do better with sRGB -- But -- if you are using an ink jet printer aRGB is the better choice. The books on digital printing I've read all advocate aRGB -- even some that have been quoted here to backup the use of sRGB -- one quote says to choose color space on a picture by picture basis but if you are unsure of the range of colors in your photo -- choose aRGB for its wider gammet/color range. Most of us are not sure how many specific colors are in our photos, I'll bet.

and BTW I still have not received an answer re: my question -- Does SM convert aRGB files to SRGB on upload? I have a portfolio that is partly sRGB partly aRGB and see no difference. I compared images on my iMac G5 with my daughters WinTel HP Laptop and saw little difference -- both looked good to us color wise (she is an artist). I did send Baldy a question to follow up on a thread he had last year about a new way of uploading files that included said conversion but have not heard back.

Thanks for any light anyone can put on this.

P.S. I haven't used SM for printing but may do so soon. I'll experiment to see how the photos look from each color space -- and let you know what I find.

mercphoto

Bystander wrote:

I believe printers who use photographic papers and processes -- like the printer SmugMug uses -- do better with sRGB

Its not so much that they do better with sRGB --- they EXPECT sRGB. Even if your image has a color space profile embedded they will disregard it and print in sRGB. You will not get accurate colors if your image is in one color space but printed in a different color space.

and BTW I still have not received an answer re: my question -- Does SM convert aRGB files to SRGB on upload?

The answer is no.

I have a portfolio that is partly sRGB partly aRGB and see no difference. I compared images on my iMac G5 with my daughters WinTel HP Laptop and saw little difference -- both looked good to us color wise (she is an artist).

Was the application you were using to view the images color aware? If so then of course you see no difference.

Having said all this, after 17 years in the tech industry helping make computers better, I'm almost ashamed about how hard it is, still, simply to print a decent looking, accurate color photograph.

Bystander

mercphoto wrote:

Its not so much that they do better with sRGB --- they EXPECT sRGB. Even if your image has a color space profile embedded they will disregard it and print in sRGB. You will not get accurate colors if your image is in one color space but printed in a different color space.


The answer is no.


Was the application you were using to view the images color aware? If so then of course you see no difference.

Having said all this, after 17 years in the tech industry helping make computers better, I'm almost ashamed about how hard it is, still, simply to print a decent looking, accurate color photograph.

I use Safari my daughter uses IE.

After 40 years in the IT industry and after being a very early user of IBM PC architectured PC's and a Mac hater, I switched to Mac when I found printing in color on my Dell so difficult. Its never been a problem with the iMac. Now that I have PSCS2 its even better.

Last year I published a calendar for the local Conservation Trust with about 25 of my photos -- it was professionally printed with no problems whatsoever and very well received. I sent them JPEGs and they printed them -- digitally on a Xerox printer.

I'm currently in the process of printing 30 images for a one person show I am mounting at a local gallery in town on monday. My images on the monitor, the calendar and on my prints all look the same to me. Funny thing is I chose the print shop to work with based on his ability to match the quality of the prints I get from my Epson 2200 -- many local printers could not do it.

In my part of the world and from my reading the tend in printing from digital files seems to be to use digital processes and papers. The photography shop in a nearby town that has been in business 60 plus years has always had an excellent darkroom. Very fine B&W and color photographic prints have been a hallmark of theirs. But now they are up to date. They have several high end Epsons and will give you a "fine art print" for $65 -- on their Epsons. You can still get photographic process work done but in their lab it seems digital is digital -- give them a digital file and you generally get a digital print.

Joel Meyerowitz was quoted in American Photo magazine saying he gets better results printing digitally than he can get any other way even if he is starting with a scanned neg. I have an early digital print of his -- its about 3 feet X 4.5 feet and was printed from a scan of one of his 1960's street scenes -- it looks great (takes u a lot of space tho.) -- Joel told me that he had just mastered PS -- this was in about 1996 -- Of course he still uses an 8 X 10 Deardorf view camera made in 1939 for some work (his street work was 35mm.)

John Wawrzonek is another local photo hero who uses a View Camera for capture -- scans his negs and then everything from there on is digital. He is a master technition and his prints are magnificent - and BIG.

Seems to me that a lot of what photographers and printers are doing points to digital as the perfered way to print even if film was use in the capture.