Soft Proof - Blurb - Smugmug Questions
Andrea H.
Registered Users Posts: 30 Big grins
It's a loaded title, I know. But I'm trying to make sense of this all.
Where to start. Hmm.
This is my issue. I'm making a book on Blurb for a client for Christmas. I was all gung-ho and started it. I had a question so I went to Blurbs forum and stumbled upon the Color Management Profile for Booksmart (Blurb's programs). I downloaded their profile for the HP5000 and when I followed thier "soft proofing" it made all my photos look very flat, with very little contrast and very grey. Not at all the look that I'm going for.
Now, I've already edited all these photos and have printed proofs off Smugmug and while I don't have a calibrated monitor, the proofs looked pretty awesome.
So my question is this. Is it possible the two profiles are SO different from each other? I didn't do any sort of soft proof when I edited my prints before uploading them to Smugmug. So I don't have their printer profile in my computer. Is it possible that my good looking prints will look like this washed out crap that I'm seeing in the "soft proof".
I don't have a ton of experience with, so be gentle on me! I'm doing my best to learn this all in hopes I can create a solid little side business for myself. I have photo sessions booking up and want to have a solid grasp on printing books and photos, and making sure they look as good as they do on my computer screen. (and yes, I know I need a calibration device for my monitor, its on my christmas list! )
http://www.blurb.com/assets/colormgt_dpreview-v3-1.pdf
These are the instructions I followed.
Can anyone help a girl out? I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.
Andrea
Where to start. Hmm.
This is my issue. I'm making a book on Blurb for a client for Christmas. I was all gung-ho and started it. I had a question so I went to Blurbs forum and stumbled upon the Color Management Profile for Booksmart (Blurb's programs). I downloaded their profile for the HP5000 and when I followed thier "soft proofing" it made all my photos look very flat, with very little contrast and very grey. Not at all the look that I'm going for.
Now, I've already edited all these photos and have printed proofs off Smugmug and while I don't have a calibrated monitor, the proofs looked pretty awesome.
So my question is this. Is it possible the two profiles are SO different from each other? I didn't do any sort of soft proof when I edited my prints before uploading them to Smugmug. So I don't have their printer profile in my computer. Is it possible that my good looking prints will look like this washed out crap that I'm seeing in the "soft proof".
I don't have a ton of experience with, so be gentle on me! I'm doing my best to learn this all in hopes I can create a solid little side business for myself. I have photo sessions booking up and want to have a solid grasp on printing books and photos, and making sure they look as good as they do on my computer screen. (and yes, I know I need a calibration device for my monitor, its on my christmas list! )
http://www.blurb.com/assets/colormgt_dpreview-v3-1.pdf
These are the instructions I followed.
Can anyone help a girl out? I'd really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.
Andrea
Canon 40D & Canon Rebel XT
[canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5] [canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6]
[canon 35L] [canon 50 f/1.8]
[canon 75-300 f/4-5.6] [canon 430ex]
[various - hoods, CFcards, diffuser]
[canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5] [canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6]
[canon 35L] [canon 50 f/1.8]
[canon 75-300 f/4-5.6] [canon 430ex]
[various - hoods, CFcards, diffuser]
0
Comments
Next, how did you setup the soft proof? The simulate paper and ink check boxes WILL make the soft proof appear flat. That's because you're now viewing the images based on the contrast ratio of not a display which is quite large but that of the print which is far smaller. Plus, with the check boxes on, you really need to be in full screen mode with no palettes showing as they do NOT undergo the paper white or ink black simulation. Your eye adapts to the whitest white, that's not what is being shown in the print soft proof.
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200409_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200411_rodneycm.pdf
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
The profile I used are listed in that pdf I listed:
HP Indigo Press 5000 Semimatte
I changed Rendering Intent to Perceptual. Checked Black Point Compensation and Simulate Paper Color (which is yes, what made the biggest difference in the photos.)
I'm going to try that proofing process you suggested and look at a sample of the photos. The biggest change is on my black and whites. Which look awful.
And I'll check out those articles after I get my little one in bed tonight. Thanks!
[canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5] [canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6]
[canon 35L] [canon 50 f/1.8]
[canon 75-300 f/4-5.6] [canon 430ex]
[various - hoods, CFcards, diffuser]
Until you get an instrument to calibrate and profile your display, forget using any ICC profiles or soft proofing. You're putting the cart way ahead of the horse.
http://www.takegreatpictures.com/HOME/Columns/Digital_Photography/Details/Color_Management_and_Display.fci
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
The indigo press is very popular with these companies that make books. However, the Indigo inks are really bad, as in flat. (Some of these companies have switched over to a Xerox press with somewhat more reflective inks.) If you are comparing the Indigo inks to, for instance, the latest photo inkjet inks, you will probably be disappointed. I suppose it is possible that, even without your having a color managed system, their profile is letting you know that.
I found this out after I won a free book from Shutterfly (using Indigo presses, at the time), and compared their book to my inkjet prints. Side by side, the difference was huge.
It is possible, yes.
Not what you wanted to hear, I know.
I don't want the cheese, I just want to get out of the trap.
http://www.jimwhitakerphotography.com/
I have ordered lots of prints from SMugMug and been very happy.
If you are expecting SM quality from Blurb, you will be very disappointed. I know I was.
I wont use them again.
Z
Pros that are successful in using our products position them in their line to complement their other items.
Regarding use of the profile, agree with Andrew that calibrating your production environment is the right place to start. But also keep in mind that the posted HP5000 Indigo profile is the generic profile. A true color managed environment requires a closed loop to a specific press with a specific output profile. So even if you've done all of the steps Andrew suggests you may still find your images in a Blurb book won't perfectly match to your screen. But using the generic profile will give you a good idea of what you lose when your RGB images are mapped down to the much smaller CMYK color space on the Indigo.
My recommendation is always...before you tear your hair out trying to figure out what a Blurb book will look like on your desktop do a basic 40-page book with images that you are very familiar with and compare for yourself. I think you'll find that the Indigos are very predictable and if you do some corrections based on the test books you may be able to create your own “Blurb work flow” as many other pros have.
To Jim's point, we offer printing on the Xerox iGen3 for our 7x7 products. These introduce another set of issues because they are dry-ink, which makes solid blacks and other colors look great but tend to have a bit less shadow detail in my experience. Again, a test book is a good place to start on these as well, and they start at $12.95 for a soft cover 40-page book so it won't break the bank.
Finally, we are indeed looking to expand our offerings to meet the specific needs of pros. If you are interested in helping us define this next set of products and services, and you will be at ImagingUSA in Tampa next month, drop me a PM and I'll set up a time for you to meet with one of our team that will be exhibiting there. We would love your suggestions and comments.
Best,
--bw
Andrea, you have received proof prints from Smugmug that looked correct, RIGHT?
If I understand correctly, you uploaded your files to smugmug and had them print some prints for you. Did you softproof these files also with smugmugs proofing profile on your own non calibrated monitor at home before ordering the prints from smuggy? ( If the prints you received from smugmug look correct then the files must be properly prepared even with a non-calibrated system)
You might compare how your files look in softproofing with smugmugs EZ print profile, versus the profile for the Blurb printer. You may find that the difference between these two proofing images is closer than you think. It takes a bit of practice looking at proofing images on a computer screen to make use of this technique. The proofing images almost always look worse than the screen images because of the differences between a transparency ( LCD screen ) and a paper image with its much more limited white to black ratio.
I suspect having a trial print run, when using a new printing service, for a critical job, is a good idea to consider too.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I don't have smugmugs EZ print profile listed in my system, it was all done just by me and what I thought looked right. Probably not the best thing, but it's worked so far!
I've talked to the customer that's getting the book (she's a friend) and she understands that there will be some differences. If she's not happy with the item, I'll pay for it and then I'll have a sample book. I'll only be out my time (little of what I have left! ). I wish I had time to do a sample book but that's ok!
Thank you all for your contributions. I really appreciate it.
[canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5] [canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6]
[canon 35L] [canon 50 f/1.8]
[canon 75-300 f/4-5.6] [canon 430ex]
[various - hoods, CFcards, diffuser]
She said she converted to CYMK in Photoshop, processed the images, and then converted back to srgb before uploading to Blurb. I am not sure exactly where in her work flow she soft proofs, but she said that if you don’t do this the images in the book will come out somewhat flat.
Maybe bruceblurb can comment on this, and or maybe Dee will chime in.
All I can tell you I have herd of many quality complaints, but when I saw Dee’s results, I started thinking about working on a book for myself.
Sam
Doesn't sound like a very good idea to me.
If you have the CMYK profile for this device, fine. Use it and move on. RGB to CMYK to RGB is just a great way to throw away a lot of useful data and it of course takes time. You could soft proof an RGB file using a CMYK profile.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
It is ok to go from RGB->CMYK and then save the file, but it is a one way street, you cannot go back to RGB at that point without data loss that may well be visible.
You can soft proof an RGB file in Photoshop with a CMYK profile like SWOP 2, or whatever profile is appropriate for the output destination.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
This is probably mostly an academic argument since I recommend using soft proof rather than doing the roundtrip through CMYK, but...
For pure data integrity a rountrip RGB->CMYK->RGB will lose data (or more appropriately change data in an irreversible way). But ... if your image is destined for a particular CMYK printer that you have the profile for then the initial conversion from RGB to that CMYK profile will probably irreversibly convert some of your data, but that data would have been changed anyway when the image was printed because is has to get squeezed into the CMYK gamut. I don't think the conversion back to RGB necessarily loses anything since sRGB is mostly larger than CMYK and the places that it is smaller than CMYK are places that were already clipped from your image since it started in sRGB. So, did you actually lose anything if you are only using that image for printing on that printer - not really.
I'd recommend just using soft proof rather than actually converting to CMYK, but I'm not sure the double convert is quite as bad as being painted here when the resulting image is specifically aimed at that CMYK printer and only at that CMYK printer.
FWIW, I took a few of my images with important colors in them and soft proofed them using the HP Indigo Press 5000 profile that has been associated with Blurb by some customers and I was pleasantly surprised that the only place I saw any out of gamut was in some of the blacks and then I could only see it with the gamut warning - I couldn't even see a difference in the soft proof. Checking a couple other images, I notice it more clearly on an image of a bright red flower, but that image is even more contrained by EzPrints than it is by Blurb. I'll check some more of my images before I print my first Blurb book, but it didn't seem as challenging as I was led to believe.
FYI, here's a handy diagram that gives you an idea of the relative size of some different color spaces: http://www.signindustry.com/computers/articles/2004-07-01-GIA_WorkingSpace.php3.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Perhaps I overstated my case, but I doubt there are many professional pre-press folks who would recommend RGB->CMYK->RGB as a good workflow. Will some images tolerate it? Certainly if they lack bright blues and yellows, but one can't count on that routinely. I edited my post to make my point less absolutely - ok?
As you and I both said, you are better off, soft proofing an RGB file with a SWOP2 CMYK profile, or whatever, without converting the file to CMYK first.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
If the image starts out in sRGB (thus is can't possibly contain the bright yellows) and it's going to get converted to CMYK SWOP2 as part of the printing process (and thus the blues are going to get squashed anyway), then by definition the result on the printer will be the intersection of sRGB and CMYK SWOP2 so:
sRGB(initial image) -->
CMYK(you convert in Photoshop) -->
sRGB(you convert back to sRGB before submitting to the printer)-->
CMYK(printer converts to CMYK that it likes for printing)
won't really give you a signficantly different result than just keeping your file in sRGB and sending that to the printer if you pick the same rendering intent as the printer does.
The end result is that it started out in sRGB so it can't contain anything that's outside of sRGB and it's going to get converted to CMYK SWOP2 as part of the printing process so it can't contain anything outside of that either. Either way, you get the least common denominator which is the intersection of the two color spaces.
If you are advanced at this and if you want the ultimate control and don't want to rely on the printer's algorithms and settings for conversion to it's color space (and what it does with out-of-gamut colors), my recommendation would be to take your sRGB image and modify it so that it doesn't contain any colors that are not also in CMYK SWOP2, thus is won't change meaningfully when the printer converts it to SWOP2. Some people will choose to do that entirely in sRGB. Some people will find it easier to convert it to CMYK SWOP2 using the capabilities of rendering intents, modify it there if required and convert it back to sRGB. Both can generate quality results.
Clearly, nobody should make a regular workflow out of converting images to CMYK and then back to sRGB. You can lose colors that are useful in other contexts (like on the web). But, in this case, the only thing you lose is going to get lost in printing anyway because the whole image has to fit into that CMYK profile before it's printed. You can pay that price now in your own Photoshop window or at the printer, it doesn't really matter because the price is going to get paid.
Here's an image I did the CMYK SWOP2 round-trip on. I've posted the before and after. Can you even tell which is which? If I place the two on top of one another in Photoshop and set the blend mode to dfiference, I can barely see any differences. I was happy about this because this image is going in a Blurb book I'm working on.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Probably if I could see the individual color channels (why don't you view them too).
This is like saying "I took a high rez tiff, sized it for the web, saved it as a JPEG at quality factor 4 and it looks like the original sized the same way, without JPEG". In all honestly, we probably can't see the difference. Does this best practices? Even anything but utterly worst practices? What about the time it took to do conversions that were unnecessary? What about an edit you may make later that could break the image?
There's absolutely no reason to convert sRGB to CMYK and back UNLESS you only had a CMYK document and needed to re-seperate it into CMYK again.
When you smash your head against the wall, not only do we not feel it, we may not see the effect. Does that make smashing your head against the wall a good idea or even something you'd want to encourage to others?
My dear friend, the late Bruce Fraser once said this, it suites this idea of converting to CMYK and back well:
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
I see you didn't address any of the points I made for THIS SPECIFIC situation. Andrew, did you read the specifics of this situation I described above? Are any of those points wrong? You quoted platitudes which do not address this specific situation.
Note: I specifically said this is a bad general purpose workflow, but not bad in this specific case.
Andrew, if all the following were true in a particular situation (which is what I described before):
- You had an sRGB image
- That image had colors that were out of gamut for a printing service you were using
- You have the CMYK profile for that printing service
- You don't want to leave it to the printing service to make their own rendering intent decisions when converting your document, so you'd like to control that conversion yourself
- The printing service requires sRGB images be submitted to them
- You'd like to use your own control over rendering intents in order to assist in modifying the image to fit into the target color profile because you think it could be fast and do most of the work for you.
How would you fix the document before submitting an sRGB image to the online printer?Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Ah, there's the first problem.
You have a profile that is supposed to define the final output device. You should convert to that color space and in many cases may want to post edit the CMYK image to better appear as the original in a weak color space to be using in the first place (sRGB). You'd have the sRGB image open and your CMYK image and attempt to produce a match as closely as possible within the confines of the gamut. In fact, you'd do this prior and in some cases after conversion to CMYK (after because in this particular workflow, you've got a K channel you can tweak).
Going BACK to sRGB is totally silly, a waste of time and yes, it will without question degrade the image. Can you see it? In your ONE example, to a web page (of which the final ISN'T the output), no.
There's absolutely no reason, NO REASON to convert from CMYK back to sRGB. Its a dumb workflow. It brings nothing to the party. Instead of attempting to defend data and time lost, why not ask the Lab why they require such a silly policy. You can't control the rendering intent. You can't post edit the CMYK document. Oh, the CMYK image is a ⅓rd bigger, I'll give them that.
Providing an ICC output profile to someone who knows how to use it for soft proof and conversions, then telling them they can't use it is positively silly. Its like telling someone they can use a copy of Photoshop and edit all they wish but the application can't save the document. Or you can't use the clone and crop tool. ICC color management was designed with some useful best practices in mind and then just some good old functionary in mind. In this example, neither is being used. If you want someone to only give you documents in sRGB, don't give them a stinking ICC profile. That's like giving a starving dog a rubber bone. Then the poor dog goes about doing silly things like converting to CMYK and back to sRGB, must be due to hunger or something.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
As soon as you move from CMYK back to sRGB, that's all moot.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
You can get up on this "ideal color workflow pedastal" and preach that any lab this gives you an ICC profile, but won't accept documents in it is just stupid. I certainly understood why it would be better (for advanced users) if they would. But back in the real world, there are many services with good products and good prices and business relationships with existing services that require sRGB input and provide ICC profiles that help define the capabilities of their equipment even if you can't give them a document in that profile. These customers of these services (which includes lots of dgrin users) are just trying to figure out how to get the best result given the service options they have in front of them - they aren't interested in trying to change that world.
Blurb is one of those services (they offer very reasonably priced photo book printing). It appears to require sRGB images, but there is an ICC profile that apparently describes the capabilities of their equipment. I would think that even you would agree, there is some value in paying attention to that profile with soft proofing even if you are stuck with sRGB and can't give them images in that profile.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
This is a legitimate question, not meant to be argumentative. I have a thirst to fully understand this stuff. If I'm wrong and somebody can explain to me what I'm wrong about, I'm happy to fess up, learn that point, tip my hat to whomever can explain it to me and now be smarter than I was.
So, here's the question: If you have an image whose colors entirely fit inside both the sRGB gamut and the CMYK SWOP2 gamut, are colors damaged when you convert from one profile to the other? If so, can you help me understand how the damage happens and how the damage manifests itself?
I get that one shouldn't go tempting fate by converting needlessly, but there are sometimes reasons for a conversion and I'm interested in what damage occurs if there isn't a gamut fitting problem.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
I think part of the problem of going from CMYK to RGB is that - even if all the colors fit within the gamut of both spaces - CMYK uses four color channels, and how these are interpreted back to RGB can vary due to how the black plate is interpreted.
CMYK is a printing space, and CMY can be replaced by black, and the print will look fine ( think Custom Gray Replacement) - but how do you go the other way back to RGB?
In LAB each color is precisely specified, and unable to be any other, but in CMYK, each color in CMYK is specified as a printing mode, but how it is translated back to RGB is not precisely specified as closely I believe.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I had no idea my post would ignite such a firestorm. I was only relaying a conversation I had with Dee with regard to the excellent results she obtained getting her book printed, her experience, and expertise with this type of printing process.
Dee, Dee……where are you when we need you?
After all the negatives I have seen posted with regard to image quality from Blurb, and other book publishers, I thought if there is a work flow that will allow mere mortals to achieve the results I saw, it would be great to share this.
Sam
I know there are problems going from one colorspace to another when there's a gamut mismatch in color areas of interest in the image.
That one's easy. The image I test above doesn't have this problem.
I know there are can be problems when the target colorspace has really large gamut and you're only using 8-bits (8-bit sRGB to 8-bit ProPhotoRGB is thought to occasionally be troublesome for fine color or tone gradations). Since CMYK and sRGB are pretty close to the same size colorspaces, I don't think this problem happens when converting between them (plus it's sometimes even controversial whether it's ever a problem in real world photos).
I'm open to understanding the problem going from CMYK back to RGB that you mention (which doesn't have either of the above problems), but I don't yet understand what could cause it.
What is strange about CMYK compared to other colorspaces is that there are multiple CMYK values that can mean the same color (I think you can add black and reduce CMY and still end up with the same color - it's an ink on paper strategy to decide which values to choose) so it's not a deterministic conversion from one RGB value to a specific CMYK value even if there's no gamut mismatch.
But, once you have a given CMYK value (no matter which one your ink strategy ended up with), isn't that meant to be a particular color (that is known if you have the CMYK profile), so isn't there one and only one sRGB value that can represent that color when you convert it back to sRGB? Or, is the color that a specific CMYK SWOP2 value supposed to stand for not really known?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
Not to worry Sam. Discussions like this are how I test my understanding, find the gaps and learn more and hopefully others along the way learn too. Dee's conversion into and out of CMYK is a controversial technique so we're debating it's use. I saw Dee's book on Friday too and it looked great (much better than I expected) so clearly she got a great result with her technique.
I hope I haven't intruded on your use of dgrin or messed up your thread with my part of the debate.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
That is where I am not certain either John. I know that values of CMY can be subtracted and replaced with black in going to ink, but I am not certain exactly how the conversion back from CMYK to RGB is calculated. I am not certain if the is one, and only one, set of values for a given CMYK pixel in RGB. Lets see what Andrew says about this.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Look, back in my real world, I deal with pro labs that understand color management and implement it properly. That means having one OR MORE devices that behave the same way, they practice process control. They supply profiles and they have no issue simply sending the RGB or CMYK numbers provided directly to the output device.
What you're describing is a half baked workflow, built to make the lab's life easier, not the customer. Its customers who should practice the golden rule. First, they should be educated as to what best practices can be, then they can decide, either by price, quality and/or service what Lab they want to use.
A lab that supplies a profile for someone only to soft proof, to the point it confuses the users whereby they conduct sRGB to CMYK back to sRGB conversion is not a workflow I would suggest users who even know how to load a soft proof or use a profile should consider as anything remotely close to best practices. It is as I said, stupid.
Why, why I ask you does the lab DEMAND you send them files in sRGB? WHY do they not allow you to send the files, output ready, edited for the device, based on the soft proof of the profile provided? I think I know the answer, but I'd ask you to ask why and we can continue.
And I ask you, what options? Why are they forced feed sRGB? OK, if they are going to be, then just skip the entire profile part of the equation, they (either the customer or the lab) clearly doesn't understand a proper ICC workflow. Tell them "no profile, send us sRGB". Done, finished.
Why do you suspect they require, no demand sRGB? Why not sRGB and CMYK from the profile? Why not let some users simply supply sRGB and hand off everything else but let others use the profile to convert to CMYK based on the rendering intent they prefer and edit the image based on what they hope to see when the book comes back? And don't tell me their RIP will crash with an embedded CMYK profile, that doesn't wash in this century any more.
This is all real simple. Make two workflows. One is non color managed, it's sRGB only. Make one that IS ICC color managed.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
That's essentially the same in RGB. That is, until you know the output color space, many differing RGB values can produce the same color appearance (and the same color values can produce different color appearance).
What you're referring to is GCR and UCR. This is a process whereby less colored inks can be used to same money and aid in ink coverage and drying. There are multiple mixes of CMY and K TO THE SAME DEVICE and one can carefully build a conversion (using today, profiles) that substitute an exact amount of CMY inks with K ink to produce the same color. Take a dark brown. You could use a fixed mix of CMY inks with addition of K to create this color. Using GCR, you can replace more CMY inks with K and produce the same color resulting in less overall ink. You're practicing Gray Component Replacement.
This goes back to your questions about RGB to CMYK to RGB. CMYK is highly device dependant. The mix of CMY and K ink, black generation is complex and highly important to the print job. When you are provided one (ideally a family) of CMYK profiles based on a printing device, you're baking in the black generation which is critical. As soon as you go back to RGB, its gone. So for those sophisticate enough to work with CMYK using profiles, having a few profiles with different GCR can really aid in the printing since you may have one profile that replaces a lot of CMY inks with K and is better suited for images that have lots of neutrals. Another profile, for the SAME device but with low GCR would use less black, more CMY inks, this would be better for say someone printing saturated color landscapes. When you hand someone an RGB document, one with a piss-poor gamut like sRGB, you limit the potential gamut mapping into CMYK using good profiles, using the best possible rendering intent, limiting how you'll control GCR and what the image could or will look like.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
It's not my thread, and I am just sitting back in the corner watching the fur fly.
The problem for me is I see valid points on both sides of the argument, and continue to hope for some kind of condenses to emerge as to what buttons to push to get the best results in the real world.
It seems like going back and forth in color spaces wouldn’t be the most logical approach, but then again, maybe in the real world this kind of less than technically ideal solution IS the best answer.
Sam
Andrew, I was wondering if you had any input on this question?
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question
bw, if you see in this thread around posting #27, there's a pretty serious question about why you aren't using a full color-managed process, providing customers with an ICC profile for that and allowing us to submit images in that profile? This gives us full control over profile conversion and rendering intents, removing any mystery from the color matching process for customers who fully understand color management. For customers who don't, you can continue to accept sRGB.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question