Flycaster wrote:
> "Buster" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> Well, maybe that's the problem...with too many options to the
>> workflow dillema we often wind up stacking at least two "profiles"
>> on the poor image and get overcompensated results to match. I
>> suppose with experience we each come up with various methods that
>> arrive at decent prints, but this whole thing should be a
>> straightforward methodology.
>> I'm addled by all this controversy-- next thing I'm getting an X-Rite
>> reflective photometer, cal target and reference prints. Maybe THEN I
>> can see the light.
>
> It IS fairly straightforward.
Anything but.
> Calibrate and profile your monitor,
> use a RGB working space that approximates your output device (for
> inkjet and CMYK, that'd be AdobeRGB98; for commercial photoprinters
> it's ususally sRGB), soft-proof using the output the profile to make
> your final image adjustments, and then designate Document for Source
> and the output profile in Print Space under Print Preview. This is,
> BTW, covered in the manual.
For CMYK work, I would advocate that photographers use CMYK to give a higher
level of control to the final result, rather than trusting someone
downstream in the workflow to correctly convert their images.
I wouldn't recommend Adobe RGB particularly for inkjet printer work, or any
other fine work for that matter. The difference is really rather subtle as
far as image appearance goes, but sRGB will do the job.
Importantly, sRGB will avoid the risk that someone will get hold of your
stuff on a web page, or print it on a Fujy Frontier, ignoring the embedded
profile, and think to themselves "gee - I thought so and so had more of a
Velvia look than that, oh well", and move on the the next photographer's
images.
>> One thing that's always bothered me is that a "calibrated" monitor
>> differs so much from one that's adjusted in accordance with Adobe
>> Gamma. Mine seems rather "warm" or "tannish" in hue, rather than
>> having a visually neutral tone. Why is that? So what's wrong with
>> Adobe Gamma that makes it unsuited to use with Photoshop CS?
>
> Nothing. If it has a hue, then why don't you re-run Adobe Gamma,
> separate the color sliders, and balance the RGB VLUT gains
> independently. If you can see the hue, for chrissakes get rid of it!
> Again, this is covered in the manual as well as in almost every PS
> book there is.
I suspect the hue is due to setting the color temperature to 6500 or lower,
rather than an explicit mismatch of the RGB sliders.
> The fact that Adobe Gamma is not as *accurate* as a puck based
> calibration/profiling system is obvious. Nonetheless, many, many
> people use it exclusively and get very good monitor-print matches,
> provided they have a decent new monitor and they use Adobe Gamma
> correctly.
Nothing obvious about it. A lot of people invest in these colorimeters, and
end up with results that are inferior to careful use of the Adobe Gamma
utility.
> Oh, and don't "turn off color management." That is just about the
> dumbest thing I've read here, in a long, long time. Do yourself a
> favor and buy "Real World Photoshop" by Blatner/Fraser. It's a great
> "PS bible", and it will certainly open your eyes to the truths, and
> nonsense, you read here.
I have a copy, and I found it to contain valuable information, but off the
mark in several respects, and rather weak in many of the example images,
which often fail to illustrate the point they are making. The strengths of
CMYK correction are completely omitted from that book as well, and hibit is
promoted with very little justification other than histogram combing. I
also disagree with the rather endemic premise of the Fraser book that
profiles will solve your color correction problems.
I would suggest Dan Margulis's Professional Photoshop book instead. The
opening chapters are directed at beginners, and the remainder of the book
will keep you going for a good long time.
> and it will certainly open your eyes to the truths, and
> nonsense, you read here.
I agree there's plenty of nonsense in this group. I'm hopeful that the two
of us are not contributing a significan fraction of it. :-)
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
