|
inkjets still don't print in RGB. Even with extended inksets they don't have true red green and blue in additive color like your monitor does. Ink is fundamentally a subtractive color model. If the printer lays down a combination of red, green, and blue ink, it will not get white. You should print in your printer's colorspace, not sRGB. Use the provided profiles with manufacturer's ink and manufacturer's paper, or alternatively create your own profiles with your own inks and paper. sRGB is incorrect.
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
yeah, I shoot in JPEG, always run them through RAW converter, rockin' it like ren rockwell here's how to make a massive vignette guys, I know it's hard work but that kind of post processing really pays off when you're a bigshot like me oh yeah, horrible HDR clouds is the poo poo on portraits! it works even better if you have the subject looking off into space at the edge of the frame, with lots of negative space behind her! what's that? you say I shouldn't crop edges off people's legs? nah, the rules of composition don't apply to true masterminds. what is this fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Jan 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 17:31
|
|
|
really, you're really defending him? First of all, shooting JPEG and running it through RAW converted instead of just shooting RAW in the first place, for posed shots, is 100% stupid ken rockwell poo poo. Second, the mega HDR look is extremely cheesy and overdone. The same applies to slapping a vignette on everything. Third, the composition of that photo is undeniably bad, and violates all the basic rules taught in your first photo class. It's fine to break rules if you have a reason but this just looks sloppy. I'd love to see an actual rebuttal to any of those three points.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 18:36
|
|
|
brad industry posted:
I never have the printer handle color management, so the file is converted in photoshop or aperture using the profile for the printer (which is never sRGB) from what I am working in (which is not sRGB either in most cases). If you're not letting the printer handle the colorspace then what do you think happens to the file before it hits the printer driver? Photoshop converts it using the colorspace you choose. Your monitor is a device as well, yet when you view the image you do so with a profile so it is properly rendered into the colorspace of the monitor. Setting your monitor to "sRGB" in your system settings would be just as wrong as I think it is to do that with your printer. You're saying I should convert to sRGB before printing? Why in the world would I do that? I get good results exactly this with my i9900, which is admittedly an old and crappy printer at this point. edit: this ate part of my post. I would be happy to hear any reason why you believe this is incorrect. It seems like the only thing we disagree on is whether you should convert to sRGB before printing. You don't need to convert to sRGB "because that's what the printer profile expects" since all colorspace conversions go through an intermediate "master" profile connection colorspace. In other words, the color profile for your printer can't "expect" sRGB for the colorspace as input, because the master colorspace is always the input for the conversion when going from one colorspace to another. The color profile tells you how to get to/from the master space to the colorspace specified by the profile. I am absolutely confident of this. what is this fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jan 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 19:24
|
|
Your custom title is so well deserved. You mean printers don't print light? No loving poo poo. Name one printing process that isn't subtractive. Do you even print inkjet because you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about here. Custom profiles are for the device not the image file. You can soft-proof the image using the custom profile but you don't convert to it. Your file still has to be in some kind of color space, and all inkjet printers (and their provided profiles or the profiles you make) expect sRGB files. If you don't know what you're talking about then please don't post it because you're just going to confuse everyone else.
|
jackpot posted:I've been trying to fix this for a while now, with no success; my images are desaturated in browsers but look good in photoshop/bridge (don't make fun). It's not computer specific; I have the same problem between my windows home pc and my work macbook pro. And the thing is, I don't want to have to change any settings in firefox to see them right, because I can't expect people looking at them to change anything. Can someone give me the lowdown on what to set/how to save so that what I see in a browser matches what I see in PS, and what most other people will see? Here's what I do, on every machine, which has always worked for me. I have CS3 and CS4 on my windows machine right now so screenshots from both. Convert to sRGB first. here's the results so you can believe me  here's the CS3 settings (include "ICC profile" anyways, it never hurts)  here's the CS4 settings 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 19:49
|
|
|
brad industry posted:You do not know poo poo about color management, please stop posting. Your devices have their own profiles that are separate from the image. If you profile your monitor you assign that custom profile to that device (you don't convert your image to the monitor profile, right?). If you profile your printer/ink/paper you assign that profile to that device. This has absolutely nothing to do with the actual image file. Why the gently caress would you convert your image to a device profile? Image files are device neutral which is why you use a generic profile like sRGB. You send the image file tagged with the device-neutral colorspace it expects and then the device interprets that information through the filter of it's own custom profile. Replace "printer" with "monitor" or "scanner", same exact thing. You have photoshop handle the color management. That means the printer driver does nothing. What do you think photoshop does with the image data before the printer driver sees it? I don't use the "convert to profile" command in photoshop if that's what you're implying. I think you're a bit confused about this. My images are usually in AdobeRGB. However, that imaging data never arrives at the printer. Phoitoshop converts it first in the printing dialog quote:If I print something and accidentally leave it in AdobeRGB I can immediately tell because the colors are way off, if I go back and convert to sRGB everything is fine. Now you might not be doing as color critical work as I am, but I am really, really anal about how my prints look and this stuff is not that complicated. I have never seen this behavior and I care particularly about how my prints look. quote:If you had ever actually made a custom profile it would be immediately obvious why this is 100% wrong. Just think about it for a second before your brain vomits all over your keyboard again. I've made several custom profiles, mostly for using epson paper with my canon printer. Brad Industry: if you don't think that photoshop is converting your document to the printer profile in the print dialog, then why does it give you black point conversion and rendering intent options? what is this fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Jan 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 19:54
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Do you even know what a color profile does? All PS is doing is skipping the device driver and sending along the image (tagged with your device-neutral profile) WITH the device profile to the device. Nothing happens in PS or on your computer. The conversion (it's not really a conversion, more like a filter) happens at the device level, the device profile just tells your printer how to correctly interpret the information in the image file. You can't send an image with no profile over, it has to have something, and for all inkjet printers they assume it's sRGB. When you make the custom profile you printed out a target file to calibrate to right? That target file was sRGB. Device and image profiles are completely separate - the image has one and the device has one, it's not either/or. All PS is letting you do is send these raw commands and information over and skip the poo poo your device driver normally does, it's not doing any sort of conversion. what you're calling a "shift" or "processing" is in fact a color space conversion. Colorspace conversions happen through the universal profile connection colorspace. This profile connection space is independent of the source and target. It doesn't matter if you convert to sRGB before printing (aside from how this conversion will affect your image in the first place, which will be visible onscreen) because it moves through the profile connection space. If you move to the profile connection space and move back to your original profile it is lossless. That's the whole idea. This is also why it doesn't make sense to convert to sRGB. You can only hurt your image quality depending on how lossy the adobeRGB->sRGB process is. Things are converted to the monitor profile in the process of rendering onscreen. Likewise they are converted to printer profile in the process of sending to the printer. Your workflow is entirely correct with the exception of converting to sRGB. This step is unnecessary, but all the changes it makes to the output of your final image will be viewable onscreen. In actual fact photoshop sends the printer driver an image file with the color conversion applied. The printer driver then can perform additional color correction (you turn this off because it ruins everything, obviously). Lightroom and Aperture don't even have options internally (as far as I know) to work in sRGB or convert to sRGB before printing. Everything you print uses the internal colorspace they work in (ProPhoto for lightroom, something "wider" than that according to Apple for Aperture). If converting to sRGB before printing were so critical, these programs would make you do it. They don't. I know exactly what a color profile does. Photoshop does not "tag" the image with the color profile to send it to you screen, and it doesn't "tag" the image with a color profile to send it to a printer. That's how color profiles are attached to image files, but it doesn't work that way with raw image data. Photoshop passes the image data to the OS for the onscreen display, and the OS handles the color correction. Likewise photoshop passes the image data to the printer driver for printing, and the printer driver handles the color correction - only in this case we modify the image data first because we don't want to use the printer driver's color correction. I have never found a guide saying convert to sRGB first because "that's what the printer expects." I even went online looking for one, I did find many people printing from AdobeRGB, ProPhoto, etc into their printer space. Luminous landscape is one, and Datacolor, who make the Spyder3, specifically recommend your workspace as AdobeRGB (there's no caveat here, "except right before printing"). What you're doing is AdobeRGB -> PCS -> sRGB -> PCS -> Printer colorspace It's PCS no matter what right before it gets converted into the printer colorspace (and yes, each pixel of the image gets converted. The math is pixel based, conversion is the name of the math). All you're doing is clipping your image to sRGB (or crunching it, depending on conversion method). what is this fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jan 14, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2009 22:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 05:52 |
|
|
I didn't realize the photo-a-day thread was for dickwaving, somehow I thought it was for critique. I get feedback on my work from other avenues. It's pointless for me to post a portfolio for you guys to hate on just because you don't like the tone of my posts. I don't need validation from the internet.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2009 02:13
|
|