to be fair to qveda, I feel I have messed up his thread Need help: color spaces & color management workflow too much already, so to start again & I fully expect finish it for good. Summary of story so far:
Despite the initial discouragement of changing from Adobe RGB to sRGB as far as web use was concerned, I thought it worth pursuing the other part of the thesis. That is that using Adobe RGB induces a false sense of colour when the OS converts it to the more limited colour range visible on-screen and that it will cause trouble on printing.Hi Chris,Originally Posted by crisscross
But, accepting that the monitor can't show a lot of the colours in Adobe RGB, it can still use them for PP work. A bit like working on a tif file rather than a jpg (ignoring the later progressive loss of quality) even if you can't see any difference between them on screen??
The problem isn't so much that monitors "can't display most of the extra colours of the Adobe colourspace" as it is one where those extra colours are rendered into SOMETHING that the monitor CAN display. People then adjust the image so that WHAT THEY SEE on the screen looks right - but then get bitten in the bum come print time because the colours that they thought they were changing the image to weren't really what they were changing them too; they were really being changed to something else, but the monitor couldn't display them. Good example of this is when I had a photo of fishing boats with bright red paint on the hulls - looked great on screen (because the monitor has a dedicated RED channel), but come print time the hue shifted considerably to something far more orangy because it was out of gamut for the printers inkset. (OK perhaps not a great example, but hopefully you get what I mean).
For two good reasons ...Having done all the PP work, why then mess it up again changing the profile at the last minute before generating the forum jpg?
1. The main one being that 97% percent of the population won't be able to view your images correctly unless they're tagged for sRGB (a) the images will look horrible and (b) even if they could use larger colourspaces like Adobe RGB or ProPhoto their monitors are incapable of displaying most of the extra colours anyway (similar to the broadcasting of high-definition colour TV signals if 99% of the population only had black and white TVs).
2. The other consideration is that images put up for display are usually severely down-sampled anyway. Down-sampling will degrade image detail far more than using sRGB over Adobe RGB so for most, the uploaded image will only ever be a low-grade copy of the original (my originals are always 16 bit PSD files in large colourspaces - usually over 5000 pixels with and over 3000 pixels high, whereas what gets uploaded is 8 bit - sRGB and only 1024 x 512 pixels).
Colin - pbase.com/cjsouthern
For testing I am using an image of the setting of our house, one of the best I have achieved so far, but when I was printing it for competition short-list, found it was flawed by some blue cast to the darkest shadows.
I would normally have corrected this by tweaking and printing an A5 or two from the nef. However to test the thesis, I saved the original as a tif before setting the NX2 colour space to sRGB and the image to Nikon Colour Mode IIIa, the sRGB recommended by Nikon for landscapes.
I then opened the original tif in another programme to compare with the sRGB version, or rather bring it back to how I had it, the sRGB being not that brilliant. It needed more than a tweak. The main culprit was the sky which had gone to a typical over-exposed pale turquoise, but correcting that turned the clouds mauve despite it being done on a gradient faded towards cloud level.
After actually changing every single setting, I got it back to be as near as practical identical to the tif on screen. So then checked print settings and printed. Result: the offending blue cast in the dark shadows if anything worse, the sky actually way over-corrected, rusty-reds overcooked, grass palish.
However what does it look like on the web? On the macBook pro both A-RGB & sRGB versions come through unscathed on Safari. On Firefox (with 'color management' disabled), the sRGB is nowhere near as washed out as the A-RGB, but still a touch weak on the red and green compared to Safari. On PC (Dell dimension 2400 with cheapish 17" flat screen), the A-RGB version doesn't look especially like the original, but is acceptable; the sRGB version, help, yuk, get a bowl quick. With Safari both versions are much better, though the sRGB version is still a bit on the lurid side.
So as to be totally fair, I then got NX2 going on the PC to see what the images looked like prior to going over the web. Much the same as the Safari versions on the PC apart from......the failsafe sRGB jpg.....which arrives in colour space 'Ricoh Russian-SC' and looking as if it has just been fished out of a very weedy pond. They look very little like anything on the macs. (gone plural as to be even fairer I also started up my 7 year old G4 Powerbook). By comparison the original print was as close to the mac screen view as a print ever gets (apart from the shadow colour cast.)
So apart from going back to using 100% Adobe RGB myself, I must qualify my remarks about NX2 here and on pbase, to make it clear that they apply only to mac. In theory it should be identical on both platforms, but it clearly it does need a core2duo chip (as I suspected) and also an OS stronger on colour than XP home. I assume that most photographers have high spec PCs, otherwise goodness only knows what image comments are being passed on.