I too was use to think why all the new sensors catche always millions and millions colors more and 16-bit depth is not even enough if we already capture more colors then our eyes can see; why the editing software researches color profiles with gamuts always larger if we can print or see in the web profiles with gamuts that are only half of those of the color spaces we now use. But I tried to process my files with the largest gamut I know, ProPhoto RGB, and at 16-bit from RAW to 'save as' and I am glad for that. In fact when I arrive at the end of the editing process I have on the screen the best image that I am able to produce. Of course I am not able to print or post it but I can use it as a goal. I duplicate this image and converte the original to sRGB for the web or to the printing profile with Soft Proof. The quality of my original decreases definitely but with the two files aside on the screen I begin a serious work with PS for arriving to see the converted file as more similar as possible to the duplicate. For the colors surely out of the gamut I look for similar tonalities that are inside the profile of destination and that I like. My editing work is getting better now. This operation would be impossible without the developing of an image as beautiful as possible for me even if unprintable and unpostable.
I never wrote so long a topic (be patient with my English!) because I will be very glad to know your thoughts and suggestions about this editing process and if you note some disadvantage. Thanks very much.
It gets even more complicated if a job requires that you have to convert to CMYK for printing. CMYK is not a continuous spectrum, with "hole" in it that don't correspond well to RGB. You can end up with some WIERD colors in worst case scenarios.
Posted by Steve Foss on November 4, 2007 at 8:05 PM
Oh, GODS, Hank! Not CMYK! What a great way to kill colors in a photo! Just kidding. Well, not totally kidding. I spent 15 years in newspapers (including four years toning color images in CMYK for printing) and my wife, as a computer graphic designer, has spent a lot of time working to turn wonderfully colored RGB images into CMYK for press printing without letting them die that cruel death.
But, Hank, do you actually do the CMYK conversion yourself and tone the images and send them? Don't you leave that to the printer?
Sorry, Gigi, didn't mean to take this off topic. I just have a deep dark place in my heart filled with hate for what CMYK will do to fine color when it's in the hands of the uninitiated. Yeah, I've been a victim. Geez, Hank, see what you made me do?
Gigi, your English is fine. You said something and I understood what you were saying, so that's a successful communication. I'm glad that you take such pride in your work and keep tweaking and changing workflow and PP techniques to make your work more pleasing. The mark of a professional.
Thing of the past Steve, thankfully! Printers had such tough luck expecting photogs to do the CMYK conversions that they now rely on pro GAs for the most part.
My worst case was illustrating a book of seafood products in the first years of Photoshop (yeah, waaaay back when). Because of some technical issues with ice color in backgrounds, we were forced to shoot the fish and products (all MF) on green screen, scan those and sandwich them onto a scan a background produced from a photo of crushed ice.
We got so swept up in the new digital editing stuff that we never considered the CMYK conversion. And sad to say, neither did the book printer. He did the conversions and printed 20,000 copies of the books without ever asking us to proof it.
When we showed up and looked at it, the colors were waaaay out there. It turns out that the subtle colors of ideal fish flesh fell way outside his experience and he didn't catch the distinction. For example, have you ever seen orange halibut?!!!!
Ultimately the printer had to eat the costs of the initial run and reprint the book, but only after everyone agreed on the colors. Rather than go through the conversion process after doing the work in RGB, we ended up having the chromes drum scanned again with output to CMYK, then did all our Photoshop work in CMYK.
All came out well in the end, but at points along the way it kinda reminded me of my rodeo days. Lots of shouting and screaming to the accompaniment of rude animal noises, accumulating bruises and scars all the while.
Posted by Ed Cordes on November 5, 2007 at 7:27 AM
I also shoot in Adobe RGB and process the RAW files in ProPhoto RGB. My calibrated system seems to do a good job in predicting print colors. For the web I just convert the profile to sRGB and "save for web" after applying a bit more sharpening. Fortunately I have had very little issues with weird colors. Now CMYK ! I have had big issues with a printer that produced a calendar with all the "holes" of the CMYK gamut visible.
Gigi, I'm sorry but I haven't had big issues with color shifts when resizing and compressing for web. My only issue has been that you must be very careful when re-sharpening a resized image which often ends up less than 500,000 total pixels.
Steve and Hank, I hear your pain! I'm a journeyman pressman on a big ugly 5 color Heidelberg and I well remember the early days of computer grahpics as it began to replace CMYK separations via flatbed camera and ortho film. It was a nightmare, not the least of which was caused by early programs which were developed by arrogant programers who thought they were going to dictate to us how to do our job. If I ever hear "Well, it looks good on my computer, why can't you print it?" ever again I might shoot somebody! Choke and spread were unheard of and you couldn't make the computer jockeys understand that paper expands and shrinks with changes in humidity. Try fitting 5 tight images on unstable paper with no choke or spread and a $300.00 per hour press is sitting there doing nothing. And they wonder why we drink!
Discussion
5 repliesI never wrote so long a topic (be patient with my English!) because I will be very glad to know your thoughts and suggestions about this editing process and if you note some disadvantage. Thanks very much.
But, Hank, do you actually do the CMYK conversion yourself and tone the images and send them? Don't you leave that to the printer?
Sorry, Gigi, didn't mean to take this off topic. I just have a deep dark place in my heart filled with hate for what CMYK will do to fine color when it's in the hands of the uninitiated. Yeah, I've been a victim. Geez, Hank, see what you made me do?
Gigi, your English is fine. You said something and I understood what you were saying, so that's a successful communication. I'm glad that you take such pride in your work and keep tweaking and changing workflow and PP techniques to make your work more pleasing. The mark of a professional.
My worst case was illustrating a book of seafood products in the first years of Photoshop (yeah, waaaay back when). Because of some technical issues with ice color in backgrounds, we were forced to shoot the fish and products (all MF) on green screen, scan those and sandwich them onto a scan a background produced from a photo of crushed ice.
We got so swept up in the new digital editing stuff that we never considered the CMYK conversion. And sad to say, neither did the book printer. He did the conversions and printed 20,000 copies of the books without ever asking us to proof it.
When we showed up and looked at it, the colors were waaaay out there. It turns out that the subtle colors of ideal fish flesh fell way outside his experience and he didn't catch the distinction. For example, have you ever seen orange halibut?!!!!
Ultimately the printer had to eat the costs of the initial run and reprint the book, but only after everyone agreed on the colors. Rather than go through the conversion process after doing the work in RGB, we ended up having the chromes drum scanned again with output to CMYK, then did all our Photoshop work in CMYK.
All came out well in the end, but at points along the way it kinda reminded me of my rodeo days. Lots of shouting and screaming to the accompaniment of rude animal noises, accumulating bruises and scars all the while.
Steve and Hank, I hear your pain! I'm a journeyman pressman on a big ugly 5 color Heidelberg and I well remember the early days of computer grahpics as it began to replace CMYK separations via flatbed camera and ortho film. It was a nightmare, not the least of which was caused by early programs which were developed by arrogant programers who thought they were going to dictate to us how to do our job. If I ever hear "Well, it looks good on my computer, why can't you print it?" ever again I might shoot somebody! Choke and spread were unheard of and you couldn't make the computer jockeys understand that paper expands and shrinks with changes in humidity. Try fitting 5 tight images on unstable paper with no choke or spread and a $300.00 per hour press is sitting there doing nothing. And they wonder why we drink!
Sorry for the rant but I feel better now.
Bob