Assign and then convert to Adobe RGB (1998), or skip assignment.

[Robert Montgomery]

How can I get Photoshop to save my digital files as Adobe RGB 1998
files?

My two Canon cameras save the files as EXIF JPEGS, but when I look in
my Mac's Finder in Get Info, every digital file from my cameras has
the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 profile embedded in them.

In Photoshop, Edit > Settings > is set to "Adobe RGB 1998
(Perceptual)" and Working Spaces is set to "Adobe RGB (1998).

Color Management Policies > RGB is set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles.

I don't know if I should assign the Adobe RGB 1998 profile first and
then convert to Adobe RGB 1998, or skip the assignment and go directly
to conversion to Adobe RGB (1998).

[me]

What is the point of changing to a wider color space with images that
do not contain any information which might be contained in such
additional color space?

Not the as starting with a raw file and then converting to aRGB.

In either case I believe the proper procedure is to convert.

[Robert Montgomery]

On Feb 7, 2:24 am, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:11:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Montgomery
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <robertm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >How can I get Photoshop to save my digital files as Adobe RGB 1998
> >files?
>
> >My two Canon cameras save the files as EXIF JPEGS, but when I look in
> >my Mac's Finder in Get Info, every digital file from my cameras has
> >the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 profile embedded in them.
>
> >In Photoshop, Edit > Settings > is set to "Adobe RGB 1998
> >(Perceptual)" and Working Spaces is set to "Adobe RGB (1998).
>
> >Color Management Policies > RGB is set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles.
>
> >I don't know if I should assign the Adobe RGB 1998 profile first and
> >then convert to Adobe RGB 1998, or skip the assignment and go directly
> >to conversion to Adobe RGB (1998).
>
> What is the point of changing to a wider color space with images that
> do not contain any information which might be contained in such
> additional color space?

I know. But I don't understand why the JPEGs I uploaded from my
cameras to my computer are sRGBIEC61966-2.1 files, whereas my Canon
manuals say that the file format for pictures made with the cameras as
EXIF JPEGs.

I assume that the sRGBIEC61966-2.files merely have been assigned their
profiles by Photoshop, rather than having the profiles converted from
EXIF to sRGBIEC61966-2.1. I know I didn't manually open all those
files and convert them to sRGBIEC61966-2.1.

Robert

[Robert Montgomery]

On Feb 7, 2:24 am, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:11:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Montgomery
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <robertm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >How can I get Photoshop to save my digital files as Adobe RGB 1998
> >files?
>
> >My two Canon cameras save the files as EXIF JPEGS, but when I look in
> >my Mac's Finder in Get Info, every digital file from my cameras has
> >the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 profile embedded in them.
>
> >In Photoshop, Edit > Settings > is set to "Adobe RGB 1998
> >(Perceptual)" and Working Spaces is set to "Adobe RGB (1998).
>
> >Color Management Policies > RGB is set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles.
>
> >I don't know if I should assign the Adobe RGB 1998 profile first and
> >then convert to Adobe RGB 1998, or skip the assignment and go directly
> >to conversion to Adobe RGB (1998).
>
> What is the point of changing to a wider color space with images that
> do not contain any information which might be contained in such
> additional color space?

I know. But I don't know why the camera manuals say that the cameras'
file format is EXIF JPEG, whereas my computer says that the JPEGS I
uploaded to my computer have the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 profile.

I assume that the profiles have merely been (automatically)assigned to
my JPEGS by Photoshop, rather than having been embedded.. That would
mean that the JPEGs' spectrum haven't been clipped, right?

Robert

[Vance]

If I'm reading you correctly, your camera's manual states that the camera is producing JPEG images and default for most cameras is the sRGB color space. JPEG is not a color space, it's a file format and EXIF is information about the image.

Part of the EXIF information would be the color space (the pallette of colors available) and that is what you are seeing.

Most people don't have monitors with extended color display capability who aren't pros and almost all commercial printers print using the sRGB color space. You probably can't see the Adobe RGB color space on your monitor, the people who may see your images online probably can't see it and you probably aren't going to get it out of prints. Why bother?

Vance

[Vance]

Addendum: You have Photoshop setup to preserve the 'embedded color space', so there is your answer to where the color space was assigned - your camera.

[Robert Lord]

On Feb 7, 8:02 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Addendum:  You have Photoshop setup to preserve the 'embedded color space', so there is your answer to where the color space was assigned - your camera.

Thanks, Vance.

I just called Canon and asked a technical service worker, who told me
that all of the digital Canon cameras produce files that are untagged,
which contradicts your statement that the cameras are tagging my files
with the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 colour profiles.

Neither of my camera manuals appear to have any option for changing
the colour profile assigned or embedded to the files.

Your advice contradicts Adobe's advice. You wrote, "You probably

can't see the Adobe RGB color space on your monitor, the people who
may see your images online probably can't see it and you probably

aren't going to get it out of prints. Why bother?" It's common
knowledge among graphics professionals that Adobe RGB (1998) is the
profile to use for print because it has a wider spectrum than sRGB or
sRGBIEC61966-2.1

Adobe's Web site says, "For a mixed RGB and CMYK print
workflow...choose the North America Prepress 2 setting. This option
sets the RGB working space to Adobe RGB (1998) and the CMYK working
space to U.S. Web Coasted (SWOP) v2.

Also, Photoshop has a section at View > Proof Setup > Adobe RGB. You
wrote, "You probably can't see the Adobe RGB color space on your
monitor". Why would that proof preview for Adobe RGB be available in
Photoshop if it were useless?

I'm printing on two Epson printers. One has seven colors and the other
has eight colors. Maybe you're assuming that I'm going to have my
files printed on a four-color offset press, which have three or four
less colors than my Epson printers, and therefore have a narrower ink
spectrum than my printers.

Robert

[me]

On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:11:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Montgomery

My copy is currently loaned out, but all your answers can be found in:

http://www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor/

[John McWilliams]

On 2/8/12 PDT 12:27 PM, Robert Lord wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:02 pm, Vance<Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Addendum: You have Photoshop setup to preserve the 'embedded color space', so there is your answer to where the color space was assigned - your camera.
>
> Thanks, Vance.
>
> I just called Canon and asked a technical service worker, who told me
> that all of the digital Canon cameras produce files that are untagged,
> which contradicts your statement that the cameras are tagging my files
> with the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 colour profiles.

Unmitigated rubbish! Unless you're using a camera from 1995!

>
> Neither of my camera manuals appear to have any option for changing
> the colour profile assigned or embedded to the files.

May not. Depends entirely on the camera. What models?

The rest of the questions really need an entire course to cover all the
variables.

[Vance]

On Feb 8, 12:27 pm, Robert Lord <tony...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:02 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Addendum:  You have Photoshop setup to preserve the 'embedded color space', so there is your answer to where the color space was assigned - your camera.
>
> Thanks, Vance.
>

Thank you for your response, I can see where I made mistakes in how I
said things.

> I just called Canon and asked a technical service worker, who told me
> that all of the digital Canon cameras produce files that are untagged,
> which contradicts your statement that the cameras are tagging my files
> with the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 colour profiles.
>

My Canons allow me to assign a color space, so not all Canons produce
untagged files and they produce files using that color space. I
haven't looked at that part of the manual for quite awhile, but I seem
to remember the default color space is sRGB which could very well be
untagged since it is pretty much the assumed color space across all
devices. Every device pretty much handles sRGB and is an adequate
color space. It's a good statistical bet on Adobes part to assume the
sRGB color space and assign it for untagged files.

> Neither of my camera manuals appear to have any option for changing
> the colour profile assigned or embedded to the files.

It's different with my Canons, but you didn't mention which model you
are using.

> Your advice contradicts Adobe's advice.  You wrote, "You probably
> can't see the Adobe RGB color space on your monitor, the people who
> may see your images online probably can't see it and you probably
> aren't going to get it out of prints.  Why bother?"  It's common
> knowledge among graphics professionals that Adobe RGB (1998) is the
> profile to use for print because it has a wider spectrum than sRGB or
> sRGBIEC61966-2.1

I use Adobe RGB because my Eizo monitor can produce about 97-98
percent of the Adobe space at a cost of about $1,900 USD, but that is
what it is designed to do and my customers have similarly capable
monitors. The vast majority of monitors out there that people will
view a web image on won't handle that color space and use sRGB. They
won't see it. As far as printing goes, your printer probably isn't
going to give you the full gamut and most commercial printers sure
won't. A wide gamut printer like the custom printer I use has, will
pretty much give you the full gamut with the right paper combination.

I work in a totally managed color environment from camera, through
monitor display to the printer and it is the same color space my
customers use. It's advertising work and that makes it worthwhile to
invest in the equipment to fully utilize the Adobe RGB. However,
where the full gamut can't be realized in the end product whatever its
form, the question is still 'Why bother?' Going to four color offset
is a different ball game and you have spot inks like Pantone to help
overcome some of it's gamut limitations.

There are legitimate arguments by professionals that it makes the most
sense to just work in sRGB from the start.

Hopefully, I expressed myself a little clearer.

> Adobe's Web site says, "For a mixed RGB and CMYK print
> workflow...choose the North America Prepress 2 setting.  This option
> sets the RGB working space to Adobe RGB (1998) and the CMYK working
> space to U.S. Web Coasted (SWOP) v2.
>
> Also, Photoshop has a section at View > Proof Setup > Adobe RGB. You
> wrote, "You probably can't see the Adobe RGB color space on your
> monitor".  Why would that proof preview for Adobe RGB be available in
> Photoshop if it were useless?

It isn't useless if you have the equipment to display the Adobe RGB
color gamut. It is a pro package after all.

> I'm printing on two Epson printers. One has seven colors and the other
> has eight colors.  Maybe you're assuming that I'm going to have my
> files printed on a four-color offset press, which have three or four
> less colors than my Epson printers, and therefore have a narrower ink
> spectrum than my printers.

I use a Canon imagePROGRAF iPF5100 which uses 12 pigment inks and
produces a pretty wide gamut, but not the total Adobe gamut and the
paper makes a tremendous difference in the print. Realistically, sRGB
produces beautiful images and all output devices can handle it, so it
can make a lot of sense to use it as you color space from the
beginning.

Just an opinion.

Regards,

Vance
>
> Robert

[Eric Stevens]

In that case you will be interested to read what Eric Chan has to say.
See http://people.csail.mit.edu/ericchan/dp/Epson3800/index.html

I use an Epson 3800 and on the basis of what Eric had to say I
switched to 'ProPhoto RGB' which is just about identical to my
printers gamut.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I'm not sure what you really want to accomplish.

You can convert to Adobe RGB when you open the file (that's a preference
setting), but there's no point if the original is sRGB. To get any
benefit you need to change the camera settings as well.

Or, if you want maximum flexibility and best results, shoot RAW, have
ACR create a ProPhoto RGB image, use that as your working space in
Photoshop, and convert to the final space you want (and Adobe is mostly
a bad choice as a final space, too) at the end.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Robert Montgomery <rober...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Feb 7, 2:24 am, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:11:50 -0800 (PST), Robert Montgomery
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <robertm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >How can I get Photoshop to save my digital files as Adobe RGB 1998
>> >files?
>>
>> >My two Canon cameras save the files as EXIF JPEGS, but when I look in
>> >my Mac's Finder in Get Info, every digital file from my cameras has
>> >the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 profile embedded in them.
>>
>> >In Photoshop, Edit > Settings > is set to "Adobe RGB 1998
>> >(Perceptual)" and Working Spaces is set to "Adobe RGB (1998).
>>
>> >Color Management Policies > RGB is set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles.
>>
>> >I don't know if I should assign the Adobe RGB 1998 profile first and
>> >then convert to Adobe RGB 1998, or skip the assignment and go directly
>> >to conversion to Adobe RGB (1998).
>>
>> What is the point of changing to a wider color space with images that
>> do not contain any information which might be contained in such
>> additional color space?
>
> I know. But I don't understand why the JPEGs I uploaded from my
> cameras to my computer are sRGBIEC61966-2.1 files, whereas my Canon
> manuals say that the file format for pictures made with the cameras as
> EXIF JPEGs.

Those are different, unrelated, things.

JPEG is a file format. (and EXIF is a meta-data format).

sRGB is a color profile. It's used inside JPEGS, TIFFs, PSD files, and
other image formats .

[Ryan McGinnis]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> Or, if you want maximum flexibility and best results, shoot RAW, have
> ACR create a ProPhoto RGB image, use that as your working space in
> Photoshop, and convert to the final space you want (and Adobe is mostly
> a bad choice as a final space, too) at the end.

ARGB isn't too terrible a choice if you are going to give the file to
someone who is going to print it on a press; ARGB (in my experience)
converts better to CMYK than sRGB.

-Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Ryan McGinnis <ry...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> Or, if you want maximum flexibility and best results, shoot RAW, have
>> ACR create a ProPhoto RGB image, use that as your working space in
>> Photoshop, and convert to the final space you want (and Adobe is mostly
>> a bad choice as a final space, too) at the end.
>
>
> ARGB isn't too terrible a choice if you are going to give the file to
> someone who is going to print it on a press; ARGB (in my experience)
> converts better to CMYK than sRGB.

Labs I've worked with want sRGB, even for "press-printed" books. I
haven't done much of anything going to offset printing. For going to
any competent final printer, of course what you want to do is prepare
*what they want* to print from. For going to a non-competent final
printer...run screaming!

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Robert Montgomery <rober...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can I get Photoshop to save my digital files as Adobe RGB 1998
> files?

Why would you want that?

> My two Canon cameras save the files as EXIF JPEGS, but when I look in
> my Mac's Finder in Get Info, every digital file from my cameras has
> the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 profile embedded in them.

You can probably tell your cameras to save them as aRGB, too.

> In Photoshop, Edit > Settings > is set to "Adobe RGB 1998
> (Perceptual)" and Working Spaces is set to "Adobe RGB (1998).

Why would you use such a small working space? Using a larger
(16bit) working space keeps your choices larger.

> Color Management Policies > RGB is set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles.

That's probably it.

> I don't know if I should assign the Adobe RGB 1998 profile first and
> then convert to Adobe RGB 1998, or skip the assignment and go directly
> to conversion to Adobe RGB (1998).

Try it out.

If you *assign* aRGB, you basically tell the world "This file
is aRGB" when the values inside (the RGB data triples) are only
right for sRGB.

Anyway, unless you actually *change* the image so some colours
in it leave sRGB space, you're not winning anything at all.
It's like buying a larger carport to house the same cooper mini.[1]


-Wolfgang

[1] Actually, it's slightly worse: the carport (aRGB JPEG) can
only house 256 distinct sizes in each dimension --- just as
the smaller one (sRGB JPEG). But they're at different sizes.
So the mini has to be stretched or compressed slightly in
each dimension, and it's proportions will be slightly off.

[Robert Montgomery]

On Feb 7, 6:44 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>
wrote:

> RobertMontgomery<robertm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How can I get Photoshop to save my digital files as Adobe RGB 1998
> > files?
>
> Why would you want that?

To get a wider gamut in my prints than is provided by sRGBIEC61966-2.1
files. (That's the difference between the two profiles.) My desire
to get the wider spectrum in my prints from the Adobe RGB (1998)
profile versus sRGBIEC61966-2.1 is the reason why I started this
thread.

> > My two Canon cameras save the files as EXIF JPEGS, but when I look in
> > my Mac's Finder in Get Info, every digital file from my cameras has
> > the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 profile embedded in them.
>
> You can probably tell your cameras to save them as aRGB, too.

How? I don't see anything in the cameras' manuals or in the camera's
user interface to do that. The terms "color profile", "profile, "sRGB"
and "Adobe" and "1998" don't appear anywhere in the camera manuals of
either the Canon Powershot 1200 or the Canon Powershot SX 20 IS.

>
> > In Photoshop, Edit > Settings > is set to "Adobe RGB 1998
> > (Perceptual)" and Working Spaces is set to "Adobe RGB (1998).
>
> Why would you use such a small working space?  Using a larger
> (16bit) working space keeps your choices larger.

Tell that to Vance. He keeps on writing in this thread that I don't
benefit from the wider gamut of Adobe RGB 1998 compared to
sRGBIEC61966-2.1.

He insists that Adobe RGB is TOO WIDE for my Epson 7600 and 2400
printers, while you claim that it's NOT WIDE ENOUGH! Who's right?

Also, I gave up on 16-bit Pro Photo profiles because they disable
Photoshop's filters, and some of those filters are critical for my
image editing work.

> > Color Management Policies > RGB is set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles.
>
> That's probably it.
>
> > I don't know if I should assign the Adobe RGB 1998 profile first and
> > then convert to Adobe RGB 1998, or skip the assignment and go directly
> > to conversion to Adobe RGB (1998).
>
> Try it out.

I've tried it out probably on hundreds or thousands of files over the
years.

> If you *assign* aRGB, you basically tell the world "This file
> is aRGB" when the values inside (the RGB data triples) are only
> right for sRGB.
>
> Anyway, unless you actually *change* the image so some colours
> in it leave sRGB space, you're not winning anything at all.
> It's like buying a larger carport to house the same cooper mini.[1]

When I do assign Adobe RGB (1998) profile to my images, I of course
saturate them in Photoshop to take advantage of Adobe RGB's wider
gamut.

[Robert Montgomery]

On Feb 7, 2:24 am, me <m...@mine.net> wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2012 00:11:50 -0800 (PST),RobertMontgomery
> >
> <robertm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >How can I get Photoshop to save my digital files as Adobe RGB 1998
> >files?
>
> >My two Canon cameras save the files as EXIF JPEGS, but when I look in
> >my Mac's Finder in Get Info, every digital file from my cameras has
> >the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 profile embedded in them.
>
> >In Photoshop, Edit > Settings > is set to "Adobe RGB 1998
> >(Perceptual)" and Working Spaces is set to "Adobe RGB (1998).
>
> >Color Management Policies > RGB is set to "Preserve Embedded Profiles.
>
> >I don't know if I should assign the Adobe RGB 1998 profile first and
> >then convert to Adobe RGB 1998, or skip the assignment and go directly
> >to conversion to Adobe RGB (1998).
>
> What is the point of changing to a wider color space with images that
> do not contain any information which might be contained in such
> additional color space?

From what I can tell, my photos seem to come out of my cameras
untagged, because in Photoshop > Edit > Assign Profile, the button
appears beside "Don't Color Manage This document" which means that any
of the three profiles could be assigned to embedded to the files.

> Not the as starting with a raw file and then converting to aRGB.

What?

> In either case I believe the proper procedure is to convert.

Why is that better than assignment?

Robert

[Robert Montgomery]

On Feb 9, 2:31 am, Vance <vance.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 8, 12:27 pm,RobertLord <tony...@hotmail.com> wrote:> On Feb 7, 8:02 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Addendum:  You have Photoshop setup to preserve the 'embedded color space', so there is your answer to where the color space was assigned - your camera.

Photoshop is set to "preserve embedded color space" but I think the
files coming out of my camera don't have an embedded color space"
because Photoshop > Edit > Assign Profiles has the button next to
"Don't Color Manage this file".

> > Neither of my camera manuals appear to have any option for changing
> > the colour profile assigned or embedded to the files.
>
> It's different with my Canons, but you didn't mention which model you
> are using.

Canon Powershot A1200 and Powershot IS 20 IS.

>
> > Your advice contradicts Adobe's advice.  You wrote, "You probably
> > can't see the Adobe RGB color space on your monitor, the people who
> > may see your images online probably can't see it and you probably
> > aren't going to get it out of prints.  Why bother?"  It's common
> > knowledge among graphics professionals that Adobe RGB (1998) is the
> > profile to use for print because it has a wider spectrum than sRGB or
> > sRGBIEC61966-2.1
>
> I use Adobe RGB because my Eizo monitor can produce about 97-98
> percent of the Adobe space at a cost of about $1,900 USD, but that is
> what it is designed to do and my customers have similarly capable
> monitors.  The vast majority of monitors out there that people will
> view a web image on won't handle that color space and use sRGB.  They
> won't see it.

I want a wider gamut of Adobe RGB 1998 for my printed work – not for
Internet work.

> As far as printing goes, your printer probably isn't
> going to give you the full gamut and most commercial printers sure
> won't.  A wide gamut printer like the custom printer I use has, will
> pretty much give you the full gamut with the right paper combination.
>
> I work in a totally managed color environment from camera, through
> monitor display to the printer and it is the same color space my
> customers use.  It's advertising work and that makes it worthwhile to
> invest in the equipment to fully utilize the Adobe RGB.  However,
> where the full gamut can't be realized in the end product whatever its
> form, the question is still 'Why bother?'  Going to four color offset
> is a different ball game and you have spot inks like Pantone to help
> overcome some of it's gamut limitations.

I have seven- and eight-color printers partly because they provide a
wider gamut that four-color offset printers. Are you telling me that
my printers can't show the wider gamut of Adobe RGB (1998), compared
to sRGBIEC61966.2.1?

> There are legitimate arguments by professionals that it makes the most
> sense to just work in sRGB from the start.

> Hopefully, I expressed myself a little clearer.

Actually, I'm still confused.

> > Adobe's Web site says, "For a mixed RGB and CMYK print
> > workflow...choose the North America Prepress 2 setting.  This option
> > sets the RGB working space to Adobe RGB (1998) and the CMYK working
> > space to U.S. Web Coasted (SWOP) v2.
>
> > Also, Photoshop has a section at View > Proof Setup > Adobe RGB. You
> > wrote, "You probably can't see the Adobe RGB color space on your
> > monitor".  Why would that proof preview for Adobe RGB be available in
> > Photoshop if it were useless?
>
> It isn't useless if you have the equipment to display the Adobe RGB
> color gamut.  It is a pro package after all.

I have seven- and eight-color printers partly because they provide a
wider gamut that four-color offset printers. Are you telling me that
my printers can't show the wider gamut of Adobe RGB (1998), compared
to sRGBIEC61966.2.1? ( I'm printing on Epson Exhibition fine art
canvas and Epson Somerset Velvet fine art paper).

Are you telling me that my Apple Imac monitor can distinguish between
Adobe RGB 1998 and sRGB when viewed in the latest version of Photoshop
CS?

> > I'm printing on two Epson printers. One has seven colors and the other
> > has eight colors.  Maybe you're assuming that I'm going to have my
> > files printed on a four-color offset press, which have three or four
> > less colors than my Epson printers, and therefore have a narrower ink
> > spectrum than my printers.
>
> I use a Canon imagePROGRAF iPF5100 which uses  12 pigment inks and
> produces a pretty wide gamut, but not the total Adobe gamut and the
> paper makes a tremendous difference in the print.  Realistically, sRGB
> produces beautiful images and all output devices can handle it, so it
> can make a lot of sense to use it as you color space from the
> beginning.
>
> Just an opinion.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vance

I'm hoping to get definitive answers – nor just opinions. Thanks for
trying to help – even though I'm still confused.

Robert

[me]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 01:13:29 -0800 (PST), Robert Montgomery
<rober...@gmail.com> wrote:


>I want a wider gamut of Adobe RGB 1998 for my printed work – not for
>Internet work.

>I have seven- and eight-color printers partly because they provide a
>wider gamut that four-color offset printers. Are you telling me that
>my printers can't show the wider gamut of Adobe RGB (1998), compared
>to sRGBIEC61966.2.1?
>
>> There are legitimate arguments by professionals that it makes the most
>> sense to just work in sRGB from the start.

But your sources images don't contain any of this extended color space
information. So all you are doing is wasting time and energy worrying
about this, unless you do specific editing which would add such
content, which I doubt given what you have posted on this thread.

[me]

Sorry I meant not the same as starting with a raw file and then
processing to aRGB. If you don't know what a raw file is, then you are
far from being able to use aRGB unless you camera specifically saves
to that.

>> In either case I believe the proper procedure is to convert.
>
>Why is that better than assignment?

Because your original profile would appear to be sRGB. Just
reassigning the color space is not the correct procedure even if a
color profile isn't embedded in the images.You would need to convert
to it. That said, as your original content doesn't make use of the
extended space you are fooling yourself that you gain anything by
changing to it, unless you are doing specific edits which would add
colors outside of sRGB.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Robert Montgomery <rober...@gmail.com> writes:

> Tell that to Vance. He keeps on writing in this thread that I don't
> benefit from the wider gamut of Adobe RGB 1998 compared to
> sRGBIEC61966-2.1.
>
> He insists that Adobe RGB is TOO WIDE for my Epson 7600 and 2400
> printers, while you claim that it's NOT WIDE ENOUGH! Who's right?

Both of you.

sRGB is really not bad for your final output. Most labs I've sent
prints to require you put your files into that profile before uploading
them anyway (and I mean professional labs like WHCC).

However, what's good enough for your final output is NOT good enough for
the original or for your working space.

A color print actually has maybe 5 stops of range, the negative 10 or
more. Which parts of the negative ended up in the print was what custom
printing was all about :-).

Similarly, 8-bit output is good enough for nearly everything (few
printer drivers, maybe none, actually handle 16-bit; you need to go to
commercial RIPs for that). But you need 16-bit (per channel) originals
so that, in places you expand the range, you don't end up with
posterization (for example).

> Also, I gave up on 16-bit Pro Photo profiles because they disable
> Photoshop's filters, and some of those filters are critical for my
> image editing work.

I work in ProPhoto 16-bit. You have an older version of Photoshop.
that's one of the reasons I updated a few releases back.

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Robert Lord <ton...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 8:02 pm, Vance <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Addendum:  You have Photoshop setup to preserve the 'embedded
>> color space', so there is your answer to where the color space
>> was assigned - your camera.

> I just called Canon and asked a technical service worker, who told me
> that all of the digital Canon cameras produce files that are untagged,
> which contradicts your statement that the cameras are tagging my files
> with the sRGBIEC61966-2.1 colour profiles.

First, that's not exactly true (my big Canon can do aRGB and
of course tags that as aRGB), secondly, if no colour space is
given, sRGB it is.

> Adobe's Web site says, "For a mixed RGB and CMYK print
> workflow...choose the North America Prepress 2 setting. This option
> sets the RGB working space to Adobe RGB (1998) and the CMYK working
> space to U.S. Web Coasted (SWOP) v2.

You don't have a CMYK workflow. You feed sRGB or aRGB to
your printer and thus have a workflow completely in RGB.

> Also, Photoshop has a section at View > Proof Setup > Adobe RGB. You
> wrote, "You probably can't see the Adobe RGB color space on your
> monitor". Why would that proof preview for Adobe RGB be available in
> Photoshop if it were useless?

Because some expensive monitors can. Almost. :-)

-Wolfgang

[Wolfgang Weisselberg]

Robert Montgomery <rober...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:44 pm, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgt...@sneakemail.com>

>> RobertMontgomery<robertm...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > How can I get Photoshop to save my digital files as Adobe RGB 1998
>> > files?

>> Why would you want that?

> To get a wider gamut in my prints than is provided by sRGBIEC61966-2.1
> files. (That's the difference between the two profiles.)

Is your printer capable of actually using the additional
range of aRGB? Does it cover it? Did you check that with a
profile of the printer, ink and paper?

> How? I don't see anything in the cameras' manuals or in the camera's
> user interface to do that. The terms "color profile", "profile, "sRGB"
> and "Adobe" and "1998" don't appear anywhere in the camera manuals of
> either the Canon Powershot 1200 or the Canon Powershot SX 20 IS.

Ah, then Canon has chosen to keep that capability away from it's
smaller cameras.

>> > In Photoshop, Edit > Settings > is set to "Adobe RGB 1998
>> > (Perceptual)" and Working Spaces is set to "Adobe RGB (1998).

>> Why would you use such a small working space?  Using a larger
>> (16bit) working space keeps your choices larger.

> Tell that to Vance. He keeps on writing in this thread that I don't
> benefit from the wider gamut of Adobe RGB 1998 compared to
> sRGBIEC61966-2.1.

As a working space -- the time from starting with your JPEGs or
RAWs to finally writing your result, in sRGB or aRGB) you want
Pro Photo (or lacking that, at least Wide Gamut). That
allows you to temporarily be outside of the small aRGB space
and jump back into it[1]. It also allows you to not have
quantisation errors[2].

> He insists that Adobe RGB is TOO WIDE for my Epson 7600 and 2400
> printers, while you claim that it's NOT WIDE ENOUGH! Who's right?

Let's look ... for the *intermediate workspace*, I am right.
For the *output profile* ... let's see ...

I checked the 7600's profile for lustre paper and manufacturer's
ink against sRGB and aRGB:

$ iccgamut -v -w -d 7 -k -c pp 9600 PrmLuster PLU2 Std v3.icc
$ iccgamut -v -w -d 7 -k -c pp sRGB.icc
$ iccgamut -v -w -d 7 -k -c pp Adobe.icc
$ viewgam -cn -t0 -w -k 9600\ PrmLuster\ PLU2\ Std\ v3.gam \
-cr -t0.1 -s -k sRGB.gam \
-cg -t0.5 -s -k Adobe.gam \
9600.wrl
$ lookat 9600.wrl

[iccgamut and viewgam are part of the Argyll CMS, lookat is
just a VRML viewer]

- Yellow is outside aRGB
- Blue-ish and green-ish extend well outside aRGB in the darker
colours, but aRGB still has a stronger saturated green.
- Same for red-ish.
- The printer cannot cover the light colours that sRGB can
describe.


=> the printer cannot print all colours that sRGB can describe
=> The printer can print many colours (especially the darker
saturated ones) that not even aRGB can describe.

Use aRGB or even a larger colourspace.

> Also, I gave up on 16-bit Pro Photo profiles because they disable
> Photoshop's filters, and some of those filters are critical for my
> image editing work.

Then you must live with quantisation errors and out of
profile problems.

>> > I don't know if I should assign the Adobe RGB 1998 profile first and
>> > then convert to Adobe RGB 1998, or skip the assignment and go directly
>> > to conversion to Adobe RGB (1998).

>> Try it out.

> I've tried it out probably on hundreds or thousands of files over the
> years.

And? What were the results?

> When I do assign Adobe RGB (1998) profile to my images, I of course
> saturate them in Photoshop to take advantage of Adobe RGB's wider
> gamut.

Did you ever try the saturation rendering intent?
That could be just what you want ...

-Wolfgang


[1] Think of a price range of <$1000 which you're willing to
spend on a new camera. The model you want is $1100, and
the battery grip you need is another $100.
However, there's a rebate of $50 and you can sell your
old body for $200.

If you only consider prices <$1000 and act like a
computer (or photoshop) the following ensues:
$1100 >= $1000 ==> record the maximum of $999.99
+ $100 = 1099.99 >= $1000 ==> record the maximum of
$999.99
- $50 rebate = $949.99
- $200 = $749.99

If you consider prices to $100,000,000, the following
ensues:
$1100 => store as $1100 (even though >= $1000)
+ $100 = $1200 => store as $1200 (even though >= $1000)
- $50 = $1150 => store as $1150 (even though >= $1000)
- $200 = $950 => store as $950

The price limit is the border of your working space
profile.

[2] sRGB and aRGB have only 8 bit per channel, that is 256
different values.
16 bit has 256 times as much different values, so even with
a much larger work space you have smaller steps in between.

Consider rounding to full $100:
$49.95 => round to $0
+ $49.95 = $49.95 => round to $0
+ $49.95 = $49.95 => round to $0
+ $49.95 = $49.95 => round to $0
+ $49.95 = $49.95 => round to $0

Consider rounding to full $10:
$49.95 => round to $50
+ $49.95 = $99.95 => round to $100
+ $49.95 = $149.95 => round to $150
+ $49.95 = $199.95 => round to $200
+ $49.95 = $249.95 => round to $250

Consider calculating to the last cent:
$49.95 => round to $49.95
+ $49.95 = $99.90 => round to $99.90
+ $49.95 = $149.85 => round to $149.85
+ $49.95 = $199.80 => round to $199.80
+ $49.95 = $249.75 => round to $249.75

Each operation that changes the hue or brightness or lightness
(or red, green or blue amount) of the pixels needs to round,
and if you round to full $100 (8bit, like aRGB or sRGB) you
get bad errors, if you round to the last cent (more like 16
bit) you get much smaller errors. Note, $0.0049 would still
be cut away in rounding ...

[J. Clarke]

In article <ylfkvcn1...@dd-b.net>, dd...@dd-b.net says...

>
> Robert Montgomery <rober...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Tell that to Vance. He keeps on writing in this thread that I don't
> > benefit from the wider gamut of Adobe RGB 1998 compared to
> > sRGBIEC61966-2.1.
> >
> > He insists that Adobe RGB is TOO WIDE for my Epson 7600 and 2400
> > printers, while you claim that it's NOT WIDE ENOUGH! Who's right?
>
> Both of you.
>
> sRGB is really not bad for your final output. Most labs I've sent
> prints to require you put your files into that profile before uploading
> them anyway (and I mean professional labs like WHCC).
>
> However, what's good enough for your final output is NOT good enough for
> the original or for your working space.
>
> A color print actually has maybe 5 stops of range, the negative 10 or
> more. Which parts of the negative ended up in the print was what custom
> printing was all about :-).
>
> Similarly, 8-bit output is good enough for nearly everything (few
> printer drivers, maybe none, actually handle 16-bit; you need to go to
> commercial RIPs for that). But you need 16-bit (per channel) originals
> so that, in places you expand the range, you don't end up with
> posterization (for example).

Just an aside, but this discussion prompted me to search for something I
remembered from long ago. In the January, 1967 issue of Analog Science
Fiction (then published by Conde-Nast) there was an editorial about the
cover art and how it had to be compromised because the printing
processes did not allow enough dynamic range to show the image that the
editor, the author, and the artist all had in their minds to accompany
the lead story in that issue. Can't find the editorial online but I
suspect that it's still an interesting read.

[Robert Montgomery]

On Feb 20, 10:05 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:

Huh? CS5.6 is an 'older version of Photoshop'? I have Photoshop CS5.5
– the latest version. See here for proof that CS5 _is_ the latest
version:: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop.html

Robert