AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

How? Are people sending aRGB imag images to labs that can't print them? Do they fail to convert accurately to sRGB before sending them to the printers? ARe they just sending you stuff in RAW with no instructions?


I really don't understand this response, but I'd like to hear more. It doesn't seem to matter which colorspace you choose, as long as you save in RAW and export in whichever format is most appropriate for your printer or where you plan to publish it.


Sincere question, not being snarky...


Andy

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

At Herff Jones Photography Charlotte (a division of HJ sold to Lifetouch in 2011, so now defunct), I ran the digital production departments of the lab for five years during the transition from film to digital. I did training there for seven years after that, but was based in the Charlotte lab, where I was a "photo consultant of last resort". So I quite often got to decipher the thorniest problems of both production and what was screwing it up — the photography.

There has long been a suggestion in the industry that "more is better" when it comes to color gamut. Generally, that is only true at the very high end of the market, where you are printing with 8 to 12 color printers, using 16-bit print drivers, and printing files converted "on the fly" from raw files, to ProPhoto RGB, and from there, directly through the inkjet printer's paper profile to the driver.

The problem is WORST with the CMYK offset print world, where certain misguided editors and production color separators THINK Adobe RGB is the ticket to nirvana. The problem there is, you have to convert all images down to the smallest color gamut in popular use (CMYK), and doing so either discards so many color values, or compresses colors so much (depending on settings), that the result looks very different from the original image. HOW different depends on the conversion method.

The problem in the professional color lab market is still pretty bad, though. Pro color labs typically use software that *strips off the metadata and all embedded profiles in an image* before writing them to a server. This saves about 550K per image. That is significant to a lab that processes ten million images a year. So... the ASSUMED color space in most (silver halide based wet process) labs is sRGB, because the color gamut of most silver halide papers is very similar to sRGB (one gamut is a little better than the other here and there, but not much better!). When you strip the metadata off of an image that was created in the Adobe RGB color space, it then gets interpreted as sRGB! The result is flat, dull, greenish-gray, and lifeless. In a "portrait and social segment" lab, that is suicide! Because you're starting with a JPEG, the only way to fix the mess is to go back to the original submitted image, and re-import the image, leaving the metadata and tags in place. Then you have to enable the special settings in the software to read the metadata and convert it. Finally, you can convert the image to sRGB for printing. Alternatively, you can take the submitted files off line, through Photoshop, batch convert them to sRGB, and resubmit them to the production server. BUT... That is just the start of the problem.

The other problem is that few users actually know how to (or bother to) properly calibrate and profile their monitors. If they adjust images in Adobe RGB color space, on uncalibrated monitors, then convert them to sRGB, the result might look good to them, but it is so far off standard that the lab, which expects images in sRGB that WERE adjusted on calibrated monitors, can't really do anything right with them.

To use Adobe RGB properly:

Custom white balance your camera to a reference target

Record Adobe RGB JPEG images at the camera

Process the raw images to ProPhoto RGB working color space (yes, it's a wider gamut, but it will FULLY contain Adobe RGB...)

Evaluate color and brightness (etc.) ONLY on a custom calibrated and profiled monitor

Be sure your monitor brightness is the same as your print viewing area (illuminate THAT with a color-correct CFL at 5000K and 91+ CRI)

Be sure there are NO bright colors around your monitor or on your monitor desktop (use medium dark gray!)

Subdue room light, which should be indirect

Use calibration aims:

80 to 120 cd/m^2 white point
0.5 cd/m^2 black point
Gamma 2.2
6500K Color Temperature

Know that you can't see much of the ProPhoto RGB color space and only 80% to 90% of Adobe RGB on a typical sub-$1200 monitor

Know that only really good monitors can accurately display Adobe RGB

Use the lab's or your own printer profile as a proofing profile to check image adjustments

Convert the image to sRGB on export for a lab OR

Print directly from Lightroom to your 16-bit capable printer, using the right paper profiles

Re-evaluate the image after export (go back and readjust and re-export if needed)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Somewhere on my archive drives, I have some samples of images improperly converted, badly adjusted due to profile mismatch, etc. I'll see if I can find them and post tomorrow.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

That's a clear explanation. Thanks.


My local lab ;prints from either aRGB or sRGB JPEGs. I work in LightRoom RAW and can export in either mode. They seem to have no preference, but I export in sRGB as I trust LightRoom more than their software.


Am I making a mistake here?


Andy

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

No, that’s what I’d do. If you have good white balance and your monitor is properly calibrated and profiled, your prints should match closely.

The match is never perfect, but with care, it can be as close as you need it to be. Adding a ColorChecker Passport to the raw workflow is the ultimate. I reserve that for subjects that have special logo colors, or colors that are otherwise difficult to reproduce. It works best for wide gamut inkjet output.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

As I understand sRGB, it was the color gamut producible by television tube phosphors. I have also wondered what 2200 Matt Paper was, too. Always assumed it was some special printing paper.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

I Bill,

This has been a very interesting discussion so far. I have another question for you. I am considering either another 27" iMac fully loaded or a basic iMac Pro to replace my mid 2010 iMac which is limited to a sRGB gamut according to my color calibrations with a Spyder Pro 5+. I understand that the iMac Retina display is rated as a P3 display and has a color gamut that includes both sRGB and Adobe RGB but not ProColor. Is there any reason I should consider also investing in a monitor with a ProColor gamut? Also, what is your opinion of the iMac Vs. the iMac Pro for PS and LR? Will the 8-core processor in the Pro do anything sufficiently noticeable for me considering the premium price?

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

“2200 Matte Paper” most likely referred to the gamut resulting from EPSON Matte Papers printed using EPSON inks in their Stylus Color 2200 printer, a model popular in 2004 and later.

Oh, and sRGB is a subset of TV monitor color. The boundaries of it include the colors reproducible by most CRT monitors of the late-1990s (and later LED monitors), as well as many color printing processes.

TV CRTs had a native color temperature of 9300K, but sRGB tunes that back to between 5000K and 6500K, depending on the application.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

P3 is near or at the limits of human vision. I’m not sure what ProColor is, but if you mean ProPhoto RGB, no monitors yet made, AFAIK, can even approach that gamut.

I’d go for an iMac Pro, for the 10-bit monitor graphics processing. You won’t see a huge benefit from multi-core speed from apps that don’t use it, but the iMac Pro SMOKES a 2010, as well as the current Mac Pro.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Error

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

Thank you Bill for your input. I will consider your evaluation when I make my final decision in a couple of months after the new models come out.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

As I've said, BurkPhoto knows what he is talking about. And I've read most of this before in various places. sRGB is basically the industry standard. Is it the only color space, no. As a comparison. In the film days when I first learned photography (Ca. 1977), the highest practical quality was say the 8x10" View Camera. Yet, most professional photographers worked with a 35mm thru 6x7cm format camera.

bmike101 Loc: Gainesville, Florida

oops

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I shoot raw, so color space is not decided until I convert the image - and I use Pro Photo for all of my workflow. When I finally export I use whatever the client needs, or whatever the print lab accepts. It could be either sRGB or AdobeRGB.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Same here, for my raw workflow.

Most photo labs want sRGB. High-end service bureaus doing pigmented inkjet printing may request Adobe RGB for its extended color gamut. Some of the graphic arts industry crowd prefer Adobe RGB, oddly, because CMYK has a smaller gamut than sRGB.

When I must use SOOC JPEGs, I use sRGB.

When I print directly out of Lightroom, my workflow is ProPhoto RGB all the way to the printer driver. Results are subtly better than from Adobe RGB, and noticeably better in certain colors than sRGB.