petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

Probably for Lithographic reasons !
In advertising, one sends the client a TIFF file for printing reproduction with the most detail.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yea, matters to some.......
and boy can they be adamant about it.

BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA

Use what you will. For me I'll stick with Adobe RGB 1998 & RAW converted to ProPhoto RGB colorspace in LrC and carried into PS when I need to go there. I do print my own and print with printers capable of the full Adobe RGB colorspace +. I never seen banding in tonal gradations.

You use what you will. I'll stick with my "way". I'll bet you would get a lot of disapproval for your approach from the likes of John Paul Caponigro and Seth Resnick - both masters of color: one a subtle subdued variety and one an in-your-face variety.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you won't understand that RAW files have no colorspace, there's really not much help anyone can provide to you.

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

I think enough said on this ISSUE !

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

How many camera owners(pro, amateurs, consumers) know what color space they are using?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Seemingly, even less than we feared...

kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA

I've been delivering photos to my clients for at least ten years in digital and did not know yet what raw and color space is until here on UHH.
Now I am confused.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I think you're right. I assumed Adobe would follow consistent practice for color management. I've done some PSE research and looks like that was a bad assumption.

Looks like PSE ACR get's it's color management marching orders from the color settings in PSE.

In PSE it seems the No Color Management option really does mean there is no working color space -- in other words the display becomes the working color space and so all colors become undefined. But that doesn't seem to work consistently between ACR and PSE proper very odd!

I don't know what it's actually doing. I downloaded the free trial and it's making no sense.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Why are you confused?

Look at images you've done in the past, see what color space they are, and keep using it if your clients are happy.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

See Burkphoto’s post 3rd from bottom on p4

Vladimir200 Loc: Beaumont, Ca.

This information was extremely helpful. Thank you for posting. As a result, I went into LRC and PS and changed some settings.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Lightroom Classic doesn't let you control the colorspace, except at the export. Hopefully, your actions related the file format and colorspace of images sent from LR to PS, as well as the "edit" colorspace in PS. If not created already, create one (or many) LR User Export presets that assure the sRGB colorspace is the default setting of your export files.

Vladimir200 Loc: Beaumont, Ca.

Correct: The article said to make PS preference changes and for Lightroom: go to External Editing > File Format TIFF, Color Space ProPhoto, Bit Depth 16.

The only time I'll do above in LRC external editing is if I'm saving a picture that I'm going to print with my printer. For any other picture that I'm saving via LRC via external editing, I'm going to ensure that I: 1) convert to JPEG 2) 8-bit 3) sRGB.

Thanks CHG_CANON for clarification.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

When I worked for a yearbook and portrait company, I ran the pre-press prep area of the elementary school memory book department. We made extensive tests of JPEGs vs TIFFs. There was absolutely no discernible quality difference when making CMYK separations from 8-bit JPEGs vs 8-bit TIFFs, both of which were in sRGB. There were only minor differences when working from 16-bit TIFFs in Adobe RGB, vs 8-bit files in sRGB. HOWEVER:

> It took roughly ten times the network bandwidth and server storage space to move 8-bit TIFFs around the image setting department instead of JPEGs. In 1998, that was a HUGE deal!

> It took roughly three times longer to use 16-bit Tiffs than it did to use 8-bit TIFFs. THAT was an even bigger deal.

Here is the skinny on WHY publishers have traditionally demanded TIFFs and "300 dpi scanned" files:

> In the early days of digital photography, few photographers calibrated their monitors to ICC Specifications. So when they adjusted images on uncalibrated monitors, they were most often too dark, too light, had inappropriate contrast, or had some off-color tint to them.

> Having 16-bit TIFF files in Adobe RGB provided enough latitude for the printers' technicians to adjust the customer files on a calibrated monitor and output 8-bit files that were color-correct and tonally adjusted with soft proofing to look good on the press, with the inks and paper that would be used for publication.

> Editors and publishers once had a workflow using VERY slow computers. So they would request scans of prints and transparencies in two resolutions: 300 dpi, 16-bit TIFFs, and 72dpi JPEGs. The 72 dpi (small, low resolution) images were used as "for position only" placeholders when creating page layouts on Macs. When the final document was ready to send to image setting, the 72dpi FPO images were swapped for the 300dpi (fully adjusted JPEG) images. This created high resolution halftones or color separations at 133 to 200 lines per inch, without slowing down the pre-press layout and proofing operations.

> There is little actual need for 300dpi scans (or 300 PPI images made to reproduction size). A 200 dpi scan or 200 PPI image made to reproduction size is sufficient for a 150 line halftone or separation. HOWEVER:

> Editors are notorious for changing their layouts at the last minute to accommodate changes. Having a 300 dpi scan or 300 PPI image made to the (initially intended) reproduction size allows 50% enlargement without quality loss. So requesting 300 PPI is simply a FUDGE FACTOR, just like telling photographers they have to submit 16-bit TIFFS in Adobe RGB color gamut.

Page editors are notorious control freaks. If they could get you to submit raw files, some of them would, so they could do your job for you, to their specifications...

In our operation, we provided 200 PPI files as 8-bit JPEGs in sRGB, with no significant quality loss compared with 300 PPI files submitted as 16-bit TIFFs in Adobe RGB. But we could get away with that because we were using a color-managed workflow, and we had trained technicians adjusting color and brightness on all files. We also made all files to ultimate reproduction size specifications.

This saved us tons of time and money.