leethecam
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #11 · adobe rgb vs srgb and LR and Photohop | |
Canvas is indeed getting very good indeed these days - no the poor cousin of printing anymore. But my granny is still on the line for finding a canvas (or many other papers) that can deliver aRGB with inkjet style printing. They're all getting very good, but I don't like surprises and unless we're comfortably delivering aRGB then there are too many pitfalls to fall into.
If we're sending to a lab who prints RGB (typically digital or inkjet printing), then we really don't need to soft proof to their profile. If they're good, then the colours should match a calibrated quality monitor every time. (It is almost impossible to get a bad print for most album companies for example. So you wouldn't need to ask for a profile, and yes for these I wouldn't expect you to get one.
But for CMYK printing, I have never failed to get a profile from the printer company - and I've used a few. They almost expect the question. CMYK does have a few quirks and the conversion to a particular profile can change the results quite a bit. In this respect I've always done a soft proof before delivering as CMYK, (doesn't matter which type as the printer company strip off the profile and use their own anyway). Can't imagine why you're getting resistance for CMYK profile requests.
If it's going on vinyl, I just hand them a sRGB file and try never to look at the printed version lest I jump off a tall building. Never had a vinyl made me happy, but they do the job for exhibitions I guess.
As to not letting a printer company do the conversion - yes it should be simple, and if they're printing RGB then their machines should be calibrated to give nigh on perfect results - within the limitations of their printers.
However, there are adjustments that can be made at retouching / finishing stages if we know the limitations of the printer. Unless I get the guarantee of aRGB gamut, I'm going to assume sRGB, (and with some methods it can be less). So my colour management workflow starts much earlier than a quick conversion at the end.
Take my Red-Dress album as an example. This was a vivid dress worn by the client and it popped up in 50% of the images. This would be printed by GraphiStudio - who are renowned for colour accuracy and I've had several conversations directly with them about this. Now if I'd used the usual printing options, I would have been limited to an sRGB gamut range. If I'd have gone down this path, the retouching would have needed to be different to keep the curves and shapes of that dress. sRGB just flattened it all out. If I'd created beautiful images in aRGB and just converted at the back end, I'd have successfully killed it all. I did tests and I could tweak images to retain the shapes and flow of the dress - albeit with a less saturated red and needing hand-done dodging / burning etc.
Fortunately Graphi have two lovely DreamLabo 5000 printers. (A snap at just £400,000 each). These can print to the full aRGB gamut, but only with specific papers. It is a tall order, but it can be done. Which is why they're one of the few companies who will boast genuine capability of aRGB printing.
So I processed Raw files viewing as aRGB in C-1, exported as aRGB PSD files and did my retouching to 160+ images. (Sheesh that took about 3 weeks). Album designed in Fundy which only accepts JPEG, (come on Fundy, get with the programme...) and so I nervously created 8-bit files with an aRGB gamut. I checked them and phew, they looked ok. Designed and exported back to Photoshop as PSDs for minor tweaking so as not to stretch that delicate 8-bit balance - still looked fine. Then sent to Graphi for printing with their Canon HD papers for full aRGB replication - all looked wonderful.
I cried a little when doing a mass conversion to sRGB JPEGs for the client's personal use. It did kill the reds a bit but there is no way I'm giving them aRGB files to slap on Facebook. But that global aRGB to sRGB didn't look as good as if I'd worked them up to look their best in sRGB in the first place. In this case, I chose the album to be the priority.
My point to this story...? Better to work within the known limitations of a gamut range / file type and make it look the best you can, rather than create masterpieces and have them mutilated with a conversion at the end.
And because there is often little or no difference between sRGB and aRGB images (unless you've got some very vivid colours). I did a series of tests and was expecting big differences... but they rarely popped up, and only on select images, and only in parts of those, (like with coloured LED lighting for events work).
I do think people get overly zealous about having a massive gamut range. Particularly when the final medium isn't going to show it.
For me, I prefer to make an image look its best within the limitations of the delivery mechanism, rather than get a surprise later down the line.
|
But early on I read something about the colors being more muted or not as good if you used adobe RGB and didn't do it right. Maybe even in the camera instructions. Never really bought into adobe but I do remember a guy telling me SRGB was no good. But I never got around to changing. Also read it's supposed to be better for monitors, might not be true anymore though. But people still have old monitors.