skin is in the srgb okish ness world. but you are losing a lot of other things. Clients happy you happy don't change. but its not the best TECHNICALLY. if it works for you only change if you can get the result you want.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Lea Murphy <lea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But my skin tones DO click. They're creamy and gorgeous.This is really interesting.As I said in my original post, I'm sure someone might be able to tell me why sRGB isn't the best way to go but I have thousands and thousands of prints out there and never once have I, or anyone looking at them, ever commented on unfaithful skin tone reproduction, or any other color for that matter.This conversation will give me something to read up on but my initial sense is if it ain't broken why fix it?Lea
your kids . my camera . we'll click
www.leamurphy.com
On Feb 5, 2015, at 7:40 AM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:sRGB really just sucks. The profile is at least 25 years old and users today have no idea how much labs and print folks are being cheated. I had always heard that HP (not known for their faithful reproduction of colors with desktop printers) invented sRGB over a weekend to spec to a desktop printer being released on the following Monday. Does anybody remember the Epson 1270? HP made this profile before that for their ‘fugitive colors’ desktop dye inks printer. The worst colors are supposedly the skin tones. So your camera and the kids might click, but the skin tones won’t.printsOn Feb 5, 2015, at 12:35 AM, Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Well they could look better and if you lab is working in sRGB I would find a new lab. Every printer epson makes now does adobe RGB gamut. even my old 3800 does 16 bit and adobe rgb.
when was working at Macromedia software back when it existed and had Prepress software we and Adobe fought hard to not have what became sRGB be sRGB. I believe I remember reading one of Sabine Sustreks arguments against it (Sabine was one of the lead people at ICC and a professor at RIT) Basically in sRGB you can kiss your subtle tones in your shadows and highlights good bye. Since you are working in sRGB from start to finish you don't even know what you are missing. If I showed you the gamut difference between say my Leaf backs and anything currently available in a DSLR you would be amazed. the stupid thing is that is not the hardware that is the limiter. Its the programmers of the cameras. the chips can do a much larger color gamut.On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 11:33 PM, Lea Murphy <lea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:My workflow is sRGB all the way...from camera to prints from my Epson inkjet or my professional lab.I figured if they're going to be converted to sRGB at the print stage anyway why not just start and stay there.Someone could probably tell me why this isn't the best way to go but it does work for me and my prints look good.LeasRGB I believe stands for s$%t RGB. (really the s stands for standard) Its a profile created in the mid 90s to make HP consumer CRT and HP consumer inkjets (from 1995) work. Its a lowest common denominator profile. I shoot in ProPhoto and work in ProPhoto and then deliver in Adobe RGB for print and sRGB for web (because monitors still suck unless you you have an Ezio or Dreamcolor or ultrasharp)On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:I would convert to Adobe 1998 RGB for sure. sRGB is crap. If you have the dough, print them on a Lambda.On Feb 4, 2015, at 3:45 PM, Herschel Mair <herschphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:C41 is a Kodak negative film processing chemistry.... The print chemistry is RA-4 (If I'm up to date)Unless you have actual color negatives to print there's no sense in going with anything but injet.I presume that aRGB is Adobe RGB 1998 which is a low contrast, wide gamut color space - suitable for processing but it's difficult to predict results if you print from there. The printer simply wont have the scope to deal with it and will have to make some changes. the results may surprise you and not always in a good way!You might be better off leaving it in sRGB and lightening up the shadows in PS.HerschelOn Wed Feb 04 2015 at 1:09:42 PM Kostas Papakotas <clenchedteethphotography@xxxxxxxx> wrote:hi all!i would like your views and experiences on this.Our local photography club is preparing a big and important (for our standards) exhibition.The subject and theme is a bit hush-hush until we get the proper clearance to publish from the authority of the venue.So we have contacted several pro-printing labs and got price quotes.Budget is limited and we will be going with basic grade of paper to print on, like the Epson Premium Semigloss Photo Paper (250)and here my questions start.- what process would you suggest?I was told the inkjet is preferable when there are alot of dark tones in an image, and our photos are nothing but.(color space will be aRGb in both cases, and C-41 printing will be done with a Durst laser lab)- what is the effect of paper weight?- we have no control on ink, but will such a basic pro-shop printing & paper be good for 6 months of hanging? some prints will be mounted on an exterior space with a roof, but south-west exposure. These will be film protected for weather.- also, regrettably most members are working in an sRGB colorspace -straight out of their cameras- and possibly 8-bit images.Considering the massive dark tones, what are we to expect in printing? Compression of the tones?Thank you beforehand for your help....Kostas
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
