Printing technology is astonishing.
It's extraordinary that they can get the technology past 8bit having to cope with 250 odd different size bubbles at the print head… let alone thousands of different sized bubbles.
But what we're talking about here is not what the technology is capable of. It's someone who has to print stuff which has already been shot and processed in sRGB.
To map the sRGB files back to Adobe 1998 is NOT going to improve anything… Where will that extra information come from? The ether?
Where will the shadow and highlight detail come from? A bunch of numbers the computer has to make up?
No, I stick with keeping it at sRGB.
Herschel
On Feb 5, 2015, at 3:20 PM, Randy Little wrote:
You need a profile larger then your color space to map colors Herschel. Its a setting in the driver. and it doesn't do a full 16 bit either probably more like 14with 2 bits of transform space since these transforms happen in integer math and lose precision. but the setting is 16 bit. the printer will easily push past the edges of Green cyan and magenta through orange are outside it as well. I Surely don't want sRGB cutting off even more. Plus the Gamma curve of sRGB just kills information in the darks.
If you shoot in sRGB and then edit in sRGB and then print in sRGB you are losing A LOT of information from the camera. Its being clipped. So you work in a bigger space and soft proof. If you use the apple color sync utillty to view the profiles. You will find that even the very conservative epson pro38 PGPP (photo glossy photo paper) well exceeds sRGB in yellow and Greens (bad in blues and magenta) but Thats a HUGE amount of color clipping in the viewer space. Adobe1998 swells up around a good amount of those missing color and Pro-photo completely envelopes them. So I am not clipping or doing an remapping of color space until its time. That way I can control how that all workers out in the end. VS shooting in sRGB and just not ever having the yellows oranges greens and Cyans to begin with.
