Yeah its not going to make that up but the raw files aren't in sRGB they are in RAW sensor data with some a/d conversion issues. I would never ever consider putting anything in sRGB space unless its being delivered to that spec or REC 709. sRGB has only a few years of practical life left before HDR monitors and such are common place. You are really going to notice you shot in sRGB when you have a monitor that does 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio or about 20 stops of exposure range. (native not dynamic) I would rather my files always be the MOST the device can give and then alter only for delivery because there is no way on earth in 5-10 years anything will be limited by whatever exist today.
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 5:48 PM, Herschel Mair <herschphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I get that and obviously we shoot and work in the widest possible color space and deepest possible bit depth to gather the most image data we can. Bigger sensors to catch every last drop of noise-free picture data.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.HerschelOn 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.On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Herschel Mair <herschphoto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Randy, the 3800 is capable of wider than sRGB but not as wide as Adobe 1998... And it depends on the ink and paper... If you're printing on expensive art paper with artisan inks it can be very expensive while not being much better... When you set the profile for the printer, paper and ink, the color space is optimized for that setup...
On 11:02AM, Thu, Feb 5, 2015 Randy Little <randyslittle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Well cant help if you are using out of date monitors and print profiles. The whole point of 8 and 9 color printers is that they have large gamuts. My 10 bit monitor and displayport to my 3800 which does 16 bit and adobergb gamut are well beyond sRGB.
On Feb 5, 2015 11:41 AM, "karl shah-jenner" <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
First good monitors are all about 98% of adobergb. Apple monitors are not
in that category even though they a very accurate at sRGB.
Second
who still owns a 4 color inkjet. the 3800 on glossy stock covers pretty
much most of adobe rgb. sRGB is smaller then swop 2 or sheet fed standard
profiles.
color printers all tend to be referred to inaccurately as CMYK printers.. this makes it easier than referring to them as CLcMLmYKLkRG printers or whatever color range of inks get jammed into the 8+ ink carts of todays printers.
And sure, there's a plethora of greens in printers that lay outside some RGB gamuts including some mesmerizing green-yellows, that doesn't make them necessarily unusable - unless you use a color space that as well as squishing, ignores outliers.
I used to produce my images on q 10 bit graphics card, a matrox parhelia coupled to a rather nice 24" CRT. I gave that up since most of the people at that time I linked pictures to were using 3DFX cards with no color fidelity on 17" LCDs.. what's the point? I work to the lowest common denominator now.
