sRGB or aRGB when Printing?

[HulaMike]

I suppose this is a stupid poll as most would probably select #3, assign a profile as needed; but I feel I may have a gross misunderstanding of printer color management based on years of assumption or something I read. Seems to me that aRGB offers a wider gamut for inkjet printing and so that's where I live most of the time; but which color space do you prefer and why??

[KeithM]

Hi Mike.

Just polled an sRGB response. Many reasons which boil down to laziness and not knowing any better really ( use PC's, edit in Paintshop Pro, only shoot for myself so don't have to worry about colorimetry and customers, print at home on an inkjet and so on... and I place myself firmly at the amateur end of colour (mis)management).

So I probably share your feeling of not knowing if I should know more about colour manglement - after trying to get all the other stuff right, just how much should I worry about color spaces, gamuts, etc.. ? Maybe that's why I always find comfort in monochrome :rolleyes: :o

I'll continue to follow the recent couple of threads to try and make more sense of it !

Keith.

[Linda G]

I don't print with an inkjet but would like to know in case I send stuff to someone who does. I would like to hear from Melody who does large inkjet printing.

[floppypaws]

My workflow uses the AIM 1.0 gamut for editing in CS which elimiates certain artifacts in CS. Then though CS output translated to either stock of custom paper colorspaces which vary for each media type, and printer combination.

The use of the AIM 1.0 gamut colorspace is a lot easier with a monitor system which allows for quick colorspace setup like the Sony Artisan. Most output now going to Epson 4000.

[HulaMike]

FP,

Your experience seems to match my own. I have a properly calibrated monitor for starters and Photoshop set up for a custom view using a custom ICC printer profile for my Epson 1280. I work in aRGB color space but that is 'overridden' when I select my printer profile pre print view. And so what I have going on is that aRGB edited files print exactly as they look on screen. My concern started with the other thread involving using sRGB as a color space. Seems that most service bureaus and imagers that produce a chemical print prefer sRGB for some reason, my best guess is that its a legacy from a byegone technological era, one before adobe RGB 1998 color space was defined.

Anyway, I really don't have a problem with what I print in house. I've literally got a wysiwyg situation going on. I was just trying to gain a better overall understanding of this issue.

[Linda G]

No Mike,

It's a limitation of paper and chemicals. They do not now, never have and probably never will have the color range of a light box. Never did you see a transparency look as good once printed, no matter what method it was printed because you cannot have light shining through it. The same goes here: the light from the monitor gives the image a totally different look than having it printed on paper with reflective light.

It has nothing to do with monitors or even rgb of any kind or cmyk. It's what's possible on the paper. The color lasers expose the photographic paper and then the paper goes through photographic chemicals. It's a chemcal/paper thing, not a monitor thing.

I feel like I'm starting to talk circular!

[Sleeping Bear]

I prefer to contact the lab and find out what they need, after all they are the color experts.

There is so much bad info out there on color space that it's not even funny. The bottom is what does your lab/printer read? If it 'reads' Srgb then that's what you give it. If it reads the Wall Street Journal then that's what you give it.

I just have a low end Epson but I don't think I would want to print my shots anyway, I prefer the look of real photographic paper. It's hard to beat the Fuji labs.

[HulaMike]

No Mike,

It's a limitation of paper and chemicals. They do not now, never have and probably never will have the color range of a light box. Never did you see a transparency look as good once printed, no matter what method it was printed because you cannot have light shining through it. The same goes here: the light from the monitor gives the image a totally different look than having it printed on paper with reflective light.

It has nothing to do with monitors or even rgb of any kind or cmyk. It's what's possible on the paper. The color lasers expose the photographic paper and then the paper goes through photographic chemicals. It's a chemcal/paper thing, not a monitor thing.

I feel like I'm starting to talk circular!

Better circular than...square. :rolleyes: Couldn't resist Linda.

I understand the difference between reflective and transmitted light. I just wanted to know if there was a limiting factor in terms of reproduceable colors using sRGB vrs aRGB. aRGB has a wider gamut that can be seen on screen, I was/am, just interested in knowing if the lesser gamut printed fewer or less vibrant color than aRGB. Maybe we are saying/understanding the same thing. Call me a square.... :rolleyes:

[HulaMike]

I prefer to contact the lab and find out what they need, after all they are the color experts.

There is so much bad info out there on color space that it's not even funny. The bottom is what does your lab/printer read? If it 'reads' Srgb then that's what you give it. If it reads the Wall Street Journal then that's what you give it.

I just have a low end Epson but I don't think I would want to print my shots anyway, I prefer the look of real photographic paper. It's hard to beat the Fuji labs.

Fair enough and you're right of course. On the other hand, I enjoy controlling and doing everything myself. I get spectacular prints off my 1280 but am planning to move up to wider format as soon as I can locate an Epson 4000. Maybe I'll spring for a 7600, then I could go 24" wide. Woo hoo. With the new UltraChrome inks you can get 85+ year expectations against fading and stunning color. I'm an old production guy Bear, I like it all.

[Linda G]

Triangular!

Either that or spiraling somewhere!

We are getting closer to the same page, I just wish I had access to the graphics I had learning this stuff. Major point to remember, what you see on your screen is just a mirage. You can manipulate it but it's still just a representation of what is zeros and ones. How those zeros and ones get on photographic paper and look like what we expect it to is asounding that it looks anything like an image and not gobbldygook! ( I KNOW that's a word!)

Yes, argb has more colors. It shows up on your screen because your monitor has the capability of showing them. That paper doesn't care what you see on the screen, we all know that because we have had uncalibrated monitors and our prints look nothing like what we see.

Our experience with argb has not been positive. We find the images, especially those with problem colors (reds, yellows and turquoise) come out looking flat and lack contrast. The reason is because there is more color there than will print out and the image has 'clipped' colors, kind of like a histogram. If there are more colors there, the printer can only print what it's limits allow and that will cause the shading so important to depth to be cut off, leaving it flat. The same file, converted back to a size color space the same or slightly smaller than the printer can show will have that shading because it will be compressed instead of cut off.

Good GRIEF but it's all coming back! AAEEEE! My FujiHunt guy should be PROUD of me! wonder if he lurks here. Hey Jon! heh

[Melody]

Ok it can or can NOT be just an easy answer.

However I'll give it my best, 99.9% of the time I use rgb.

I print with 2 Epson 9600 44inch printers

One is set up with ultrachrome inks

The other is set up with ArTanium uv inks for dye-sublimation.

I print on a variety of papers some of which are, matte, luster, canvas, and canvas glossy. I also print on carpet mats, various fabrics, ceramic and glass tiles.

That being said there is NO one choice for me, everything has to "gel" together the color settings in PS, the paper profile, and the ink profile all with the 9600 printers known, some programs even allow for the type of camera used to be a factor as well. Notice I didn't even go into my RIP software :)

Everyone of those papers has a different profile, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. The two types of ink have different profiles as well. Each one of those printers has different color settings in PS as well although they are both rgb. It is a tremendous amount of print, print, test and test again, I constantly used the same two images in my comparisions, in fact they are still hanging in my office and used currently. In the beginning it was quite overwhelming, now it's more of a interesting challenge as I add a new paper or type of tile. I went through it just a few weeks ago with the glossy canvas and not a single person around me was in jeopardy either LOL!

Here is one example of an srgb compared to a rgb, I know Bryan remembers this one as I was so frustrated I nearly killed anyone around me during it. I printed, and printed, tested and tested various profiles, saturations, color replacements you name it I tried it, I who love the ocean and water never wanted to see it again! Nothing would make it blue, it had a purple tinge, well not a tinge it was purple!! The very simple answer was to change it to rgb and woohoo I got blue!!

I would also like to add that you can take the exact same image let's say an eagle (good thing I love that print of Bryans cause I've used it as a test picture) WITH the color profiles etc absolutely correct it will in fact look different, one way on canvas, another on: canvas glossy, matte and or luster papers, tiles, gloss, flat, or glass, and fabric (every fabric will look a bit different as well) and I can only assume with about 99% accuracy it would on photograpic paper as well. It's not hard to figure it out they are all different substances, however some folks just can't get it. If it makes it easier for you take a ball point pen and draw on different items, paper, cotton, a rock, whatever it does not look the same yet it is the same color, yeah yeah use a white cotton and a white paper!

I will never attempt to tell anyone that one type of print is the best, or make a comparision, it is NOT, otherwise the others wouldn't exist there would be no market for them, it is simply a matter of personal taste.

I've seen prints from the fuji frontier and yes they are beautiful, I've seen prints off the darn I forget the name it's a dye-sub printer and I like them too, it's wonderful for all of us to have so many choices, just enjoy the variety I know I do :)

Whew that took a bit and really was a very small part of it, however you just tell me to put my camera on P iso 200 and never change it regardless of the location, type of weather, or lens and I'll be happy too! Forgive the "mood" of the post you asked while I'm in one :rolleyes:


Melody

btw Mike yeah it sounds like we work very much alike how SCAREY is that!! :lol: All I see is your toes are you blonde? Hey we have fun and find success thats what counts.

[HulaMike]

Triangular!

Either that or spiraling somewhere!

We are getting closer to the same page, I just wish I had access to the graphics I had learning this stuff. Major point to remember, what you see on your screen is just a mirage. You can manipulate it but it's still just a representation of what is zeros and ones. How those zeros and ones get on photographic paper and look like what we expect it to is asounding that it looks anything like an image and not gobbldygook! ( I KNOW that's a word!)

Yes, argb has more colors. It shows up on your screen because your monitor has the capability of showing them. That paper doesn't care what you see on the screen, we all know that because we have had uncalibrated monitors and our prints look nothing like what we see.

Our experience with argb has not been positive. We find the images, especially those with problem colors (reds, yellows and turquoise) come out looking flat and lack contrast. The reason is because there is more color there than will print out and the image has 'clipped' colors, kind of like a histogram. If there are more colors there, the printer can only print what it's limits allow and that will cause the shading so important to depth to be cut off, leaving it flat. The same file, converted back to a size color space the same or slightly smaller than the printer can show will have that shading because it will be compressed instead of cut off.

Good GRIEF but it's all coming back! AAEEEE! My FujiHunt guy should be PROUD of me! wonder if he lurks here. Hey Jon! heh

Thank you again for a lucid explanation Linda and Melody. I just ran across this article by accident. The author who works for Crockett Labs describes the same thing; a working space is just a working space and there is really no reason to work in aRGB if you use a lab or print in house. The only thing that matters is the printer output space (ICC profile used) and NOT the color space you work/view in. However if you work in the larger argb space it may not fit into the smaller space of your printer or service bureau and therefore color can be clipped or misprinted as you've both said. He has illustrations that explain what you've both said, and so, mission accomplished! I now have a better understanding of the whole issue. I'll begin mashing my S2 files in srgb and see what happens.

Anyway, here's the article on color space:

http://www.shootsmarter.com/infocenter/wc025.html

[Linda G]

Nah, that's not what he says. if you use a lab, do what they need. Crockett is the one who demostrates what happens if you use adobe instead of s and print in a smaller space (that's the same link I put up in the other thread)

Quote:
Commercial photo labs can take data in any space you throw at them, but portrait labs (like McKenna, Buckeye, Miller’s, H&H etc.) are very specific on how the data is to be sent in for proper printing.

Unquote

So again, as Melody stated, find out what is best for what you're printing on. It does matter.

[HulaMike]

True but he also claims most labs want srgb, no? I agree with you and melody. There is no one fix for all printing requirements. I've done some sublimation like Mel, on a smaller scale I would think; but I understand her frustration in achieving a good print on various substrates from the same file. At present I'm concentrating on fine art gallery prints with a very reduced number of papers employed. My job's easier than Mel's right now but at least I understand the whole color space issue better.

[Melody]

Darn and all I can think of is his comparison of a meatball sandwhich :lol:

Now when my printer eats paper or something I'll have a different perspective :rofl:

Everyone really does agree you just use what works the best for your printer and what your doing that's all.

Although I really appreciate the link, I somehow missed it earlier, I want to try the raw 16bit take forever method and try that! I just love to experiment :)

BTW Mike your job is no easier then mine was, your just smarter not doing it all at once, guess it's a female/shopper thing I wanted all of it and I wanted it now! It is very nice to know you dealt with the same frustrations of various substances, and they keep hitting us with more :rofl:

Melody

[HulaMike]

Melody, you should have been around sublimation when Sawgrass was the only ink available! Oh My God! clogged printers, no ICC, couldn't print a red red, every substrate required much experimentation and waste to arrive at a solution and then the next batch of Sawgrass ink would be different and youi'd start all over again. Let me tell you; starting with Paul Hirst's Tropical Graphics Artanium+ inks have put you far, far ahead of the early days of dye sublimation!!! It was a nightmare! I know there are still problems with getting where you need to go but they are definitely more tame than back in 1999, if you can believe that.

[photoworks]

Mike,
I use aRGB when my photos are going to be published in books, flyers and I prefer to convert them to CMYK to check the differences before i give them.
CMYK convertion is a very serious job that must be done when pics go to an offset machine and aRGB is the colorspace to begin before the convertion.

Otherwise I use sRGB when i print in a local lab.

______
Vasilis

[HulaMike]

Thanks Vasilis. Pretty much sums up my new understanding regarding color space. aRGB for CMYK conversions and srgb for pretty much everything else including desk top inkjet...of course all this modified by what the client or service bureau needs.

Thanks to all.

[photoworks]

Thanks Vasilis. Pretty much sums up my new understanding regarding color space. aRGB for CMYK conversions and srgb for pretty much everything else including desk top inkjet...of course all this modified by what the client or service bureau needs.

Thanks to all.


Mike, I wish everything should work with AdobeRGB as it's nearer to true color and has an extended dynamic range while the colors appear better in the monitor.

_____
Vasilis