Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?

["Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>]

Obviously the wider the working colour space the more chance that  most of
the colours of each "real world" colour space are represented and hence why
not sRGB, but I can' t help thinking that we will only ever achieve a
reasonable match unless printers, scanners, monitors and eyes improve their
colour gamut too.

Steve

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 2:02 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?


> So what's the colour gamut of the average human eye and how much variance
is
> there between people's perception ?
>
> I bizarrely found during the colour blind discussion that I could change
the
> hue of some of the colour charts such that I (CB) could very clearly see
the
> correct number on the chart and so called "normal" people could see
nothing
> but dots.
>
> It rather makes me wonder if we are metaphorically chasing the Holy Grail.
I
> use AdobeRGB and feel I get quite a good match on the 1270 with Epson
papers
> when printing from PS. I can also get prerceptually decent results from my
> digicam with slightly different driver settings without the colour
matching.
> I have however sometimes seen posturisation on digicam pictures from the
> Epson that have been converted to AdobeRGB before editting and subsequent
> printing.
>
> It all seems to be a bit of a mess. We have one set of colours for each of
> the following:
>
> 1) scanner
> 2) monitor
> 3) printer
> 4) human eye -  which is uncalibrated and has wild variations from one too
> another.
>
> None of them match up - each has some colours that are not seen by other
> devices/people. We then have an artificial mediator in the middle (the
> processing colour space eg Adobe RGB) which also has colours that are not
> seen by any of the other 4 and the 4) also have colours that can not be
> represented by the processing colour space. We then do 8 bit conversions
> (theres bound to be some inaccuracy here) from one colour space to another
> where neither can represent the other in it's entirety.
>
> Perhaps we should be amazed that we ever get a good match.
>
> Steve
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 10:34 PM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
>
>
> > Laurie,
> >
> > Are you sure about that?
> >
> > I don't know, but I suspect that the 4-color general/business
application
> > inkjets also print colors outside of the sRGB color space, primarily
> > because, in general, some ink colors are outside of the colors visible
on
> > the monitor just as some colors visible on the monitor are not printable
> > using normal printing processes, i.e. inkjets.
> >
> > Maris
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LAURIE@advancenet.net>
> > To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> > Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 12:49 PM
> > Subject: RE: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
> >
> >
> > | shAf,
> > | What the original poster fails to take into account and you failed to
> > point
> > | out is that not all Epson inkjet printer are the same just as not all
HP
> > | inkjets are the same.  Some are 4 color general/business application
> > | printers while others are photo application printers (4 or 6 color).
> They
> > | do not all have the same color gamut.  The lower end general /business
> > color
> > | printers probably do not need a larger gamut than sRBG; whereas the
> higher
> > | end photo printers may produce much higher quality outputs with the
> larger
> > | color gamut.  Obviously one can print on any color inkjet with the
> > narrower
> > | sRBG gamut; and in that sense it is suitable for all inkjets; however
> that
> > | does not make it optimum for all inkjets. :-)
> > |
> > | -----Original Message-----
> > | From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > | [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of shAf
> > | Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 7:27 AM
> > | To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> > | Subject: RE: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?
> > |
> > |
> > | Steve writes ...
> > |
> > | > Many people on this list use Epson printers that supposedly
> > | > work with sRGB.
> > | > If you don't use external printing services or if the
> > | > external service you use have their printing set-up to
> > | > sRGB then why not use sRGB.
> > | > Everytime you convert to or from one colour profile to
> > | > another you have the potential to mess up your print
> > | > If your end target is sRGB (which includes web work) why
> > | > not just work in sRGB?
> > |
> > |     If you have absolutely no need for a color space with a larger
gamut
> > | than sRGB, then you may as well be using it ... archive to target.
But
> I
> > | believe you're wrong about sRGB being the suitable color space for
Epson
> > | printers, and sRGB certainly does not contain some colors available to
> > print
> > | with Epsons ... even AdobeRGB doesn't.
> > |
> > |     You are correct in saying there is a "potential" for messing up
your
> > | print with color space conversions, but it isn't necessarily the case
> ...
> > | you simply need to know what you are doing within a chosen workflow.
> (...
> > | granted, it sometimes isn't so simple ...)
> > |
> > | shAf  :o)
> > |
> > |
> >
> >
>
>