Adobe RGB is a good match for printing. Bruce Fraser recommends his own
Bruce RGB as being closer to print than Adobe's
and I use it.
Maris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Greenbank" <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 8:02 PM
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)
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
