Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?

["Robert E. Wright" <rew@impulse.net>]

Appears you would find Chapters 10 and 11 of Professional Photoshop 6 by Dan
Margulis interesting.
Bob Wright

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Greenbank <steve@gccl.fsbusiness.co.uk>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2001 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Why not sRGB ?


> 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)
> > > |
> > > |
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>