Timeline for What are Color Profiles and where would I find information on using them properly?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 24, 2014 at 19:46 | comment | added | James Snell | It's worth noting that one of the most respected people in the field of colour management, Dan Margulis, has nothing positive to say about ProPhoto RGB. The thread ledet.com/margulis/2007HTM/ACT06-CM_wkflow.htm contains some interesting dialogue on the subject. | |
| S Aug 24, 2014 at 16:49 | history | suggested | Kyselejsyreček | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Correction of mismatch between bpp and bpc color depth units.
|
| Aug 24, 2014 at 16:23 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Aug 24, 2014 at 16:49 | |||||
| Aug 24, 2012 at 16:00 | comment | added | jrista | You shouldn't embed the screen profile, as its designed for an entirely different kind of device. Computer screens have a larger gamut and dynamic range than print most of the time, particularly the depth of blacks and the brightness of whites. Your prints look "dull" only on a relative scale...your evaluating them too much in comparison with your screen. If you want better prints, you will need a better printer...such as one that uses Canon Lucia EX or Epson UltraChrome HDR...and you'll need to use a high dMax paper of 2 or more to really make the most of a print. | |
| Aug 24, 2012 at 12:35 | comment | added | Adarsh R | I have a ThinkPad display with a colour calibrator. The callibrated colour profile looks very natural and that's how I would love the pints to appear as well. However, if I use the embedded sRGB profile, the print looks dull and desaturated. If I embed the ThinkPad colour profile in my image, would the printer be able to understand it and print properly? Or am I missing something? | |
| Aug 22, 2010 at 20:48 | history | edited | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 407 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2010 at 20:42 | history | edited | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 84 characters in body
|
| Aug 22, 2010 at 18:32 | comment | added | jrista | I've updated and added to the content of this answer to be more accurate. Its amazing the amount and complexity of information regarding color management. Hopefully this answer is now more useful to the community as a whole than it was before. I've included information on a new color space I came across not too long ago...I have not used it much myself, so I can't speak to it more than the base theory I've learned about and from it. | |
| Aug 22, 2010 at 18:24 | history | edited | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Corrected use of "Color Profile" and "Color Space" or "Gamut" to be more clear
|
| Aug 22, 2010 at 18:13 | history | edited | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Improved explanation of color spaces, added Print vs. Streen gamuts, added info on Beta RGB space, notes on # of colors
|
| Aug 21, 2010 at 19:04 | history | edited | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 160 characters in body; added 88 characters in body
|
| Aug 19, 2010 at 20:34 | comment | added | Mark Ransom | Note that using a larger gamut such as AdobeRGB might result in less accuracy overall if the image doesn't make use of the larger gamut. The tones of the image are forced into a smaller number of codes. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 7:28 | vote | accept | Larry | ||
| Aug 19, 2010 at 0:44 | comment | added | jrista | Depending on the colors present in an image, you may wish to convert to sRGB when saving a final copy for delivery to a professional print studio. If you are not using colors that require the Adobe RGB gamut, using sRGB sets a lower common denominator. Top of the line print shops will generally be able to use more color data, but sometimes sRGB is all thats supported. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 0:42 | comment | added | jrista | I agree with Alan, actually. Your monitor should be using a custom color profile generated by a color calibration device. That aside, if your monitor supports the Adobe RGB gamut, using a corrected color profile will not change that fact...it will always support the Adobe RGB gamut regardless. When I mentioned "use Adobe RGB" on your computer, I was referring to software, not the hardware. If you are working with image files, such as TIFF, between multiple software tools, I would use Adobe RGB when saving, rather than sRGB. That will preserve the maximum amount of color accuracy possible. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 0:13 | comment | added | Alan | @Nick: actually you don't want to set your monitor to AdobeRGB. It will make all non-tagged images look correct, but in color managed software it will look bad. What you want to have your monitor set to is a calibrated profile that is specific to your device. Run AdobeGamma or use a hardware calibrator. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 0:07 | comment | added | jrista | It should be noted that if you shoot in RAW, the camera color profile does not matter, as your raw images contain and unmodified data dump from the image sensor. Using Adobe RGB on your computer with RAW images will allow you to see more color accuracy from your RAW files, where as using sRGB will map out-of-gamut colors (usually in the greens, where the eye is most sensitive) to a smaller range of tones. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 0:04 | comment | added | jrista | @Nick: My preference, and there are different schools of thought on this, is to keep things in the widest gamut you can work with for as long as you can. If you start with less capability, and need more, your stuck with the "less" you started out with. If you start out with more capability, you can always approximate down to less, and preview how things might look under different gamuts. This goes for both sRGB and print profiles. So my recommendation is to use Adobe RGB whenever you have the option, as that will preserve the maximum amount of original data possible. | |
| Aug 19, 2010 at 0:02 | comment | added | Nick Bedford | I have a Dell U2410 IPS monitor and it's currently set to Adobe RGB. Would it be better to set my Canon to use the Adobe RGB profile, or leave it on sRGB? | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 23:52 | comment | added | jrista | @Alan: At least it wasn't a full-blown mathematical thesis like the last one. ;P | |
| Aug 18, 2010 at 23:47 | history | answered | jrista | CC BY-SA 2.5 |