Prev: Simple Hack To Get $2000 To Your PayPal Account
Next: ******* Great Photography Hosting Service
From: celcius on 16 Jul 2010 08:50
Hi everyone!

I've searched for a solution everywhere, but can't find any. The "Help file
in Photoshop or Camera Raw doesn't seem to address this problem. I've
pre-ordered a book (Scott Kelby's), but it's only coming out at the end of
the month.

My Problem:
When I'm in Camera Raw, colours have a certain tone and vividness.
When I open the same photo in Photoshop from Camera Raw, it's not quite the
same, maybe a bit lighter...

Where I'm at:
Camera Raw is set at: Adobe RGB 1998.
Photoshop is set at: Adobe RGB 1998, US web coated (SWOPO) v2, dot gain gray
20%, dot gain spot 20%, RGB, CMYK, gray, OFF.
I'm also using Spyder3 Pro.
Should I set Photoshop to "Monitor RGB, etc." (the same profile as my
screen - LG)? Or should I leave it to Adobe RGB?
When I print from Photoshop, I use "Photoshop manages colour" and use as
printer profile the same as my screen- LG. I also use "relative
colorimetric".

Any suggestions, please?

Thanks.

Marcel

From: lofi on 18 Jul 2010 12:53
What you see on a monitor is an illusion regardless of calibration because
your eye/brain combo sees what it wants/expects to.
What you see in prints is a reality.
The purpose of calibration is only to achieve prints that on the first try
are a reasonable match to what you think you see on the monitor. In the case
of LCDs most users do not understand the need for and difficulty of the
major downward adjustment of monitor brightness and why TN panels are worst
of all, Apple all-in-ones even worse regardless of panel type.
Presuming you have a quality monitor and understand the need for and how to
turn down the brightness to get reliable color matched, not too dark prints
then all is well regardless of whether you are doing the process technically
correctly or not.
The Adobe converter should open images quite flat looking, although that
varies somewhat depending on SLR brand. In my experience Canon raw images
open more flat looking than Nikon but that has nothing to do with the
finished product. The Nikon NX converter opens raw images with more baseline
processing than the Adobe, again in my experience/opinion.
If you make few or no adjustments in the converter--my preference--that is
what you should see on the desktop (and in fact do, regardless of what you
think you are seeing). Differences in the desktop vs raw converter
appearance of icons etc can influence what you think you see in the image
itself.
The controls in the converter are identical to controls available on the
desktop only they are labeled differently and have a different interface,
in some cases more usable, in most cases less usable. Marketing, choice,
whatever.
In my opinion the converter as a workspace is dubious unless you are making
identical global adjustments to a batch of images. In that case Adobe will
be happy to sell you Lightroom which does exactly the same thing, again with
identical tools labeled differently and with variations in the GUI.
One thing you should check your settings about is make sure the camera is
set to Adobe RGB color space and that Adobe RGB is your preferred workspace
and the program will notify you about mismatched color profiles presuming
printing is your objective. It is your choice whether you want to
process/save files in 8 or 16 bit, but if you have a TN panel it is a 6 bit
device and no printer, regardless of how many different color inks it has,
can print the full 8 color gamut (nor can your eyes see it, but that is a
different issue). In truth, however, I doubt most users regardless of
sophistication could tell whether a given print was processed in AdobeRGB or
sRGB color space and whether 8 or 16 bit color was used anywhere in the
processing.
Mac Photoshop 64 users who think they are printing in 16 bit color deserve
to pay what they are paying for their hardware.


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: celcius on 20 Jul 2010 07:36

"lofi" <fac_187(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i1vbhm$26h9$1(a)adenine.netfront.net...
> What you see on a monitor is an illusion regardless of calibration because
> your eye/brain combo sees what it wants/expects to.
> What you see in prints is a reality.
> The purpose of calibration is only to achieve prints that on the first try
> are a reasonable match to what you think you see on the monitor. In the
> case of LCDs most users do not understand the need for and difficulty of
> the major downward adjustment of monitor brightness and why TN panels are
> worst of all, Apple all-in-ones even worse regardless of panel type.
> Presuming you have a quality monitor and understand the need for and how
> to turn down the brightness to get reliable color matched, not too dark
> prints then all is well regardless of whether you are doing the process
> technically correctly or not.
> The Adobe converter should open images quite flat looking, although that
> varies somewhat depending on SLR brand. In my experience Canon raw images
> open more flat looking than Nikon but that has nothing to do with the
> finished product. The Nikon NX converter opens raw images with more
> baseline processing than the Adobe, again in my experience/opinion.
> If you make few or no adjustments in the converter--my preference--that is
> what you should see on the desktop (and in fact do, regardless of what you
> think you are seeing). Differences in the desktop vs raw converter
> appearance of icons etc can influence what you think you see in the image
> itself.
> The controls in the converter are identical to controls available on the
> desktop only they are labeled differently and have a different interface,
> in some cases more usable, in most cases less usable. Marketing, choice,
> whatever.
> In my opinion the converter as a workspace is dubious unless you are
> making identical global adjustments to a batch of images. In that case
> Adobe will be happy to sell you Lightroom which does exactly the same
> thing, again with identical tools labeled differently and with variations
> in the GUI.
> One thing you should check your settings about is make sure the camera is
> set to Adobe RGB color space and that Adobe RGB is your preferred
> workspace and the program will notify you about mismatched color profiles
> presuming printing is your objective. It is your choice whether you want
> to process/save files in 8 or 16 bit, but if you have a TN panel it is a 6
> bit device and no printer, regardless of how many different color inks it
> has, can print the full 8 color gamut (nor can your eyes see it, but that
> is a different issue). In truth, however, I doubt most users regardless of
> sophistication could tell whether a given print was processed in AdobeRGB
> or sRGB color space and whether 8 or 16 bit color was used anywhere in the
> processing.
> Mac Photoshop 64 users who think they are printing in 16 bit color deserve
> to pay what they are paying for their hardware.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---

Hi Lofi!

Thank you for taking the time to answer so completely, giving me extra
explanations.
Sorry for not acknowkledging sooner, but I was out of town.

I'll run another check on what you suggested, including my camera (Canon Eos
5D Mark II).
By the way, in Camera Raw, I always change the camera calibration from
"Adobe Standard" to "Camera Standard". Perhaps I shouldn't touch that? I
noticed that on some photos, it "warms up" and darkens the pic a wee bit .
It seems to me that if I leave it at "Adobe Standard", there's less of a
difference. What do you think? (On the Canon, I have a choice of setting the
shoot at: Camera Faithful, Neutral, Landscape, Portrait and Standard).

Take care,

Marcel

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Simple Hack To Get $2000 To Your PayPal Account
Next: ******* Great Photography Hosting Service