Out of gamut badness and a quick fix

[rutt]

Here's a bad thing that happens to me once in a while. I do some edit and get something that looks pretty good in PS. Then I save it out, upload to SM and it looks terrible, not at all the same as in PS. What's going on?

Often the problem is that the image is out of gamut. That means that it has some colors that can't be reproduced perfectly within it's color profile. It's very easy to make such colors with ACR and especially LAB curves.

Here is an example. Today I editted a shot of Ginger's tombstone and flowers. Looked pretty nice to me when I got done, but once I uploaded, it looked terrible. Here it is:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/19536246-M.jpg

Here's what I saw in PS:

http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/19536533-M.jpg

I turned on View->Gamut Warning, and sure enough almost all the shot was grayed out, meaning out of gamut.

The quick fix for this problem is to move the image in and out of the CMYK color space. Once it's been through CMYK and back to RGB, it will all be within gamut and will look the same on the web as in PS. That's how I got the second shot online.

Why? The translation into CMYK is not fully determined. How much black ink to use as opposed to mixing CMY to make black is a decision PS makes. So it has a "lossy" algorithm that does the translation. And while it's at it, it obeys the color profile and gets eveything within gamut. Sometimes this means that you will loose a little sometihing, usually the deepest blacks. You can restore these in CMYK by steepening the dark end of the K curve a bit. But this is a small price for having your image actually look the way it's supposed to.

[ginger_55]

I just got home, Bill wants the computer, but I am just checking a few things. That is so interesting re the out of gamut. I feel for those who don't read it.

I went up to PS, dug out my shot, went to view, then gamut warning (which I had never heard of before), all this grey stuff showed up. So I clicked again, the grey stuff went away.

I put it in CMYK, and while I was there took out the black dust spot. Then put it back in RGB. No more grey, made a jpg. Will bring it down later.

Very useful info.

Do you find things "out of gamut" often?

ginger

[rutt]

Do you find things "out of gamut" often?

ginger

As I said, it's easy to do with LAB curves.

[minoltaman]

Do you find things "out of gamut" often?

gingerI do, but I am a color freak of sorts. I am always catching myself making stuff pop for the web only to be dissapointed once I see I will have to make substantial corrections to get the thing to print correctly. When I shoot graffiti and some heavy greens and reds in nature, I am often close-to or out of gamut once I've done a little ps work, if not before. Yup, unfortunately I see a lot of grey on some days, and with some images this sure does suck.

Cheers

--don

[rutt]

I do, but I am a color freak of sorts. I am always catching myself making stuff pop for the web only to be dissapointed once I see I will have to make substantial corrections to get the thing to print correctly. When I shoot graffiti and some heavy greens and reds in nature, I am often close-to or out of gamut once I've done a little ps work, if not before. Yup, unfortunately I see a lot of grey on some days, and with some images this sure does suck.

Cheers

--don

Try the trip through CMYK on your way to sRGB next time. Usually it works OK, but if not you can correct in CMYK where it's pretty hard to make a mess because more ink makes things darker and the real problem is the mythical "ink police", something that really doesn't matter for online viewing.

[minoltaman]

Try the trip through CMYK on your way to sRGB next time. Usually it works OK, but if not you can correct in CMYK where it's pretty hard to make a mess because more ink makes things darker and the real problem is the mythical "ink police", something that really doesn't matter for online viewing.I try that occasionally, problem is at times almost the whole dang image turns grey in CMYK. :cry For images I want smugmug to print, I have been just doing the ezprints thing on my way from adobeRGB to sRGB. It seemed to me like I was killing more color and a bit more contrast when traveling through CMYK. Maybe not and it's just me...

-don

[rutt]

I try that occasionally, problem is at times almost the whole dang image turns grey in CMYK. :cry For images I want smugmug to print, I have been just doing the ezprints thing on my way from adobeRGB to sRGB. It seemed to me like I was killing more color and a bit more contrast when traveling through CMYK. Maybe not and it's just me...

-don

You have to be willing to readjust in CMYK after the move. Your beautiful saturated colors get "gray" in CMYK by being polluted by too much ink. To get bright reds, you have to make sure you don't have much (or any) cyan. For bright blues, decrease magenta. In other words, you want shallow curves in the highlights of the the opponent colors to the ones you want to emphasize.

[pathfinder]

As I said, it's easy to do with LAB curves.

I have had some prints that looked very nice and smooth on the monitor, and yet when printed, had very blotchy, posterized areas of dense color.

When I checked, these areas were indeed out of gamut. Like you said John, with a trip to CMYK and back, the colors no longer were out of gamut, and the print looked much better the second time around.

Out of gamut is a subject I would like to discuss in more detail.

[minoltaman]

You have to be willing to readjust in CMYK after the move. Your beautiful saturated colors get "gray" in CMYK by being polluted by to much ink. The get bright reds, you have to make sure you don't have much (or any) cyan. For bright blues, decrease magenta. In other words, you want shallow curves in the highlights of the the opponent colors to the ones you want to emphasize.I always do these sorts of color adjustments when out of gamut...Usually just a very minimal decrease in the lightness of a particular color or two will do it for me and I don't have to touch any saturation levels. I have been making all of my out of gamut color adjustments when softproofing with the ezprints profile and not in the CMYK profile.

I mentioned earlier that if I make my color adjustments in CMYK it sure looks like I lose more color and contrast. In otherwords my images will look less saturated and flatter and have less pop If I adjust out of gamut color in CMYK before or instead of adjusting them using the ezprints profile.

I can only assume (possibly incorrectly) that the ezprints colorspace has a wider gamut than the CMYK colorspace, at least through the range of colors I am capturing and trying to print. If someone could post an overlay of both profiles, we could at least see the differences in the two colorspaces.

I just don't see why you would be proofing for printers that smugmug/ezprints are not using when ezprints/smugmug already give us a profile to use that appears to be a wider colorspace than CMYK.

-don

[Baldy]

Yikes. :cry I normally love Rutt's posts about color and I'm so seriously busy right now I don't have time to jump in here but...

Unfortunately, we have very different points of view on this and it's a critically important topic.

First, going to CMYK and back can only lose colors, not create them. Here is the CMYK gamut compared to some RGB ones:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/19560760-L.jpg

(This chart is from http://www.peimag.com/pdf/pei01/pei0501/eveningpei0501.pdf )

In the small areas where CMYK is broader than sRGB or Adobe RGB, you're not going to create colors because they don't exist in your original. But look at what you lose...

Second, when you say your out of gamut warning shows gray, how is your proof color default set up? If it's set for CMYK, then it will show large areas of gray because as you see in the chart above, much of what's in gamut for sRGB is out of gamut for CMYK.

Third, when you say it moves all colors into gamut when you convert to CMYK, it moves them into gamut for CYMK. Why would we care about that? We care about what's in gamut for sRGB, which is what the web uses.

Fourth, conversion from a broader color space to a narrower one is very difficult because you are asking a computer to make decisions about color substitution (some crayon is available in sRGB that isn't in CMYK, so which different crayon that is in CMYK should we choose to draw it?).

Fifth, you're going to be disappointed in saturations in CMYK. That's why Rutt has to go through machinations after.

Margulis makes it short and sweet:

"CMYK is related to and in some ways very similar to RGB - although when it comes to saturation intensity or hue and saturation variation it is often disappointing when compared to the RGB original. Converting RGB to CMYK with any degree of accuracy is no small task and impossible for out of gamut hues."

Out of gamut hues are the areas in the chart above that your RGB color space has that CMYK does not.

Sixth, I'm really sorry if I'm daft, but can you help me understand this is what I saw in Photoshop? If you saw it in Photoshop and were working in sRGB, then that's what you'll see on smugmug. There's no concept of out of gamut because it's all in gamut — it's all sRGB.

As an example, this is all in gamut:

http://www.smugmug.com/img/help/calibration-print-750-2.jpg

If you were to set your proof colors for CMYK and do a gamut check, then a lot of the image would be gray. But why is that relevant? When I upload it to smugmug, it looks exactly as you see it there. When I print it through EZ Prints, it also looks exactly the same. If I convert it to cmyk and back, I lose the most vibrant colors (which are out of gamut for CMYK).

Sorry for the quick & dirty — I'm under the gun, but tell me where I'm wrong.

Thanks,
Baldy

[minoltaman]

Yikes. :cry I normally love Rutt's posts about color and I'm so seriously busy right now I don't have time to jump in here but...
Unfortunately, we have very different points of view on this and it's a critically important topic.

First, going to CMYK and back can only lose colors, not create them. Here is the CMYK gamut compared to some RGB ones::clap Exactly, Baldy! :clap :thumb :super

If you are using smugmug's automated printing services under normal circumstances you would never want to convert to CMYK or proof with CMYK when uploading a print to smugmug with the current printers that are being used. You are simply clipping or clamping or chopping colors that you don't need to be getting rid of and in many cases could have been preserved.

You should use the ezprints profile to proof with and then convert to srgb for upload to smugmug if you want the image to display and print correctly. If you go through CMYK you will simply lose too many color(s) under too many circumstances.

It would be interesting to see the ezprints print gamut overlay against srgb, I say. I know it is close, but it is not exactly the same. I'm an adobeRGB fan as well Baldy, but we won't go there today or in this thread. :tiptoe :):

Cheers

-don

[rutt]

Baldy, I have to admit that my knowledge isn't as deep here as I would like. So let's go back to my original post and take a look at the problem I was trying to solve. Download the first one and look at in in PS. Compare to the online image. What's going on? The second image was produced from the first by a trip in and out of CMYK. It looks almost the same as the first in PS and looks true in my browser.

What's going on?

[minoltaman]

Baldy, I have to admit that my knowledge isn't as deep here as I would like. So let's go back to my original post and take a look at the problem I was trying to solve. Download the first one and look at in in PS. Compare to the online image. What's going on? The second image was produced from the first by a trip in and out of CMYK. It looks almost the same as the first in PS and looks true in my browser.

What's going on?You can fix that problem by installing the ezprints profile and doing your proofing with it. If you are not doing proofing with the ezprints profile now, then you probably should be. After you have the profile installed go to view>proofsetup>ezprints and then go ahead and do your out of gamut adjustments. Then convert that adjusted image to sRGB if it is not already in sRGB for upload. That will solve your troubles and you can fix your out of gamut problems without losing you so much color and contrast.

I don't mean to be smart, but when you use this procedure you won't have to worry about what colors you are losing and why when you convert to CMYK because you should not be doing that procedure anyway. Once you have the ezprints profile installed you can see the gamut differences because you will see different warnings on the same image when proofing in CMYK and ezprints and this will help you understand the whole procedure better.

Cheers and good luck.

-don

[rutt]

The EZPrints profile is a subject I'd like to put aside for a bit. I'm looking for understanding first and then for a solution. I thought I did understand, but aparenetly not really.

I found something out. The first version, which has not been dragged through CMYK looks right in PS because I have View->Proof Setup set to "Working CMYK". When I set this to "Windows RGB" it looks pretty bad. When I set it to "Macintosh RGB" or "Monitor RGB" it looks worse, the same way as I see it in the browser. The second image, which has made the trip throuh CMYK also looks different depending on this setting, but much less so.

So what's going on? Which Proof Setup is the right one to use? Does the EZPrints profile add a new proof setup? Is this just the tip of some huge iceberg?

[Baldy]

Baldy, I have to admit that my knowledge isn't as deep here as I would like. So let's go back to my original post and take a look at the problem I was trying to solve. Download the first one and look at in in PS. Compare to the online image. What's going on?So I think you're on to a very important problem that many smart people grapple with. It's the subject of one of the help sections we're working on.

The problem is, when you use save for web in Photoshop, why do you see a color shift? Another way to look at it is when you open a file from disk in your browser and you open the same file in Photoshop, why do they look different?

On my system and for your image, they don't, but for many people they do.

The answer is Photoshop knows for color spaces and ICC profiles and your browser doesn't*. If you open an Adobe RGB file in Photoshop, it knows how to display it.

So here's an experiment. I don't remember if you're on a Mac or PC, but if PC, go to control panel > display > settings > advanced > color management and choose sRGB Color Space Profile. Now open your file with a browser and with Photoshop. Do they look the same now?

(You can do the same on the Mac, but I believe the Mac calls it TV.)

Here's more:

http://www.gballard.net/psd/saveforwebshift.html

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Baldy

*Except for certain circumstances on the Mac with Safari or IE.

[minoltaman]

The EZPrints profile is a subject I'd like to put aside for a bit. I'm looking for understanding first and then for a solution. I thought I did understand, but aparenetly not really.

I found something out. The first version, which has not been dragged through CMYK looks right in PS because I have View->Proof Setup set to "Working CMYK". When I set this to "Windows RGB" it looks pretty bad. When I set it to "Macintosh RGB" or "Monitor RGB" it looks worse, the same way as I see it in the browser. The second image, which has made the trip throuh CMYK also looks different depending on this setting, but much less so.

So what's going on? Which Proof Setup is the right one to use? Does the EZPrints profile add a new proof setup? Is this just the tip of some huge iceberg?Yes the ezprints profile adds a new proofing setup named "ezprints". It appears at the bottom of my profile list once installed. Once you get that installed you will see where you are going wrong here, I promise.

Without getting technical the CMYK profile is for a different type of printer that you are not worried about right now. The ezprints is for printing on ezprints printers and helps us accurately reproduce an image and allows usto get all of the color out of a print we can. This might help you here: http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-color. You will also find the profile there.

Hope that helps.

-don

[Baldy]

If you are using smugmug's automated printing services under normal circumstances you would never want to convert to CMYK or proof with CMYK when uploading a print to smugmug with the current printers that are being used.We very nearly agree. :D

We actually have a section on pleasing skin tones where we mention a way to adjust skin tones in CMYK. The reasons we do are, (1) the bulk of print volume we do are from photographers of people — weddings, studio, event, etc. — (2) those shots rarely have out of gamut colors for CMYK, (3) even if they did, no one notices because they're looking at the people, (4) correcting for skin tones is so nice in CMYK (I do it all the time), and (5) returned prints come mainly from shots with skin tones and it's for the skin tones that they get returned. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a print being returned because the color of the bride's bouqet wasn't quite right.

For some reason, dpreview and dgrin are largely populated by people who shoot fine art/landscape, but our pro customers are largely people who shoot people. :dunno

For fine art/landscape, I agree with you.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Baldy

[minoltaman]

We very nearly agree. :D

We actually have a section on pleasing skin tones where we mention a way to adjust skin tones in CMYK. The reasons we do are, (1) the bulk of print volume we do are from photographers of people — weddings, studio, event, etc. — (2) those shots rarely have out of gamut colors for CMYK, (3) even if they did, no one notices because they're looking at the people, (4) correcting for skin tones is so nice in CMYK (I do it all the time), and (5) returned prints come mainly from shots with skin tones and it's for the skin tones that they get returned. I'm not sure I've ever heard of a print being returned because the color of the bride's bouqet wasn't quite right.

For some reason, dpreview and dgrin are largely populated by people who shoot fine art/landscape, but our pro customers are largely people who shoot people. :dunno

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
BaldyAhhh yes, I do remember reading that somewhere here at smugmug. Unfortunately, I can't sell many of my people shots for real money anyway, no releases...so good catch!

The point of this thread is out of gamut color, so I guess was not thinking of nuking any flesh tones, especially with the nature examples posted to the beginning of this thread. This is a great subject though, that is for sure. Just don't make a habit of adjusting out of gamut color in CMYK, I don't think that is anywhere near the right way to go for any image that has a substantial color range.

Cheers

-don

[ginger_55]

Just to make a guess here, I think "out of gamut" might refer to colors that for whatever reason cannot be printed. Like I would not want to send one for next year's calendar. Also, we do know over saturated colors cannot be printed or some of them. That is my guess on "out of gamut" There is alot of info that I don't have time to read right now on PS's help thing.

I did go to the control panel and I made my default color space sRGB. It was a color space that was compatible with Dell before.

What is that going to do to my photos or any color on my screen?

Also, Don, how do you set up that EZ print "out of gamut" thing? That would be handy. Right now that is not our concern, but I can see that it might be mine sometime. (Never mind, Don, thanks I see you provided a link with that info)

ginger, night all

[minoltaman]

Just to make a guess here, I think "out of gamut" might refer to colors that for whatever reason cannot be printed.

>>>>Correct, gamut is the range of color a device can produce.

Like I would not want to send one for next year's calendar. Also, we do know over saturated colors cannot be printed or some of them. That is my guess on "out of gamut" There is alot of info that I don't have time to read right now on PS's help thing.

>>>You are getting it.

I did go to the control panel and I made my default color space sRGB. It was a color space that was compatible with Dell before.

>>>>Nothing to do with Dell, sRGB is a spaced used primarily used to display images properly on the web/monitor.

What is that going to do to my photos?

>>>>If I understand you correctly here, notta, you need to still check the gamut warning with the ezprints profile (to keep it simple here, forget the fleshtone face thing for now)

Also, Don, how do you set up that EZ print "out of gamut" thing? That would be handy. Right now that is not our concern, but I can see that it might be mine sometime.

>>>>This should help you here: http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-color (http://www.smugmug.com/help/print-color)

ginger, night allThat help, Ginger?

-don

[ginger_55]

That help, Ginger?

-don

Thanks, Don. That helps alot.

ginger

[minoltaman]

Thanks, Don. That helps alot.

ginger
:nodGreat!:nod

-don

[rutt]

http://www.gballard.net/psd/saveforwebshift.html



Thanks, that was a helpful resource. The issue seems to be that I'm using Mac gamma. Before saving shots for the web, I suppose I need to look at them with Windows RGB Proof Setup.

This still leaves one question unanswered. Why did the trip through CMYK result in an image that looks more alike in all 4 Proof Setup settings? I asked this question on Dan's colortheory list. If I get an interesting reply, I'll repost here. Here is a speculation: the gamut of CMYK is a real lowest common denominator. So images which have been forced into it are less demanding in all color spaces and with all profiles.

Unfortunately, I don't sell any prints through dgrin. (Maybe if I took a weekend and organized my galleries better, I would.) I do a fair amount of my own printing with an Epson 4k and 2200 and I almost always get the color I expect and I suppose I've always been using Working CMYK as my Proof Setup. Perhaps I should get the right profiles for these printers? But it hasn't been broken, so I haven't fixed it.

Although I know a lot about color theory, I am a real color management-o-phobe. I guess I might need to start fixing that. Is there a primer somewhere?

[rutt]

I suppose I am left with one more question. Why is this rare? I go along mostly and things work just fine, even though I have horrible Proof Setup == Working CMYK and horrible Mac gamma as my monitor profile. And things mostly work great. Just once in a blue moon, I get these images that desaturate and loose contrast when viewed in the browser. Why doesn't it happen all the time?

[minoltaman]

Rutt said:

"This still leaves one question unanswered. Why did the trip through CMYK result in an image that looks more alike in all 4 Proof Setup settings? I asked this question on Dan's colortheory list. If I get an interesting reply, I'll repost here. Here is a speculation: the gamut of CMYK is a real lowest common denominator. So images which have been forced into it are less demanding in all color spaces and with all profiles.



In the grand color scheme of things, I suppose you could look at it like that. Depending on the image, you are quite possibly correct that the CMYK appears to be the LCD, the CMYK space just ain't that big, comparison wise.

Rutt said:

"Unfortunately, I don't sell any prints through dgrin. (Maybe if I took a weekend and organized my galleries better, I would.) I do a fair amount of my own printing with an Epson 4k and 2200 and I almost always get the color I expect and I suppose I've always been using Working CMYK as my Proof Setup. Perhaps I should get the right profiles for these printers? But it hasn't been broken, so I haven't fixed it."

If you are getting good results, many folks say don't fix what does not seem to be broke. You might have things messsed up just enough to produce the right results.

Rutt said:

"I suppose I am left with one more question.
Why is this rare? I go along mostly and things work just fine, even though I have horrible Proof Setup == Working CMYK and horrible Mac gamma as my monitor profile. And things mostly work great. Just once in a blue moon, I get these images that desaturate and loose contrast when viewed in the browser. Why doesn't it happen all the time?"

The most common cause for an image to appear flat and desaturated is an adobeRGB image uploaded to the web. This space, not converted to sRGB before upload will much of the time cause that flat desaturated look on a monitor. Otherwise, it's only a guess, but you may be having some trouble with very colorful images just because of that workflow you are using. Some images just don't make it through unscathed. Don't forget to check the earthboundlight link, he talks a little bit about adobeRGB and the 2200 specifically.


Here is a few ok resources on the color and gamut subjects:


Introduction to Color Management:
http://www.boscarol.com/pages/cms_eng/index.html (http://www.boscarol.com/pages/cms_eng/index.html)

Out of Gamut Vocabulary:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11132.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11132.html)

Color Management:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm)

Photoshop Color:
http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/index.html (http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/index.html)

Hue Saturation and Luminance
http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/color2.html (http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/color2.html)

Luminance:
http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/color3.html (http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/color3.html)

Color Management:
http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html#Basics (http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html#Basics)

Good general setup stuff:
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2380,subcat-MULTIMEDIA.html (http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2380,subcat-MULTIMEDIA.html)

Photoshop Color Settings:
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-color-settings.html (http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-color-settings.html)

Color and Inkjets from Adobe:
http://www.asia.adobe.com/print/tips/phs7inkjet/main.html (http://www.asia.adobe.com/print/tips/phs7inkjet/main.html)

PSCS Color Management:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm)

PS6 Out of Gamut: Soft Proofing
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/10150.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/10150.html)

PS6 Out of Gamut: Color Management
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/14331.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/14331.html)

PS6 Out of Gamut: PS6 Gets Smart with Color
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/9155.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/9155.html)

Cheers

-don

[rutt]

Talk about color problems! I can't read your post at all. The color you used is just to light on my mac and for my old eyes. Please, would you mind editing to use darker colors for text. Thanks.

[minoltaman]

Talk about color problems! I can't read your post at all. The color you used is just to light on my mac and for my old eyes. Please, would you mind editing to use darker colors for text. Thanks.Whoaa, sounds like you may need a monitor calibration!:D The text looks almost beautiful here. :nod :wink

OK, not a problem, I'll change the colors for you. I am going to put those links in a more useful order as well. Sorry you are having trouble reading the post, that was not my intent.

-don

[rutt]

Whoaa, sounds like you may need a monitor calibration!:D The text looks almost beautiful here. :nod :wink


At least I was able to diagnose this color problem. You used white as the text color and I have my dgrin CP setup with a forum skin of "White". White on white is invisible. Maybe I should default, but I like black on white a lot.

[minoltaman]

At least I was able to diagnose this color problem. You used white as the text color and I have my dgrin CP setup with a forum skin of "White". White on white is invisible. Maybe I should default, but I like black on white a lot.Ouch, my text and that skin will cause troubles. :cry I'm just going to make a new post below with essentially the same info in a different color scheme. Thanks for the info.

Cheers

-don

[minoltaman]

*Duplicate post from above for users that are using the white forum skin.*

Rutt said:

"This still leaves one question unanswered. Why did the trip through CMYK result in an image that looks more alike in all 4 Proof Setup settings? I asked this question on Dan's colortheory list. If I get an interesting reply, I'll repost here. Here is a speculation: the gamut of CMYK is a real lowest common denominator. So images which have been forced into it are less demanding in all color spaces and with all profiles."

In the grand color scheme of things, I suppose you could look at it like that. Depending on the image, you are quite possibly correct that the CMYK appears to be the LCD, the CMYK space just ain't that big, comparison wise.

Rutt said:

"Unfortunately, I don't sell any prints through dgrin. (Maybe if I took a weekend and organized my galleries better, I would.) I do a fair amount of my own printing with an Epson 4k and 2200 and I almost always get the color I expect and I suppose I've always been using Working CMYK as my Proof Setup. Perhaps I should get the right profiles for these printers? But it hasn't been broken, so I haven't fixed it."

If you are getting good results, many folks say don't fix what does not seem to be broke. You might have things messsed up just enough to produce the right results.

Rutt said:

"I suppose I am left with one more question.
Why is this rare? I go along mostly and things work just fine, even though I have horrible Proof Setup == Working CMYK and horrible Mac gamma as my monitor profile. And things mostly work great. Just once in a blue moon, I get these images that desaturate and loose contrast when viewed in the browser. Why doesn't it happen all the time?"

The most common cause for an image to appear flat and desaturated is an adobeRGB image uploaded to the web. This space, not converted to sRGB before upload will much of the time cause that flat desaturated look on a monitor. Otherwise, it's only a guess, but you may be having some trouble with very colorful images just because of that workflow you are using. Some images just don't make it through unscathed. Don't forget to check the earthboundlight link, he talks a little bit about adobeRGB and the 2200 specifically.



Here are a few ok resources on the color and gamut subjects, some are more useful than others:


Introduction to Color Management:
http://www.boscarol.com/pages/cms_eng/index.html (http://www.boscarol.com/pages/cms_eng/index.html)

Out of Gamut Vocabulary:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11132.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/11132.html)

Color Management:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm)

Photoshop Color:
http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/index.html (http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/index.html)

Hue Saturation and Luminance
http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/color2.html (http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/color2.html)

Luminance:
http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/color3.html (http://www.nebulus.org/tutorials/2d/photoshop/color/color3.html)

Color Management:
http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html#Basics (http://www.normankoren.com/color_management.html#Basics)

Good general setup stuff:
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2380,subcat-MULTIMEDIA.html (http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesArticle/id-2380,subcat-MULTIMEDIA.html)

Photoshop Color Settings:
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-color-settings.html (http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-color-settings.html)

Color and Inkjets from Adobe:
http://www.asia.adobe.com/print/tips/phs7inkjet/main.html (http://www.asia.adobe.com/print/tips/phs7inkjet/main.html)

PSCS Color Management:
http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm (http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm)

PS6 Out of Gamut: Soft Proofing
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/10150.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/10150.html)

PS6 Out of Gamut: Color Management
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/14331.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/14331.html)

PS6 Out of Gamut: PS6 Gets Smart with Color
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/9155.html (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/9155.html)

Ok, there it is in ugly, but full living color, no whites.

Hope this helps.

-don

[rutt]

The most common cause for an image to appear flat and desaturated is an adobeRGB image uploaded to the web. This space, not converted to sRGB before upload will much of the time cause that flat desaturated look on a monitor. Otherwise, it's only a guess, but you may be having some trouble with very colorful images just because of that workflow you are using. Some images just don't make it through unscathed. Don't forget to check the earthboundlight link, he talks a little bit about adobeRGB and the 2200 specifically

I'm really really sure I don't have the problem of the image being in adobeRGB.

[minoltaman]

I'm really really sure I don't have the problem of the image being in adobeRGB.I imagine there are other reasons but the most common reason image can appear unnaturally flat and desaturated on the web and appear fine in ps is if you uploaded that image it in a space other than sRGB.

I would say around 20 or so percent of my images I convert from the ezprints profile to the sRGB gain a little unwanted pop on the web. I imagine this is the same thing that causes the sometimes nuked fleshtones effect Baldy was talking about correcting earlier.

I just do not see many images flatten out and desaturate if they are properly converted from the native colorspace to sRGB.

When you start using the proper proofing profiles you will see what you have before you upload to the web so you can see any changes to the image during the conversion process and exactly where they take place. Without knowing for sure what color space, proofing profiles, icc profiles, gamma settings and conversion steps and images you have used, it's a bit difficult to diagnose what went wrong on cases like this.

If you load those profiles you can take one of those problem images you talk about, rework it, and you then will be able to see exactly where, when and what technically has gone wrong, if anything, from space to space and you won't have to do anymore guesswork on this at all.

Cheers

-don

[rutt]

I always use sRGB just out of laziness. This image started of sRGB, made a trip to LAB, and back to sRGB. Actually it isn't very far out of gamut. It is easy to get very far out of any gamut in LAB, as you probably know. For example, LAB can specify a color that is pure blue and as light as any color. I think that is actually an imaginary color.

The problem I had with this image happens very rarely to me, maybe once in several hundred images or less. But it does happen. So I've been waiting (for almost 6 months!) for a good example so I could really try to understand what was happening.

[Dee]

/grok/, var. /grohk/ vt. [from the novel "Stranger in a Strange Land", by Robert A. Heinlein, where it is a Martian word meaning literally `to drink' and metaphorically `to be one with']
The emphatic form is `grok in fullness'. 1. To understand, usually
in a global sense. Connotes intimate and exhaustive knowledge.
Contrast zen, which is similar supernal understanding experienced
as a single brief flash. See also glark. 2. Used of programs,
may connote merely sufficient understanding. "Almost all C
compilers grok the `void' type these days."

I'm going to have to try to absorb this information slowly.

I am very happy to read I'm not alone, on my Mac, at seeing colors shift from Photoshop to Save to Web! I've wondered about this quite often, but usually the colors I see in Photoshop are richer and darker and warmer than what I see when I save for web.

In "save for web" the colors lose contrast, become lighter and lose a lot of warmth (red).

I have to work in CYMK professionally (for 4 color offset printing) so this throws an added dimension to my workflow. I've been having a lot of trouble getting what I see on my screen to print on my Elpson Stylus Photo 925 lately, so I'm suspecting I'm not setting something right in Photoshop CS.

The more I learn, it seems the more I still have to learn! :dunno

[minoltaman]

I always use sRGB just out of laziness. This image started of sRGB, made a trip to LAB, and back to sRGB. Actually it isn't very far out of gamut. It is easy to get very far out of any gamut in LAB, as you probably know. For example, LAB can specify a color that is pure blue and as light as any color. I think that is actually an imaginary color.

The problem I had with this image happens very rarely to me, maybe once in several hundred images or less. But it does happen. So I've been waiting (for almost 6 months!) for a good example so I could really try to understand what was happening.Good thing it is rare! I think maybe you just made a gamma, profile, or some other messup somewhere and didn't realize it, if it happens to you that rarely. I'm just guessing here and certainly could be wrong though.

When you run into an image that does that weird stuff again please let me know, I would love to see it. I have seen photoshop do some very crazy things to some seemingly regular images at times. Way crazier than what you describe here and simply unbelievable and unexplainable for most folks. I just hope I don't run into those odd digital nightmares very often myself.

Have a great day.

-don

[rutt]

When you run into an image that does that weird stuff again please let me know, I would love to see it. I have seen photoshop do some very crazy things to some seemingly regular images at times. Way crazier than what you describe here and simply unbelievable and unexplainable for most folks. I just hope I don't run into those odd digital nightmares very often myself.

Have a great day.

-don

Look in my first post on this thread. That's what set me off. The first image is the one that looks completely different viewed with different Proof Setups. The second image was derived from the first by a trip through CMYK. It looks almost the same with each Proof Setup setting. As I said, I've been waiting a long time for an example this good (or bad, depending.)

[minoltaman]

I've been having a lot of trouble getting what I see on my screen to print on my Elpson Stylus Photo 925 lately, so I'm suspecting I'm not setting something right in Photoshop CS.

The more I learn, it seems the more I still have to learn! :dunnoIt's a tough subject to get one's arms around, no doubt. You probably do just need to get your settings correct in pscs. Injet printers like the one you have add even more color matching jazz and profiles into the mix. The bottom line is that if your monitor is calibrated close to correctly and the gamma set at reasonable level. And in ps if you then use the proper settings and printer profiles to softproof and print with, you should get a nicely color matched print when printing.

At times though, it does seem easier said than done. I gotta get to work now...

Cheers

-don

[minoltaman]

Look in my first post on this thread. That's what set me off. The first image is the one that looks completely different viewed with different Proof Setups. The second image was derived from the first by a trip through CMYK. It looks almost the same with each Proof Setup setting. As I said, I've been waiting a long time for an example this good (or bad, depending.)
Ooops, no work yet. I will download those and tell you what I see. Give me a couple minutes though, I am completely starved.:D This color stuff makes me real hungry.

-don

[minoltaman]

Question for Rutt?

What colorspace, if any, was originally tagged off of the camera, Rutt? Do you have the actual original available? If you do have it, I would like to work with it instead of those posted pix. I don't see how we can arrive at an accurate conclusion on this without seeing the original pic. Just upload it somewhere long enough for me to grab it, then you can quickly take it back down.

Thanks

-don

[minoltaman]

:help removed text, awaiting original image...

[rutt]

Question for Rutt?

What colorspace, if any, was originally tagged off of the camera, Rutt? Do you have the actual original available? If you do have it, I would like to work with it instead of those posted pix. I don't see how we can arrive at an accurate conclusion on this without seeing the original pic. Just upload it somewhere long enough for me to grab it, then you can quickly take it back down.

Thanks

-don

The original came from Ginger. I'll alert her. I grabbed it from her here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=89815&postcount=13

My camera is set for sRGB and so is everything I can find in PS. This image also seems to be tagged that way. But I suppose it would make sense that Ginger is in some other colorspace.

[minoltaman]

The original came from Ginger. I'll alert her. I grabbed it from her here:
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=89815&postcount=13

My camera is set for sRGB and so is everything I can find in PS. This image also seems to be tagged that way. But I suppose it would make sense that Ginger is in some other colorspace.I tried a few things on that image and did not notice anything out of the ordinary. I opened the sRGB tagged image you reffered me to above in ps in two different working spaces, adobeRGB and sRGB, played around a bit, soft proofed with ezprints profile etc. Then made sure the image was converted back to or still in sRGB and then uploaded both images to the web where they viewed perfectly. Everything looks normal on this image on the web and in ps, you must have blown a setting or conversion somewhere in ps when working with this image.

-don

[rutt]

I tried a few things on that image and did not notice anything out of the ordinary. I opened the image in ps in two different working spaces, adobeRGB and sRGB, played around a bit, soft proofed with ezprints profile etc. Then made sure the image was converted back to or still in sRGB and then uploaded both images to the web where they viewed perfectly. Everything looks normal on this image on the web and in ps, you must have blown a setting somewhere when working with this image.

-don

You seem to still want to play. Tell me when you get bored. I think I'm learning, so I'm not bored yet.

Download the first image I posted:
http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/19536246-O.jpg

Load into PS. Now look at it with Proof Setup->CMYK and Proof Setup->Macintosh and Proof Setup->Windows. For me there is a very dramatic difference and the image looks best by far with Proof Setup->CMYK.

Can you repeat that much?

I am on a mac and have a cinima display I carefully calibrated using the Apple monitor calibration utility. It might not be perfect, but I think it's not on the wrong planet either. It is set to Apple gamma, though which might be a mistake. It was sort of a coin toss at the time.

[minoltaman]

You seem to still want to play. Tell me when you get bored. I think I'm learning, so I'm not bored yet.

Download the first image I posted:
http://rutt.smugmug.com/photos/19536246-O.jpg

Load into PS. Now look at it with Proof Setup->CMYK and Proof Setup->Macintosh and Proof Setup->Windows. For me there is a very dramatic difference and the image looks best by far with Proof Setup->CMYK.

Can you repeat that much?

I am on a mac and have a cinima display I carefully calibrated using the Apple monitor calibration utility. It might not be perfect, but I think it's not on the wrong planet either. It is set to Apple gamma, though which might be a mistake. It was sort of a coin toss at the time.This is because macs are brighter. This where gamma levels and gamma correction and stuff comes into play. Read through the following links to get a better understanding and some tips on gamma correction and the relationship between macs and pcs. Viewing images with macs and pcs are two completely different animals and this is not just your problem, it is a mac-pc thing.

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/gamma_mac_pc.html

http://www.cgsd.com/papers/gamma.web.html

http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/cb/gamma.html

http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-20020429/111244.html

http://www.cgsd.com/papers/gamma_intro.html

Does that help?


-don

[DoctorIt]

this is a great thread, and I will digest it in more detail later.

but I just have to comment now - didn't anyone else notice the light sabers!!!! (bottom right corner)

http://www.smugmug.com/img/help/calibration-print-750-2.jpg

Baldy, where on earth did you get those and then have the genius to put them next to a beef skewer!!! I love it!

[minoltaman]

this is a great thread, and I will digest it in more detail later.

but I just have to comment now - didn't anyone else notice the light sabers!!!! (bottom right corner)


Baldy, where on earth did you get those and then have the genius to put them next to a beef skewer!!! I love it!

I spotted 'em! Not until you first mentioned them though. Very cool indeed...:nod

Cheers

-don

[DavidTO]

I am on a mac and have a cinima display I carefully calibrated using the Apple monitor calibration utility. It might not be perfect, but I think it's not on the wrong planet either. It is set to Apple gamma, though which might be a mistake. It was sort of a coin toss at the time.
I've taken to setting all my macs to 2.2 PC gamma. I'm really sold on it, I think that I end up seeing things as the rest of the world does. I prefer it, too.

[rutt]

So I can't decide if we really have gotten to the bottom of this, but I have learned some lessons:

Apple gamma is a relic. Ditch it.
The trip through CMYK is an extreme way to get images in gamut.
Images that have made the trip through CMYK are a little more immune to the difference in gamma between Apple and Windows. We speculate that they are using a very narrow gamut which is a true lowest common denominator.


But I still have some questions:

What is the better way to get an image withing gamma? "Convert to Profile"?
Why exactly does this particular image look so different viewed in PS with Proof Setup = CMYK vs Proof Setup = Mac?

[Dee]

I'm pretty well versed in CYMK, use it all the time for offset press work.

It's the RGB that is puzzling me!

There's a lot to read, but there's a group who say leave Mac at 1.8 and another group that says change it to 2.2.

I'm not sure how that would affect my press work, things might print lighter than I want, any pre-press people here?

After reading this great thread, I'm going to try a few things, including the help section here for smugmug prints.

I haven't heard anyone complain that my images are too dark (and I've saved a few as jpg, rather than "save for web" which definitely changes my rgbs, just as described.

I've had PC clients complain, we tell them to view things on a different monitor and that helps -- but with the advent of PDFs that problem seems to have disappeared.

Great reading and thanks to everyone who's contributed!

[minoltaman]

So I can't decide if we really have gotten to the bottom of this, but I have learned some lessons:

Apple gamma is a relic. Ditch it.
>>ok by me

The trip through CMYK is an extreme way to get images in gamut.
>>>sounds pretty correct

Images that have made the trip through CMYK are a little more immune to the difference in gamma between Apple and Windows. We speculate that they are using a very narrow gamut which is a true lowest common denominator.
>>>you could say it like this, I suppose


But I still have some questions:

What is the better way to get an image withing gamma? "Convert to Profile"?
>>>>No don't convert, just use the ezprints softproofing profile on everything except stuff with a lot of fleshtones. Just proof with it, and then convert to sRGB to upload to smugmug. On stuff that has alot of predominant fleshtones Baldy says do CMYK softproofing instead of ezprints to get a better fleshtone result. From what I can see with the ezprints profile, I would not say this is bad technique for fleshtones. Landscapes, wildlife, fineart and other, stick the ezprints profile when softproofing.

Why exactly does this particular image look so different viewed in PS with Proof Setup = CMYK vs Proof Setup = Mac?
>> You are viewing the image with mac level gamma when popping to mac proofing profile. Different images carry different levels of brightness so-to-speak, and some just appear differently than others under different profiles. It's probably just the nature of the image.

-don

[minoltaman]

It's the RGB that is puzzling me!


Hi Dee, my brain is almost fried for the night but what part is most puzzling about RGB for you?

-don

[Dee]

Hi Dee, my brain is almost fried for the night but what part is most puzzling about RGB for you?

-don

Well, I got CYMK pretty much under control, and what I see on the screen is pretty close to the printed piece. We use Pantone colors often, and I use the swatch book to design by, not what I see on the screen. Even with the swatch book sometimes colors vary a little -- even one press run to another 6 months later can vary. Blues are the most difficult to keep consistent. We even went so far as to have a special blue ink made up for the printer and we still got variations.

So I've learned to chill a bit... :):

When it comes to RGB lately I've been having a lot of trouble getting my Epson prints to match the screen and I've tried just about every setting allowable.

So I'm ready to go back to square one, go thru the the monitor set up all over again.

Adobe and Epson don't play nice when it comes to custom page sizes, so I have to go through all kinds of contortions to get things to print where I want them to on custom size stock (like photo cards for example).

But either something has changed since we first got the Epson 925 new and photoshop -- inks, paper? Who knows, but what I see is not what I get! While adobe products are great, there are differences between Illustrator, Photoshop and Acrobat that drive me nuts!

I'm using Epson photo paper (glossy) and Epson inks...so there's not supposed to be a problem there.

So besides this "what does the PC user see, the CRT user see, and the LCD user see, there's what does my Mac see.

Then there's all the options for RGB, what's good for the monitor, what's best to use for printing on my inkjet and what's best for sending prints off for "real" prints.

That's all, that's all my confusion at the moment :D

[minoltaman]

Well, I got CYMK pretty much under control, and what I see on the screen is pretty close to the printed piece. We use Pantone colors often, and I use the swatch book to design by, not what I see on the screen. Even with the swatch book sometimes colors vary a little -- even one press run to another 6 months later can vary. Blues are the most difficult to keep consistent. We even went so far as to have a special blue ink made up for the printer and we still got variations.

So I've learned to chill a bit... :):

>>>>I hear this!

When it comes to RGB lately I've been having a lot of trouble getting my Epson prints to match the screen and I've tried just about every setting allowable.

>>>>Do you have an epson profile loaded to ps? If so what is it called? Do you have the ezprints profile loaded?

So I'm ready to go back to square one, go thru the the monitor set up all over again.

>>>>If you are getting monitor and prints close in CMYK your monitor may be pretty close already, but I could be wrong.

Adobe and Epson don't play nice when it comes to custom page sizes, so I have to go through all kinds of contortions to get things to print where I want them to on custom size stock (like photo cards for example).

>>>I hear this.

But either something has changed since we first got the Epson 925 new and photoshop -- inks, paper? Who knows, but what I see is not what I get! While adobe products are great, there are differences between Illustrator, Photoshop and Acrobat that drive me nuts!

>>>Yes, the ps profiles have probably changed or are different.

I'm using Epson photo paper (glossy) and Epson inks...so there's not supposed to be a problem there.

>>>Should be correct.

So besides this "what does the PC user see, the CRT user see, and the LCD user see, there's what does my Mac see.

>>>yes the gamma question, I use a pc and shoot for pc users and have never done any prepress work

Then there's all the options for RGB, what's good for the monitor, what's best to use for printing on my inkjet and what's best for sending prints off for "real" prints.

>>>This part I may be able to help with as I have a fair understanding of things in this area. You forgot what is best for the camera colorspace and what is the best ps working space as well!:nod

That's all, that's all my confusion at the moment :DOk, so for starters do you want to try to get things working for smugmug prints first, or the epson? Once you understand profiling and proofing for the one device, you will get it on the other as well. If you can tell me your normal workflow to upload to smugmug and what your workflow to print with the epson is, that would be helpful.

Thanks

-don

[Baldy]

I just have to comment now - didn't anyone else notice the light sabers!!!!The Force is strong with this one. You have made Dar, er, Onethumb proud.

http://www.starwars.com/flash/ep3/img/wallpaper/3/800.jpg