I mentioned Adobe RGB and Pro Photo RGB as editing spaces. While it's
true that most monitors can't display the data (maybe none) neither can
they display the subtle tones of 16 bit image data. But the reason for
using either is so as not to discard data unnecessarily *during*
editing. It may be needed when the final conversion is done to 8 bit
data or another color space such as sRGB.
Although I understand the rationale my camera is still set on sRGB.
Chuck Norcutt
Richard Man wrote:
> Come on, stop making it complicated :-)
>
> If you know color management, then use it. Keep things in aRGB, but not
> ProPhotoRGB please, that exceeds just about everything, except for the
> newfangled Epson ultra-large-premium-format printer. Most monitors can't
> display it so why work in a space that you can't see? Use color profile to
> print using Photoshop, LR, etc. This way you leverage the wider gamut of
> aRGB and leverage the Adobe and Microsoft's engineers' intelligence to
> properly convert the colors correctly.
>
> Obviously, it goes without saying that you must calibrate your monitor using
> something better than Adobe Gamma, and use some reasonable printer profiles.
> Otherwise, it's garbage in, garbage out.
>
> I have an Eizo monitor and profile all my paper on the Z3100. Works great.
> That's throwing money at the problerm because I don't want to lose hair.
>
> ***
> For the 95% of the people who just want a simple workflow that produces a
> good reasult most of the time, just stay with sRGB from start to finish. No
> headache, no hairpulling, no 3 volume books to read.
>
> And you can spend time shooting photos. How cool is that?
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|