Richard Man wrote:
> Come on, stop making it complicated :-)
>
The problem I have with simple, absolute statements like your original
"For web and printing, you MUST convert to sRGB, not Adobe RGB." is that
a relatively open fomum like this one may have a wide range of
experience and needs.
I'd prefer not to mislead the relatively small, but significant % of
folks who may need something more than that.
As you rephrased it in more detail below, great.
Moose
> 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/
|