On 2006 Sep 7, at 7:01 PM, Graeme Gill wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote: > >> Just to make sure I've been doing this right-- I use Bruce >> Lindbloom's BetaRGB as my working space in Photoshop, etc. I >> convert images to that space early, and only convert them to >> something else for a specific reason (such as to sRGB as the >> last step in making something to post on the 'Net). Images >> (etc.) that I print (that I care about) are always in BetaRGB. >> I feed the BetaRGB profile to -S. This is correct, no? > > That's a straightforward way of approaching it, and may work > well enough in most cases. > > You may find that it is not optimal though. Using a colorspace > to define a gamut [. . . .]
Thanks much for this introduction to selecting colorspaces. Seems I've got a lot more to learn.
Up till now, I've been mostly printing with Photoshop's (etc.) perceptual intent, as that's produced the best results for the kinds of photos I've been printing. Some large-gamut images have lost their punch, though, and I've attempted manual adjustments with the soft proof and gamut warning turned on. At first glance, I got better results...but I also completely obliterated the detail in the photo.
Now I've got a good idea of where to start in figuring out how to solve the problem correctly. Like I said: thank you!
P.S. Damn you, too, for opening my eyes, making me take the time to learn new things, and all that. But don't worry. I don't hate you for it. Much. b&
P.P.S. I'm mostly working with RAW files from a Canon 300D; I use Adobe Camera Raw to get it into Photoshop in the ProPhoto colorspace, and then convert immediately to BruceRGB for a working space. And, yeah, some of the images really do have that big a gamut. I just don't (yet) know the best way to deal with 'em. On the other hand, they also tend to be the photos with the trickiest lighting, with a few blown highlights and some invisible shadows-- direct sunlight on an Arizona summer afternoon, for example. b&