It is visible in the Export panel in Mac OS
Thnxs Sigi! I know and I always use 16bit tiff export for printing. I meant the colour space setting tab that Wolfgang showed (couldn’t and can’t find that).
The mentioned setting in Windows seems to determine, how DPL will display the images. On a Mac, this possibility is controlled in the context of the system settings rather than per application, therefore, no such setting exists (because it is unnecessary) in DPL on Mac.
1 Like
There is a problem if you prepare JPEG-files using a sRGB-monitor that you save in Adobe RGB. If I do that I will end up with images with to much red and yellow normally. Since I use a 4K sRGB-monitor when I postprocess, I normally save my JPEG-files in sRGB and print in sRGB. That is the only way to get WYSIWYG. I don´t care about losing values in red, green and yellow that Adobe RGB would have covered. The important for me is to have a monotor in sync with the printer so I see what I get already in Photolab.
In a future i might invest in an Adobe RGB-monitor (or not because it would complicate things) and in that case i might save in Adobe RGB but I might not as well since that is to complicate things since I´m not just preparing images for printing. Then I will end up with JPEG-files of both kinds and that is to ask for problems. I think I will prefer to be able to know that my files will look the same printed or viewed on screen.
I have read many people complaining about prints that differed from how it looked on the screen when printed. Usually the reason has been that the photographer had forgot to save in a proper color space matching what he/she has seen on the screen. Either you stick to Adobe RGB through the entire workflow or vice versa.
2 Likes
…one of the most common mistake photographers make when editing for print, is that their monitor is too bright. The first reaction, after the sheet of paper comes our from the printer is: “Why it’s so dark? On screen it was good”. A monitor is a backlit surface while paper is a reflective material. With monitors selling their HDR and hundreds of nits (if not even more), it’s easy to fall into the trap…
Be sure to set your monitor anywhere between 80 and 100 cd/m while editing, to avoid surprises when printing.
Steven.
5 Likes
I can’t agree with that.
The colour space of an image can be converted at will - that is not what causes most prints to not look like what is seen on screen.
I have said this before, but I will repeat it here… I print for exhibitions, using a Canon PRO-1000 A2 printer.
In order to get the contrast and dynamic range on screen to match that of the print, it is ultra-important that the screen brightness matches that of the printing paper when viewed under exhibition lighting (which is usually close to daylight).
This means that you must not set the screen to anything much more than 80cd/m², otherwise print will come out much darker than seen on screen. When it costs up to €5 per print for an A2 on good quality paper, you do not want to be getting it wrong.
My screen is calibrated using the X-rite i1Display Studio device and software. I create different ICC profiles for my printer, depending on the paper used, with the DataColor Spyder Pro calibration device and software. Only then can I be assured that what comes out of the printer.
No matter what the profile that PhotoLab uses, I always export for printing to a TIFF file using the ProPhotoRGB profile. In all the years I have been printing exhibitions, to critical acclaim, I have never found it necessary to get into all this colour space theory.
Just follow the advice that @StevenL gives - but, personally, I tend to stick to the 80cd/m² level because “it just works™” 
As he says, don’t be suckered into all this “amazing” claims for monitors, especially when printing to paper that has a much smaller dynamic range. Think of an uncalibrated monitor having around 10 or more stops of range but paper having around 6-7 stops of range - that’s at least eight times as much range on screen than is possible to print.
3 Likes
Hmmm …
Sometimes I am asked for advice from people who want to start with photography. I often answer “get to know the camera”. Realize now that the answer must include: “get to know the monitor, get to know the printer”. Or best of all - marry an engineer 
.
Had a quick chat with a professional printer / lab. According to him, most printer labs use cmyk when printing and further that in most cases the prints will deviate from what is displayed on the monitor, regardless of which color format was used. (they prefer to get the file in PDF format for printing? Thought TIF might be the best).
This thread has taught me a lot, but also made me aware of things that I may not have been aware of at first. I am a simple man who likes to make things simple / basic, so for me I think the solution is to enter into an agreement with a professional and experiment / test different prints. But as Joanna mentions - it’s expensive, I may have to bribe them with a bottle of good wine or two.
2 Likes
Can‘t agree more.
Same do I “begin with the end in mind”. The end could be hard copy print out or content for web. Spare budget for a very good color accuarcy monitor & calibration device. Using a $500 27“ 4K monitor for editing images which is taken by $5,000 camera gears is not good maths.
1 Like
How does one achieve that monitor setting, Joanna ?
Is it a “brightness” setting ?
John M
The only way is with a colorimeter. A color calibration tool like i1Display Pro. The hardware will measure your screen and the software will tell you the brightness and help you calibrate your screen to 80, 100, or 120 cd/m2 or whatever you want.
1 Like
… Yes it is. I calibrate with Datacolors latest equipment and their software has an excellent step where you set the brightness. So what I’m writing is about the sRBG vs Adobe RGB -problem. The problem that persists AFTER the brightness problem already is set.
After solving this problem in my workflow I don’t have these color cast problems anymore but many others have, because they print inages with a non suitable color space.
If you postprocess with an sRGB-monitor which a lot of people does it’s very easy to test what happens if you use Adobe RGB in the files.
The people using Adobe RGB in their workflow get a similar but different problem if they want to export images to be used by peapke viewing them on monitors.
I don’t suggest that standardising on sRGB should be the best for everyone but for me it’s a very convenient way to solve this problem that we always face when preparing prints with sRGB-monitors. I don’t ever need to think of this problem with filew in with different color soaces. If I should should use an Adobe RGB -monitor I ideally have to switch it to sRGB if the images should not be used for printing.
So Joanna, even if the brightness problem is taken care of the color space is still there to handle - even if it easily can be “converted at will”. The problem still for many ignorant users is that they don’t even understand they have a color space problem and many has no order in their file systems when it comes to their files color spaces.
Set your screen background to white, your camera to ISO 100, f/8, t=1/8 and change monitor brightness for a “normal” exposure, in which the histogram is centred. That gets you about 100cd/m².
If the screen looks too dim, the room is too bright.
1 Like
@Pompel if you have a few minutes to spend, here you have a well-made video explaining a lot of things about sRGB (and color management in general…). Spoiler alert: having a 100% sRGB workflow doesn’t ensure you that you’ll get accurate color from end to end sRGB urban legend/myths Part 2 - YouTube
@Guenterm have a look at the video, and you’ll see why most labs require you to provide them with sRGB files
Steven.
Agree completely.
What I would like to see in DXO is support for soft proofing.Ideally along the lines of Capture One where you are always soft proofing when editing an image using whatever profile you have selected.
This seems a very easy system to implement as it only requires a selection menu for the profile you want to use eg aRGB for editing, sRGB for web, a paper profile for printing etc.
C1 does have a “hard” soft proof where the image reflects the output size, sharpening etc but this is just icing on the cake and I would be happy to just have colour space soft proofing.
1 Like
Yes, soft proofing should be something to be considered…
1 Like
Hi Steven,
thanks for the link.
I will answer with this link
and one short snippet from this article “… to the extent that even today many programs and printing companies can only work with sRGB. You should only use Adobe RGB if you are sure that your image processing programs and your printing companies can work with it.”
And that was also my experience by printing a book for a friend. I worked in ARGB and also send the photos in ARGB and for example Blue was very pale.
Since this time I always worked in sRGB and all my posters, books, calendars are fine.
Let me say I’m not a professional and all my work is for hobby only, but my two Eizos are calibrated.
Have fun
Edit: and softproofing is a long discussed term. The most time I will check my results from DXO development within the softproofing possibility in my old LR
1 Like
Here is a screenshot of the Quicklook panel, showing one shot taken, with my Nikon D850, with sRGB and the other taken with AdobeRGB. The difference is minimal with, possibly, the sRGB being slightly more saturated…
Here are two screenshots of both files opened in PL5…
I really can’t see any difference.
Then I exported both to TIFF, using the ProPhoto RGB profile…
Once again, if there is any difference, I can’t see it.
What will make a difference is the profiles I use:
- for the monitor
- to print them with.
When calibrating the monitor, the i1Display software will start by asking you to adjust the screen brightness, then it will go on to calibrate the colours, contraste, etc, in order to create an ICC profile - it is this that then gets used to give you a balanced appearance, according of the “colour space” of your monitor.
I think you are using the wrong expression when you talk about color spaces. We usually talk about printing with an ICC profile, which translates between colour spaces.
This is totally unnecessary. As long as the monitor is calibrated and printing is done using an ICC profile that has been made for your printer/paper/ink combination, there is absolutely no need to mess around with “colour spaces” on your monitor.
I’m sorry but, the problem for most “ignorant” users is that they…
- haven’t profiled their monitors
- haven’t profiled the printer/paper/ink combination
Once both these steps are done, you will always print what you see on screen.
N.B. Don’t try and work in a bright room, otherwise the temptation to crank up the screen brightness in order to see the screen will completely de-calibrate your monitor.
Do ensure that the screen brightness is not being automatically changed to suit ambiant lighting before calibrating.
This is an excellent video, which completely debunks the “sRGB only” myth. I always thought it was wrong but now I know more why.
In the meanwhile, for us Mac users, we can use the ColorSync Utility that comes free with macOS…
It all depends on what profiles your screen and printer are calibrated to. What you may not notice is the clipping of certain colours, which may not matter to you for your workflow.
1 Like
Thank you,
and yes my monitors are working with the sRGB calibrated profiles, and for the printer/paper I’ve got the profiles from my dealer and use them with the softproof function in LR.
And I live in peace with the clipped colours
1 Like
Thank you for the video link
- and to complement → Why are my prints too dark? - YouTube from Andrew Rodney
- and yes, always use well known test prints first …
1 Like