On Color Management and Workflow:

[Erik]

What follows are my contributions to discussions at Nikonians.com. I worked so hard to write these things, I just couldn't keep it from my Chimper home-team!

Nikonian "philpro68" Asks (Topic #16716 ):
"Okay, I have the Spyder Cal thing to calibrate the monitor, and have done so. It creates a profile that you save. Now when you import something into photoshop, it has a profile mismatch. If I use the adobe 98 color profile to print, it looks nothing like the picture on the screen, but if I convert the image to use the working profile of the monitor, it prints out pretty true to color. Is this what I should be doing? I thought I understood that you just use the spyder cal to calibrate the monitor, and use the Adobe 98 profile to get the best color match. Is there anything wrong with converting the images to the working screen profile as long as it matches the prints? Can someone please elaborate on the process of how you go about setting your system to get constantly consistant color to print. Thanks in advance.
Philip"

My Reply:
I think what you are experiencing is a mismach between the working space of the image file and the default working space that is assigned to your Photoshop appication. In PS CS2, if you go to Edit>Color Settings. Look for Working Space>RGB you can assign the color profile for Photoshop to work in, which in your case the monitor profile is fine. But you will still get the warning. One option is to tell photoshop to "preserve embedded profiles." To do this simply go to Edit>Color Settings and look for the middle section called "Color Management Policies" You can then select "preserve embedded profiles" for RGB, and the other two types of color spaces. By doing this you are not converting them to your screens working space when you save the file again. Your monitors profile only displays the file as it's supposed to look. When you save the file you'll be saving it in it's original color space, or gamut.--Which is the correct thing to do since it will be more universal.
Calibrating your monitor is a very good thing to do, and converting your working space to the monitor profile will make things look great on the screen but since your screen and your printer produce colors differently you can't rely on your screen image to tell you what the print will look like. HOWEVER, you say that you are pretty happy with the results you are getting from converting the image to your screens profile, then by all means keep doing it.

Many folks simply calibrate their monitors and stop there. For many folks that's fine, and they are happy with the results. However, if you want to try and get your prints to match your screen you'll need to "Soft Proof" your image, and then convert your images profile in photoshop before you print.

In my opinion, Soft Proofing is a bit advanced for those just becoming familiar with using profiles. Besides, if you don't have a profile for the printer you are going to use, then how do you know which profile to simulate, and ultimately convert the image to before you print. If you want to learn about this I suggest two things. Find out what profile you should be using for your printer. Did it come with one? Maybe it installed when you installed the printer! Maybe the manufacturer reccommends an sRGB profile . . . You need to find out.

The other thing you need to do is do some background reading. You can start here, an article about using profiles in PS CS2: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/profiles.htm
And a page of links from the International Color Consortium, the folks who created them: http://www.color.org/links2.html

Whatever you do, you need to appreciate the fact that you profiled your monitor. That way you know that a particular RGB recipe for green in your image file looks like the propper shade of green on your monitor. The rest you'll discover if you do the reading . . . .

Good Luck!

I did the best I could to address the above concerns. By no means do I think of myself as an expert. If there is a need to correct or clarify anything I said above, I'd appreciate it as much as anyone! Thanks.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Nikonian "Madrid" Asks (Topic #15512 ):
"I have just got the ICC profiles from de Lab I want to work with. So I have a few cuestions
1.- Where to copy them to work in CS2. I now it?s on library/aplication support/ adobe/color/profiles, but inside that there is also a place call "recommended"

2- Which is the proper workflow? Asume I start with a NEF image. I usually work with them in Nikon Capture first. Then, saved as NEF again, I work with them in CS2. But then What?

3.- Do I have to go through CS2? Can not do it via Nikon View? normally is what I do to convert to jpeg, after working in NC. If it is posible, where should I copy the ICC's?

Thanks

Miguel
Mac user"

My Reply:
I suppose one approach is to convert the file into the printer profile as early as possible into your workflow. This might not be a bad idea if you want your images appearance to be what I'll call "hyper-compliant" to the output device you untimately want to use.
Personally, I don't do that. In fact, I believe that doing so works against the power that ICC profiles are supposed to lend to this task.

On a PC with PS CS2:
I suggest importing your NEF files into Capture and working with them in their native color space Naturally, they'll be displayed using your profiled monitors color space.

You should have Photoshop setup to preserve the embedded profile by going to Edit>Color Settings>color management policies>preserve embedded profiles. Work on your image, get it just right and save it as a .Tiff

When you are ready to put together your picture order for the lab, open the file in PS (I also hace ACDSee Pro, and the workflow is very similar). Go to View>Proof Setup>Custom. Where it says "device to simulate" open the drop menu and look for the profile from the lab. It will very likely be called by the labs name as well as the paper type you'd like for this file.

Leave "preserve numbers" unchecked.
At first leave "Rendering Intent" on Perceptual.
Be sure the Black Point box is checked.

At first leave Simulate Paper Color, and Black Ink unchecked. I find these options to be more trouble than they are worth!

You'll see that your image has changed it's appearance! What PS is doing is it's actually simulating what your image would look like from that printer right at the moment. But don't worry, you now can steer the appearance of the image back to a close aproximation to what you wanted in the first place.

Often I find that I must punch-up the saturation and contrast a bit to get back to acceptable image quality. Often I'm disappointed that certain saturated colors don't have as much pop anymore. The problem is that printers often has a smaller color space than what your screen can produce, and therefore cannot produce the colors with as much saturation as the screen. It's a hard lesson, but I've learned to accept it.

Okay once I have the image dialed-in to the "simulated" color space. I then go to Edit>Convert to Profile and you should see your simulated color space there in the dropdown. The Rendering Intent should be as you selected it in the other menu as well. Leave the "Engine" as it is.

Now "Save AS" and keep it as a separate file for that lab. . .


The reason you should keep the original in it's embedded color space is because in the ICC profile that defines this original colorspace is actually defining your image data into what is called a Profile Connector Space (PCS). This is a universal, device independant color space that enables all devices that are ICC compliant to translate your images color data into their profile thus ensuring it looks as propper as the device can represent it.

It goes like this:

#1 Camera's captured image>image's embedded ICC profile> PCS> Desktop Printer's ICC Profile> Desktop Printer "A" output (smaller colorspace)=Less saturation

#2 Camera's captured image>image's's ICC profile> PCS> Commercial Printer's ICC Profile> Commercial Printer "B" output (Larger colorspace)=Greater Saturation

Chances are the embedded color profile of the original image produced by your camera will have more color information, -a bigger color space, than most output devices, so if you convert your original, then you are very likely reducing the potential saturation your image could have as the printer technology improves. The beauty lies in the Profile Connection Space. One day Epson may have a color gamut breakthrough and will have a printer that will produce more colors with more saturation. This new printer will simply translate your image from the universal PCS embedded within the ICC profile that the original file contains into it's profile giving you the best representation of your actual image data that it can produce.

Good Luck.
HTH