UKC

Hello.

Could anyone please give me a crash, step-by-step course in the basics of colour management? I need an idiot's guide to assigning a colour profile to an image that will then be used by the printers/lab...

Any help appreciated.

In reply to zebedoo:

Take that as a 'no' then?

In reply to zebedoo: Are you after CIE vs RGB info?

In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:

Nope. I want to know how to create a colour profile for an image and embed it so that when I send it to the lab or print it out in Jessops, the printer knows how to interpret the colours.

In reply to zebedoo: What did jessops recommend?

In reply to zebedoo: Colour management is a vast area- there is no crash course. What exactly are you trying to achieve? the file (jpg?) will have a profile built in, altering it without explicit knowledge is not good. Photoshop will allow you to assign a profile, but generally speaking, its best to leave them set as they are.

In reply to Tree:

I'd like to know how to, in a nutshell, embed an ICC profile into an image using Photoshop. The outcome being that when I take my images to be printed, the colour reproduction is identical to what I have experienced on my calibrated monitor.

In reply to zebedoo: Photoshop= edit>assign profile>adobe rgb(1998) or other, if you edit in Ps, use adobe as the profile.
Other than that, the printer's software will likely take over the task anyway.

In reply to Tree:

So. If I calibrate my monitor so that its reproduction of colours is accurate, and then use Adobe RGB on Photoshop to manipulate my work then how does the printer at the lab know to produce colours as I want them?

In reply to zebedoo: The print profile will vary depending on the type of printer being used, hence my saying leave it alone, however, if you are certain of your calibration, then embedding the profile will allow other pcs to interpret the image, before altering the profile for their hardware. Like I said, big subject.

In reply to zebedoo:

I just work in sRGB colour space on any old uncalibrated monitor. Jessops prints are not identical, but close enough, to what I see on monitors, when I use sRGB.

In reply to zebedoo:

You then need to download their (Jessops) color-profile (often provided on their webpage) and re-assign the picture in PS to that profile.

If you're using a calibrated screen, the print should be spot on.

In reply to zebedoo:

Thanks for the help. Last stupid question:

I've now calibrated by monitor. If I manipulate and image in Photoshop using Adobe sRGB then send to the lab (who use sRGB) then the reproduction should be pretty much identical? Correct?

Ta.

In reply to zebedoo: Nope, sRGB and Adobe RGB are different colour spaces.

However, if you are working in photoshop in sRGB and the Lab use sRGB you'll be ok.

As far as I'm aware there's no such thing as Adobe sRGB, it's either:

1. AdobeRGB
or
2. sRGB

I'm guessing you're using sRGB, and you've just said Adobe because you're using photoshop.

Can I borrow your monitor calibrator?

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:


Yup - call it a typo!

In reply to zebedoo: Cool, sounds like you're sorted then!

On the topic of color calibration....If I calibrate my monitor using a spyder or similar, then use canon glossy paper and canon ink in my canon printer, set the printer profile to the correct settings (for the paper and ink), do I still need to using a printer profile tool (like colorvision printfix pro) to get accurate print colours? Or should it be close enough with the inbuilt profile?

Print profilers seem hellish expensive! (like, 3 time the price of my printer!)

I've seen colorvision spyder 2 monitor calibrators for £54 so I might get one, I know at least a couple of mates who'll probably pay to borrow it!

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

This is such a topic and one that is never truly answered often not understood properly, here's what I may or may not have right.


Your screen calibration is an attempt to set the the screen to visually show correct colour representation, so blue looks blue etc.

Print profiling is matching your working colour space to the colour space references to the output method (printer).

So screen calibrating does not mean your print will reflect what you see. If you match your working space with your print profile, you should get prints that match what you see. So if your screen is also calibrated, then the colour spaces are all linked up and wysiwig what you see is what you get.

However this all works in theory, in the last company we spent many £0,000's on getting all our workstations matched to Metro's profile, but in the light booth you could spot differences.

In reply to jools: Cheers. I've just been reading up on some of this stuff.

Once website mentioned that you can print off a test chart and send it to a company, they will then email you a colour profile. Do you know if this can be done in the UK and how much it costs?

In reply to Alasdair Fulton: You may be letting this get more complex than you need it to be. What reason do you have that makes this so important right now? (no offence)

You can get too hung up on the CC when it is likely any colour vagaries will not be important enough to matter. Many times experience of the final print supplier will be the only way to see what happens- get a small test print run off of your images, compare with the monitor, and take it from there.

ps. Spyders are not yet as good as the human eye!

In reply to Tree: I've had some colour prints with my printer that have been way out, black looking blue etc.

I think I know why now (using the wrong rendering intent) so I'll see if I can manually adjust all the settings and do some prints to see how they look. If they're close enough then I'll not bother wasting any money!

My attention to detail is unfortunately quite high...much higher than the quality of my photos at present!

In reply to Alasdair Fulton: When it comes to detail, I'm the same- I've been to many training sessions on colour management and it really does come back to three things- the quality of the original, the calibration of your monitor, and the printer getting it right. The third, printers, are the bane of my life, fiddling for hours with colour space can often make it far worse, then it really doesn't matter how well the printer integrates with what you need. Speaking with the human operator may give you enough know how for that printer, but two companies don't always use the same terminology, never mind standards. Realising that good enough really is good enough has been a long struggle for me, leading me into major depression (no exaggeration), so try not to get bogged down too much- though high standards are no bad thing.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

Not sure how printing off a chart will do anything other adding another layer of complexity to an already over complex process.

But I agree with Tree, don't expect perfect results, calibrate your screen, use either a standard working space or one to the profile of the output. Never spend too much time or money on it unless it's a pro job and the client demands it, then pass the cost onto them.

One thing that is worth mentioning is that if you use a print shop that is concerned about their reputation, you will find they will get you a print that is close enough for most jobs.

In reply to jools: Haha, purely amateur! And I'm only concerned with home printing just now.

It appears, from what I've read, that you can print of an RGB test chart for whatever paper/ink combo you're using, send it off and for £15 they'll email you an ICC profile for that combination.

Then, you can "soft-proof" in photoshop so that you can get an idea of what it will look like once printed. (assuming your monitor is calibrated)

But all this is probably way too much faff for my needs!