What color space to use when doing your own printing?

[HannahsDad]

So, I mostly do my own printing at home. I have a couple of Epson printers that I use, but mainly, I use a SC-P9000 (44", 11 color printer). Now, when I edit in Photoshop, I edit in AdobeRGB, which is what I capture in when I shoot. But, I have "heard" that when printing, you really should be printing in CMYK. Does that make any sense to anyone who does their own printing? And if so, should I continue to edit in AdobeRGB then convert to CMYK to print or just edit entirely in the CMYK color space? I have looked at the documentation for the printer and it does not reference the printing color space, that I can find. Any thoughts or comments would be appreciated, even if it is to not worry about it!

Scott

 

[Bobtographer]

aRGB is what you should use when you're planning on printing in CMYK (offset lytho) because of the colour gamut. sRGB will print just fine on a home inkjet.

 

[paddler4]

There is no reason to use CMYK with inkjet printers.

And there is no reason to reduce the size of the gamut at all. Good printers (and you have one) have large gamuts. You only lose quality by reducing the gamut of the image before printing.

The best thing to do is to use the widest possible gamut and let the software reduce it as needed for the printer. If you are shooting raw and using adobe products, the working space for Lightroom and ACR is "Melissa", a variant of ProPhoto, which is bigger than Adobe RGB. This can't be changed, but the working space in Photoshop can be, and it should be set to ProPhoto. There is no reason to reduce the gamut from that; the printing software will adjust as needed.

If you are shooting JPEG, set the camera to Adobe RGB and don't reduce it further in software.

I would definitely not reduce the gamut to sRGB, as good home inkjet printers can do considerably more than that. There is nothing to be gained and a fair amount to be lost by reducing the gamut to sRGB for printing. I only use sRGB for online display because most viewers don't have wide-gamut monitors.

Even though I edit a lot in Photoshop, I print mostly from Lightroom. I've been printing for many years, and I have never reduced the gamut of any of my images to print on any of the numerous printers I've used. (I currently use a Canon Prograf PRo-1000.)

 

[Wilt]

1. As mentioned, CYMK is needed for printing using offset lithography (e.g. printed ink brochures). If you never intend to have your photos on the commercially offset-printed page, you do not need to consider CYMK color space.
2. If your commercial printer supports aRGB files without conversion, use aRGB; but if your commercial printer has to first convert the aRGB file to sRGB, send him/her an sRGB file, or you will LOSE some of the hues that reproduce in the aRGB space by any color space conversion!
3. If your home printer supports aRGB color space (some do, some do not) send it aRGB files
4. For web sharing, send sRGB because the typical person's computer monitor and/or web browser may not be able to support anything but sRGB.

If you store RAW files in camera, and use RAW conversion programs like Lightroom or Photoshop or Capture One, its internal workspace supports sRGB and aRGB and CYMK, and you only need to have it output the needed file output appropriate to which of the first 3 situations applies!

 

[HannahsDad]

Thanks for the explanation(s) and all the input. I will continue to shoot in aRGB and look into changing my workflow to ProPhoto gamut. Like you said, Photoshop will adjust as necessary to accommodate the highest common denominator for the printer. I'll try some and compare. Really appreciate everyone's time.

Scott

 

[aeon]

Why play with fire? Use a color-calibrated workflow, and keep your sources in the biggest colorspace and depth, yet never worry about it again, no matter the output device.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[HannahsDad]

Why play with fire? Use a color-calibrated workflow, and keep your sources in the biggest colorspace and depth, yet never worry about it again, no matter the output device.

Cheers,
Ian

I am unclear of what you are saying. My monitors are calibrated every 4 weeks and I do not have a method to calibrate the printer (nor do I intend to go to that expense). I was trying to see what the best color space was for printing and I think I got my answer. I am not clear what else could be calibrated. I do occasionally use a grey card for the landscapes, but that is difficult with wildlife.

Scott

 

[paddler4]

1. As mentioned, CYMK is needed for printing using offset lithography (e.g. printed ink brochures). If you never intend to have your photos on the commercially offset-printed page, you do not need to consider CYMK color space.
2. If your commercial printer supports aRGB files without conversion, use aRGB; but if your commercial printer has to first convert the aRGB file to sRGB, send him/her an sRGB file, or you will LOSE some of the hues that reproduce in the aRGB space by any color space conversion!
3. If your home printer supports aRGB color space (some do, some do not) send it aRGB files
4. For web sharing, send sRGB because the typical person's computer monitor and/or web browser may not be able to support anything but sRGB.

If you store RAW files in camera, and use RAW conversion programs like Lightroom or Photoshop or Capture One, its internal workspace supports sRGB and aRGB and CYMK, and you only need to have it output the needed file output appropriate to which of the first 3 situations applies!

I think this needlessly complicates matters, and it's not entirely correct.

The OP is asking for advice about printing on an Epson P9000, not offset lithography. So the answer is: to print on that printer, don't convert to CMYK.

Lightroom has only one internal working color space, which is Melissa/ ProPhoto. You can open files with more restricted gamuts, but it works in ProPhoto.

If the OP is shooting raw, setting the camera to Adobe RGB or sRGB will have no effect whatever on the gamut. The gamut will be determined by the rendering software. If he is shooting JPEG, then the setting does matter.

The ideal workflow for printing on a printer like that, if one is shooting raw and using Adobe products, is to set the Photoshop color working space to ProPhoto and then ignore gamut. Lightroom will automatically work in ProPhoto to preserve color range. Any adjustments needed will be applied at the very end, based on the ICC for the paper and printer. Reducing the gamut before then will only lose color, if the image happens to have colors outside the range of the gamut you choose but inside the gamut of the printer.

 

[HannahsDad]

I think this needlessly complicates matters, and it's not entirely correct.

The OP is asking for advice about printing on an Epson P9000, not offset lithography. So the answer is: to print on that printer, don't convert to CMYK.

Lightroom has only one internal working color space, which is Melissa/ ProPhoto. You can open files with more restricted gamuts, but it works in ProPhoto.

If the OP is shooting raw, setting the camera to Adobe RGB or sRGB will have no effect whatever on the gamut. The gamut will be determined by the rendering software. If he is shooting JPEG, then the setting does matter.

The ideal workflow for printing on a printer like that, if one is shooting raw and using Adobe products, is to set the Photoshop color working space to ProPhoto and then ignore gamut. Lightroom will automatically work in ProPhoto to preserve color range. Any adjustments needed will be applied at the very end, based on the ICC for the paper and printer. Reducing the gamut before then will only lose color, if the image happens to have colors outside the range of the gamut you choose but inside the gamut of the printer.

Thank you for the clarification. I should have been clear. I do only shoot Raw, so your very good explanation helps quite a bit. Again, I appreciate the responses and help. It does clarify a lingering question that I have had regarding printing to the P9000.

Scott

 

[aeon]

I am unclear of what you are saying. My monitors are calibrated every 4 weeks and I do not have a method to calibrate the printer (nor do I intend to go to that expense). I was trying to see what the best color space was for printing and I think I got my answer. I am not clear what else could be calibrated. I do occasionally use a grey card for the landscapes, but that is difficult with wildlife.

Scott

I just meant that in a color-managed workflow, each output device (monitor, printer for a given substrate, plate device, embroidery machine, and so on) has a measured colorspace and gamut. It may be pixels, ink, pigment, AM/FM/stochastic screening, dithered thread, and so on. Each input device also has a colorspace and gamut...camera, scanner, renderer...

For a given dataset, or file, the color-managed workflow automatically applies transforms as necessary so the output matches as best as possible to the dataset, or file, in accordance with an intent, which may be perceptual, colorimetric, and so on.

For example, a 16-bit per channel HSL file would be transformed to ~10-bit RGB for a monitor, 10-bit 8-channel CMYK+ for an Epson commercial inkjet on gloss, an FM screen for hexachrome plates for a commercial CMYKGO offset press on a given stock with UV inks, or a 16-color 1-bit diffusion dither for a commercial embroidery machine...

...and properly managed, they would all match. Well, the embroidery would be what it is. But the sheet off the press would match the inkjet which would in turn match the monitor...as viewed under managed lighting.

Heavy lifting behind the scenes, and heavy use of spectrometers and the like during setup...but once done, it just works without faffing about.

Cheers,
Ian

 

[HannahsDad]

Makes perfect sense, but I am just going to have to live with my calibrated monitors and my existing printer setup. After retiring, but budget is just not there to do a full calibration from one end to the other. So, a spectrometer is not likely to happen, even though it might yield slightly better results. Quite frankly, since I don't sell my work (it is only for hanging in the house and giving to friend and family), there is just no justification for an expense like that for minimum yield, in my opinion. But, I certainly understand what you are saying and that workflow would be ideal if funds were no issue. Thanks for the clarification.

Scott

 

[paddler4]

Hannah's Dad,

I don't think you need a spectrometer. I have been exhibiting and even selling prints for years, and I have never done anything other than calibrate my monitor, use the correct ICC profile (in all but one case, the stock one provided by the paper vendor), and softproof and do test prints. No matter what you do, the image on paper is not going to look exactly like the image on screen--it's reflective rather than emissive and has a different gamut. IMHO, the essential thing is getting a print that you find satisfactory. I have prints of mine examined VERY closely, and not once has someone asked if they matched my monitor. it's not relevant to people viewing your prints.

However, I think aeon's point about controlled lighting is important. One of the most common complaints we see from inexperienced printers is "my prints are too dark". To get the brightness you want, you have to balance the emissive light from the monitor with the ambient light in the room. There are lots of web pages that give you precise values, but here too, the key is what works for you to get teh brightness you want in the print.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[HannahsDad]

Hannah's Dad,

I don't think you need a spectrometer. I have been exhibiting and even selling prints for years, and I have never done anything other than calibrate my monitor, use the correct ICC profile (in all but one case, the stock one provided by the paper vendor), and softproof and do test prints. No matter what you do, the image on paper is not going to look exactly like the image on screen--it's reflective rather than emissive and has a different gamut. IMHO, the essential thing is getting a print that you find satisfactory. I have prints of mine examined VERY closely, and not once has someone asked if they matched my monitor. it's not relevant to people viewing your prints.

However, I think aeon's point about controlled lighting is important. One of the most common complaints we see from inexperienced printers is "my prints are too dark". To get the brightness you want, you have to balance the emissive light from the monitor with the ambient light in the room. There are lots of web pages that give you precise values, but here too, the key is what works for you to get teh brightness you want in the print.

Just my 2 cents.

The controlled light I do. I make certain that I edit in the same light environment that I calibrated in and I use the feature on the iOne profiler to adjust to ambient light. Necessary, since I have windows in my office that I can control somewhat, but the difference between daytime and nighttime editing is there. So, I think I agree with you and am doing everything that you are suggesting. Again, I appreciate the help. I too do test prints (which in their own right can get expensive!), but in the end, like you said, people look at the print, not the comparison to the monitor.

 

[paddler4]

For prints that matter, I edit only at night because the room where I do the work has too much natural light during the day and throws the balance off.

Re expense: I keep two levels of paper. For exhibiting--which sad to say I haven't done for a while--I use fairly high-end papers, mostly barytas. For more casual use, I mostly use a non-archival luster paper that's less expensive.

 

[HannahsDad]

Good points. I too mainly edit at night, but when travelling, I must confess to doing some initial editing at the RV to see if I got the shot I wanted, so, if not, I can go back!

 

[Wilt]

For prints that matter, I edit only at night because the room where I do the work has too much natural light during the day and throws the balance off.

While monitor coolness/warmth and ambient light coolness/warmth can influence visual assessment of a photo with a monitor, if one takes a shot of a neutral gray card in the same light, and then uses the eyedropper WB adjustment tool found in RAW convertors and JPG file editors to sample that area in the photo, one will get a true NEUTRAL color balance in the photo, regardless of how monitor misadjustment or ambient light coloration influences the visual assessment.

 

[HannahsDad]

I really do appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments. So, I am going to sign off this thread with the following:

1) I should have mentioned long before now, I do not do this professionally. It is strictly a hobby.
2) I only shoot landscapes, wildlife and birds in flight. I do not shoot in a controlled environment, such as a studio.
3) When I shoot landscapes, it often involves setting up before sunrise to get the shot. That makes a gray card a bit challenging, not to mention the constantly changing light as the sun comes up (or goes down).
4) Wildlife and birds in flight rarely lend themselves to the use of cards for post processing. So, I am kind of stuck with a setup that I think is close and effectively, hope for the best.

So, with that said, I really do appreciate the comments and will implement some of them into my workflow. Others are going to have to stay in a studio, where they may be more appropriate.

Scott

 

[paddler4]

While monitor coolness/warmth and ambient light coolness/warmth can influence visual assessment of a photo with a monitor, if one takes a shot of a neutral gray card in the same light, and then uses the eyedropper WB adjustment tool found in RAW convertors and JPG file editors to sample that area in the photo, one will get a true NEUTRAL color balance in the photo, regardless of how monitor misadjustment or ambient light coloration influences the visual assessment.

Yes. My point about ambient light was not about color balance; it was about brightness. A very common complaint is "my prints are too dark". More often than not, this is a function of the ratio of monitor brightness to ambient light brightness. Specifically, it most often arises when people leave their monitors set to out-of-the-box brightness, but fine-tuning requires taking ambient lighting into account as well.

If one uses something within the image--either a neutral card or a surface one thinks should be neutral--to set white balance and tint, the results won't be affected by ambient lighting. And more often as not, our perception of it won't be affected either. One's brain is remarkably efficient at compensating for ambient light color. A white piece of paper looks white to us in open sunlight and under incandescent light. I usually edit photos under very high quality 3000K lighting, which is far warmer than sunlight (say, 5200), but that never causes me a problem.

 

[Wilt]

I really do appreciate everyone's thoughts and comments. So, I am going to sign off this thread with the following:

1) I should have mentioned long before now, I do not do this professionally. It is strictly a hobby.
2) I only shoot landscapes, wildlife and birds in flight. I do not shoot in a controlled environment, such as a studio.
3) When I shoot landscapes, it often involves setting up before sunrise to get the shot. That makes a gray card a bit challenging, not to mention the constantly changing light as the sun comes up (or goes down).
4) Wildlife and birds in flight rarely lend themselves to the use of cards for post processing. So, I am kind of stuck with a setup that I think is close and effectively, hope for the best.

So, with that said, I really do appreciate the comments and will implement some of them into my workflow. Others are going to have to stay in a studio, where they may be more appropriate.

Scott

Not being argumentative, merely clarifying the point...You do not need to be 'in the studio' to use the color balance benefit of gray card.

• Keep in mind that the gray card can be useful even in the wilderness, if both you and your distant subject are IN THE SAME LIGHT (e.g. open sunlight, shade)...shoot the gray card up close, shoot the subject far away, utilize the gray card shot to get neutral color balance.
  Yes, there can be challenging situations, like your subject being in deep shade in the forest when the greenery tints the ambient lighting. But then again we are not striving for perfectl color reproduction accuracy, like someone shooting textiles for a client has to achieve.
• As for sunrise/sunset warmth...if your goal is to capture the warmth (not neutralize it), simply set for 5200K and record the warmth in all its glory. If goal is to neutralize color, simply follow the prior bullet's instructions.

 

[paddler4]

Not being argumentative, merely clarifying the point...You do not need to be 'in the studio' to use the color balance benefit of gray card.

• Keep in mind that the gray card can be useful even in the wilderness, if both you and your distant subject are IN THE SAME LIGHT (e.g. open sunlight, shade)...shoot the gray card up close, shoot the subject far away, utilize the gray card shot to get neutral color balance.
  Yes, there can be challenging situations, like your subject being in deep shade in the forest when the greenery tints the ambient lighting. But then again we are not striving for perfectl color reproduction accuracy, like someone shooting textiles for a client has to achieve.
• As for sunrise/sunset warmth...if your goal is to capture the warmth (not neutralize it), simply set for 5200K and record the warmth in all its glory. If goal is to neutralize color, simply follow the prior bullet's instructions.

Very good points. I try to keep a pocket-sized WhiBal card with me whenever I am carrying my camera. It's easy to take a shot with the card in the relevant lighting--or a few shots, if the lighting is really varied--to serve as a simple starting point for post. You don't need to stick with what it gives you, but it gives you a nice neutral starting point. I do my raw conversions in Lightroom, and Lightroom makes it trivally easy to sync the white balance setting from a test shot like that to any others from the shoot, using the sync settings function.

For less exacting work, I find that I use the card less than I used to because the AWB in my new camera, an R6 II, seems to come close even in circumstances when my previous cameras didn't. however, it's still good to play it safe.