How do you guys print your pics after editing in photoshop?

[jojo77]

Here is my whole process in printing a photo. Tell me if I'm doing this wrong

1)Shoot pic with camera
2)Upload pic to computer
3)Open and edit with photoshop
4)When it looks right, switch mode to CMYK
5)Print in photo printer

Is that right? :?

[robertwgross]

4)When it looks right, switch mode to CMYK


Why are you switching it to CMYK?

Most photo printers that are around today work perfectly on RGB input files. Granted, the inks that the printers use tend to be CMYK, but you don't need to fool with that. You shove it an RGB file and it converts and figures out the rest.

---Bob Gross---

[Scottes]

You definitely don't want to convert to CMYK unless you're absolutely positive that you should. And if you know that you should you wouldn't be asking this question, so don't convert to CMYK. Most printers today *expect* RGB and will do a proper RGB-to-CMYK.


1)Shoot pic with camera
2)Upload pic to computer
3)Open and edit with photoshop
3a) RAW Conversion
3b) Crop
3c) Remove Noise
3d) Convert to 16-bit
3e) Convert to AdobeRGB
3f) Capture Sharpen
3g) Clone Tool/Blemish Removal etcetera
3h) Color Correct
3i) Contrast Correct
3j) Creative Sharpen
3k) Save Corrected Copy
3l) Resize
3m) Output Sharpen
3n) Soft Proof
3o) Re-saturate/Fix out-of-gamut
3p) Convert to printer profile
3q) Save Print Copy
4)Print in photo printer

Most of those steps are if necessary. And I may have missed a step....

[jojo77]

Scottes, can you tell me why you convert to 16 bit and also AdobeRGB? I'm capturing with jpg format so would I have to do either one still?

And reason I convert CMYK is because the print looks more like what is on my monitor when i do. I got a HP 5550

[Scottes]

Scottes, can you tell me why you convert to 16 bit and also AdobeRGB? I'm capturing with jpg format so would I have to do either one still?

When you do color corrections you get more colors in 16-bit mode, so you get less posterization and banding and such. In 8-bit mode you get 256 possible values for each primary, in 16-bit you get 65,536. So if you have a pixel with 8-bit Red 230 and you increase it just a little then PS has to make it either 230 or 231 - there's nothing in between. In 16-bit mode there are 256 levels in between 230 and 231 - PS can make it any one of these values.

Now this one pixel is a tiny example - but imagine it happening to EVERY pixel in your image.

AdobeRGB is a larger color space than sRGB. There are more colors to choose from once again, so PS has more options to make it what you want and doesn't have to "fudge" the colors to fit sRGB.

Both are small points. In most cases you won't see a difference, even though it's there. If you nudge your colors just a little bit and that's all you do to the image then you probably won't see a difference. But if you perform numerous steps - color, contrast, shadow recovery, saturation, sharpening and so on and on - then it helps if you do every step just a little bit better.


And reason I convert CMYK is because the print looks more like what is on my monitor when i do. I got a HP 5550

That's mighty unusual, but if your print matches what you see on the screen then keep doing it! There's no way that I can argue with that!

But as Bob and I said, most printers expect an RGB image because they'll perform an RGB-to-CYMK conversion that's finely tuned to their inks and paper. But if it works for you then keep doing what you're doing.

[jojo77]

that was helpful so do I have to convert to 16 bit and also AdobeRGB if I capture in jpg format and upload to PS as so?

[chris.bailey]

And reason I convert CMYK is because the print looks more like what is on my monitor when i do. I got a HP 5550

Is your monitor calibrated? It may just be that the colour changes in the CMYK conversion offset an out of calibration monitor. The 5550 is a great printer but hard to colour manage and not particularly stable in the colour stakes i.e two prints one after another can be visibly different. Try printing in RGB and then adjusting your monitor controls until you get close to the print or get a monitor calibration tool.

My workflow follows Scottes up to printing where I use the print dialogue to assign a printer profile for the Epson 2100 and trhen turn off colour management on the printer.

[robertwgross]

The camera's sensor captures 12 bits of color depth.

If you are saving the image in JPEG right there, then you've thrown away a good chunk of the image color data already. If you do this, then there is no sense in trying to move it up to 16-bit-per-color-channel TIF.

In contrast, if you save in RAW, then convert to 16-bit-per-color-channel TIF, then do your editing. As a last step, you can convert to JPEG or something limited in depth.

---Bob Gross---

[Scottes]

that was helpful so do I have to convert to 16 bit and also AdobeRGB if I capture in jpg format and upload to PS as so?

You don't *have* to but it does help.

If you are saving the image in JPEG right there, then you've thrown away a good chunk of the image color data already. If you do this, then there is no sense in trying to move it up to 16-bit-per-color-channel TIF.

Converting to 16-bit will help in removing posterization and color-shifts during color correction and manipulation. It make no difference that some data has been thrown away already - 16-bit *still* helps to get a better final image. Taking the picture in JPG has already done so much "damage" that it is kinda moot. But it still helps.

[Jesper]

You definitely don't want to convert to CMYK unless you're absolutely positive that you should. And if you know that you should you wouldn't be asking this question, so don't convert to CMYK. Most printers today *expect* RGB and will do a proper RGB-to-CMYK.


1)Shoot pic with camera
2)Upload pic to computer
3)Open and edit with photoshop
3a) RAW Conversion
3b) Crop
3c) Remove Noise
3d) Convert to 16-bit
3e) Convert to AdobeRGB

Are you converting to 16 bit and Adobe RGB after RAW conversion, or are you doing it in the Camera Raw window (in the lower left corner of the dialog)?

You should be doing it in the Camera Raw dialog - if you convert from RAW to 8 bits per channel and later convert it back to 16 bit, you've already lost the extra bits of information from your RAW file.

[Scottes]

Are you converting to 16 bit and Adobe RGB after RAW conversion, or are you doing it in the Camera Raw window (in the lower left corner of the dialog)?

I convert RAW to 16-bit AdobeRGB using CaptureOne.

The list started as one thing and ended up as another...

[jojo77]

Noobie question again. To convert to adobe rgb do I go to Image>Mode>Assign Profile and choose Adobe RGB (1998)? I don't any other settings for AdobeRGB, by pic is already at the usual RGB mode.

[robertwgross]

Converting to 16-bit will help in removing posterization and color-shifts during color correction and manipulation. It make no difference that some data has been thrown away already - 16-bit *still* helps to get a better final image. Taking the picture in JPG has already done so much "damage" that it is kinda moot. But it still helps.

I would have thought that once you get posterization, you are going to have posterization for the rest of the life of the image. In other words, you can't correct it back out to smooth. We have to watch out for moots.

---Bob Gros---

[John_T]

I would say Convert to Profile. Assign is temporary.

Perhaps I should mention something here. Saving in jpeg means, depending on level, massive compression. As already mentioned, compression means throwing out "unneccesary" data. When you then process the file, since there is less data, any adjustments have to make big jumps from one color to another because there are no longer small increments in between. In this sense, jpeg is not a stable medium within which to edit. While converting to aRGB and 16bit will not give you back data that has already been dumped, it will at least give you more stablility in editing what is there.

Essentially jpeg is only intended for people who want the camera to do the processing and they simply view and/or print. In my experience, trying to edit a jpeg isn't likely to gain much and more likely to make a mess out of what the camera has already done. In other words, the camera did the cooking and you take what's on the plate. Ok, you can salt and pepper and mess around with your fork, but if you would like to cook it all over again, to late, all the rest is in the garbage.

If you want to be the cook, shoot RAW, aRGB, convert to 16bit tiffs or psds and don't mess around. Photoshop is a big kitchen. Good kitchens don't order pizza from Pizza Hut. 8)

[Scottes]

I would have thought that once you get posterization, you are going to have posterization for the rest of the life of the image. In other words, you can't correct it back out to smooth.

Actually you can. If you have an image in 8-bit mode and you convert to 16-bit and start manipulating you will be creating more colors.

Let's say you have identical pixels in 8-bit mode. You convert to 16-bit mode and start manipulating. By the time you're done you will most likely will find that these two pixels are no longer the exact same color. You have just de-posterized.

I just performed an experiment. I had a JPG of one of my cats, taken with the 10D in high-qulity JPG mode. I opened it, duplicated it, and converted the duplicate to 16-bit AdobeRGB, leaving the original at 8-bit sRGB. I then performed some image manipulation getting the image to a point that I was happy. I performed the *exact* same steps on both images. When done I converted the 16-bit AdobeRGB back to 8-bit sRGB. I then saved them both as TIFF, and pulled them into Paint Shop Pro so I could use it's nifty Count Colors command.

The image that stayed 8-bit throughout the process had 93,209 unique colors.

The omage that got converted to 16-bit AdobeRGB for processing ended up with 101,301 colors.

So, in fact, processing in 16-bit AdobeRGB will de-posterize the image. Regardless of how you shoot, processing in 16-bit AdobeRGB will do less damage - or even improve - the image.

[maderito]

I would have thought that once you get posterization, you are going to have posterization for the rest of the life of the image. In other words, you can't correct it back out to smooth.

Actually you can. If you have an image in 8-bit mode and you convert to 16-bit and start manipulating you will be creating more colors.

Let's say you have identical pixels in 8-bit mode. You convert to 16-bit mode and start manipulating. By the time you're done you will most likely will find that these two pixels are no longer the exact same color. You have just de-posterized.

This is one of those 8 bit vs. 16 bit arguments that neveer seem to end satisfactorily. For example, there is the famous Dan Margulis' 16-bit Challenge which generated hundreds, perhaps thousands, of postings. A good summary of that controversy is given by Bruce Lindbloom on this page (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?DanMargulis.html) of his excellent website.

Scottes - I doubt that you could show a visual example that proves your point. When you convert from 8 bit to 16 bit, you do increase the number of colors since the conversion algorithm introduces random high bits to avoid posterization. However, I don't believe the conversion will correct already existing posterization. Even so, I do believe my eyes (usually) - so if you post an example, I will stand corrected. :?

[Scottes]

Scottes - I doubt that you could show a visual example that proves your point.

I doubt it too. The human eye just can't see it. But it *is* there. This is one of those steps that produces a mildly different result that is [probably] not visible to the human eye. But to quote myself - "If you perform every step just a little bit better then you will end up with a much better final image."


When you convert from 8 bit to 16 bit, you do increase the number of colors since the conversion algorithm introduces random high bits to avoid posterization.

Not true at all. The conversion of 8-bit to 16-bit simply converts the current values to 16-bit values. They remain the exact same color. 8-bit red 230 is the exact same color as 16-bit 29,555.

The conversion doesn't introduce new colors, the manipulation does.


However, I don't believe the conversion will correct already existing posterization.

Whereas you can't correct damage already done, you *can* lessen it. If posterization is the reduction of colors, then my example shows that you can "de-posterize" by performing the manipulation in 16-bit mode. You end up with more colors. It's not going to be as many as if you had performed 16-bit all the way, but it's better than manipulating in 8-bit.

Can the human eye tell the difference between 93,000 colors and 101,000 colors? Probably not. But "If you perform every step just a little bit better then you will end up with a much better final image."

I will continue to manipulate in 16-bit mode. And I will continue to perform every step just a little better.

[Scottes]

I've just read Bruce Lindblooms page and a bit of the Margulis challenge page. Well, I won't get into it, because a single argument considering 8-bit vs 16-bit is not really what I'm trying to point out here.

The point that I'm trying to make is that 8-bit manipulation versus 16-bit manipulation is just one step in the process. Chances are very very good that the human eye can't tell the difference for this one step.

My true point is to perform every step in a better way.


As an example: Chances are very good that the human eye can't tell the difference between Save for Web at quality 70 versus quality 71. And the human eye can't tell the difference between quality 71 and 72. So then you think that the human eye can't tell the difference between quality 70 and 72. Extend this out and you start to think that the human eye can't tell the difference between quality 1 and 100. Which, of course, is completely untrue and ridiculous.

There may very well be a tiny, non-detectable-by-humans difference between two options of a single step performed on an image. But when you take the process as a whole the end result can be very, very different.

[maderito]

When you convert from 8 bit to 16 bit, you do increase the number of colors since the conversion algorithm introduces random high bits to avoid posterization.

Not true at all. The conversion of 8-bit to 16-bit simply converts the current values to 16-bit values. They remain the exact same color. 8-bit red 230 is the exact same color as 16-bit 29,555.

The conversion doesn't introduce new colors, the manipulation does.

Scottes -

You are correct on this. It is when you go from 16 bit to 8 bit that the high bit value of the byte is randomized.

As for your other points, I remain dubious, pending examples. The proof on these issues lies in what we can see on a monitor or in a print.

It remains to be demonstrated that manipulating 8 bit data by first converting to 16 bit and then printing or viewing on 8 bit devices achieves superior results.

OTOH, it is fairly straightfoward to show that starting with 16 bit data, manipulating it, and then converting to 8 bit as the final step gives a better end result compared to working strictly in 8 bit.

And finally -- I don't plan to spend the rest of this beautiful day debating these fine points. :D

[John_T]

Well... whatever the technical and intellectual arguments, something I observed a long time ago made this all pretty clear. Make a jpeg and a 16bit tiff from the same RAW. Open them both at 800-1200%. Apply USM or anything and watch the pixels jump. Save them both and then do the same again with the saved images. Notice how constant the 16 bit tiff behaves compared to the jpeg. Use a healing or clone brush and see how differently they behave. The stripped bits are the difference. Save the jpeg as a 16bit tiff and play with it at 800-1200%. Of course it won't look like the other 16bit tiff, but it will behave a lot better than the jpeg.

Dunno about the theory, but I sure like working with tiffs and psds better than tricky jpegs.

[maderito]

Well... whatever the technical and intellectual arguments, something I observed a long time ago made this all pretty clear. Make a jpeg and a 16bit tiff from the same RAW. Open them both at 800-1200%. Apply USM or anything and watch the pixels jump. Save them both and then do the same again with the saved images. Notice how constant the 16 bit tiff behaves compared to the jpeg. Use a healing or clone brush and see how differently they behave. The stripped bits are the difference. Save the jpeg as a 16bit tiff and play with it at 800-1200%. Of course it won't look like the other 16bit tiff, but it will behave a lot better than the jpeg.

Dunno about the theory, but I sure like working with tiffs and psds better than tricky jpegs.

John_T,

Good point. However, JPEGs are a different beast - not only because of the lossy compression but also because of the harmonic data transforms performed by JPEG algorithms (leading to the artifacts). Try your same "experiment" on 16 vs. 8 bit TIFF files (from RAW). Maybe I'll even try it!

What is indisputable for me is the "comfort factor" in working in 16 bit - whether real or perceived. When I'm editing in 8 bit, I have a constant anxiety about disappearing image data. :shock:

[John_T]

Hi Woody.

8bit vs. 16bit tiffs is only a practical matter in my book. Both are equally valid to work in. Assuming you always keep your holy RAW, it is a matter of computer umph, disk space and/or what your software will handle. With more and more software accomodating 16bit, I don't see any reason not to work in 16bit unless one is limited by umph or space.

Then, depending on your primary output medium, screen, web or print, the question is whether you gain anything visible. In my case, though it is sometimes only subtle, I do see the difference it makes to shoot AdobeRGB RAW and convert to 16bit tiff or psd.

As long as my original RAW is safe, I never worry about losing anything. I can always go back and do it all again. I always assume that the next time I go back to a particular image I will know more and have more tools to do a better job, so more often than not I don't even save processed conversions from RAW. Just play with them to see what I can get out of them, maybe send someone a jpeg, print if there's a reason and then dump it. If it's a job or for something specific I maybe will keep them, but never consider a conversion holy 'cause I know I will do better next time around.

Now RAW, that's something Holy! :lol:

[chris.bailey]

I have not tried the 8-16-8 trick but if you go out and purposefully underexpose a shot, throw in the wrong white balance and then convert to 8 and 16 bit, correct in PS all the things you have done wrong and then print the two at 8 x 10, the 16 bit image is significantly better. The toothing in the histogram shows up on print. shooting in 16 bit allows for a much greater degree of recovery.

Maybe a bit extreme and well exposed images show far more subtle improvements in 16 bit but for me it is obvious that the more PS manipulation you do, the more important those extra few bits of colour become.

[John_T]

Absolutely right. The better your printer, the more you begin to see things that didn't seem so important before.

I just upgraded my Canon i9100, which I thought was fantastic, to the i9950. Oh boy, all kinds of surprises. Just_fantastically_more_fantastic!

I'm going to have to stop this upgrading stuff. It always sends me back to the drawing board, putting everything I have ever done in question again! Jeez! :lol:

[Scottes]

...it is obvious that the more PS manipulation you do, the more important those extra few bits of colour become.

I couldn't agree more.

[quickben]

3n) Soft Proof
3o) Re-saturate/Fix out-of-gamut
3p) Convert to printer profile



Could you explain these steps ?

I agree with the rest of your workflow, but I'm not familiar with these terms or how to implement them.

Plus, how do you calibrate your monitor ? (I have an LG 915FT +)

Cheers

Gary.

[Scottes]

Soft Proofing is checking to see how the image will print on your printer. Approximately, of course.

Go to View... Proof Setup... Custom. For the Profile choose the profile for your printer and paper. For Intent choose Releative Colorimetric, which is usually good for printing. Choosing Perceptual may also be appropriate. Enable Use Black Point Compensation and disable the other two. Hit OK.

Now when you have an image up you can shoose Image... Proof Colors and PS will attempt to show you what your print will look like. If you have heavily saturated colors you should see them dull down, possibly quite a bit. It might not change at all - which is A Very Good Thing.

View... Gamut Warning will show you colors that you printer can not print, usually due to over-saturation. Out of Gamut colors will be highlighted in gray. To fix them, you can:


1. You could do nothing. The printer driver will take all colors that are out of gamut and clip or remap to colors within the printer color space. You do need to tell the printer what is the soure color space (e.g. Adobe RGB) and turn on printer color management.

2. You could edit the picture to eliminate the gamut warnings. Then you see something closer to what will be printed if you have a well calibrated monitor.

3. You could convert the image to sRGB since that will map all colors to a color space that is printable by standard Canon printers AND viewable on a well calibrated monitor. You can verify this by making the conversion (Image>mode>convert to profile), selecting the appropriate Canon profile under View>Proof setup>custom and checking Proof Colors and Gamut Warning. Any previously noted gamut warnings should be gone.



However, all that hoopla may very well not be necessary.. . Read this topic: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=37602

Some insight from John_T with agreements from Maderito led me to change my beliefs in all but the most finicky moments. At least for now. So before you go crazy I would read that topic. It may make you more crazy at first, but there's a few posts from John_T, Maderito, and I which may save you a lot of trouble.