Hello, Interesting that you raised this subject. I had been discussing this issue a few times recently. I am curious to see if someone can show me the benefits of using this space. My opinion up to now has been that it often adds an extra step in the workflow, hence complicating, without providing any tangible benefits. It is currently not automatically installed with most DTP apps, or RIPs, if any, which increases the possibility of profile mismatch somewhere down the line in production, for example, in Photoshop. I don't know of digital cameras of scanbacks that by default support this space either. We generally work with ProPhoto and AdobeRGB 1998. Best regards. Darrian Young -----Mensaje original----- De: eci-en-admin(a)lists.transmedia.de [mailto:eci-en-admin@lists.transmedia.de] En nombre de Jo Brunenberg Enviado el: lunes, 08 de diciembre de 2003 11:19 Para: eci-en(a)lists.transmedia.de Asunto: [ECI-EN] ECI-RGB / Any advantages? CONCERNING: ECI-RGB / Any advantages? At a recent meeting I heard that the application of the ECI RGB ICC profile would result in a better grey balance. I made a number of tests on this subject but did not find any proof for this statement. See test description and results below. Could anyone explain to me in which workflow it could be advantageous to use the ECI RGB ICC profile? Thanks for any comments! Best regards, Jo Brunenberg Senior technology consultant Prepress / ICT LOGIC USE BV member of Roto Smeets -------------------------------------------------- Test description - Test image: TC 2.88 (RGB target with colors covering complete RGB colorspace, including neutral greys, saturated and pastel colors etc. - I made the following versions of this file: 1. assigned sRGB 2. assigned Adobe RGB 3. assigned ECI RGB 4.assigned a scanner-RGB 5. converted to profile: sRGB 6. converted to profile Adobe RGB 7. converted to profile ECI RGB Next step: All 7 RGB-files were A) converted to profile (CMYK) with profile ECIwebcoatedsb.icc B) converted to profile (CMYK) with our custom web offset profile Next step: All files were proofed on IRIS A) with profile ECIwebcoatedsb.icc B) with our custom web offset profile Results: - No differences in grey balance between A and B - No differences in grey balance between all 7 versions on proof A and B - Only the following differences between A and B: - Some more color saturation in proof A - Some more shadow detail in proof A These last two observations can be explained by the fact that the ISO profile (printed on a sheet-fed press) has a larger color space compared to our custom profile. (printed on a web press). _______________________________________________ ECI-EN mailing list ECI-EN(a)lists.transmedia.de http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci-en _______________________________________________ ECI-EN mailing list ECI-EN(a)lists.transmedia.de http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci-en

On Dec 8, 2003, at 2:03 PM, Florian Süßl wrote: That's the exact opposite. Gamma 2.2 shifts more bits to the shadow end of things. By going with gamma 1.8, fewer bits are applied to the shadow end, and more toward highlights. Chris Murphy Color Remedies (TM) www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor --------------------------------------------------------- Co-author "Real World Color Management" Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0-201-77340-6) _______________________________________________ ECI-EN mailing list ECI-EN(a)lists.transmedia.de http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci-en

Hello,   Do you have some examples of better shadow details when using a 1.8 gamma?  Are you then also always calibrating all monitors to 1.8 as well?  In the case that you create a completely internal workflow, then yes, you are right in that there would not be an extra step.  In most places where I go, however this is not the case.  Files come in all shapes and sizes, and AdobeRGB is very common (probably the most common after sRGB), so then there would either need to be this extra conversion, as I mentioned, for the files to continue along smoothly in the worflow, or else a second path would need to be created for them, which, in my opinion, is once again complicating things.  If there is a definitely a quality increase, then great, but I just haven’t seen it yet.   Regarding the default color spaces in Photoshop, yes, you are right.  For example, the fact that the ISO profiles are not included adds extra work in configuring, and is confusing for some.  In my opinion, however,  there is a quality increase when using the ISO profiles which makes it worthwhile to take the time to load them in.  Speaking of  default spaces, in which case would AdobeRGB not meet someone’s needs, but which would be met with ECI RGB?  Thanks.   Best regards. Darrian -----Mensaje original----- De:eci-en-admin@lists.transmedia.de [mailto:eci-en-admin@lists.transmedia.de]En nombre deFlorian Süßl Enviado el:lunes, 08 de diciembre de 2003 22:04 Para:eci-en@lists.transmedia.de Asunto:Re: [ECI-EN] ECI-RGB / Any advantages?   Hello, Using ECI RGB instead of other working spaces does not add an extra step. ECI RGB is just an alternative to other working spaces - one converts from the input space (e.g. scanner or digital camera space) to either ECI RGB or AdobeRGB. As long as RGB data is color charakterized by a valid ICC profile the major prerequisition for professional use is given. With respect to ECI's decision to create another RGB working space Dr. Bestmann already raised the major issues: D50 accoring to the Intl. lighting standard in the graphics industry and gamma 1.8 that turned out to offer better shadow details compared to Gamma 2.2 Regarding the possibility of mismatches I have to agree, BUT: The default profile choice of major apps such as Adobe Photoshop does not fit everybodys needs - yes in the US but not at all somewhere else in the world (nobody prints according to SWOP in Japan, nobody does in Europe ;-)) Best Regards, Florian Suessl Am 08.12.2003 um 21:20 schrieb Darrian Young: Hello, Interesting that you raised this subject. I had been discussing this issue a few times recently. I am curious to see if someone can show me the benefits of using this space. My opinion up to now has been that it often adds an extra step in the workflow, hence complicating, without providing any tangible benefits. It is currently not automatically installed with most DTP apps, or RIPs, if any, which increases the possibility of profile mismatch somewhere down the line in production, for example, in Photoshop. I don't know of digital cameras of scanbacks that by default support this space either. We generally work with ProPhoto and AdobeRGB 1998. Best regards. Darrian Young -----Mensaje original----- De: eci-en-admin(a)lists.transmedia.de [mailto:eci-en-admin@lists.transmedia.de] En nombre de Jo Brunenberg Enviado el: lunes, 08 de diciembre de 2003 11:19 Para: eci-en(a)lists.transmedia.de Asunto: [ECI-EN] ECI-RGB / Any advantages? CONCERNING: ECI-RGB / Any advantages? At a recent meeting I heard that the application of the ECI RGB ICC profile would result in a better grey balance. I made a number of tests on this subject but did not find any proof for this statement. See test description and results below. Could anyone explain to me in which workflow it could be advantageous to use the ECI RGB ICC profile? Thanks for any comments! Best regards, Jo Brunenberg Senior technology consultant Prepress / ICT LOGIC USE BV member of Roto Smeets -------------------------------------------------- Test description - Test image: TC 2.88 (RGB target with colors covering complete RGB colorspace, including neutral greys, saturated and pastel colors etc. - I made the following versions of this file: 1. assigned sRGB 2. assigned Adobe RGB 3. assigned ECI RGB 4.assigned a scanner-RGB 5. converted to profile: sRGB 6. converted to profile Adobe RGB 7. converted to profile ECI RGB Next step: All 7 RGB-files were A) converted to profile (CMYK) with profile ECIwebcoatedsb.icc B) converted to profile (CMYK) with our custom web offset profile Next step: All files were proofed on IRIS A) with profile ECIwebcoatedsb.icc B) with our custom web offset profile Results: - No differences in grey balance between A and B - No differences in grey balance between all 7 versions on proof A and B - Only the following differences between A and B: - Some more color saturation in proof A - Some more shadow detail in proof A These last two observations can be explained by the fact that the ISO profile (printed on a sheet-fed press) has a larger color space compared to our custom profile. (printed on a web press). _______________________________________________ ECI-EN mailing list ECI-EN(a)lists.transmedia.de http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci-en _______________________________________________ ECI-EN mailing list ECI-EN(a)lists.transmedia.de http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci-en -- Florian Suessl | Director Technology MetaDesign AG | Leibnizstrasse 65 | 10629 Berlin +49 30 590 054 246 | fax +49 30 590 054 114 | fsuessl(a)metadesign.de A Lost Boys company | http://www.metadesign.de

Hi Florian,   From my experiences comparing to the Euroscale v2 profile, the ISO allows more saturated colors, and has a more uniform greyscale.  Where I see the main benefit, however, is that the profiles and characterization data, together with the conditions in which each profile was made, are easily available to all, allowing for many more people to speak the same language.  It has been very difficult, until now,  to have 1 reference which everyone can use.  A couple of weeks ago I did a test and sent the Altona Visual to three service bureaus for a Digital Cromalin using the Eurostandard setting, and got three very different results.  Also, until now, a web profile was lacking, as was data for different paper types.  For the printers, there have been different results.  Those who received files with no warning that the ISO standard was being used had difficulties reaching the proof, while those who were told about the change and were aware have been reaching it.   Best regards.   Darrian   -----Mensaje original----- De:eci-en-admin@lists.transmedia.de [mailto:eci-en-admin@lists.transmedia.de]En nombre deFlorian Süßl Enviado el:lunes, 08 de diciembre de 2003 23:10 Para:eci-en@lists.transmedia.de Asunto:Re: [ECI-EN] ECI-RGB / Any advantages?   Hello Darrian, Good points, Thanks. - yes we calibrate our displays to Gamma 1.8 And therefore have the same situation as you have with Gamma 2.2 and profiles based on the same Gamma. As long as no switching from/to 'your' and 'our' workflow is needed both of us are just fine. The common settings not only in our workflow are D50 and Gamma 1.8. Based on visual comparison with proofs under D50 one sometimes slightly changes the white point to 5500 K but never changes the Gamma. At that point it seems to be an issue of what's common and *not* a technical issue based on quality aspects. At least in Germany ECI RGB is very common - many image data bases use this color gamut as reference and the ECI (European Color Initiative) recommends using ECI-RGB in two cookbooks about pdf-workflows (pdf/x-1a and pdf/x-3). But there is another point you raised that makes me very curious to hear more about your experiences with the ISO profiles. What kind of quality increase did you see using the ISO profiles? Did you print seps already? What kind of experiences did the printers have as e.g. the dot gain is significantly lower. Looking forward to learning more ... Best Regards, Florian

Hello Darian, Chris and all other participants in this discussion, I am really amazed about the lengthy discussion following my simple question! Just to make it clear: The discussion is not about the ECI CMYK profiles but about advantages (if any) of using ECI-RGB in a workflow. My original question (which came to my mind after a lot of testing) and which caused this discussion was: Could anyone explain to me in which workflow it could be advantageous to use the ECI-RGB ICC profile? So far I have not seen any positive (documented) replies to this question but I did see a number of answers indicating that the use of ECI-RGB does not have real benefits . I tend to agree with the following statements: - Using ECI-RGB (compared to for instance Adobe RGB) does not bring any advantages in terms of greybalance when converting from RGB to (ECI-)CMYK - Using ECI-RGB (compared to for instance Adobe RGB) does not bring any advantages in terms of other quality issues when converting from RGB to (ECI-)CMYK - Converting scanned images (with included scanner profile) or digital camera images (with included profile) to ECI- RGB only adds an extra step in the workflow without adding any quality, so it is an unneccessary step. So my question still stands out: Could anyone explain to me in which workflow it could be advantageous to use the ECI-RGB ICC profile? Best regards, Jo Brunenberg Senior technology consultant Prepress / ICT LOGIC USE BV (member of Roto Smeets) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- eci-en(a)lists.transmedia.de,Internet writes: _______________________________________________ ECI-EN mailing list ECI-EN(a)lists.transmedia.de http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci-en

Hi James, Hi List Normaly the Raw Data from Digital Camears or Scanners need some optimization. This ist best done in well balanced RGB-Workingspace like AdobeRGB, ECI-RGB or even colormatchRGB Nobody I know, who is working professional with Digital Images is using a cemara or scanner profile as working space in Photoshop. The adavantages are good described in the book real world colormanagement. :-) Jan-Peter

In our vision (we're magazine publishers) we ideally want all our images, which come from more and more different digital sources, to be delivered to us in the largest possible colourspace, so when shot with a digital camera we want the camera's profile attached as a source profile, and we ask our lithographers to attach their scanners profile.

I must add that this workflow is a pain when using Quark Xpress 4 (and we're still a long way from a total switch to InDesign...)

But I think people must be very careful when enhancing images in wide gamut spaces, including Adobe RGB. It is possible to enhance images in these spaces to the point you will get disastrous CMYK conversions if the image contains large amounts of important, fine, saturated, and out of print gamut detail. It simply gets obliterated in the conversion. Smaller spaces don't have this problem because you can't enhance the image so far out of the CMYK gamut.

from your experience - how helpful do you think is turning on softproofing (aiming at some press profile that at least comes close to the printing process that's going to be used later on in production) in Photoshop while 'working on an image' (whether in Adobe RGB or eciRGB)? Is the onscreen preview good enough to make the user aware of problems she may be running into later on when the image will get separated? Olaf Druemmer

To be honest I never understood how those folks had a mind to get an RGB workflow flowing without agreement on a default source gamut, a set of default destination gamuts, and a way to check if the cross-rendered ICC color proof was on target.

To put some sort of workflow standardization in place, the main thing is to make the U.S. consultants work with the ECI and stop their support for proprietary solutions based on profiling a proofing system (Approval . . . whatever).

On torsdag, dec 11, 2003, at 19:11 Europe/Copenhagen, Chris Murphy wrote: There are two positions, as Roger Breton pointed out a while ago: (1) A printing press is by definition too unstable to be usefully described in an ICC CMYK printer profile, and print profiling software and print profiling instruments cannot usefully be applied to such a task. (2) In the U.S. there is an organization which certifies proofing systems according to a process for which the same organization has set no real colorimetric tolerances. The second position is intended to provide assurance without pressing for instrument-based colorimetric tolerances. This position did not and does not make sense. Pre-certification of proofs without printing tolerances versus self-certification of proofs with printing tolerances isn't much of an argument . . . the latter wins out every time -:). Thanks, Henrik _______________________________________________ ECI-EN mailing list ECI-EN(a)lists.transmedia.de http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci-en

On fredag, dec 12, 2003, at 13:21 Europe/Copenhagen, Jan-Peter Homann wrote: This is the only way to go IMHO. But I'll grant that the limitation with ICC workflows is that the instrument and the software are in addition to the digital color printer, the substrate, the monitor, the Adobe software, the monitor and the kitchen sink. So in all fairness there is a place for the pre-certified approach, even if it is nice to hit on it once in a while -:). Thanks, Henrik _______________________________________________ ECI-EN mailing list ECI-EN(a)lists.transmedia.de http://lists.transmedia.de/mailman/listinfo/eci-en

On torsdag, dec 11, 2003, at 19:11 Europe/Copenhagen, Chris Murphy wrote: There are two positions, as Roger Breton pointed out a while ago: (1) A printing press is by definition too unstable to be usefully described in an ICC CMYK printer profile, and print profiling software and print profiling instruments cannot usefully be applied to such a task. (2) In the U.S. there is an organization which certifies proofing systems according to a process for which the same organization has set no real colorimetric tolerances. The second position is intended to provide assurance without pressing for instrument-based colorimetric tolerances. This position did not and does not make sense. Pre-certification of proofs without printing tolerances versus self-certification of proofs with printing tolerances isn't much of an argument . . . the latter wins out every time -:).