Digital Color is Making Me Crazy. Need Book.

[QT Luong]

While Real World Photoshop is good, if you want to understand everything about digital color, the book to read is
Real World Color Management.

[paulr]

another vote for the Real World Photoshop series.

some quick tips:

-memorize the color wheel, or have a copy of it handy
-work in RGB (there are many reasons for this, unrelated to how easy it is ... but it is relatively easy to learn)
-learn to make all your adjustments with a Curves layer. All tonal adjustments and all color corrections. It might make you crazy in the begining, but it will be worth it. Resist the temptation to use Color Balance, Hue/Saturation, or Levels. Some of these tools have their place, but you want to master Curves first.
-finally (or first) make sure you're starting with a good scan. If you have curve crossing issues in the scan, getting the color right can be murder.

[Howard Slavitt]

Another strong vote for Real World Photoshop by Fraser and Blatner.

Years ago when Photoshop 4 (now we're on Photoshop 9) was the latest and greatest, I started learning Photoshop and have read 1 to 2 books everytime I upgrade (I've upgraded to each new version). The first book I read was the then current version of PS Artistry (Haynes, Crumpler), which someone else is recommending. It was very helpful, but I don't think it compares to Real World Photoshop.

I've studied 2 or 3 versions of Real World Photoshop. They're all similar, but I purchased a couple of different versions because I figured it was worth rereading a couple of times, and figured if I'm going to study it again it's worth reading the most recent version. Each time I read and study the book I learn a lot of new things, and assimilate it at a different level.

The most recent book I read was Photoshop Raw the CS 2 version by Fraser. It is also fantastic if you're going to be working with Raw digital files.

One other comment -- I'd recommend avoiding the Dan Margulis book for your first book. I've read a lot of articles by Margulis. He's extremely knowledgeable and proficient in Photoshop. However, he is a contrarian, advocating an approach that differs from the mainstream color management and colorsync approach recommended by just about everyone else. So if you're interested in Margulis' apprpoach, you should probably first read Real World Photoshop, and then you'll know what he's opposing.

It takes awhile to assimilate the information, but it's worth it.

[neil poulsen]

Here are some answers to your questions. These are from my own point of view:

1] Photoshop Settings: Based on other parts of your questions, I'm wondering if you mean the Color Settings. I would use Adobe RGB (1998) for your RGB working space, select U.S. Web Coated for CMYK, and 20% dot gain for Gray. (Don't know about spot.) As for C.M. Policies, select Preserve Embedded Profiles for all of these and select "Ask When Opening" for the three questions. Usually, when profiles are embedded, the embedder, whether it be person or software, knows what they're doing by embedding the profile. (We assume this.)
If you have two disk drives, put your swap file on one and the image file on another.

2] As long as it's selected, the operating system takes care of using your monitor profile. So, don't worry about what Photoshop sees, as far as the monitor profile is concerned. At least, there's no place in Photoshop where you select a Monitor profile of which I'm aware. You can make sure the correct profile is selected by going to Preferences|Displays|Color. Highlight the correct profile. Don't try to change the profile's file name. The profile belongs in the following folder: Library|ColorSync|Profiles.

3] I see where there's a place where one can select ColorSync, Adobe (ACE), or Apple CMM. I'm not sure about the differences between these three. I doubt you can go much wrong with the default of Adobe (ACE). I need to find out more about these.

4] Frankly, I wouldn't profile my scanner, unless I needed to do color reproduction with it, where color accuracy was really important. Otherwise, your scanner's color gamut becomes limited to the scanner target that you employ. In the case of Kodak's IT8 target, that's not good. This is especially true, if you plan on modifying your colors, anyway. If you do profile your scanner, it depends on your scanner. One system of which I'm aware embeds the profile and you assign it when it comes into Photoshop. Even if it's not embedded, you can assign it when you bring in the image. After loading the image, make sure the profile's in the above folder and invoke Edit|Assign and select the profile from the drop down menu. Make sure the scanner doesn't assign it first, which I doubt. You don't want to assign it twice. The image's colors will change, when you assign the scanner profile. You want this to happen. It's modifying the colors by correcting them.

5] Don't work in sRGB ever, with the possible exception of the web. I believe that sRGB gives you the grand total of 256 colors with which to work. Adobe 1998 is the most accepted working space in which to work. Some people use ProPhoto, but only with 16 bit images.

6] If you're not using Epson papers, you'll need to find a profile, or have one made for your paper and for your printer. Strange that you can't find Epson papers; go to a photo store. Check your manual on where to load the profile prior to printing. On Epson printers, there's a drop down menu from which one selects Color Management. Specify your printer profile there under Print Space. You may need to specify your profile, or at least the paper you're using, in one more place, just before you print. This tells the driver about ink restrictions. The above applies to my driver. Different drivers operate somewhat differently. When you can, use Black Point Compensation, an Adobe patented feature. (Although, I don't know how they got that one by the unobvious requirement.) It's a good thing and gives you better separation in the shadows.

[Mark Stahlke]

Hi John,

I recommend taking a look at "Color Confidence" by Tim Grey. This is not a book on how to use Photoshop although PS is used for the examples. Rather, this is a book about color management. It's full of information about color spaces, profiles, color correction and even has some suggested workflows. Just to whet your appetite, here is the Table of Contents:

1. Foundations

2. Photoshop Setup

3. Display

4. Scanning

5. Digital Capture

6. Optimization

7. Output

8. Worlflow

Take a look at it at a bookstore or library and see if it answers your questions.

Cheers

[Kirk Keyes]

"5] Don't work in sRGB ever, with the possible exception of the web. I believe that sRGB gives you the grand total of 256 colors with which to work. "

Neil - I think sRGB has more like 256*256*256 colors. It is just a smaller color space than Adobe RGB. Scroll down a bit on this page to see a comparison. http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/color_spaces.htm

Kirk

[neil poulsen]

Kirk,

We shall see about that me lad, yes indeed, we shall see!

But then, it is clear that I have FULLY covered myself, fully covered. For it is plain for all to see that I said,

"I believe . . . "

So, I never actually said 'twas so.

But to my advice to avoid sRGB like the plague, I stand by that. To work within sRGB is like to taking a hedge clipper to your image. To someone else's, perhaps. But, not to yours.

Neil

[Kirk Keyes]

"But to my advice to avoid sRGB like the plague, I stand by that. "

Certainly good advice there!

[Marko]

Neil and Kirk, no offense meant, but I think you confuse bit depth and color space.

Bit depth is a number of shades available per each of the three color channels in the RGB digital image and applies equally to sRGB as it does to AdobeRGB, or any other color space for that matter. In the 8-bit image red, green and blue channels are each capable of representing 256 shades of red, green and blue "colors" respectively. Therefore, total number of shades available in an 8-bit image is approx. 16 million.

Total number of shades available in 16-bit RGB image would be in the billions, since each of the three channels is capable of representing 4096 shades. This all aplies to color images - grayscale images are single-channel only, and therefore can represent 256 shades of gray in 8 bit depth or 4096 shades of gray in 16 bit depth.

This is why it is recommended to scan in 16-bit RGB for best results. While we do end up discarding lot of that information in the end by converting to 8-bit, we discard it AFTER all the processing is already done and in the process reduce banding and posterization.

sRGB and AdobeRGB (and others) are color spaces - they define not the number of shades but the number of colors available. Each of those colors can be represented using either 8 or 256 shades.

That being said, it is still a very sound advice not to use sRGB for anything except screen representation, as it has been tailored specifically for that purpose. Virtually any other output device has wider color capability and AdobeRGB is usually the best compromise.

Regards,

[Kirk Keyes]

Marko - I don't believe that I was confusing color space and/or bit depth.

"sRGB and AdobeRGB (and others) are color spaces - they define not the number of shades but the number of colors available. "

And I also don't believe that your sentence here is right either - color spaces do not affect the "number of colors available". They affect the saturation and range of possible colors, i.e. the spacing between the possible colors if you will.

After all, 256*256*256 is still the same "number" of colors regardless of the color space chosen, right?