Lady Bronze wrote:
such hooplah! I know ziltch about taking a picture, but I do know when editing or uploading an image, always convert to an sRGB profile - it is the most universally accepted color profile on most monitors.

lol - but if it weren't for all this hooplah, we'd never use the big words we spent big money learning.

meh.

joenov1977 dallas wrote:
Thanks for all the info guys!   The article "Understanding rendering intents: Which one and why?" was a big help.

And there's a great example of rendering intents in the Real World Color Management book, complete with chromaticity diagrams and output images (image of bicycle parts or something like that).

If you want to mess around with colors and color spaces, try out ColorThink

http://www2.chromix.com/colorthink/

And I just found that Chromix now has a colorwiki

http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/ColorWiki_Home

which could be yet another source of authoritative information.

Lumondo Photography wrote:

lol - but if it weren't for all this hooplah, we'd never use the big words we spent big money learning.

meh.

I dig the hooplah impressive thread!

Kevin Connery wrote:

Minor quibble--sRGB is the closest of the standard profiles to a generic, UNcalibrated monitor. Since most monitors are NOT profiled, and most browsers entirely ignore color profiles in files, sRGB is the best fall-back space. It's not "accurate" on such displays, but it's the best option available today. (See Lumondo Photography's earlier post for more depth.)

I thought I typed uncalibrated? Guess not.

Dually noted.

Lady Bronze wrote:

I dig the hooplah impressive thread!

Well, here is a word I saw today which I had never seen before. It's not large, but it also doesn't sound pleasant - pankration. It was on an ad for "kickboxing and pankration".

It sounds like the act of removing a vital organ, but in fact it appears to be a sport that goes back to antiquity. One in which two naked men mount each other to the joyful glee of onlookers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration

I tell you, one might ask where the world is going to... but perhaps to greater horror one realizes where the world actually came from.

It's late and I'm likely off topic.

Lumondo Photography wrote:

Well, here is a word I saw today which I had never seen before. It's not large, but it also doesn't sound pleasant - pankration. It was on an ad for "kickboxing and pankration".

It sounds like the act of removing a vital organ, but in fact it appears to be a sport that goes back to antiquity. One in which two naked men mount each other to the joyful glee of onlookers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pankration

I tell you, one might ask where the world is going to... but perhaps to greater horror one realizes where the world actually came from.

It's late and I'm likely off topic.

jamesdickens wrote:
sorry joe... wrong again. if you want your work to be of optimum quality so it can be published in a real magazine... instead of just on a 2200, shoot Raw.

joenov1977 dallas wrote:
Huh? I said to use Raw. I use raw in s RGB. All the printers I use . Fuji Frontier use sRGB. so how was I wrong?

I'm sorry to disappoint you Joe, but you can't shoot RAW sRGB on any camera. There is no color space defined when you shoot RAW, you define it as you open and process it.

The problem I see here (and I didn't read the whole thread) is that as usual, everyone is giving "solid" advice based on their own criteria, which may not be appropriate for what the readers are doing. Not everyone has prints made at a photo lab or on a home printer (I haven't made a serious print on my printer for at least 5 years). I shoot primarily for publication, so I want all my options. The only time I shoot JPG/sRGB is for simple stuff I know is only going to the web or for low-quality printing, and never an expectation of high-end use (like when I photograph dogs for my rescue group). Anything I'm serious about (model stuff) is done in RAW, processed out to ProPhoto, and then converted if and when necessary for the web. And yes, Costco likes sRGB, so for the few prints I've had made there, I convert those files to sRGB.

Andy Pearlman