Digital BW, The Print

Thanks John,

Why wouldn't I use Adobe1998 for the monitor as well? Sorry for my 
ignorance.


Take care,
Gregory david Stempel
www.fireframeimaging.com
www.soundexposure.org

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Stempel"
<fyrframe@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks John,
> 
> Why wouldn't I use Adobe1998 for the monitor as well? Sorry for my 
> ignorance.

Okay:
In fairly simple terms, the monitor and printer profiles attempt to
make those devices conform to a standard look (neutral color & proper
gamma.

The colorspace, in photoshop defines how large of space you want the
file to contain. Obviously you don't want to "clip" any colors from
what you get from the scanner or camera. This is why Adobe98 has been
the defacto standard. (There are some other wide color spaces out there)

The printer colorspace will be considerably smaller than what Adobe 98
is. The monitor space will also be smaller, and differently
constrained, than the Adobe98 space is. By using Adobe98 as the color
space in Photoshop, you are allowing your file to retain as much of
it's original color as you can. If you use the printer profile or the
monitor color space, you will end up changing the file and clipping
some of the color gamut from it. 

Does this make sense to you now?

If anyone out there disagrees with any part of my explanation, please
chime in. I realize that this is the B&W list, but I'm sure there are
plenty of color experts out there also.

John Nollendorfs

Thanks John, 

I understand. And sorry if this was off topic.


Take care,
Gregory david Stempel
www.fireframeimaging.com
www.soundexposure.org