RGB or CMYK in print?

[sannysmith]

Hello All,

Since I am new to the world of print publication I wanted to know if a RGB at 300dpi or CMYK at 300dpi photograph is advisable.

The photographs would go in various print magazines,brochures, etc.

Also when giving instructions to a professional photographer what all should I mention that I need a high res tiff file. Is that the best format to use for print?

Hope makes sense as I really have no idea how print publication works.

Thanks!
Sanny

 

[mattbeals]

I'd say RGB as the master and then convert to the publications profile. Hopefully the publications are using a standard profile like SWOP 2006 3v2 or 5v2. I wouldn't advise sending the image off as RGB since you don't know how the recipient will convert it to some CMYK. If you're contracting for digital photography ask for a DNG or a RAW file if available. If those aren't available get a TIFF. There isn't really a best format for print. The question is really what format and color space is best for repurposing the art (the image in this case). And a DNG is a great way of doing that.

 

[Stephen Marsh]

> Since I am new to the world of print publication I wanted to know if a
> RGB at 300dpi or CMYK at 300dpi photograph is advisable.

It depends if you have your colour management set-up correctly.

Are you going to honour the clients embedded RGB ICC profile?

What if they give you "mystery meat" - an untagged file with no profile associated?

Many pro photogs don't want to bother with CMYK and will only want to
give you RGB (some prepress and printers don't want CMYK from the client
- others do). Some other pro photogs will be comfortable with CMYK and
will wish to control the mapping of Out of Gamut colours and tones
rather than leaving it to you. What CMYK profile would you advise such
suppliers to use in the conversion?


> The photographs would go in various print magazines,brochures, etc.

Do all of these print destinations use the same output profile? Can one output
profile be used for all of this CMYK output?


> Also when giving instructions to a professional photographer what all
> should I mention that I need a high res tiff file. Is that the best
> format to use for print?

Is the image going to be used at a single size, or will the image be
reproduced at various image sizes? Will you ask for an image to be sized
at the appropriate physical repro size for each use at the appropriate
resolution for the line-screen and quality factor in use? Or will you
simply ask for the largest original (uninterpolated) pixel sized image
that the client has and handle the resizing yourself?

All these questions and answers depend on your level of expertise, your
clients level of expertise and how you wish to work and who is taking
the responsibility for the various stages of work (the fall guy).

At this stage, I think that there are more questions than answers!

There are a few "guidelines" published by different repro and pro photog
groups, I'll dig up some links for you when I have more time.


Stephen Marsh

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Here are some links go guidlines:

UPDIG: Home (updig_image_receivers_guidelines_v40.pdf)

File Delivery | dpBestflow (File Delivery)

Ghent PDF Workgroup | Digital Photography | Digital Photography (Ghent Workgroup)


Regards,

Stephen Marsh

 

[gordo]

If you're contracting for digital photography ask for a DNG or a RAW file if available.

WOW! That sure was a surprise to read. I can't believe that any professional photographer would ever hand over their DNG/RAW files.

best, gordon p

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Matt mentions proprietary raw camera files and or .dng versions of the raw data. Fleshing this concept out a little bit...

Often one would also need the .xmp sidecar data (or this embedded into the DNG) that will produce the desired rendering from a specific raw converter, otherwise the Photographer's preferred rendering will not be produced (as there are many ways to "develop a negative" and different software will result in very different results). Most pro photographers would not release their "digital negatives" (raw camera files) and would only supply a fully rendered file that has their preferred rendering "baked in".

It is of course an option, although not as simple as a native camera sensor sized image with the appropriate ICC profile tagged to it.

EDIT: I see that Gordo has similar thoughts to me in regards to the pro photographers being willing to release their raw data files. I am a member of pro photography email lists and know what many of these guys think - this data is usually not released by photographers.


Stephen Marsh

 

[mattbeals]

Getting the RAW image(s) all depends on the contract you have with an outside photographer. If you have an in-house photographer then it is a different story and getting a DNG should be relatively easy. When I bought digital photography we purchased RAW images. I know of at least one very large publisher who "buys" RAW images from their stable of photographers. Photographers who are smart charge accordingly for selling the RAW image. Or, they have a solid relationship with their clients like I did with my photographer(s).

This isn't too much different than sending someone your native files to be output where they can be massaged and manipulated by prepress prior to output or sending a PDF/X-4. Compared to sending a PDF/X-1a...

 

[gordo]

This isn't too much different than sending someone your native files to be output where they can be massaged and manipulated by prepress prior to output or sending a PDF/X-4. Compared to sending a PDF/X-1a...

I think it's very different than prepress massaging my files before output. For example, the top image is the RAW image and below it the result of my processing it i.e. how I saw/felt the scene.

I don't think a prepress dept would achieve the result that I wanted to achieve from the RAW file.

But maybe if the images were grocery flyer type product images, then I guess RAW images would be OK though.

You've given me something to think about for sure.

thx, gordon p

 

[mattbeals]

No, I think it would be almost impossible for them to achieve what you wanted without some sort of clear instructions. Often times though prepress departments are told "just make it look good" when it comes to color conversions. If I received a RAW image such as the top one I would say it "looks pretty good". Is it the scene as you remembered it? No, but i don't know that. If I received the image below I would understand that to mean "hey, this is the way I want it printed.".

It's a two fold question which "I think" was worded in reverse from a workflow stand point. I would first ask "what format should I get from my photographer and in what color space?". Second question would be "what color space and resolution should I provide the image in for various publications?". Third question could be "Should I have the photographer make the conversion?".

To me the most flexible answer to question one would be RAW. If you want the photographer to do corrections then maybe a .PSD. But you have to be clear in the contract what you want. Whether or not it is adjusted you should be asking for RGB so it can be repurposed.

Part of the answer to the second question is predicated on the answer to the first as well as what the output space is.

For the third question, it may not be a bad idea as long as the photographer knows what spaces to adjust for and tags the images appropriately.

So the whole idea of PDF/X-1a is to say "here's my color space and everything is ready to go, hands off!". Which is like sending an untagged CMYK image. PDF/X-4 isn't much different other than to say "flatten the transparency for me". And that isn't too far removed from the idea of sending a tagged CMYK image that needs to be converted to a different space. Which is a bit of processing or massaging. And how many printers do touch customer native files to massage them into a usable state. Which again is like sending a RAW or DNG file.

I think we all agree there is a workflow level of sophistication that needs to be determined to answer the question(s) correctly/fully, which we do not yet have.

 

[John Clifford]

So the whole idea of PDF/X-1a is to say "here's my color space and everything is ready to go, hands off!". Which is like sending an untagged CMYK image. PDF/X-4 isn't much different other than to say "flatten the transparency for me". And that isn't too far removed from the idea of sending a tagged CMYK image that needs to be converted to a different space. Which is a bit of processing or massaging. And how many printers do touch customer native files to massage them into a usable state. Which again is like sending a RAW or DNG file.

Just to be clear, PDF/X1-a does not include ANY ICC color profile information and REQUIRES CMYK. PDF/X-4 does carry tagging and can include tagged RGB, as does PDF/X-3 (x-3 does requires preflattened transparency, x-4 does not)

 

[meddington]

So the whole idea of PDF/X-1a is to say "here's my color space and everything is ready to go, hands off!". Which is like sending an untagged CMYK image. PDF/X-4 isn't much different other than to say "flatten the transparency for me". And that isn't too far removed from the idea of sending a tagged CMYK image that needs to be converted to a different space. Which is a bit of processing or massaging. And how many printers do touch customer native files to massage them into a usable state. Which again is like sending a RAW or DNG file.

Not sure I agree with this Matt. Processing and massaging native files into a usable state, from a printer's perspective, almost always has the goal of maintaining the original intent, which is known so long as the image is tagged (or defined via PDF/x-1a). If the original intent is unknown, we can make some assumptions that are usually not far off the mark. I used to be a proponent of receiving RAW images. After all, the level of control you have is very powerful. However, what you lack is the context...the original intent of the person who clicked the shutter. Without that, its largely a guessing game, per Gordo's example. Of course if we're just told to make it "look good", than we can do that...subjectively. That subjectivity is a very quick way to hose the original context (presuming that someone, somewhere cares). We do a lot of higher-end work and things go so much smoother for everyone when you work with a talented (or at least competent) photographer who can already do that for you upfront. IMO, processing of RAW images is a photographer's job. You wouldn't ask a chef to just hand over the ingredients (sans recipe) and you'll do the cooking.

 

[sannysmith]

Thank you all for your comments. Was helpful and a lot of research is needed on my end to understand the concepts of printing.

Marsh thanks for those links...

Sanny

 

[michaelejahn]

PDF/X-1a may contain an ICC Color Profile

PDF/X-1a may contain an ICC Color Profile

Just to be clear, PDF/X1-a does not include ANY ICC color profile information and REQUIRES CMYK. PDF/X-4 does carry tagging and can include tagged RGB, as does PDF/X-3 (x-3 does requires preflattened transparency, x-4 does not)

Hi John,

While I think I know what you are driving at in that when processing a file into a PDF/X-1a file, that the any ICC Profiles that may be linked to an image (such as an RGB image) would be 'applied' - I do not think it is correct to state that "PDF/X1-a does not include ANY ICC color profile information"

PDF/X-1a can indeed contain color profile information - and often does - and as a PDF/X-1a PDF file requires an output intent (which is itself a ICC Color Profile) - well...

 

[acp]

Sanny,

There is a lot of good info in this post and you may already have your answer. My workflow, from an agency view, simply put...

We request RAW from photographers - since we are doing the creative our AD's are on the shoot and will give the direction as to what they want the final image to look like. (If you are not doing the design then you may want to leave the processing to the photographer.) Since we receive RAW there is no need to instruct the photographer to supply a hi-res RGB or CMYK tiff.

If you are receiving final supplied images from the photographer you should find out what the vendor requires. Before I process any image I find out what the vendor's specifications are - RGB, CMYK, TIF, DPI, TAC, etc., once I have this info I can proceed.

When supplying files to magazines, the publication should be able to give you their specs. If they are unable, usually 300 dpi, CMYK and SWOP2006_Coated3v2 (or SWOP2006_Coated5v2) is good, as Matt stated earlier.

Good luck and I hope this helps.

 

[dleather]

Third question could be "Should I have the photographer make the conversion?".

I think we all agree there is a workflow level of sophistication that needs to be determined to answer the question(s) correctly/fully, which we do not yet have.

Mat, your third question hits the nail on the head. If my photographer told me "I'm new to the world of print publication", I would, by all means, want the Raw file to do my own processing and color work. That's the only way to get all the information. In fact since raw is captured at 12 bit and standard photo programs resolve at 8 bit, asking the photographer to output his own image is automatically cutting out 33% of his initial spectrum anyway.

The file you turnover depends on the client's needs. I wouldn't take it upon myself to decide that without talking to them first. The photographer is paid to capture the image - what ends up in the final ad, poster, magazine article, package, business card, book cover, etc. is really the final vision of the a graphic artist using the photo as a tool. If I were producing a bill board and my photographer gave me a 300 dpi image, I'd have to ask him to reprocess it. If I were producing a promotional e-mail, I'd be burdened with a 170 MB Raw file.

I'd say first, talk to your client. For archiving, I'd save the raw data somewhere, and maybe process to a 600 dpi RGB image for your own storage. The short answer on RGB vs. CMYK output (from a prepress stand point) is to give the client an RGB image and let them convert to CMYK however they need to. That way they have more control, and you don't unnecessarily clip your color gamut.

 

[mattbeals]

Dleather, I may very well be as crazy as some people say. But all of these things go back to my idea of premedia rather than prepress. As Gordon and others rightfully stated the RAW image has no context. That's true, I agree. So maybe RAW for this application/customer is not the right "master". Maybe a retouched RGB image is the right "master". Regardless, we need that master to give us the most flexibility for repurposing the content in, as you said, an email, web image or variety of print methods not only in the near future but for long term use in 5, 10 or more years from now. Content is king. And printing is simply one context in which that content is used.

 

[gordo]

It would be an interesting exercise to take a RAW image straight out of the camera and have some of the prepress folks on this forum do their massaging of the image as if it was a live job and compare the differences in final work. I'd be happy to supply one if there is interest.

best, gordon p

 

[mattbeals]

Send me one, I'll give it a shot with the automated image correction/adjustment software we use (Elpical Claro). It will convert RAW images and make basic adjustments to it. First round color, not final (but you could use it as final) color is how several users use Claro.

 

[acp]

Gordo - I would love to take a shot at it...I guess I should ask, what format you would like back?

 

[Stephen Marsh]

Gordo wrote:

> It would be an interesting exercise to take a RAW image straight out of
> the camera and have some of the prepress folks on this forum do their
> massaging of the image as if it was a live job and compare the
> differences in final work. I'd be happy to supply one if there is
> interest.

Count me in!

A similar topic is taking place among landscape photographers here:

Process Other People's RAW files - file exchange - Luminous Landscape Forum


ACP wrote:

> Gordo - I would love to take a shot at it...I guess I should ask, what
> format you would like back?

I would suggest that we all agree, or that Gordo stipulates a common
colour space (say either sRGB or a specific ISO CMYK) and also a common
resolution in pixels and a format such as JPEG (I guess it depends if the
results will be viewed in a browswer, or say a PDF or PSD etc).

It would also help if Gordo gave some sort of "brief" to describe the
intent of the rendering - or just give us all freedom to do what we wish
without "customer creative direction".

Stephen Marsh