OK, “ultimate” is how I might describe it anyway. Once we have established and acquired the basic tools discussed in the previous article to implement color management, we then need to establish a workflow insuring we are correctly applying appropriate color management steps. To me the “ultimate” method is one that delivers the maximum quality possible to those viewing the image.

The goal of using color management for photographers is to achieve as closely as possible a match between our monitor and our output.  There are several possible workflows, and the quality of our output depends on the choices we make.  It is important to understand this concept  ... choices in our workflow may limit the final quality of our output.  These choices can happen at almost any stage in the workflow, from our choice of capture equipment and capture type (RAW or jpeg for example), to the choice of output device.  I’m not saying there is only one way ... I just think it is important to understand the ramifications of those choices, so we knowingly choose to accept the trade-off between maximum quality and a different result if we make those choices.

A common mistake is to start backwards and make choices in the workflow based on some limitation later in the workflow.  If your destination output is a web/sRGB file, it sounds logical that an in camera sRGB Jpeg is all we need. After all doesn’t that match the destination?  The problem with this is we discard most of the data from the capture itself and allow the camera to provide a “baked” jpeg of our data(as it has been described by some).  Once something is baked, you can’t use the ingredients to obtain a different result.  Unless the camera jpeg is nearly perfect it will be very difficult to achieve the best results in Photoshop (or other editing software for that matter).  If we decide to use RAW files for our capture, we no longer have that limitation.   It’s sort of like building a good sound system.  There are several components, but if any of the components are weaker than the speakers (the final component) the speakers themselves cannot perform at their optimum level.  To achieve the highest quality with our final images, having the final output step as the most limiting is ideal.  If we artificially limit the image in the workflow before we are ready to convert it into the output space, we will have compromised the final quality.  Is it discernible?  Good question ... sometimes it might not be, but sometimes isn’t always.  Is it good enough? Each photographer must answer that question for themselves, but before deciding it helps to understand the trade-offs.

There are circumstances were trade-offs between ultimate quality and workflow demands are acceptable.  There are all kinds of photographers, and doing a little league shoot probably doesn’t require ultimate quality.  A little league shoot probably wouldn’t even be opened in an image editor.  For this sufficient quality might be obtained using in camera jpegs as long as we light it correctly and choose the right camera settings so the camera firmware can get us close enough.  Each photographer must make these decisions for themselves, and indeed some photographers have multiple workflows based on the type of work they are doing at the time.  Again, fully understanding the trade-offs allows one to make informed decisions.

So what is the “ultimate” quality workflow?.  Our original image needs to be from the highest quality device that we have available which fits the needs of the shooting situation (hard to shoot an eagle with an 8x10 view camera).  With film cameras, quality (especially with regards to resolution) was mostly a function of format ... generally a medium format system achieved higher quality than a 35mm system.  While format still impacts digital cameras as well, there also exists within each format a wide range of capabilities.  Often budget is the determining factor in our capture device.  While that may impose some limitation as to the final size of the prints we make, it certainly doesn’t impose many other limitations as far as the impact or quality of the work we do.

No matter the capture device, perhaps more important in the workflow is the choice of capture type.  Here we must choose RAW.  Choosing a jpeg workflow seriously limits our output possibilities.  In fact, of all the choices we make this would be the most limiting. Some complain about storage and file sizes, but with the capacity of todays storage mediums I don’t see that as in issue if building the maximum quality workflow.

We need a good RAW convertor to render our file into a visible image.  Personally I use Adobe Camera Raw (either in Photoshop or Lightroom) most of the time.  That choice is based on convenience and the amazing interface and tools it provides.  Some claim other convertors do a better job, and perhaps they do for them.  From a purely technical perspective it may be possible other convertors have some edge and create better results.  Here again we find the tradeoff in our workflow.  Personally I haven’t found this ... at least with my skill level.  I am trying various other convertors to find out if they will yield better results for various problem files I have, but ACR is just easier to use and offers so many great tools that my results are almost always best when I use it.

The next step in our workflow may vary.  There are basically two choices.  We can use a workflow tool, such as Lightroom or Aperture, or we can use an image editing program such as Photoshop.  We may choose to use a combination of the two.  The real decision here isn’t which program, but which bit depth and working space we want to work with. (Remember, I am trying to define what I feel is the highest quality workflow).  Lightroom makes that decision for us ... and I advocate using the exact same choices when using Photoshop.

So the short answer is duplicate Lightroom’s settings in Photoshop.  Lightroom is built on a ProPhotoRGB/16bit workflow.  You can’t change it, and because it is transparent it works very well ... even on 8 bit jpeg files.  It’s quite simple to duplicate this in Photoshop ... just set your RGB working space as ProPhotoRGB, and tell the RAW convertor to send files to Photoshop as ProPhotoRGB/16bit files.  There are a few convertors that don’t allow ProPhotoRGB.  If the RAW convertor can only send AdobeRGB or Jpeg, I strongly recommend changing to a different convertor.

Many of the Color Management Urban Legends out there center around working space choices, and in fact this is probably the least understood part of a color managed workflow.  This one decision is the subject of my next article, “sRGB, AdobeRGB, or ProPhotoRGB”, so we won’t go into much detail here.  I’ll just leave it with one thought ... .any choice other than ProPhotoRGB will artificially force your image into a smaller space, with some affect on your final output.  Even if your final output is just to the web with an sRGB jpeg, if you do not use ProPhotoRGB as your working space you may clip your data with visible results.  But more on that later.

Of course the last step is output.  If we have followed this workflow so far, we have the highest possible image data.  Our output device is what it is ... some are more capable than others.  Because we have taken all the right steps in our workflow, we are ready to let the color management system map our results into the output space in a way to maximizes the devices capabilities, and our workflow hasn’t imposed any artificial limits on our image - the only limit is the capability of the output device itself.  Some devices are more limiting than others, so the soft proof function in Photoshop allows us to visually see how those limitations will affect our output, and if necessary apply some small adjustment layers to optimize our image.  The beauty is it doesn’t matter what output device we choose ... because of our workflow we can easily optimize our image to a variety of output devices so all of our edits apply equally as well to a web jpeg or a large print from an Epson 7900 printer.

As I mentioned, this to me is the highest quality workflow available as of right now, and a great majority of photographers seeking ultimate image quality agree with this.  There are those which advocate other choices, but understand those choices involve trade-offs.  Many times the trade-off doesn’t work very well.  I know the downside to choosing sRGB as my working space, and I really can’t think of a good upside. If there is not a beneficial  upside to a trade-off, why should I accept the downside?

So there you have it.  As I mentioned, in the next article I will discuss the choice of a working space in Adobe Photoshop and why I feel 16bit/ProPhotoRGB is the best option.