Part II:
As for the statement "sRGB has been eclipsed by most printers", I said no such thing. In fact, I agree that most consumer desktop inkjet printers print about sRGB range of colors.
Note that I had said that sRGB is 1) a small gamut color space 2) most popularly used in computers, while you had said that "colour spectrum captured by a digital camera in sRGB or Adobe RGB is very wide, and definitely more than what inkjet printers can reproduce". That is not correct as 1) sRGB is by itself, not large (defined to be the lowest common standard :sweat: ) 2) AdobeRGB is not very wide. There are many other color spaces like Wide Gamut RGB, Prophoto which are dramatically larger. Also, there are inkjets (desktop or otherwise) that can produce printouts with larger gamut than sRGB.
Next, many printer companies try to expand the gamut that their printer can print. The almost 2 year old Epson 2100 has a bigger gamut than sRGB. Refer to Fig 2-9, Page 77 of "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Frasier, et el. Do read this book to understand this better. As the book said, the 2100's gamut does not exceed even sheetfed press in every dimension, but it does produce a bigger gamut in some "directions". I can only imagine what the newer printers like R800 (out in EU) and Epson 4000 will be like.
Yes, I've read the URL you provided. He said "Sure parts of the printers space is outside the reach of both sRGB and Adobe RGB, but with proper color management we can easily remap the captured data and let it flow into the protrusion of the output space. " That is the issue here. If the printer can print without remapping (ie replaced by a color that is inside the gamut), isn't it better? Note that the graph on the left is AdobeRGB vs Epson 2100 while the one on the right is sRGB vs PG4500. He did not try AdobeRGB vs PG4500 as it will show that the AdobeRGB will extend past its printable range significantly. It may not exceed it in every direction, but as long as it exceed in some, by definition, the printer's output does exceed the gamut. BTW, he has poor grammar that detracts from his statements. Americans
.
Now, whether you consider printers like Epson 2100 or the R800 as a desktop printer (the R800 is an A4 printer btw), it is another issue. Although most are within sRGB, but as the competition increases, I'm very sure that within a few years, the desktop printers will be larger than sRGB.
He (Will Crockett) has already had an agenda in mind when he wrote the article: convince the reader that sRGB is good for most lay people. It is true, to a certain extent, that working in AdobeRGB take more care and effort. But I would not recommend his photos ever be used in print media.
As for the statement "sRGB has been eclipsed by most printers", I said no such thing. In fact, I agree that most consumer desktop inkjet printers print about sRGB range of colors.
Note that I had said that sRGB is 1) a small gamut color space 2) most popularly used in computers, while you had said that "colour spectrum captured by a digital camera in sRGB or Adobe RGB is very wide, and definitely more than what inkjet printers can reproduce". That is not correct as 1) sRGB is by itself, not large (defined to be the lowest common standard :sweat: ) 2) AdobeRGB is not very wide. There are many other color spaces like Wide Gamut RGB, Prophoto which are dramatically larger. Also, there are inkjets (desktop or otherwise) that can produce printouts with larger gamut than sRGB.
Next, many printer companies try to expand the gamut that their printer can print. The almost 2 year old Epson 2100 has a bigger gamut than sRGB. Refer to Fig 2-9, Page 77 of "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Frasier, et el. Do read this book to understand this better. As the book said, the 2100's gamut does not exceed even sheetfed press in every dimension, but it does produce a bigger gamut in some "directions". I can only imagine what the newer printers like R800 (out in EU) and Epson 4000 will be like.
Yes, I've read the URL you provided. He said "Sure parts of the printers space is outside the reach of both sRGB and Adobe RGB, but with proper color management we can easily remap the captured data and let it flow into the protrusion of the output space. " That is the issue here. If the printer can print without remapping (ie replaced by a color that is inside the gamut), isn't it better? Note that the graph on the left is AdobeRGB vs Epson 2100 while the one on the right is sRGB vs PG4500. He did not try AdobeRGB vs PG4500 as it will show that the AdobeRGB will extend past its printable range significantly. It may not exceed it in every direction, but as long as it exceed in some, by definition, the printer's output does exceed the gamut. BTW, he has poor grammar that detracts from his statements. Americans
.Now, whether you consider printers like Epson 2100 or the R800 as a desktop printer (the R800 is an A4 printer btw), it is another issue. Although most are within sRGB, but as the competition increases, I'm very sure that within a few years, the desktop printers will be larger than sRGB.
He (Will Crockett) has already had an agenda in mind when he wrote the article: convince the reader that sRGB is good for most lay people. It is true, to a certain extent, that working in AdobeRGB take more care and effort. But I would not recommend his photos ever be used in print media.
). If you replace the print head on Canon, it is not going to be cheap as well. If it is still under warranty, send the Epson printer back. However, I heard that weekly turning on and off reduces the clogging significantly.
