Below is the original image, followed (hopefully) by the problem I'm having. The central colors in the pool are out of gamut (OOG) for my Epson 1280. To correct this, I've Lassoed the OOG colors to restrict the correction to just those colors & made a layer & corrected them. However, I get the image in the second one shown.

There has to be a better way to do this. Any advice?

[I'm having trouble uploading decent-size images. The original is about 270 MB in size & getting that to 200 KB is a challenge.]

Your images are too small to see much. What program are you using? Is this Photoshop? What version? If this is photoshop, try using the save for web option, to get a larger sized image with a file size that is small enough to upload.

Right on Dave.. I didn't even know there was a pond there..

hi there,

try this:

view: gammut warning(switch on)
duplicate bckgrnd
select: color range: out of gammut(pict)
hide selection
hue/sat correction -usually set the saturation- till U see most of the gammut warning

Dave, OlBaldy: I'm replacing the two original images with two I think will be larger. Note that the second image is of poor quality. However, it shows the problem, namely, the "ghost" effect of using Lasso to select to a layer, making color adj's to that layer & then what happens when that layer is merged with a Background copy.

Saby's advice is well taken. Didn't think of Color Range. I tried to avoid Hue/Saturation because I want to control sat. reduction much as possible, so I used Curves to a point where I eliminated most of Gamut Warning while preserving original colors much as possible.

I've played with Adjustment Layers & layer masking, which seemed to work ok, but when I used a Curves adj layer, it affected the entire image, not the area masked. Using layers & layer masks is complex for me & I like to keep things simple. But, here, it may not be simple.

I like Saby's suggestion because it is simple, but if Dave & OlBaldy have suggestions as well, simple or not, I'm open to their suggestions, too.

So, anyway, here goes for two attachments I hope will be better.

I'm not seeing any out of gamut colors, but since you saved it as a 32 bit indexed gif, there won't be any out of gamut colors. When you save it as an indexed gif, only the colors needed for the image needed are saved, and for a 32 bit gif, only 32 colors are saved.

Also, your second image appears to be very blurry.

The first image appears to be a nice image, but needs a level adjustment.

Thanks Dave for your advice & the compliment. A lot gets lost in the translation in resizing & uploading, I guess. I did want a more dramatic look, since that is how I remember the actual scene. It's good to know I need only a simple Levels adj. & I'll try that, altho I'd like to darken the stones on the left, as well. But, I see what you meant earlier about your not realizing it's a pool of water & that's my challenge. Thanks.

I kind of like the rock on the left they way they are. It give a nice ambiance, and keeps the photo as a whole from looking too dark. However, it's all a matter of taste. If you want to darken the rocks, the best way would to be to select what you want to darken, using the pen tool, and converting the path to a selection. Once you make your selection, you can soften the selection if you want by feathering the selection. It just depends on what you are looking for. If you want to darken everything except the water, you might select the water, invert the selection, feather the selection, and then adjust by adding a levels or curves layer.

By the way, I made my previous adjustment by adding a levels layer to the entire photo, and pulling the makers in on each channel to balance out the colors. I then lightened the whole photo some by dragging the RGB slider to the left some. I added another layer to lighten the upper left some, and added a gradient mask to restrict the adjustment to the upper left corner. The entire adjustment took about 5 minutes.

I added a little blue after leveling to try to highlight the water. It is hard for me to see how and where the water is.

This may not be exactly to the point you need but I'll share some info I discovered on my own concerning my Epson printers. I now own five (5) of them from small to large format. My smallest is the R320. Straight out of the box from day one it was spot on in rendering my images in both color and density. I never had to change a thing. When I bought my 2200 it took forever to tune it in and still at times it was all out of whack no matter how many tutorials I tried from the Epson site and using my spider calibration. hahnemuhle paper sponsors some of my artwork and I felt terrible about the amount of paper I burned in the calibration even though I used test strips. One day I just happened to drop my color profiles from my R320 into the profile folder of my 2200 and chose that during my next printing. Crazy as it seems or simple I guess but it worked perfectly and I never have had a problem since and I do the same thing with all of my printers. Hope this helps someone.

I've reworked the image, following generalized advice from all of you. My response in reverse order of advice:

Sweetlight, the 1280 is the only printer I have, but I can see that your advice may be useful to others who have an R320 in addition to other Epson printers. Saby: I tried your method but got hung up on "hide selection." I didn't know how to do that, altho I did some adjusting with Hue/Saturation. Also, it would have been good to see what you came up with.

Dave, your comments are well taken & I did use Levels, as well as some Cloning & Healing Brush on the bottom rock's edge at the water to fill in the blown highlights. I adjusted the center slider to darken the image a bit.

I'm not totally happy with this image, but my 1280 was able to give me a print that was very close to the monitor. Maybe a title, such as "Mountain Pool" would help the viewer to see the water. (Why do mountain creeks have such clear water?) :-) Of course, this was 30 years, ago.