jonathan_paul_davies

Hi Andrew, I found several other videos you've made, so it does seem that you're right we are disagreeing. I'm going to watch the videos and see if I can get a better understanding of what you're describing, you're obviously far more knowledgeable on this subject than I am so I'd like to learn where my thinking is off.

We're not disagreeing. You're working with the largest gamut that your screen and your output can display. We're using the same terminology, you're also describing your printer as your output and using your prints to judge the adjustments you make. I'm coming at this more from the stand point of someone who doesn't have instant access to a wide gamut printer or more likely that the images will go directly online. Thanks for your help, I do appreciate it, once again the video link was very helpful. Best regards. Jonathan

We're talking about the same thing here, by stopping when you no longer see changes, you are working within the gamut of your device. I think this is the right way to work. I agree 100%, I think I acknowledged the differences between profiles. The only point I'm making is that you should work within the largest gamut that your screen and your output can display. If you're intended target is another monitor then it makes more sense to me to edit in SRGB. Otherwise, all those colours that sit outside this gamut will be assigned a nearest value and you'll lose subtly in the gradations at the edges of the spectrum. The same way you would with your blacks and whites.

The problem I see with this practice, is that this is data you have no way of visualizing, so to my mind it becomes redundant. If it became available at a later date, you may just as well reprocess the raw file. It seems more logical to me to work with what you have at the present time, work in a space you can see to avoid potential anomalies when sent to it's output.

I suppose my reasoning on why it's useful is that, it would provide a much more accurate and predictable representation of what will be output, if for eaxple, it were sent to a printer profile like the one used in Andrew's video. Such a profile has the potential to render colours which you haven't accounted for because you couldn't see them when you made your adjustments. The only way I can see you making use of those colours outside the gamut of your display, but inside the gamut of your printer would be to print tests and then try to make adjustments from them but that seems like a very inefficient way of working to me. Could there be the possibility to introduce banding (8 bit files), if your using a very wide gamut profile to make adjustments for an output device with a significantly smaller gamut?

The only reason I think of, is that one could print off images and find colours that are outside Adobe RGB but finding them seems like a lot of guess work. Maybe that's where Colourthink would be helpful, it does look very interesting?

Hi Andrew, I have a question regarding the use of Prophoto RGB. Lightroom doesn't give you the option of using anything else but I'm struggling to see why it exists. You commented about future proofing your images in case technology improves but this seems redundant to me as it's virtually impossible to know how those currently invisible colours affect the overall image. Would it not be better to make your adjustments in the widest colour space you can see on screen (Adobe RGB) and keep the RAW files as future proofing? This seems like it would allow you to convert down if needed whilst still giving control and predictability over the final image. Am I missing something here?

Hi Andrew, Ed the video was incredibly helpful. I feel a little silly, in my original post my question was based on an experiment similar to your three pixel demonstration but I stupidly only did it with the blue value and only switching between SRGB and Adobe RGB, not realising that their most saturated blue has the same value. That's why I was insisting that the values weren't changing, hopefully I didn't come across as being unreceptive to what you were describing. Once I introduced the other two colours and Prophoto RGB the values changed and what both you and Ed were saying made sense. Thanks again. Best regards Jonathan

I'll try and explain myself in another way, hopefully I won't make things worse. If you have two scales, both divided into 10 units where one scale only covers five units of the other scale. If these scales are SRGB and ARGB, is there a way to convert SRGB so the value of it's units are halved and it's 10th unit is given a value of 5, post conversion?

I appreciate your replies, I think my question may not have been completely clear. Digitaldog, you may have misunderstood my attempt to clarify on what issue I'm having, as you've repeated my explanation back to me. I do understand that these are entirely different scales, I understand that the R0, G0, B255 value in Adobe RGB sits deeper into the colour spectrum than it does with SRGB, which is why Abode images look overly saturated if I 'convert to profile'. Ed_Ingold, assigning produces the same result, colour values remain the same between colour profiles, so the outputs will look different unless they adjusted from the RAW file. My question is, whether there is a way to perform, what might be described as a fixed point conversion, as if SRGB were simply an overlay over the coordinates within Adobe RGB? Basically, I 'd like to save time by not having to do all my adjustments multiple times for different colour spaces, and I don't know if that's even possible.

Hi I have a question about correctly converting an image to a different colour space for use with different outputs. Is it possible to maintain the image's appearance when converting an image that has already been adjusted and finalised to a particular colour space? Or, do I need to put the file through my workflow for each colour space based on it's intended output? To be clearer, I know about the convert to profile function in PS. What's confusing me is that when I do this the colour values remain the same. As an example, if I create a new canvas with an SRGB profile then fill that canvas with the colour R 0, G 0, B255, if I convert this to Adobe RGB, these numeric values remain the same but the Adobe equivalent of this colour will be very different. I'm assuming, that if I had the SRGB version of this file on a website and a print from the Adobe RGB version (printed from a printer that used an Adobe RGB profile), the two would not look the same. Thanks.