sRGB or Adobe RGB?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by justinweiss, Apr 11, 2009.

  1. I'm using Lightroom on a wide-gamut monitor and editing RAW images in Adobe RGB color space. It's my understanding that this will make the photos look better when printed out on paper. I also exported a batch of these photos as sRGB jpegs and uploaded them to a website. Viewed on an ordinary monitor, the colors of these sRGB jpegs look dimmer and washed-out compared to the RAW images in Lightroom.
    So, every time I edit images in Lightroom, do I have to choose whether I want them to look good on the web or on paper? Is there some way to make them look good on the web AND on paper? How do most people handle this problem?
     
  2. I have a fully colour managed workflow, runing prints via ACR in Bridge through a RIP to a wide format printer. All the printing is through the Adobe RGB 1998 colour space (except B&W whihc is in Grey Gamma 2.2), and I have no complaints on print quality - the prints sing.
    For web, files are converted to sRGB almost at the final stage, checking carefully for any significant shifts from out of gamut colours. Then I always export through PS "save for web" function. Bring up the "2 up" screen and you can check before and after views to see what effect the output will have. Make sure progressive is swtched off. In fact I have set up an action for natch converting files for web which is usually pretty reliable, and makes things quicker. You only have to keep an eye on those images that you know may have out of gamut issues. Hope that helps.
     
  3. Thanks a lot for the quick answer. So I need to see if Lightroom 2.3 has a "save for web" function like PS (the older LR's did not). Otherwise, I guess I can bring the images from Lightroom into PS and export them from there like you said.
     
  4. Just checking - have you calibrated and profiled your monitor? If not, almost all your editing will be so much rummaging in the dark. Also, make sure that you are in fact working in the colour spaces you think you are. PS can have an annoying habit of returning to default colour spaces, and it is very easy to have the RAW interface set to another colour space than the one you think you are in.
     
  5. Adobe RGB(1998) should not be used as the profile for your display. It is a device independent RGB color space. Get a Datacolor Spyder 3 or X-rite EyeOne Display 2 colorimter and related software to do a good job of calibrating and profiling your specific display device .
     
  6. Yes, I did calibrate it (hardware calibration). It's an NEC 3090WQXi and I am using the NEC SpectraView II sensor and software intended for this monitor. So no problems there.
     
  7. so you are not using Adobe RGB(1998) as your display profile? Correct?
    Lightroom uses a variation of the 16 bit per channel Pro Photo color space as its working space. Basically it is Pro Photo with an sRGB like response curve. Not until you export from Lightroom is it that you assign Adobe RGB(1998) , sRGB, or Pro Photo as the color space for your TIFF, PSD or JPEG.
     
  8. In Lightroom 2.3 when you go to export the foto thats is where you make your choices for [s-RGB or RGB ]
    00T2Gq-124005584.jpg
     
  9. Michael, when you say the prints sing, how do you have them printed? In magazines, you mean? Recent inkjet printers support AdobeRGB but I have not heard that it significantly improves results.
    Justin, rather than converting into an 8-bit colorspace like AdobeRGB, it would be better to have Lightroom print directly using your printer profile, if possible. AdobeRGB contains blue-greens that sRGB (for Web) does not, but some inkjet printers have colors outside the AdobeRGB gamut (e.g. saturated yellows).
     
  10. Everything sRGB.
    Works for me.
     
  11. Yup, sRGB prints great on a Fuji Frontier, and Crystal Archive paper doesn't fade like inkjet prints when displayed on your fridge.
     
  12. Ellis,
    Yes, I am using the standard LR Pro Photo color space. I thought I was working in Adobe RGB but I checked and found out it's really Pro Photo. Do you recommend working in Pro Photo?
    LR says that the Adobe RGB 1998 color space can't reproduce all the colors that LR can handle... but the Adobe gamut is already bigger than what my monitor can display anyway! So isn't any extra color in the Pro Photo space just going to be wasted because my monitor can't display it? This is kinda confusing...
    Bill,
    I haven't made any prints yet because I don't have a photo printer; I'm just trying to plan ahead! So I guess the best approach for now would be to keep working in the standard LR Pro Photo space and then print directly with my printer profile when I get a printer? But what if I want to send my photos to a lab for printing, since I don't have a printer? In what format should I export them then? Do I need to find out what kind of printer the lab is using?
    Again, this is all quite confusing for a newb! Thanks for the help.
     
  13. I use sRGB because it works for me. I have in my studio fine examples of prints made using sRGB for the entire workflow. I have everything set up with this because it allows me to complete my workflow in a timely manner. It's less confusing for me. The lab I use, WHCC, accepts files either in sRGB or RGB. When clients pay licensing rights to files they will, more than likely, use a printer that works best with sRGB.
    This may or may not work for you. I thought I would share my experiences as it could help you.
    I recommend experimenting and see what works best for you. I vote in favor of whatever works for your situations.
     
  14. .
    Earlier: "... I'm using Lightroom on a wide-gamut monitor and editing RAW images in Adobe RGB color space. It's my understanding that this will make the photos look better when printed out on paper ... "​
    Let's reword that so you respect same same throughout your system:
    I'm using Lightroom on a monitor that is [in or outside] the gamut of my RAW images in Adobe RGB color space. It's my understanding that this will make the photos look better when printed out on paper via a [specific printer / ink / gamut and what file color space conversion?].​
    Now, once you realize that the color spaces are yours to control and monitor and accept conversion losses within, have at it. I believe you probably want the photos to look as accurately as intended using the available gamut of each device using whatever color space best supports the delivery of any RGB image file to that device's gamut. First defining the problem or challenge accurately is critically important to finding a responsive solution you can master and apply.
    Earlier: "... 8-bit color space like AdobeRGB ... "​
    Color spaces and bit-depth are independent and unrelated.
    Earlier: "... The lab I use, WHCC, accepts files either in sRGB or RGB. ... "​
    Same same. When no color space is specified, such as "RGB" as you mention, then sRGB is presumed. Or, did you mean, "The lab I use, WHCC, accepts files either in sRGB or AdobeRGB "?
    Earlier: "... Is there some way to make them look good on the web AND on paper? ... "​
    Aside from making the subject and composition compelling regardless of color qualities (in other words, edit them in black and white tones to insure they communicate your goals without depending on color, then adjust colors to match or not compete with the success you accomplish in black and white, or leave them black and white), I remember editing audio presentations and playing them through a car dashboard speaker to confirm that they communicated well at the lowest common denominator.
    Perhaps your photo challenge is to see them at 256 colors at 150 pixels across, and confirm that they still make you want to "look" them more. There are many photos I enjoy that I would never have explored had I only seen the the thumbnail as a shrunk version of the full-size image. You have two or three targets:
    • -- print
    • -- screen
    • -- thumbnail
    ... and you can either accept them as separate, and tweak separately for each, or you can try to make them interdependent with one-cycle editing, but if you want to edit once, then I suggest that the lowest common denominator must be your target, then let the other media falls where it may -- making thumbnails pop may be most important to getting the audience you want.
    Conversely, I adjust an image once for my screen qualities, then save (AdobeRGB 16-bit). I either distribute after simple auto conversions and accept the output, or I may tweak the gamma and sharpening of each conversion, aware that web and print and thumbnails need simpler and more discrete delineation of image presentation details.
    Photography is an art after all the science is mastered.
    Let us know how and where your explorations lead you, and tell us what works for you at each evolutionary learning experience. Share some example pictures!
    .
     
  15. Here is an interesting article:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
     
  16. Yes Justin, if you have already paid for Lightroom I believe you should stick with ProPhoto RGB. I learn something every day! I did not know it uses sRGB-biased PPRGB. Nor did I know 16-bit AdobeRGB works, although the thought occurs, why bother. We discussed KenR a little while ago. Like many of his articles, this one generates controversy, but at heart I think he is right: sRGB is good enough, just like the Bayer sensor (more of a threat to photographic quality in my view) is good enough. Really, what is worse? Missing some blue-green tones in a print, or the moire pattern at the edges of thin dark lines?
     
  17. Lots of good info here:
    http://blogs.oreilly.com/lightroom/2008/03/the-srgb-conundrum.html
    http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/08/lightroom_color_spaces_1.html
    This guy, especially in the second link, makes it sound like there's no real way to get your photos out of Lightroom so they'll look good anywhere else. Instead, you have to process them further in Photoshop to adjust them to another color space.
    Wow, this is really surprising to hear. Is it just me, or does this seem like a really stupid way to design a photo editing program? And Bill Clark, how do you keep your photos in sRGB "for the entire workflow"? It sounds like you can't set Lightroom to edit photos in sRGB color space; you have to use ProPhoto in Lightroom.
     
  18. My workflow is Bridge & CS4.
    I don't use Lightroom.
     
  19. Here is an analogy for Bill Clark:
    Your expensive DSLR is a rib eye steak from a grass fed cow.
    Lightroom is a chef who really knows how to make the most of that fine cut of beef
    Ken Rockwell is a McDonald's Happy meal. (And my apologies for insulting McDonalds)
     
  20. So isn't any extra color in the Pro Photo space just going to be wasted because my monitor can't display it? This is kinda confusing...
    No, you have it to make use out of it. Also depending on your graphics card and display ( you have a very fine one BTW) the whole point of color management is to take information in the device neutral colro space and use the profile to closely simulate the information in the photo to the characteristics of the display device.
    And yes it is kind of confusing.
    This guy, especially in the second link, makes it sound like there's no real way to get your photos out of Lightroom so they'll look good anywhere else. Instead, you have to process them further in Photoshop to adjust them to another color space.​
    I just don't see that at all in either link. I certainly don't have that problem.
    Are you referring to the following comment by Michael Clark fro m the second link?
    Exporting those images into an sRGB color space for example will lead to a certain amount of clipping in your histogram.
    sRGB is far and away the smallest color space used in digital color. It predates virtually all digital cameras. It predates LCD displays. It was designed back around 1991 with a specific intent: to be the lowest common denominator so that in the worst viewing conditions possible you could still see some difference in color -- in other words think pie charts projected in an office with all of the fluorescent lights in the room turned on. By design, sRGB clips colors, particularly in the blues and greens.
     
  21. Hi Ellis,
    Thanks for your analogy.
    You've done a good job making it confusing for many here.
    I operate in a different sphere than you and I find that sRGB works just fine. I wanted to offer a simple solution to the people here that seems to work for me. And it's not confusing.
    I'm sure the debate will continue as many find other ways to accomplish their goals.
    There are others around who still use sRGB. Doesn't make it right or wrong but it works. Maybe not for you but it does for me.
     
  22. That's part of it, Ellis, but mainly I was looking at where he concludes, "I highly recommend that folks use the ProPhoto RGB color space when exporting images out of Lightroom and as their archival color mode - then in Photoshop one can convert the color space to whatever is needed for output and have a lot more control."
    So it sounds like I can do one of these approaches:
    (1) use the Bill Clark method of using bridge/CS4 only
    (2) Print directly from Lightroom in Pro Photo color space (is this even possible?) using a profile for whatever printer I end up buying
    (3) Export to CS4 for further tweaking into a new color space, then print.
    Is that about right? And also, if I want to send my photos to a lab for printing, do I need to stick with sRGB because you can't use a profile for the lab printer? I really want to get this all sorted out and get back to focusing on taking photos!
     
  23. This is what I've experienced with my own Pentax K100D PEF's shooting raw and processing in ProPhotoRGB instead of sRGB in ACR 4.6.
    Since we know that a DSLR can capture a wider range of colors than the sRGB space, the default settings combined with correct color temp appearance of an image processed in ACR or LR will naturally map intense colors like cyans, yellows and oranges to look correct with very few adjustments in ProPhotoRGB. We're talking about wide gamut AND wide dynamic range scenes containing intensely colored flowers and expensive pearl luster paint jobs on cars lit in direct sunlight.
    When converting a ProPhotoRGB mapped image containing these canary yellows, oranges and cyans to sRGB space there will be a noticeable shift in hue like say canary yellow taking on a slight cyan cast, an intense blue sky from a polarizing lens will shift toward magenta, etc.
    Now you could correct for these in sRGB space but it will take some extra effort with some added posterization trying to correct for these hue shifts. Why bother. Just keep the image in ProPhotoRGB as a container for these colors before they shift in hue when converting to narrower color spaces.
    Not only that but your histogram will allow you to see just how much containment and preserved data you actually can retain processing in ProPhotoRGB. See what happens to the histogram in ACR or LR when first processing an image ProPhotoRGB and converting to sRGB. It's quite a mess.
     
  24. I also exported a batch of these photos as sRGB jpegs and uploaded them to a website. Viewed on an ordinary monitor, the colors of these sRGB jpegs look dimmer and washed-out compared to the RAW images in Lightroom.​
    Justin,
    sRGB images cannot look washed-out unless the monitor gamut is very small.

    Adobe was not able to give a decent "save for web" in photoshop, so, may be, lightrom has the same bugs.
     
  25. Tim,
    do you have a prophoto-like monitor? It does'nt exist.
    Dynamic range is different from color gamut.
    You have some problem as Hue shifts are typical for not good monitor profile.
    Lightroom histogram does not make sense ( prophoto primaries with sRGB tonal correction!) So, when you save the image, the histogram is always different.
     
  26. I'll keep it short. Start in ProPhoto (best) or Adobe RGB (next best) and keep it there, change to Adobe rgb (if starting in Prophoto) and/or downgrade to Srgb when necessary by saving copies. This what Adobe recommends. If you start in srgb you're throwing away colors that you can't get back. The ONLY justification for srgb is that it makes things easier, since you can always make a copy and convert it to srgb when necessary. Perhaps it goes without saying but web images should always be srgb. You can't count on people using color managed browsers.
     
  27. Just to make it easy on everyone;
    if you want dead simple, easy and are not picky: use sRGB. Just be aware that youare limited to only 256 shdes of red x 256 shades or green x 256 shades of blue ( 8 bit per channel color). And while youare at it shoot fine/large JPEGs. Also be aware that this strategy will limit what you can do down the line.
    Idf you want to bring back as much inofrmatio nas your camera can record shoot raw at the bighest bit per channel level your camera can record, and stay i na 16 bit per channel mode using a very large color space (Pro Photo, the Lightroom variant of Pro Photo, or Joseph Holmes DCam ) for as long you can through the raw processing and post processing (Photoshop) phase.
    If you have a decent display/monitor and graphic brocessing card , get a good colorimeter and profiling software package (datacolor Spyder 3, X-Rite EyeOne Display 2 ) and profile your system about every 21 days. While very few display /monitors are capable of reproducing the entire gamut described by Adobe RGB(1998) they should do a very good job of emulating within the limits of the display, the color relationships of an image in a large color space. That is the whole point of profiles -- being able to map the values from a device independent color space to a device independent color space or to a profiled display or printer.
     
  28. Ellis,
    in a gamma corrected space 8 bit is a very good value for 12-14 linear bit (14 bit are not better than 12 at the current noise level).
    But sRGB is not restricted to 8 bit usage. Perhaps you are thinking to jpg.
     
  29. Oh sure you can , and you can crunch Pro Photo down into an 8 bit per channel values, the point is would you actually advise someone to do so?

    So since you brought it up please explain what happens when you do that.
     
  30. To be honest my suggestion is not to use ProPhoto unless you are very experienced and your monitor and printer have a large gamut.
    A lot of people uses ProPhoto without a deep color management knowledge. Forums are full of frustrating results.
    ProPhoto editing is "blind", but people is not aware.
    ProPhoto has values that are out of visible gamut and it is huge, so posterization may occur (on 16 bit too).
    ProPhoto has advantages and drawbacks, you have to know them.
     
  31. I think I'm just going to shoot black & white from now on. :-/
     
  32. I am following Scott Kelby's advice in his PS books and use Adobe RGB exclusively. I have tried sRGB for some web posting on photo.net, but find the colors washed out. I know sRGB is supposed to be better for the web, but Adobe RGB is my choice.
     
  33. SHOCKING NEW DEVELOPMENT!:
    I just exported a test image from Lightroom as a jpeg three times; once in sRGB, Adobe RGB, and Pro Photo, and uploaded all three files to the web. It turns out there are no major differences I can see among the three files. What makes a difference is the monitor on which I'm viewing them.
    When I view them on my new NEC, they all look great. When I view them on a standard monitor over the Internet, they all look dimmer and less saturated/rich; i.e., "flatter". I never realized ordinary monitors were so bad until I had the NEC to compare them to. (For the record, I am viewing the images over the web using the new version of Firefox with color management enabled.)
    I sincerely apologize if I sent people on a bit of a wild goose chase here, but at any rate I certainly learned a lot from you guys. Thanks.
     
  34. Justin you have just discovered that color managment actually works. Congratulations on your new monitor. Now go make photos.
     
  35. That is strange. Shouldn't the three images on the NEC look all different from each other (assuming the original image had saturated blue/green/red/orange)? sRGB, AdobeRGB and ProPhotoRGB would define different colors for these and the NEC monitor profile would show them correctly as for the appropriate sRGB/AdobeRGB/ProPhotoRGB profile (AdobeRGB and sRGB clipping some of the saturated colors and thus missing when viewed even on the NEC)? (Actually the NEC should also be clipping ProPhotoRGB to whatever is in the monitor profile.)
    I can understand that they might look same/similar on the standard monitor (close to sRGB), where colors outside sRGB are being clipped not just by the LR conversion but also by the monitor.
    I have a fujitsu laptop (close to sRGB screen, profiled and checked with spyder2 and argyll) and a HP LP2275w (close to AdobeRGB). I need to pull the image window to the laptop to see it properly in sRGB everytime. On the HP lcd, changing color profiles show no perceptible difference, although a watchpoint placed at the out-of-gamut location shows wide changes in RGB numbers.
    The answer might actually lie in use of different rendering intents (perceptual/saturation/relative colorimetric etc). I am not very clear about how they work, but probably one of their functions is to reduce clipping.
     
  36. jacopo,
    I use an i1 Display calibrated iMac LCD monitor. I've been into color management for about ten years. Of course my monitor isn't ProPhotoRGB, but you can't explain the ProPhotoRGB edited yellows shifting to a duller magenta cast converting to sRGB.
    The image at the bottom needs to be viewed in a color managed app. It has my i1 Display iMac profile assigned to it and embedded. If I convert to sRGB both will look the same.
    00T3g4-124777584.jpg
     
  37. Howdy!
    An image encoded with the Adobe RGB (1998) color space will look desaturated if it is displayed over the Internet WITHOUT the benefit of color management. An image encoded in ProPhoto will look VERY desaturated over the Internet WITHOUT the benefit of color management.
    On the other paw, an image encoded with the sRGB color space will always look good over the Internet.
    Here's why (and it's all public knowledge):
    A long time ago, a guy who worked for HP by the name of Michael Stokes decided that color management was just too darn hard for the masses (and he was right!)
    Mike (and some associates) came up with a color space based on the following criteria:
    1. It looks reasonably good on the average monitor.
    2. The majority of images are pretty close to it already.
    That space is sRGB, "s" meaning "standard" (or as some believe, Stokes).
    Adobe thought (rightfully so) that sRGB would not be good enough for the more demanding users, and came up with Adobe RGB (1998). For the most part, Adobe RGB and sRGB are similar. They have identical green and blue vertices. The major difference is that the red vertex in Adobe RGB reaches MUCH further towards the edge of the visible color space. Thus Adobe has many more colors in it, not just reds, but the additonal blues and greens that are drawn in by stretching the red vertex.
    ProPhoto is a truly massive space, that stretches not just the red vertex, but the blue and green as well. It was designed neither as a display space (like sRGB) or an improved print space, but as an editing space. This, combined with 16 bit processing, gives the photo editor the most latitude in photo adjustment by greatly increasing the numerical resolution of the color space.
    The further the vertex is stretched away from sRGB's relatively small gamut, the less chromatic the image will appear on an sRGB monitor without color management. That's why unmanaged ProPhoto or Adobe RGB 1998 images look desaturated on sRGB monitors.
    The good news is that color management has found its way into almost everything, so even if you post images in ProPhoto or Adobe RGB to the web, they will probably look ok on most monitors, as long as the images are tagged with the appropriate profile. But if you would rather not take chances, and get the very most from your images, observe the following rules:
    1. Archive in RAW or DNG with original discrete sensor values.
    2. Edit in 16 bit ProPhoto. If you can't do everything from Lightroom, and have to use PhotoShop, save as 16 bit ProPhoto DNG.
    3. Print with a color managed workflow from 16 bit ProPhoto, or convert to whatever the best standard your lab supports. If you can't print from 16 bit ProPhoto, but your lab supports 8 bit Adobe RGB 1998, use that instead.
    4. Post to the Web in 8 bit sRGB for the widest audience (you need to downsample anyway).
    If I lost you, here's a website that explains everything, complete with rollover demos:
    http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html
    By the way: All of these spaces are RGB spaces. Printer spaces (CMYK) are another thing entirely.
    Later,
    Paulsky
     
  38. That is strange. Shouldn't the three images on the NEC look all different from each other (assuming the original image had saturated blue/green/red/orange)? sRGB, AdobeRGB and ProPhotoRGB would define different colors for these and the NEC monitor profile would show them correctly as for the appropriate sRGB/AdobeRGB/ProPhotoRGB profile (AdobeRGB and sRGB clipping some of the saturated colors and thus missing when viewed even on the NEC)?
    Indraneel, there are indeed some differences among the three jpegs, but these were very minor. The quality of the monitor itself made a much bigger difference.
    Also, I probably could have used a better test image. I used a flower, which had good greens and yellows, but not so much reds and blues.
     
  39. Tim,
    can you post the original prophoto?
     
  40. jacopo,
    I don't see the point in posting the original ProPhoto version. I've already done further edits so it wouldn't look the same anyway. If you can't see the difference in what I've posted I'll make it simple.
    Below are color gradients I created in ProPhotoRGB and NOT converted to sRGB. The image must be viewed in a color managed app like Photoshop. Download or drag and drop this image onto your desktop or where ever and convert to sRGB in Photoshop or ACR, LT, or any ICC aware app that allows converting. See if you see any shift in color appearance after converting.
    00T3oH-124823584.jpg
     
  41. Whoa, the difference in viewing Tim's color-bands image in color-managed Firefox vs. non-managed Internet Explorer is huge. The IE version looks dirty; the Firefox version looks like you washed it clean.
     
  42. acm

    acm

    Ellis​
    I have recently acquired a D90, as an upgrade from D40x, and also Capture NX2. I plan to shoot RAW. Do you advise me to set camera on Adobe RBG and save images in that space too?
     
  43. Where is Andrew Rodney in this discussion? Some of the above writing is clear but a lot of it is not. What Mr. Rodney has written on this subject stands out in my mind because it is clear and I came away with enough understanding of the subject to make sense out of it and use it effectively in my own printing using any one of the three gamuts. I have written in another recent thread about the unnecessary complexity of applying this and other processes in PS and other products. If flying airplanes had been made this complex I would have been dead long ago.
     
  44. I shoot raw, and save my raw files; therefore, I can chose which color space to work in, and change that selection depending on my needs. If I know the destination space will be sRGB (for instance, if the printer requires sRGB), is there any advantage to working in a wider color space then converting to sRGB, versus working in sRGB from the outset? Disregard considerations of keeping a "master file" in a wide color space; the raw file is my master file, and the color space can be changed at will. Thanks.
     
  45. *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*,
    Not everyone knows everything on this subject and can explain it clearly so it can TRULY be understood, not even Andrew Rodney. He isn't privy to what the programmer's work is doing to the data after the photosite cells filled with photons go through the A/D converter.
    I read an article in a photography magazine that stated even NASA engineers found color management too complicated. What does that tell you?
    You've got photons and then you have pixels and code and video systems to view those pixel converted photons on. All we care about as photographers and digital processors is how we can make those photons look great where ever that file may end up now and in the future. The only way we know what we've captured is through the software and the somewhat limited video system and display's we have today. Edits applied to the Raw file in this current environment might not pan out so well in future editing environments.
    So it's just wise to keep an unedited master of this raw file and for now edit in any color space desired, but know what it means and what you're giving up choosing a smaller editing space in developing an efficient workflow strategy. It may not be much if all you're doing is going by the preview and hope that that's the last edit you'll ever have to apply to get it to look the way you want. We'll just have to accept the preview as it is and move on.
    Who reads histograms anyway except some stock photo organizations?
    That reminds me. There was a poster over at Adobe forums a while back who was trying to prepare an image from Raw and the stock agency insisted there be no clipping of any channel in the final tiff image. Unfortunately the blue channel clipped on what seemed a very narrow gamut and narrow dynamic range image. The agency refused it. So I just told him to apply a small isolated curve adjust to the shadows in the blue channel which didn't change the look of the image at all. It worked.
    Justin,
    Those color bar gradients I posted have an embedded ProPhotoRGB profile so I hope you view them in Photoshop or any other color managed app. Convert to sRGB to see if you get a noticeable shift in the appearance.
     
  46. Tim,
    no visual difference on your gradients.
     
  47. jacopo,
    What display model and calibration package do you have? I'm using a 2004 G5 iMac calibrated with i1 Display.
    I just found something else odd about those color bars. Opening in Photoshop 7 (where I created the file) the top beige color bar takes on a somewhat greenish and desaturated hue converting to sRGB while in CS3 there isn't much of a difference, but the blue and yellow noticeably shifts to a tad lighter and slightly desaturated appearance in both versions of the app.
     
  48. My monitor, currently, is a laptop monitor, nothing special ,calibrated and profilated using Argyll.
    But your monitor profile appares good.
    I suppose your problem is the ProPhoto to sRGB transform.
    This is your image in sRGB color space. Have a look.
    00T406-124887684.jpg
     
  49. Tim why don't you try publishing a link where we can download the image as a 16 bit per channel TIFF instead of an 8 bpc compressed JPEG?
     
  50. Ellis,
    Are you talking about the color bars or a tiff version of the raw image of the yellow flower?
    I just converted jacopo's sRGB converted posted version of the color bars and converted back to ProPhotoRGB and the yellow reads in PS 7 223,223,75 when it should be 230,225,19 that's way off to attribute to quantization errors and jpeg compression. It's also visually a tad duller looking than the original. I also did the same thing in CS3 and got the same numbers.
    I didn't check the other colors for brevity sake.
    Just a note, I built the gradient bars separate from a section of a solid flat block of color fill that's to the left of the grad about the size of a rectangle to rule out 8 bit jpeg compression that may show up in the gradient. I also reconstructed the image in CS3 in 16bit which made no difference in the conversion except for the beige which didn't show a shift in CS3 as noted in my previous post. I saved the posted image with the least amount of jpeg compression at level 12 which is max quality. The solid block of color section is what changes, anyway, not the gradient section.
     
  51. Well I converted my original ProPhotoRGB version to sRGB and converted back to ProPhotoRGB and I get the same numbers as jacopo's posted sRGB version as noted previously, but I still get a the same slightly duller (meaning I notice a slight boost to cyan in the yellow) converting to sRGB.
    Apple's DigitalColor Meter shows a difference sampling the sRGB version against the original ProPhotoRGB version as well. The numbers I get in the ADM are 255,233,0 in the ProPhotoRGB version and 249,253,52 in the sRGB version.
     
  52. Post to the Web in 8 bit sRGB for the widest audience (you need to downsample anyway).​
    8 bit sRGB that's tagged as such, that is. The broken color management on the Macintosh just ships the bits over to the monitor* with no conversion at all if there's no color space information in the file. This, despite 99+% of such files on the Web being in the sRGB color space.
    * Which, thanks to the non-sRGB color space the Macintosh uses, results in the sRGB file looking all washed out and desaturated.
     
  53. If viewing sRGB tagged images in Safari, you'll get the same preview you see in Photoshop. Off colors arise when viewing UNTAGGED sRGB and other color space images where Safari ASSIGNS the monitor profile. If on a laptop the untagged colors in Safari will look even worse because of the reduced gamut of some laptops.
    I don't view untagged sRGB images or edit color on laptops.
    Here's another odd thing about creating color in ProPhotoRGB. Do two color fills in ProPhotoRGB side by side overlapping each other with these RGB yellow numbers...255,233,0 and right next to it 230,230,50. On my display they look identical even when overlapped over one another. The thing is one has clipped data and the other doesn't. See if you get the same preview.
     
  54. And just to see if my eyes aren't deceiving me I took two Lab measurement readings one off Apple's DigitalColor Meter and the Info palette in CS3 and compared the ProPhotoRGB yellow to the converted sRGB yellow. Here's what I got:
    ProPhotoRGB-CS3 info palette>Lab: 92,-2,128...ADM>Lab: 92,-2,98
    Converted to sRGB-CS3 info palette>Lab: 91,-4,89...ADM>Lab: 91,-4,89
     
  55. Tim,
    when you go from (230,225,19) in ProPhoto to sRGB, you get (255,230,0). Red and blue channel clipped.
    So going back from sRGB to ProPhoto, I get (224,224,75).
    You cannot return to the original values.
     
  56. Tim. Just for your information I was in charge of Research, Development and Acquisition of civil aviation GPS for the FAA when I retired. I think i know good technical writing when I see it; and, I know something about systems design on a fairly large scale. We were particualrly interested in human-machine interface in all of our systems development as that is critical for pilots, air traffic controllers and technicians. If you want to see complicated software go to the software we developed to land and navigate airplanes on GPS. The accuracy for approaches has to be as little as two feet. The software has to fail passively. It has to be reliable .99999 per cent of the time and when its not you have to know within 5 seconds in the cockpit that it's not and you receive that failure notice from a ground station through a geostationary satellite. No failure can feedback into the system. There are several millions of dollars in this type of development. I don't really care about photons no more than the pilots who fly GPS approaches who really only care about getting their airplane on the ground safely. What I really want with my pictures is to get decent prints that match my monitor without delving into the arcane science that went into it. I think that I have to do much too much process to get that kind of print. My monitor does match my prints closely enough to satisfy my requirements. Andrew Rodney explains it a hell of a lot better than most and I don't know why you take issue with him. What I would like to see is software like GPS that does it all for me without doing monitor calibration, soft proofing, matching ICC profiles, 16 bit, Relative Colormetric, etc. No wonder people are confused. Photoshop is a tree based software system rather than function based and as a result there is a hell of a lot steps to go through get outcomes in my humble opinion. Now I understand a lot of this is brought about by a lack of industry standardization between manufacturers, a lack of standards generally and a twenty year old photoshop system that was built system upon system that had as a design parameter "backward compatibility" which has prevented signnificant changes in the human interface with the product. My CS3 still looks about the same in many ways like the first system I bought in the early nineties except it is far more complicated and is not very intuitive. I think PS needs a ground up re-design. The NASA engineers were right in that color managment is way too complicated to effectuate and I bet they all wanted to do some human and software engineering to integrate and simplify getting a decent product for your average user. By the way I have worked with NASA engineers and they are pretty smart people. NASA like the FAA and Navy employs a significant number of human factors engineers to make things easy and safe for the user. The first time I flew the FA-18 simulator I was fully capable with the Heads up Display in twenty minutes. That ease of use came with intensive human factors work with hundreds of subjects. I think Adobe should do some of that to clean up some complicated processes. After all PS is a mass consumer product. I am still learning photoshop after owning at least ten versions of it. There is a disconnect here. All I want to know about color managment is how to effectively use it to make what I am really interested in and that is pictures. Mr. Rodney's tutorial gave me enough basic knowledge to understand where I was trying to go with all the adjusments I have to make to get there. I have the process pretty well memorized. The basic question is what do I use, Adobe RGB or sRGB. I can't really answer that except to say what others have said. AdobeRGB mostly and convert to sRGB for the web. I have used ProPhoto effectively also.
     
  57. Plenty of questions: Any comparison of rendering intents (as implemented, since algorithms may vary and are probably not standardized) in different software/browsers? Additionally, even while editing in ProPhoto, one only gets to see the colors displayed on the monitor (which might not cover sRGB exactly). Also, does soft proofing in sRGB help on a wide gamut monitor (while editing in ProPhoto)? Finally, has anyone been able to get a good wide gamut monitor profile using a spyder2 (not spyder3 which is advertised as wide gamut)?
     
  58. *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*,
    I never said I take issue with Andrew Rodney. I said he doesn't know everything about this subject or at least the issue and point of view I've presented. Andrew and I are mainly in agreement on a lot of things concerning digital imaging.
    I've read through his book among a few others from other authors and throughout the ten years researching digital imaging 6 of which has been in web discussions with Andrew I've always been thorough in my questioning trying to nail down exactly what is being discussed. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong and I'll admit it. But I've found there IS a plumb mark in knowing all the things going on under the hood in all of this.
    Usually folks who are in the know and develop a reputation as such don't like or ignore my specific questions and requests for proof or a demonstration in what they say. Or they answer my question in a way as if I'ld just fell off the turnip truck by redirecting the discussion or providing an answer in a way that implies my question is unimportant or of little concern and to just take their word for it. Sometimes they even reply that they want to be paid for such answers. When that happens I know I found the plumb mark and I move on.
    All I do is use these products and notice all the little things that happen and see if it matches up with what the experts profess. Sometimes it doesn't and when it doesn't, I holler loud and clear. That's the free exchange of ideas that is the web.
    The thing is on the web when someone starts to come up with questions, answers and issues through their own research and experimentation and present those findings as I've done here, they too get perceived as being an expert but don't get taken seriously because of the lack of credentials.
    I never said NASA engineers weren't smart. I'm sure they're smart. I don't know what your point was in mentioning that. It sounds like you were being defensive or taking it personal. If not then it's just a miscommunication that often happens in discussions on the web.
    Hell, what am I? I'm just an ex-cartoonist/illustrator/prepress technician/art director without a degree trying to learn as much as I can and maybe show others something they haven't considered about this technology. My philosophy on becoming a so called expert is you never stop learning and asking questions. Problem is I never get to see or know on the web where these experts ask questions to expand their knowledge. That troubles me.
    So I'm not trying to confuse anyone. If they want to edit their raw files in the color space of their choice then so be it, but I still get to have my say just like everyone else here and if that confuses them, that's not my problem.
     
  59. Geez! Not again. I just shot a macro of some intense orange flowers in the shade. They look gorgeous in ProPhotoRGB, no clipping of any data in the histogram. The orange is mainly made up of 195,120,20 in ProPhotoRGB.
    Converted to sRGB and the preview of the orange flowers dulled to a kind of orange brown rust. What the hell is going on?
     
  60. my car in srgb and adobergb. Both converted from prophotorgb. the srgb histogram clips in the shadows (so I guess the image is lighter).
    00T4FO-124963584.jpg
     
  61. and adobe rgb
    00T4FQ-124963684.jpg
     
  62. Tim. I was the FAA Laison with NASA for a period of time. I believe, if you gave them the project of recommending standards and technical solutions including ergonomics for simplifying color managment throughout the process they could do it. I think it needs to be done. But there needs to be industry consensus to move in that direction. What struck me that they, the engineers, found color managment too complicated. As I said above I certainly agree.
    As far as presenting scientific argument, IMO after several years of experience in FAA research programs, I believe it has to be structured, assess variables, defend assumptions, and be logical. The structure should clearly define the problem, the factors bearing on the problem(assumptions, variables etc.), offer proof, discuss alternatives, come to findings and make recommendations. The writing needs to be lucid, tightly edited and not overly complicated so as to convince those decision makers who may not have the same level of familiarity with the subject as the presenter.
    As far as your recommendation, I do keep my RAW files pristine. Any modifications I make are saved in another format.
     
  63. For most of the photos I take it would make no difference whether I use sRGB or Adobe 1998, this is because most of my photos don’t have colors outside the gamut of sRGB.
    When I do have am image that goes outside the sRGB gamut I get a warning that this is going to have in the form of clipped shadows for one or more colors.
    As an example the boat in this raw photo has a lot of green and blue in it but very little red, so little that the reds will clip to zero if I convert to sRGB, not so in Adobe RGB 1998.
    Sewcon.com/IMG_1468.CR2
    Since my monitor is pretty much limited to the sRGB color space I can’t really see the color of the boat as it really is, when viewing on my monitor. If I print using a printer that has a wider gamut, particularly into the green, then I will be able to make use of the wider gamut that sRGB provides.
    Since this image was going on the web and not being printed I am pretty much stuck with sRGB, in which case I can live with the reds clipping to zero in parts of the image or de-saturate the blue-greens in the photo.
    Since I have my raw files I can of course go back to any photos I which and convert them into any number of color spaces. If I get a monitor that has a larger gamut sometime in the future I might well go back and convert relatively small number of photos that I have that don’t fit inside the sRGB gamut.
     
  64. Converted to sRGB and the preview of the orange flowers dulled to a kind of orange brown rust. What the hell is going on?
    hmm, I don't know: clipping? Are you Assigning sRGB or Converting to sRGB?
     
  65. *X&$#**X&$#**X&$#**X&$#*,
    That what sound advice about the need for organization toward a standard. I couldn't agree more. Maybe you should talk to the folks at ICC organization, Adobe, Apple and Microsoft to work together as methodically as you just lined out. Sounds like you do boardroom/administrative and general top down speak quite well way beyond my capabilities.
    Indraneel,
    Good grief that's worse than I get converting to a matrix/math based color space. Yours looks like you converted to a look up table printer based color space. Frankly they both look good, but I those bushes in the background look kind of odd. Maybe it has something to do with downsampling to the web and what it does to the appearance of sharpness which looks kind of crispy only in the background.
    Ellis,
    I'm just opening in ACR 4.6 in ProPhotoRGB, hit Auto which pulls the ends in to eliminate clipping in the histogram and then I convert to sRGB. I may have found a workaround though.
    What I do is convert to sRGB then go into HSL and correct hue and saturation on yellows and oranges and adjust color temp to get pretty close to what I had in ProPhotoRGB and then convert back to ProPhotoRGB while still in ACR. It's kind of a cludgy editing process for controlling gamut clipping Soft Proofing, but I never thought I'ld ever see this happen in a matrix/math based color space but then I don't shoot a lot of flowers. I just started doing this to see if I can push the gamut with processing.
    Another way I do to fix this is to switch to the DNG PE Color Chart Wizard profile I made which makes images noticeably richer and saturated with oranges taking on a deeper orange and yellows unfortunately taking on a slight cyan cast.
    Here's the YouSendit link to the original orange flower raw PEF off my Pentax K100D:
    http://www.yousendit.com/download/dVlwd0VFNXY1R05MWEE9PQ
    See if you get shifts converting to sRGB after hitting Auto or make the image look good. It's a little soft because I was testing out the diopter on my camera trying to focus in low light shooting macro and I didn't quite get absolute sharp focus.
     
  66. Yesterday I read that color management slows down Firefox by 40%. Is it worth it? Not for me. But if you're interested, here's how:
    Type about:config in the address bar of Firefox 3. Click thru confirmation page and find gfx.color_management.enabled. Double click that until it says "true". Restart Firefox.
    Indraneel's red Toyota images are a case in point. The sRGB image is better because it is more saturated. However the JPEG artifacting is so bad, probably another case of Photoshop abuse, that I cannot believe that you guys are arguing over stupid things instead of what essentially more important things such as JPEG encoding.
     
  67. Yesterday I read that color management slows down Firefox by 40%.​
    I'm not seeing that at all. Feels the same as always.
     
  68. I created a new thread over here to move this discussion a little more towards actionable advice instead of color theory. Please check it out and if you have a color-managed workflow you like, post about it.
    Thanks.
     
  69. The orange is mainly made up of 195,120,20 in ProPhotoRGB.​
    Tim,
    More than orange the color is a pink.
    sRGB values are 254,116,138. So the color is internal to sRGB.

    There is no way to have any shift.

    I suspect, another time, that the ProPhoto to sRGB conversion is wrong.
     
  70. Jacopo,
    When I convert ProPhotoRGB orange=195,120,20 to sRGB I get 255,116,0 as read in CS3 info palette. The preview of this color fill slightly darkens and dulls after the conversion.
    I don't get pink or the sRGB numbers you indicated.
     
  71. Tim,
    sorry, I converted ProPhoto (195,120,120) = sRGB(254,116,138).
    And the color is pink.
    ProPhoto(195,120,20)=sRGB(255,116,0). Right!
    And is orange.
    But I don't see any color shift.
     
  72. Tim,
    some numeric values using your monitor profile:
    - transforming ProPhoto(195,120,20) into sRGB, you get (255,116,0)
    - transforming ProPhoto(195,120,20) into your monitor profile, you get (255,115,0)
    (same as the to sRGB transform)
    But:
    - transforming sRGB(255,116,0) into your monitor profile, you get (249,114,39)
    That color is the "the orange flowers dulled"
    I suppose that putting sRGB as your monitor profile you can get a better rendition.
     
  73. jacopo,
    Can you and anyone else see a color difference between the ProPhotoRGB preview vs the converted sRGB preview in the image below? If so, this is the shift I'm getting. This image needs to be viewed in a color managed app.
    And if you want to see differences editing in wider color spaces other than sRGB, convert copies of this image to sRGB, ProPhotoRGB and AdobeRGB and apply a saturation boost in Photoshop. The image is currently in my i1 Display profile so you'll have to convert to each color space to do this. On my system there's no change to the orange flowers boosting saturation in sRGB but there is in ProPhoto and AdobeRGB. See if you get the same results.
    00T5QK-125567584.jpg
     
  74. Tim,
    yes I see the difference.
    But I explained from where you have it: you have a monitor profile problem, specially in the blue channel for that colors.
    If you increase the saturation, or reduce the blue color, you can get in sRGB an image that looks like the ProPhoto image. But this is not the way.
    Have you tried the sRGB profile as your monitor profile?
     
  75. No I haven't but I'll give it a try. I'll also probably go ahead and recalibrate and see if that changes anything.
    When I increase saturation in sRGB nothing is affected. It's like the Hue/Sat slider is broken or something because nothing happens. I thought the orange color was out of gamut for sRGB but since you mention you can change the orange in sRGB then something must be amiss with my profile.
    Great! Something else I have to deal with.
    Thanks for the responses and help you've given to me. Much appreciated.
     
  76. Here is an interesting article:
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm
    Its interesting if you want to hear a pile of rubbish!
    That is strange. Shouldn't the three images on the NEC look all different from each other (assuming the original image had saturated blue/green/red/orange)?
    They all look pretty much the same in Photoshop because its color managed. If the images are tagged and the user is viewing them in an ICC aware browser, they will look the same and match Photoshop.
    Do you see a difference in the appearance of orange in the two previews? ​
    No, they appear identical in Safari to me....

    IF you're working with Raw, Adobe RGB just doesn't cut it! Its to small an encoding space if your goal is to have access to all the possible colors from a rendering and access to all the colors you could print. The Epson K3 inks greatly exceed Adobe RGB in useful saturated colors, the new HDR inks even more so.
    If you're using Adobe Raw converters, you're working under the hood with ProPhoto primaries anyway. So going from that to Adobe RGB (1998) is simply an exercise in throwing away colors you have and can use. Its as simple as that.
    If you want to post to the web, today, sRGB is the color space. Its not going to ensure a match to all users and in fact, outside the two ICC aware browsers, all bets are off. But it shouldn't look too awful for the rest of the users. If we fast forward X number of years from now, when the vast majority of displays will not behave anything remotely like sRGB, then all those sRGB images seen in non color managed browsers will look pretty piss poor.
    Lastly there's this:
    The Role of working spaces in Adobe applicaitons
     
  77. Well, I recalibrated and it didn't make any difference. Only now converting to any color space I can't increase saturation on the orange flowers.
    Andrew,
    Have I exceeded the gamut of my monitor with this orange? And I don't understand how the orange in those two previews can look the same. The top one is a more intense yellowish tint while the sRGB has less yellow, a bit on the red but not as intense.
    Check the Apple DigitalColor Meter readouts to show a marked difference in the numbers:
    00T5g1-125677584.jpg
     
  78. Jacopo,
    You said I may have a problem in the blue channel. You may be right as to the cause of this because after calibration I compared the 3D gamut plot of my new iMac profile to sRGB and my display's gamut is shrinking in the blue range. It used to be larger than sRGB in this area about two years ago when I bought the iMac used.
    I guess my display is getting too old.
    00T5gR-125683584.jpg
     
  79. What is confusing is that most printers have some rather small areas of color that can printed that are outside of Adobe RGB. But Adobe RGB has very large areas that are contained in the definition that cannot be produced by the best injet or any printers. So, the question is, what are the real world colors that need to be produced, and which method reduces the quality of a final print more? Cramming colors down to a smaller set for the areas that Adobe RGB is bigger, or reducing the color options, in the case where the printer space is larger? Both are detrimental, and the methods used by PS to compress colors are not all that great in my opinion. There does not seem to me to be a clear cut answer and it will depend on the real world colors typically needed by the artitst. If you look at various printer color profile spaces superimposed with Adobe RGB you will see this comparison. You can download Epson 9600 color profiles off the internet and use Windows Color program (free).
    [​IMG]
     
  80. Tim,
    I don't think you have a monitor problem, you have a profile problem.
    Look at my numerical sample and try sRGB as monitor profile.
    I don't think your monitor is not able to show sRGB blue.
    I think your profile is not able to characterize your monitor.
     
  81. The digitalcolor meter is pretty useless for any meaningful analysis. Its simply reading the RGB values to the display on top of Display Using Monitor Compensation etc. That's why they look the same. And they should look the same.
     
  82. Andrew,
    I'm going to have to disagree with you about Apple's DigitalColor Meter. I use its Lab readouts that DO match Photoshop's info palette readouts and as I've indicated in a previous post in this thread even the Lab readouts are different. ADM readouts have been quite consistent when color managed colors look the same on my display. When I see a color change even what seems very subtle color changes with this orange, ADM shows different numbers. When colors look the same ADM's numbers are the same as well. In fact if I have duplicates of this orange flower image and do a conversion to one of them ADM now gives a different readout.
    jacopo,
    I already loaded sRGB as my monitor profile. It didn't change anything.
    Frankly after thinking it through I think the lack of the ability to increase saturation in the orange is suppose to occur because that orange according to ADM readouts shows the red channel as maxed out so there's no headroom to increase saturation and maintain the color hue relationship.
    I picked another orange flower image shot at a different angle to the sun and lens but under the same amount of light and now can increase saturation in the orange but by only staying in ProPhotoRGB or converting to Joseph Holmes Ekta Space RGB. Converting to sRGB or AdobeRGB will not allow an increase in saturation. See below.
    00T5vu-125803684.jpg
     
  83. The values ADM provides has nothing to do with the images but the CIELab values doing to the display through the display profile.
    That might be somewhat useful in a case where you've profiled two systems the same way and want to evaluate if both are sending the same values to the screen and matching (rather than viewing them visually).
    Two documents in totally different working spaces, send through the display profile should produce nearly identical results using ADM and appear visually the same. That's totally expected behavior. That isn't saying the numbers are "correct", just that they appear the same which is what I'm seeing in Safari in your first example.
     
  84. Have I exceeded the gamut of my monitor with this orange? And I don't understand how the orange in those two previews can look the same. The top one is a more intense yellowish tint while the sRGB has less yellow, a bit on the red but not as intense.​
    As you slowly move the Saturation slider in Photoshop up, do you see the image change? A sure sign that you're working with colors outside display gamut is moving a slider which results in a visual change, then you continue to move the slider and nothing appears to update. Now you're outside display gamut with RGB values that are not.
     
  85. Went back and applied the ACR settings from the above image of the single orange flower to the previous two orange flower image and now can apply the same saturation settings but only in ProPhotoRGB and Ekta Space RGB. AdobeRGB and sRGB show no difference in saturation.
    What changed between the two ACR settings of the two images is the color temp changed from 4600 to 4000, profile change from custom DNG PE Color Chart Wizard profile to legacy ACR 4.4 and a noticeable reduction in contrast, and change in saturation and hue.
    So I guess what can be derived from this is when editing in ACR for a particular hue in a particular working space like with this orange flower, the appearance of one orange may exceed the gamut of a narrower or different shaped gamut color space over another orange that, even though it may look similar, mathematically isn't similar according to the color space it's mapped into.
    If anyone disagrees, please speak up.
     
  86. Andrew,
    Missed your previous posts.
    So I'll offer this question. Just to keep this process organized in one's head when editing these types of images, how does one determine if the gamut of the display has been exceeded over the chosen working space?
     
  87. So I'll offer this question. Just to keep this process organized in one's head when editing these types of images, how does one determine if the gamut of the display has been exceeded over the chosen working space?
    Short of plotting the image on top of the display profile in something like ColorThink, or recognizing when editing moves stop affecting the image appearance as you later them, there is not current mechanism in Adobe products. Might be someday.
     
  88. OK, got it. Thanks for the input on this, Andrew.
    It's sometimes often hard to determine when you've reached the limits of the technology or if things are working as they should within the system edting images such as these.
    After coming from working on scans for the past 8 years and going into Raw for the first time, I'm constantly amazed at the amount of data DSLR's can actually capture and deliver to the system. I'm sticking with ProPhotoRGB after what I've discovered here.
     
  89. In an interesting post, Tom Reynolds wrote: "Most printers have some rather small areas of color that can be printed that are outside of Adobe RGB. But Adobe RGB has very large areas that are contained in the definition that cannot be produced by the best inkjet or any printers." Practically speaking, these are saturated yellow (first sentence) and saturated blue and red (second sentence) because inkjet printers are CMYK or CcMmYK so they lack RB. Correct me if I'm wrong. Can the Fuji Frontier produce those reds and blues because it uses photographic paper with RGB sensitivity?
     
  90. In an interesting post, Tom Reynolds wrote: "Most printers have some rather small areas of color that can be printed that are outside of Adobe RGB. But Adobe RGB has very large areas that are contained in the definition that cannot be produced by the best inkjet or any printers."​
    He should define what he means by both "most printers" and "rather small" otherwise I don't agree if we define a modern ink jet like those from Epson using K3 or even more, HDR inks.
    The part about "Adobe RGB has very large areas that are contained in the definition that cannot be produced by the best inkjet or any printers" is equally not telling and simplistic.
    There are way, way more colors that can be defined in something like ProPhoto RGB than you could possibly output, true. But we have to live with a disconnect between the simple shapes of RGB working space and the vastly more complex shapes of output color spaces to the point we're trying to fit round pegs in square holes. To do this, you need a much larger square hole. Simple matrix profiles of RGB working spaces when plotted 3 dimensionally illustrate that they reach their maximum saturation at high luminance levels. The opposite is seen with print (output) color spaces. Printers produce color by adding ink or some colorant, working space profiles are based on building more saturation by adding more light due to the differences in subtractive and additive color models. To counter this, you need a really big RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB again due to the simple size and to fit the round peg in the bigger square hole. Their shapes are simple and predictable. Then there is the issue of very dark colors of intense saturation which do occur in nature and we can capture with many devices. Many of these colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998) and when you encode into such a space, you clip the colors to the degree that smooth gradations become solid blobs in print, again due to the dissimilar shapes and differences in how the two spaces relate to luminance.
    Practically speaking, these are saturated yellow (first sentence) and saturated blue and red (second sentence) because inkjet printers are CMYK or CcMmYK so they lack RB. Correct me if I'm wrong. Can the Fuji Frontier produce those reds and blues because it uses photographic paper with RGB sensitivity?​
    The Frontier profiles I've built show colors outside sRGB if that's the question. Has really little to do with the color models here and everything to do with the colorants.

     
  91. Here's an image shot on a DSLR plotted against Adobe RGB (white). You can see the large (yes I'd submit large) numbers of colors clipped if you use Adobe RGB (1998) as an encoding space. If you must, I'll plot the HDR inks on Exhibition fiber which shows that there are still colors in the image outside its gamut but the gamut of Adobe RGB (1998) clips colors that CAN be printed on that device. Bottom line, use Adobe RGB (1998), you'll clip colors the capture device could contain and, Adobe RGB (1998) is too small a gamut to hold the HDR or even K3 ink set.
    [​IMG]
     
  92. Frankly after thinking it through I think the lack of the ability to increase saturation in the orange is suppose to occur because that orange according to ADM readouts shows the red channel as maxed out so there's no headroom to increase saturation and maintain the color hue relationship.​
    Yes,
    to go in the correct direction you have to decrease the blue (about -40).
     
  93. Going from 5000K to 6500K the flowers became similar to ProPhoto version.
    Tim, what is your monitor white point?
     
  94. Thanks Andrew, it is a pleasure to have you on this forum. I'll visit an Epson showroom for a look at K3 and HDR inks. Is that an artificial image, explaining why so much of it is outside AdobeRGB?
     
  95. My main point I was trying to make earlier was, although it is frustrating to clip colors that could be produced by a particular printer, it is also frustrating to spend a lot of time adjusting colors and editing, and playing with saturation, etc. in ProPhoto and then when it is time to find out what the printer can reproduce there are large areas of a photo that cannot be reproduced and that Photoshop is doing a rather poor job of producing a color intent compromise. For some photographers it may be better to limit their color space to Adobe RGB during the editing process and have more colors that can be reproduced from the editing activities. I have spent a lot of time trying to re-edit to get colors back into what a printer can produce and it is very frustrating and a waste of time. The downside of this is that Adobe RGB will on occasion give up certain colors that could have been reproduced, especially if a very wide gamut printer is available. It is a choice to make by the individual based on need and the type of printer. I do not believe it is a slam dunk to always default to ProPhoto because of how ugly the color intent compromise can be. If you lined up all of the color profiles of printers used by professional photographers (including laser to chemical devices) , I would go out on a limb and say a vast majority are not wide gamut devices. I believe this is why some photographers say that they do not even go beyond sRGB (I personally could not do this). If I had access to a very wide gamut printer I would definitely use Prophoto or Ekta color space a lot more.
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  96. jacopo,
    My monitor's white point color temperature measured by i1Display is 6100K. I don't think that would cause the color shift because I can convert to AdobeRGB which has a color temp of 6500K and not get a pronounced shift. There's still a slight shift but not as noticeable as converting to sRGB. Converting to EktaSpace JoeRGB didn't cause any shift.
    I started converting to other color spaces and found I didn't get a color shift converting to my own i1Display profile. I don't know what to make of that. I even converted using Apple's CMM instead of Adobe's and it had no affect.
     
  97. Is that an artificial image, explaining why so much of it is outside AdobeRGB?​
    Its a normal image of Pete Turners called Caulk which as the name implies, is a very colorful image shot on a DSLR of colored chalk.
     
  98. I have spent a lot of time trying to re-edit to get colors back into what a printer can produce and it is very frustrating and a waste of time.​
    Lots of image editing routines are frustrating until you're taught how to do them correctly.
     
  99. Tim,
    your monitor profile white point is D50, illuminant is D50 and there is a chad matrix ???
     
  100. jacopo,
    Where are you deriving this white point data from? Colorsync Utility?
    Just examined the i1Display iMac profile double clicking on it in Colosync Utility and it looks like you're right. The media white-point tristimulus ('wtpt') tag reads the same as the Profile Connection Space which is D50. Wonder if it's necessary to change this and if so how and would I notice a difference if I did.
    Wonder if this is a bug within i1Match 3.6.2 or maybe OS 10.4.11. I'm going to do a web search on this to see if this is a real issue or the cause of this quirky behavior.
    The white point readouts of this profile viewed in CS3's CustomRGB within Color Settings reads x3196/ y3430 which is close to 6100K.
    Here I go chasing ghosts again.
     
  101. Where are you deriving this white point data from? Colorsync Utility?​
    ICC profile inspector
     
  102. Wonder if this is a bug within i1Match 3.6.2 or maybe OS 10.4.11​
    Operative system has nothing to do with a monitor profile.
     
  103. Well, I can confirm this 'wtpt' tag has nothing to do with the color shift converting to sRGB.
    I examined the tags of several color working spaces and canned iMac display profiles within Colorsync Utility with some having 6500K and others like ColorMatch with 5000K according to their 'wtpt' tag and I also converted to them in Photoshop. On closer inspection all changed slightly in varying degrees with ColorMatch being even worse than both sRGB profiles according to what I saw in the preview and Apple's DigitalColor Meter. An orange that read in ADM as 255,138,0 shifted to 255,138,54 in ColorMatch where as sRGB shifted to 248,138,41. The one that changed the least visually and in ADM was my i1Display iMac profile.
    The only major difference between all of these profiles according to Colorsync Utility were their 'chad' tag>Chromatic Adaptation Matrix number readouts.
    Still don't know what causes this.
     
  104. Just to make this orange color shift more clear I've screencaptured and overlaid three conversions of two orange swatches that noticeably shift converting to other profiles with the i1Display iMac showing no shift and the other two ColorMatch and sRGB changing slightly in hue/sat and a bit of luminance.
    This image is tagged with the i1Display iMac profile. It was converted from ProPhotoRGB where the original orange swatches were created to my iMac profile where I then drag and dropped the screencaptures of the other two oranges into the i1Display iMac space.
    00T7nT-126819584.jpg
     
  105. Quote myself
    Tim,
    some numeric values using your monitor profile:
    - transforming ProPhoto(195,120,20) into sRGB, you get (255,116,0)
    - transforming ProPhoto(195,120,20) into your monitor profile, you get (255,115,0)
    (same as the to sRGB transform)
    But:
    - transforming sRGB(255,116,0) into your monitor profile, you get (249,114,39)
    That color is the "the orange flowers dulled"​
    Computing the dE2000 between (255,115,0) and (249,114,39) using the monitor profile, I get 3.35 (not a very bad value).
    Perhaps you cannot get a better value with your monitor and your calibration kit.
     
  106. Thanks for computing the Delta E on those numbers. The actual conversion numbers between converting from ProPhotoRGB to sRGB and my i1Display profile may be close but the appearance of the previews aren't.
    I don't know if you were measuring the Delta E of the actual converted data or the differences of the two previews.
    Can you visually see the differences in the above image? The dulled sRGB version is 249,114,39 the reading I get in Apple's DigitalColor Meter when I should be getting 255,116,0 if the colors are suppose to look the same regardless of the color space converting to. That's how color matching and color management is suppose to work at least on a display.
    I was under the impression this kind of color shift which resembles gamut clipping should only occur converting to narrow gamut printer spaces like CMYK and minilabs, not synthetic matrix based profiles.
     
  107. The difference is for the two RGB values in your monitor color space.
    Tim, the problem is that going from ProPhoto values to sRGB, with this color, you are at sRGB gamut boundary.
    The same is true going from ProPhoto to monitor gamut.
    But sRGB value is slightly inside monitor gamut.
    All the transforms are relative, so the sRGB value is not changed when you translate it into monitor color space.
    As the corresponding monitor color space value is more inside, it is more "desaturated".
    Try V4 sRGB profile to transform from ProPhoto to sRGB , using perceptual intent.
    I think you can have some benefit.
    00T8xX-127437684.jpg
     

Share This Page