Goodbye Adobe RGB, hello Pro Photo RGB?

[todd_caudle]

<p>Hey all, I attended a great fine art digital printing workshop yesterday by John Paul Caponigro and R. Mac Holbert, and one of the things I took away from it was that I've been missing out on a wider color gamut by converting from RAW to TIFF using Adobe RGB (1998) instead of the larger Pro Photo RGB color space. (As an aside, don't you just <strong><em>love</em></strong> finding out that you've done every conversion you've ever made since going digital wrong? Exaggeration, I know, but you get my drift.) My initial workflow software of choice is DPP, where I do the minor editing it allows (and 9 times out of 10 it's all that's needed except for dust spotting, etc.), where it faithfully retains my picture style and other settings through the conversion process, then I convert to TIFF and do any final edits in CS5. I note that the color management preferences in DPP don't specifically offer Pro Photo RGB, but do have something called Wide Gamut RGB. Might this be the same as Pro Photo RGB under a more generic name? Or am I possibly missing a DPP update that officially lists Pro Photo RGB as an option? I really like the simplicity of the DPP software, and for what I do it's usually enough. I'd rather not go to LR, which I don't own, or ACR for the initial work and conversion. Thanks for any thoughts on this!</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>I'm surprised after attending the workshop you still want to use DPP as your RAW editor.<br>

If you have PS ACR use it instead.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>Wide gamut RGB is slightly smaller than Pro Photo RGB according to some sources. Wikipedia has a couple of bell shaped charts that map the actual colors for both. I also use DPP especially for printing, because it gives me better looking prints on my Epson R2400 thsn does printing from LR or PS. Dont ask me why ? </p>

[brian_ellis19]

<p>Just in case you'd like some reassurance, I attended a workshop earlier this year at which one of the speakers was an Epson rep. He urged everyone to use Pro Photo rather than Adobe RGB. Presumably he knows what he's talking about.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>9 times out of 10 ProPhoto will offer you nothing extra. It is not correct to make a blanket statement that all your previous efforts have been wasted, even in jest.</p>

<p>If you are not out of gamut, even if you are fine art printing, then you lose nothing, even if you are out of the printer gamut the rendering intent is far more important than colour space, rendering intent dictates what the printer will do to your out of gamut colours. Arbitrarily using ProPhoto as a basic colour space is not helpful unless you understand all the implications and the exact way your files are handled all the way through your workflow up to, and including, your printer.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/color-space-conversion.htm">This site</a> has some great essays. Incidentally, if you have a Mac go into Utilities, ColorSync Utility and choose a profile, you then get a three dimensional diagram that you can rotate to see all angles and colours represented.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

ProPhoto sounds good on paper, but I don't know of any monitors that can display the full ProPhoto gamut, nor do I know of any inkjet printers that can print the full ProPhoto gamut.

 

So, with no way to print it, or monitor to see it, I'm left wondering what's the point.

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Frankly, I'd lose DPP. There are virtually no advantages to using it for serious printing, absent the fact that it comes "free"with your camera. The intermediate TIFF file step is also unnecessary now. </p>

<p>The best workflow is likely to go straight in to Lightroom or else (as I do) convert from RAW to 16-bit images in the ProPhoto RGB space that open directly into Photoshop. Even better, bring the converted images into PS as smart layers, allowing greater options for non-destructive editing.</p>

<p>Since the issue came up, the point is not that your file will look better or different for display on monitors, say as part of a web page or in an email. For those purposes your final target output format should be plain old RGB, and 8-bit with some compression of the jpg file is fine. However, if you want the maximum freedom to work the file in post and you then intend to create high quality prints, there is a lot to be said for doing your post-process editing in 16-bit ProPhotoRGB.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jonathan_montague]

<p>as others have said all printers colour spaces are considerably smaller than the ProPhotoRGB space and usually smaller than AdobeRGB colour space. Keeping your master files as 16bit ProPhoto is a good thing but be aware you can make changes to the file and NOT be able to see the result on a monitor since the monitors colour space is a smaller than ProPhoto. So the watchword when editing in Pro Photo is not to be too extreme.</p>

[charles_zabilski1]

<p>Today's printers cannot print the full gamut of ProPhoto. However, you may want to print your files sometime in the next few years with a printer that can print the full gamut. In such a case you will be glad your working space was ProPhoto.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Charles, if your files are RAW files they have no colour space, if you work them in LightRoom they have no colour space, the space is not assigned until you hit print or export, there is no need to future proof if you understand what your workflow does to colour spaces.</p>

<p>Shoot RAW, keep your RAW files, you will never lose any capabilities. As I said earlier, if you don't understand every step of your workflow and how your programs convert to those spaces, bigger is not necessarily better and can cause problems of its own.</p>

[charles_zabilski1]

<p>Raw is a starting point not an ending point. I use Lightroom to preprocess my images. I don't stop there if its an image I want to print. I take the RAW file with my Lightroom changes and export it to Photoshop where I produce a master file. This master file needs a colorspace associated with it. Same with my film scans. I scan to a TIFF file with a ProPhoto colorspace. Leaving files as RAW make no more sense than exposing film and failing to develop it.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Leaving files as RAW make no more sense than exposing film and failing to develop it.]]</p>

<p>Your analogy is fundamentally flawed. </p>

<p> </p>

[charles_zabilski1]

<p>I believe the original thread here was whether to use ProPhoto or Adobe RGB 1998. This (of course) assumes one needs to or wants to assign a profile. By creating a master file in Photoshop does not mean one has to delete or overwrite the original RAW file. That was my point. Not sure how this was confused with keeping files as RAW. This is not mutually exclusive. One can have both.<br /> I stand by my analogy.</p>

[charles_zabilski1]

<p>I believe the original thread here was whether to use ProPhoto or Adobe RGB 1998. This (of course) assumes one needs to or wants to assign a profile. By creating a master file in Photoshop does not mean one has to delete or overwrite the original RAW file. That was my point. Not sure how this was confused with keeping files as RAW. This is not mutually exclusive. One can have both.<br /> I stand by my analogy.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>Actually the original thread was how to use ProPhoto RGB in Canon's DPP. Then all the Photoshop enthusiasts turned their noses up and assumed that even though the original posting stated they didn't care for Photoshop they should dump their current workflow entirely and learn a new one. Then it was said that ProPhoto RGB likely wouldn't show you much difference over Adobe RGB, so just use Adobe RGB. So this has evolved into a "use Photoshop" thread since it's better and will give you the exact same results as what you're already doing. So much for it's the carpenter, not the hammer he uses.</p>

<p>Todd, what about your current workflow makes you think you need to change things up?</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>I moved to ProPhoto RGB, 16-bit as my intermediate step (between Raw and the final product) years ago. ProPhoto is the perfect image editing workspace and probably the best one to print from, bar none.<br>

None of this is disputable.</p>

[charles_zabilski1]

<p>Actually the original post stated:<br>

"I convert to TIFF and do any final edits in CS5. I note that the color management preferences in DPP don't specifically offer Pro Photo RGB, but do have something called Wide Gamut RGB".<br>

It seems that the poster uses DPP and then CS5 as required. The question was whether Wide Gamut RGB was close to or equivalent to ProPhoto. Not everyone suggested dumping DPP. Use what works.<br>

Yes ProPhoto can cause problems if the entire workflow doesn't support it ot if you use 8-bit color depth and not 16. Many digital cameras can exceed the gamut of Adobe 1998, so I believe you are better off with a colorspace which will accomodate the capture device's capabilities. Monitors and printers will soon follow.</p>

[todd_caudle]

<p>Whew! I step away from here for a few days and the conversation takes on a new trajectory. Welcome to the internets! :-)</p>

<p>So here's the deal: My initial question was whether or not DPP's wide-gamut RGB and ProPhoto RGB were roughly equivalent. Yes, I understand that current monitors and printers cannot use the entirety of the ProPhoto RGB gamut. I just wanted to know whether or not these two were close.</p>

<p>But this leads me to say that <em>of course</em> I want to use a larger color gamut if one is available! Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right? If I shot only for a final output of black & white prints, would I be well-served to convert only to a grayscale tiff? Of course not! I want to convert my images to the widest possible color gamut so I don't leave any colors out that might otherwise be included. As Charles noted, technology will catch up with larger color spaces. Epson's latest printers are an example of that. </p>

<p>In short, there's nothing in my current workflow that requires that I switch to ProPhoto RGB, I only want to convert my files with as much data as I might ever need, and not have to go back and re-convert once technology catches up.</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone, for a spirited discussion!</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Todd,</p>

<p>You are missing one of my points, RAW files do not have a space, they are opened in one by RAW converters and assigned one (any one) on saving. To future proof your files there is no point in converting to anything, just save RAW files. RAW files are smaller and in the future, whenever bigger spaces and more capable converters appear, no capture information or capabilities are lost.</p>

<p><em>"this leads me to say that of course I want to use a larger color gamut " </em>this is the reaction of many who quite frankly don't understand the workflow. If there is no advantage, there is no point!</p>