AdobeRGB & ISO profiles incompatibility?

[jonathan_mcgraw]

B

OK Ed. I'm making notes from this thread. This has been added-Jon

[paddler4]

“3. If you take JPEGs, then the colors outside of whichever gamut you pick are simply gone. If you shoot raw, it makes absolutely no difference whether you set the camera to Adobe RGB or sRGB.The data outside those gamuts is still present, and Lightroom will ignore the setting you choose.”

I'm going to have to Google this. It doesn't make sense

 

So "Melissa," has a larger color gamut than aRGB or sRGB. No?

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

The key to this is that the camera setting you use--sRGB or Adobe RGB--simply has no effect on the raw file at all. The setting is there only for shooting JPEG. Think of it as a number line. Say, just for illustration, that the raw file read into Lightroom contains colors 1-100 in the big color space Melissa. If you convert that to Adobe RGB, you might loose 30 of those 100 colors. if you convert to sRGB, you might lose another 20. (These are just for illustration--I haven't looked up the actual size of these three color spaces.

 

If you edit in Lightroom and print directly from Lightroom, you never have to convert to JPEG at all, which means that you don't need to convert to the smaller color space. You will lose some colors that the printer can't manage--which will show up as "out of gamut" when you soft proof in Lightroom.

 

On the other hand, if you want to post online, then you do need to convert to JPEG, and you need to pick one of the smaller color spaces. Since the large majority of computer monitors are at best sRGB-compliant, most of us produce sRGB JPEGs to post online.

[jonathan_mcgraw]

OK Ed. I'm making notes from this thread. This has been added-Jon

What happened to Ed's post? I need to find how to correctly reply to a post in this forum. Another thing to study/ learn :-\

Yes, that is correct.

 

The key to this is that the camera setting you use--sRGB or Adobe RGB--simply has no effect on the raw file at all. The setting is there only for shooting JPEG. Think of it as a number line. Say, just for illustration, that the raw file read into Lightroom contains colors 1-100 in the big color space Melissa. If you convert that to Adobe RGB, you might loose 30 of those 100 colors. if you convert to sRGB, you might lose another 20. (These are just for illustration--I haven't looked up the actual size of these three color spaces.

 

If you edit in Lightroom and print directly from Lightroom, you never have to convert to JPEG at all, which means that you don't need to convert to the smaller color space. You will lose some colors that the printer can't manage--which will show up as "out of gamut" when you soft proof in Lightroom.

 

On the other hand, if you want to post online, then you do need to convert to JPEG, and you need to pick one of the smaller color spaces. Since the large majority of computer monitors are at best sRGB-compliant, most of us produce sRGB JPEGs to post online.

So "Melissa," has a larger color gamut than aRGB or sRGB. No?

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

“The key to this is that the camera setting you use--sRGB or Adobe RGB--simply has no effect on the raw file at all. The setting is there only for shooting JPEG. Think of it as a number line. Say, just for illustration, that the raw file read into Lightroom contains colors 1-100 in the big color space Melissa. If you convert that to Adobe RGB, you might loose 30 of those 100 colors. if you convert to sRGB, you might lose another 20. (These are just for illustration--I haven't looked up the actual size of these three color spaces.”

 

-I understand that the numbers you listed are an example only. So is it fair to say that Nikons' listing of 2 RAW types is marketing dept hype?-Jon

 

“if you edit in Lightroom and print directly from Lightroom, you never have to convert to JPEG at all, which means that you don't need to convert to the smaller color space. You will lose some colors that the printer can't manage--which will show up as "out of gamut" when you soft proof in Lightroom.”

 

-I've suspected for quite some time, that JPEG is similar to reversal film & RAW is comparable to negative printing only much more versatile than the wet darkroom-Jon

 

“On the other hand, if you want to post online, then you do need to convert to JPEG, and you need to pick one of the smaller color spaces. Since the large majority of computer monitors are at best sRGB-compliant, most of us produce sRGB JPEGs to post online.'

 

-OK, I've wondered about this. I understand now-Jon

 

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

The key to this is that the camera setting you use--sRGB or Adobe RGB--simply has no effect on the raw file at all. The setting is there only for shooting JPEG. Think of it as a number line. Say, just for illustration, that the raw file read into Lightroom contains colors 1-100 in the big color space Melissa. If you convert that to Adobe RGB, you might loose 30 of those 100 colors. if you convert to sRGB, you might lose another 20. (These are just for illustration--I haven't looked up the actual size of these three color spaces.

 

If you edit in Lightroom and print directly from Lightroom, you never have to convert to JPEG at all, which means that you don't need to convert to the smaller color space. You will lose some colors that the printer can't manage--which will show up as "out of gamut" when you soft proof in Lightroom.

 

On the other hand, if you want to post online, then you do need to convert to JPEG, and you need to pick one of the smaller color spaces. Since the large majority of computer monitors are at best sRGB-compliant, most of us produce sRGB JPEGs to post online.

[michael_levy3]

8. If you are printing in color from Lightroom, you have to tell the software that it should control color, not the printer. This requires two steps with your printer. First, in the lightroom print module, down at the lower right, you will see "color Management." The first entry in that box is "profile". Change this from "managed by printer" top the profile for your paper. (Note: when you load the ICC into windows, it will show up here, but you have to check a tick box to tell LR to consider this an active profile.) Then, when you to to the page setup (left bottom) or print (right bottom) dialog, go to properties. This is where you set the paper type, the paper size, etc. Go to the second tab and you will find a section labeled "color matching". Set this to "none." This tells the printers firmware that it is not supposed to manage color.

Paddler4, I want to thank you for giving the OP such a good answer. I want to add something tho for anyone (like me) who uses a Mac with OS X. When you choose a printer profile from Lightroom, the Mac printer driver automatically turns off color management in the printer. If you open the "Color Matching" part of the print dialog, you will see this:

Notice that the two choices are greyed out, but "ColorSync" is selected. ColorSync tells the printer to use the profile, not the printers own management.

 

If you choose "let printer manage" in Lightroom, you see this:

Notice that the selected button is "Canon Color Matching".

 

If you choose "Color Sync" in this case, you are then given a drop-down list of profiles to choose from - the same list that you could have chosen in Lightroom.

 

I hope this helps Mac users: I have not found this documented online before.

[digitaldog]

There is a tool in Photoshop, "View/Gamut Warning" you can click to highlight any parts of the image out of gamut in the current color space. I can't find any examples in my photos rendered under AdobeRGB and sRGB. I suspect you have to go out of your way to create them.

That 'tool' is nearly worthless for so many reasons: Buggy, inaccurate and predates soft proofing and the use of ICC profiles to convert and handle Out of Gamut (OOG) colors. All explained here:

 

The Out Of Gamut Overlay in Photoshop and Lightroom

In this 25 minute video, I'll cover everything you need to know about the Out Of Gamut (OOG) overlay in Photoshop and Lightroom. You'll see why, with a rare exception, you can ignore this very old feature and still deal with out of gamut colors using modern color management tools.

 

YouTube:

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/OOG_Video.mp4

Not at all difficult to create them or see the differences given proper tools to do so: take a colorful image in raw, render and encode into ProPhoto RGB, plot in 3D the image gamut compared to Adobe RGB (1998).

[digitaldog]

MelissaRGB is the name of only one color space used in one place in LR (although you can make them to use in Photoshop etc); the Histogram shown in Develop module. That's ProPhoto RGB gamut (primaries) with an sRGB tone curve (not gamma). It isn't the color space used for processing. It reflects the current rendering settings within that converter (and ACR). It's not a raw Histogram nor tell us anything about raw in that respect. You can or course soft proof and update the Histogram based on anything you have profiles for to select.

[rodeo_joe1]

Look at the kinds of images you shoot before agonizing over the size of the color space you choose.

I think that's good advice, and often overlooked by colour-accuracy purists.

 

How many real-world Cyans hit or exceed the CMYK printing space? How many real-world reds and greens go out of gamut in sRGB? And does it really matter if that red pillar box is a shade out on screen or in print? Royal blues might well be problematic, but unless you have that particular piece of cloth in front of you, who's going to know?

 

It really only concerns e-commerce that colours are accurately presented. For the rest of us it's a nicety that probably doesn't warrant the trouble or expense.

[digitaldog]

I think that's good advice, and often overlooked by colour-accuracy purists.

It is a great idea, never overlooked by color purists who have the tools and knowledge to colorimetrically analysis color images against color spaces. Tell us how you propose your readers do this, I'll point to the tool to do so: CHROMiX ColorThink

 

Is color accuracy purists another term for professional, or someone who strives for the best quality image data to process and print? I suppose some amateurs who have no idea how to 'look at the kinds of images before you shoot to chose a color space' should stick with sRGB front to back workflow rather than learn how to properly evaluate scene gamut with working space gamut.

How many real-world Cyans hit or exceed the CMYK printing space?

The question as placed makes no sense and shows a misunderstanding of basic color management. The images are all RGB due to the fact every capture device is that color model. Cyan shows up after conversion to an output color space based on the CMYK color model and output profile used. Until that point, there's no cyan to deal with and the final cyan for output hasn't been defined or applied. So the question makes no sense. Do you wish to see RGB image data of 'real life' images that exceed the gamut of a defined CMYK (not all CMYK) printers? Ask with specifics. EDIT: BTW, got a Macbeth ColorChecker? The cyan patch falls outside sRGB color gamut! :eek:

How many real-world reds and greens go out of gamut in sRGB?

Billions potentially. See one example and a thread that might explain to you, if you read and understand it, exactly the answer:

 

Re: "sRGB is enough": Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

FACT is, no printer can produce all of sRGB. That is, sRGB has a color gamut in portions of it's color space that exceed every printer on the planet.

FACT is, those who wish to capture and reproduce all the possible colors they are able to, shoot raw and render then encode in the largest gamut working space they can. There is ZERO downside to this workflow and only a downside to encoding into a smaller working space (clipping of colors captured that can be reproduced).

IF you're a rank amateur and don't know anything about this topic of color, color gamut etc, stick with sRGB; JPEG on the camera, and everywhere else. IF and when you decide you'd like to up your imaging gamut and utilize more of the data you were able to produce and use, study some basic aspects of color management.

It really only concerns e-commerce that colours are accurately presented. For the rest of us it's a nicety that probably doesn't warrant the trouble or expense.

Speak for yourself not others, don't comment on color accuracy; you're not there yet. After the other two video's referenced that explain this stuff thus far, you can learn about color accuracy, what it means, how it's measured and reported:

Delta-E and color accuracy

 

In this 7 minute video I'll cover: What is Delta-E and how we use it to evaluate color differences. Color Accuracy: what it really means, how we measure it using ColorThink Pro and BableColor CT&A. This is an edited subset of a video covering RGB working spaces from raw data (sRGB urban legend Part 1).

 

Low Rez:

High Rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Delta-E and Color Accuracy Video.mp4

Edited May 2, 2019 by digitaldog

[conrad_hoffman]

So many things I shoot look like this, so you can see why I don't agonize over color space. I also shoot black parts on light backgrounds. The last thing I shot had a couple red and green LEDs as the most colorful thing in the shot. Even the colorful things I shoot personally are rarely brightly colored. And compressed jpegs are just fine, in fact my client would be annoyed if I used anything else. I'm pretty sure only photographers, printers and glossy magazine people lose sleep about color space. Few people today, unless you're working in a specific (and hopefully high $$) environment, have the experience or education to know the difference between sRGB and anything else. (FWIW, I do hope most of you aren't trapped in a monochrome world like this!)

 

[digitaldog]

No one needs to agonize over color spaces from raw. They simply need to select one. There is one that's sufficiently large, some raw processors utilize it (a variant in a differing TRC), many allow you to encode into it without clipping: ProPhoto RGB. The object can be totally neutral or super colorful; no difference: color spaces are containers for numbers. You don't have to fill the container. But if the container isn't large enough to fit the contents, you have to clip that data to place it into the container. There's zero reason to do so clipping. And lots of reasons not to do so.

[rodeo_joe1]

All e-commerce is done using the sRGB colour space. It would be foolish to use anything else for internet use. So even (most) colour professionals need to compromise their colour management into that space.

 

I'm certainly not suggesting not to shoot RAW, just that agonising over colour spaces might not be a high priority for many casual, and not so casual shooters.

 

And if you have a RAW file, why would you bother to put it into the ProPhoto 'container' when there's no output device that can display that gamut?

[conrad_hoffman]

I've been shooting more RAW lately and have discovered that not all RAW converters are created equal. But, if you have RAW, you can take advantage of whatever improvements come along. Along with whatever color space you want.

[Ed_Ingold]

And if you have a RAW file, why would you bother to put it into the ProPhoto 'container' when there's no output device that can display that gamut?

More headroom for grading.

[rodeo_joe1]

More headroom for grading.

In what way?

The RAW file contains all the colour information that's available from the sensor. So a ProPhotoRGB conversion is simply an intermediate stage and, presumably, a degradation from RAW.

You have the RAW file, and a monitor profile. Surely it makes more sense to convert the raw directly to the monitor space for editing? Such that you have a manipulation matrix that's a single step, rather than converting to ProPhoto first, and then to whatever output profile is needed.

 

How does conversion to ProPhotoRGB get you any closer to the desired practical output space? Your raw file is as good as it gets - and according to one of the above links contains 'imaginary' colours that can't be seen even if you can find a display with primaries well outside of its own boundaries. A good trick for a plain old set of dye filters stuck over a slice of silicon!

 

No magic monochromatic primaries sitting well outside of the CIE horseshoe, just some RGB subtractive filters of finite width.

Edited May 3, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

[digitaldog]

In what way?

Surely it makes more sense to convert the raw directly to the monitor space for editing?

Surely not. It's why RGB working spaces are divorced from the display.

[Ed_Ingold]

You can't operate on RAW files directly. They must be converted to some other format, e.g., PSD in Photoshop. You must also assign a color space in this conversion, so that the editor will know what colors are assigned to each word. The RGB preferences in both Photoshop and Lightroom include AdobeRGB and ProfotoRGB. Monitor profiles are inserted between the image file and the monitor, and are independent of each other. One profile can service many color spaces. One color space can be used with many profiles.

 

Grading an image cannot enlarge the color space, and will usually degrade it. It makes sense to start in the widest color space so that less of the image is pushed outside the gamut.

 

By my Lightroom (and Photoshop) preferences, RAW files are default to 16-bit TIFF format, ProFotoRGB.

[Nick D.]

What a lively discussion:) Colour management always been big can of worms.

To OP, all purpose of the Colour management system is to make print to match the screen, short is WYSIWYG or to make image look the same on different displays.

To make it work, for starters you need good quality monitor , monitor calibration device with software, and colour profiles for your printer/paper combination.

Depend on your needs pick one that fit into your budget , no miracles here, as usual, you got what you pay for.

After that, some tweaking in Lightroom and printer driver will get you in the ballpark.

[PaulCoen]

So I've got a Pro-10, and I'm printing from Lightroom. I have calibrated my display - I've got a BenQ SW2700.

 

Scanning through the thread, I didn't see if you were using Windows or MacOS - I've got Windows at home. At least in Windows, the Canon drivers include default printing options that work really poorly with both Lightroom and Photoshop if you're doing color management in the applications. In the "Printing Properties" tab, there's a "Color/Intensity" section. Set that to "Manual". Click "Set" and then go to the "Color Matching" tab at set it to "None". Until I did both, I was getting weird color shifts.

 

If you're using MacOS, this may not be an issue - I've only seen the PRO-1000 drivers on a Mac, and they're a bit different and I didn't see a similar set of options there. Not sure if that's a difference because of the platform or because of the printer model.

 

Also, even with a profiled display, I find that I have to up the "brightness" slider in Lightroom's Print module, especially on glossy or semi-gloss paper, even with the right paper profile selected, etc. It's not really an issue with matte. I'd recommend using the Soft Proofing feature, especially if you're going to print the same image on more than one type of paper. If you save the settings, it'll make it easier to go back and reprint later.

[digitaldog]

IF you have to up something in LR's print module so a print matches the display, that display isn't ideally calibrated.

[joseph_smith3]

ON1 Photo Raw Version 2019.5 is to have dual monitor support: See info at link below.

 

 

ON1 Photo RAW 2019.5 update brings dual screen display and more

 

Joe

[jonathan_mcgraw]

What a lively discussion:) Colour management always been big can of worms.

To OP, all purpose of the Colour management system is to make print to match the screen, short is WYSIWYG or to make image look the same on different displays.

To make it work, for starters you need good quality monitor , monitor calibration device with software, and colour profiles for your printer/paper combination.

Depend on your needs pick one that fit into your budget , no miracles here, as usual, you got what you pay for.

After that, some tweaking in Lightroom and printer driver will get you in the ballpark.

Thank you Nick

 

I didn't realize that this thread was still going on. I haven't checked it for a couple of weeks. A question, is it enough to shoot a Passport sized gray or white card to do accurate calibration?

 

Are the Passport sized color squares too small to read on a computer screen. And if they are too small, I see a real problem w/ carrying an 8 X 10 target.

 

Thanks again

[Ed_Ingold]

Are the Passport sized color squares too small to read on a computer screen. And if they are too small, I see a real problem w/ carrying an 8 X 10 target.

They are as large as you wish them to be. Besides, it's not how they look on the screen as long as you bracket the chart so the Passport software knows where to look in the image file.

[digitaldog]

The Passport colored target is a MacBeth 24 patch from long past, used to build .DCP camera profiles and more recently ICC camera profiles. Depends on the raw converter and your needs (I frankly don't find ICC camera profiles that useful or effective). The patches are not too small for the task. They are not necessarily 'calibrating' anything. They are used to profile device behavior.

White target is for white balancing raw data, gray target for gray balancing JPEGs (or non raw data) after capture.

All the patch colors can be sampled for values on a computer screen. But that's hardly necessary.

[Nick D.]

Thank you Nick

 

I didn't realize that this thread was still going on. I haven't checked it for a couple of weeks. A question, is it enough to shoot a Passport sized gray or white card to do accurate calibration?

 

Are the Passport sized color squares too small to read on a computer screen. And if they are too small, I see a real problem w/ carrying an 8 X 10 target.

 

Thanks again

We talking about different calibration, white or gray card used for white balance settings in camera or in post-processing. I was talking about computer monitor calibration, which is absolutely necessary, if you want avoid surprises when you printing pictures.

[paddler4]

Scanning through the thread, I didn't see if you were using Windows or MacOS - I've got Windows at home. At least in Windows, the Canon drivers include default printing options that work really poorly with both Lightroom and Photoshop if you're doing color management in the applications. In the "Printing Properties" tab, there's a "Color/Intensity" section. Set that to "Manual". Click "Set" and then go to the "Color Matching" tab at set it to "None". Until I did both, I was getting weird color shifts.

 

In the firmware for all of 3 of the Canon printers I have used, the step you describe is how you tell the printer firmware not to try to manage colors. It's the other half of telling Lightroom not to let the printer manage colors. that is, you need both steps to stop the printer from managing color.

 

Also, even with a profiled display, I find that I have to up the "brightness" slider in Lightroom's Print module, especially on glossy or semi-gloss paper, even with the right paper profile selected, etc.

 

I generally set both the brightness and contrast sliders in the Lightroom print module to +10. I don't think this has anything to do with the profile.