Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

On 2/16/2013 8:23 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
> space. Supposedly these are the best.
>
> On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
> world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
> point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
> because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
> gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?
>

there is an interesting discussion of this topic at:
<http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZnI>

To sum it up!
Your choice depends on your use, (and include probable future use.) One
size doesn't fit all.

--
PeterN

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

On 2/16/2013 11:19 AM, PeterN wrote:
> On 2/16/2013 8:23 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> There are new monitors covering 99% (or more?) of the AdobeRGB colour
>> space. Supposedly these are the best.
>>
>> On the other hand some people are claiming that we live in an sRGB
>> world, so such a wide gamut is not necessary, i.e. there would be no
>> point in being able to see colours which nobody else can see (either
>> because most people do not have wide gamut monitors or because the wide
>> gamut cannot be printed). Any thoughts about the matter?
>>
>
> there is an interesting discussion of this topic at:
> <http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00aZnI>
>
> To sum it up!
> Your choice depends on your use, (and include probable future use.) One
> size doesn't fit all.
>

I forgot to add:
Here is a video htat explains the differences:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q>

--
PeterN

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

On 2/16/2013 5:49 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <511fb4c2$0$10801$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
> says...
>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q>
>
> Interesting. Who is actually using the ProPhoto colour space?
>
> Should one use Prophoto instead of AdobeRGB?
>

As I said earlier , it depends on your use. I prefer to work in ProPhoto
because I feel that I have more color control. I also use ICC profiles.

--
PeterN

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

On 17/02/2013 12:45 p.m., Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-02-16 14:49:56 -0800, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> In article <511fb4c2$0$10801$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
>> says...
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0bxSD-Xx-Q>
>>
>> Interesting. Who is actually using the ProPhoto colour space?
>
> Almost everybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, only making
> the conversion to sRGB & 8-bit JPEG on export.
>
> Also anybody processing RAW/DNG files with Lightroom, and then
> performing additional editing in an external editor such as Photoshop or
> some other stand alone applications such as some of the NIK offerings.
>
> The Lightroom adjusted RAW file (usually imported and converted DNG) is
> exported to the external editing SW (let's just say as in my case CS5)
> as a TIFF in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB with the Lightroom adjustments applied.
>
> A note in the LR4 preferences reads:
> "16-bit ProPhoto RGB is the recommended choice for best preserving color
> detais from Lightroom".
> and
> "The AdobeRGB (1998) colorspace cannot encompass the full range of
> colors available within Lightroom."
>
And if you can't see it (because your monitor "only" covers aRGB), then....?
> and
> "The sRGB colorspace cannot encompass the full range of colors available
> within Lightroom."
>
> There is also this note in the LR Preferences regarding using 8-bit in
> LR or in an external editor:
> "8-bit files are smaller and more compatible with various programs and
> plug-ins, but will not preserve fine tonal detail as well as 16-bit
> data. This is particularly true in wide gamut color spaces such as
> ProPhoto RGB."
>
>>
>> Should one use Prophoto instead of AdobeRGB?
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. If your product is only going to be viewed online
> there is probably no good reason to work in ProPhoto RGB, unless you are
> trying to work the best colorspace for your software, and then convert
> to 8-bit sRGB to save as JPEGs for online presentation.
>
Conversion is lossy - better to not "convert" but to apply a colourspace
when saving (ie to jpeg) from colourspace-agnostic raw.

>
There's a potential gotcha with 8 bit files and >sRGB colourspace.
A one integer difference in R,G, or B value, particularly in the
mid-tones, easily exceeds Delta E 1.0 colour variance, so the finest
adjustment which can be made is larger than the smallest difference that
can be seen by the average person, and integer rounding of gradients is
much more likely to be a problem (posterisation/banding).

I can't see much point - if any - in using >sRGB for printing unless
you're correctly soft-proofing. Then you're still going to need to be
very careful. For the web - it's completely pointless in almost every
case, and opens a can of worms.

While there might be some overlap where some printers exceed aRGB gamut,
mostly the printers won't even cover full sRGB colourspace let alone
aRGB, despite (usually deliberately "obfuscative") claims by the
manufacturers.

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

On 2/16/2013 8:14 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <2013021615450475249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> says...
>> The Lightroom adjusted RAW file (usually imported and converted DNG) is
>> exported to the external editing SW (let's just say as in my case CS5)
>> as a TIFF in 16-bit ProPhoto RGB with the Lightroom adjustments applied.
>
> That would mean a file size of for instance 144MB for a 24MP camera. Are
> you really saving processed RAW images at 6 bytes/pixel? Or are you
> saving as ProPhoto JPEGs?
>
> Which DSLRs offer the ProPhoto colourspace for their JPEGs?
>


If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter. Indeed you
might get worse results because of interpolation of interpolation
issues. It;s only if you are shooting RAW that it could become an issue.

--
PeterN

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

On 2/16/2013 8:21 PM, Me wrote:



<snip
>>
> Conversion is lossy - better to not "convert" but to apply a colourspace
> when saving (ie to jpeg) from colourspace-agnostic raw.
>

True

> >
> There's a potential gotcha with 8 bit files and >sRGB colourspace.
> A one integer difference in R,G, or B value, particularly in the
> mid-tones, easily exceeds Delta E 1.0 colour variance, so the finest
> adjustment which can be made is larger than the smallest difference that
> can be seen by the average person, and integer rounding of gradients is
> much more likely to be a problem (posterisation/banding).
>

Yup!
> I can't see much point - if any - in using >sRGB for printing unless
> you're correctly soft-proofing. Then you're still going to need to be
> very careful. For the web - it's completely pointless in almost every
> case, and opens a can of worms.
>
> While there might be some overlap where some printers exceed aRGB gamut,
> mostly the printers won't even cover full sRGB colourspace let alone
> aRGB, despite (usually deliberately "obfuscative") claims by the
> manufacturers.


Depends on the printer. IIRC The Epson 2880, 3880 and up will do 19 bit
depth printing.

--
PeterN

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

On 17/02/2013 8:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:35:16 +0100, Alfred Molon
> <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <51203132$0$10790$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com>, PeterN
>> says...
>>> If you do all your shooting in JPEG, then it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Actually I shoot RAW+JPEG, with the JPEGs in AdobeRGB colour space.
>> Often the out of camera JPEGs are so good that they need no further
>> processing.
>>
>>From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
>> exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
>> AdobeRGB, how would you know?
>
> Printer
>


If its the printer, that you use to evaluate the image, isn't a waste of
money buying a monitor to read that quality?

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

| >From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
| >exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
| >AdobeRGB, how would you know?
|
| Printer
| --

Maybe this is a dumb question, but... After viewing
the Youtube video about color profiles and finding
a download of a ProPhoto ICC file, I can see the value
of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
the monitor can't show it. With a Nikon D3200 and
Epson 2880... I get the idea of not distorting/losing
hues in the image before it gets to the printer. It tends
to print more blue and less saturated than it should.
But how to adjust the printer itself? If an image is edited
with ProPhoto profile, does one then set the input and
output profiles for color management in the printer to
ProPhoto? Currently the only option is "Epson default".
Presumably that can be changed by adding new ICCs
to wherever Epson keeps the profile files? (I find them
all in C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color on XP,
but the printer doesn't seem to see them there.

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

In article <MPG.2b8b0b3bbb3622c998c977@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > >From the youtube video I understand that some images might have a gamut
> > >exceeding the one of AdobeRGB. But if no monitor has a gamut larger than
> > >AdobeRGB, how would you know?
> >
> > Printer
>
> But it's a bit impractical to make adjustments to the
> saturation/contrast etc. in RAW conversion, then make a print to see how
> it looks like, then adjust again etc. You might end up losing a lot of
> time and wasting a lot of ink and paper.

softproofing.

Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors
 

In article <kfqrkd$su1$1@dont-email.me>, Mayayana
<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

> Maybe this is a dumb question, but... After viewing
> the Youtube video about color profiles and finding
> a download of a ProPhoto ICC file, I can see the value
> of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
> the monitor can't show it. With a Nikon D3200 and
> Epson 2880... I get the idea of not distorting/losing
> hues in the image before it gets to the printer. It tends
> to print more blue and less saturated than it should.
> But how to adjust the printer itself? If an image is edited
> with ProPhoto profile, does one then set the input and
> output profiles for color management in the printer to
> ProPhoto? Currently the only option is "Epson default".
> Presumably that can be changed by adding new ICCs
> to wherever Epson keeps the profile files? (I find them
> all in C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color on XP,
> but the printer doesn't seem to see them there.

you don't use prophoto for the printer. ideally, you have a custom
profile made for your printer, paper and ink combination. short of
that, you can use the bundled profiles, which are reasonably accurate
and good enough for most purposes, assuming you stick to the
manufacturer's paper and ink.

when you print, there is a profile conversion done from the display to
the printer space. you can do it in photoshop or in the printer, just
don't do it in both (a common mistake). where to do the conversion is
debatable. choose one and be sure it's disabled in the other.