Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterN, Feb 16, 2013.

  1. PeterN

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Alfred
    Molon <> wrote:

    > > Of what use is an AdobeRGB jpeg?

    >
    > Prints


    print directly from raw.
     
    nospam, Feb 19, 2013
    #41
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/18/2013 3:42 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    > On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 17:55:33 +0100, Alfred Molon
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <kfqrkd$su1$>, Mayayana says...
    >>> I can see the value
    >>> of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
    >>> the monitor can't show it.

    >>
    >> But you cannot adjust the RAW conversion parameters if you can't see the
    >> effect on the screen.
    >>
    >> If the screen is only able to display an AdobeRGB gamut, you can't edit
    >> the image in the out of monitor gamut areas. You are essentially blind.
    >>
    >> You'd need a monitor with a Prophoto gamut, but do these beasts exist?

    >
    > For more on this problem see
    > http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml
    >


    That's quite an informative article.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 21, 2013
    #42
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/18/2013 11:25 PM, Rob wrote:
    > On 18/02/2013 07:56, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 2/17/2013 6:57 AM, Rob wrote:
    >>> On 17/02/2013 8:16 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 09:35:16 +0100, Alfred Molon
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article <51203132$0$10790$-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?

    >>
    >> Yes. If you only print without making fine color adjustments.
    >> AdobeRGB is a much wider gamut than sRGB. sRGB was intended for web
    >> viewing, not digital art printing.
    >>

    >
    >
    > I find that there are so many variables to make adjustments, my printing
    > is how I've seen the vista.
    >
    > How would you define a fine art print, what should one be looking for or
    > at to make all the corrections?


    I work in the widest possible gamut, and use the ICC profile for the
    printer and paper my image will be printed onb. The most difficult part
    is to seect the viewing light and orrect for it.
    e.g. When I print for a CC competition, I print a tad darker because the
    print will be viewed under a bright glaring light. If my print is for a
    library exibition, I print a tad lighter, and attempt to adjust for the
    color ov the viewing light. There is no one formula that will work for
    all conditions. I have a daylight viewing lamp, (my wife uses it as a
    reading lamp,) and I may haave to make minor curve adjustments to adjust
    for viewing conditions.
    BTW here is a quick and dirty way to remove all color casts and make the
    print neutral gray. I create a new layer of the entire image; then blur
    it using average blur. Next I bring up either a curves or level layer
    and place the middle eye dropper on the blurred image It instantly turns
    neutral gray. I then delete the blurred layer.
    The above takes less time to do than explain.

    My choice of paper depends entirely on the image.


    HTH

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 21, 2013
    #43
  4. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/18/2013 11:28 PM, Rob wrote:
    > On 18/02/2013 07:57, PeterN wrote:
    >> On 2/17/2013 9:44 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Eric Stevens
    >>> says...
    >>>
    >>>> >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.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Soft proofing does a pretty good job.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > Some time a go I tried soft proofing and became some what disillusioned
    > when I used it.


    You are not going to get an exact image, but merely a reasonable
    approximation.
    There are times when I will just make an 8x10 and look at it for a few
    days, so I fall out of love with it. The defects will quickly become
    apparent.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 21, 2013
    #44
  5. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 2/18/2013 11:34 PM, Rob wrote:
    > On 18/02/2013 07:05, Eric Stevens wrote:
    >> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:07:05 -0500, "Mayayana"
    >> <> 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
    >>> | --
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >>>

    >> Have you considered turning off the printer's colour management and
    >> using your print application (Photo Shop, or whatever) to do the task
    >> instead?
    >>

    >
    >
    > I can't use PS or what ever to manage colour, I let the printer manage
    > the colour. (with great sucess BTW)


    If tht works for you, great.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 21, 2013
    #45
  6. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamutmonitors)

    On 2/18/2013 10:08 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > PeterN <> writes:
    >
    >> On 2/16/2013 9:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    >>> On 2013-02-16 17:14:04 -0800, Alfred Molon <> said:

    >>
    >> <sniP
    >>
    >>
    >>> I currently like using the Lightroom 4 to CS5 workflow as that gives me
    >>> the 2012 RAW conversion engine which I do not have with CS5. The benefit
    >>> of using a Photoshop only workflow is not having to deal with the LR to
    >>> CS exchange step. If I had CS6, that version of ACR would give me the
    >>> same RAW processing capability as I get with LR4.
    >>>

    >>
    >> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
    >> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the
    >> printer. When you assign the profile, you see the actual color the
    >> profile will print.

    >
    > ALWAYS convert! The only valid use for "Assign" is when you have a file
    > not properly tagged with the color space it's in.
    >


    Why. I am asking, not being obstinate. I am not clear about the reasons.
    I am seeking to improve my workflow.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Feb 21, 2013
    #46
  7. Re: Assign or convert profile was (Re: Wide gamut vs less widegamut monitors)

    PeterN <> wrote:
    > On 2/18/2013 10:08 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> PeterN <> writes:


    >>> When you print using an ICC profile, do you assign, or convert.
    >>> As I understand it "convert" simply maps your color to the
    >>> printer. When you assign the profile, you see the actual color the
    >>> profile will print.


    >> ALWAYS convert! The only valid use for "Assign" is when you have a file
    >> not properly tagged with the color space it's in.


    > Why. I am asking, not being obstinate. I am not clear about the reasons.
    > I am seeking to improve my workflow.


    Assign: "This, even though it claims to be English, looks like
    English and makes sense in English, is in fact written Chinese".
    (Never mind that it doesn't look like Chinese letters nor does
    it make sense in any kind of Chinese.)[2]

    Convert: "This is English, it says so. Now, dear translator,
    I'd like that converted into Chinese". =>
    "這是英文的,它是這麼說的。ç¾åœ¨ï¼Œè¦ªæ„›ç¿»è­¯ï¼Œ
    我想轉æ›æˆä¸­æ–‡"


    (Note, I don't speak Chinese, I merely use Google translate.
    Assume for a second that Google translate was very good ... then
    you got a good idea what happens.)

    -Wolfgang

    [2] Now, if that was in fact Chinese but claiming it was
    English ...
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 24, 2013
    #47
  8. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >> *Saving* is not necessarily the question.


    > But it's what ultimately matters. You can do all adjustments in your
    > virtual Lightroom world, but ultimately you need an RGB file of some
    > kind. For screen display, for printing etc.


    Jep, my printer exceeds AdobeRGB with some colours ...
    .... and even my old 20D records some colours that exeed AdobeRGB
    in RAW.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] Doesn't matter if I want out of camera sRGB JPEGs, of
    course.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 24, 2013
    #48
  9. Alfred Molon <> 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?


    The equivalent to a histogram for gamut and colour spaces!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 24, 2013
    #49
  10. PeterN <> wrote:

    > BTW here is a quick and dirty way to remove all color casts and make the
    > print neutral gray. I create a new layer of the entire image; then blur
    > it using average blur. Next I bring up either a curves or level layer
    > and place the middle eye dropper on the blurred image It instantly turns
    > neutral gray. I then delete the blurred layer.
    > The above takes less time to do than explain.


    This works especially well when you've got an image that
    shows, say, shades of red all over. :)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 24, 2013
    #50
  11. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <kfqrkd$su1$>, Mayayana says...


    >> I can see the value
    >> of using a more inclusive color profile, even though
    >> the monitor can't show it.


    > But you cannot adjust the RAW conversion parameters if you can't see the
    > effect on the screen.


    > If the screen is only able to display an AdobeRGB gamut, you can't edit
    > the image in the out of monitor gamut areas. You are essentially blind.


    > You'd need a monitor with a Prophoto gamut, but do these beasts exist?


    How did they do it back when with b/w film? They didn't
    have a monitor. They didn't have a b/w conversion filter.
    They even had false colours whenever they looked through
    coloured filters often needed for b/w. The film had an
    uneven spectral response, so the same bright red may still be
    black with the earliest films or even orthochromatic film ---
    it didn't record it correctly. (Thus the red safelight was
    possible when developing)

    So they were essentially blind in creating the image, they
    couldn't place things so they'd give a pleasing b/w photo!

    Still, at least some managed *very* well.


    Nowadays, we have it easier. We can "shrink" the colours
    on our monitors so they are all visible therein, just not
    as saturated. It's perfectly possible to create pleasing
    images that way, it's *almost* what you see is what you get,
    it's just less 'neon coloured'. And we can switch to full
    neon colour and print preview (and just miss those that are
    outside our monitor's range), so we can place the print next
    to the monitor (using normlight and a proper viewing stand and
    wearing black or gray colours, having all gray walls, etc etc
    etc and have them look identical, as far as a self-luminous
    and a reflective material can ever be identical.

    "blind"? We're seeing almost everything, almost perfectly,
    quite unlike what the old photographers with their
    funky-sensitivity curves b/w films ever were when they composed
    their images. And we get instant feedback. They did not.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 1, 2013
    #51
  12. Me <> wrote:

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


    So you're advocating to not convert colours from RAW to, say,
    JPEG? Are you not aware that you *must* convert the values the
    sensor and it's colour filters deliver to get even usable colour
    hues --- and that they can differ radically between cameras?
    And that newer cameras use wider colour filters than older
    ones in the name of capturing more light?

    And that if you don't save with a profile, some default will
    be used, be it correct or wrong?


    All that applying does is forcing a (usually wrong)
    interpretation of what RGB triples mean to be applied to
    RGB triples.

    Sure, "conversion is lossy". So is translating Chinese to
    English, especially in the instruction leaflets of cheap
    electronic trash. I don't read Chinese ... so is it better
    not to translate it, but to write the Chinese using ASCII?
    That's applying. It's probably not lossy. But it doesn't
    make sense, unless someone converted English to Chinese letters
    literally by mistake.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 1, 2013
    #52
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin

    Re: Are LCD Monitors Brigter than CRT Monitors

    Martin, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    551
    Martin
    Sep 8, 2004
  2. Mike

    TV type with widest gamut, for displaying images

    Mike, Nov 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    735
    Markeau
    Nov 28, 2004
  3. peter

    wide gamut monitor?

    peter, Feb 19, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    898
    adminforto
    Feb 22, 2007
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    918
    Old Gringo
    Sep 24, 2007
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Wide gamut vs less wide gamut monitors

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 1, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    162
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Mar 1, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page