I suppose the challenge is converting from the PP original data to a printer space that doesn't match the display space. We are hoping that somehow it will match the display, but yet be somewhat better, taking advantage of colors that can be printed but not displayed. This might happen, but can't be truly previewed on the display. Test prints will be necessary to see the result.
Fully agree, except for the last sentence. Obviously, for a fully predictable preview/proofing the display gamut should be identical (or larger but under utilized compared) to the output medium's gamut. But because the output media's gamut differs for each medium, and partially exceeds that of current displays, it would require a display gamut that exceeds the best possible output medium.
The (compromise) solution, is to use a more numerical approach, i.e. a gradual clipping indicator/mask that represents the Out-of-Gamut data. I achieve that by (with a Photoshop action) creating 2 versions of a file, and mask according to their Layer differences.
If we take the original image, e..g in ProPhoto RGB, and a copy of the same image but converted to the output profile, we can calculate the Absolute differences, and use that as a mask for desaturation or hue change. That mask is then used to actually e.g. desaturate the original in PPRGB. This works quite well, because
usually 99% of the image is not Out-of-Gamut (OOG), so why reduce the entire gamut (which is what Perceptual Rendering Intent does) to accommodate just a relatively small part of the image (unless to avoid gamut banding).
When editing images for sRGB computer displays, I think it would be best to set the working space to sRGB and adjust the image by eye (PP original file) if necessary. Editing in a very wide space like PP and then doing an auto conversion at the end might lead to some surprises that can't be undone as the data has been deleted in the conversion.
Correct, but then we will be still guessing in the 'close to aRGB' display case, or future technology displays.
We need better tools for that, and I am (unfortunately, mildly) amazed that we're not provided with those. Not large enough a market would be the more plausible explanation, but by no means an excuse.
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I think that the subscription earnings model of e.g. Adobe Photoshop/Lightroom, takes away that need to stay ccompetitive and innovative (which is one of the reasons that I think it's bad for quality/innovation).