Some questions about working with Absolute Colorimetric intents

[BobDavid]

I've had a lot of fun bantering with you today, Rodney. I'm fortunate to have the time. That's one of the several benefits of being retired. Sorry I pulled you away from work. I know there's an opportunity cost to being distracted with trivialities.

[digitaldog]

If there is data in the highlights, use a curve to ensure the data doesn't get crushed.

It's clipped! There isn't data there. See again what Doug stated:
Here's what happens with a neutral gradient from RGB 200 to 255:
Now what you could and should do is examine if the raw file is clipped and if not, re-render it with this alteration of 200 to 255 in mind. That is, if you captured raw correctly (I'll not assume everyone here can do so).

I'd love to see some of your work. How about putting some up?

Some on my web page. Including shots taken in the Amazon when Michael, Chris, Jay Maisel and I taught a two week workshop for LuLa. And a workshop I taught with Greg Gorman (ever heard of him?). If you want to see something like a national ad for Microsoft, in the early 90's, when very few pro photographers were shooting AND doing their own Photoshop work, here you go. Got anything to show other than lampposts?

[BobDavid]

No, it's simply wrong. He may also be confused or just mistaken.

Edit: It appears he has edited his posts. He states that he may have been unclear, and was not claiming a difference in converting Adobe RGB <> sRGB using Abs. v. Rel Col.

In any case he seems to be focusing on the soft proofing and Abs. v Rel.  I've pointed out the risks and issues of using Abs. Col. but if he tweaks it soft proofing as he indicated he did then he may well like the results and that's fine. There are cases where Abs. Col. can create a nice effect in deep shades as a result of the a* and b* shift that occurs at the black point. I've seen it maybe once or twice but it's rare. The negatives of having high key clipping are the major reason I don't use Abs. for photos. I only use Abs. for repro work.

Absolute rendering intent is great for the style of my nighttime photos. I do not use Absolute for general work. Doug hints that I do this for the aesthetic. And that is the point: it's an aesthetic that meshes with my intentions as an artist.

[GWGill]

When you have an image in an RGB D50 media space, like ProPhoto, the convert to Adobe RGB or sRGB the Absolute Intent in Apple and Microsoft's engines attempts to create the same "colors" that are would occur if the displays were switched from D50 to D65.

Which is exactly what should happen - that's what "Absolute" means!

If you don't want to render the source D50 as D50 on your D65 display, don't use absolute intent.

[ Basically the ICC have got it wrong. There is a fundamental difference between print and display -
  a prints white point is primarily controlled by the illuminant. A display doesn't work that way -
  the "illuminant" is part of the display and can't be changed independently.

  Absolute intent should correspond to measured colorimetric values - it should be the bedrock
  from which all other color interpretations of the device can be derived, and while a spectrometer print
  measurement XYZ can be with made any virtual illuminant (ICC standard being D50), the display
  white point is a property of the display, not the measurement instrument.

  So a CMM with Absolute intent that doesn't return instrument measurement values,
  is broken in my view.

  If you want some other effect in your soft proofing, such as rendering a relative paper white tint
  preview, then do it by setting your color management rendering intent appropriately,
  i.e. Source profile intent = Absolute, Destination profile (i.e. display) intent = Relative.
 
  Redefining display profile Absolute intent to be the same as Relative colorimetric
  wrecks fundamental functionality for no good reason (I'm looking at you, ICC V4!).
]

[BobDavid]

"It's clipped! There isn't data there. See again what Doug stated:
Here's what happens with a neutral gradient from RGB 200 to 255:
Now what you could and should do is examine if the raw file is clipped and if not, re-render it with this alteration of 200 to 255 in mind. That is, if you captured raw correctly (I'll not assume everyone here can do so)."

The only clipped area is the light from the LED bulb in the lamp, as it should be. Have you ever looked into a bright light in the dead of night? The Raw file is fine--sure, the light is clipped.

As an aside, thank you for posting a picture. Though the CRT monitor screens look off and it's hard to read the alpha numeric symbols composited (with halation artifacts) onto the screens. I'm surprised you didn't do some retouch work on his left eye. The dim catch light on his left eye bumps into the specular highlight on the rim of his glasses. Although I could, I wont get into the aesthetics. Do you have anything more current? This looks like it was taken fifteen to twenty years ago.

About your credentials: Now I know you know I know.

[BobDavid]

Which is exactly what should happen - that's what "Absolute" means!

If you don't want to render the source D50 as D50 on your D65 display, don't use absolute intent.

[ Basically the ICC have got it wrong. There is a fundamental difference between print and display -
  a prints white point is primarily controlled by the illuminant. A display doesn't work that way -
  the "illuminant" is part of the display and can't be changed independently.

  Absolute intent should correspond to measured colorimetric values - it should be the bedrock
  from which all other color interpretations of the device can be derived, and while a spectrometer print
  measurement XYZ can be with made any virtual illuminant (ICC standard being D50), the display
  white point is a property of the display, not the measurement instrument.

  So a CMM with Absolute intent that doesn't return instrument measurement values,
  is broken in my view.

  If you want some other effect in your soft proofing, such as rendering a relative paper white tint
  preview, then do it by setting your color management rendering intent appropriately,
  i.e. Source profile intent = Absolute, Destination profile (i.e. display) intent = Relative.
 
  Redefining display profile Absolute intent to be the same as Relative colorimetric
  wrecks fundamental functionality for no good reason (I'm looking at you, ICC V4!).
]

Yes? ...  This discussion, I thought, was about setting the rendering intent to "Absolute" for making a print. Soft proofing is a simulation tool. And when I print nighttime scenes on resin paper with the intent set to absolute rendering the results are better and actually more predictable.

Not disputing your commentary, it's just not germane to the particular application I brought up.

[Doug Gray]

Which is exactly what should happen - that's what "Absolute" means!
...
[ Basically the ICC have got it wrong.
...

I don't disagree but the ICC is the authority on the meaning of the words it uses for it's standards and they chose a different meaning than the CIE which conforms with the usual meaning in color science. It's not the only place they differ. Another notable difference is the ICC specified that reflectance spectral data should be taken on paper on a white backing whereas the CIE specifies black backing.

However, there are interesting side effects to using the CIE (and Microsoft/Apple CME's) definition. ProPhoto no longer would contain all of sRGB for one. Joofa had a post about that some time back. But using the ICC definition sRGB is contained within ProPhoto.

The ICC gets to play Humpty Dumpty and Absolute Colorimetric means exactly what they say. No more, no less.  At least within their domain.

[digitaldog]

The only clipped area is the light from the LED bulb in the lamp, as it should be. Have you ever looked into a bright light in the dead of night? The Raw file is fine--sure, the light is clipped.

Got a raw histogram to show that fact?

As an aside, thank you for posting a picture. Though the CRT monitor screens look off and it's hard to read the alpha numeric symbols composited (with halation artifacts) onto the screens. I'm surprised you didn't do some retouch work on his left eye. The dim catch light on his left eye bumps into the specular highlight on the rim of his glasses. Although I could, I wont get into the aesthetics.

I'll try to dig up the art director from the LA office of BBDO and send her your comments.
What ad agency were you an AD at?

Do you have anything more current? This looks like it was taken fifteen to twenty years ago.

It IS well over 20 years since that was shot. Do you ever read what people post before you bang on that keyboard of yours? Because I clearly stated that, but will use formatting to draw your attention to exactly what I stated:

If you want to see something like a national ad for Microsoft, in the early 90's, when very few pro photographers were shooting AND doing their own Photoshop work, here you go

You want something more recent, can you read and understand this:

Some on my web page. Including shots taken in the Amazon when Michael, Chris, Jay Maisel and I taught a two week workshop for LuLa. And a workshop I taught with Greg Gorman (ever heard of him?)

About your credentials: Now I know you know I know.

Tell us about your credentials; you're retired, from what? It isn't professional photography, that was made clear in our last discussion when you falsely and incorrectly stated I was 'just a technician' and when I asked about your professional photography client list, you had nothing to share (but I did). So you did exactly what to feed your family before retiring to be 'an artist' shooting lampposts. Got anything else photographic to share? 

[digitaldog]

Yes? ...  This discussion, I thought, was about setting the rendering intent to "Absolute" for making a print.

Now what gave you that idea? Please refer to post #1 where the OP specifically states:
Using Edit > Convert to Profile vs Soft Proofing
IN BOLD!
You yourself brought up soft proofing in your 2nd post.

Not disputing your commentary, it's just not germane to the particular application I brought up.

And you're not the OP.

[digitaldog]

There is a fundamental difference between print and display -
  a prints white point is primarily controlled by the illuminant. A display doesn't work that way -
  the "illuminant" is part of the display and can't be changed independently.

And I suspect how we perceive those two differing media (print vs. display) plays a role, no?

[Doug Gray]

And I suspect how we perceive those two differing media (print vs. display) plays a role, no?

Graeme's Argyll uses Bradford adaptation for profiles by default. Bradford provides better Colorimetric printer profiles at the cost of slightly increased Abs. Col. variance using Photoshop since the latter uses the ICC's "wrong von Kries" formula. This produces only minor differences in both RelCol or AbsCol from ICC conformant printer profiles unless the paper white is pretty far out. Argyll provides an option to conform with ICC profiles:

I think it's a bigger factor in displays. However, it's also a different issue than the interpretation of AbsCol by ICC v CIE and the resulting differences in ACE and Microsoft/Apple engines.

See this for details:
http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Environment.html#ARGYLL_CREATE_WRONG_VON_KRIES_OUTPUT_CLASS_REL_WP

[Doug Gray]

I had expected a certain degree of error with OEM profiles, given manufacturing tolerances, etc., but never quite expected it to be that off. Using the OEM profiles probably wouldn't really be a concern for regular photo printing for an amateur like me, the Pro-10 is already much better than most photo printers I've used over the years. But I did as you suggested yesterday and waited until today to measure my results…
ore punch. The colors are toned down using the custom profile.

Drying time makes only a small difference in your dE measurements so don't worry about drying overnight.

Drying time v dE00s for the 5, in gamut CC neutral patches. The white patch is out of my paper's gamut.
Drying hrs:   0.6,  Neutral patches dE00 Ave: 0.45  Max: 0.59
Drying hrs:   3.9,  Neutral patches dE00 Ave: 0.45  Max: 0.60
Drying hrs:   8.1,  Neutral patches dE00 Ave: 0.43  Max: 0.59
Drying hrs:  23.3,  Neutral patches dE00 Ave: 0.40  Max: 0.55
Drying hrs:  43.6,  Neutral patches dE00 Ave: 0.40  Max: 0.57
Drying hrs:  68.1,  Neutral patches dE00 Ave: 0.39  Max: 0.55

Drying time v dE00s for the 18 CC colored patches
Drying hrs:   0.6,  Colored patches dE00 Ave: 0.54  Max: 0.83
Drying hrs:   3.9,  Colored patches dE00 Ave: 0.53  Max: 0.83
Drying hrs:   8.1,  Colored patches dE00 Ave: 0.51  Max: 0.81
Drying hrs:  23.3,  Colored patches dE00 Ave: 0.48  Max: 0.79
Drying hrs:  43.6,  Colored patches dE00 Ave: 0.47  Max: 0.79
Drying hrs:  68.1,  Colored patches dE00 Ave: 0.46  Max: 0.79

[GWGill]

The ICC gets to play Humpty Dumpty and Absolute Colorimetric means exactly what they say. No more, no less.  At least within their domain.

Well - no they don't. They can't magically make all those multi-millions of sRGB and AdobeRGB profiles out there conform to a new definition of how to make display profiles, nor can they magically changed how existing CMMs and applications work, nor can they dictate how CMM's implement their APIs.

So for instance, using ArgyllCMS Absolute still means Absolute.

[BobDavid]

Andrew, you asked me to post some of my pictures (whether for you to pounce on or to admire, I don't know).

Reminiscing about the old days, it's too bad you had to struggle with crude tools to make pictures for Microsoft. During the early 90s, I used Silicon Graphics machines and Maya (FKA Alias) software along with a bevy of custom applications while having unlimited access to a studio equipped with a high end video camera rigged for motion control  (X,Y,Z,R, pitch, yaw), Mole Richardson lights/modifiers, and any kind of grip equipment imaginable. I often combined CGI with digital video captured on the motion-control rig. I worked on projects for WGBH (Boston), ESPN, The Cartoon Network, The Sci-Fi Channel, Ocean Spray, Heidelberg, Polaroid, CVS, and more.

In the 1980s, I produced, designed, and photographed motion graphics and FX sequences onto 35mm cine film. Shooting with a pin registered camera, much like a 1920s Mitchell but rigged for motion control, was technically challenging.

Prior to retirement, I was the sole proprietor of a studio specializing in restoration, retouching, and reproduction of fine art and antique documents for NGO archives, museums, academic institutions, foundations, and a few Fortune 500 companies.

I studied dogs for years, learned how to photograph them, and earned a reputation as a dog portrait photographer known for clean minimalist portraits that captured the true character of pet dogs. I enjoyed that work the most. I guess you like dogs too as your moniker suggests.

You asked me to post something other than a "lamp post." Here are a few. The picture of the grassy field was taken last week with a Pen F and a cheap $59 reconditioned kit lens. The "Field" required hardly any work in post. I printed it on premium luster paper, relative intent (I observed no difference when toggling BPC on and off). The shot is more or less straight out of the camera.  ... "Haircut" was taken with a Pen F and the miraculous 12-100 f/4 Olympus pro lens. "Phillips 66" was taken, handheld, with a FF mirrorless camera. Can you tell how much time, if any, was spent tweaking the nighttime  photos? Does it matter? The prints sparkle (both printed onto premium luster paper, rendering intent set to absolute).

Incidentally, I always shoot in RAW aRGB. The prints are more nuanced than what you are able to view on the screen. I made double sure the files were tagged for sRGB. If they are not tagged, I don't know where to attribute the fault.

[digitaldog]

Andrew, you asked me to post some of my pictures (whether for you to pounce on or to admire, I don't know).

Great photographs are made, not taken. Thanks for posting pictures you took.

Reminiscing about the old days, it's too bad you had to struggle with crude tools to make pictures for Microsoft

I purchased the first version of Photoshop two months after it was released in 1990. Yes, for those of us (few) Pro photographers working on desktop equipment in those days (Mac IIci 13" color displays, 8mb of RAM), producing commercial work was a bit of a struggle. Thanks to those efforts, and feedback to Adobe (I've been an alpha/beta tester since version 2.5), we see where Photoshop has progressed since then, and where your beloved SGI's are today (collecting dust).

I studied dogs for years, learned how to photograph them, and earned a reputation as a dog portrait photographer known for clean minimalist portraits that captured the true character of pet dogs. I enjoyed that work the most. I guess you like dogs too as your moniker suggests.

I'm a dog trainer too... 
Now it would be interesting to see some of these photo's that presumably where commercial (you got paid to produce them?) rather than what you provided. True character of a pet? Let other's be the judge.

The picture of the grassy field was taken last week with a Pen F and a cheap $59 reconditioned kit lens. The "Field" required hardly any work in post. I printed it on premium luster paper, relative intent (I observed no difference when toggling BPC on and off). The shot is more or less straight out of the camera.  ... "Haircut" was taken with a Pen F and the miraculous 12-100 f/4 Olympus pro lens. "Phillips 66" was taken, handheld, with a FF mirrorless camera.

You seem to believe I (and others) care about the equipment used to produce these 'photo's; I'm not. That data if I can be so kind doesn't aid in making them anything but what they appear to me to be, basically snapshots.

Can you tell how much time, if any, was spent tweaking the nighttime  photos? Does it matter?

It doesn't matter a lick. Which is why I didn't state anything like this with the one example of a national ad campaign I shot for Microsoft. BTW, it paid very well!

Incidentally, I always shoot in RAW aRGB.

No, you don't! Not if we are to accept that confusing and mostly incorrect statement as provided. It's similar to another confusing if not incorrect statement you made about sRGB/Adobe RGB (1998) and the use of the Colorimetric Rendering of which this topic is about. Raw is raw. It has no defined color space. Certainly not a rendered RGB working space like Adobe RGB (1998) unless you're talking about some other color space; you seem unable to name the RGB working space correctly so I'm not totally sure, based on your confusing text, what you may mean by aRGB. History here shows it's not safe to take your writings totally seriously so perhaps you're speaking of some other color space. But no, raw is not anything like Adobe RGB (1998)!
Now, IF you shoot raw+JPEG (which is a possibility), you could produce an Adobe RGB (1998) JPEG. Otherwise no, you're not shooting raw (or an acronym RAW) in aRGB/Adobe RGB (1998).
You'd do well to cease typing text like this and reading how this stuff actually works. Here's a white paper from the ICC I co- authored discussing the difference between rendering and encoding and the role of color spaces after rendering:
http://www.color.org/ICC_white_paper_20_Digital_photography_color_management_basics.pdf

[digitaldog]

Graeme's Argyll uses Bradford adaptation for profiles by default.

Fine but that isn't what I'm asking him about. Rather, how we humans perceive the color appearance of those two media's differently and that effect on that appearance.

[BobDavid]

Good morning, Mr. Rodney. I'm glad to see you won't let sleeping dogs lie.

[BobDavid]

Per your request Mr. Rodney, a small collection of my dog photos is here:Bob Dogs.  My website is still in development, and I have postponed tweaking it and filling it up with more portfolios. So, I offer preemptive apologies. Peace and Love, Bob

[digitaldog]

Good morning, Mr. Rodney. I'm glad to see you won't let sleeping dogs lie.

Peer review is a bitch. What do we owe people who post technical text that's wrong?

[digitaldog]

Per your request Mr. Rodney, a small collection of my dog photos is here:Bob Dogs.  My website is still in development, and I have postponed tweaking it and filling it up with more portfolios. So, I offer preemptive apologies. Peace and Love, Bob

Now that's more like it! VERY nice. You can shoot, no question. Now if we can simply get you to enter a technical topic and post technically correct comments, we're on the same page.
BTW, it is far, far more difficult to produce the very lovely images of dogs on your site, then learn and post technically correct text about color and imaging. So I have hope you can eventually do both.