What is your view point on this, I am sure you have heard of him.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=163152\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
While Joe is a great digital printer, I'm pretty sure he's still primarily a film guy–where modifying color spaces can be useful because you can do un-edited color transforms by applying different profiles to an image to achieve substantially different results (without ever actually "touching the image"). It's only very recently that Joe's been doing much of anything with digital capture.
But even Joe says that if your raw converter won't allow use of his profile variants, just process into ProPhoto RGB (ideally, in 16 bit).
Since ProPhoto RGB is _SO_ big, once you've processed into it, you can convert it to just about any other color space (including Lab) with very minor impact from having started in ProPhoto RGB in the first place. But I really don't worry about PP RGB being so big. I switched over to it a few years ago after testing a bunch of RGB color spaces including Bruce RGB and Joe's original Ekta RGB. In the grand scheme of things, my preference is to keep things simple. And none of the captures from ANY of my cameras get clipped when processing into PP RGB. So, I just use that unless the image is going on the web (then sRGB) or I have to submit RGB images to others (then I send Adobe RGB unless they pass a color intelligence quiz). The test? When I ask them how they handle embedded profiles, and they can tell me, then I "might" give them a PP RGB file...otherwise, if they don't have a clue what I'm talking about, then it's Adobe RGB (or possibly sRGB if they are _REAL_ stooopid).
:~)
BTW, nice work on the
www.montalbetticampbell.com site...nice to know photography is alive and well in Sydney!
