Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: jrp on November 16, 2015, 05:01:28 pm
-
Lee Varis' introduction to color management (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lWe4j7_HuI)
Basic, but clear.
-
Basic, but clear.
Yup. And expect for the stuff he got wrong, his voice is very soothing. ;D
-
Yup. And expect for the stuff he got wrong, ...
Like from around 1:30 onwards?
Brian A
-
Like from around 1:30 onwards?
Well I counted about 10 items that I didn't find kosher. Some were real nit picking on my part, a few (like his stance on sRGB/ProPhoto, setting up the color settings, setting the calibration of the display) were a bit more egregious IMHO. Compared to Gary Fong, Will Crockett and Ken Rockwell, Lee's presentation was pretty darn good.
Lee's a good guy. He seems to be waffling again to come up with material and in this case, needs a bit more peer review. He took on the Lab editing mantra from Margulis, not sure it was necessary. Skin his own doing I believe (good). Now moving from Exposure to color management? That's fine, but as I said, there are a number of small and a few large areas I doubt many of his peers would agree with.
Now maybe the photographers he's trying to reach are JPEG shooters. And that's fine too. But if they are working with raw data, his ideas about working space (which absolutely are not device independent) seem kind of goofy.
-
Well it's titled "Introduction To Color Management" and I think it does a good job of that.
It is probably as much as most need to know.
There were some errors but most of it is a lot more accurate than most of the other information I see on the subject, even on this forum.
As for the sRGB as a working space, well I wouldn't use it but a lot do. It is fine for portrait photographers. If someone is describing how to drive a car then if they use a car that is different to yours then that doesn't make the information wrong.
I particularly liked the stepped LAB chart and made one straight away. If you use the "convert to profile" and compare the RGB and LAB values then they should learn a lot. Primarily that the same colour (meaning same LAB) can have and in fact does have different RGB values in different profiles. Most people don't get that.
-
Well it's titled "Introduction To Color Management" and I think it does a good job of that.
And I have to wonder why in such an intro, designed for photographers he needs to focus on the AtoB and Bto A tables. That's useful for the beginner in what way Bob?
It is probably as much as most need to know.
Well aside from the stuff he got wrong, I disagree especially glossing over Color Settings, nothing about Lightroom and ignoring the working spaces who's gamut are wider than sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) and why that data could be useful.
As for the sRGB as a working space, well I wouldn't use it but a lot do. It is fine for portrait photographers. If someone is describing how to drive a car then if they use a car that is different to yours then that doesn't make the information wrong.
It's fine for the JPEG shooter who's camera is set to sRGB! Otherwise I've heard all the lame excuses why people should ignore the facts about working space and none ever justify why one would toss away data they can capture and can output.
I particularly liked the stepped LAB chart and made one straight away. If you use the "convert to profile" and compare the RGB and LAB values then they should learn a lot. Primarily that the same colour (meaning same LAB) can have and in fact does have different RGB values in different profiles. Most people don't get that.
That part was lost on me, made no sense.
A. You don't need to convert to Lab, the Lab values were present in the info palette before Lee converted! You can see them in his video. So it's pointless and what would have been better IMHO is to illustrate Photoshop and Lightroom will happily show you Lab values from any color space without a conversion, directly in the info palette.
B. What is the sRGB Lab step wedge supposed to tell you other than the Lab values of that data? Lee shows a portrait of a guy on a dark bkgnd and soft poofs (for whatever reason) using SWOP V2. He tries I believe to tie that back to the step wedge but I was lost. That soft proof has zero relationship to the sRGB step wedge! So Bob, how do you correlate this Lab step wedge to anything but the sRGB values you didn't need to convert to Lab?
-
Ignoring all posts from: "AlterEgo" "deeejjaaa" "john beardsworth"
just noticed an new addition = what I have common with "john beardsworth" beats me ;D ...
-
LOL, Digitaldog. I had thought for some time that we disagree on most things and now it's proved.
I readily admit that I don't know a lot about Colour Management while others make themselves out as experts.
I am not going to dissect each section of your rant other than to say if that is your opinion then great. However this one struck me.
A. You don't need to convert to Lab
OK. This is like Humphrey Bogart saying "Play it again Sam", however unlike the other misquote, it completely changes the story.
The steps were, Edit, Convert to Profile and make the Working Space e.g. Adobe RGB. This then shows the whole point, which is that the LAB values (the colour) do not change as you change profiles from AdobeRGB to sRGB to printer profile or monitor profiles. Only RGB values change. That is Colour Management.
-
LOL, Digitaldog. I had thought for some time that we disagree on most things and now it's proved.
Great.
I readily admit that I don't know a lot about Colour Management while others make themselves out as experts.
Agreed!
I am not going to dissect each section of your rant other than to say if that is your opinion then great.
Probably a good idea.
The steps were, Edit, Convert to Profile and make the Working Space e.g. Adobe RGB. This then shows the whole point, which is that the LAB values (the colour) do not change as you change profiles from AdobeRGB to sRGB to printer profile or monitor profiles. Only RGB values change. That is Colour Management.
NO, that's not the point he made, better watch that section again. 37:40:
"Now you would print this (the Lab step wedge). So if we print this, and compare how this print looks to the display you will learn interesting things.... how prints differ from the display"
OK Bob, explain, IF you can, how this sRGB step web is printed and how that in any way relates to the original sRGB values converted to Lab and how that's useful?
Or maybe we're watching two different video's. YOU wrote:
I particularly liked the stepped LAB chart and made one straight away. If you use the "convert to profile" and compare the RGB and LAB values then they should learn a lot.
Just what did you learn?
-
Just what did you learn?
To ignore all posts by you.
-
To ignore all posts by you.
The feeling is mutual. The two of us who took the bait and watched the video you now recommend are in agreement. 8)
-
Part 3 will not find much favor here, I suspect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYybnCrBTfY) But it provides some evidence on the sRGB v ProPhoto / 8-but v 16-bit choices that others raised above.
-
just noticed an new addition = what I have common with "john beardsworth" beats me ;D ...
I noticed that going back a month, but I'm not sure if it's automatically generated through LuLa GUI by an "ignore poster XXX" setting or whether the poster choosing to ignore enters the names in their LuLa Profile.
-
Part 3 will not find much favor here, I suspect. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYybnCrBTfY) But it provides some evidence on the sRGB v ProPhoto / 8-but v 16-bit choices that others raised above.
Within the first 2 minutes, he got scene oriented (which is really scene referred) messed up.
He really needs to first understand the significant difference between color (something we can see) and device values, numbers that may represent something we can't see and therefore are not colors. When showing ProPhoto RGB, he states that it has: (7:58) Huge amount of extra colors... Not so, sRGB and ProPhoto RGB have the same number of device values if encoded the same (e.g. 16-bit). But we hear this all the time (larger gamut = more colors). The devil is in the details.
The bottom line he's missing is that at least those of us capturing raw data using an Adobe raw processor, the underlying color space IS ProPhoto RGB gamut. But what does Thomas Knoll know about color? ;D JPEG sRGB shooters, fine. That toothpaste is out of the tube.
Output color technology already exceeds Adobe RGB (1998) and has done so for years. So, do you throw away colors you can capture and can output because you may not be able to see some of those real, actual colors on a display? Again, for the sRGB or maybe Adobe RGB (1998) JPEG shooter, Lee's right. For the rest of us, he's not.
Lee needs to examine the differences between luminosity and brightness when talking about 'subjective color' too. Brightness is a perceptual phenomena. Luminance (Luminosity) is a measure of the total radiant energy from a body. It has nothing to do with what a human perceives but rather describes the total radiant energy, such as watts/second of a source (the surface of a radiating object like a display). In Photoshop, the layer mode called luminosity is not what's really occurring (I was told its something like the "Luma" which is an old TV RGB transform). If the luminance of a viewed light source is increased 10 times, viewers do not judge that the brightness has increased 10 times.
Lee takes a portrait in sRGB and plots it in sRGB and guess what, it doesn't exceed sRGB. What Lee is missing is the advantage of wide gamut color spaces on dark saturated colors. He doesn't go there. I've shown this illustration in the past, guess I need to do so again.
Simple matrix profiles of RGB working spaces when plotted 3 dimensionally illustrate that they reach their maximum saturation at high luminance levels. The opposite is seen with print (output) color spaces. Printers produce color by adding ink or some colorant, while working space profiles are based on building more saturation by adding more light due to the differences in subtractive and additive color models. There is the issue of very dark colors of intense saturation which do occur in nature and we can capture with many devices. Many of these colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998) and when we encode into such a color space or smaller gamut, we can clip the colors to the degree that smooth gradations become solid blobs in print, again due to the dissimilar shapes and differences in how the two spaces relate to luminance. So the advantage of ProPhoto isn't only about retaining all those out-of-gamut colors it's also about maintaining the dissimilarities between them, so that you can map them into a printable color space as gradations rather than ending up as blobs.
Here is a link to a TIFF (http://www.digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsPro3DPlot_Granger.tif) that I built to show the effect of the 'blobs' and lack of definition of dark but saturated colors using sRGB (Red dots) versus the same image in ProPhoto RGB (Green dots). The image was synthetic, a Granger Rainbow which contains a huge number of possible colors. You can see that the gamut of ProPhoto is larger as expected. But notice the clumping of the colored red vs. green dots in darker tones which are lower down in the plot. Both RGB working space were converted to a final output printer color space (Epson 3880 Luster). The effects can be seen on the print!
(http://www.digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsPro3DPlot_Granger.tif)
I can only take 12 minutes of this for now, but the first 12 minutes need a bit of work and I suspect I know what conclusions he'll make about ProPhoto RGB despite how my raw data is processed.
-
Just watched Varis video on his opinions on using ProPhotoRGB as a working space. Yikes!
I had to comment on what so many still don't get about this work space. I would never work in any other space even on an sRGB display.
Varis is misrepresenting the functionality and purpose of that color space when it comes to editing color on a transmissive display.
-
Got to the end of the video, painful. The last part on high bit editing is, well you be the judge.
Here's what I learned from Lee in this video.
- One can't future proof advances in printer technology to use a wider gamut space today (he places a big question mark there). So by recommending sRGB and maybe Adobe RGB (1998), there must not be any printer technology today that can use anything wider. Damn 8 color ink jets....
- 90% of real world photo's fit into sRGB and 99.9% of real world photo's fit inside of Adobe RGB. Those are Lee's stats. Where or how he came up with them is anyone's guess.
- When viewing any gamut plot, if you see one plot outside the other, it's 'not much' of a difference.
- Even colors in Adobe RGB that fall outside sRGB, it ain't much. So anything wider than sRGB isn't useful. Differences Lee reports are never significant.
- High bit data isn't necessary. It's a scam by Adobe (and I suppose Nikon, Canon, PhaseOne, Schewe, Fraser and Rodney etc) to get you to buy bigger hard drives and more RAM.
- All graphic cards are 8-bits.
- Photoshop only provides 8-bit precision.
- If you encounter banding, just add noise or blur the image.
- Set your Photoshop working space for sRGB, 8-bit per color and be happy. :P
-
Got to the end of the video, painful.
You obviously have more will power than me.
It is isn't as deeply flawed as may out there, but there is a really ow bar on that.
Brian A
-
I think the intended audience are beginners who find all this subject overwhelming and want to have acceptable results out of their camera. I have seen many times people who are not interested in knowing all the details setting up their cameras for AdobeRGB because they were told it is better, and then they complain that the colors are muted.
Yes, for the 2 or 3 of us (paraphrasing another LuLa thread) that are interested in the subject and can potentially take advantage of wide gamut, high bit, etc. the video may looks as blasphemy, but hey, get over it, it was not intended for you.
Some notes:
You can have same RGB values in Adobe RGB translating to different Lab values
You can have same Lab values translating to different values in XYZ
and so on,
It is called Color Science for a reason
-
I think the intended audience are beginners who find all this subject overwhelming and want to have acceptable results out of their camera. I have seen many times people who are not interested in knowing all the details setting up their cameras for AdobeRGB because they were told it is better, and then they complain that the colors are muted.
That's why I created this video that's less than 2 minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9JxXL_arbA
I asked early on, IF the idea is as you suggest, and that's possible, why spend any time talking about AtoB tables? That's going to aid the JPEG shooter how? The video's are like 40 minutes long so cut to the chase, tell folks who shoot 24-bit color JPEGs to just stick to sRGB. Easy, fast, to the point, accurate.
The facts presented in the two video's are in a number of areas, technically incorrect. I mean, all graphic cards are 8-bits?
-
90% of real world photo's fit into sRGB and 99.9% of real world photo's fit inside of Adobe RGB.
Actually that isn't too far from the truth, according to this: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut.htm (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut.htm)
Pointer's gamut is, in short, the gamut of reflected surface colors. Here compared to Adobe RGB:
<disclaimer: I didn't watch the video and have no opinions on it as such>
-
Actually that isn't too far from the truth, according to this: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut.htm (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut.htm)
Look, stating that 99.9% of images fall within Adobe RGB or 90% sRGB is rubbish! Where's the critical thinking?
In order to state 99% of images are anything but images, someone, somewhere has to have access to and analyze all images. I can assure you Lee nor TFT has any of my 10's of thousands of images. I can assure you that drum scans made from my Velvia images exceed the gamut of Adobe RGB in some areas of color space.
Further, this doesn't speak to the gamut potential of raw images!
100% of images encoded or converted to sRGB fall without the gamut of sRGB. :P
The potential gamut of a raw file,(the scene gamut, the raw processor and of course, the controls the user applies to the raw data) plays a huge role as we both (all?) know. In my video on color gamut, I had no difficulty rendering images from raw that exceeded Adobe RGB (1998) gamut for some colors. It's not at all difficult. IF I wanted to show more (or was in Lee's camp, limit them), a few sliders like Vibrance, HSL or Saturation would easily skew whatever results I wanted in terms of the rendered gamut from the raw!
Anyone who states that 99% of images are this or that needs to prove that point when called out.
-
Yes, I know that. The percentage isn't important here and that wasn't my point. But it's a good illustration for putting it in context.
Of course it's no problem producing images with colors way outside Adobe RGB. I get that all the time, and sometimes you do need ProPhoto to deal with it properly.
But a lot of these colors - that you get out of ACR/Lightroom - are sensor/processing artifacts, not real and not realistic at all. Usually the finished image benefits greatly from taming them and bringing them in line with the rest. Go outside in spring and shoot some fresh foliage. I bet you get dark saturated yellows that clip the blue channel completely in anything but ProPhoto. Go outside and look again - that clipped yellow is not what you see at all. So why keep it? It's an artifact.
And thus remapped, it's my experience that most finished images, master files, fit nicely within Adobe RGB. I'm a pragmatist.
But the most important point I'm trying to make is that good color has nothing to do with total gamut volume. Good color, and even more so realistic color, is about relationships. Yes, gamut clipping is real. What I'm saying is it's not a problem, just an interesting challenge. Consider dynamic range. Who can reproduce the full dynamic range of a sunset in a photograph? Can't be done, and nobody complains. What we do is remap. In fact good dynamic range remapping has always been considered a large part of the art of photography.
Over time I've come to question the dogma of ProPhoto. I'm not interested in saturated color as such, and certainly not in gamut volume percentages. I'm interested in good, realistic color.
And please don't put me in there with these rockwells and fongs and whatshisnames. I'm way beyond that.
-
And please don't put me in there with these rockwells and fongs and whatshisnames. I'm way beyond that.
I would NEVER do that! I'm not even putting Lee in that camp. I just think some critical peer review is in order.
Rather than just tell people what to do, I prefer to let them test the waters themselves with their own equipment and based on their own findings. It's why I don't tell people you have to use ProPhoto RGB, I provide them a test file and let them see how it all pans out. I attempt to let them know what's going on with the Adobe raw processing engine and how it's based on a ProPhoto RGB gamut. If they want to encode every and all image into sRGB, fine with me. I've said often that an sRGB workflow isn't going to produce poor quality images or output! I've attempted to provide some facts and methods where people can test these workflow items on their own. Once they do, I'm not at all interested in convincing them to change. What I refuse to do is tell people BS like 90% of 'real world' images are in sRGB. No more than I tell people 90% of all images are shot on DSLR's with 35mm sized sensors and those sensors are too small, and they should use a 4x5 view camera with a scanning back. I think it's a disservice to an audience to suggest that high bit editing is a waste, you can't see the difference (it depends on a lot of factors). Or that all graphic cards are 8-bit anyway. That's simply untrue. But I guarantee you people will post on the net that there's no reason for high bit data and all cards are 8-bit anyway because they saw it on a video. Or that 90% of images fall into sRGB without really thinking about how silly and impossible a statement that is. The actual percentage isn't important. What's important is recognizing some people are attempting to educate others by making up 'facts'. It's not necessary unless the presenter is either unfit to provide the content or has an agenda.
-
OK but he did show some pictures that you might think had much wider gamut than sRGB / Adobe RGB and that turned out not to be the case. He also pointed out that using a color space where you have finer grained control over the colors that you are actually using is an advantage (that has to be set against the disadvantage the that you point to, that some of the colors may be clipped in scenes that have particular characteristics).
-
OK but he did show some pictures that you might think had much wider gamut than sRGB / Adobe RGB and that turned out not to be the case. He also pointed out that using a color space where you have finer grained control over the colors that you are actually using is an advantage (that has to be set against the disadvantage the that you point to, that some of the colors may be clipped in scenes that have particular characteristics).
Correct and the video does have some merit mixed with some statements that don't. It's not black and white. ;D
-
OK but he did show some pictures that you might think had much wider gamut than sRGB / Adobe RGB and that turned out not to be the case.
… and even when it happens that the scene gamut and captured gamut are wider than sRGB, we have to acknowledge that:
>> … all the camera makers are using highly tweaked methods of getting the camera color into either sRGB or ARGB. They are using non-standard color transforms that massage out of gamut color into the JPEGs. Ironically, neither ACR nor LR can match the hand tuned color conversions from camera color to sRGB or ARGB in the same way using standard color space transforms because normal RGB>RGB color spaces are all locked into RelCol rendering-unless you get the beta V4 ICC profiles for color spaces from color.org.
…both Thomas Knoll and Eric Chan (ACR engineers) have tested and proven that the camera color (raw) to on-board JPEG in sRGB and ARGB are "non-standard" renderings with hand tuned tweaks to "make gamut clipping better". Neither Canon nor Nikon will admit to this of course, it's all "secret sauce".
It's pretty easy to test, just shoot a raw + JPEG, and try to take the raw and convert to sRGB or ARGB in ACR/LR...neither ACR nor LR are capable of taming out of gamut colors to match the OOC JPEGs. It's actually something Thomas and Eric are "looking at" (meaning researching with the eye towards improving).<<.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=92767.msg755676#msg755676
--
-
I've attempted to provide some facts and methods where people can test these workflow items on their own.
Indeed you have and your points are well made and duly taken.
Actually my issue isn't with anything you have said specifically, it just sort of came up in this context. What I dislike is the prevailing wisdom out there that PP is the only color space you should work in, ever. That's a myth in its own right and it isn't true, PP has its drawbacks too. I use it when I need it, and don't when I don't.
Ever heard "ProPhoto is the only color space real men use"? I'm sure that started as a joke, but a lot of people take that dead seriously.
People throwing out blanket statements as gospel without understanding, is something I suspect you dislike as much as I do. So it was probably a bit unfair to say what I said, as a direct response to your post. I just felt it needed to be said somewhere. Anyway, I made my point and that's all I wanted.
-
Ever heard "ProPhoto is the only color space real men use"? I'm sure that started as a joke, but a lot of people take that dead seriously.
No, that's a new one. Whoever stated is is obviously compensating! :o
Indeed, there are pitfalls with ProPhoto RGB. I believe I stated many, many years ago that if there were one perfect RGB working space, we'd all be using it. In fact I said there are no prefect RGB working spaces through an Adobe white paper way back in 2006!
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf)
Page 7
-
Ever heard "ProPhoto is the only color space real men use"? I'm sure that started as a joke, but a lot of people take that dead seriously.
Actually, I'm pretty sure I coined that phrase at a Photoshop World session :~)
It's also a misguide goal to use a "more efficient" working space for several reasons 1: ProPhoto RGB is the ONLY color space that can complete contain the camera color space and the current fine art ink jet printers and 2: Nobody has ever PROVED that there's a benefit to using a smaller more efficient color space. In the years (since Photoshop 5) when Bruce tested PP RGB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPhoto_RGB_color_space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPhoto_RGB_color_space) (also called ROMM RGB), I've never encounter a problem use PP RGB. Early on Bruce was worried that PP RGB was too big and created his own color space called Bruce RGB (similar to Adobe RGB but with a better Cyan cromaticity) but ended up forgoing Bruce RGB for PP RGB.
-
Nobody has ever PROVED that there's a benefit to using a smaller more efficient color space.
There are in fact several good reasons for using a smaller color space.
- As long as you don't have any clipping, being able to actually see all the information in your file (on a wide gamut display).
- ProPhoto is highly compressed in the shadows, concealing valuable diagnostic information in the histogram. Below is the same file in ARGB and PPRGB. Note the red channel in the shadows, this shows up as an unpleasant cyan color cast in the shadows. One glance at the ARGB histo, and you spot the problem immediately.
- The long-standing Photoshop bug that causes severe shadow color banding in ProPhoto files, with GPU at "normal" or "advanced". The reason is probably, again, the compressed shadows, causing small errors to balloon.
-
ProPhoto RGB is the ONLY color space that can complete contain the camera color space and the current fine art ink jet printers
Oh, and more thing: As I said above, a lot of the highly saturated colors you get out of Lightroom are sensor/processing artifacts. One very common problem area is the blue channel, which I think is a basic inherent problem in the Bayer filtering with current sensors. Just take a random landscape shot and look at the blue channel. There's usually very poor shadow separation and/or muddy highlights - and these two in combination tend to produce some "runaway" colors that go out of gamut quickly. As well as producing some sickly yellowish cast to shadow areas.
I've seen this phenomenon on every Nikon DSLR I've ever owned. And a while ago the was a thread on the Adobe Lightroom forum, by a Canon user who was bothered by the same thing. And it's not Lightroom as such - Capture One shows the same thing.
And yes, there are colors that fall outside Adobe RGB that good inkjet printers can reproduce. But does that make your prints "better"? Seriously. I repeat once again, with emphasis: Good color is about relationships and has nothing to do with fractions of total gamut volume. More saturation isn't always "better", but often just more garish and unpleasant to the eye.
-
Good color is about relationships
Josef Albers could not have said it any better. :)
-
Yeah, I come from an art school background, so maybe that's why :)
-
There are in fact several good reasons for using a smaller color space.
- ProPhoto is highly compressed in the shadows, concealing valuable diagnostic information in the histogram. Below is the same file in ARGB and PPRGB. Note the red channel in the shadows, this shows up as an unpleasant cyan color cast in the shadows. One glance at the ARGB histo, and you spot the problem immediately.
- The long-standing Photoshop bug that causes severe shadow color banding in ProPhoto files, with GPU at "normal" or "advanced". The reason is probably, again, the compressed shadows, causing small errors to balloon.
I don't completely agree with these statements
1.- Low values of red or any color in a histogram do not necessarily translate into shadows as well as any high or clipped value in the histogram do not translate necessarily into highlights, since you cannot prove that the channels have those values simultaneously. This is a common mistake some people make and try to solve clipped channels by underexposing when the cause might be saturation outside the color space. In addition, even if they were related to shadows, you don't have certainty of where in the image are those shadows.
I see this more an issue of the lame histogram available in most applications (why can't they give us something like RawDigger?) than a problem of the color space itself.
For example: the cyan patch in the color checker 24 (last one in the third row) is outside of the gamut of sRGB and the red will be zero and the histogram shows a peak also at zero, as shown in the following image, and it has nothing to do with a shadow (The cursor was over the cyan patch, but it was not captured in the screen shot, ACR configured for sRGB)
(http://www.frankdisilvestro.com.au/img/s9/v18/p1847601357-2.jpg)
I find reading out values in the info palette in Lab mode, a more reliable way to identify color casts in deep shadows or extreme highlights.
2.- The photoshop bug might be due to the compressed shadows, but as I see it, that is a problem of the existing tools and not of the color space per se
Good color is about relationships and has nothing to do with fractions of total gamut volume. More saturation isn't always "better", but often just more garish and unpleasant to the eye.
Absolutely, I could not agree more.
-
Re 1. - I know that and you're absolutely right. But that's not the case here, no saturated colors. What you see in the histogram is just the shadow compression.
In any case I didn't take the time to look for the ideal example, I just took a random shot that I happened to have handy. This is something I have observed over many years.
Below is another totally random example showing the shadow compression.
-
Good color is about relationships and has nothing to do with fractions of total gamut volume. More saturation isn't always "better", but often just more garish and unpleasant to the eye.
Agreed but...I'll state this again because I've seen this on actual prints, I've seen it using ColorThink on images: Many of these colors fall outside Adobe RGB (1998) and when we encode into such a color space or smaller gamut, we can clip the colors to the degree that smooth gradations become solid blobs in print, again due to the dissimilar shapes and differences in how the two spaces relate to luminance. So the advantage of ProPhoto isn't only about retaining all those out-of-gamut colors it's also about maintaining the dissimilarities between them, so that you can map them into a printable color space as gradations rather than ending up as blobs.
-
True and I don't dispute that. I hate clipping as much as the next guy, and severe clipping is never a pretty sight.
What I'm saying is we need to deal with it - or I need to, I should say - at an earlier stage, before it becomes a problem. There's no need to take highly saturated colors at face value, as if the more saturated, the more important to keep at all costs.
Anyway. I'm not going to turn this into "for-or-against ProPhoto". I'm neither, it has its use in the toolbox. But there's no free lunch either, there's always a compromise.
I really don't have much more to say on the matter. I suppose Jeff has some additional viewpoints.
-
Anyway. I'm not going to turn this into "for-or-against ProPhoto".
The point in the context of this discussion is Lee isn't doing that. But that's not the biggest issue some of us have with the video.
I'm somewhat surprised the fallout about his ideas on high bit editing isn't being discussed either...
-
I'm somewhat surprised the fallout about his ideas on high bit editing isn't being discussed either...
Hum, I guess I'll need to look into what Lee said and get back to him :~) What did he say? That you don't need to edit in 16 bit?
-
What did he say? That you don't need to edit in 16 bit?
In a nutshell, yup. Last part of the video.
-
I agree with most of Andrew's points. In particular it's normal for RAW files to have large numbers of pixels that are outside of sRGB or even Adobe RGB. There are two main reasons. Reflective surfaces are only capable of having the most saturated colors when their overall reflected light is low. This can be counterintuitive but easily shown with the ColorChecker SG. Most of the many colors in it's patches that are outside of sRGB are quite dim. Also, shadows are often illuminated by light that has already been color cast in the same direction as the illuminated components in the shadows which increases the saturation of the reflected light. Also, there is more sensor noise in shadows. This increases that portion of colors that are inside sRGB or Adobe RGB since the noise induced pixels that are outside are clipped by RAW conversion This doesn't happen to any appreciable degree with ProPhoto.
That said, printer gamuts shrink a lot in shadows and at even moderately low L values their gamuts have a hard time even reaching that of sRGB.
Lee also discounts soft proofing. Now it is true that one needs to have a complete color management process to count on soft proofing. The only times I've had a soft proof fail is when something was broken in the color management cycle. That doesn't happen often but usually it's when I'm using a flawed canned profile. They have improved a lot over the years but some companies provide really awful profiles that have screwy RCs and worse, have A2B tables return Lab values that aren't even close to what the printer puts out. If one soft proofs with those profiles they will not get a good screen proof match to the print and it will sour them on the very valuable role soft proofing offers.
-
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf (http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf)
…So the advantage of ProPhoto isn't only about retaining all those out-of-gamut colors it's also about maintaining the dissimilarities between them, so that you can map them into a printable color space as gradations rather than ending up as blobs.
The saturation clipping shown at page 11 of the pdf seems to support this point. The image has a gamut that gets clipped upon changing the output space in ACR from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB. I also often see this adverse effect when I want to output an image from ACR into sRGB to send it to a print service.
But where do these colors come from ?
Is it really from the scene ? No, more often:
Image editing on large ProPhoto-gamut basis in ACR/LR tends to create those saturated colors, colors which were not in scene, and which later on – upon changing the output space from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB - posterize at the border of sRGB.
And, to be clear, with image editing I do not mean to crank up the Saturation slider. It is simple tonal settings, even and in particular the default tone curve in ACR/LR, which can push colors out of sRGB.
I had provided an example earlier, here (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=60711.0). The described effect is easy to reproduce. In ACR/LR, whenever the change of the output space from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB produces a bunch of saturation clipping, just eliminate the tone curve. This can be done by using a dng profile with a linear tone curve, or, by going to PV2010 to zero the tonal settings in the Basic tab, plus Point Curve linear. The saturation clipping will typically get greatly reduced.
ProPhoto RGB is at times like a self-fulfilling prophecy - its use creates its need.
Peter
-
Image editing on large ProPhoto-gamut basis in ACR/LR tends to create those saturated colors, colors which were not in scene
Yes, exactly the point I was trying to make. They're artifacts.
ProPhoto RGB is at times like a self-fulfilling prophecy - its use creates its need.
That's wonderfully put and crams the whole issue nicely into a nutshell. With a fitting analogy to go with it.
-
Image editing on large ProPhoto-gamut basis in ACR/LR tends to create those saturated colors, colors which were not in scene, and which later on – upon changing the output space from ProPhoto RGB to sRGB - posterize at the border of sRGB.
And, to be clear, with image editing I do not mean to crank up the Saturation slider. It is simple tonal settings, even and in particular the default tone curve in ACR/LR, which can push colors out of sRGB.
Yes, exactly the point I was trying to make. They're artifacts.
That's wonderfully put and crams the whole issue nicely into a nutshell. With a fitting analogy to go with it.
If you do the same editing Peter_DL suggests (applying a tone curve) but in sRGB instead of ProPhoto RGB then the same artificial colours are created, but you don't see them because they are clipped in sRGB, surely?
I quite agree that tone changes (as well as saturation changes) can result in colour values that weren't in the original image. But I don't think it's editing in ProPhoto RGB that creates the artifacts; it's the edit operation itself.
However, by editing in ProPhoto RGB then the colours aren't clipped after every edit operation, but only once if/when the images is converted to sRGB. I would have thought this would end up with fewer artifacts overall.
-
A curve adjustment will never hard clip. Levels will - you have to move the endpoint.
A "curves saturation" adjustment has been implemented in Photoshop, and it's called Vibrance. You get the same effect with an S-curve set to Color blend mode.
Edit: (of course, vibrance was in ACR/Lightroom before that.)
-
Is it really from the scene ?
I'm not sure, based on how capture devices record the scene if you will, we can answer that. We're dealing with output referred imagery in the cases under discussion here, certainly with Lee's video examples.
The proof is in the print too. The example's I've seen and have shown in my video are not attractive when using a smaller gamut working space upon the final print. For many, the final print is all that maters.
-
Slightly OT: Andrew Rodney, AKA Digital Dog, wrote something awhile back on this thread about the benefits of processing RAW files in Prophoto RGB. I've generally processed RAWs in aRGB-16 bit. On occasion, if a native file showed a lot of saturated reds, I'd processed the RAW file in sRGB-16 bit. Until a few weeks ago, my principle monitor (an Eizo CG211) covered approximately 95% of the sRGB space.
I my MO involves processing RAWs in aRGB-16 bit for the master Tiff. Using aRGB as a color matching starting point, seems to make sense based on my assumption that it was okay to bounce back and forth between aRGB and LAB without destroying data. After a couple of years, I got pretty good (not great) at interpreting numbers despite not being able to rely on a state-of-the-art Eizo sRGB monitor. The monitor represented luminance fine, and in soft proofing mode, the monitor represented print tonality reasonably well. Still, the monitor's inability to show anything beyond 95% sRGB was a very weak link in my color management chain.
Now that I've replaced the CG with a wide gamut aRGB monitor, soft proofing is way more accurate. Since Mr. Rodney recommends Prophoto as a default profile, I am still unable to see all of the data on the new Eizo aRGB monitor. The point he makes about the advantages of Prophoto is true, especially for fine art ink jet printing. I didn't realize how much subtle data got clipped when printing from an aRGB file. Blotchy and clipped shadow detail, particularly low key photos, is largely eliminated in Prophoto.
Until monitors are able to display Prophoto, I think color management is still an immature technology. I do however want to restate a question: Is bouncing back and forth from Prophoto to LAB a destructive process? I like LAB for many reasons and Prophoto for others.
-
If you believe that there are no colors outside of sRGB in nature and all you need for editing is sRGB, please do so. For me, it is just nonsense
-
Slightly OT: Andrew Rodney, AKA Digital Dog, wrote something awhile back on this thread about the benefits of processing RAW files in Prophoto RGB.
My main point was that IF you process raws in the ACR engine, you're using a ProPhoto RGB gamut. Other's can argue with Thomas Knoll about that option. But that's what's happening under the hood. That's true with rendered images too but if you're processing say an sRGB rendered image in ACR/LR, it's being processed in the ProPhoto RGB gamut.
I adapted to aRGB and Prophoto, by toggling on soft proofing and enabling the gamut preview.
The OOG overlay in both Photoshop and LR are buggy and inaccurate. Mostly totally unnecessary. The monitor gamut OOG in LR is useful!
The Out Of Gamut Overlay in Photoshop and Lightroom
In this 25 minute video, I'll cover everything you need to know about the Out Of Gamut (OOG) overlay in Photoshop and Lightroom. You'll see why, with a rare exception, you can ignore this very old feature and still deal with out of gamut colors using modern color management tools.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00O-GTDyL0w (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00O-GTDyL0w)
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/OOG_Video.mp4 (http://digitaldog.net/files/OOG_Video.mp4)
Using aRGB as a color matching starting point, seemed to make sense based on my assumption that it was okay to bounce back and forth between aRGB and LAB without destroying data
IF you're converting, no, that's not at all the case! If you're using Lab readout's in Adobe RGB (1998), fine.
Needless the state-of-the-art Eizo sRGB monitor was inherently colorblind.
That will be the case for some time; data that's out of display gamut. So you have an option; clip data you can capture and output but can't see or keep that data and be very careful about how you edit very saturated colors. Tip: When working in such wide gamut spaces, if you're editing using say Vibrance or Saturation, at such a point you don't see the preview update as you move the slider, BACK OFF! You're probably editing the data blindly.
Until monitors are able to display Prophoto, I assume color management is still an immature technology
That will never happen until we possibly evolve to the 'star child' status at the end of 2001 and our visual system can see outside the current limitations. IOW, ProPhoto RGB contains device values that are not colors as we can't see them.
Is bouncing back and forth from Prophoto to LAB a destructive process?
Oh yes! Every time a conversion to LAB is produced, the rounding errors and severe gamut mismatch between the two spaces can account for data loss, known as quantization errors. The amount of data loss depends on the original gamut size and gamma of the working space. For example, if the working space is Adobe RGB, which has 256 values available, converting to 8- bit LAB reduces the data down to 234 levels for neutrals. The net result is a loss of 22 levels. Doing the same conversions from ProPhoto RGB reduces the data to only 225 values, producing a loss of 31 levels. Bruce Lindbloom, a well-respected color geek and scientist, has a very useful Levels Calculator,which allows you to enter values to determine the actual number of levels lost to quantization (see the “Calc page”at http://www.brucelindbloom.com (http://www.brucelindbloom.com)). But doing this on high-bit data, something Lee dismisses should reduce the data loss such, it's not an issue. But is it necessary?
-
Speaking of Lab readout's, it is somewhat interesting how Lightroom vs. Photoshop proper report the values when it finds an 'illegal' color, like G255 in ProPhoto RGB. It would be nice if the two worked the same. For that matter, be nice if Photoshop could toggle to the 0-100% scale just so people in LR could (within reason) use the same scale in PS if they wanted to. Be nice if the OOG overlay wasn't buggy and showed us a range of how far these colors are using maybe three 'strengths' of color. A tiny bit OOG, a moderate amount and (G255 in ProPhoto) not a color at all.
-
Speaking of Lab readout's, it is somewhat interesting how Lightroom vs. Photoshop proper report the values when it finds an 'illegal' color, like G255 in ProPhoto RGB. It would be nice if the two worked the same. For that matter, be nice if Photoshop could toggle to the 0-100% scale just so people in LR could (within reason) use the same scale in PS if they wanted to. Be nice if the OOG overlay wasn't buggy and showed us a range of how far these colors are using maybe three 'strengths' of color. A tiny bit OOG, a moderate amount and (G255 in ProPhoto) not a color at all.
I've never used LR. So LR does not use the same engine as ACR?
-
I've never used LR. So LR does not use the same engine as ACR?
It does use the same engine. I'm referring to Photoshop's Info palette with respect to it's Lab values.
Note too, just because LR and ACR use the same engine, not all is equal. Case in point, the soft proof readout's in LR6 are WRONG. The same values in ACR and LR5 match and are correct.
-
Mr. Rodney, I always chuckle when I see your avatar--A Nipper-esque dog staring into a CRT monitor. Having studied sensation, perception, and the neurology of domestic dogs, a few things come to mind: 1) Dogs are farsighted; 2) Dogs are dichromats. They see muted blues and yellows. The ratio of rods to cones is higher, much higher than it is in humans; 3) Not only do dogs have more rods than humans, they are able to distinguish a wider range of luminance values; 4) Despite being able to discern more shades of grey at night, their visual acuity is not great; 5) Dogs have a visual streak that runs along the X-axis of their retinas. The visual streak is jam-packed with motion receptors. They are able to detect motion that is imperceptible to humans (that's why they are good hunting companions); 6) Dogs process more frames per second than humans. Although the amount of visual information per frame is less for dogs than it is for people; 7) Dogs are able to detect as much, if not more, information through their sense of smell than humans do with their eyes; 8) Dogs are able to hear sounds from four times the distance of a person with normal hearing; 9) Dogs have a wider hearing "gamut" than humans by approximately 2X.
-
Mr. Rodney, I always chuckle when I see your avatar---Nipper staring into a CRT monitor. Having studied sensation, perception, and the neurology of domestic dogs, a few things come to mind: 1) Dogs are farsighted; 2) Dogs are dichromats. They see muted blues and yellows. The ratio of rods to cones is higher, much higher than it is in humans; 3) Not only do dogs have more cones than humans, they are able to distinguish a wider range of luminance values; 4) Despite being able to discern more shades of grey at night, their visual acuity is not great; 5) Dogs have a visual streak that runs long the X-axis of the retina. The visual streak is jam-packed with motion receptors. They are able to detect motion that is imperceptible to humans (that's why they are good hunting companions); 6) Dogs process more frames per second than humans. Although the amount of visual information per frame is less for dogs than it is for people; 7) Dogs are able to detect as much, if not more, information through their sense of smell than humans do with their eyes; 8) Dogs are able to hear sounds that are four times the distance of a person with normal hearing; 9) Dogs have a wider hearing "gamut" than humans by approximately 2X.
That's why when I speak of the perception of color, it's always human color perception. I'd never speak to the perception of dogs, donkeys or dinosaurs. ;)
As a dog owner who understands their keen sense of smell, it's huge smell gamut, I have to wonder why they have to get their noises so close to any and all poop they encounter. But that's pretty OT... :o
-
That's why when I speak of the perception of color, it's always human color perception. I'd never speak to the perception of dogs, donkeys or dinosaurs. ;)
As a dog owner who understands their keen sense of smell, it's huge smell gamut, I have to wonder why they have to get their noises so close to any and all poop they encounter. But that's pretty OT... :o
...interesting comment about dogs sniffing other dogs' deposits. I suspect the closer a dog sticks his noses to the target, the more data he acquires. Much like the way I move my head closer to a newspaper to make out the words. OR, use Ctrl + to enlarge a picture on the monitor.
---thanks again for taking the time to explain color management/workflow. It is often a vexing process for laypeople such as myself.
-
Back to the topic, if you want to understand the history of colour management see here (http://calvin-and-hobbes-comic-strips.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/calvin-asks-dad-about-old-black-and.html).
-
Hum, I guess I'll need to look into what Lee said and get back to him :~)
I tried listing to his video but I literally fell asleep. Color management isn't very exiting in the first place but Lee's voice lulled my to sleep. Not sure I want to try again :~) But if he said use Adobe RGB in 8 bit/channel, I need to "fix him" some...
-
I tried listing to his video but I literally fell asleep. Color management isn't very exiting in the first place but Lee's voice lulled my to sleep. Not sure I want to try again :~) But if he said use Adobe RGB in 8 bit/channel, I need to "fix him" some...
Priceless! :D
-
Back to the topic!
I think that any assumption that using a wide gamut colorspace - in this case ProPhotoRGB - somehow leads to garish, inaccurate,or unrealistic colours cannot go uncontested.
The colorspace itself does not cause these problems and the same problems can arise using sRGB.
The way we edit colour is much more likely produce these issues than the editing colorspace per se.
In fact, I want to edit in ProPhotoRGB precisely to avoid many of these issues.
ProPhotoRGB allows me retain many of the subtle colour hues in my prints that would be lost in a smaller editing colorspace.
(Maybe this is what Andrew was referring to when mentioning preserving differences between colours.)
Those subtle colour hues give a realism to a print that would otherwise be unobtainable.
Using a smaller editing colorspace does not preclude subtle colour gradations but if the baseline colour of an area is outside the gamut of a smaller colorspace then the result looks unrealistic (desaturated), to my eye anyway.
Another principle of digital editing workflow that needs to be reinforced is to retain as much data as possible through the process to maximise the output image quality.
Using a wide-gamut editing colorspace is one part of this but the other would most definitely be editing a 16-bit, rather than an 8-bit file.
Also, any suggestion that colour management is immature just because monitors gamuts cannot encompass the ProPhotoRGB colorspace is incorrect. As Andrew has already pointed out some of the plots in the ProPhotoRGB colorspace do not map to colours perceptible to human colour vision. But, even if they did, current, and foreseeable, technology does not allow monitor projection to display all these colours.
But the most important fact to point out is that, by volume, the vast majority of colours in an image will be potentially displayable with current wide-gamut monitors.
I have never seen a colour shift between an image displayed on a monitor versus a print of that image when there are colours represented in print that cannot be displayed by the monitor. (This presupposes a good colour management workflow in the first place). However the print might look more detailed (partly because the printed resolution is better than the monitor resolution) but also because all those subtle hues and colour gradations that were not visible on the monitor area actually translated to the print.
One does not need to "see" every colour potentially in an image and representable in ProPhotoRGB to have a robust colour management workflow.
My comments are valid in the context of the print being the prime output destination.
There is nothing inherently evil in using a smaller colorspace - especially in output - or even an 8-bit file.
This is true even when using the sRGB colorspace for JPEG's created OOC as long as it is understood that at that point the goose is cooked.
Many people's workflow mandates producing 8-bit JPEG's in the sRGB colorspace OOC and that is fine.
If however, one is not forced into a workflow like that then preserving as much image data as possible as late into one's workflow just seems prudent since it contributes to maximising image quality.
Tony Jay
-
ProPhotoRGB allows me retain many of the subtle colour hues in my prints that would be lost in a smaller editing colorspace.
<sigh>
Not to beat a dead horse, but this feels like an uphill climb.
If details are lost, you have clipping. You don't automatically get clipping in any other color space than ProPhoto. That's the myth. Not if you do it right.
I never accept clipping, ever. Just so we're clear on that.
-
If details are lost, you have clipping. You don't automatically get clipping in any other color space than ProPhoto. That's the myth. Not if you do it right.
I never accept clipping, ever. Just so we're clear on that.
I agree with this, but then sometimes you won't get the colour using a smaller colorspace either.
Tony Jay
-
The colorspace itself does not cause these problems and the same problems can arise using sRGB.
Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB, ProPhoto RGB are just color spaces, or rather containers. They don't inherently have any information other than specifications for primaries, white point, and gamma. Until we actually have a pixel, they don’t contain any information.
ProPhotoRGB allows me retain many of the subtle colour hues in my prints that would be lost in a smaller editing colorspace.
(Maybe this is what Andrew was referring to when mentioning preserving differences between colours.)
That is exactly what I see reported by ColorThink and what I see on the output of my prints.
-
TL;DR (:
Photoshop is not about color, it's about numbers in channels.
-
Photoshop is not about color, it's about numbers in channels.
What about numbers that are not color(s)?
And what to do when the numbers differ when they should be the same?
(http://digitaldog.net/files/LRvsPS_Lab.jpg)
-
I mean that Photoshop tools gives different results that depend on chosen color space and/or profile. Same numbers and not the same color as result. See example above - inside all gamuts, both for AdobeRGB and sRGB.
-
I mean that Photoshop tools gives different results that depend on chosen color space and/or profile. Same numbers and not the same color as result.
Expect when dealing with Lab values which is why my last illustration needs Adobe's attention.
Again, there are a slew of numbers that are not colors. And differing numbers that are the same color.
-
Expect when dealing with Lab values which is why my last illustration needs Adobe's attention.
Agree with you. But they need more attention to Photoshop Lab format min/max values. =) BTW, Lightroom indicates correct Lab numbers for green primary of ProPhotoRGB.
Again, there are a slew of numbers that are not colors.
I talk about the case that gives different results inside all gamuts and of course inside all min/max values.
And differing numbers that are the same color.
When you work with color your tool must be correct in numbers that represent color (Lab PCS, XYZ PCS etc).
Accordingly Photoshop are completely odd. =)
-
CMS, dull but necessary, and yet insufficient.
Brian A
-
Actually that isn't too far from the truth, according to this: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut.htm (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/pointers_gamut.htm)
Pointer's gamut is, in short, the gamut of reflected surface colors. Here compared to Adobe RGB:
<disclaimer: I didn't watch the video and have no opinions on it as such>
Fire engine colour under sunlight falls out of Adobe RGB gamut. So do many supersaturated colours on clothing or even hair, examples are endless.
-
Fire engine colour under sunlight falls out of Adobe RGB gamut. So do many supersaturated colours on clothing or even hair, examples are endless.
They are of course endless unless:
1. You don't really know what you're talking about :o
2. You do but have an agenda to ignore the facts that you just pointed out; it's rather easy to find such images.
-
Fire engine colour under sunlight falls out of Adobe RGB gamut. So do many supersaturated colours on clothing or even hair, examples are endless.
I was really done with this thread, but it seems I still need to clarify the point I was trying to make, because people keep misunderstanding it.
The question isn't what comes out of the camera or out of Lightroom. Anything can come out here. But that doesn't make these colors sacred and untouchable.
The question is how real world colors can be credibly represented in a real world photographic medium, so that it looks believable.
I still maintain that it is in fact possible to produce stunning color inside Adobe RGB or even inside sRGB if you have to. You just have to do it right, and make the colors relate to each other.
Gamut volume has nothing to do with good color. Yeah, I've said that a couple of times by now.
-
The question is how real world colors can be credibly represented in a real world photographic medium, so that it looks believable.
I still maintain that it is in fact possible to produce stunning color inside Adobe RGB or even inside sRGB if you have to. You just have to do it right, and make the colors relate to each other.
Gamut volume has nothing to do with good color. Yeah, I've said that a couple of times by now.
I was really done with this thread too, but it seems I still need to clarify the point I was trying to make as well: The benefits of a wider gamut working space than Adobe RGB (1998) is exactly what I see reported by ColorThink and what I see on the output of my prints. That doesn't mean I'm unable to produce stunning color inside Adobe RGB or even inside sRGB! It means using a wider gamut working space on many images produces even more stunning color.
-
I was really done with this thread, but it seems I still need to clarify the point I was trying to make, because people keep misunderstanding it.
The question isn't what comes out of the camera or out of Lightroom. Anything can come out here. But that doesn't make these colors sacred and untouchable.
The question is how real world colors can be credibly represented in a real world photographic medium, so that it looks believable.
I still maintain that it is in fact possible to produce stunning color inside Adobe RGB or even inside sRGB if you have to. You just have to do it right, and make the colors relate to each other.
Gamut volume has nothing to do with good color. Yeah, I've said that a couple of times by now.
I must admit I indeed do not know what you are talking about. My data is from spectroradiometer.
-
I must admit I indeed do not know what you are talking about
Well, I'll leave it at that anyway. I have no problems with Andrew's point of view, but other POVs are equally valid. It depends on where you come from.
I just get dizzy from going in circles :)
-
POV's and opinions based on actual tested results are a bit more valid than those that are not tested IMHO. Again, all I can suggest is the output I see and have shown (albeit via an sRGB video) in addition to what ColorThink shows me of data in an output color space does produce a visible difference and improvement.
Getting back OT, did Lee do any of this? Can he explain defend the output and colorimetry from ColorThink, (a product he actually used in his video) that suggests his ideas on a working space is iffy at best? And what about his ideas of high bit data? Scanners and digital camera systems, software products nearly two decades old, that provide high bit data are doing this for no reason?
Not all POV's, are created equally.