Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Colour Management => Topic started by: memoriaphoto on November 08, 2021, 12:25:18 pm
-
Hi all,
If I never print, just deliver images for screen viewing. What would be a good choice for brightness level when calibrating. I have always been in the 100-110 range but I wonder if that is too dark if I only deliver images that are viewed on a computer/phone. I figure most consumer displays out there are way brighter? So I wonder if my images might appear too bright.
-
I think you are good at that level, even for social media posts. I use 105 cd/m2 as my brightness level with the I1 Pro system. The reason I am convinced that is approximately the right value, I have some friends on iMacs that have never been calibrated and the brightness might be as high as 300 cd/m2. Most of the photos they post online are muddy and way too dark, no matter my viewing device,
-
It doesn't matter because you can't control how others view images; calibrated display (and how), color managed browsing or applications? They have auto color and brightness set on a mobile device?
-
Here are my settings for a NEC PA242W monitor using Spectraview II calibration software and puck. Like you, for display only. Not used for printing. I like a bright display. It's calibrated for max. 211.7cd/m2. Now that I'm looking at it, it looks like I haven't calibrated in close to a year. :) Well I haven't noticed any difference and it probably doesn't matter if it changed a little. As long as it looks good to my eyes. I've used Lightroom and PS Elements to calibrate the photos. If you want to see what they look like, click on my Flickr link below.
-
Where can we see your pictures?
-
It doesn't matter because you can't control how others view images; calibrated display (and how), color managed browsing or applications? They have auto color and brightness set on a mobile device?
+1
and you don't know the image viewing environment (dark, light, sun .....): for exemple if your viewing environnement is 500lx your monitor is 200cd , if your environment is 50lx your monitor is 80cd, the visualization of the same photo will be identical.
-
I've used Lightroom and PS Elements to calibrate the photos.
That “concept” or lack of proper language is nearly as silly and off base as when you told us “all prints are 300 DPI”:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136760.msg1194660#msg1194660
-
Here are my settings for a NEC PA242W monitor using Spectraview II calibration software and puck.
Great illustration of what not to do with such a fine display system. Or any display system, getting back to the topic of setting Cd/m2.
Author hasn't calibrated it in nearly a year. NEC recommends once a month at least.
Author has upped the brightness to max for so long, the max Cd/m2 has been driven down from 340 cd/m2 (stated max of new unit**) to 211 Cd/m2 as shown a year ago. Author could calibrate again and see what Cd/m2 he now gets after a year of running the display so high. The rub for those who care: the brighter you up the backlight, the sooner it will lower and lower over time. So here's what 12 thousand hours of aiming for such a high backlight will do for you; 340 cd/m2 new, to 211 Cd/m2 a year ago.
Wide gamut display (99.3% of Adobe RGB), funneled into sRGB for who knows what reason.
Spec for contrast ratio is 1000:1, after driving the display so high, a year ago, it is now maxing at 776:1.
So again, this is a great illustration of what not to be doing for no benefit to your display, your eyes and as provided with an outside link, his photos.
**https://www.sharpnecdisplays.us/products/displays/pa242w-bk
-
Rather than knock my settings, why don't you recommend what you think are correct for the OP? You haven't provided any guidelines only negative comments about what others have done effectively. Additionally, my monitor was set up for web display with deliberately higher settings and not for printing. Had I set it for printing, then the CD would have been less maintaining the unit's original design parameters longer. But that's not what I'm using it for. So your point seems to be beside the point at least for my non-print application.
My NEC monitor was bought in 2007, fourteen years ago. I don't believe that any reduction of the display properties have negatively affected my ability to post properly and provide more than acceptable images on the web. Here are some of those photos I posted on Flickr. The viewers can determine whether my settings and calibrations with both the NEC and with my editing programs have produced good images. In fact, I'd appreciate if those who look would post their views about those images here. Are they lighted and colored properly? I'm actually giving images that are easier to find fault with since these are from my own scans of film that require a lot of editing of scans to get right. Harder than digitally shot pictures.
I'm willing to put my photos and processes where my mouth is. These were posted from 1 1/2 years ago to just a few months ago, before and after the last calibration of the monitor. What do you viewers think?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157715763486212
-
I have my dual monitors calibrated to 80, but I maintain a dark room. Works for printing as well as web, particularly iPad.
What ‘Dog’ said, however, is correct….you have no control of how others watch. I find iPhone/iPads fairly well and automagically set for good (enough) viewing. Computer monitors are, for the most case, potluck. If it’s a photographer, it is probably set pretty well,nthe average person….well….all they probably care about is that they can recognize ‘Aunt Sally’ and will never notice the time you did (or didn’t) spend getting the image ‘just right’. 😀
-
I have my dual monitors calibrated to 80, but I maintain a dark room. Works for printing as well as web, particularly iPad.
What ‘Dog’ said, however, is correct….you have no control of how others watch. I find iPhone/iPads fairly well and automagically set for good (enough) viewing. Computer monitors are, for the most case, potluck. If it’s a photographer, it is probably set pretty well,nthe average person….well….all they probably care about is that they can recognize ‘Aunt Sally’ and will never notice the time you did (or didn’t) spend getting the image ‘just right’. 😀
I agree you can't control what others do on theirs. But you want to start with a standard for yourself and others who do care and get within the ballpark. Plus, when you look at your own pictures on a TV or monitor, or wherever, you want to be within the ballpark just for your own good viewing. If others have lousy settings, well that's their problem.
I:m curious how your setting of 80cd affects your adjustments and edits. What do you do to change the result to the image in post-processing? Do you ignore the histogram? In other words, let's say you have a photo that fully ranges 0-255 out of the camera. How does the CD setting you use affect the change you make when editing? Does the histogram move and to where?
-
Let's start here: ”The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management, is that those who have it are so eager to regularly share it!” - The Digital Dog
PLEASE STOP SHARING.
Rather than knock my settings, why don't you recommend what you think are correct for the OP?
I did, in my first post here. It doesn't matter in terms of what others see. Thanks to your post, I was able then illustrate with facts on the subject of color management and an actual understanding of display technology that what you've shown is about the worst settings imaginable and why. Why pointing out that you are wasting a really good reference display system and Colorimeter (you call it a 'puck') you're not using.
You haven't provided any guidelines only negative comments about what others have done effectively.
Yes, negative comments about how not to deal with a display. Did you understand why? Seems not. Since you ignored all previous posts by myself and others about this topic.
Additionally, my monitor was set up for web display with deliberately higher settings and not for printing.
That's simply a misunderstanding of your concepts of display calibration. A process you've let go nearly a year. Explain that. Actually don't, enough fables for one day.
My NEC monitor was bought in 2007, fourteen years ago.
Once again, you are wrong. That display was introduced in 2013:
https://www.techpowerup.com/186876/nec-announces-pa242w-24-inch-monitor-with-gb-r-led-backlight
NEC Announces PA242W 24-inch Monitor with GB-R LED Backlight
PRESS RELEASE by btarunr Jul 9th, 2013 10:24 Discuss
So you are only off by 6 years and change. More fabulist NONSENSE from your end. That works well in the Bear Pit where facts are ignored. This is a forum about color management which is a technical discussion that requires facts from people who understand the topic. Go back to the Bear Pit. :D
I'm willing to put my photos and processes where my mouth is. These were posted from 1 1/2 years ago to just a few months ago, before and after the last calibration of the monitor. What do you viewers think?
As an actual professional photographer (it was how I fed my family for decades), you really don't want me to critique your snapshots Alan and yes, I've seen them. And those snapshots have nothing to do with this topic you've nearly got totally wrong.
You could tell us what you did for a living. You will not. Or why you bought a color reference display and Colorimeter you don't use. You will not.
I don't believe that any reduction of the display properties have negatively affected my ability to post properly and provide more than acceptable images on the web.
What you believe and what is factual isn't the same. Hasn't been in the past, no different today. You can believe in god, unicorns and the Easter Bunny. And perhaps you do.
Here are the facts, something I outlined only for your readers:
1. Not all prints are 300DPI.
2. The settings you provided are in my professional opinion, about the worst advise for others who know as little about this topic as you do.
3. Your display was released in 2013, not as you assume or simply don't know, in 2007.
Your readers here need to know that in a topic as complicated as color management, peer review is kind of useful and dismissing assumptions and nonsense are par for this course. IOW, you're far better off writing in the Bear Pit Coffee Corner where most of your readers (as a former one) don't take you seriously.
-
But you want to start with a standard for yourself and others who do care and get within the ballpark.
There are no such standards. You're again making crap up. People can alter their displays and phone settings, they are not locked down. So much for your imaginary 'standards'.
Next you'll tell us, without a lick of fact, your NEC calibration settings are a standard. Fabulist writings.
Plus, when you look at your own pictures on a TV or monitor, or wherever, you want to be within the ballpark just for your own good viewing.
Generalizations and assumptions. What is the deltaE of your ballpark? That can't be answered, probably the question isn't even understood.
I:m curious how your setting of 80cd affects your adjustments and edits.
Asked by a person who obviously never used a CRT display. Asked by a person who will not accept factual answers if provided. You are curious; that's hilarious. Move on.
Do you ignore the histogram? In other words, let's say you have a photo that fully ranges 0-255 out of the camera. How does the CD setting you use affect the change you make when editing? Does the histogram move and to where?
Asked by a person who obviously has no idea that a Histogram knows nothing about the display or its conditions.
So along with a massive misunderstanding of display calibration and resolution, let's add Histograms. Here's a video you will likely ignore but maybe other who know just a bit more about the topic than you and need more understanding will watch.
Everything you thought you wanted to know about Histograms
Another exhaustive 40 minute video examining:
What are histograms. In Photoshop, ACR, Lightroom.
Histograms: clipping color and tones, color spaces and color gamut.
Histogram and Photoshop’s Level’s command.
Histograms don’t tell us our images are good (examples).
Misconceptions about histograms. How they lie.
Histograms and Expose To The Right (ETTR).
Are histograms useful and if so, how?
Low rez (YouTube): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjPsP4HhHhE
High rez: http://digitaldog.net/files/Histogram_Video.mov
The bold above is especially configured for you to view then ignore.
Bear Bit Alan, Bear Bit. Leave the technical photographic and factual discussions to others.
-
I have my dual monitors calibrated to 80, but I maintain a dark room.
Bingo! And to back up what both of us know, here's a good piece from the color scientist who developed both the Sony Artisan and Radius PressViews, both of which I've owned, both CRTs that are hard pressed to get a lot higher than 80-90 cdm2. But never an issue of course.
http://lumita.com/site_media/work/whitepapers/files/calibrating_digital_darkroom.pdf
-
As usual Andrew. You're more interested in attacking people than providing useful information that non- experts can use effectively.
-
As usual Andrew. You're more interested in attacking people than providing useful information that non- experts can use effectively.
As usual Alan, I'm more interested in disproving your amazing BS, misunderstandings and posts to others.
Yes, you do expertly qualify posting in this forum as a non expert. Which is why the Bear Pit is ideal for your posting agenda.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=136697.msg1228434#msg1228434
"Stupidity is always amazing, no matter how used to it you become."-Jean Cocteau
-
I have my dual monitors calibrated to 80, but I maintain a dark room. Works for printing as well as web, particularly iPad.
When I switched to an LCD monitor, I also decided to boost all the light levels of my work situation to be as bright as was practical for the sake of my circadian rhythm (the old CRT was lucky to hit 50 cd/m^2). Too low light level means poorer alertness as melatonin isn't being effectively suppressed, also leading to lower levels at night when you want it. I couldn't quite get the levels recommended, but I got as close as I could. So the display is running about 80% of max with a brightness around 180 cd/m^2, and the adjacent desk brightness from the four (D50'ish) LED downlights is about 500 lux. This about the bare minimum level from an alertness and sleep point of view - it would be better if it was at least twice that.
If I'm still working in the evenings I reduce the ambient and display levels to less than half this.
It's fair to point out that I'm rarely doing color critical viewing in this setup although I'm happy enough with that aspect, but it's worth making the point that there are other considerations in peoples display/work situations.
-
Wide gamut display (99.3% of Adobe RGB), funneled into sRGB for who knows what reason.
I agree with your post, but not with the above. If you deliver for web, and don't print, you work and edit in sRGB, as it makes the most sense. Always work in the smallest colorspace you need, as it will give you the best precision. Why would you work in a larger color space than what you need? Less precision, having to deal with remapping out-of-gamut colors, etc.
As for the OP's question, 100nits is good for sRGB. Keep the ambient light down when editing to see details. You can't control what others see, but more than 120nits -> darker images for most folks.
-
If you deliver for web, and don't print, you work and edit in sRGB, as it makes the most sense. Always work in the smallest colorspace you need, as it will give you the best precision.
That would make sense if those viewing images on the web all were forced to view that in the limited color gamut of sRGB. This isn't 1995 anymore, hundreds of millions of devices (all iPhones since model 6, iPads, and many other devices) far exceed sRGB gamut. That's today. What awaits us in the future? We don't know.
Best precision?
Less precision, having to deal with remapping out-of-gamut colors, etc.
Please tell us how we avoid doing this from a raw data original? Please tell us which digital camera produces sRGB natively, or for that matter which scanner natively? How does one funnel a native color space from a device into sRGB without remapping out of gamut colors?
Why would you work in a larger color space than what you need?
Needed in 1995, today or in 2025? Neither of us know. As such, I'll keep all my rendered from raw data in ProPhoto RGB RGB, as clearly recommended by my raw converter manufacturer.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/ProPhotoRecommedationLR.jpg)
100nits is good for sRGB.
"Good" for sRGB and any Working Space. Do examine the sRGB specs (https://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/srgb.xalter)** for white point: White point luminance: 80 cd/m2. Now other RGB Working Spaces like Adobe RGB (1998) which is 160 cd/m2; match, alter for each, or do whatever you wish? Doesn't matter really.
Which sRGB would you be talking about?
** https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html
-
I agree with your post, but not with the above. If you deliver for web, and don't print, you work and edit in sRGB, as it makes the most sense. Always work in the smallest colorspace you need, as it will give you the best precision. Why would you work in a larger color space than what you need? Less precision, having to deal with remapping out-of-gamut colors, etc.
As for the OP's question, 100nits is good for sRGB. Keep the ambient light down when editing to see details. You can't control what others see, but more than 120nits -> darker images for most folks.
I agree. I edit in sRGB because I'm posting on the web which is sRGB and don't print. If I edit in Adobe, who knows what I'll get when converted to sRGB? This way the web display best conform to what my edits look like.
-
I agree. I edit in sRGB because I'm posting on the web which is sRGB and don't print.
Again, we hear from someone who never lets complete ignorance of a subject (calibration, resolution, converting color spaces, the color space of 'the web' being sRGB) get in the way of having strong opinions about it.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139472.msg1228445#msg1228445
If I edit in Adobe, who knows what I'll get when converted to sRGB?
I fully accept that you don't know. Others here do, maybe type less, read more? And the color space you're struggling to describe is called Adobe RGB (1998).
This way the web display best conform to what my edits look like.
That would make perfect sense if you suspend all rational thought.
-
I agree. I edit in sRGB because I'm posting on the web which is sRGB and don't print. If I edit in Adobe, who knows what I'll get when converted to sRGB? This way the web display best conform to what my edits look like.
Exactly - it's not that complicated.
-
Exactly - it's not that complicated.
Exactly wrong, but no matter. The idea that "the web which is sRGB" is rubbish.
-
That would make sense if those viewing images on the web all were forced to view that in the limited color gamut of sRGB. This isn't 1995 anymore, hundreds of millions of devices (all iPhones since model 6, iPads, and many other devices) far exceed sRGB gamut. That's today. What awaits us in the future? We don't know.
Best precision? Please tell us how we avoid doing this from a raw data original? Please tell us which digital camera produces sRGB natively, or for that matter which scanner natively? How does one funnel a native color space from a device into sRGB without remapping out of gamut colors? Needed in 1995, today or in 2025? Neither of us know. As such, I'll keep all my rendered from raw data in ProPhoto RGB RGB, as clearly recommended by my raw converter manufacturer.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/ProPhotoRecommedationLR.jpg)"Good" for sRGB and any Working Space. Do examine the sRGB specs (https://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/srgb.xalter)** for white point: White point luminance: 80 cd/m2. Now other RGB Working Spaces like Adobe RGB (1998) which is 160 cd/m2; match, alter for each, or do whatever you wish? Doesn't matter really.
Which sRGB would you be talking about?
** https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html
Yeah, so what ICC profile should I export my photos with for web if not sRGB? sRGB guarantees all monitors can handle it. Should I export with Adobe 98? Nope. Some Display P3 variant because Apple devices use that now? Nope! So yeah, sRGB is still the best option.
100nits is good enough to edit in - I know the spec says 80 with 64lux ennvironment, but are people measuring their ambient light? Not really. 100 (like for REC 709) is good for a dim envorinment editing so you can see details. More than that is up to you, but this is what I've found works when later viewiing my images on a variety of devices with britghness cranked way up, etc.
-
Exactly wrong, but no matter. The idea that "the web which is sRGB" is rubbish.
Web = the colorspace that most people's display devices can fully display, so you know if you worked in that colorspace and you embedd the ICC profile for said colorspace, most people will see what you intended colorspace-wise. And that colorspace is sRGB. Not only that, but for apps that are not color managed, they assume sRGB. So yeah, sRGB is still the best, even if the gamut is smaller and late 90s :)
-
That would make sense if those viewing images on the web all were forced to view that in the limited color gamut of sRGB. This isn't 1995 anymore, hundreds of millions of devices (all iPhones since model 6, iPads, and many other devices) far exceed sRGB gamut. That's today. What awaits us in the future? We don't know.
Best precision? Please tell us how we avoid doing this from a raw data original? Please tell us which digital camera produces sRGB natively, or for that matter which scanner natively? How does one funnel a native color space from a device into sRGB without remapping out of gamut colors? Needed in 1995, today or in 2025? Neither of us know. As such, I'll keep all my rendered from raw data in ProPhoto RGB RGB, as clearly recommended by my raw converter manufacturer.
(http://digitaldog.net/files/ProPhotoRecommedationLR.jpg)"Good" for sRGB and any Working Space. Do examine the sRGB specs (https://www.color.org/chardata/rgb/srgb.xalter)** for white point: White point luminance: 80 cd/m2. Now other RGB Working Spaces like Adobe RGB (1998) which is 160 cd/m2; match, alter for each, or do whatever you wish? Doesn't matter really.
Which sRGB would you be talking about?
** https://ninedegreesbelow.com/photography/srgb-profile-comparison.html
Again, work in the smallest colorspace you need to. Of course RAW will clip when exporting, but if you are calibrated for sRGB and working on a file and you edit colors in that space, any clipping will not be an issue because you didn't edit colors that are are out of gamut, as you can's see them if you are calibrated for that gamut. Make sense now? It's simple really.
-
I agree. I edit in sRGB because I'm posting on the web which is sRGB and don't print. If I edit in Adobe, who knows what I'll get when converted to sRGB? This way the web display best conform to what my edits look like.
If you are editing in Lightroom, you are “editing” in a much larger space that RGB (Similar to ProphotoRGB). Whether your monitor is calibrated to RGB or aRGb will not really matter (the importance is calibrated). What matters is that you exit with the image exported to a RGB jpeg.
-
If you are editing in Lightroom, you are “editing” in a much larger space that RGB (Similar to ProphotoRGB). Whether your monitor is calibrated to RGB or aRGb will not really matter (the importance is calibrated). What matters is that you exit with the image exported to a RGB jpeg.
I do edit with Lightroom on a calibrated monitor that calibrated to sRGB. So what color space am I seeing when calibrating? sRGB, Prophoto or something else?
-
Yeah, so what ICC profile should I export my photos with for web if not sRGB?
Makes ZERO difference if your browser is color managed. ProPhoto RGB is fine, Adobe RGB (1998) is fine. Without a color managed browser, sRGB is meaningless. sRGB in such a case isn't fine because there is no color management. Color management is color space agnostic; any color space on the web or in Photoshop is fair game.
sRGB guarantees all monitors can handle it.
Absurd. Handle it? ANY display can with with color management if the user calibrates and profiles it, then uses a color managed application.
Should I export with Adobe 98? Nope.
The color space is called Adobe RGB (1998), and yes, you can with a color managed browser use it and any RGB Working Space tagged with the image.
Some Display P3 variant because Apple devices use that now? Nope!
Yes, you can with a color managed browser us it and any RGB Working Space tagged with the image.
100nits is good enough to edit in
It doesn't matter. I don’t know if you are purposely trying not to understand this, or if you are really struggling with it.
- I know the spec says 80 with 64lux ennvironment, but are people measuring their ambient light? Not really. 100 (like for REC 709) is good for a dim envorinment editing so you can see details. More than that is up to you, but this is what I've found works when later viewiing my images on a variety of devices with britghness cranked way up, etc.
It doesn't matter. Are you under the silly impression that everyone viewing images on the web, even using sRGB gamut displays are all using 80 Cd/m2? They are not.
You also don't seem to understand that viewing images in a color managed application involves FAR more than just the color gamut of a Working Space!
Again, work in the smallest colorspace you need to.
For what, for whom using what display gamut, display calibration aim point? You can't answer that. And in the end, it doesn't matter.
Web = the colorspace that most people's display devices can fully display
That's just nonsense. Again, there are millions of wide gamut displays just in mobile devices. Thankfully, most being driven with OS color management and browser color management.
The web has no color space. The web is composed of data represented by numbers. The numbers used to define an image either have a scale (a color space) and that's used for previews or it doesn't and all bets are off. The web, using a color managed browser will preview a tagged image exactly like Photoshop or Lightroom or C1 etc. Because they are color managed. They ALL match on YOUR system. Anyone else viewing your images? All bets are off. We (you) can't control what browser they are using that may not be color managed, or the condition of their display, or the profile if one exists of that display.
Make sense now? It's simple really.
To those that don't understand basic color management it seems.
Worth mentioning once again: ”The reason there's so much ignorance on the subject of color management, is that those who have it are so eager to regularly share it!” - The Digital Dog
You and Alan should stop sharing. PLEASE.
-
Web = the colorspace that most people's display devices can fully display, so you know if you worked in that colorspace and you embedd the ICC profile for said colorspace, most people will see what you intended colorspace-wise. And that colorspace is sRGB.
Not really. If the user's monitor is calibrated and profiled, and they're using a colour-managed display program (e.g. browser) then the colour space of the image doesn't matter, so long as there is a correct embedded profile. If there's no profile, then all bets are off as the browser has to guess the colour space.
But if they're not using colour management...
Not only that, but for apps that are not color managed, they assume sRGB. So yeah, sRGB is still the best, even if the gamut is smaller and late 90s :)
... then this isn't right either. Apps that are not colour managed do not "assume sRGB", they don't assume anything. They just blast the RGB data unaltered to the monitor, in blissful ignorance of the colour space of the image and the colour space of the monitor.
Colours will be correct only if the colour space of the image is identical to the colour space of the monitor. Most normal gamut monitors (that is, not wide-gamut) are very approximately sRGB, so sRGB images will be displayed very approximatly correctly. However many - probably most - smartphones now have wider gamut displays.
-
I do edit with Lightroom on a calibrated monitor that calibrated to sRGB. So what color space am I seeing when calibrating? sRGB, Prophoto or something else?
Another silly question asked who's correct answer will be ignored. The calibration of your display is UTTERLY divorced with the data you edit and its color space by design.
You edit with Lightroom on a grayscale display, the data doesn't care.
Anyone here can go to your Flickr page and see, in a color managed means, as seen below, that you've got a lot of work to do in terms of showing your 'photography' to others, using sRGB or otherwise. Case in point, color managed screen capture:
-
I do edit with Lightroom on a calibrated monitor that calibrated to sRGB. So what color space am I seeing when calibrating? sRGB, Prophoto or something else?
Lightroom will convert the image from its working space (ProPhoto RGB with a linear gamma) to sRGB before sending the image data to the monitor.
That's what happens whenever any image is displayed on a calibrated/profiles monitor by colour managed software. It doesn't matter what colour space the image is, it will be displayed correctly on the monitor. The proviso is that pixels with highly saturated colours outside sRGB (and only those pixels) will be mapped to the nearest colour that is in sRGB (depending on the rendering intent - usually relative, I believe). All other pixels - nearly all pixels in nearly all images - will be displayed identically.
-
Not really. If the user's monitor is calibrated and profiled, and they're using a colour-managed display program (e.g. browser) then the colour space of the image doesn't matter, so long as there is a correct embedded profile. If there's no profile, then all bets are off as the browser has to guess the colour space.
But if they're not using colour management...
... then this isn't right either. Apps that are not colour managed do not "assume sRGB", they don't assume anything. They just blast the RGB data unaltered to the monitor, in blissful ignorance of the colour space of the image and the colour space of the monitor.
Colours will be correct only if the colour space of the image is identical to the colour space of the monitor. Most normal gamut monitors (that is, not wide-gamut) are very approximately sRGB, so sRGB images will be displayed very approximatly correctly. However many - probably most - smartphones now have wider gamut displays.
And
If you are editing in Lightroom, you are “editing” in a much larger space that RGB (Similar to ProphotoRGB). Whether your monitor is calibrated to RGB or aRGb will not really matter (the importance is calibrated).
Exactly so in total.
It is impossible to puncture the unreality bubble surrounding a fact denier. We can only attempt to sway those with open minds. Certainly one poster here, perhaps two don't have open minds to facts, science (color science and more), and data.
-
To answer some points:
1. How can you say it makes ZERO difference what ICC profile you export your image with when you don't know if the display it's being viewed on cannot fully display Adobe RGB, Display P3, or nevermind ProPhoto RGB... Obvously a color managed browser/app will understand the profile, but what happens to out of gamut colors, colors that the display cannot show? All I know is that just about any display device can cover sRGB's gamut, so then I know that on export I'm ensuring it will be compatible with most devices out there, as opposed to Adobe RGB or larger. What's there to argue about here, I don't get. Absurd? What are you going on about? Just because I CAN export with any ICC profile I want doesn't mean jack if the end user can't see that color gamut. sRGB is the most compatible, so that's what I use for files destined for the web.
2. The 100nit suggestion is a recommnedation based on years of calibrating my monitor to it and then testing how my images look on various devices that may or may not be calibrated and that have the brigthness turned way up or thet other way around. I've found that 80-120nits is a safe area to work in, in that your images will for the most part look right on most devices out there. If you calibrate below 80 they will most likely be too bright, and above 120, too dark. No need to get all worked up about it. You recommend a better number and tell us why.
3. Obviously the web has no color space, but you missed my point. For me, it's not about idealism, but about being pragmatic too. Yeah there are more and more WCG displays out there. So what? See point #1 above. Can they do 100% of Adobe RGB or Display P3? If so, what percent? Again, sRGB is a safer bet. Yeah, in 2021 still, but I'm confident most displays can handle the gamut.
4. I'm not ignorant at all about CM. Could be I don't understand a few things, but that doesn't give you the right to make asssumptions and be condescending and rude.
-
Not really. If the user's monitor is calibrated and profiled, and they're using a colour-managed display program (e.g. browser) then the colour space of the image doesn't matter, so long as there is a correct embedded profile. If there's no profile, then all bets are off as the browser has to guess the colour space.
But if they're not using colour management...
... then this isn't right either. Apps that are not colour managed do not "assume sRGB", they don't assume anything. They just blast the RGB data unaltered to the monitor, in blissful ignorance of the colour space of the image and the colour space of the monitor.
Colours will be correct only if the colour space of the image is identical to the colour space of the monitor. Most normal gamut monitors (that is, not wide-gamut) are very approximately sRGB, so sRGB images will be displayed very approximatly correctly. However many - probably most - smartphones now have wider gamut displays.
I posted just before this. What do you mean it doesn't matter? Are you saying all display devices out there can corretly display 100% Adobe RGB or larger colorspaces? That's news to me :)
OK, maybe "assume" was the wrong word. But from all the testing I've done over the years, untagged images that are sRGB display the most similarly in apps that are not color managed. Untagged Adobe RGB or others look way off. So again, it's about being practical and pragmatic too.
-
Lightroom will convert the image from its working space (ProPhoto RGB with a linear gamma) to sRGB before sending the image data to the monitor.
That's what happens whenever any image is displayed on a calibrated/profiles monitor by colour managed software. It doesn't matter what colour space the image is, it will be displayed correctly on the monitor. The proviso is that pixels with highly saturated colours outside sRGB (and only those pixels) will be mapped to the nearest colour that is in sRGB (depending on the rendering intent - usually relative, I believe). All other pixels - nearly all pixels in nearly all images - will be displayed identically.
Correct. And I can only edit colors that I can see, would you also agree? I don't understand all this theoretical talk.
-
I posted just before this. What do you mean it doesn't matter? Are you saying all display devices out there can corretly display 100% Adobe RGB or larger colorspaces? That's news to me :)
OK, maybe "assume" was the wrong word. But from all the testing I've done over the years, untagged images that are sRGB display the most similarly in apps that are not color managed. Untagged Adobe RGB or others look way off. So again, it's about being practical and pragmatic too.
You seem rather confused between displays, their possible display calibrations, their color gamuts and how all this is divorced from the working space of the data that also requires a profile.
Perhaps this Adobe white paper will clear this up:
https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf
I'm not ignorant at all about CM. Could be I don't understand a few things
Unlike the few people that you were arguing with, that also provide full transparency of their backgrounds and names and do understand those things...
-
To answer some points:
1. How can you say it makes ZERO difference what ICC profile you export your image with when you don't know if the display it's being viewed on cannot fully display Adobe RGB, Display P3, or nevermind ProPhoto RGB... Obvously a color managed browser/app will understand the profile, but what happens to out of gamut colors, colors that the display cannot show? All I know is that just about any display device can cover sRGB's gamut, so then I know that on export I'm ensuring it will be compatible with most devices out there, as opposed to Adobe RGB or larger. What's there to argue about here, I don't get. Absurd? What are you going on about? Just because I CAN export with any ICC profile I want doesn't mean jack if the end user can't see that color gamut. sRGB is the most compatible, so that's what I use for files destined for the web.
OK, let's go through the possible scenarios in detail.
If the image is in a gamut wider than sRGB, and has pixels with colour outside sRGB gamut (that is, highly-saturated colours), then when these are displayed on an sRGB colour-managed monitor, colours outside sRGB will be clipped to the nearest equivalent colour that is inside sRGB.
This happens either because when you export you convert to sRGB (the clipping occurs then) or because (if you export in a wider colour space), when the viewer at some later point views the image, the colours are clipped by the colour-managed software when rendering the image to view on that sRGB monitor. There's no difference. Similarly, if when you edit in a colour-managed program, you are using an sRGB monitor, then out-of-gamut colours are clipped for display. Again, you see the same image.
Where there might be a difference: if you edit an image in a wide colour space (wider than sRGB), AND the image has pixels with colour outside sRGB gamut, AND while you are editing you are using a colour-managed wide-gamut monitor, then you will see these out-of-gamut colours that you won't see if you later view the image on a narrow (sRGB) gamut monitor. However, it makes no difference whether you export in sRGB, Adobe RGB or any other colour space. Either the conversion and clipping occurs when you export (if you convert to sRGB) or when you view the exported image on a colour-managed sRGB monitor (if you export in a wider gamut), the result is the same.
Of course, if you view an image in a wide-gamut colour space on an unmanaged sRGB monitor, the colours will be wrong. That's why it's a good idea to convert to sRGB on export of images destined for the web. But there's no real disadvantage in editing in a wide-gamut working space (as Lightroom always does). You can always use soft proofing if you want to see what colours might be clipped.
2. The 100nit suggestion is a recommnedation based on years of calibrating my monitor to it and then testing how my images look on various devices that may or may not be calibrated and that have the brigthness turned way up or thet other way around. I've found that 80-120nits is a safe area to work in, in that your images will for the most part look right on most devices out there. If you calibrate below 80 they will most likely be too bright, and above 120, too dark. No need to get all worked up about it. You recommend a better number and tell us why.
3. Obviously the web has no color space, but you missed my point. For me, it's not about idealism, but about being pragmatic too. Yeah there are more and more WCG displays out there. So what? See point #1 above. Can they do 100% of Adobe RGB or Display P3? If so, what percent? Again, sRGB is a safer bet. Yeah, in 2021 still, but I'm confident most displays can handle the gamut.
I don't follow this argument.
I have used at home 3 or 4 different wide-gamut monitors, and all could display colours beyond Adobe RGB. As my cameras can record colours beyond sRGB, then a wide gamut monitor is clearly the safer bet. It means that I can see colours beyond sRGB that my printer can print, and it means I'm future-proofing for the time when more people on the web are using wide-gamut monitors.
sRGB is a safe bet for the choice of colour space for images when they uploaded for the web. As a colour space for storing, editing, printing or viewing images, it has only disadvantages.
4. I'm not ignorant at all about CM. Could be I don't understand a few things, but that doesn't give you the right to make asssumptions and be condescending and rude.
-
OK, let's go through the possible scenarios in detail.
If the image is in a gamut wider than sRGB, and has pixels with colour outside sRGB gamut (that is, highly-saturated colours), then when these are displayed on an sRGB colour-managed monitor, colours outside sRGB will be clipped to the nearest equivalent colour that is inside sRGB.
This happens either because when you export you convert to sRGB (the clipping occurs then) or because (if you export in a wider colour space), when the viewer at some later point views the image, the colours are clipped by the colour-managed software when rendering the image to view on that sRGB monitor. There's no difference. Similarly, if when you edit in a colour-managed program, you are using an sRGB monitor, then out-of-gamut colours are clipped for display. Again, you see the same image.
Where there might be a difference: if you edit an image in a wide colour space (wider than sRGB), AND the image has pixels with colour outside sRGB gamut, AND while you are editing you are using a colour-managed wide-gamut monitor, then you will see these out-of-gamut colours that you won't see if you later view the image on a narrow (sRGB) gamut monitor. However, it makes no difference whether you export in sRGB, Adobe RGB or any other colour space. Either the conversion and clipping occurs when you export (if you convert to sRGB) or when you view the exported image on a colour-managed sRGB monitor (if you export in a wider gamut), the result is the same.
Of course, if you view an image in a wide-gamut colour space on an unmanaged sRGB monitor, the colours will be wrong. That's why it's a good idea to convert to sRGB on export of images destined for the web. But there's no real disadvantage in editing in a wide-gamut working space (as Lightroom always does). You can always use soft proofing if you want to see what colours might be clipped.
Yes, I understand exaactly what you are saying. I'm not disagreeing, because these are facts. But what I'm trying to say is actually simple, though perhaps it's not coming out this way. My goal, for images destined to be only viewed on the web, is to have the utmost consistency. That's all. And all I can control in this consistency is the colorspace of the image I'm exporting. If I edit such an image in say Adobe RGB, tag on export with the Adobe RGB profile, then some with WCG displays that can reproduce Adobe RGB fully will see it as I do (if they are calibrated as well), but most will not - they will have some clipping somewhere as you point out. So all I can do to make sure my images are seen the same for most everyone, is to export as sRGB - as I think we both agree. That's all I'm trying to say here. The lowest common denominator wins.
In terms of editing in a larger space and softproofing, that's time consuming, and doesn't help me all that much if you see my point. It will show me, but it is what it is.
I don't follow this argument.
I have used at home 3 or 4 different wide-gamut monitors, and all could display colours beyond Adobe RGB. As my cameras can record colours beyond sRGB, then a wide gamut monitor is clearly the safer bet. It means that I can see colours beyond sRGB that my printer can print, and it means I'm future-proofing for the time when more people on the web are using wide-gamut monitors.
sRGB is a safe bet for the choice of colour space for images when they uploaded for the web. As a colour space for storing, editing, printing or viewing images, it has only disadvantages.
Some can, some can't. Not fully either. It depends on the display. Again, I'm talking in this thread about images for web. For images I print or other unique purposes, I use Adobe RGB if the image has colors in ACR that clip in sRGB but not in Adobe RGB for example. My RAW files are always there if I need them in the future, so no worries :) I don't worry about future proofing - I don't believe in this concept in general. Things change all the time. If I need to revisit, I will alwyas go back to the RAW file.
-
You seem rather confused between displays, their possible display calibrations, their color gamuts aes and how all this is divorced from the working space of the data that also requires a profile.
Perhaps this Adobe white paper will clear this up:
https://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/phscs2ip_colspace.pdf
No, not at all cofused. I've understood this since ACR came out in 2003 and Bruce's book came out.
Unlike the few people that you were arguing with, that also provide full transparency of their backgrounds and names and do understand those things...
Again, I'm not "arguing". You are arguing and insulting. And assuming a lot about what others know or don't know. If you like to act this way (and I've seen this from you towards almost anyone posting here), under your real name, and wear that as some badge of honor, more power to you. For me, it would be quite embarassing to behave that way. Be professional...
-
No, not at all cofused. I've understood this since ACR came out in 2003 and Bruce's book came out.
I'm sure you think that is important but what really is, is that the CMS architecture in Adobe products under discussion predates that by 7 years. And some of the people trying to get you to fully understand this architecture were working directly with Adobe on this, before the product shipped and were asked by Adobe to explain it in a white paper referenced here.
Take it from someone under those conditions: you're kind of confused. ;)
Again, I'm not "arguing". You are arguing and insulting.
I apologize if correcting your misunderstandings on basic color management is insulting.
And assuming a lot about what others know or don't know.
I'm not assuming; I'm referencing your own writings that are confused, asking you to explain and mostly, you cannot.
Be professional...
Your profession is what sir? With a total lack of transparency, it is impossible to know but you can tell us.
Mine is totally transparent.
-
My goal, for images destined to be only viewed on the web, is to have the utmost consistency. That's all. And all I can control in this consistency is the colorspace of the image I'm exporting.
Example of consistency with color management and how, as long as this is used fully and correctly, the posting on the web in terms of the color space DOES NOT MATTER.
Image came from Tango drum scanner into Lab (Bill Atkinsion's work).
One image converted from Lab to ProPhoto RGB.
One image converted from Lab to sRGB.
Both previewing using color management of course.
Screen capture is color managed and uploaded.
The two match exactly.
What color space to post on the web when the process from start to finish is color manage? Doesn't matter!
What matters alone is that the image data before or after conversion is color managed.
What matters alone with that is that data is previewed using color management.
Hopefully this example proves that and that a picture is worth a thousand words. And for some ;) here, pictures were worth more than $1000!
So all I can do to make sure my images are seen the same for most everyone, is to export as sRGB
No! And even YOU agreed on your first post the correct fact: you cannot control what other's see of your images.
You can't control what others see, but more than 120nits -> darker images for most folks.
-
The two match exactly.
And to show this exact match in a color managed web browser, using LuLa's actual output to a color managed display:
-
I posted just before this. What do you mean it doesn't matter? Are you saying all display devices out there can corretly display 100% Adobe RGB or larger colorspaces? That's news to me :)
OK, maybe "assume" was the wrong word. But from all the testing I've done over the years, untagged images that are sRGB display the most similarly in apps that are not color managed. Untagged Adobe RGB or others look way off. So again, it's about being practical and pragmatic too.
As I mentioned earlier, I have my monitor set for the highest CD about 212cd and use that to edit and dump some of them into Flickr. Are my pictures too dark, too light or OK?
These are 4x5 chromes. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157715763486212
These are digital https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157717671668191
-
As I mentioned earlier, I have my monitor set for the highest CD about 212cd and use that to edit and dump some of them into Flickr. Are my pictures too dark, too light or OK?
The one example posted here, that you ignored is too dark. WAY too dark.
But that may also be due in large part to someone having difficulty properly exposing his images. Or editing them. I accept both could be possible based on the source of the image(s).
Are my pictures too dark, too light or OK?
You have this odd habit of asking questions of others, when your long posting history and agenda show/prove, you have no desire or ability to accept any answer. No need to ask.
-
But from all the testing I've done over the years, untagged images that are sRGB display the most similarly in apps that are not color managed. Untagged Adobe RGB or others look way off. So again, it's about being practical and pragmatic too.
1. Don't ever produce untagged images: RGB mystery meat.
2. sRGB untagged and assumed to be sRGB (bad) will preview the least awful on an sRGB gamut display. That in no way means it is previewing correctly or will match as it should WITH color management!
3. Adobe RGB (1998) untagged (bad) and assumed to be sRGB will look poor on an sRGB gamut display; the assumption is wrong.
4. sRGB untagged (bad) on a wide gamut display will look poor/ way off.! And there are millions of such displays.
Don't assume. Don't produce untagged data. Don't expect untagged data to preview as it should.
Untagged Adobe RGB or others look way off.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Untagged sRGB or others look way off, sometimes. Tagged data never has any of these issues. Hence, you can upload any tagged RGB to the web: IT DOES NOT MATTER and the illustrations have been provided.
So again, it's about being practical and pragmatic too.
No, it is about handling the data correctly and understanding why!
Note: I've outlined gamut because that is simply ONE attribute at play here and it goes full circle back to the actual topic before the hijacker arrived: Calibration brightness level.
sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) as two examples have differing color gamuts. There is more to their attributes than just the color gamut; on a wide gamut display or an 'sRGB gamut' display.
A display may have an sRGB color gamut, fine. You can hook up two identical new displays with an sRGB color gamut and calibrate one to 80cd/m2 and a CCT white point of 5500K (the numbers define a large range of possible colors), and the other to 100cd/m2 and a CCT white point of 6500K: they will NOT match. Yet they have the same color gamut.
Editing in sRGB, which IS a fixed attribute (if you use the real sRGB), is divorced from the two displays above BY DESIGN.
Editing in an sRGB color space doesn't alone provide anything useful per se, and it pretty much guarantees you've clipped colors you can capture and output.
sRGB should be used as an OUTPUT color space and that's it. For the web yes; for those that unfortunately do not use color managed browsers ONLY on sRGB-like displays (which are fading like dodo birds). Otherwise it makes no difference what you upload, the web is color space agnostic and all the images will preview, again as clearly illustrated IF you use color management.
Mr Ghost, a video for you I would hope, unlike the hijacker who always ignore facts, you may watch:
sRGB urban legend & myths Part 2
In this 17 minute video, I'll discuss some more sRGB misinformation and cover:
When to use sRGB and what to expect on the web and mobile devices
How sRGB doesn't insure a visual match without color management, how to check
The downsides of an all sRGB workflow
sRGB's color gamut vs. "professional" output devices
The future of sRGB and wide gamut display technology
Photo print labs that demand sRGB for output
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBMythsPart2.mp4
Low resolution on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyvVUL1gWVs
-
Yeah, so what ICC profile should I export my photos with for web if not sRGB? sRGB guarantees all monitors can handle it. Should I export with Adobe 98? Nope. Some Display P3 variant because Apple devices use that now? Nope! So yeah, sRGB is still the best option.
100nits is good enough to edit in - I know the spec says 80 with 64lux ennvironment, but are people measuring their ambient light? Not really. 100 (like for REC 709) is good for a dim envorinment editing so you can see details. More than that is up to you, but this is what I've found works when later viewiing my images on a variety of devices with britghness cranked way up, etc.
How does histogram enter the discussion? For example, let's say you edit a photo and the histogram is covered from 0-255, with no clipped data. Why does the CD setting on the monitor matter? It may look darker at 80cd and brighter at 200 cd, but why would that matter?
-
How does histogram enter the discussion?
It doesn't. And you asked this before and you were provided the same answer.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139472.msg1228446#msg1228446
But it seems you cannot find, or comprehend answers to your questions.
And why do you ask this of someone who appears equally iffy understanding this technical and somewhat complex topic? Answer: Modus operandi
Why does the CD setting on the monitor matter?
And you asked this before and you were provided the same answer.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139472.msg1228446#msg1228446
But it seems you cannot find, or comprehend answers to your questions.
It may look darker at 80cd and brighter at 200 cd, but why would that matter?
And you asked this before and you were provided the same answer.
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=139472.msg1228446#msg1228446
But it seems you cannot find, or comprehend answers to your questions.
You have this odd habit of asking questions of others, when your long posting history and agenda show/prove, you have no desire or ability to accept any answer. No need to ask.
Must you continue to hijack this thread? Isn't the Bear Pit forum sufficient a place for you to conduct this kind of Modus operandi?
Happy Thanksgiving. 🦃
-
For example, let's say you edit a photo and the histogram is covered from 0-255, with no clipped data.
You believe that pixels that are zero/255 are not clipped?
With your ultra high cd/m2, did you intend to indeed, clip your sky or it was just a misunderstanding, a lack of understating RGB (or Lab) sampling points in your editor, or some other factor that provided the example below?
I don't expect an answer but your audience may ;D
-
Mr Ghost, a video for you I would hope, unlike the hijacker who always ignore facts, you may watch:
sRGB urban legend & myths Part 2
In this 17 minute video, I'll discuss some more sRGB misinformation and cover:
When to use sRGB and what to expect on the web and mobile devices
How sRGB doesn't insure a visual match without color management, how to check
The downsides of an all sRGB workflow
sRGB's color gamut vs. "professional" output devices
The future of sRGB and wide gamut display technology
Photo print labs that demand sRGB for output
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/sRGBMythsPart2.mp4
Low resolution on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyvVUL1gWVs
I did watch your video and also read the tech paper on Adobe working spaces. I don't think I disagree with anything in either, and this is how I've understood things for a long time as well. What I do disagree with is how important and absolute you make some of the points sound for everyone - "e.g. some of the thing you talk about in 'The downsides of an all sRGB workflow'". For many folks it may be quite fine and suitable for example, and they are not "wrong" necessarily for choosing said workflow (or a part of it), or fools that can't and don't understand color management. Color management and all this stuff is hardly rocket science really. Anyway... So nothing new except for one thing I'll mention next, so I'm not sure what exacltly you so adamantly object to in my process or in what I've said. The only new and interesting thing (to me) I found, was in your video where you say/show how sRGB tagged images will look more saturated on WCG displays in apps that are not color managed compared to Adobe RGB tagged images, so it's better to use Adobe RGB in this case. Perhaps, I haven't tested this. I will, as I'm curious, but I believe you. Neither is correct, so one can debate which wrong is "more right" or "more pleasing", but no point as it's all subjective.
And yes, I understand (as does any professional photographer) that we can't control how users see our images (or videos in my case as well as images) when they go out on the web to be seen on various devices, most of which are not calibrated to D65, have excessive brightness, etc. It's a frustration all professionals deal with. But where I disagree, and I know people fall into two camps here, is that one cannot try to do something about it. One camp says you can only make sure you stick with the standards and then it's out of your control. The other, while understanding this, tests things on different devices and makes small changes/compromises to the ideal image/video in order for it to look more consistent. And I fall in the latter camp. Is it all in vain? No, because I do test things and can see the results. So there is no right or wrong camp to be in - it's a choice.
Yeah, sRGB @ 80nits in a surround of 64lux is spec. D65 and all. All I said for the OP was that to be practical, 80-120nits is a good range, and said why from my experience. No we don't know how people will exactly view things, but I can pretty much bet most view on much-too-bright displays instead of proper or too dim, so yeah, there's a reasonable range to work in.
-
What I do disagree with is how important and absolute you make some of the points sound for everyone - "e.g. some of the thing you talk about in 'The downsides of an all sRGB workflow'".
My position in the video hasn't changed since the Adobe White Paper I wrote and referenced that included a section starting with:
There are no perfect RGB working spaces
In a perfect world, there would be only one RGB working space that was ideal for all uses. An ideal RGB working space would be one that could fully contain all the colors from your capture device or the gamut of the scene, and the gamut of all your output devices.
The section goes on to explain this further but again, my position has not changed in decades, but some RGB Working Space are far more limited than others!
sRGB is about the least useful RGB Working Space for the facts provided in both the White Paper and the video and again, sRGB is only useful as an output color space for a very specific output as also outlined. There is no more or less 'precision' in sRGB when editing high bit, in fact its gamut efficiency is pretty awful if you examine this and accept it:
http://brucelindbloom.com/WorkingSpaceInfo.html
There are no, again repeat no capture devices that produce sRGB natively. If you have a scanner or digital camera that feeds you an sRGB image, it got converted to sRGB from something else, and something with a larger "color gamut" (range of colors) than sRGB (keep in mind that cameras and scanners do not have a color gamut).
An sRGB workflow that starts off providing the user sRGB for editing has in many cases, clipped colors that were captured and can be output. EVEN to the web, for the tens of millions of displays who's color gamut exceed sRGB.
If all you produce is images with a low color gamut** or B&W work, fine: sRGB's color gamut limitation isn't an issue. From raw workflows, there isn't a color space worse in terms of preserving colors you have and may wish to use.
** https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59559609
While it is true that the wider the gamut of a color space, and thus the wider granularity in a color space, (moot in high-bit editing)the harder it is to handle subtle colors. This is why wide gamut displays that can't revert to sRGB are not ideal for all work (ideally you need two units). There are way, way more colors that can be defined in something like ProPhoto RGB than you could possibly output, true. But we have to live with a disconnect between the simple shapes of RGB working space and the vastly more complex shapes of output color spaces to the point we're trying to fit round pegs in square holes. To do this, you need a much larger square hole.
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. To counter this, you need a really big RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB again due to the simple size and to fit the round peg in the bigger square hole. RGB working spaces have shapes which are simple and predictable and differ greatly from output color spaces. Then 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 you encode into such a color space or smaller gamut, you 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 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).
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsPro3DPlot_Granger.tif
-
Again, I understand what you're saying and writing about. I don't disagree with it. But for me, it's about simplicity and WYSIWYG in my workflow.
My master files are the RAW files and their associated sidecar .xmp files that hold my edits. I do 95% of my editing in ACR and export as needed. I know that ACR works in ProPhoto RGB and that if I set it to sRGB (or even Adobe RGB) colors could get clipped. I know my camera can caputre more. But it doesn't matter, because that's why I shoot RAW and keep those as my master files - for any future use in larger spaces and output.
If my files are going to be exported as sRGB, yeah, I prefer any clipping to happen in ACR on intial render, before I start editing, because then I know as I'm editing that I'm seeing exactly how the end output sRGB file will look. There will be no hidden colors that could appear or change later on conversion to sRGB in PS after I'm done editing. So it makes editing simple and accurate, as WYSIWYG. Same would be true if I used Adobe RGB from beginning to end, as my monitor can display almost 100% of Adobe RGB when calibrated to its native gamut. The reason I don't yet use Adobe RGB (for web use) yet, is because from testing on various displays out there, sRGB seems to still be the most compatible with most - just about any display can handle sRGB's full gamut. The landscape is changing, I know, but Apple is doing their thing with Display P3, and most WCG displays aren't even close to 100% Adobe RGB.
If I need to export to Adobe RGB (for printing), then I change the setting in ACR to that space after looking at the file to see if there is clipping, where in the image, and how much/how important is it to the image/me (many times it's not significant to me, so I don't change), and I make any small edits/adjustments as needed. So for me, I find it easier to work this way, than to work of say some master TIFF in ProPhoto RGB where I export to sRGB for web, Adobe RGB for print, etc., because again, I prefer any clipping to happen up front, before editing, not on export.
-
My master files are the RAW files and their associated sidecar .xmp files that hold my edits. I do 95% of my editing in ACR and export as needed. I know that ACR works in ProPhoto RGB and that if I set it to sRGB (or even Adobe RGB) colors could get clipped. I know my camera can caputre more. But it doesn't matter, because that's why I shoot RAW and keep those as my master files - for any future use in larger spaces and output.
If my files are going to be exported as sRGB, yeah, I prefer any clipping to happen in ACR on intial render, before I start editing, because then I know as I'm editing that I'm seeing exactly how the end output sRGB file will look. There will be no hidden colors that could appear or change later on conversion to sRGB in PS after I'm done editing. So it makes editing simple and accurate, as WYSIWYG. Same would be true if I used Adobe RGB from beginning to end, as my monitor can display almost 100% of Adobe RGB when calibrated to its native gamut. The reason I don't yet use Adobe RGB (for web use) yet, is because from testing on various displays out there, sRGB seems to still be the most compatible with most - just about any display can handle sRGB's full gamut. The landscape is changing, I know, but Apple is doing their thing with Display P3, and most WCG displays aren't even close to 100% Adobe RGB.
If I need to export to Adobe RGB (for printing), then I change the setting in ACR to that space after looking at the file to see if there is clipping, where in the image, and how much/how important is it to the image/me (many times it's not significant to me, so I don't change), and I make any small edits/adjustments as needed. So for me, I find it easier to work this way, than to work of say some master TIFF in ProPhoto RGB where I export to sRGB for web, Adobe RGB for print, etc., because again, I prefer any clipping to happen up front, before editing, not on export.
Sounds like an interesting workflow for someone who either does no post rendering edits in say Photoshop, or one who likes doing this over and over again for each rendering who's only (?) difference is the color space used.
Raising the question, do you render from raw at web resolution too, or render once to sRGB, at native camera resolution and then, use Photoshop just to resample to size for the web?
Old digital desktop scanning workflow in the early days when prepress would drum scan to output size and specific targeted CMYK output color space was the old norm: “scan once, use many”. It was a game changer. Scan at full resolution in scanners profiled color space, once. Then ALL Phototshop work. That's the master "file". 🤔
Lastly; you really want to see more outside sRGB gamut display, you want WYSIWYG and a wider color palette? Consider a wide gamut display and join the move towards sRGB going the path of the dodo bird.
Wide gamut LCDs, my first review way back in 2006:
http://digitaldog.net/files/NEC.pdf
-
Again, I understand what you're saying and writing about. I don't disagree with it. But for me, it's about simplicity and WYSIWYG in my workflow.
My master files are the RAW files and their associated sidecar .xmp files that hold my edits. I do 95% of my editing in ACR and export as needed. I know that ACR works in ProPhoto RGB and that if I set it to sRGB (or even Adobe RGB) colors could get clipped. I know my camera can caputre more. But it doesn't matter, because that's why I shoot RAW and keep those as my master files - for any future use in larger spaces and output.
If my files are going to be exported as sRGB, yeah, I prefer any clipping to happen in ACR on intial render, before I start editing, because then I know as I'm editing that I'm seeing exactly how the end output sRGB file will look. There will be no hidden colors that could appear or change later on conversion to sRGB in PS after I'm done editing. So it makes editing simple and accurate, as WYSIWYG. Same would be true if I used Adobe RGB from beginning to end, as my monitor can display almost 100% of Adobe RGB when calibrated to its native gamut. The reason I don't yet use Adobe RGB (for web use) yet, is because from testing on various displays out there, sRGB seems to still be the most compatible with most - just about any display can handle sRGB's full gamut. The landscape is changing, I know, but Apple is doing their thing with Display P3, and most WCG displays aren't even close to 100% Adobe RGB.
If I need to export to Adobe RGB (for printing), then I change the setting in ACR to that space after looking at the file to see if there is clipping, where in the image, and how much/how important is it to the image/me (many times it's not significant to me, so I don't change), and I make any small edits/adjustments as needed. So for me, I find it easier to work this way, than to work of say some master TIFF in ProPhoto RGB where I export to sRGB for web, Adobe RGB for print, etc., because again, I prefer any clipping to happen up front, before editing, not on export.
That was my theory as a layman. I'm only editing for the web which is sRGB. Also, most people viewing don't have calibrated monitors anyway. So why should I get all excited if I miss certain colors of let's say Adobe palette? I can't imagine one person in a million could notice without having a second Adobe palette image in that space next to the sRGB one to compare.
One thing I do though when scanning film, is I first remove all dust spots left from the scan before doing any other edits. That way, if I decide to change the entire editing in the future because of changes to color space or whatever, I won't have to repeat cloning out the spots again, a time-consuming process.
Also, If I decide to print, later on, I'll deal with different color spaces then and settings for cd brightness level. This raises my question again. What relationship is there between the cd setting and histogram? In other words, if you have the cd setting low, let's say at 80cd so you don't get too dark prints, won't the histogram clip as you push the brightness slider higher to get the "right" brightness?
-
That was my theory as a layman. I'm only editing for the web which is sRGB.
A layman who doesn't know what he's talking about and can not learn: THE WEB IS NOT sRGB!.
That is nonsensical and wrong.
The rest of you comments are almost (always) equally as
nonsensical.
-
A layman who doesn't know what he's talking about and can not learn: THE WEB IS NOT sRGB!.
That is nonessential and wrong.
OK I get that. But it's also not Adobe or ProPhoto, is it?
The final file I upload is converted to sRGB before uploading to the web. So that's why I edit in sRGB. To keep it simple and not chance color changes I don't like when switching from another palette.
-
OK I get that. But it's also not Adobe or ProPhoto, is it?
Why do you ask questions that have been answered that you didn't read in the first place?
-
Why do you ask questions that have been answered that you didn't read in the first place?
Thank you for your response.
-
Thank you for your response.
Your posting MO proves you will never grasp this :
"Learning is not attained by chance. It must be sought for with ardor and attended to with diligence. "-Abigail Adams
-
Sounds like an interesting workflow for someone who either does no post rendering edits in say Photoshop, or one who likes doing this over and over again for each rendering who's only (?) difference is the color space used.
Raising the question, do you render from raw at web resolution too, or render once to sRGB, at native camera resolution and then, use Photoshop just to resample to size for the web?
Old digital desktop scanning workflow in the early days when prepress would drum scan to output size and specific targeted CMYK output color space was the old norm: “scan once, use many”. It was a game changer. Scan at full resolution in scanners profiled color space, once. Then ALL Phototshop work. That's the master "file". 🤔
Lastly; you really want to see more outside sRGB gamut display, you want WYSIWYG and a wider color palette? Consider a wide gamut display and join the move towards sRGB going the path of the dodo bird.
Wide gamut LCDs, my first review way back in 2006:
http://digitaldog.net/files/NEC.pdf
I do very little in Photoshop, and when I need to do more (retouching for example), it's easy to keep track of things because I don't do it often at all. And photos where I have to do retouching, with skintones, are ok in sRGB anyway - stuff is in-gamut. I used to use PS more, but ACR/LR are so powerful now, I can do it all really in there. I don't resize and sharpen in ACR - I leave that for PS to answer your question. I suppose I can do it in ACR, but I have some actions and plug-ins that I've gotten used to in PS.
I don't do it over and over again, because most of my stuff is for web, so it's sRGB for now. I only use Adobe RGB when I have to print something as I was saying. And I usually know ahead of time if and image is going to web, print, or both, so I'm not doing a lot of extra work at all. If it's web, I use sRGB. For print or print + web, I use Adobe RGB.
I'm not sure why you say it's "interesting". I prefer to see what I'm editing, so unless I can have a monitor that does 100% ProPhoto RGB, then no, I'm not going to be using that space and have PS clip colors I've already worked on in the conversion to a smaller color space for me and surprise me. So it's simple really for me this way. For me this is THE most important point, as outlined in my prior post. I don't know how others work with colors they can't see and then rely on PS to convert and clip after they work hard to adjust colors to taste, etc.
I could use Adobe RGB for web instead, as I said in my prior post, as my NEC PA271Q monitor can do close to 100% of that gamut, but I haven't changed yet for reasons stated. Yes, it is WYSIWYG, and it's what I use when printing.
I think things are moving towards Display P3 to replace sRGB, not Adobe RGB. Apple is doing it, BenQ monitors have it, and some others. More so than Adobe RGB. They are close in gamut, but a bit different where it counts for me - reds/organges. Perhahs the time will come soon to use Display P3 for web in my workflow. I need to create a Display P3 SpectraView II target to get my NEC on board, but I think the NEC's native gamut aligns more closely with Adobe RGB than Display P3. SpectraView doens't have a Display P3 target for comparison's sake.
I do have one question that's never been entirely clear to me: How do ACR/LR use the monitor profile? I know PS will render images using the monitor profile, but is this the exact same case with ACR/LR? Or do they bypass it and work in the space chosen in ACR/LR? Or some sort of mix, as the white point is not changing from calibrated D65.
-
I do very little in Photoshop, and when I need to do more (retouching for example), it's easy to keep track of things because I don't do it often at all.
OK, fine, actually sounds like a good way to work if you charge by the hour. :D
And photos where I have to do retouching, with skintones, are ok in sRGB anyway - stuff is in-gamut.
You know this because you render to a larger color space and plot every image color gamut in 3D then decide to use sRGB?
Of you render in sRGB and just hope or assume nothing is clipped that could be output (on print** or on the web for those with wide gamut displays). Or you simply don't care. That's fine. Some of us do care.
I only use Adobe RGB when I have to print something as I was saying.
Print to what? You do agree that there are lots and lots of printers who's output color space greatly exceed Adobe RGB (1998), right?
I think things are moving towards Display P3 to replace sRGB, not Adobe RGB.
The differences in color gamut between DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB (1998) are tiny.
Yes, it is WYSIWYG, and it's what I use when printing.
You believe that the color gamut of sRGB (or any RGB Working Space) and an printer output color space are even close to matching or allowing a fit?
Do you realize that NO printer can output all of the sRGB gamut? None. I'd be happy to plot 3D any printer color space you can supply, or I'll supply one or more, to show you this fact.
SpectraView doens't have a Display P3 target for comparison's sake.
You simply need to plug in the aim points (targets for calibration) to get close. I would be happy to show you or better, I can build such a target in SpectraView, upload and you can load it directly for this task.
I don't think it is at all necessary but, your call.
unless I can have a monitor that does 100% ProPhoto RGB,
That will never happen, never. It is impossible. We can go there if you wish. Again, the very concept of color management and image editing is that the display and the Working Space are divorced by design.
There is no reason why, people who wish to output data they can capture and output but can't fully see on a display cannot do so.
You have an option:
1. Funnel all your image data into a color space you can display while clipping colors you can capture and can output but not do so or...
2. Keep all that color data, edit carefully in a few areas where you could alter color you can't see (but can 'measure' using an info palette) and use that color for output.
Your choice of course. I prefer to keep and use all the color and data I can get.
When I shot professionally, and the job required (at time) 4x5 or 8x10 film, I wouldn't think of shooting that format then cropping down to a medium format size or less. I no more would render into anything but ProPhoto RGB from raw, or do so only in 8-bits per color, or resample the pixels down from the native capture. But that's just me. Well not just me.... :D
How do ACR/LR use the monitor profile?
Exactly like Photoshop and every other color managed application. Examine the color space of the data (and in LR, that differs depending on the module!). Examine the color space of the display as provided by the display profile. Use Display Using Monitor Compensation as described in the PDF.
** The benefits of wide gamut working spaces on printed output:
This three part, 32 minute video covers why a wide gamut RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB can produce superior quality output to print.
Part 1 discusses how the supplied Gamut Test File was created and shows two prints output to an Epson 3880 using ProPhoto RGB and sRGB, how the deficiencies of sRGB gamut affects final output quality. Part 1 discusses what to look for on your own prints in terms of better color output. It also covers Photoshop’s Assign Profile command and how wide gamut spaces mishandled produce dull or over saturated colors due to user error.
Part 2 goes into detail about how to print two versions of the properly converted Gamut Test File file in Photoshop using Photoshop’s Print command to correctly setup the test files for output. It covers the Convert to Profile command for preparing test files for output to a lab.
Part 3 goes into color theory and illustrates why a wide gamut space produces not only move vibrant and saturated color but detail and color separation compared to a small gamut working space like sRGB.
High Resolution Video: http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov
Low Resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLlr7wpAZKs&feature=youtu.be
Still true, but to a lesser degree with Adobe RGB (1998) than sRGB. And again, I've shown how using a smaller color gamut editing space for print produces those 'blobs' of color which again, were plotted in an output color space to a somewhat modern inkjet printer:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/sRGBvsPro3DPlot_Granger.tif
-
Just a comment for anyone with a WCG monitor that wants to visualize if portions of images in ProPhoto RGB are outside Adobe RGB using Photoshop.
1. Go to settings and change color to desaturate 25%. This will desaturate the viewing (but not the RGB values) of all colors in your image but the upside is it effectively increases the monitor's gamut response .
2. Now set a view softproof to Adobe RGB. Click back and forth the checkbox that enables softproof preview.
The areas you see a visible change are outside of Adobe RGB.
You can also do the same selecting a printer profile to visualize colors that are printable in ProPhoto RGB but would normally be clipped to Adobe RGB. If there aren't any differences you can feel comfortable using Adobe RGB colorspace to work your image. Remember to reset the destaturation percentage to 0 before you do any actual work. This is a temporary approach that lets you see if there are any colors outside your monitor's actual gamut. Just do not do actual work in with the desaturated setting.
This technique also works with limited, sRGB monitors.
-
Just a comment for anyone with a WCG monitor that wants to visualize if portions of images in ProPhoto RGB are outside Adobe RGB using Photoshop.
I suppose you could also load Adobe RGB (1998) or if on a wide gamut display, your display profile in Customize Proof Setup.
Then turn on the Gamut overlay.
But as many know, I don't trust the Gamut overlay much and have found it buggy.
Go to settings and change color to desaturate 25%
Why 25%?
-
I suppose you could also load Adobe RGB (1998) or if on a wide gamut display, your display profile in Customize Proof Setup.
Then turn on the Gamut overlay.
But as many know, I don't trust the Gamut overlay much and have found it buggy. Why 25%?
I've found it works well. And it's large enough that you notice it if you forget to reset it when actually doing work.
As for the gamut overlay, it's big problem is that it shows any OOG part of the image. It even shows colors that are at the gamut edge as OOG even though they are actually in gamut but just at the boundary. A visual approach by alternating back on forth with the check box shows anything that would actually matter. If a color is .5 (or .01) dE OOG who cares. And the gamut overlay has to be about 6 dE OOG for printer profiles to kick in. That's not insignificant. That's why I prefer not using it with printer profiles except as a first cut for gross OOG error.
-
Not sure what's new here - my only question had to do with how ACR/LR handle the monitor profile, which you answered and was my assumption, but just checking. More later below. The rest I've already gone over and exlpained. I'll do it again...
1. As I said, I do 95% of my work in the RAW software/ACR, not PS. The only time I need to work in PS for more "involved" editing is on rare ocassions, like when I have to to some retouching work on portraits (as one example). And yeah, I do charge extra for that. And it has nothing to do with what I did before or what color gamut I used....Not sure what your point is here. And when I do that, I look to see if sRGB is clipping (using the histogram in ACR), what is being clipped, if going to a larger color space will fix it, and if it's significant or not. Often times it's not. Sometimes it is. Simple really.
2. Yes, I know there are printers with larger color gamuts than Adobe RGB. Have we moved on to my printing workflow now? Please no! I said I use the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's using sRGB, sometimes Adobe RGB, etc. I've even used Display P3 when sending stuff to clients using Apple monitors to evalute things. Wowza! Imagine that! Again, my master file is the RAW file with the .xmp. And again, most importantnly, I like to edit colors I can see, and not have some program (PS) change things for me on output after I've made my edits. I explained this at length, and I'm pretty sure you undrestood.
3. The differences in color gamut between DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB are indeed small, but they still exist. So it's worth mentioning. But let's talk about Display P3, not DCI-P3, because the former is relevant to photography, not the latter. And while the color gamut is the same, Display P3 has D65 and 2.2 gamma and it's what most consumers displays are using (Apple, BenQ, etc.). We can talk DCI-P3 vs REC.709 in another thread, when we move on to Premiere and video :)
4. I made the target file and did the calibration for Display P3. See attached. The gamut shows the NEC 271Q's native gamut compared to Adobe RGB (yelllow outline) and DCI/Display-P3 gamut (blue outline). Small, yes, we know. But a lot of what we're discussing here are "small" things. Small but important - depends on the image, the photographer, etc. as to how important something is. Plots, graphs, etc. are objective, but photo editing is a subjective process.
5. I know ProPhoto RGB will never happen on a display, and I DON'T want to go there :) I was just trying to illustrate the point I was making with a WYSIWYG workflow. Yes, I fall in camp #1, as I've explained at length. Yet I also fall into camp #2, because I DO keep all my data, just in a different place than you. C'mon man, that analogy with 4x5 or 8x10 and cropping down is peretty bad, and you know it! I guess I like to edit colors I can see and know that's what my output file will look like. But that's just me. Well not just me.... :)
6. What I was asking, is how does ACR/LR use the monitor profile exaclty, as the workspace is separate from the display. Say my NEC is calibrated for sRGB. When I set/choose my working space in ACR it's still using the monitor profile no when rendering? If I choose Adobe RGB or Display P3 things shoudn't change right, as things are still confined to sRGB. Maybe some remapping for out-of-gamut colors, that's all.
-
Missed attachment.
-
Just a comment for anyone with a WCG monitor that wants to visualize if portions of images in ProPhoto RGB are outside Adobe RGB using Photoshop.
1. Go to settings and change color to desaturate 25%. This will desaturate the viewing (but not the RGB values) of all colors in your image but the upside is it effectively increases the monitor's gamut response .
2. Now set a view softproof to Adobe RGB. Click back and forth the checkbox that enables softproof preview.
The areas you see a visible change are outside of Adobe RGB.
You can also do the same selecting a printer profile to visualize colors that are printable in ProPhoto RGB but would normally be clipped to Adobe RGB. If there aren't any differences you can feel comfortable using Adobe RGB colorspace to work your image. Remember to reset the destaturation percentage to 0 before you do any actual work. This is a temporary approach that lets you see if there are any colors outside your monitor's actual gamut. Just do not do actual work in with the desaturated setting.
This technique also works with limited, sRGB monitors.
This is cool, but all my color editing is done outside of PS.
-
Not sure what's new here - my only question had to do with how ACR/LR handle the monitor profile, which you answered and was my assumption, but just checking.
What's new, besides my answer to your question is a follow up to your own text of which I quoted.
And it has nothing to do with what I did before or what color gamut I used.
You told us:
And photos where I have to do retouching, with skintones, are ok in sRGB anyway - stuff is in-gamut.
And I asked, but you didn't answer, how do you know what's in gamut or not from your raw to any color space, you render directly to sRGB. Can you answer that?
I look to see if sRGB is clipping (using the histogram in ACR), what is being clipped
Doesn't work at all in LR and doesn't work in ACR: Open a Macbeth ColorChecker from raw, set workflow options to sRGB: no clipping shown yet Cyan falls outside sRGB gamut. See below.
Yes, I know there are printers with larger color gamuts than Adobe RGB. Have we moved on to my printing workflow now?
You brought up your printing! Again, your own text:
I only use Adobe RGB when I have to print something as I was saying.
Moving on, you tell us you must work in sRGB to see all your colors, then you tell us no, you have a wide gamut display:
And again, most importantnly, I like to edit colors I can see
The differences in color gamut between DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB are indeed small, but they still exist.
And the exact differences can be seen below. When I say tiny, I can of course provide an exact number value. Adobe RGB (1998) vs DCI-P3: 1,207,309 vs 1.232.090: pretty tiny!
But let's talk about Display P3, not DCI-P3, because the former is relevant to photography, not the latter.
We, no, I am, in terms of color gamut; see your own screen captures then my gamut volumes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DCI-P3
I made the target file and did the calibration for Display P3. See attached. The gamut shows the NEC 271Q's native gamut compared to Adobe RGB (yelllow outline) and DCI/Display-P3 gamut (blue outline). Small, yes, we know. But a lot of what we're discussing here are "small" things.
I define small numerically, without generalization and using colorimetry. Again, see below.
I know ProPhoto RGB will never happen on a display, and I DON'T want to go there
Yet you state prior to this statement:
unless I can have a monitor that does 100% ProPhoto RGB,
You can't. I don't know based on your 'unless' comment why you now tell us you know you can't have it and don't go there. Fine.
C'mon man, that analogy with 4x5 or 8x10 and cropping down is peretty bad, and you know it!
I know that statement is an assumption of what I know.
What I was asking, is how does ACR/LR use the monitor profile exaclty, as the workspace is separate from the display.
And I told you. Just like all other ICC color managed applications.
-
This is cool, but all my color editing is done outside of PS.
I believe Doug (and certainly I) do not believe you are the only audience here looking to better understand color management. ;)
-
I guess I like to edit colors I can see and know that's what my output file will look like. But that's just me. Well not just me.... :)
You need tonal information to edit colors you can see, and you simply clip it and loose it by converting to sRGB editing space.
-
Not sure what's new here - my only question had to do with how ACR/LR handle the monitor profile, which you answered and was my assumption, but just checking. More later below. The rest I've already gone over and exlpained. I'll do it again...
1. As I said, I do 95% of my work in the RAW software/ACR, not PS. The only time I need to work in PS for more "involved" editing is on rare ocassions, like when I have to to some retouching work on portraits (as one example). And yeah, I do charge extra for that. And it has nothing to do with what I did before or what color gamut I used....Not sure what your point is here. And when I do that, I look to see if sRGB is clipping (using the histogram in ACR), what is being clipped, if going to a larger color space will fix it, and if it's significant or not. Often times it's not. Sometimes it is. Simple really.
2. Yes, I know there are printers with larger color gamuts than Adobe RGB. Have we moved on to my printing workflow now? Please no! I said I use the right tool for the job. Sometimes it's using sRGB, sometimes Adobe RGB, etc. I've even used Display P3 when sending stuff to clients using Apple monitors to evalute things. Wowza! Imagine that! Again, my master file is the RAW file with the .xmp. And again, most importantnly, I like to edit colors I can see, and not have some program (PS) change things for me on output after I've made my edits. I explained this at length, and I'm pretty sure you undrestood.
3. The differences in color gamut between DCI-P3 and Adobe RGB are indeed small, but they still exist. So it's worth mentioning. But let's talk about Display P3, not DCI-P3, because the former is relevant to photography, not the latter. And while the color gamut is the same, Display P3 has D65 and 2.2 gamma and it's what most consumers displays are using (Apple, BenQ, etc.). We can talk DCI-P3 vs REC.709 in another thread, when we move on to Premiere and video :)
4. I made the target file and did the calibration for Display P3. See attached. The gamut shows the NEC 271Q's native gamut compared to Adobe RGB (yelllow outline) and DCI/Display-P3 gamut (blue outline). Small, yes, we know. But a lot of what we're discussing here are "small" things. Small but important - depends on the image, the photographer, etc. as to how important something is. Plots, graphs, etc. are objective, but photo editing is a subjective process.
5. I know ProPhoto RGB will never happen on a display, and I DON'T want to go there :) I was just trying to illustrate the point I was making with a WYSIWYG workflow. Yes, I fall in camp #1, as I've explained at length. Yet I also fall into camp #2, because I DO keep all my data, just in a different place than you. C'mon man, that analogy with 4x5 or 8x10 and cropping down is peretty bad, and you know it! I guess I like to edit colors I can see and know that's what my output file will look like. But that's just me. Well not just me.... :)
6. What I was asking, is how does ACR/LR use the monitor profile exaclty, as the workspace is separate from the display. Say my NEC is calibrated for sRGB. When I set/choose my working space in ACR it's still using the monitor profile no when rendering? If I choose Adobe RGB or Display P3 things shoudn't change right, as things are still confined to sRGB. Maybe some remapping for out-of-gamut colors, that's all.
My theory is if it works for you, don't fix it.
I have a question about video that I thought you could answer. I use Premiere Elements to create slide shows. I use the same settings on my NEC as I do when editing stills that are then incorporated into the video. I use Lightroom with a high cd setting of 200+. I'll adjust in Lightroom with sRGB and then create the video in Premiere Elements with no change to the monitor settings. Brightness and sRGB stay the same. Is that OK? What concerns are there?
Here are some videos I posted on Youtube. The Regency Muscle Car is the most recent posted and used a more modern digital camera, so I would suggest that one. The Fire Academy was with a cell phone and the BW was scanned film. Do the colors and brightness seem OK to you?
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGsByP1B3q1EG68f4Yr2AhQ
-
My theory is if it works for you, don't fix it.
My theory is ignorance is bliss
-
I believe Doug (and certainly I) do not believe you are the only audience here looking to better understand color management. ;)
Trust me, I have learned nothing new in this thread from you. I'm understanding things just fine. You like to make this out to be some complicated science, but it really isn't. The goal of an expert in any field is to be able to explain things in a simple way to those thay may not understand. You do the opposite. I think you just like to feel important here, but aren't really helping. So think about that, and less about my workflow which is fine and "interesting". Once again, there is nothing new in your reply, just more quotes where you get confused with what I say, even though what I've said is the same and pretty clear. Or just small things where you love to display your knowledge, but really meaningless (like the numerical volumetric difference between DCI/Display P3 and Adobe RGB - the number is not the point, the area of colors that they cover is, and please call it Display P3 not DCI-P3 - I don't need Wikipedia links, see my last point on it again, and read more carefully). So I'll let it be, you can have the last word (which is what you want), and so on. You can tell me how I don't understand CM or whatever you want. You are the MAN! I'm sure you have a theory for everything. My theory is you are bored and need to feel important. I have actual work to get to, so best of luck in your conquest to try to intimidate people to make yourself feel superior, instead of helping them. Speaks volumes.
-
I believe Doug (and certainly I) do not believe you are the only audience here looking to better understand color management. ;)
Trust me, I have learned nothing new in this thread from you. I'm understanding things just fine.
Trust me, you are not the OP or the only member reading the conversation here.
I have actual work to get to, so best of luck in your conquest to try to intimidate people to make yourself feel superior, instead of helping them. Speaks volumes.
What is that work? I asked once and your inability to answer simple questions speak volumes:
Your profession is what sir? With a total lack of transparency, it is impossible to know but you can tell us.
Mine is totally transparent.