Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Other Raw Converters => Topic started by: Lundberg02 on May 24, 2014, 10:52:25 pm
-
Are there any besides Photoshop CS6 and CC?
-
Are there any besides Photoshop CS6 and CC?
Hi,
Could you explain what you mean with 10 bit Raw converter?
Cheers,
Bart
-
10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.06 billion colors.
-
10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.6 billion colors.
I think all raw convertors I've used have offered 16 bits or more per channel.
Given that raw files are generally 12 or 14 bits per channel, why would anyone design a raw convertor that operated on 10 bits? In ACR you can ask it to truncate down to 8 bits, but it offers 16 bits also.
-
No no no no. Output to monitor. Please read up on this before commenting.
-
No no no no. Output to monitor. Please read up on this before commenting.
You asked about 10-bit raw convertors and editors.
Oh, and thank you for your advice on my reading. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.06 billion colors.
Hi,
The Raw-converter / Image editor options are limited. It is also a functionality of the Graphics card you use, and obviously the display must support it as well.
http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/152/10+Bit+Output+Support (http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/152/10+Bit+Output+Support)
So the entire chain must be enabled to use full 10-bit support.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Yes , of course it must, and this is just another example of the total confusion in the image rendering universe. What is the point of a wide gamut monitor if the gamut never arrives? Same for printing.
-
What is the point of a wide gamut monitor if the gamut never arrives?
You are confusing gamut with gamut resolution.
The same gamut can be shown with 8 or 10 bits. But the gradations within will be finer with 10 bits than with 8 bits.
cheers
afx
-
10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.06 billion colors.
You realize that:
A. You can't see anything close to those numbers of colors, or for that matter 16.7 million (from 8-bits per color).
B. The numbers are simply math used to come up with a value of colors you can't see and probably don't have captured.
C. These number of colors have nothing to do with color gamut. A device that can "handle" 1.06 billions of colors can have a significantly smaller gamut than one having a 'mere' 16.7 million colors.
D. All these big color numbers are the new hype in marketing. Due to A-C above.
-
You asked about 10-bit raw convertors and editors.
Oh, and thank you for your advice on my reading. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
A pity LL doesn't let us put 'likes' on peoples posts - so here's mine: ;D
Some friendly advice for @Lundberg02: best become a shark before swimming with them ;)
cheers,
-
People can only see 800,000 to maybe six million colors depending on what research you read and whether luminosity is a color so of course these could possibly fit within 1.06 billion or 16.7 million. My point is that cameras and processing are far ahead of display and print. I am not confusing gamut and dynamic range.
If you had a five primary color space and each primary was 16 bit could you see the result?
-
People can only see 800,000 to maybe six million colors depending on what research you read and whether luminosity is a color so of course these could possibly fit within 1.06 billion or 16.7 million.
If you can't see it, it's not a color.
I am not confusing gamut and dynamic range.
Good because number of colors used for encoding has little to do with dynamic range and gamut.
-
Here's how to do it in Windows, for any of you who still don't know what I was asking about.
http://www.tedlansingphotography.com/blog/?p=287
On a Mac, not yet all the way through the chain, it appears.
Linux is struggling with it, you could probably make it work with Krita.
It turns out you can set PSCS5 and maybe 4 to output 10 bits per R,G,and B.
When you google this subject, you don't get much, and some of it is just as confused as this thread.
I'll probably get a wide gamut monitor anyway, since I've got a pretty big discount sitting in my account.
The gamut will be there even if the bits aren't.
-
Here's how to do it in Windows, for any of you who still don't know what I was asking about.
http://www.tedlansingphotography.com/blog/?p=287
On a Mac, not yet all the way through the chain, it appears.
So now we're talking about the high bit path of the dipslay system? Not possible on Mac, the OS doesn't support it unless Apple snuck it in with 10.9.3. Use a display with high bit internal LUTs and it's kind of moot anyway. And no, you still can't see billions of colors when the entire path is high bit, you might see less banding of some imagery depending on the display system, file bit depth etc.
-
Yes, that's what I was always talking about. Some responders had no clue.
-
People can only see 800,000 to maybe six million colors depending on what research you read and whether luminosity is a color so of course these could possibly fit within 1.06 billion or 16.7 million. My point is that cameras and processing are far ahead of display and print. I am not confusing gamut and dynamic range.
If you had a five primary color space and each primary was 16 bit could you see the result?
If you can't see it, it's not a color. Good because number of colors used for encoding has little to do with dynamic range and gamut.
Perhaps Lundberg should have stated, "People can perceive xx discrete colors..." rather than see xxx colors. With 10 or 16 bit color depths, many of those possible gradations would be too fine to be perceived as different colors with a delta E of less than unity even though they could be seen but not differentiated.
Bill
-
Yes, that's what I was always talking about. Some responders had no clue.
Some askers had difficulty asking their questions coherently.
-
Some askers had difficulty asking their questions coherently.
Considering the topic title and other text below, I couldn't agree more.
-
I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters. I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.
-
I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters. I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.
There are one or two comments here from sharks (or snarks?):
"Please read up on this before commenting."
"Some responders had no clue."
"Some askers had difficulty asking their questions coherently."
-
I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters. I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.
Say's a lot about Google! Look. Let's be honest here and examine the responses you got. This is the Other Raw Converter forum where presumably one asks questions about raw converters. You asked this exactly within this forum: Are there any besides Photoshop CS6 and CC? The question was so vague someone had to ask for further clarification and you then wrote: 10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.06 billion colors. Another preson answers and you write: No no no no. Output to monitor. Please read up on this before commenting.
Your question was unclear and in the wrong forum, then you told the person trying to help you to 'read up before commenting'. Any wonder the sharks are biting at your feet? Finally we figured out you're referring to the bit depth of the display path. You write: Yes, that's what I was always talking about. Some responders had no clue.
Maybe English is your second language. No worries. Just title and state your question clearly and ideally in the right forum and you'll get assistance. But we can't as yet read your mind, that's why we don't have a clue. Take some responsibility for your inability to clearly ask the question please.
-
I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters. I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.
Hmm, maybe it says that Lula responders are human beings.
-
I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters. I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.
It says your approach and attitude here pretty much sucks...(that and the fact you didn't really have a clue what question you were actually asking–and that's on you bud).
If you had asked, "what applications offer a 10-bit display path?", you would have gotten the correct answer far earlier-Photoshop CS5+ on Windows.
:~)
-
I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters. I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.
You might find that Lula has bigger sharks than on other sites. And some of those sharks can be less friendly than others. There could even be a couple of Great Whites here ;)
from a fellow minnow . . .
-
You might find that Lula has bigger sharks than on other sites. And some of those sharks can be less friendly than others. There could even be a couple of Great Whites here ;)
from a fellow minnow . . .
Just don't take it personally and move on. Some of those "sharks" are known experts in the industry, willing to share advanced knowledge at no charge. I'd rather have good advice from a rude individual than a load of BS from a polite one.
Regards
-
Just don't take it personally and move on.
Nothing here for me to take personally. I am not the one being torn to shreds in this thread ;D
Some of those "sharks" are known experts in the industry, willing to share advanced knowledge at no charge. I'd rather have good advice from a rude individual than a load of BS from a polite one.
At my age, I'd rather have good advice politely delivered. Advice offered provocatively or condescendingly has no place in these fora, no matter who gives it, IMHO.
Toujours la politesse,
-
Oh, I'm used to rough handling, not that I'm loving it or anything. I've electronically known Schewe and Rodney for about 18 years. Also I was in the Adobe Photoshop forum for about that long, until all the interesting and snarky people left a couple years ago. I rarely go there now. Moderators have a way of driving off the fun stuff.
This is one of the good forums left. I have routinely seen the path referred to as 10 bit and thought more people would be hip.
I'm about to jump into the wide gamut monitor pool at the shallow end regardless of the fact that the Mac path doesn't do 10 bit, so we'll see how much good a 14 bit LUT does. Maybe Tim Cook will wake from his iPhone dream and do something for his desktop worshippers next year. Doesn't look like this year.
BTW I believe you can do 10 bit in CS 4 on Win.
-
At my age, I'd rather have good advice politely delivered. Advice offered provocatively or condescending has no place in these fora, no matter who gives it, IMHO.
My experience is that the people who are able to improve my knowledge tends to be polite (though not all polite people are experts, of course). Perhaps that reasonable amount of self confidence allows them to continually absorb new knowledge, as well as interpret questions so as to give the relevant answers?
I think that the thread starter steered this thread away from topic by choice of words. If that was not intended, I think he would be well adviced to choose differently in future threads.
-h
-
I'm about to jump into the wide gamut monitor pool at the shallow end regardless of the fact that the Mac path doesn't do 10 bit, so we'll see how much good a 14 bit LUT does.
It will be fine. It would be kind of nice if the Mac would fully support a high bit video path. Maybe in the next OS. But the higher data path in the panel itself should be just fine for editing wide gamut data without showing banding due to the limitations of the OS. 10-bit, 14-bit, it's all a bit of marketing hype once you get past 8-bits per color which is useful.
-
It will be fine. It would be kind of nice if the Mac would fully support a high bit video path. Maybe in the next OS. But the higher data path in the panel itself should be just fine for editing wide gamut data without showing banding due to the limitations of the OS. 10-bit, 14-bit, it's all a bit of marketing hype once you get past 8-bits per color which is useful.
There seems to be widespread agreement that 8 bits per channel is the point where adding more bits adds little or no benefit.
According to Poynton, 8 bits (gamma) is sufficient for 50:1 DR. Most (printing) photographers adjust their display for a moderate brightness, where peak contrast may not be possible. If I was a marketing-guy trying to "sell" the idea of 10-bit display connections, I might suggest things like:
-State-of-the-art PC monitors can reproduce 1000:1 or more of DR
-Doing calibration in PC software as opposed to in display firmware is more convenient
- A bit of overkill is seldom negative, especially if it comes at low cost
-h
-
I'm about to jump into the wide gamut monitor pool at the shallow end regardless of the fact that the Mac path doesn't do 10 bit, so we'll see how much good a 14 bit LUT does.
I don't think you'll be missing much. I tried a 10-bit (if you're an engineer) or 30-bit (if you work in product marketing) display path a while back:
http://blog.kasson.com/?p=668
And ended up going back to eight bits.
One thing that's changed since then is the so-called retina displays. That kind of pixel density makes 8-bit with dither a serious competitor to 10 bits, as long as you've got a LUT in your display.
Jim
-
2011 is long ago for technology, isn't it Jim? I guess all that could be done in a few clicks for a tenth the money now. Do you think you'll repeat something similar?
I think color management is a mess myself. Rendering intents are a farce. I don't see why a monitor with a 14 bit LUT shouldn't be delivered perfectly profiled, what would it cost 20 bucks? By whuppin up on it for quite a while and reading voraciously, including our forum friends Schewe and dd, I have got a path that makes sense for my equipment and the workflow/image path. I usually convert from RAW in Photoshop CS 5 to Pro Photo 16 bit tiff, make my tweaks, and print to my Epson using matte in perceptual with PS manages colors. Matches my sRGB screen well and is visually pleasing.
I'll be getting a Dell WG in about ten days, so I'll have to see if any appreciable changes need to be made to the process.
I have lots of image editors and RAW converters, and just added Lightroom. I was amazed to see that it opened with one of my RAWs in place, apparently with lens correction. I have an old Fuji EXR and a lot of the apps don't know from Fuji lenses. I don't really trust what I saw yet because I don't know LR, but it's encouraging. I usually use DxO Perspective for geometry when needed.
About the attitudes and ragging. Two stints in the military, 50 years in aerospace with at least two insane bosses, and 55 years of marriage, I know something about taking a hit. I remember one outfit where I was proposals manager and the boss said he wanted a full section of this big deal to be a description of the company capability, so I wrote up pages of all this glowing bullshit, bunch of pictures, all that jazz. Before it went out, he cut it all out and put in two sentences saying the company had all the necessary facilities and expertise required. This same nutcase fired the manager of the only department that was making money, and the poor guy had a heart attack and died. That's what happens when you internalize the values of the culture, as any Marxist could tell you. In my career I saw other capable men take their own lives when the company didn't recognize their ability. You just can't take things that seriously. I had one boss rate me average. I told him, no, you mean terrible, don't you, because average means you don't have to explain why to upper management and then I get to say something about you, you are the guy who couldn't get a capacitor bracket through a shake test after three weeks of redesigning.
Talk about taking a hit, the first time I flew with my first project pilot, he showed me how to bail out and said you have to go before I do or I can't get out. Then he he patted his sidearm and said, "You will leave, one way or the other".
-
Rendering intents are a farce.
You just have to explain that one to us, please.
-
I think you were the one who explained that to me.
-
...Two stints in the military, 50 years in aerospace with at least two insane bosses, and 55 years of marriage, I know something about taking a hit...
Fascinating. Did you also learn something about how to accomplish your goals (i.e. getting info on 10 bit rendering path) without drowning the topic in noise?
-h
-
I think you [digitaldog] were the one who explained that to me.
That's a bit hard to swallow! Do you have a link to where he explained that?
cheers,
-
I've been using Photoshop since 1996. Back then, I was usually scanning photo prints with a Umax and adjusting them for print on an Apple printer (actually a Canon inside). Then Adobe created RGB 1998 and I began to use it as a working space. Eventually RAW came along and I would convert to Pro Photo and print from it using Photoshop manages colors. I would select Perceptual as the rendering intent. The prints matched my sRGB screen well enough and I had the advantage of a six color printer. I have never used soft proof because I've never sent anything to a commercial printer. After doing RAW for a year or so I decided to revisit rendering intents, That's when I came across some article or blog post by either Schewe or dd that said you only get relative when converting from Pro Photo to aRGB or sRGB working space and seen on the screen.
I proved it to myself, and also proved that I could actually get all four intents in print by printing from Pro Photo. The reason you only get relative is that as I believe Schewe explained, it is the receiving profiler that has to contain the intents and the profiles installed in Photoshop only have relative. You can go to ICC and get an sRGB that has other intents and install it if you want. One of the members of this forum also posted a profile that will allow you to make an intermediate step to get other intents, too.
I might use it when I fire up my wide gamut sometime soon.
-
After doing RAW for a year or so I decided to revisit rendering intents, That's when I came across some article or blog post by either Schewe or dd that said you only get relative when converting from Pro Photo to aRGB or sRGB working space and seen on the screen.
Oh, that. I thought everybody knew that . .
Try RawTherapee ;)
-
The reason you only get relative is that as I believe Schewe explained, it is the receiving profiler that has to contain the intents and the profiles installed in Photoshop only have relative. You can go to ICC and get an sRGB that has other intents and install it if you want. One of the members of this forum also posted a profile that will allow you to make an intermediate step to get other intents, too.
Simple matrix style working space profiles only have a Colorimetric table. That's by design, no farce about it but some reader misunderstanding yes.
-
Oh, that. I thought everybody knew that . .
That and 15 minutes can save you 15 percent or more on car insurance. :D
-
Now is everyone jolly again and I can go back to my nap?
-
Now is everyone jolly again and I can go back to my nap?
Sure. While napping, let your mind work on: RawTherapee has some .icc color profiles with look-up tables, not matrices ;D
-
I have RT, I'll give their rendering intents a chance, despite the geekiness.
-
I have RT, I'll give their rendering intents a chance, despite the geekiness.
Don't expect it will be the best thing since sliced bread. No farce ;D.
-
Can they found somewhere in RT and copied out to be installed in Photoshop? I would think so if they're actual icc profiles.
-
Can they found somewhere in RT and copied out to be installed in Photoshop? I would think so if they're actual icc profiles.
On my computer, they are located here:
C:\Program Files\RawTherapee-4.0.11.203\iccprofiles\output\
-
They're probably in Application Support on my Mac. Oooops, no, not in either my HD Library or my username Library. Hm.
OK, right click on the app gives you package contents. Several profiles folders with sub folders. The icc profiles folder has a couple called large, one medium and several sRGB. There are no profiles identifiable as Pro Photo or Adobe RGB in any profile folder or sub folder, but there must be fifty total.
-
They're probably in Application Support on my Mac. Oooops, no, not in either my HD Library or my username Library. Hm.
OK, right click on the app gives you package contents. Several profiles folders with sub folders. The icc profiles folder has a couple called large, one medium and several sRGB [sounds familiar]. There are no profiles identifiable as Pro Photo or Adobe RGB in any profile folder or sub folder, but there must be fifty total.
My old Mac is still on System 9.0 and haven't touched it for a while, so I have no idea what you're talking about.
"identifiable" . . Hm . . . er, did your RawTherapee come with a manual by any chance? ::)
Here's what it says:
"RawTherapee comes bundled with a number of custom-made high quality
output profiles:
■ RT_sRGB similar to sRGB with gamma close to sRGB: g=2.40,
slope=12.92
■ RT_sRGB_gBT709 similar to sRGB with gamma BT709: g=2.22,
slope=4.5
■ RT_sRGB_g10 similar to sRGB with linear gamma g=1.0, slope=0
■ RT_Middle_gsRGB similar to AdobeRGB1998 with gamma close to
sRGB: g=2.40, slope=12.92
■ RT_Large_gsRGB similar to ProPhoto with gamma close to sRGB
g=2.40, slope=12.92 (close to "Melissa" used by Lightroom)
■ RT_Large_gBT709 similar to ProPhoto with gamma BT709: g=2.22,
slop=4.5
■ RT_Large_g10 similar to ProPhoto with linear gammma g=1.0,
slope=0"
and here's my folder like yours, which appears to contain all of the above:
(http://kronometric.org/phot/xfer/2014-06-19_205934.gif)
good luck . . .
-
Thanks for that. I have the manual somewhere, I have tried RT but was put off by its dark UI and inability to find my RAWs. I had thought that the Large and Middle probably corresponded to the conventional naming and the sRGB was obvious. I don't know why geeks insist on obfuscating everything.
OK I just read the Rendering Intents section, I get it. I also see that I have to tell RT what my monitor profile is.
-
"RawTherapee comes bundled with a number of custom-made high quality
output profiles:
None of which are output profiles but whatever. The question is however, are they LUT based and have all three RI tables? If not, nothing you could not have built yourself inside of Photoshop. Super easy to take ProPhoto and build a 1.0 TRC ICC profile.
-
I don't know why geeks insist on obfuscating everything.
Photography is one of the most obfuscatory disciplines on the planet, IMHO.
A caveat as regards RawTherapee's 'ProPhoto' .icc (.icm actually but makes no difference) files:
The non-linear parameters are incorrect. Since ProPhoto is actually Kodak's ROMM re-named, the gamma should be 1.8 with a 'shadow' linear slope of 16.
Not certain what @digitaldog means by "none of which are output profiles". If it looks like a duck, etc. ;)
As to LUT's I can only say that my system sRGB profile is 3.07Kb and RT_sRGB is 24.9Kb which indicates more than just 'matrix-based'. Can't be sure though.
cheers,
-
Not certain what @digitaldog means by "none of which are output profiles". If it looks like a duck, etc. ;)
There are classes of ICC profiles. The profiles mentioned are not output profiles, that's all. They are working space profiles. If you want to call a duck a chicken because the feather's look the same to you, OK with me but it's incorrect. None of the RGB working space are based on any real output device and in fact are theatrically constructed. What output device can produce ProPhoto RGB?
-
As to LUT's I can only say that my system sRGB profile is 3.07Kb and RT_sRGB is 24.9Kb which indicates more than just 'matrix-based'. Can't be sure though.
If there's only the colorimetric table, big deal. You have those in Photoshop.
-
There are classes of ICC profiles. The profiles mentioned are not output profiles, that's all. They are working space profiles.
Thank you. I'm beginning to get it. The profiles I mentioned are of type 'mntr'. They do not have A2B or B2A tables. As opposed to ICC V4 which do, and even then there would need to be A2B and B2A tables specifically for 'perceptual'. Does PhotoShop honor V4 profiles?
If you want to call a duck a chicken because the feather's look the same to you, OK with me but it's incorrect.
Har-de-har-de-har.
None of the RGB working space are based on any real output device and in fact are theatrically constructed.
What output device can produce ProPhoto RGB?
My home-crafted laser display with XYZ primaries: 0.7976685, 0.2880402, 0 : 0.1351929, 0.7118835, 0 : 0.0313416, 0.0000916, 0.8249054
(haven't actually built it yet, having difficulty finding the diodes, can't image why).
If there's only the colorimetric table, big deal. You have those in Photoshop.
I don't have PhotoShop. No need for it ay my level ;D
Thank you for your ever-humble response. Now I have go eat crow with the OP :-[
-
Thanks for that. I have the manual somewhere, I have tried RT but was put off by its dark UI and inability to find my RAWs. I had thought that the Large and Middle probably corresponded to the conventional naming and the sRGB was obvious. I don't know why geeks insist on obfuscating everything.
OK I just read the Rendering Intents section, I get it. I also see that I have to tell RT what my monitor profile is.
Well, it's humble pie time for me. Another illusion shattered :-[
Looks like RawTherapee is not up to it. See my post above.
I'm going to experiment in RawTherapee with a ICC V4 profile. I'll post anything significant.
-
Thank you. I'm beginning to get it. The profiles I mentioned are of type 'mntr'. They do not have A2B or B2A tables. As opposed to ICC V4 which do, and even then there would need to be A2B and B2A tables specifically for 'perceptual'. Does PhotoShop honor V4 profiles?
mntr is a 'display profile' which makes sense as all RGB working spaces are based upon some theoretical display. Even sRGB. Or ProPhoto RGB (which has primaries outside human vision which makes this fun). Photoshop has no issues with properly built V4 profiles. But almost all V4 profiles are V2 in sheeps clothing. They usually don't support what is called the PRMG which is what makes those profiles interesting.
-
I'm going to experiment in RawTherapee with a ICC V4 profile. I'll post anything significant.
I moved the V4 'display' icc profile into the RawTherapee (RT) icc output folder. I took my favorite highly saturated sunflower shot and exported it from Sigma Photo Pro as a TIFF with the SPP ProPhoto profile embedded. I opened it in RT with 'use embedded profile' selected and, in color management, set the output profile firstly to RT_sRGB and saved as a TIFF and then again but with the V4 profile.
Then I compared the two files in ColorThink. The 3D Lab gamuts were significantly different, so RT at least did something!
The V4 yellows were away from the sRGB boundary, RT_sRGB hard up against it.
The V4 hues were rotated anti-clockwise about 10 degs. However, the RT_sRGB had a bad dog-leg at the highest yellows also anti-clockwise.
The V4 darks were raised to approx L* = 3, but the RT_sRGB darks went down to zero L*.
They usually don't support what is called the PRMG
Had to Google PRMG: http://www.color.org/v4_prmg.xalter
In FastStone Viewer (FSV), there is some peculiar blue coloration in the dark areas of the rendered image - could that be PRMG in action? I would be surprised because FSV doesn't even embed profiles in saved images!
Not sure who "They" are but I downloaded the display-preferred V4 from color.org some time back and have not modified it.
-
Then I compared the two files in ColorThink. The 3D Lab gamuts were significantly different, so RT at least did something!
I'd expect different profiles to produce differences that you report. Which looks better? Which prints better? One of the 'issues' with V2 profile that V4 was supposed to fix was the assumed 'source' color space within a conversion. With V2, that's not defined like it can be in V4. Let's say you start with data in Adobe RGB (1998) and you want to convert it to an output color space (MyEpsonRGB). The conversion goes Adobe RGB (1998) to Lab, then Lab (the PCS) to Epson. But when in Lab, the CMS doesn't 'know' the original was Adobe RGB (1998), it only knows about the Lab data. Each profile maker has to come up with some assumed 'source' and they can differ so the results will differ too. V4 was supposed to introduce the PRMG which helps define all this but without a PRMG, we're back to V4 profiles in sheeps clothing. Plus I suspect you're still forced to use a Colorimetric RI for the conversions. Add a Perceptual table, plus the fact that there are no rules in how one build this conversion for Perceptual, you'll see differences converting the same original data through those profiles. Again, which is better?
-
I'd expect different profiles to produce differences that you report. Which looks better? Which prints better? One of the 'issues' with V2 profile that V4 was supposed to fix was the assumed 'source' color space within a conversion. With V2, that's not defined like it can be in V4. Let's say you start with data in Adobe RGB (1998) and you want to convert it to an output color space (MyEpsonRGB). The conversion goes Adobe RGB (1998) to Lab, then Lab (the PCS) to Epson. But when in Lab, the CMS doesn't 'know' the original was Adobe RGB (1998), it only knows about the Lab data. Each profile maker has to come up with some assumed 'source' and they can differ so the results will differ too. V4 was supposed to introduce the PRMG which helps define all this but without a PRMG, we're back to V4 profiles in sheeps clothing.
Wow. I naively thought that the PCS is a perfect buffer, so to speak. Now I learn to my horror that something on output side has to 'know' what the input side was.
Plus I suspect you're still forced to use a Colorimetric RI for the conversions.
My V4 profile has tables for both Perceptual and Colorimetric, four tables in total. RawTherapee allows the output intent to be set as Perceptual. However, as you have helped me realize, setting it doesn't necessarily mean you get it :-\
Add a Perceptual table, plus the fact that there are no rules in how one build this conversion for Perceptual, you'll see differences converting the same original data through those profiles.
RawTherapee allows selection of the Input Profile (I use 'embedded'), Working Space (ProPhoto recommended default), and the Output Profile. Pardon me for going on about RT, but my other editor PSE6 is a bit limited from a CM POV.
Again, which is better?
I had tried V4 in the past and given up on it, using other means of turning highly saturated captures into decent-looking shots. Now I've learned more about it from your good self, I may play some more.
In answer to your questions - RT_sRGB looks 'better' than V4 out of the box on my screen. I don't print anything.
-
Now I learn to my horror that something on output side has to 'know' what the input side was.
It doesn't have to know as experienced from years of the current implementation, but it would be useful. Think about the same image in sRGB and ProPhoto RGB being treated the same and possibly without either of those spaces 'assumed' as the source data. V4 was supposed to clear that up to some respect.
My V4 profile has tables for both Perceptual and Colorimetric, four tables in total. RawTherapee allows the output intent to be set as Perceptual. However, as you have helped me realize, setting it doesn't necessarily mean you get it :-\
IF I understand you (I don't have RT), it's doing what Photoshop has done since day one; provide RI options when only one table is present. IOW, you can ask to convert to Adobe RGB (1998) and pick Perceptual in the UI, you'll get RelCol. Kind of bugs me.
In answer to your questions - RT_sRGB looks 'better' than V4 out of the box on my screen. I don't print anything.
Then use that.
-
IOW, you can ask to convert to Adobe RGB (1998) and pick Perceptual in the UI, you'll get RelCol. Kind of bugs me.
And, last time I looked, when you convert between two RGB spaces with different white points and picked absolute colorimetric, Ps ignores your choice and changes the white point but the chromaticity of colors on the gray axis of the old space is now the chromaticity of the white point of the new space. That always kind of bugged me, but I see why they did it; to cut down on support calls.
Jim
-
And, last time I looked, when you convert between two RGB spaces with different white points and picked absolute colorimetric, Ps ignores your choice and changes the white point without affecting the chromaticity of the colors on the gray axis. That always kind of bugged me, but I see why they did it; to cut down on support calls.
Could be, I'd never use that RI in that context (maybe the Adobe folks are protecting us?).
-
Could be, I'd never use that RI in that context (maybe the Adobe folks are protecting us?).
Do what I mean?
-
Raw Therapee, like Photoshop, allows you to set a rendering intent. RT allows setting it globally. As apparent from this discussion, that does not mean you actually get anything but Relative.
I can print to my six color Epson from a Pro Photo RAW conversion through Photoshop manages colors and I actually get different results for each intent. I believe that means that the Epson profiles have all four intents. It makes sense that a printer would need to have them.
But I reiterate that intents are a farce. Color management is still not finished. You can't do 10 bit on a Mac. I can't set the LUT in my new Dell without buying an i1 Display Pro. ColorSync adjusts all gammas to God knows what, so it doesn't make any difference what the image profile has.
I do what any sane person would do, I get the image the way I want it, and beat on things until the inkjet looks the same. There is no magic button.
-
I believe that means that the Epson profiles have all four intents.
Correct.
-
RawTherapee comes bundled with a number of custom-made high quality
output profiles:
I think the meaning of "output profile" has been well clarified by dd.
I use RT and here is my concept of what selection of an output profile does in that software.
Its effect is the same as using "convert to profile" in Photoshop and then saving the file as tagged with that profile. In which case the profile serves as an input profile for whatever (color managed) software opens that file.
Please correct me if I have got this wrong.
-
But can you get a rendering intent other than relative colorimetric? I doubt it.
-
But can you get a rendering intent other than relative colorimetric? I doubt it.
If you are asking me: As you noted above RT allows one to set a rendering intent. But I cannot see, on my monitor, any difference between the options. But perhaps in a print a difference can be seen.
-
But can you get a rendering intent other than relative colorimetric? I doubt it.
Your doubt is unfounded. You can 'get' a rendering intent other than relative colorimetric if you have an appropriate output profile installed. I have one such, of type 'mluc', installed in RT. Here is a comparison of two output gamuts:
(http://kronometric.org/phot/xfer/compV2V4colorThinkLab2D.png)
Should you wish to play, you can download the profile from color.org - I used sRGB_v4_ICC_preference_displayclass.icc
cheers
-
Yes. "If you have one installed". But no one does except you. The printer will probably have the intents, so you can do it that way if you need to.
-
Yes. "If you have one installed". But no one does except you. The printer will probably have the intents, so you can do it that way if you need to.
I fold.
Good luck.
-
Your doubt is unfounded. You can 'get' a rendering intent other than relative colorimetric if you have an appropriate output profile installed. I have one such, of type 'mluc', installed in RT. Here is a comparison of two output gamuts:
(http://kronometric.org/phot/xfer/compV2V4colorThinkLab2D.png)
Should you wish to play, you can download the profile from color.org - I used sRGB_v4_ICC_preference_displayclass.icc
cheers
Forgive my ignorance, but on this lovely comparison I see only ONE (output) gamut presented; presumably that of sRGB. The dots, I assume, represent the colors in your sunflower image when saved with two different profiles. With one (green) all colors are fully contained within the sRGB gamut; and with the other (red) barely or not completely contained within that gamut.
Can you unfold long enough to clarify? Thanks.
-
Forgive my ignorance, but on this lovely comparison I see only ONE (output) gamut presented; presumably that of sRGB. The dots, I assume, represent the colors in your sunflower image when saved with two different profiles. With one (green) all colors are fully contained within the sRGB gamut; and with the other (red) barely or not completely contained within that gamut.
Can you unfold long enough to clarify? Thanks.
It's just poor terminology, not that unusual in the oh-so-precise world of photography. I'm sure mine is incorrect by LL standards. By 'output gamut', I meant that of two images rendered using two different profiles.
The dot colors are as you assumed and are also as shown by the plot list to the right of a*b* axes.
In the 3D L*a*b* view on my screen it is seen that red dots are hard up against the sRGB gamut but, as you have observed, the green dots are not.
Thank you for your forbearance ;)
-
xpat, Thanks for your reply. So now the question that begs to be asked: When you print the two images saved with these "output" profiles, is there a discernible difference? :)
-
xpat, Thanks for your reply. So now the question that begs to be asked: When you print the two images saved with these "output" profiles, is there a discernible difference? :)
Sorry, can't answer that - I don't print. On-screen, for that particular image, there is a discernible difference.
cheers,
-
Sorry, can't answer that - I don't print. On-screen, for that particular image, there is a discernible difference.
Considering the limitations of the display gamut, it's only pertinent for those who's output is to screen. However, print output devices differ a lot, so one output test certainly would not answer all the questions but it's a useful start. Especially if it is a fairly wide gamut device like a modern ink jet.
If your output is only to screen, one has to wonder why anyone would even spend the time here as everyone who views that image will likely see something different. Are they using an sRGB or extended gamut display? Is the mode of viewing color managed? Is their display calibrated and how? Are they vewing on an iPhone, another phone, a tablet, a high end display? It's a mess out there in the on-screen only output world.
-
Amen. The deacons will assist anyone who needs help to their cars.
-
Ok. left to right, absolute, relative, perceptual, and saturation. Printed using Photoshop manages colors to my six color Epson on copy paper with the correct settings, saved as a jpg. The tiff and pdf versions were slightly less differentiated. Original image was clipped from the Printer Evaluation Image_V002_ProPhoto.tif available online.
I prefer the Absolute and the Saturated myself, but I always use Perceptual for prints just because the theory is more satisfying.
-
If your output is only to screen, one has to wonder why anyone would even spend the time here . . .
Andrew, if you would prefer that I don't "spend the time here" then I will be more than happy to accommodate you.
It does seem difficult for a certain type of person to understand that an interest in the technicalities of photography does not necessarily require the practice professional-style printing and does not necessarily require publication on-line of stunning images that magically look the same on all output devices.
. . . as everyone who views that image will likely see something different. Are they using an sRGB or extended gamut display? Is the mode of viewing color managed? Is their display calibrated and how? Are they vewing on an iPhone, another phone, a tablet, a high end display? It's a mess out there in the on-screen only output world.
So, goodbye to you and goodbye to this benighted topic.
-
Andrew, if you would prefer that I don't "spend the time here" then I will be more than happy to accommodate you.
Wow, where did that come from? Stay, spend time, don't spend time, matters not to me!
It does seem difficult for a certain type of person to understand that an interest in the technicalities of photography does not necessarily require the practice professional-style printing and does not necessarily require publication on-line of stunning images that magically look the same on all output devices.
You said the output was to screen. Who's? Yours properly calibrated? Someone else's using a circa 1995 sRGB CRT that can't hit 60cd/m2? I wrote, and it is true: as everyone who views that image will likely see something different, if that's not true, how do you explain it?
The weak link in all this is the display. In terms of gamut, consistency among other displays and users and the software they use to view the same RGB numbers. I make a print and it looks great to me, it will look great to you unless I do something really dumb and use a totally inappropriate illuminant condition and that's rather easy to fix (move the print). Not the same with a display.